Creative
 

Forum:First Chamber

From Wikination

 Lovia Congress
Capitol - Congress - Constitution - Departments - Federal Elections - Federal Law - First Chamber (Forum) - Library of Congress - Member of the Congress - National Archives - Second Chamber (Forum)
More forums? Index > First Chamber

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.

Contents

[edit] Older proposals

See also: National Archives/Chambers/1 One for the the first proposals.
See also: National Archives/Chambers/2 Two for the second series of proposals.
See also: National Archives/Chambers/3 Three for the third series of proposals.
See also: National Archives/Chambers/4 Four for the fourth series of proposals.

[edit] 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:
    • Bars
    • Restaurants
    • Work places
    • Schools
    • the presence of minors.
    • or combinations of these/
  3. Entire smoking ban (all public places)
  4. Or other possibilities?

Dear MOTCs, please give your opinions!

King Dimitri I 10:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk

Comments? Ideas? Opinions? King Dimitri I 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. {{User:Aesopos/HT}} 06:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's make a short conclusion of what you three already said:

  • Pierlot: No ban at all.
  • Robin: Entire ban + near minors, except when they agree
  • Lars: Entire ban + extra costs and taxes.

Any other opinions? King Dimitri I 12:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

What is your opinion to this issue ? {{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. King Dimitri I 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. Lars 17:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I propose (actually OWTB's idea, but I fully agree with him) the following:

  • 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.

Ben (talk) 08:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I dont like that. Pierlot McCrooke 08:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I do not like it either. {{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. Yuri Medvedev 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. King Dimitri I 13:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Content

  • Article 9 - Tobacco Regulations Act
    1. 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.
    2. The use of tobacco is forbidden by the Tobacco Regulations Act of the Federal Law, supported by Congress:
      1. In all governmental buildings, including federal properties, state properties and properties of the city, town, neighborhood, or hamlet.
      2. For all persons aged under 18 years.
      3. In the close environment of persons aged under 12 years.
      4. In the close environment of persons aged older than 12 years and under 18 years, unless permission is given by the minor.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.

[edit] Voting

Main article: Forum:Second Chamber.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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? Yuri Medvedev 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.
The Senate in Libertas
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

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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:
    1. The population is at least 100 and maximum 500. If larger they are considered a town.
    2. The size
      • is smaller than the normal area of a neighborhood,
      • is equal to a normal neighborhood area, but is mostly occupied by natural or agrarian lots.
    3. 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:
    1. The population is at least 100 and maximum 1000. If larger they are considered a town.
    2. The size
      • is smaller than the normal area of a neighborhood,
      • is equal to a normal neighborhood area, but is mostly occupied by natural or agrarian lots.
    3. 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.

[edit] Talk

Dear MOTC, what do you think? King Dimitri I 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? King Dimitri I 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. King Dimitri I 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. King Dimitri I 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)

[edit] Voting

Main article: Forum:Second Chamber.

[edit] LANDFA Act

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

[edit] Content

  • Article 10 - LANDFA Act
    1. 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.
    2. 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:
      1. Protecting Lovia and the Lovian citizens from foreign threats by defending the nation with armed forces;
      2. Providing aid to allied nations and people that are severly threatened by assisting local armed forces and/or by providing humanitarian aid.
    3. The Lovian Army of National Defense and Foreign Aid consists of four branches that cooperate narrowly:
      1. The LANDFA Land Force, the armed forces operating on land.
      2. The LANDFA Navy Force, the armed forces operating on sea.
      3. The LANDFA Air Force, the armed forces operating in the air.
      4. The LANDFA Medical Unit, the medical unit that provides medical care to the Lovian forces, to allied forces, and to civilian society.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. The Lovian Army of National Defense and Foreign Aid can be brought into war with another nation:
      1. 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.
      2. 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.
    7. 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.

[edit] Adjustments

leave this section open for the proposer

[edit] Talk

Opinions? Suggestions?

