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: Ratification of the Calpicosa Peace Accords
Details
Submitted by[?]: Beluzian Defense and Federalist Party
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill proposes for the ratification of a treaty. It will require two-thirds of the legislature to vote in favor[?]. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: January 2200
Description[?]:
| This bill asks for the ratification of the Calpicosa Peace Accords. If this treaty is ratified, it becomes binding and will define national law. |
Proposals
Article 1
Ratify the Calpicosa Peace Accords.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 04:20:02, March 14, 2006 CET | From | Moderate Beluzians | To | Debating the Ratification of the Calpicosa Peace Accords |
| Message | What about the countries below us? |
| Date | 20:37:46, March 14, 2006 CET | From | Partisans And Artisans League | To | Debating the Ratification of the Calpicosa Peace Accords |
| Message | Have you ever heard of discussion? How long has this piece of guff been on the floor? It is the most pointless treaty I have ever read - it means nothing and is just another piece of cluttering paperwork. What happens if another nation decides to go to war with us? Are you gonna get some junior clerk from the Foreign Offices stationery department to run up to their president and say "But actually, if you look at clause emmmm, 1.2 of the Calpicosa Accord you will notice that your actions appear to be in eh violation of this fine pape--". This is the sort of grovelling, brown-nosing tripe that I thought our government was above. |
| Date | 20:48:49, March 14, 2006 CET | From | LiberalDemocraticFreedomTaxAndSpendParty | To | Debating the Ratification of the Calpicosa Peace Accords |
| Message | There are no clauses in this treaty. |
| Date | 21:15:58, March 14, 2006 CET | From | Beluzian Defense and Federalist Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Calpicosa Peace Accords |
| Message | Many nations pass treatys like this. PAL, I rarely debate bills that either 1) have only one artical or 2) have no meaning (as in the case of this one). This one has no articles. Besides, this bill has 82 votes in favor of it and is going to pass, so why wouldnt I bring it to a vote? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 75 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 25 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Particracy does not allow official national flags of real-life nations or flags which are very prominent and recognisable (eg. the flags of the European Union, the United Nations, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union or the Confederate States of America). |
| Random quote: "It is not titles that honor men, but men that honor titles." - Niccolo Machiavelli |