Advertisement
by Agarntrop » Sun May 10, 2020 12:44 pm
by Ikania » Sun May 10, 2020 1:08 pm
by Federal States of Xathuecia » Sun May 10, 2020 1:24 pm
Skeckoa wrote:Xie returns to the podium
Mister Speaker, one more time for the public record, and for the Bandurian press, this bill does NOT have the sufficient number of sponsors. The amount of misinformation in this chamber is sickening, and the disregard for your own rules and contempt for those who are not part of your tribe reminds me of a five-year old fighting over getting to use the class set of building blocks.
However, now I would like to respond to the government MPs that say that I have no substantial critiques of this bill, that also is simply NOT true.
What i see in the bill before me is yet ANOTHER, one among many many many other attempts to centralize wealth into a few select sectors, and in the hands of a few select people. My district, my people have survived for centuries from fishing and mining, no more, no less. This bill isn't meant to uplift people from my neck of the woods, it is meant to make our livelihoods obsolete. Where are the protections for the well-established mining unions? Where are the reparations for the subsistence farming whose plots will be made obsolete by the advance in the ill-defined subsidies for "agricultural technologies"? Support for our fishers?
This bill not only allows, but encourages that Bandurian taxpayers subsidize foreign multinational companies to come and exploit our workers. I agree with the MP who proposed lifting the threshold of Bandurian ownership from 40% to 51%, less this chamber be responsible for the pimping out of our workforce to Korean and Japanese elites, whom we already know about the contempt they have for people like us.
Our markets are made for the export of primary goods, this bill helps those districts that already have the population base and infrastructure to have factories, that's great for our city-dwellers, but where does that leave our rural folks?
I propose an amendment to this bill to ensure that at least 80% of all the money allocated by this bill be spent on the poorest 20% of Bandurian municipalities, because if we are not uplifting our poorest citizens, we are not uplifting at all. I also propose an amendment to strike out subsidies for commercial and investment banks, instead opting to establish a national credit union or subsidizing existing credit unions. Lastly, I propose an amendment to strike import tariffs as a way of amassing said funds, because the subsequent price rises would most impact poor consumers such as the ones that populate our countrysides.
I will not go forth with agreeing to spend millions,possibly billions, to set my own people back into obscurity. I would recommend that this bill be voted AGAINST, and that rural working unions and community leaders be invited to construct this bill. NO. MORE. WORKING. CLASS. SUBSIDIES. FOR. MIDDLE. CLASS. FAMILIES.
by NS Parliament Administrators » Sun May 10, 2020 1:41 pm
by Roosevetania » Sun May 10, 2020 2:25 pm
by Merni » Sun May 10, 2020 8:23 pm
by Ikania » Sun May 10, 2020 8:49 pm
Merni wrote:"Mr Speaker, I request that we have Question Time after this debate."
by Inhorto » Sun May 10, 2020 9:09 pm
Ikania wrote:Merni wrote:"Mr Speaker, I request that we have Question Time after this debate."
"The Honourable Member has requested to hold a question period. I will allow it, unless the government objects, to begin after the discussion of the Resolution on the Recognition of Foreign States. Furthermore, I think it would be an illuminating prospect to hold a question period at least one day of the week, in order to allow for more flexible debate in the chamber."
by Merni » Sun May 10, 2020 9:31 pm
Ikania wrote:Merni wrote:"Mr Speaker, I request that we have Question Time after this debate."
"The Honourable Member has requested to hold a question period. I will allow it, unless the government objects, to begin after the discussion of the Resolution on the Recognition of Foreign States. Furthermore, I think it would be an illuminating prospect to hold a question period at least one day of the week, in order to allow for more flexible debate in the chamber."
by Martune » Sun May 10, 2020 10:16 pm
Ikania wrote:Merni wrote:"Mr Speaker, I request that we have Question Time after this debate."
"The Honourable Member has requested to hold a question period. I will allow it, unless the government objects, to begin after the discussion of the Resolution on the Recognition of Foreign States. Furthermore, I think it would be an illuminating prospect to hold a question period at least one day of the week, in order to allow for more flexible debate in the chamber."
by Ikania » Mon May 11, 2020 12:28 am
Martune wrote:Mina walks in and overhears the commotion about Question Time.Ikania wrote:"The Honourable Member has requested to hold a question period. I will allow it, unless the government objects, to begin after the discussion of the Resolution on the Recognition of Foreign States. Furthermore, I think it would be an illuminating prospect to hold a question period at least one day of the week, in order to allow for more flexible debate in the chamber."
