| Repeal the Colonies Act 2015 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 28 2015, 10:27 PM (136 Views) | |
| Arcadia | May 28 2015, 10:27 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Administrator
|
The Colonies Act 2015 hasn't be used, has been widely panned as pointless and annoying and doesn't really work. While in theory it was a good idea in practice it hasn't turned out that way. |
![]() |
|
| Charlie T. O. Jones | May 28 2015, 11:57 PM Post #2 |
|
I would support this repeal as given that Puppet States are effectively prohibited, the formation of colonies totally dependent upon and governed by a parent nation, should not be impeded, except in cases where land claimed for colonies, is, like land claimed for the parent nation, geographically distant from the parent nation, and unrealistically extensive, or indeed, a claim of strategically valuable territory. In short, I don't think there is a need for legislation prohibitive of colonies because there are already laws in place preventing undue and unrealistic expansion, while conventions are in place outright prohibiting the establishment or use of puppet states. This is in addition to the fact that the Colonies Act has largely been a failure, as I myself have been able to claim lands distant from the core of my nation without the need to declare them as colonies, and without the need to follow the prohibitive restrictions outlined in the Act. I do however think that upon the repeal of this act, the definition of a colony, should be rendered as, for legal purposes: "any political entity dependant upon and under the sovereignty of the parent nation, with limited autonomous government, no competence over foreign policy and no representation in the government of the parent nation" naturally, because colonies would effectively be under the sovereignty of, yet separate from the parent nation, the parent nation could enact any policies over the colonies which would not affect the population of the parent nation itself, and the colonial government could in no way enact policies contradictory to those of the parent nation. In short, think of colonies as like the Province of Massachusetts Bay, with a Strong Executive Officer appointed by, and thus under the control of the parent nation, and a weak legislature partially appointed by the Executive Officer/Parent Nation, and partially elected by the population of the colony, with the judiciary enforcing the laws of the colony and of the parent state in the colony and the Parent Nation holding effective supreme power over the colony. This way, puppet states can be avoided, as, according to the rules of the game, colonies could be considered under the sovereignty of, yet separate from, the parent nation. An example would be the British Overseas Territories, such as Montserrat. In conclusion, because there is already convention and law prohibiting establishment of puppet states and unrealistic claim or expansion of territory, there is no real need to regulate nor prohibit the establishment of colonies, so long as such colonies are not puppet states, nor are based upon unrealistic or strategically valuable claims of territory. |
![]() |
|
| New Wolfeinstein | May 29 2015, 12:39 PM Post #3 |
|
I feel like the colonies act is sort of useless when were all on the same planet. I think it would be used a lot more if we were permitted to RP on other worlds and it was edited for such. |
![]() |
|
| Unibearia | May 29 2015, 12:47 PM Post #4 |
|
I second what wolfy said. If ever the RP goes interstellar then we would have use for it |
![]() |
|
| Charlie T. O. Jones | May 29 2015, 01:34 PM Post #5 |
|
Mayhaps if it was amended to regulate off world colonies then? While allowing the existence of colonies on Yukon as Federal Subjects of the parent nation (i.e. Massachusetts is a Federal Subject of the USA). |
![]() |
|
| Unibearia | May 29 2015, 01:37 PM Post #6 |
|
That could work. Because right now, we are missing a larger player base to go interstellar but if we have the base for it then when the time comes We can do it without any time to waste |
![]() |
|
| Ajerrin | May 29 2015, 03:53 PM Post #7 |
|
I'm against the creation of colonies and adding the numbers/abilities/powers of puppet states to your own. For example: Ajerrin has East Ajerrin and Schuldtland as part of its Empire - but in name only. They can park here as a puppet but not be used. I'm for bringing more voices to the RP table, not the same voice of another owner. This allows smaller nations to not feel miniscule, which would require them to build colonies themselves to even attempt to battle with the larger nations. If |
![]() |
|
| Charlie T. O. Jones | May 29 2015, 04:30 PM Post #8 |
|