George Matthews forgot to mention I co-authored this So, yes I like it. King Dimitri I 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). King Dimitri I 16:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
That looks perfect to me! Lars Washington 16:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
King Dimitri I 16:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Voting

Main article: Forum:Second Chamber.

[edit] Change for hamlet act

[edit] Content

Orginal 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:
    1. The population is at least 100 and maximum 500. If larger they are considered a town.
    2. The size
      • is smaller than the normal area of a neighborhood,
      • is equal to a normal neighborhood area, but is mostly occupied by natural or agrarian lots.
    3. The number of administrative, commercial and industrial occupations can be considered low.

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:
    1. The population is at least 10 and maximum 500. If larger they are considered a town.
    2. The size
      • is smaller than the normal area of a neighborhood,
      • is equal to a normal neighborhood area, but is mostly occupied by natural or agrarian lots.
    3. 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 is nothing else then an anual king: someone with a lot of power and without a concrete function. Because of this I would like to suggest an entirely new (at least for most of you) state form named a state democracy. It can be compared to the system they use in Switzerland. 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 report 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 function 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 balance 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. Yuri Medvedev 12:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I know I can't be here (no MOTC) but it's state democracy and Switzerland ;) --OuWTB 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. Yuri Medvedev 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 :( --OuWTB 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. Yuri Medvedev 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 ;) --OuWTB 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? Yuri Medvedev 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 :) --OuWTB 12:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi 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 . Yuri Medvedev 12:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

[edit] Hamlet Act and Village Act

[edit] 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:
    1. The population is at least 100 and maximum 100. If larger they are considered a town.
    2. The size
      • is smaller than the normal area of a neighborhood,
      • is equal to a normal neighborhood area, but is mostly occupied by natural or agrarian lots.
    3. 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:
    1. The population is at least 100 and maximum 500. If larger they are considered a village.
    2. The size
      • is smaller than the normal area of a neighborhood,
      • is equal to a normal neighborhood area, but is mostly occupied by natural or agrarian lots.
    3. 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:
    1. The population is at least 500 and maximum 1000. If larger they are considered a town.
    2. The size
      • is smaller than the normal area of a town,
      • is equal to a normal town area, but is mostly occupied by natural or agrarian lots.
    3. 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.

[edit] 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! Yuri Medvedev 16:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
OK ~~

[edit] Fixing the Constitution

I am sorry I have to bother you all again, but when I made the changes that were approved by the Third Amendement I saw that there were still some problems with our Constitution. I tried to fixe them and took some spelling mistakes out too allong the way. Here is a short version of the proposal:

  1. Article 1 A - Lovian National State:

I found out that a referendum is possible in Lovia, only it wasn’t very clear. Since a referendum is one of the most democratic means of politics, I wish to make it fully part of the Constitution.

  1. Article 2 - Rights of every human being in Lovia

This one needed some cleaning. There is a spelling mistake ('statuses' needs to become 'statutes'). I also found something that makes no sence: "Every person has the right to be arrested in a trial and to be treated correctly." I believe that needs to become "to have a trial and to be treated correctly after being arrested'. Then I would like to delete the part that gives the King (must have slipped my attention the first time, sry) and the Prime Minister the right to have four residences. (I can do my work with only three, like the other MOTC ).

Article 5 - Legislature and executive power I have seen that there could be a discussion in some cases: Is it a matter for the State Court or the Supreme Court? Falls it under the jurisdiction of the local or state government? In those cases we need to have a solution. Therefore, I suggest we add a fourth point, stating that the Supreme Court should decide.

Articles 6 and seven - Editing the Federal or State Law/Editing the Constitution Sometimes the congress is asked to vote for things they aren’t meant to vote for (according to the current Constitution!!), like recognizing a country. The Congress can only vote for actual laws. I wish to extend the power of the Congress by means of fusing together Articles 6 and 7 of the Constitution and adding an extra part:

Article 6: A - Editing the State Law B - Editing the Federal Law C - Editing the Constitution D - Other powers of the Congress

Article 8.1 - Federal Elections I would like to add the actual start and stop dates of the federal elections (instead of just saying 'every year'). There is also a spelling mistake (then needs to become than) and there should be a system to make sure elections are held fair - the Congress could oversee that one.

