“Twin Avalon's amendment is plainly not in the national interests of Avalon's people. The package is worded in such a way that it could be interpreted as a peace treaty made by Port Avalon's leaders rather than the legally established judicial system of Avalon. It is dubious enough that Port Avalon declared independence without consulting Avalon itself, and that it has been deaf to any criticism of the process: and it is worse that our great Constitution risks being sullied by a party which has never once governed in the interests of Avalon, but only in the interests of a government who want nothing to do with our nation. As a former ally of ours said, to codify Port Avalon's existence in the Constitution is akin to giving them the keys to the kingdom, and as such, DG will never support the independence of Port Avalon or its legitimisation in legal frameworks.”
Package Overview (1 measure)
FailedOpening this package cost 60 PP.
What would change
Full constitution with changes markedCurrent wording is shown as it was when voting began.
Amendments
Proposer's case
This amendment formally recognizes the independence of the Free City of Port Avalon and brings Avalon’s Constitution in line with the political reality established after its peaceful independence. By permanently renouncing territorial claims, it removes a potential source of future conflict and provides legal certainty for both states. At the same time, it establishes peaceful coexistence, mutual respect, and close cooperation as constitutional principles, ensuring that future governments pursue diplomacy, trade, and partnership instead of confrontation. The amendment lays the foundation for a stable, prosperous, and peaceful relationship between Avalon and the Free City of Port Avalon.
Vote tally
Parliament
FailedFor: 17 / 100 seats (17.0%) — needs 66.6%
Against: 41 · Abstained: 0 · Not voted: 42
| Party | Seats | Vote | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cashmen | 8 | No | i wanna recaputre them. sorry. |
| Centrist Zone | 11 | No | We fervently oppose this bill to sell out our sovereignty |
| Democratic Group | 22 | No | Twin Avalon's amendment is plainly not in the national interests of Avalon's people. The package is worded in such a way that it could be interpreted as a peace treaty made by Port Avalon's leaders rather than the legally established judicial system of Avalon. It is dubious enough that Port Avalon declared independence without consulting Avalon itself, and that it has been deaf to any criticism of the process: and it is worse that our great Constitution risks being sullied by a party which has never once governed in the interests of Avalon, but only in the interests of a government who want nothing to do with our nation. As a former ally of ours said, to codify Port Avalon's existence in the Constitution is akin to giving them the keys to the kingdom, and as such, DG will never support the independence of Port Avalon or its legitimisation in legal frameworks. |
| Twin Avalon Proposer | 17 | Yes | No reason given |
Voting record
Every vote must state a public reason. Most recent first.
“i wanna recaputre them. sorry.”
“We fervently oppose this bill to sell out our sovereignty”