Forum:First Chamber

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

The First Chamber forum is only opened to Members of the Congress. Here MOTC can propose law proposals and other federal issues. They can be discussed and adjusted, until there are replaced to the Second Chamber for vote.

Smoking ban
This is a loose proposal that will be written into a law text when a majority of the Congressmen approve its content. What is the proposal? Can Lovia ban smoking? In many countries smoking bans are made, mostly in public spaces but sometimes in restaurants, cafes or many other places. What position should Lovia take in this issue?

There are several possibilities:
 * 1) No banning at all.
 * 2) Smoking ban in:
 * 3) * Bars
 * 4) * Restaurants
 * 5) * Work places
 * 6) * Schools
 * 7) * the presence of minors.
 * 8) * or combinations of these/
 * 9) Entire smoking ban (all public places)
 * 10) Or other possibilities?

Dear MOTCs, please give your opinions!
 * 10:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk
Comments? Ideas? Opinions? 10:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We cant do that, except in places for minors. In pubs, we cant do that because pubs are designed for smoking Pierlot McCrooke 10:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Smoking ban in the horeca and all public places, only in presence of minors when the minors agree. Robin Ferguson 11:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Entire smoking ban + doubling the taxes on anything smokable in an attempt to cope with the increasing costs in health care + doubling the costs for the (private) health insurance policies + an income tax relief for non smokers. &#123;&#123;User:Aesopos/HT}} 06:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's make a short conclusion of what you three already said: Any other opinions? 12:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Pierlot: No ban at all.
 * Robin: Entire ban + near minors, except when they agree
 * Lars: Entire ban + extra costs and taxes.
 * What is your opinion to this issue ? &#123;&#123;User:Aesopos/HT}} 12:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, in fact I'm not sure. In the first place my little social and socialist side says "ban smoking because it is bad". My liberalist side says "shouldn't the companies and restaurants themselves be able to decide?" I'm not very sure. I think there should be certain bans, that's for sure, like the prohibition of smoking for minors or smoking near minors in public places. And smoking in government buildings is in every way up to the government (that's us), so I would forbid that too. 12:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is exactly the point, smoking is bad for everyone, and I hope by descouraging citizens to smoke, childeren (with all the lung functional problems they already have) would take advantage of this in the long end. I am very well aware this might not seem a liberal way of acting, but children are not asking to breath cigarsmoke. Pollution should be tackled at the source, beginning at home. I feel confident with healthy citizens costs of healthcare would drop dramatically and the loss of income for the government on the taxes would widely compensate. Expenses (be it in healthcare or other issues), in the end, are paid by the taxpayers. To me, saving money on the healthcare department (who likes to be sick anyway) means, being able to spend money on other (nicer) things all citizens can enjoy.  17:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I propose (actually OWTB's idea, but I fully agree with him) the following: Ben (talk) 08:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Smokers get a card, something like a ID-kaart in the Netherlands.
 * You pay for this card on month/year base
 * Only 18?+ can pay for this card.
 * Only when you show that card you can buy cigarettes.
 * No minors can get cigarettes with a shop anymore.
 * You can only buy a limited number of packages, so there won't be an illegal trade in them.
 * You also may only smoke when you have this card.
 * So a police can ask you when you are smoking, show your card, and if you don't have one you have a penaltie.
 * Raise the taxes on the cigarettes/cigars/pipes/whatever
 * Ban smoking on public places.
 * I dont like that. Pierlot McCrooke 08:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not like it either. &#123;&#123;SUBST:User:Aesopos/HT}} 08:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that the card-idea goes a little to for for me. Perhaps we should raise taxes on tabacco + all restaurants, bars, etc. can choose freely to ban smoking (perhaps with a reward attached to it?). No smoking for minors seems obvious to me. 12:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I write the final proposal underneath. It's not radical, but it's just a start. Maybe in the future more strict proposal can be written, but I think this is a good and appropriate start. 13:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Content

