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: localisation of national parks
Details
Submitted by[?]: Social Conservative Party
Status[?]: passed
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 2073
Description[?]:
| the option of the FDP. Let's see if this one gets more support. |
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 devolves park policy to local governments.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 20:12:35, June 25, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the localisation of national parks |
| Message | I will support this. It seems that the Federal gov't will continue to fund, but the local governments will run them. This is quite acceptable indeed. |
| Date | 20:13:14, June 25, 2005 CET | From | Free Democratic Party | To | Debating the localisation of national parks |
| Message | This is exactly what we are after. You can count on our votes. |
| Date | 14:52:38, June 26, 2005 CET | From |  Fair Capitalism Party | To | Debating the localisation of national parks |
| Message | No. This means some governments can choose to take the money and underfund parks. We disagree. |
| Date | 15:04:02, June 26, 2005 CET | From | Aloria Green Socialist Party | To | Debating the localisation of national parks |
| Message | Good point FCP. Against. |
| Date | 17:22:06, June 26, 2005 CET | From | Social Conservative Party | To | Debating the localisation of national parks |
| Message | That could also be done by the national government. And if the national government says 'no' to these parks, the no is at once nationwide. I think that fear of local government not sharing your own views is a bad way of deciding for or against localisation of anything. The real question is: which government can handle the subject in the most efficient way? |
| Date | 17:34:17, June 26, 2005 CET | From | Fair Capitalism Party | To | Debating the localisation of national parks |
| Message | Erm, we are the national government, and we are saying "yes". |
| Date | 17:53:55, June 26, 2005 CET | From | Social Conservative Party | To | Debating the localisation of national parks |
| Message | And you will stay in power for ever? |
| Date | 20:57:11, June 26, 2005 CET | From | Aloria Green Socialist Party | To | Debating the localisation of national parks |
| Message | But using that argument, there would be no point making laws at all. At this moment, we are in national government & we say YES to these parks. |
| Date | 08:14:52, June 27, 2005 CET | From | Social Conservative Party | To | Debating the localisation of national parks |
| Message | Thank you AGSP. You may not have realized, but you just supported what I stated: that the opinion of the government, national or local, on an issue should not be the deciding factor in localizing the issue or not. It's about efficiency of government. If the national government says they can handle it more efficient, then so be it. But it would be completely wrong to say that the government closer to the people could choose the "wrong" option, and therefore not give them some power. I choose for democracy. It's about what the people want, not about what the parties want. And if the people say they want national parks, very well, I support them. If the people don't want national parks, pitty, but that's what they want. And the fact is, the local government is closer to the people, and as such it should always be the preferred power level. Only when efficiency requires power to be on a higher level, it should be a competence of the national government. And personally, I don't see the efficiency bonus of national parks administered on national level. |
| Date | 12:47:21, June 27, 2005 CET | From | Aloria Green Socialist Party | To | Debating the localisation of national parks |
| Message | I don't want my government to be 'efficient'. I want it to do the right thing. Of course regional government could get it wrong- they may choose to sell off beautiful parkland to developers, when keeping it may be in the interests of future generations, tourists and residents of other regions. We will not allow this. People vote for parties- they vote for a stance. The people can agree or disagree. The ASGP is a party of principles, not fairweather populism. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 163 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 162 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 75 |
| Random fact: Treaties will be eligible for deletion if they are more than 50 in-game years old and have no currently ratified members. |
| Random quote: "The use of solar energy has not been opened up because the oil industry does not own the sun." - Ralph Nader |