FANDOM


Flag of Kosovo Recognizing Kosovo Edit

Congress Voting Options
  • {{pro}} resulting in: Pro Pro
  • {{contra}} gives: Contra Contra
  • {{abstention}} gives: Abstention Abstention

Should Lovia recognize the Republic of Kosovo? More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo All MOTC are asked to vote! Dimitri 12:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Vote Edit

PRO Edit

  • Pro Pro Dimitri 16:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro Lokixx 16:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro Lars 17:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro (after a long period of doubt..) Regaliorum (S Kitana) 10:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    Accepted This proposal is accepted! We hope other MOTC will confirm their support to this proposal later. Dimitri 12:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro To confirm my support to this proposal later. :) --Oos Wes Ilava (Bès) 14:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro Arthur Jefferson Lovian Freethought Academy 16:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC) (I'm sorry for my late confirmation.)

NEUTRAL Edit

  • Neutral Neutral Alexandru 16:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
    Sorry, only MOTC can vote. Dimitri 16:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

CONTRA Edit

none

Laborers Act Edit

Laborers in Lovia should be protected against exploitatation, this especially in dangerous jobs. Therefor, I wrote the Laberors Act. I hope you all share my concern and improve/vote for this proposal. Regaliorum (S Kitana) 17:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Content Edit

1. Standards on dangerous, unhealthy or unpleasant institutions

  • Dangerous, unhealthy or unpleasant institutions are economical activities that endanger the laborer or his health. These include mines and institutions that use explosives.
  • All work, done by volunteers that are paid for their work, that endangers the laborer or his health should be considered a dangerous, unhealthy or unpleasant institution.
  • All dangerous, unhealthy or unpleasant institutions fall under the Laborers act.

2. General instructions on the hygiene and the safety and health of the laborer

  • All institutions defined by article 1, should take precautions concerning the hygiene of the work environment. If this is neglected, [see article 3].
  • All institutions defined by article 1, should take precautions concerning the safety and health of the laborer. If this is neglected, [see article 3].

3. Fining of institutions in summary offence

  • All institutions that neglected one of the prescriptions in article 2 can be brought before State Court by any Lovian citizen or employee of that institution.
  • The institution can be fined if proven to be in summary offence against article 2. This fine is to be declared by the State Court.

4. Premium for laborers that are the victim of the neglecting of article 2

  • All victims of the neglecting of article 2 should bring their employer(s) before the State Court. If not, any chance on a premium is lost.
  • All victims of the neglecting of article 2 should be given a premium by there employer(s), if the employer is proven to be in summary offence against article 2. This premium is to be declared by the State Court.

Adjustments Edit

Some lay-out, spelling and grammar changes:

  1. Standards on dangerous, unhealthy or unpleasant institutions:
    1. Dangerous, unhealthy or unpleasant institutions are economical activities that endanger the laborer or his health. These include mines and institutions that use explosives.
    2. All work, done by volunteers that are paid for their work, that endangers the laborer or his health should be considered a dangerous, unhealthy or unpleasant institution.
    3. All dangerous, unhealthy or unpleasant institutions fall under the Laborers act.
  2. General instructions on the hygiene and the safety and health of the laborer:
    1. All institutions defined by the first article, should take precautions concerning the hygiene of the work environment. If this is neglected, article three defines consequences.
    2. All institutions defined by the first article, should take precautions concerning the safety and health of the laborer. If this is neglected, the third article defines consequences.
  3. Fining of institutions in summary offence:
    1. All institutions that neglected one of the prescriptions in the second article can be brought before State Court by any Lovian citizen or employee of that institution.
    2. The institution can be fined if proven to be in summary offence against the second article. This fine is to be declared by the State Court.
  4. Premium for laborers that are the victim of the neglecting of the second article:
    1. All victims of the neglecting of the second article should bring their employer(s) before the State Court. If not, any chance on a premium is lost.
    2. All victims of the neglecting of the second article should be given a premium by there employer(s), if the employer is proven to be in summary offence against the second article. This premium is to be declared by the State Court.