 * Article 9 - Tobacco Regulations Act
 * The term "tobacco" is used for an agricultural product processed from the fresh leaves of plants in the genus Nicotiana. Under "using tobacco" the Lovian government understands: smoking tobacco in the form of cigarettes or cigars, using it in smoking pipes and water pipes, or consuming it in the form of snuff tobacco or chewing tobacco.
 * The use of tobacco is forbidden by the Tobacco Regulations Act of the Federal Law, supported by Congress:
 * In all governmental buildings, including federal properties, state properties and properties of the city, town, neighborhood, or hamlet.
 * For all persons aged under 18 years.
 * In the close environment of persons aged under 12 years.
 * In the close environment of persons aged older than 12 years and under 18 years, unless permission is given by the minor.
 * The use of tobacco is discouraged by the Congress, in all public places, especially those where people consume food and beverages, meaning there is no strict prohibition on the use.
 * Every Lovian person, company, or organization who owns or manages a building, room, or public place has the right to prohibit the use of tobacco within that space, supported by Local Police authorities in case of disobedience.

Break relations with Libertas
Maybe we should break the relations with Libertas. Mainly because an insulting reference to naranja, in an libertan humor magazine Pierlot McCrooke 19:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk
We could do something like that on official level (no political, economical relations etc.) But Lovians can ofcourse still visit Libertas, I hope? I also think that we need a better reason to do so. Perhaps the foreign affair ministers of both countries should discus this matter first? 13:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We must discuss Pierlot McCrooke 13:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a better idea (I hope), why not look for something similar and make some humoristic stuff on Libertas? It they want to laugh at Lovian initiatives, we can also laugh at Libertan intitiatives. Satire is not against the law, or not that I am aware of. Lars Washington 13:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK Pierlot McCrooke 13:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Look for something overthere that you would like to laugh at and I'll try to find some satiric stuff so we can post it tomorrow. Lars Washington 13:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

A Lovian parody on the comments given by the Libertan government in a reply to the naranja story Pierlot was upset about.


 * LIBERTY LOST ?


 * In Libertas they say,
 * The senate is corrupt,
 * In Libertas they say,
 * We should interrupt


 * In Libertas they claim
 * The senate is a joke
 * In Libertas they blame
 * Some other bloke.




 * In Libertas there's smoke
 * The governors, they wait
 * The governors are broke
 * The governors debate


 * In Libertas they drink
 * They sit together
 * Don’t know what to think,
 * And hope for better


 * In Libertas
 * The governors are poor
 * In Libertas
 * The governors
 * Don’t find the exit door.


 * Long live democracy
 * Long live liberty

Amendment to the Federal Law: Hamlet Act
May 27 2008 Congress accepted the Hamlet Act (Federal Law) with a massive majority. Still, there is a practical thing that needs to be changed. A 50% majority is needed to get this change into the Federal Law.

Content
This is the original text:
 * Article 8 - Hamlet Act
 * 1) Hamlets are Lovian place comparables to neighborhoods and are treated as a part of a town or city.
 * 2) Hamlets are managed by a Chairman and are under control of a town or city's Mayor.
 * 3) Places are hamlets if:
 * 4) The population is at least 100 and maximum 500. If larger they are considered a town.
 * 5) The size
 * 6) * is smaller than the normal area of a neighborhood,
 * 7) * is equal to a normal neighborhood area, but is mostly occupied by natural or agrarian lots.
 * 8) The number of administrative, commercial and industrial occupations can be considered low.

