| Poll: Should the Security Threat status be removed from the member in question? You do not have permission to vote in this poll. |
|||
| Aye | 17 | 68.00% | |
| Nay | 7 | 28.00% | |
| Abstain | 1 | 4.00% | |
| Total | 25 vote(s) | 100% | |
| * You voted for this item. | [Show Results] |
| Removal of Belschaft's status as a Security Threat |
|
This is a vote to remove the security threat status pertaining to Belschaft.
Pursuant to Article 1.2.7 of the Charter, the procedures for voting are as follows Quote:7. Citizenship may be removed by a majority vote of the Cabinet if a nation is found to be a security threat. Citizens removed for being a security threat may appeal to the Assembly which may reverse the removal by a 75% majority vote in favor. The motion requires 75% of voters to vote in favour in order to pass. The voting period will last for 3 days Debate on the motion can be viewed here. Voting will conclude on Monday, 15 February 2016 at 6:07pm (GMT+8). A countdown timer is available here
So far it quite looks like this will pass.
Don't jinx it!
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png)
Never count the votes to till the polling closes <_<
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator This vote has failed 17-7 (70.83%) with 1 abstention(s). As the percentage of voters who voted in favour is below the required 75% threshold, the Security Threat designation on member Belschaft remains in effect.
Well. I guess Belschaft should have stuck with Hileville and his cabinet rather than restore the Coalition.
How ironic that after everything, the very people he decided to help are the primary voices in preventing him being able to return to The South Pacific's society. I wonder... It does appear that nothing has changed and clearly nothing shall. Pity, but alas the rule of law only goes so far in a browser game. It's a shame more people don't realise that. Some of us shall not make such mistakes again.
*sighs*
Too be quite frank I expected this outcome, considering the absurdity of the law, which is why I wanted Tsu to just revoke the designation. However, he was understandably wary of doing so unilaterally. However, with the clear support of over 70% of the Assembly, I can only hope that he feels this is a sufficient mandate to do so. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator (02-15-2016, 07:17 AM)Lord Ravenclaw Wrote: Well. I guess Belschaft should have stuck with Hileville and his cabinet rather than restore the Coalition. I think these are premature conclusions to reach. I'm certainly not thrilled with the outcome either, but 71% of voting citizens did vote to overturn Belschaft's security threat designation. The problem, as is often the case, is a flaw in the charter, and we all knew coming into this process that constitutional reform is needed -- hence the upcoming Great Council. I believe those who voted to obstruct the clear will of a 71% supermajority of voting citizens behaved irresponsibly, but I don't think this means nothing has changed, nothing will change, that the rule of law must be disregarded, or that Belschaft should have continued the recent coup. I definitely understand and relate to the frustration, but let's wait and see if the Cabinet overturns the security threat designation, if the law is changed so a lesser supermajority can overturn it, and what outcome discussions about security threat designations in general during the Great Council might yield. Rome wasn't built in a day. Which isn't much comfort to Belschaft as he is being disenfranchised by seven people, but all I'm saying is let's be patient and continue working toward change. |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Former Offices
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |