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: Rapula Independence Referendum
Details
Submitted by[?]: National People's Gang
Status[?]: defeated
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: January 2078
Description[?]:
| We note the commitment by the government of Lodamun to address the issue of Rapulese independence made in the Rapula Referendum Process Act 2054, which stated: "This issue will be suspended for a maximum period of four governments from, and inclusive of, the government installed in the next election, or for 20 years from July 2054 (whichever is the longer). "At which time, should a referendum process not be installed, the original bill, including the Default Referendum Process (as stated below) shall be brought before debate and a vote taken." DEFAULT REFERENDUM PROCESS Given the calls for the region within the Independent Republic of Lodamun known as "Rapula" to become independent and a separate state, a referendum shall be held to establish the views of the people of the region. Mechanics At the next Lodamun general election, all candidates in the Rapula region will stand on a simple "Yes to independence" or "No to independence" ticket. The position adopted by parties must be announced before the election and recorded as an amendment to this bill. Any parties not recording their position prior to the election are deemed not to have taken part in the referendum and votes for these parties are not considered as part of the referendum process. Outcomes The number of votes is calculated on percentage of votes cast, not seats achieved nor on percentage of total population. The votes of all parties standing on "Yes" are added together and the votes of all parties standing on "No" are added together. In order to achieve a positive outcome, 51% of votes cast must be "Yes". If this figure is not achieved the issue of independence for Rapula ends and unhappiness in the region must be dealt with by alternative methods. If 51% vote in favour of independence, the following process becomes active: 1. Within the same term of office the Lodamun Parliament must pass an act making Rapula independent. 2. However many votes the independence act achieves, it does not pass unless at least one of the parties who stood on the "Yes to independence" ticket supports it. 3. If parliament fails to pass such an act, the Default Rapula Independence Process (see below) becomes the default bill and is activated as law. DEFAULT RAPULA INDEPENDENCE PROCESS Recognising the cultural, historical and political differences between the region known as Rapula and the other regions of Lodamun; and, given the lack of representation the peoples of Rapula have suffered for at least two consecutive parliaments; furthermore, with an understanding of the majority of political parties' support of, and respect for, democracy and the democratic process; and finally, bearing in mind the mandate given by the peoples of Rapula to the Albert Party, to represent their views; we respectfully submit a proposal for independence to be granted to the region such that it shall become a soveriegn nation in its own right. 1. The region known as "Rapula", currently within the Independent Republic of Lodamun, shall cease immediately to be part of that republic. 2. The peoples of "Rapula" shall immediately have independence in all aspects including political, social, economic and military activity. 3. A transitory body, The Rapula Independence Commission, shall be created for a period of one year, to oversee the peaceful transition from control by the Lodamun Parliament, to whatever system of government the peoples of Rapula choose for themselves. 4. The commission shall consist of: a. The politicians elected currently by the peoples of the region of Rapula to the parliament of Lodamun. b. A panel of three politicians (from three different parties) from the Lodamun Parliament, chosen by the President of Lodamun. 5. A multi-party working group representative of the Lodamun Parliament shall, concurrently with, but separately from, the Rapula independence process, investigate the opportunity for a horizontal federal relationship with the new nation and submit a proposal to its representatives as soon as they are chosen. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 02:11:59, July 04, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Rapula Independence Referendum |
| Message | We have no objection to a referendum being held, provided it is funded by the Proposer and it is invigilated by an all party panel (three is insufficient) In addition there are some changes that need to be made to the proposed mechanisms in the interest of democracy. The next election in Lodamun can not, and will not be a single issue matter in Rapula. The people of that state have the right to express their interest ion the running of the country that they are part of at the time of the election. The referendum has to be seperate to and independent of the general election if democracy in the state is to be preserved. Parties may not be summarily excluded from an election because they have not taken a stance on one issue. A general election is not a one issue vote. The act of 2054 is no longer relevant as more than two decades have