"Point of Parliamentary Inquiry, Mr. Speaker, but why is it a matter of government objection that would put the idea of question time to rest. Is it not required that you allot us question time weekly?"
by Van Hool Islands » Mon May 11, 2020 2:33 am
Ikania wrote:Martune wrote:Mina walks in and overhears the commotion about Question Time.
"Point of Parliamentary Inquiry, Mr. Speaker, but why is it a matter of government objection that would put the idea of question time to rest. Is it not required that you allot us question time weekly?"
"It is required. And it will be done. Discussion of the Economic Modernization Act has finished. Debate will now begin on the Resolution on the Recognition of Foreign States. I might give this one more time if it proves to be contentious."
by Merni » Mon May 11, 2020 3:48 am
Van Hool Islands wrote:Ikania wrote:"It is required. And it will be done. Discussion of the Economic Modernization Act has finished. Debate will now begin on the Resolution on the Recognition of Foreign States. I might give this one more time if it proves to be contentious."
Mister Speaker, required by whom? As a member of the government I don't think the government should be able to object to something that's required by our GEA.
by Roosevetania » Mon May 11, 2020 8:23 am
by Kamilistan » Mon May 11, 2020 8:35 am
by Agarntrop » Mon May 11, 2020 9:03 am
by Merni » Mon May 11, 2020 10:44 am
Agarntrop wrote:I cannot support this bill. It jeopardises our safety and our security as a nation. Clause 4.6 will ruin our relationship with the PRC and we will be under constant fiscal threat. To do so would be irresponsible.
by Agarntrop » Mon May 11, 2020 12:34 pm
Merni wrote:Agarntrop wrote:I cannot support this bill. It jeopardises our safety and our security as a nation. Clause 4.6 will ruin our relationship with the PRC and we will be under constant fiscal threat. To do so would be irresponsible.
"Point of order, Mr Speaker, the member did not address you."
by Inhorto » Mon May 11, 2020 12:59 pm
The House of Representatives condemns Government of Israel's policy of encroachment into Palestinian lands through the building of settlements deemed to be in violation of Article 3 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth Geneva Convention).
Agarntrop wrote:I cannot support this bill. It jeopardises our safety and our security as a nation. Clause 4.6 will ruin our relationship with the PRC and we will be under constant fiscal threat. To do so would be irresponsible.
by Agarntrop » Mon May 11, 2020 1:04 pm
Inhorto wrote:"Mr. Speaker, Honorable Colleagues,
"As per bipartisan request, the language of the bill regarding Israeli settlements has been altered to:The House of Representatives condemns Government of Israel's policy of encroachment into Palestinian lands through the building of settlements deemed to be in violation of Article 3 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth Geneva Convention).
"I hope this shall sate their requests. In terms of Clause 4.4, which many Honorable Members have deemed to be too soft on the Chinese government, I should like to remind the body that this government has drafted a bill to condemn the genocide of the Uyghur population. Thank you."Agarntrop wrote:I cannot support this bill. It jeopardises our safety and our security as a nation. Clause 4.6 will ruin our relationship with the PRC and we will be under constant fiscal threat. To do so would be irresponsible.
"Mr. Speaker, I find myself somewhat confused, as Clause 4.6 does not exist in this bill. Could the member clarify what he is referring to?"
by Agarntrop » Mon May 11, 2020 1:15 pm
by Martune » Mon May 11, 2020 6:08 pm
Agarntrop wrote:Motion to extend debate to a period of 72 hours, Mr Speaker, and additional motion for the chair to take amendments.
by Inhorto » Mon May 11, 2020 7:00 pm
Agarntrop wrote:Motion to extend debate to a period of 72 hours, Mr Speaker, and additional motion for the chair to take amendments.
by Merni » Mon May 11, 2020 7:47 pm
by American Pere Housh » Mon May 11, 2020 10:55 pm
Advertisement
Return to Portal to the Multiverse
Users browsing this forum: G-Tech Corporation
Advertisement