This is the proposed text with the changes in bold: (note the spelling mistakes in the first line aren't in bold)


 * Article 8 - Hamlet Act
 * 1) Hamlets are Lovian places comparable to neighborhoods and are treated as a part of a town or city.
 * 2) Hamlets are managed by a Chairman and are under control of a town or city's Mayor.
 * 3) Places are hamlets if:
 * 4) The population is at least 100 and maximum 1000. If larger they are considered a town.
 * 5) The size
 * 6) * is smaller than the normal area of a neighborhood,
 * 7) * is equal to a normal neighborhood area, but is mostly occupied by natural or agrarian lots.
 * 8) The number of administrative, commercial and industrial occupations can be considered low; or the hamlet is focused on a certain function that is not an intensive industry, such as holiday or film business.

The reasons for this changes:
 * Maximum population 1000: otherwise only three users could buy a house in a hamlet. Now seven people can do.
 * Focus on certain fuction: hamlets should be able to be real holiday villages with almost only hotels, parks, beaches etc., or film villages that are almost entirely used as a movie location or studios.

Talk
Dear MOTC, what do you think? 12:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Great! Robin Ferguson 14:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is just bad Pierlot McCrooke 14:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? 15:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In the real world there are no 1000 inhabtnat hamlets. maybe we should make places that have 500 until 1000 inhabitants villages Pierlot McCrooke 15:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course there are hamlets of 1000 inhabitants! A hamlet just means "gehucht", in Belgium, the Netherlands, France or Germany, there are plenty of hamlets and little villages of thousands of inhabitants, so 1000 isn't that much. By the way: it is just a maximum, not a mininum or so. 15:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But that sort of place is called a town Pierlot McCrooke 15:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not always. What we have here is three options: hamlet (small), town (moderate), and city (large). Currently there is a hole inbetween hamlet and town, because hamlets can be large enough. So let's just enlarge the limit, and the problem is solved. 15:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe that gap between hamlets and towns can be sovled by adding a fourth type of place:Village Pierlot McCrooke 15:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

LANDFA Act
Proposal for the Federal Law, 50% majority needed. Proposal to erect the LANDFA or Lovian Army.

Content

 * Article 10 - LANDFA Act
 * The Lovian Army of National Defense and Foreign Aid is a Lovian federal governmental institution under the Department of Foreign Affairs, erected under the LANDFA Act and supported by Congress.
 * The Lovian Army of National Defense and Foreign Aid serves as the national army of Lovia and is erected to protect Lovian citizens from foreign threats. Its two main functions are:
 * Protecting Lovia and the Lovian citizens from foreign threats by defending the nation with armed forces;
 * Providing aid to allied nations and people that are severly threatened by assisting local armed forces and/or by providing humanitarian aid.
 * The Lovian Army of National Defense and Foreign Aid consists of four branches that cooperate narrowly:
 * The LANDFA Land Force, the armed forces operating on land.
 * The LANDFA Navy Force, the armed forces operating on sea.
 * The LANDFA Air Force, the armed forces operating in the air.
 * The LANDFA Medical Unit, the medical unit that provides medical care to the Lovian forces, to allied forces, and to civilian society.
 * The Lovian Army of National Defense and Foreign Aid is headed by the LANDFA Supreme Commander, who is appointed (and can be fired) by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of Foreign Affairs. The LANDFA Supreme Commander has the final command over the four branches, though every branch is separately headed by a General. Within the branches several officers head smaller structures. All officers can appoint officers of a lower rank than themself, meaning Generals (NATO OF-9) are appointed by the LANDFA Supreme Commander (OF-10), Colonels (OF-5) are appointed by the General, and so on for Majors (OF-3), Captains (OF-2), and Lieutenants (OF-1). Promotion can only be granted in case of courage or special skills by an officer who is at least two ranks higher than the promoted military, while every officer can demote anyone with a lower rank in case of weakness or leak of skills.
 * The Lovian Army of National Defense and Foreign Aid only works with professional militaries and doesn't apply conscription or voluntary service. All militaries start as Private (OR-2) or First Class Private (OR-3), and can be promoted to Corporal (OR-4), Sergeant (OR-5), or any officer rank.
 * The Lovian Army of National Defense and Foreign Aid can be brought into war with another nation:
 * In case a nation, people, or foreign criminal organization threatens the safety and the lives of Lovian citizens. There is only one procedure available to bring Lovia in state of war with another nation: a vote in Congress with a 50% majority.
 * In case an allied nation or people requires urgent help to protect the safety of their citizens and militaries from the threat of an agressor. There is only one procedure available to bring Lovia in state of war with another nation: a vote in Congress with a 50% majority. In that case the LANDFA Forces can be send to a foreign region where the Lovian troops can carry out there skills as armed forces and medical experts to aid the allied forces and to provide humanitarian aid.
 * The Lovian Army of National Defense and Foreign Aid is in war time headed by the LANDFA Supreme Commander, unless the ruling monarch wishes to take over the command over the LANDFA him/herself. In case the ruling monarch wishes to do so, his command will be supreme until peace is declared and the appointed LANDFA Supreme Commander returns into office.