passed. It is amusing to see this parliament assuming that time changes nothing. Sorry to inform you of this, but the majority of the current voters were not eligable to vote at the time. Then assume that these 'trivial' problems are resolved we come on to the outcome of the referendum. Here the power grab is obvious You state: 2. However many votes the independence act achieves, it does not pass unless at least one of the parties who stood on the "Yes to independence" ticket supports it. This has to be changed to: 2. However many votes the independence act achieves, it does not pass unless ALL of the parties who stood on the "Yes to independence" ticket support it. The voters did not all vote for onlyone of the pro independence party, they will have voted for all of them. The only way that this can be democratically reflected is if all of the pro independence parties agree to the independence terms. It is not acceptable that the people support different forms of independence and then one form that they disagree with is forcibly imposed on them. The Default Independance Bill. No such thing can exist. The terms of the independance, if any, have to be agreed by the people. Not imposed by a party with the support of just 4% of the state. |
| Date | 05:45:00, July 04, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Rapula Independence Referendum |
| Message | A seperate referendum, not related to the general election would be great, but unfortunately, the game mechanics just won't allow it, this is the closest we can get. And for the record, parties not standing on a ticket will not be considered non-participants in the general election, just in the referendum. |
| Date | 15:58:09, July 04, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Rapula Independence Referendum |
| Message | ((OOC Is there no way that we could ask Wouters for an opinion poll on this issue just in Rapula rather than have to go through the general election which would reflect many other factors)) |
| Date | 19:15:28, July 04, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Rapula Independence Referendum |
| Message | ((I doubt it, it would be pretty hard to program an independent factor like support for sovereignty into the game, especially when Wouter doesn't know what the situation has been in Rapula for the past 30-ish years.)) |
| Date | 21:46:14, July 04, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Rapula Independence Referendum |
| Message | ((There is the internationalist - isolationist axis that he could use, but that would not suit Albert. I would vote against this anyway for now. )) |
| Date | 01:45:45, July 05, 2005 CET | From |  National People's Gang | To | Debating the Rapula Independence Referendum |
| Message | Interesting as it may be that the Adams Family regards legislation which is more than 20 years old as redundant, others in this parliament may not agree. Some may believe that having made a promise, it should be kept. We have raised this issue again for that reason. We would consider the dismissal of a promise because it is more than 20 years old to be immoral but appreciate the Adams Family is likely to have different moral values. However, we would consider the disregard of legislation because it is 20 years old to be illegal. |
| Date | 22:16:39, July 05, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Rapula Independence Referendum |
| Message | We were only asking for debate on the issue, particularly as times change. On the issue of keeping promises, there are some parties here that have no room to talk on this. We were not part of any legislative body that made such a promise, and as such we are not bound by your promises. Additionally the promise did not specify the terms that you are trying to put on this issue without discussion or debate. |
| Date | 01:24:14, July 06, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Rapula Independence Referendum |
| Message | This is a debate. Whatever your moral interpretation of promise-keeping may be, you have a legal obligation. There's is nothing new in this bill. This is a debate. |
| Date | 01:38:01, July 06, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Rapula Independence Referendum |
| Message | So would you care to address the points made in the first comment on this bill. |
| Date | 20:40:16, July 06, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Rapula Independence Referendum |
| Message | Not really, they are irrelevant because you either haven't read this bill or don't understand it or aim to deliberately misrepresent it. |
| Date | 23:12:38, July 06, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Rapula Independence Referendum |
| Message | So this is a debate you say and then you refuse to discuss the issues at hand. We clearly have to have read the bill to be able to make that first comment If we have misunderstood, show us where and show us how we should have understood the matter. If you consider that we are misrepresenting the issue then say how, where and why. |
| Date | 00:24:56, July 07, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Rapula Independence Referendum |
