Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: June 5474
Next month in: 00:43:52
Server time: 15:16:07, April 24, 2024 CET
Currently online (3): Arusu-Gad | burgerboys | Paulo Nogueira | 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: Constitutional Reform Bill

Details

Submitted by[?]: United Liberal Alliance

Status[?]: defeated

Votes: This bill asks for an amendement to the Constitution. It will require two-thirds of the legislature to vote in favor. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.

Voting deadline: December 2291

Description[?]:

This bill would provide that only the President should have the power to appoint a government but with the proviso that they MUST appoint a government which has the full support of the House of Commons, who will still have to approve the government and that should the House pass a resolution of no confidence in the government, the President should be obliged to submit an new proposal for government to the House
Finally, as we do not have a monarchy we feel that we should change our national anthem, either simply to the original (and still nominal) Telamon anthem or the one proposed below. (the word God could be removed if someone can suggest a workable alternative)

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date12:40:31, September 28, 2006 CET
FromTelamon Royalist Party
ToDebating the Constitutional Reform Bill
MessageAgain, we need to argue against this. We have an open-door policy for immigrants, and with the alarming trends in world politics in the past decade, it is absolutely vital we maintain that. The other articles warrent further review.

Date22:56:02, September 28, 2006 CET
FromPirt Sisialach
ToDebating the Constitutional Reform Bill
MessageThere is no need to discourage immigration: it is closet racism. It is standing LAW of the commonwealth that we are a member of the commonwealth of nations, which means that the British monarch is in theory monarch of Telamon. We opporate a republican monarchy, where we have the president that can sit around and look pretty (and theoretically informs the monarch about the goings on here). A further symbol of this is our official, but not nominal or used outside of parliament and the occasional sports match, national anthem: God save the Queen. The only article we would consider would be article 2. We will take it under advisement.

Date10:45:52, September 29, 2006 CET
FromUnited Liberal Alliance
ToDebating the Constitutional Reform Bill
MessageFirstly, please show me the legislation that makes us a member of the Commonwealth of Nations - I have obviously missed it (for which I apologise). However I do wish to point out that Telamon is a fictional nation in a fictional world (Terra), in which Britain, the Queen and the Commonwealth do not exist. There certainly used to be 'rules' (for want of a better word) in Particracy that said that there should not be references to real world events or real world places or people (in their real world contexts). These were sort of relaxed for religions , but still.....
I our constitution is now as you say we propose the abolition of that link and the restoration of full independence to the Telamon Commonwealth (OOC: I'm British, I like the Queen and I like the Commonwealth, but not in this game)

Secondly, Article 3 does not discourage immigration and is not racist. The Article in one of our other bills would limit immigration, this does not. What this says is that anyone can come to Telamon and be a Telamon National with the right to live and work in Telamon, but that if immigrants want to become proper citizens of Telamon with the right to vote in elections etc. that they should have some knowledge of our laws, customs, culture and history etc. and that the best way to administer this is through a test. It doesn't have to be a demanding or difficult test, just a basic one - think of it as a citizenship ceremony

Thirdly, Article 2 - I just prefer it when the HoS is the only one who can appoint a cabinet, It means fewer (daft) cabinet proposals (although this isn't really relevent at present) and does give the HoS some power.

Date21:00:09, September 29, 2006 CET
FromCatholic Workers Union
ToDebating the Constitutional Reform Bill
Message"We support giving more power to the Presidency, and we certainly support the immediate cessation of references to the fictional land of "Britain".

Likewise, we support the proposed national anthem. It is excellent.

Unfortunately, if the racist proposal to selectively proportion citizenship is not removed, this otherwise acceptable bill will be unacceptable for IADP support."

-Ann Richards
President

Date23:56:15, September 29, 2006 CET
FromUnited Liberal Alliance
ToDebating the Constitutional Reform Bill
MessageArticle 3 can be placed in a seperate bill but we strongly contend that it is not racist. It does not 'selectively proportion' citizenship or deny people citizenship it simply states that immigrants in order to gain citizenship with all the responsiblities that that entails, should have a minimum of understanding of our language and culture - they can still be nationals with the right to live and work without this. We are simply saying if they want to be able to vote then they should have this minimum of knowledge

Date00:03:53, September 30, 2006 CET
FromUnited Liberal Alliance
ToDebating the Constitutional Reform Bill
MessageIn fact I apologise - I proposed the wrong articles for immigration!

Date01:14:13, September 30, 2006 CET
FromTelamon Royalist Party
ToDebating the Constitutional Reform Bill
MessageWe find ourselves unconvinced of the necessity of these articles. We will vote no for the time being.

Date01:18:51, September 30, 2006 CET
FromCatholic Workers Union
ToDebating the Constitutional Reform Bill
MessageThat's unfortunate, because our national anthem currently recognizes a queen of a foreign land that doesn't exist.

Date12:31:48, September 30, 2006 CET
FromUnited Liberal Alliance
ToDebating the Constitutional Reform Bill
MessageTRP - Article 1 gives us a national anthem that we can be proud of and article 2 actually gives the President of this nation some power and removes the possibility of hundreds of competing cabinet proposals being put through Parliament

Date17:09:11, September 30, 2006 CET
FromCatholic Workers Union
ToDebating the Constitutional Reform Bill
MessageExactly. We urge the Royalists to reconsider before it's too late.

Date00:19:14, October 01, 2006 CET
FromPirt Sisialach
ToDebating the Constitutional Reform Bill
MessageI'm open to the whole reform thing. I'm going to make a proposal about it. I feel like there were too many issues addressed in this bill.

Date03:14:14, October 01, 2006 CET
FromTelamon Royalist Party
ToDebating the Constitutional Reform Bill
MessageWe believe that the idea of giving the Head of State that much power is dangerous. In one of our fellow nations, an unelected head of state, (I realize ours is elected, but the time may come when she is not), has been using this very law to keep a party that can barely get above one third support in power indefinately. And that has nearly lead to a civil war. We can't risk it.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
   

Total Seats: 196

no
   

Total Seats: 104

abstain

    Total Seats: 0


    Random fact: Head to the "Language assistance" thread to receive and offer help with translations: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6368

    Random quote: "The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all the people." - Noam Chomsky

    This page was generated with PHP
    Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
    Queries performed: 70