We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Treaty Withdrawl
Details
Submitted by[?]: Independent Capitalist Party
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill proposes the withdrawal from a treaty. It will require half of the legislature to vote in favor[?]. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: May 2196
Description[?]:
This bill allows us to withdraw from a treaty that prevents legislative freedom greatly. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 00:06:12, March 05, 2006 CET |
From | Independent Capitalist Party | To | Debating the Treaty Withdrawl | Message | I am not removing basic human rights from a child. There's a difference between withdrawing from a treaty and actually making the law to restrict. |
Date | 06:05:09, March 05, 2006 CET |
From | Monarchist Party | To | Debating the Treaty Withdrawl | Message | We support the motion to revoke the right of any foreign authority to regulate our matters of policy; however we do not condone the abuse of children in any way, shape or form. |
Date | 18:37:20, March 05, 2006 CET |
From | Independent Capitalist Party | To | Debating the Treaty Withdrawl | Message | For legislative freedom, it's that simple. We shouldn't be restricted by a treaty that restricts our legislature. Even *if* we are not for changing things it locks, it would be best to withdraw. That way, we could vote no on things in future bills if a radical party comes and it would make our visibilities more accurate so the voters can vote more accurately. |
Date | 13:42:37, March 06, 2006 CET |
From | Independent Capitalist Party | To | Debating the Treaty Withdrawl | Message | [OOC: I'm sorry, OOC arguments don't apply to my IC party nor this debate.]
What's the Berlin wall? Anyways, you don't seem to know the ICP's history, newcomer. We are against treaties that restrict legislation. We are for treaties that do not restrict legislation and improve foreign affairs. The treaty I wish we withdraw from restricts legislation. And even if the ICP wanted to make some law changes, I doubt it would pass. What it would do is make the option available so you can vote yes/no on so the people see your party's true colors. If there's any party in this country that would want to restrict. |
Date | 13:43:26, March 06, 2006 CET |
From | Independent Capitalist Party | To | Debating the Treaty Withdrawl | Message | Seeing as this is obviously a yes/no issue, and the ICP will not change their decades long policy due to weak OOC-referencing arguments, we'll put this to vote now. |
Date | 14:41:42, March 06, 2006 CET |
From | Social-Libertarian Alorian Party | To | Debating the Treaty Withdrawl | Message | OOC: You try to pwn me with history, eh? think I am too young to know. Okay, this is you have an advantage here. But if you think therefore this game is just for old farts, your mistake!
IC: Slippery slope anyone? Here is a great example of such a process. |
Date | 14:43:59, March 06, 2006 CET |
From | Independent Capitalist Party | To | Debating the Treaty Withdrawl | Message | Slippery slope, eh? You just said it didn't work in another bill when I said regulation was the slippery slope to communism! Looks like we have a hypocrite here, people!
HYPOCRITE ALERT!
:P |
Date | 14:45:51, March 06, 2006 CET |
From | Independent Capitalist Party | To | Debating the Treaty Withdrawl | Message | By the way, if a fascist party ever came along to restrict, and they got a majority, all this would do as a treaty would be to slow 'em down 8 months. Quite useless, the legislation treaties, as they take 2/3 to pass and 2/4 to withdraw. |
Date | 14:50:26, March 06, 2006 CET |
From | Independent Capitalist Party | To | Debating the Treaty Withdrawl | Message | OOC: By the way, this game isn't neccissarilly dominated by old timers, often old parties (like FCP) are smaller than newer parties. However, being able to debate well helps in the ZOMG! *gasp* DEBATE section. |
Date | 14:55:53, March 06, 2006 CET |
From | Social-Libertarian Alorian Party | To | Debating the Treaty Withdrawl | Message | I said that situation was none and this situation is. There is one difference in allowing people to compete later in life by giving them education and in withdrawing from a treaty by which one basically makes it possible for children to toil in mines. If the first is slippery slope then it's slippery slope towards equal chances. |
Date | 15:01:05, March 06, 2006 CET |
From | Independent Capitalist Party | To | Debating the Treaty Withdrawl | Message | It makes it possible, but it is possible anyways, as I pointed out. The true purpose of withdrawing if on principal only - useless and legislatively restrictive treaties shouldn't be ratified by us. The treaty is useless because if anyone got a majority to want to make children not have education, they would be able to repeal this first. All it does is stall them 8 months, completely useless. |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
Vote |
Seats |
yes | Total Seats: 307 |
no | Total Seats: 293 |
abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
Random fact: References to prominent real-life persons are not allowed. This includes references to philosophies featuring the name of a real-life person (eg. "Marxism", "Thatcherism", "Keynesianism"). |
Random quote: "Aristocracy and exclusiveness tend to final overthrow, in language as in politics." - W. D. Whitney
|