Adjustments
leave this section open for the proposer

Talk
Opinions? Suggestions?
 * George Matthews forgot to mention I co-authored this So, yes I like it.  14:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Anyone an opinion on this proposal? George Matthews 14:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this meant to be something like the NATO ? Lars Washington 16:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it should be the Lovian army (which we don't have right now and which we should have in extreme emergency cases and for the safety of all). 16:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That looks perfect to me! Lars Washington 16:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 16:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Content
Orginal text: New text:
 * Article 8 - Hamlet Act
 * 1) Hamlets are Lovian place comparables to neighborhoods and are treated as a part of a town or city.
 * 2) Hamlets are managed by a Chairman and are under control of a town or city's Mayor.
 * 3) Places are hamlets if:
 * 4) The population is at least 100 and maximum 500. If larger they are considered a town.
 * 5) The size
 * 6) * is smaller than the normal area of a neighborhood,
 * 7) * is equal to a normal neighborhood area, but is mostly occupied by natural or agrarian lots.
 * 8) The number of administrative, commercial and industrial occupations can be considered low.
 * Article 8 - Hamlet Act
 * 1) Hamlets are Lovian place comparables to neighborhoods and are treated as a part of a town or city.
 * 2) Hamlets are managed by a Chairman and are under control of a town or city's Mayor.
 * 3) Places are hamlets if:
 * 4) The population is at least 10 and maximum 500. If larger they are considered a town.
 * 5) The size
 * 6) * is smaller than the normal area of a neighborhood,
 * 7) * is equal to a normal neighborhood area, but is mostly occupied by natural or agrarian lots.
 * 8) The number of administrative, commercial and industrial occupations can be considered low. ; or the hamlet is focused on a certain function that is not an intensive industry, such as holiday or film business.

Talk
In my opinion, a hamlet should not have any administrative, commercial and/or industrial occupations. It should only be meant for agro tourism, living and filming (scenic, environmental etc.) Lars Washington 14:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