| Message | The CNT/AFL have already pointed out errors in your comment. We have made the debate available, we are as free as anyone else as to whether we engage with it or not. If the ASPs demonstrate an understanding of the issues at hand rather than their distortion, we may well discuss them. |
| Date | 01:39:06, July 07, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Rapula Independence Referendum |
| Message | A fine teacher you would make Equitista: If you show you understand it we will discuss it. Huh? We have shown an interest in the matter, we have interpreted it as best we can. We disagree with some fundamental points, as you disagreed with the principle of allowing someone to resign. Now will you please explain why you think that you can define a default value for something relating to a rgion where you have 4% support as of the last election compared to our 37% support. That a referendum was promised, we accept. That it is to be on these terms, we do not accept. If you can not find a means by which the population of the state are able to vote on their political interests as well as on their opinion on independence, then we can not support this. |
| Date | 19:02:42, July 07, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Rapula Independence Referendum |
| Message | It is unbecoming and unprincipled of the Adam Smith Party to campaign for our children pay for their education whilst they themselves demand it free of charge. If they wish The Equitista Party to unravel this conundrum for them, then we expect them to fund, from their party coffers, the digitisation of a further 1,000 books to join the publicly accessible electronic archives of Lodamun's universities. |
| Date | 19:09:56, July 07, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Rapula Independence Referendum |
| Message | We will willingly fund the digitisation of 1000 philosophy and economics texts for our universities. We have always contributed to the advancement of our society whenever asked. The books to be funded are to be specified by those voting for us in the region of Rapula at the next election. A list will be provided after this decision is made. Now would you care to explain in what way we have misunderstood the text of your bill. |
| Date | 19:13:14, July 07, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Rapula Independence Referendum |
| Message | Additionally, we wpould request that the Equitista party checks the facts on our education proposals. At NO TIME did we deny educational funding to those in need of it. We simply required those that could easily pay for the education of their children to do so, rather than to expect those worse off than themselves to subsidise this through excessive taxation. |
| Date | 00:17:04, July 08, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Rapula Independence Referendum |
| Message | Firstly, the books will be chosen by a random selection of Rapulese residents. As demonstrated by the need for comprehension assistance with this bill, we doubt texts chosen by ASP voters would be much use to others as most of them can already read. 1. The law, passed in 2054, says this: "This issue will be suspended for a maximum period of four governments from, and inclusive of, the government installed in the next election, or for 20 years from July 2054 (whichever is the longer). At which time, should a referendum process not be installed, the original bill, including the Default Referendum Process shall be brought before debate and a vote taken." In compliance with that law, we have re-opened the debate into original bill. 2. In compliance with the law of 2054, this debate includes the Default Referendum Process. 3. The Default Referendum Process states that in certain circumstances "the Default Rapula Independence Process becomes the default bill and is activated as law". In compliance with the 2054, we include the Default Rapula Independence Process within this debate. 4. For information only: The need for a minimum of one pro-independence party to support any proposed bill is to prevent the rape of Rapulese resources etc by a hostile majority Lodamun government which lost the vote in a referendum. There is no "power grab" scenario. 5. By law (passed in 2054 - the same law to which all of this relates) there is indeed a Default Rapula Independence Process. 6. The Default Referendum Process does not restrict a general election to a single issue. It records, separately, as part of a bill, each party's stance on independence. This has no impact on the general election. 7. The law is the law. If the Adam Smith Party decides to ignore laws which are more than 20 years old then it does so at its own risk. 8. The "promise" enshrined in law, passed in 2054, very specifically defined the terms to be brought to debate. In accordance with that law, we have brought them to debate. 9. In this instance, the Equitista Party have defined nothing, set no defaults, made no comment on this bill. We have simply complied with the law which was passed in 2054 and which contained the defaults you describe. 10. The current level of support for the Equitistas in Rapula is irrelevant to the re-opening of the debate. As we hope you are now clear, the re-opening of this debate, on these terms, was set into law in 2054. Any party could have re-opened the debate. In fact, it was probably the duty of the Head of State or the majority party to do so. However, in order to avoid adding arrest to Ms Hutcheson's woes, we re-opened the debate on behalf of the parliament of Lodamun. 11. In accordance with the law of 2054. This bill will go to vote. 12. The answers presented here would, of course, have been available to the ASPs had they actually referred to the 2054 law. |
