(Dismissed) Reinstate the New Year Land Grab

I, The Social Democracy of New-Zealand, head of the WA Council, hereby propose a reinstatement of the New Years land grab commissioned by Great Eurussia as a celebration of the New Year. 




Due to the initial tie that occurred during voting when the "Revocation of the New Year Land Grab" proposal was in parliament, I believe that in standard practice the proposal should have either been passed up to the Council or Dismissed, for not achieving a majority. However, a re-vote was not in order. Regardless, this is not the main reason as to why I propose that we dismiss this bill and reinstate the Land Grab. Without further ado fellow Council Members, I put forward my case in defence of the New Years Land Grab.




Furthermore, Article II of the WA Constitution states that "The World Alliance shall respect the inherent rights of each member state, which include, but not limited to, the following: right to exist, right to self defense.... right to exercise due powers by the Founder". As a result, the revocation of this law by the parliament alone is quite sketchy. This in addition to Article V of the WA Constitution stating that "proposals must be approved by simple majority, within three days, to become a law." Shows that the "Revocation of the New Years Land Grab" itself should have never become a law due to the bill not managing to achieve a majority on it's first go. 


I would now like to take a more informal aspect to this proposal, and like to remind the Council that revocation of the Land Grab will cause a large inconsistency in RP, as many, in fact the vast majority, of nations have made news posts in relation to this land grab. Thus to remove their claims would be both a disgrace to the effort and time they spent on those posts which are now rendered redundant, and provide as a disappointment to many nations who were themselves quite ecstatic to gain a substantial amount of land to house their large populations. I will not lie and say all the claims were just, as there were a few nations that took advantage of the land grab and abused it's terms to make greedy and unfair claims. However, I feel it to be unfair to punish the many for the actions of a few, especially when the constitution speaks out in defence of the Land Grab too such an extent that a significant court case could be made against the "Revocation of the New Years Land Grab" bill for Violation of the Constitution alongside the questionable conduct which took place during the handling of the proposal. 


In conclusion, I believe the New Years Land Grab was conducted in a lawful manner, with no significant grounds for a revocation. Furthermore, the Constitution speaks out in defence of the Land Grab and thus I call upon the council to maintain the fundamentals of the WA and thus dismiss the "Revocation of the New Years Land Grab" bill.


The Voting and Debating Period for the proposal will end at 12 PM on the 23rd of January 2014 (GMT) or when all members of the Council have cast their vote. Whichever comes first. 

Voting and debate can begin immediately due to the current governmental term nearing an end. 



I vote IN FAVOUR of reinstating the "New Years Land Grab"

This is strange: to see the Council working for the first time at the beginning of its end.

Anyway, the NZ proposal has some points. However, let me express why I voted in favour of the Land Grap repeal.
Nothing personal, but what happened during the New Year Land Grab was somewhat creepy. Not for the fact itself (there's nothing wrong in expanding your own country, of course), but because there was no real RP behind it (some news made post, NZ is right...but others not...and now we find ourselves with countries which are three-four larger than before without any explanation).
This is the problem, and this is why personally I've choosen to vote in favour of the Parliament proposal: many countries who asked for huge pieces of land were not true Role-players, as we know very well, thus creating a dangerous situation (namely: the creation of big "non-RP"-countries, which could only harm the RP of the others).
I am not against the Land Grab AT ALL. At the contrary, I am in favour of a new Land Grab organized by the Secretary General and the Map Administrators, with new criteria, in order to substitute the previous one. And I wish to ask to this Council that we may create these new criteria to submit to the Secretary General and the Administrators, instead of fighting against this law passed by the Parliament. I am sure that this would be the best way to finally leave behind us this annoying issue.

But, now, there is the formal problem. I agree with NZ that there has been some ambiguity in the voting procedure inside the Parliament, which could raise suspicions on the legal ground of the law itself. And this is the most important point, in my opinion.
About what my honourable colleague said,calling upon the Articles of our Constitution, I personally do not agree with him: indeed, the Constitution does not provide for the exclusion of the Parliament and/or the Council from issues related to the Map. Moreover, since this particular issue has practical consequences on the RP, it is possible to say that the Parliament is legitimate to take actions.
However, this last thing does not erase the previous, formal, point.

I wish to hear the opinion of our other colleagues in the Council.

We are voting in favor of the proposal.

I understand your concerns New Tarajan, and I too support many of them. If you may recall, I was one of the people who were fighting against the few excessively large claims made during the land grab. However, I do not see the need to repeal the entire thing and reprimand everyone who took part in the land grab, when only a very small number of nations are deserving of such a response.

However, a key point in this case is that the constitution itself speaks out in defense of the land grab and the Secretary General. Furthermore, it criticizes the practices that took place during the voting period for the revocation. As a result, the case in favor of maintaining the land grab in its current state, is quite a strong one.

I do think the land grab may have been a bit over the top with it's lack of regulation, but for most part the situation was itself resolved during the claiming period. Only around 2 nations managed to make excessive claims, this combined with the large number of fair participants means there are practically no grounds for a revocation of the land grab.

Yes, we can argue that the Parliament was within its legal right to propose a revocation, but at the same time, we, as the council, are under the legal obligation to act in preservation of the constitution especially when the voting process itself was not constitutionally sound. Thus to rectify the legal standing of this law, I have pushed this up to the council. We shall here and now make the ultimate call in regards to what happens with the Land Grab. What you fellow council members choose, will be final, and this time the legal proceedings will be done in a straight forward, legitimate process.

New-Zealand, the voting war constitutionally sound. The constitution says the Speaker is the sole tie-breaker, and there was a tie, so I broke it.

Also NZ, the reason behind the amendment proposed by Altetius was so that nations that claimed acceptable amounts of land can keep their land, but the nations with bigger claims cannot. All they have to do is simply quote their earlier claim and move on.

EDIT: "...Speaker, elected by the Parliament itself, which is also the tie breaker..."

Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:New-Zealand, the voting war constitutionally sound. The constitution says the Speaker is the sole tie-breaker, and there was a tie, so I broke it.

Also NZ, the reason behind the amendment proposed by Altetius was so that nations that claimed acceptable amounts of land can keep their land, but the nations with bigger claims cannot. All they have to do is simply quote their earlier claim and move on.

EDIT: "...Speaker, elected by the Parliament itself, which is also the tie breaker..."

Citing the evidence provided by Marquette in regards to the speaker being the tie breaker. I hereby retract my proposal and dismiss it indefinitely as the "Revocation of the New Years Land Grab" bill was enacted  in a constitutionally sound way.

OOC : I can't believe I missed that clause. Sorry.