If colonies were to be established, they would have to be under the sovereignty of the Parent nation, and would have no competence over foreign policy, that being the remit of the parent nation only. This would allow territorial possessions to be established which the parent nation could fully exploit, without creating puppet states, which would cause difficulties. In addion, if colonies were to be established, they must be considered part of the parent nation, and their populations must be subtracted from the parent nation, not added on top of the parent nation population. Here is how it would work: - The Kingdom of Croxoco has 8,000,000,000 people in NS itself; - The Kingdom wants to establish a colony, called "Columbia"; - Columbia will have a population of 250,000,000 people; - This will be subtracted from that of the Kingdom of Croxoco; - Thus, the Kingdom of Croxoco would have a population of only 7,750,000,000 People - The Empire of Croxoco, that is, the Kingdom and it's Colony would thus have a total population of 8,000,000,000 people, but this would be divided, with the Kingdom (parent nation) having 7,750,000,000 People and Columbia (the colony) having 250,000,000 people. Think of colonies as a cross between exploitive and settle colonies, where people from the parent nation physically migrate to unpopulated lands to set up colonies in order to exploit the resources found there. A population would migrate to the colony, but this would not increase the overall population of the country; it would merely displace the population of the nation. |
![]() |
|
| Arcadia | May 29 2015, 08:33 PM Post #9 |
![]()
Administrator
|
This proposal exists for the repeal of the Colonies Act, the topic of what should replace it shall be dealt with in due course. |
![]() |
|
| Charlie T. O. Jones | May 30 2015, 04:57 PM Post #10 |
|
I Support a full repeal of the act so that new, clearer rules on territorial claims and puppet states can be established in a new act. |
![]() |
|
| 46566 | May 30 2015, 05:18 PM Post #11 |
![]()
|
I'm for a repeal. It seemed to be a needless addition. It seems to me that any use of colonies almost needs puppets to do so.I rather not go through that problem again. |
![]() |
|
| Charlie T. O. Jones | May 30 2015, 05:37 PM Post #12 |
|
Exactly. By definition, if we go to the height of empire, Colonies were effectively ruled by the parent nation, but the colonial administrations themselves had devolved power to develop the colonies. Effectively, Colonies would under the sovereignty of, yet separate from, the parent nation. Look at British India for example, from between 1858 to 1914. Yes the colonial administration ruled india itself, but foreign policy was handled by London. Further more, London could legislate in all cases whatsoever for india and its other colonies. Thus because colonies would be effectively ruled by the parent nation, they would practically be part of the parent nation, populations et cetera being subtracted from the parent nation, as colonies would displace a national population, rather than add to it. There is thus no need for a colonies act, as so long a the normal rules of territorial claims, and the prohibition of puppet states is maintained, there is really no need for legislation regulating the establishment of colonies. |
![]() |
|
| 46566 | May 30 2015, 05:41 PM Post #13 |
![]()
|
With the whole subtracting of the population it would be pointless to have a colony in the first place. It would basically be part of your country anyway. A colony act would only be effective if we allowed puppet usage.(with the benefits and problems associated with them) |
![]() |
|
| Charlie T. O. Jones | May 30 2015, 06:18 PM Post #14 |
|
Exactly, so there is little need for a colonies act, whether it governs colonies established on Yukon or in the Exodite System. |
![]() |
|
| Charlie T. O. Jones | May 31 2015, 02:20 PM Post #15 |
|
Unless there be more debating to be had, I motion for a vote on the repeal of the Colonies Act |
![]() |
|
| Arcadia | May 31 2015, 04:09 PM Post #16 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Can I hear a second to the motion? |
![]() |
|
| New Wolfeinstein | May 31 2015, 05:06 PM Post #17 |
|
I second the motion |
![]() |
|
| Arcadia | May 31 2015, 05:37 PM Post #18 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Very well the repeal goes to the vote. Please declare Aye, Nay or Abstain. |
![]() |
|
| Charlie T. O. Jones | May 31 2015, 06:56 PM Post #19 |
|
Aye |
![]() |
|
| New Wolfeinstein | Jun 1 2015, 02:45 AM Post #20 |
|
Aye |
![]() |
|
| Unibearia | Jun 1 2015, 04:08 AM Post #21 |
|
Abstain
Edited by Unibearia, Jun 1 2015, 04:09 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Arcadia | Jun 2 2015, 02:28 PM Post #22 |
![]()
Administrator
|
The two day voting period is over and the Act passes 2-0-1. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Legislative Archives · Next Topic » |
| Theme: Zeta Original | Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
7:21 PM Jul 11
|








7:21 PM Jul 11