Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: February 5475
Next month in: 01:16:40
Server time: 22:43:19, April 25, 2024 CET
Currently online (1): VojmatDun | Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

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: Defense Resolution I: Council Approval Requirement

Details

Submitted by[?]: Proletariat Revolution Party

Status[?]: passed

Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.

Voting deadline: September 2071

Description[?]:

War is a serious matter.

50% of the Council is not enough to justify war.

Offensive declarations of war will require 2/3rds of the National Council to vote in favor. However, in the event that Likatonia is attacked for any reason, a declaration of war is automatic, with no National Council approval needed.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date23:47:25, June 16, 2005 CET
FromLiberal Party for Equality
ToDebating the Defense Resolution I: Council Approval Requirement
MessageWe are very much in favour of this. Unless it is civil war... but somehow I doubt that is going to happen.

Date01:11:51, June 17, 2005 CET
FromProletariat Revolution Party
ToDebating the Defense Resolution I: Council Approval Requirement
MessageYes. Civil war is another matter. We can address it later, but, right now, I think we need a general set of rules so that we are united when we are attacked or threatened.

Date07:59:35, June 17, 2005 CET
FromRight Wing Liberals Party
ToDebating the Defense Resolution I: Council Approval Requirement
MessageNope the leader should have 1 month to justify the war

Date08:51:38, June 17, 2005 CET
FromRepublican Party
ToDebating the Defense Resolution I: Council Approval Requirement
Messageshrug. I'm not sure. War is serious, but if we're attacked -- we might not have the chance to respond because of one or two parties.

Date13:31:37, June 17, 2005 CET
FromRight Wing Liberals Party
ToDebating the Defense Resolution I: Council Approval Requirement
MessageDoes that mean well need 75% to pass this bill?

Because i think it does.

Date16:58:27, June 17, 2005 CET
FromProletariat Revolution Party
ToDebating the Defense Resolution I: Council Approval Requirement
MessageOk, so maybe in the case of civil war the leader will have a month (if they have indeed voted for it). However, I think it should be the government. But, yes, I do see the need to give time.

This bill requires the regular 50%.

However, it seems that 75% is too high. Maybe it should be 2/3? War is a serious thing, and there should be a consensus.

Date19:48:49, June 17, 2005 CET
FromNational Centrist Party
ToDebating the Defense Resolution I: Council Approval Requirement
MessageWe support this, but there should be an amendment to this effect:

"Offensive declarations of war will require 2/3rds of the National Council to vote in favor, however, in the event of an invasion into our lands, the declaration will be automatic and we shall be at war with the invaders."

Date09:21:51, June 18, 2005 CET
FromRepublican Party
ToDebating the Defense Resolution I: Council Approval Requirement
MessageI believe this bill to be well-intended, but poorly considered. In order to ensure the full protection of our nation is not blocked by a few members that lack the stomach to fight and properly defend our nation, the requirement for a declaration of war should be at 50%+1 members of the National Council.

Date14:35:00, June 18, 2005 CET
FromLiberal Party for Equality
ToDebating the Defense Resolution I: Council Approval Requirement
MessageI support the LFP's suggestion.

Date21:58:20, June 18, 2005 CET
FromNational Centrist Party
ToDebating the Defense Resolution I: Council Approval Requirement
MessageRP: Your objection is based on false grounds. If we are invaded, then NO ONE can block a defensive declaration.

Date19:49:28, June 19, 2005 CET
FromPeople's Party
ToDebating the Defense Resolution I: Council Approval Requirement
MessageI supoort RP..I'm concerned that many pre-emptive actions for the defense of the nation could be blocked by a very small minority...I feel a 60% majority is fair enough

Date20:34:36, June 19, 2005 CET
FromProletariat Revolution Party
ToDebating the Defense Resolution I: Council Approval Requirement
MessageNo one didn't say we can defend when attacked; just can't attack another nation without approval.

Date00:27:27, June 20, 2005 CET
FromNational Centrist Party
ToDebating the Defense Resolution I: Council Approval Requirement
MessageIn the spirit of compromise, the LFP supports a move by the People's Party to lower it to 60%.

The most important thing here is that we establish that the Council WILL be consulted by this, and that the president and/or defense minister will never declare a war that is not approved by the Council. To that end, the exact numbers are less important, as long as they are over 58% of the Council. (58% is the maximum amount of seats any party can take in an election.)

Date05:18:52, June 21, 2005 CET
FromNational Centrist Party
ToDebating the Defense Resolution I: Council Approval Requirement
MessagePlease take this to vote. We need to establish this.

Date03:00:22, June 24, 2005 CET
FromNational Centrist Party
ToDebating the Defense Resolution I: Council Approval Requirement
MessageThank you for taking this to vote.

I shouldn't have had to propose it myself to gain your attention.

In any case, you'll notice there's a 6% difference in the number of seats required between these two resolutions. I prefer this one, with the additional 6%. However, I dropped it a bit on mine to hopefully secure the vote of the People's Party, which raised as an objection the 2/3rds majority being too big.

Date03:25:45, June 24, 2005 CET
FromProletariat Revolution Party
ToDebating the Defense Resolution I: Council Approval Requirement
MessageYou could've left me a message in my party page. That would've got my attention since I always check those.

Date07:23:29, June 24, 2005 CET
FromRight Wing Liberals Party
ToDebating the Defense Resolution I: Council Approval Requirement
Messageid like to support this but 66% is too much

Date08:26:55, June 24, 2005 CET
FromNational Centrist Party
ToDebating the Defense Resolution I: Council Approval Requirement
MessageI DID leave a message on your party page, and it didn't work.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
     

Total Seats: 73

no
   

Total Seats: 67

abstain
  

Total Seats: 60


Random fact: Discuss flag designs at the Flag Designs thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=37

Random quote: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 79