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: Ecological Federalism
Details
Submitted by[?]: Union Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: January 2219
Description[?]:
| Observing the fact that our forests are felled haphazardly by private companies, it shall be enacted that all local governments enact a forestry policy to defend our forests from dangerous forestry practices. As the forests of Hobrazia are of a wide variety, such decisions are best left to the local govenrment, who is more responsive to the local needs and issues. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Forest management.
Old value:: All forestry is performed by private companies.
Current: There is a national agency which owns and manages all forest land.
Proposed: Local governments are required to operate forestry agencies, which own and manage all forest land.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 12:04:35, April 23, 2006 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Ecological Federalism |
| Message | No. Whilst we'd rather the National Government oversee the operation of forestry with a National agency which sub-contracts work to private companies, the inherent flaws in local government show up too greatly to make this a viable alternative. Local Government is to expensive to operate requiring multiple layers of bureaurocracy to operate properly whilst providing no overall system of operation that can be seen over the Country as a whole. They are also far to open to "cut-backs" in an attempt to reduce local taxation making any form of public service or, in this case, environmental protection operate securely. There is also nothing stopping a local government from deciding that they would rather not have any form of forestry protection and completely de-regulating the industry. Local Government, and Federalism in particular, does not work. The only way to make such a policy viable is to make it a National not a Local policy. |
| Date | 22:15:28, April 23, 2006 CET | From | Hobrazian Peoples Party | To | Debating the Ecological Federalism |
| Message | We support the WSS!P's point of view concerning local government and would rather see a national agency to manage forests. |
| Date | 00:30:43, April 24, 2006 CET | From | Union Party | To | Debating the Ecological Federalism |
| Message | The Union Party feels that we need at least something, thus we will move this bill to vote. But we will create a seperate bill that will nationalize the forest agencies. The local governments do the initial setup, then we integrate them togeather into a national organization, sould fair? |
| Date | 08:55:51, April 24, 2006 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Ecological Federalism |
| Message | Wouldn't it have been easier to make 1 instead of 2 steps? |
| Date | 23:37:15, April 24, 2006 CET | From | Union Party | To | Debating the Ecological Federalism |
| Message | I must say that I'm amused at having a bill bomb so badly though. |
| Date | 19:34:49, April 25, 2006 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Ecological Federalism |
| Message | It's not the worst. I think we may have had 0-400-0 before (from 0 seat parties). |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 23 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 216 | ||||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 161 |
| Random fact: Before creating a party organisation, check to see whether there are any existing organisations which cover the same agenda. |
| Random quote: "[The people] may forget what you said, but they will never forget how you made them feel." - Carl W. Buechner |