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
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy regarding a national park system.
Old value:: The government funds and maintains a network of national parks and/or marine protected areas.
Current: The government funds and maintains a network of national parks and/or marine protected areas.
Proposed: The government designates ecological preservation zones but does not fund their oversight.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 23:06:13, June 23, 2005 CET | From | Free Democratic Party | To | Debating the Ecological zones |
Message | I agree. |
Date | 23:33:32, June 23, 2005 CET | From | Fair Capitalism Party | To | Debating the Ecological zones |
Message | What? This just means the areas can't be spoiled, but will just waste away! This makes no sense. |
Date | 01:15:35, June 24, 2005 CET | From | Aloria Green Socialist Party | To | Debating the Ecological zones |
Message | Why no funding? |
Date | 13:00:08, June 24, 2005 CET | From | Free Democratic Party | To | Debating the Ecological zones |
Message | Local government can fund them better. I am however (as always) open minded about the issue. |
Date | 13:01:11, June 24, 2005 CET | From | Free Democratic Party | To | Debating the Ecological zones |
Message | Actually, 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". |
Date | 16:29:07, June 24, 2005 CET | From | Social Conservative Party | To | Debating the Ecological zones |
Message | I'm not quite sure yet wether to support LP or FDP on this one. |
Date | 18:02:10, June 24, 2005 CET | From | Social Conservative Party | To | Debating the Ecological zones |
Message | After some consideration, we decided to support the localisation of this policy. |
Date | 20:19:38, June 24, 2005 CET | From | Fair Capitalism Party | To | Debating the Ecological zones |
Message | This isn't localisation. This is removing funding. Without national funding local funding is not existant, as they are not given the money. |
Date | 20:20:30, June 24, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Ecological zones |
Message | We agree with the FCP. |
Date | 20:21:20, June 24, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Ecological zones |
Message | Not that it matters. We have no seats. |
Date | 11:05:06, June 25, 2005 CET | From | Social Conservative Party | To | Debating the Ecological zones |
Message | Where 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. |
Date | 11:50:18, June 25, 2005 CET | From | Fair Capitalism Party | To | Debating the Ecological zones |
Message | This 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.? |
Date | 14:21:10, June 25, 2005 CET | From | Social Conservative Party | To | Debating the Ecological zones |
Message | Exactly why we do want money in the game. Then we know what the taxes are. |
Date | 19:20:45, June 25, 2005 CET | From | Fair Capitalism Party | To | Debating the Ecological zones |
Message | The exchange rates are up. Where, you ask? Well, check the forums :P |
Date | 21:43:52, June 25, 2005 CET | From | Neoliberal Conservatives | To | Debating the Ecological zones |
Message | Although 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 |