| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Welcome to Mock Parliament. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| DEFEATED: Costal Cleanup Motion; Ammendment motion | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 4 2008, 06:14 PM (441 Views) | |
| HRH King Zog II | May 4 2008, 06:14 PM Post #1 |
|
Waffler of the House of Boreds
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I move that the costal cleanup bill be ammended as follows Current text: Under this legislation, coastal areas will undergo a massive overhaul. Article 1: A huge clean-up process will begin in order to remove litter from the beaches, local countryside and the surrounding oceans. Article 2: The number of public litter bins by coastal areas will be doubled. Failure to use these bins will result in a fine (The cost of which is to be discussed before the bill is moved) Article 3: The main rivers of Ostentia will also undergo a clean-up process, similar to that which is stated within Article 1. These measures will not only help to improve the environment in Ostentia but will also hopefully improve tourism to the nation. Funding is to be taken from the increase in the Environment budget. New text: Under this legislation, coastal areas will undergo a massive overhaul. Article 1: A huge clean-up process will begin in order to remove litter from the beaches, local countryside and the surrounding oceans. Article 2: The number of public litter bins by coastal areas will be doubled. Failure to use these bins will result in a fine (The cost of which is to be discussed before the bill is moved) Article 3: The main rivers of Ostentia will also undergo a clean-up process, similar to that which is stated within Article 1. Article 4: To ensure that increased tourism does not cause untoward damage to beach ecosystems all public beaches will have an entry charge of £1 which will pay for the upkeep, cleaning and maintenance of the beach and its related eco-system These measures will not only help to improve the environment in Ostentia but will also hopefully improve tourism to the nation. Funding is to be taken from the increase in the Environment budget. |
![]() |
|
| Cieran | May 4 2008, 06:26 PM Post #2 |
![]()
Should-like-totally-be-the Prime Minister
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Won't this simply create a culture where only the wealthy can use beaches? Are we to deprive those less fortunate from using the coastline?... |
![]() |
|
| HRH King Zog II | May 4 2008, 06:58 PM Post #3 |
|
Waffler of the House of Boreds
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Your definition of wealthy is very loose indeed... |
![]() |
|
| Commoncold0 | May 4 2008, 07:25 PM Post #4 |
|
Elder Statesman
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The question is as in the motion. As many who are of that opinion say aye, Aye! To the contrary no, No! Division! |
![]() |
|
| Sheepling | May 4 2008, 09:25 PM Post #5 |
|
SURVIVOR!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Um... The Coastal Clean-Up bill hasn't even been passed. If you wanted it ammended you just had to mention it. In fact, am I not correct in saying that should this motion pass that I could simply revert the bill to what it was before since it is simply a BILL and not yet law? |
![]() |
|
| Commoncold0 | May 4 2008, 09:34 PM Post #6 |
|
Elder Statesman
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No. Ammendment motions can only be used to edit bills before they are passed. Once a motion has been ammended, the original author is banned from editing it further. |
![]() |
|
| plqx | May 5 2008, 08:42 AM Post #7 |
![]()
overlord of the Solafian universe
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I am opposed to the removal of the letter U from the first word of the bill, which would remove all sense from the bill whatsoever... Therefore I oppose this motion. |
![]() |
|
| Cieran | May 5 2008, 10:56 AM Post #8 |
![]()
Should-like-totally-be-the Prime Minister
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Coustal Clean Up Motion?... |
![]() |
|
| Pokemaniac John | May 5 2008, 12:37 PM Post #9 |
![]()
Mister Speaker
![]()
|
Down a bit. It says "nder". Although, I don't quite see how that removes all sense from the bill. |
![]() |
|
| HRH King Zog II | May 5 2008, 04:58 PM Post #10 |
|
Waffler of the House of Boreds
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Typographical error. CC0 conspiracy. People shot etc. |
![]() |
|
| Commoncold0 | May 5 2008, 05:53 PM Post #11 |
|
Elder Statesman
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The results of the vote are as follows: Ayes to the right: 3 Nos to the left: 5 The nos have it! The motion is therefore defeated. |
![]() |
|
| Cieran | May 5 2008, 06:00 PM Post #12 |
![]()
Should-like-totally-be-the Prime Minister
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I would be in favour of this amendment on the condition that the cost is only applicable on beaches within a half mile radius of any town, and that residents of said town get free access... |
![]() |
|
| Sheepling | May 5 2008, 06:04 PM Post #13 |
|
SURVIVOR!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE REFUSING TO DO THIS IN THE BILL'S TOPIC? Ah well, it's not like it'll be up to me after tomorrow anyway
|
![]() |
|
| Commoncold0 | May 5 2008, 06:05 PM Post #14 |
|
Elder Statesman
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It would be overly bureaurocratic and would still discriminate against those on low incomes. |
![]() |
|
| HRH King Zog II | May 5 2008, 08:05 PM Post #15 |
|
Waffler of the House of Boreds
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I re-move this motion. Why? Because I can
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Debates · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2





![]](http://z1.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)







2:17 PM Jul 11