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: Foreign Policy Bill 2079
Details
Submitted by[?]: Right 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: April 2081
Description[?]:
| This is what Hobrazians want, as shown in the recent poll. Government should put a stop to all unnecessary money wasting on foreign aid.Financial help to other nations should be provided for a profit only. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy towards giving aid to foreign countries.
Old value:: The government gives moderate aid to countries in need.
Current: The government gives high levels of aid to countries in need.
Proposed: The government supplies "tied" aid to poorer nations in return for trading rights.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 12:07:52, July 13, 2005 CET | From |  United Blobs | To | Debating the Foreign Policy Bill 2079 |
| Message | Here is the poll referenced - http://aiglesrv.no-ip.info:8080/particracy/main/viewnews.php?newsid=3121 9.86% are happy as it is 19.93% want more 70.21% want less We'll probably support this bill although i doubt it will pass. |
| Date | 15:31:56, July 13, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Foreign Policy Bill 2079 |
| Message | As the Hobrazian Cabinet Foreign Affairs representative, I can only deplore this Bill. Countries in need deserve to receive aid with no trade restrictions after years of being forced into poverty by war and capitalism. Making any aid we give 'tied', we impose unfair terms of international trade, making the situation even worse. If anything, we should be giving high levels of aid: I take it that we are a prosperous country; if we were in need we would have to keep it all! So as a rich country we can do more to help people in desperation, those in extreme poverty and even those fighting to survive. The USM are angered that such an arrogant, right-wing proposal is even tabled. It is a deplorable, ultra-capitalist measure to want something in return for a good deed, and we are shocked that the Right Party calls foreign aid a 'waste'. We will categorically reject this proposal and any Bills like this one. |
| Date | 16:56:12, July 13, 2005 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Foreign Policy Bill 2079 |
| Message | "The USM are angered that such an arrogant, right-wing proposal is even tabled." - By saying that you are calling the Hobrazian people right wing. Looks like people don't want all of your radical socialism :-). |
| Date | 17:40:50, July 13, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Foreign Policy Bill 2079 |
| Message | Seeing as almost 20% of Hobrazian people favour higher levels of aid, and almost 10% want to keep it as it is already, suggests not. That is almost a third of the population you've stereotyped in the statement. I'm sure a fair few of that 30% voted USM at previous elections, which would be why we have been the second largest party in Hobrazia in the past. |
| Date | 18:21:32, July 13, 2005 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Foreign Policy Bill 2079 |
| Message | So? I have been first before with >25% of the legislature. I have also been 3rd smallest with <8% of the legislature. Hobrazian voters change their minds as we vote on bills. People rise (for example the CSP's record 1400% increase) and fall (my 60% collapse). As for sterotyping I admit there are some that have similar opinions to you, hence your seats and the former Socialist Party's. These, however, are a minority compared with the rest. Also note how the largest parties have always been those closest to the right at the time (the PPOL, the EUP, the LPU and myself). I dread the day some real right winger comes in and gains big power. |
| Date | 18:27:20, July 13, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Foreign Policy Bill 2079 |
| Message | And............ |
| Date | 20:47:09, July 13, 2005 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Foreign Policy Bill 2079 |
| Message | This discussion is pointless. |
| Date | 22:30:38, July 13, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Foreign Policy Bill 2079 |
| Message | It is: there is no way that we are going to tolerate such an arrogant, capitalist styled Bill to benefit ourselves over those in desperation. I will be ashamed at our government if this Bill is passed. |
| Date | 23:24:51, July 13, 2005 CET | From | Right Party | To | Debating the Foreign Policy Bill 2079 |
| Message | Any other parties wishing to add their comments to this debate? |
| Date | 01:45:50, July 14, 2005 CET | From | National Imperial Hobrazian Front | To | Debating the Foreign Policy Bill 2079 |
| Message | We vehemently disagree with this proposal. While this would certainly benefit our economy, we still find it extremely distasteful. Show some compassion, people! All capitalism vs. socialism discussion aside (we all know where the CSP stands on such issues), we feel that this bill is simply immoral. |
| Date | 02:13:13, July 14, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Foreign Policy Bill 2079 |
| Message | What would be your description of "tied" aid? Would it be purely profit (i.e. money in the long term) or would it be linked to things such as, changes of political influence or backing in International situations? |
| Date | 12:39:49, July 14, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Foreign Policy Bill 2079 |
| Message | I would interpret the Right Party's stance as it being for profit rather than extra influence. |
| Date | 13:36:26, July 14, 2005 CET | From |  Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Foreign Policy Bill 2079 |
| Message | I believe aid that is "tied" to trading rights sets a bad precedent. We are not in the buisness of aid for profit. We cannot support this bill. |
| Date | 16:44:46, July 14, 2005 CET | From | Right Party | To | Debating the Foreign Policy Bill 2079 |
| Message | In our opinion, tied aid should have nothing to do with politics, the profit should be purely economical.Perhaps a word profit is a bit too strong, mutually beneficial economical exchange would be more appropriate. |
| Date | 16:46:58, July 14, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Foreign Policy Bill 2079 |
| Message | Mutually beneficial? I don't see how. These countries would have to give the equivalent value of the aid back through foreign currency or trading rights! It's deplorable! |
| Date | 16:55:10, July 14, 2005 CET | From | Right Party | To | Debating the Foreign Policy Bill 2079 |
| Message | We suppose that USM simply doesn't care about the opinion of Hobrazian people.Right Party, however, is devoted to true Hobrazians and respects their wishes. |
| Date | 19:09:03, July 14, 2005 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Foreign Policy Bill 2079 |
| Message | "[the] Right Party, however, is devoted to true Hobrazians and respects their wishes." - Could be interesting... |
| Date | 22:28:50, July 14, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Foreign Policy Bill 2079 |
| Message | We suppose the USM doesnt care about the opinions of a conservative party who don't give a damn about the desperation of others and see it as a business opportunity. We firmly allign ourselves with almost 1/3 of Hobrazians who wish aid levels to stay the same or increase. I doubt very much that Hobrazian citizens would be comfortable in the knowledge that they are taking advatage of those in desperation. I would have thought a credible party like the United Blobs would see this Bill for what it really is: one of capitalist ideology gone mad and downright hatred. |
| Date | 22:58:26, July 14, 2005 CET | From | Social Democratic Liberal Party | To | Debating the Foreign Policy Bill 2079 |
| Message | It appears we've missed the debate here, but we can firmly ally ourselves with the USM on this one. When our policy on aid was changed from "high" to "moderate", we supported in order to allow the Hobrazian economy more room for growth when it was introduced. We also warned at the time that we would resist any move to reduce the level of Hobrazian aid from moderate, and we are true to our word. |
| Date | 23:04:54, July 14, 2005 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Foreign Policy Bill 2079 |
| Message | @USM - May I point out that I did make my stance on this clear on the previous bill and, as stated, am going with public opinion until the economy. QUOTE - "We wait until economy before going futher (or unless the Hobrazian public wish for it)." http://aiglesrv.no-ip.info:8080/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=6104 |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 126 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 217 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Dorvik is a nation based on Germanic and old Prussian cultures, it is located on the far north of Artania, making it an almost arctic nation. |
| Random quote: "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington |