Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: December 5460
Next month in: 01:40:18
Server time: 14:19:41, March 28, 2024 CET
Currently online (5): Brazil25 | Caoimhean | Luzzina | Paulo Nogueira | Twilighty00 | 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: Ecological zones

Details

Submitted by[?]: Libertarian 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 2072

Description[?]:

Government should only set the territory designated as ecological preserved zones and let local government to fund and protect them. People at the local level always better know the needs of their parks/nature around them etc.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date23:06:13, June 23, 2005 CET
FromFree Democratic Party
ToDebating the Ecological zones
MessageI agree.

Date23:33:32, June 23, 2005 CET
From Fair Capitalism Party
ToDebating the Ecological zones
MessageWhat? This just means the areas can't be spoiled, but will just waste away! This makes no sense.

Date01:15:35, June 24, 2005 CET
From Aloria Green Socialist Party
ToDebating the Ecological zones
MessageWhy no funding?

Date13:00:08, June 24, 2005 CET
FromFree Democratic Party
ToDebating the Ecological zones
MessageLocal government can fund them better. I am however (as always) open minded about the issue.

Date13:01:11, June 24, 2005 CET
FromFree Democratic Party
ToDebating the Ecological zones
MessageActually, I have just read the alternatives and will oppsoe this bill unless the proposal is changed to "The government devolves park policy to local governments".

Date16:29:07, June 24, 2005 CET
FromSocial Conservative Party
ToDebating the Ecological zones
MessageI'm not quite sure yet wether to support LP or FDP on this one.

Date18:02:10, June 24, 2005 CET
FromSocial Conservative Party
ToDebating the Ecological zones
MessageAfter some consideration, we decided to support the localisation of this policy.

Date20:19:38, June 24, 2005 CET
From Fair Capitalism Party
ToDebating the Ecological zones
MessageThis isn't localisation. This is removing funding. Without national funding local funding is not existant, as they are not given the money.

Date20:20:30, June 24, 2005 CET
FromFreedom Party
ToDebating the Ecological zones
MessageWe agree with the FCP.

Date20:21:20, June 24, 2005 CET
FromFreedom Party
ToDebating the Ecological zones
MessageNot that it matters. We have no seats.

Date11:05:06, June 25, 2005 CET
FromSocial Conservative Party
ToDebating the Ecological zones
MessageWhere does the national state get the money? From taxes. If it saves the money it can cut national taxes. Local authorities can then, if necessary, raise their taxes to take over the funding.

Or, other possibility, we can vote a bill in which the state gives an extra amount of income to the local authorities, with which they can fund these parks.

I still would prefer that the whole issue would become localized (support FDP), but we consider the bill of the LP progress in that direction. Therefore, we vote yes.

Date11:50:18, June 25, 2005 CET
From Fair Capitalism Party
ToDebating the Ecological zones
MessageThis is why we don't want to be dealing with money right now. What local taxes? Maybe they are just enough to pay for street ligthting etc.?

Date14:21:10, June 25, 2005 CET
FromSocial Conservative Party
ToDebating the Ecological zones
MessageExactly why we do want money in the game. Then we know what the taxes are.

Date19:20:45, June 25, 2005 CET
From Fair Capitalism Party
ToDebating the Ecological zones
MessageThe exchange rates are up. Where, you ask? Well, check the forums :P

Date21:43:52, June 25, 2005 CET
From Neoliberal Conservatives
ToDebating the Ecological zones
MessageAlthough we have no seats

we would like to support this application, and we suggest an alternation to the plan...

Given that it is in our opinion always better to employ the uses of local businesses in order to make local issues work we would like to suggest that the government advise local authorities to put foward park and Ride schemes along with car park schemes, the finances generated by this and other environmentaly friendly or at least unthreatening developments within the ecological zones would provide enough revenue to ensure that area's of outstanding natural beauty are looked after and everyone can enjoy their presence

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
   

Total Seats: 51

no
      

Total Seats: 254

abstain
  

Total Seats: 95


Random fact: In order for a Cabinet bill to pass, more than half of the legislature must vote for it and all of the parties included in the proposed Cabinet must support it. If your nation has a Head of State who is also the Head of Government, then the party controlling this character must also vote for the bill, since the Head of Government is also a member of the Cabinet. If any of these requirements are not met, the bill will not pass.

Random quote: "How much more grievous are the consequences of anger than the causes of it." - Marcus Aurelius

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 81