I hope this will be the last time we need to revise the constitution in such a manner. PS: I will also change the LANDFA act, so make sure to vote! Yuri Medvedev 14:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recognizing South Ossetia and Abkhazia

The South Ossetian flag
The Abkhazian flag

I would like to propose the recognition of those two (de facto independant) regions. Just like we recognized Kosovo in February this year. Both situations are very alike: a certain etnic majority in part of the country feels repressed and wants to become a recognized independent state. I would like to know what the other congressmen think about this? Just for the good order:

  • This isn't in any way a support to the military actions (from both Russian and Georgian troops) in the past few weeks.
  • This is a way of letting the 'western' countries (Europe and the VS) know that independence and the right of ruling yourself (nl: zelfbeschikkingsrecht) aren't values that should be used for economic and strategic profits. (reffered to the Kosovar issue).

I think that Lovia has always been very tolerable towards new nations and I hope we can welcome two of them soon. The Prime Minister, Yuri Medvedev 08:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk

I like it. Ben (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Congressmen, I personally think we should do anything to help this region of the world. And perhaps recognizing both regions is a step in the good direction, but I am not quite convinced yet. A first argument, is the crisis between our American allie and the Russian Federation. If we recognize them, we might offend our diplomatic and economical partner or support Russia in its aggresive behavior. Lovia should have a leading role when it comes down to creating a stable situation for the Georgian and Russian citizens, as a mediator. Recognizing them will worsen the trans Atlantic connections, will strengten other regions in their separatism and doesn't guarantee safety for the inhabitants of Ossetia, Abchazia or Georgia. Grtz, Arthur Jefferson 15:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
South Ossetians and Abkhazians are not even from the same ethnic family as Georgians, French/Italian/German/Greek are. --OuWTB 04:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reactions from citizens

Very good idea! It's really sad that only Russia has recognised both countries so far. Lovia must recognise them! --OuWTB 06:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Oef, I'm glad you say that. I was affraid I wouldn't find any support. That's why I waited so long before making this proposal. I am really glad you agree. Yuri Medvedev 07:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
People just don't see that Russia meant it good, they only quite overdid (like destroying all military bases of Georgia) --OuWTB 07:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Vergeet ook niet Transnistria, Gagauzia, Szeklerland, de Krim, Somaliland, Tibet, Baskenland, Vojvodina, Catalonië, Asturië, Bretagne, duizenden regio's in de Caucasus, Afrika en in Rusland zelf, te erkennen

En Vlaanderen, Wallonië en Limburg natuurlijk :D Alexandru 12:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Pfff... Vergeet je Sealand niet? --OuWTB 12:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
En Tsjetsjenie, Ingoesetie, en wat dacht je van Noord-Ossetië? Alexandru 12:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Of Fryslân? --OuWTB 12:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe make a list of all the countries involved and we will afvinken them, meaning we agree! Lars Washington 15:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lovian Dollar

Currently we still use the US Dollar, but I would like to see a change. Why couldn't we have our own? I already created the article, but the Lovian Dollar still needs his blessings from the Congress. Yuri Medvedev 10:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

What would be the rate of the Lovian Dollar to the USD or the € ? It is obvious the only ones gaining from this new currency would be the banks. Or is it your intention to replace all currencies by the Lovian Dollar ? Lars Washington 13:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
For the values see here. --OuWTB 14:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk

Looks just great! It's important to have a conform policy concerning currencies. Arthur Jefferson 15:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reactions from citizens

I support a Lovian Dollar. Alexandru 12:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Or a korune? --OuWTB 12:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://nation.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:First_Chamber"