New state form
Since the king is leaving us and an hier is not an option (some people don't support a kingdom -- caused the trouble that made Dimitri leave), I propose we consider a new state form. We could become a republic, but a president as nothing else then an anual king: someone with a lot of power and without a concrete function. Therefor I would suggest an entirely new (at least for most of you) state form named a state democraty. It can be compared best to the system they use in Switserland (is that spelled correct?). Anyway, it works as follows: We have our congress that we vote for every year. The one with the most votes becomes prime minister. Not much of a change till here. The departments are devided by the PM, but his proposal needs to be approved by a normal majority in congress (+50%). The departments are coordinated and linked to the congress by the PM, who comes closest to a head of state. The prime minister needs to rapport the working of the departments to the congress every four months. This plus a worked out system off something that is called 'interpellation' - a system that makes it possible to lift a secretary out of his fonction if he doesn't do his work propperly. With this system we would have a fair and democratic political apparatus that avoids a centered power. The balans is laid between the congress (most power), departments under the coordination of the PM and the high court. I will take my proposal to the second chamber any minute now. 12:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I know I can't be here (no MOTC) but it's state democracy and Switzerland ;) --O u WTB 12:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Now I know how my spelling is (hadn't much time to prepare). But what do you think of the idea? I know this page is only for motc, but I think this is a special situation. I don't know if I can 'open up congress' but I don't think anyone would mind to see your comment here.  12:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I like it very much! I think it is a perfect solution for Lovia! And btw, half the MOTCs have already left :( --O u WTB 12:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope I am not the only one left, in that case I have the full congress behind my proposal - a 100% majority. Not funny, we need a congress that consists out of more than one person. I hope they will return and if they don't, mid-terms will be needed once again. 12:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I can contact 2 MOTCs, Ben and Jamal. I'm sure they will like your proposal. Otherwise I have to force them to like it ;) --O u WTB 12:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I like it also very much ;-) Robin Ferguson 12:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No forcing, but please tell them to vote. I will place my proposal soon. Thank you Robin. You will stay too, isn't it?  12:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You can hardly force someone in a democracy (I hope you realize this). In the meantime I found out (dont't ask me how) that Dimitri is watching all this (hihi) so, I agree with the proposal. Lars Washington 12:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Meant funny :) --O u WTB 12:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * High Dimi, not getting home sick yet? You know that you are always welcome here? I hope you really are wathcing, because otherwise I am talking to myself . 12:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Amendment to the Federal Law: Hamlet Act
May 27 2008 Congress accepted the Hamlet Act (Federal Law) with a massive majority. Still, there is a practical thing that needs to be changed. A 50% majority is needed to get this change into the Federal Law.

Content
This is the original text:
 * Article 8 - Hamlet Act
 * 1) Hamlets are Lovian place comparables to neighborhoods and are treated as a part of a town or city.
 * 2) Hamlets are managed by a Chairman and are under control of a town or city's Mayor.
 * 3) Places are hamlets if:
 * 4) The population is at least 100 and maximum 100. If larger they are considered a town.
 * 5) The size
 * 6) * is smaller than the normal area of a neighborhood,
 * 7) * is equal to a normal neighborhood area, but is mostly occupied by natural or agrarian lots.
 * 8) The number of administrative, commercial and industrial occupations can be considered low.

This is the proposed text with the changes in bold: (note the spelling mistakes in the first line aren't in bold)


 * Article 8 - Hamlet Act
 * 1) Hamlets are Lovian places comparable to neighborhoods and are treated as a part of a town or city.
 * 2) Hamlets are managed by a Chairman and are under control of a town or city's Mayor.
 * 3) Places are hamlets if:
 * 4) The population is at least 100 and maximum 500. If larger they are considered a village.
 * 5) The size
 * 6) * is smaller than the normal area of a neighborhood,
 * 7) * is equal to a normal neighborhood area, but is mostly occupied by natural or agrarian lots.
 * 8) The number of administrative, commercial and industrial occupations can be considered low; or the hamlet is focused on a certain function that is not an intensive industry, such as holiday or film business.

The reasons for this changes:
 * Maximum population 500: 1000 is unrealistic

I am also proposing a Village Act:
 * Article 9 - Village Act
 * 1) Villages are Lovian places somewhat smaller than towns.
 * 2) Villages are managed by a Mayor.
 * 3) Places are villages if:
 * 4) The population is at least 500 and maximum 1000. If larger they are considered a town.
 * 5) The size
 * 6) * is smaller than the normal area of a town,
 * 7) * is equal to a normal town area, but is mostly occupied by natural or agrarian lots.
 * 8) The number of administrative, commercial and industrial occupations can be considered low; or the village is focused on a certain function that is not an intensive industry, such as holiday or film business.

Talk
I hopethat anyone likes it Pierlot McCrooke 07:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt if it is really needed, but it can't harm. It has my support!  16:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)