| Date | 01:51:29, July 08, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Rapula Independence Referendum |
| Message | Stop dictating. The terms were clearly stated. The books will be chosen by those voting for the ASP. Bringing a law to debate, means citing the law in its entirety which you still have not done, and it also means debating as to whether that law is to still be valid or not. We have challenged some aspects of this law, and your response hgas been to say "That is the law that was passed". This is not debating. this is attempting to steamroller something through the house with no discussion being allowed. Mrs Hutcheson can not be held responsible for a decision that she was not party to. Only those parties that were present in the house at the time of this law being passed have any responsibility with respect to representing it to the house. The bill may go to vote, as you wish. But as of yet, no debate has been permitted. We have attempted to initiate a debate, as the law requires, hoiwever this has been obstructed at every point by the Equitista party. There are questions being asked concerning the details of this law, as to whether these are the appropriate details. That is debate. We still await your anwswers to our origiunal comments which have not been forthcoming. As such we do not consider ourselves bound, as of yet, to the funding requested. As and when you decide to address the specific points raised we will consider ourselves bound. We still await an apology for the slur and blatant lies concerning our education policies. |
| Date | 08:15:00, July 08, 2005 CET | From | Lodamun Centre-Left Coalition | To | Debating the Rapula Independence Referendum |
| Message | ((Equitista... you'll suffer vote-wise if you vote no on your own proposal...)) |
| Date | 10:13:28, July 08, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Rapula Independence Referendum |
| Message | ((Yes, I guessed so but I see little option. As a government we were bound legally to bring this up for debate and vote. However, the Equitistas don't have a mandate in Rapula so it would be wrong to vote in favour. We could abstain but that would unfairly shift responsibility for defeating this bill to other parties. Perhaps the only up-side will be that the fickle people of Rapula enjoy the joke they've played on us and give us a sympathy vote in the next election )) |
| Date | 14:01:33, July 08, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Rapula Independence Referendum |
| Message | ((Equitista, vote with your conscience, not because you have or do not have a mandate to do anything you want. What will matter is how Rapula votes next time, not the last time, and as you have said, they can be fickle.)) |
| Date | 15:34:36, July 08, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Rapula Independence Referendum |
| Message | ((In this case mandate and conscience are inseparable. 20 years ago we proposed a course of action but no subsequent general election has shown significant Rapulese confidence in that proposal. While we still believe all the evidence shows the Rapulese are hostile to Lodamunian government, we cannot believe this is the right solution)) |
| Date | 16:56:02, July 08, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Rapula Independence Referendum |
| Message | Given election results since 2054 in Rapula, there appears to be little support for the referendum. On the other hand, substantial devolution of powers to local governments (which has been ongoing for some years) may alleviate local resentment of the federal government. Thus no to this, and yes to most proposals for decentralization of power (with exceptions in areas such as defence and environment). |
| Date | 17:16:17, July 08, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Rapula Independence Referendum |
| Message | ((In this you have our sympathy and understanding. We are in a similar situation regarding the HoS)) |
| Date | 19:40:38, July 08, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Rapula Independence Referendum |
| Message | ((In addition as this is a bill with no proposals it should make no difference in the next election.)) |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 0 | |||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 345 | |||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 105 |
| Random fact: Terra, the fictional world in which Particracy is set, consists of 8 continents: Artania, Dovani, Keris, Makon, Majatra, Seleya, Temania and Vascania. |
| Random quote: Although I understand and respect the intentions behind the gesture, this is not something that is universally understood or appreciated, and it tends to give out a negative impression of our party. ~ Anton Weinreich, General Secretary of the Dorvish Communist Party, pleading with his members to stop burning the national flag |