Talk Edit

What do you think? Regaliorum (S Kitana) 17:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Can I make some adjustments? Dimitri 17:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Ofcourse, but without changing the text too much I hope. Regaliorum (S Kitana) 17:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Fcouz not. You know, spelling, grammar :) Dimitri 17:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, Regaliorum (S Kitana) 17:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I edited it. Okay with you? Dimitri 17:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely! Regaliorum (S Kitana) 09:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's really good. Shall we bring it over to the Second Chamber? Dimitri 12:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok to me. Will you, or do I? Regaliorum (S Kitana) 18:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Would you consider changing the last ## ? You wrote: This premium is to be declared by the State Court.
Personally, I would put it: #### The State Court shall enforce the settlement. Lars 07:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by shall enforce the settlement? Dimitri 15:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
?? Regaliorum (S Kitana) 11:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This is very well. I think Lovia can be proud, with such a Premier! (I am!) Arthur Jefferson Lovian Freethought Academy 11:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Vote Edit

Congress Voting Options
  • {{pro}} resulting in: Pro Pro
  • {{contra}} gives: Contra Contra
  • {{abstention}} gives: Abstention Abstention

PRO Edit

CONTRA Edit

none

Federal Police Act Edit

Text to be added to the Federal Law as Article 5. Written by Secretary of Welfare Arthur Jefferson Lovian Freethought Academy on March 20, 2008.

Content Edit

  • Article 5 - Federal Police Act
    1. To ensure the people's safety the Federal Police is erected under the Federal Police Act, supported by Congress and the Department of Welfare.
    2. The Federal Police is charged with the following duties:
      1. Safety matters transgressing state borders.
      2. International safety matters.
      3. Safety matters which local safety authorities find themselfs unable to handle.
      4. Safety matters of major national importance.
    3. The Federal Police has delegations in all states and is always prepared to help local authorities.
    4. The Federal Police is headed by the Federal Police Commissioner, appointed by the Secretary of Welfare.
    5. The Federal Police is able to set up special units for crime prevention, investigation, training, traffic and many other special tasks.

Talk Edit

Any remarks?

Looks really good. Just written? Great, you'll have my vote! Dimitri 18:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Even no spelling mistakes Smile Dimitri 18:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I shall bring it over to the Second Chamber, within a minute. Arthur Jefferson Lovian Freethought Academy 18:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Vote Edit

Congress Voting Options
  • {{pro}} resulting in: Pro Pro
  • {{contra}} gives: Contra Contra
  • {{abstention}} gives: Abstention Abstention

A 50% majority in Congress is required. All MOTC are asked to vote.

PRO Edit

  • Pro Pro Arthur Jefferson Lovian Freethought Academy 19:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro Dimitri 06:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro Lars 08:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro Oos Wes (Bès) 15:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro Lokixx 06:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
    Accepted This proposal is accepted! Dimitri 14:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

CONTRA Edit

none

Local Police Act Edit

Text to be added to the Federal Law as Article 5. Written by Secretary of Welfare Arthur Jefferson Lovian Freethought Academy on March 20, 2008.

Content Edit

  • Article 6 - Local Police Act
    1. To ensure the people's safety every Lovian state is obliged to erect a local safety authority, under the Local Police Act, supported by Congress and the Department of Welfare.
    2. Every Lovian state is obliged to erect a local police system and is free to choose which system to apply. Several options are available:
      1. State Police, a safety authority working within the state boundaries and handling all issues within that state. This authority is managed by the state government.
      2. City and Town Police, several safety authorities working within their city or town and handling all issues within and in the surroundings of that location. These authorities are managed by local governments.
      3. A combination of these two system. Every town and city has its own Town or City Police, handling all issues within that location, and one State Police, administering local authorities and handling all issues outside towns and cities or issues that concern multiple locations. In that case, local governments manage the Town and City Police, while state government manages the State Police.
    3. Whenever issues transgress state borders the local safety authorities are obliged to hand over the case to the Federal Police. Cooperation whenever asked is required and withholding information on that case is strictly forbidden.
    4. The local police authority is headed by the local Police Chief, appointed by the State Governor.

Talk Edit

Some remarks or required adjustments please? Arthur Jefferson Lovian Freethought Academy 17:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Good as well. One remark: maybe you could add something on who manages the police authority when in City / Town system. Dimitri 18:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
What were you thinking of exactly? Arthur Jefferson Lovian Freethought Academy 18:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I hope this is better, Your Highness. I will directly bring it over to the Second Chamber, to make sure no more delays will occur. Arthur Jefferson Lovian Freethought Academy 19:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
That's indeed what I meant. Dimitri 06:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Vote Edit

Congress Voting Options
  • {{pro}} resulting in: Pro Pro
  • {{contra}} gives: Contra Contra
  • {{abstention}} gives: Abstention Abstention

A 50% majority in Congress is required. All MOTC are asked to vote.

PRO Edit

  • Pro Pro Arthur Jefferson Lovian Freethought Academy 19:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro Dimitri 06:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro Lars 08:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro Oos Wes (Bès) 15:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro Lokixx 06:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
    Accepted This proposal is accepted! Dimitri 14:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

CONTRA Edit

none

Second Amendment Edit

New article in the Constitution:

Content Edit

  • Article 12 - Lovian state
    1. Lovia is a sovereign, independent, unitary and indivisible National State.
    2. Lovia is a democratic and social state, governed by the rule of law, in which human dignity, the citizens' rights and freedoms, the free development of human personality, justice and political pluralism represent supreme values, in the spirit of the democratic traditions of the Lovian people and shall be guaranteed.
    3. Lovia shall be organized based on the principle of the separation and balance of powers -legislative, executive, and judicial - within the framework of constitutional democracy.
    4. In Lovia, the observance of the Constitution, its supremacy and the laws shall be mandatory.
    5. The national sovereignty shall reside within the Lovia people, that shall exercise it by means of their representative bodies, resulting from free, periodical and fair elections, as well as by referendum.
    6. No group or person may exercise sovereignty in one's own name.

Talk Edit

This part is to be added to the Constitution, so our country is "indivisible". What do you MOTC think? Dimitri 12:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It's good for me. Lokixx 11:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Very good written. Is it derived from the Romanian Constitution? It seems to be. Smile Was this text necessary? I thought we all knew these things... But it is a good thing indeed to have it on "paper". Arthur Jefferson Lovian Freethought Academy 18:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Partly Smile How did you know?
It is indeed required, because some people don't respect a nation if they don't have it in a law. Dimitri 06:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Funny. --Oos Wes (Bès) 18:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem, it's just a collection of states. It's against the human rights. Please read those first. --Oos Wes (Bès) 18:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If that would be true, more than half of the entire UNO would be against human rights. These sentences are taken from a real Constitution. Dimitri 18:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
If this will be accepted you know the consequences. But I think it's enough hate for today :) To keep it a little bit peacefull I go. (don't delete or block anything ;) !!)--Oos Wes (Bès) 18:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree with the last amendament. The rest of law is democratic. Is there a Constitutional Court in Lovia? It should aprove the laws (if there are constitutional or not).--Marius Ştefan 18:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
We have the Supreme Court (that's + - the same) Do you actually know the Lovian system?? The law went to the Second Chamber, where all MOTC can vote this law proposal. If it is accepted, it is officially a Constitutional law, meaning it is one of the highest rank. Crimes against the Constitution can get punishments from years to hours, or other punishments. Dimitri 18:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Then...Oooopsss! I will get in prison if the article 12.6 will pass. Nasty of me. =))--Marius Ştefan 18:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Lol Alexandru 19:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Vote Edit

Congress Voting Options
  • {{pro}} resulting in: Pro Pro
  • {{contra}} gives: Contra Contra
  • {{abstention}} gives: Abstention Abstention

A 75% majority in Congress is required. All MOTC are asked to vote.

PRO Edit

CONTRA Edit

none

Leaving UWN Edit

Lovia would like to step out of UWN. All MOTC can vote whether to remain a UWN member or whether to step out.

Dimitri 13:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A short explanation, draft by two Arthur Jefferson and George Matthews:

  • Lovia is not on the same page as Adlibita and Mäöres.
  • Lovia has been criticized heavily the past week, which is awefully bad for our economy and social situation.
  • Lovia wishes to continue her politics, without external comment.
  • Lovia does NOT wish to be at war with Adlibita.

It would be best for Lovia to leave UWN and let UWN decided intern questions. Currently, on almost all UWN member's pubs there are discussion on Lovia, which is bad for internal matters and the Lovian situation. Lovia can rule itself properly, and Congressmembers are asked to vote in favor of stepping OUT of UWN.

Arthur Jefferson
George Matthews, judicial advise
King Dimitri I

Vote Edit

Congress Voting Options
  • {{pro}} resulting in: Pro Pro
  • {{contra}} gives: Contra Contra
  • {{abstention}} gives: Abstention Abstention

PRO Edit

CONTRA Edit

  • Contra Contra Oos Wes Ilava Thoes Bès 12:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC) (explanation: I think there won't ever come a new war, this will also cause the UWN to collapse. Only Libertas and Adlibita will be left.)

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.