2009-06-24 07:19:49
A vote to disband the NEA has passed; Regent vetoes
LONDON (AAP) - A few hours after a vote to disband the National English Army had passed, Her Royal Highness, Princess Regent Cruzincat Degas, decided to use her rights and vetoed the vote, suspending the dismantling of the army.
After an earlier vote to revoke the NEA had failed, due to disorders in the vote - some have voted without writing their votes on the protocol - a new voted was called to disband the army. Following five days of casting of ballots, the initiative was approved with a majority of 33 votes over 23 objectors, with 8 abstainers.
Several hours after the vote was concluded, HRH the Regent published an official veto against the vote. In her note, she said: "I have watched the bickering, the arguing, and the insults over what to do with the NEA, and am convinced that if we work together to change a few things within the charter of the NEA we CAN make it work." She referred to the various discussions had votes that had taken place in the House of Parliament during the last month. HRH described that she is well-aware to the faults and weaknesses of the NEA, but by no means she expected this act to be done. She said: "I am ashamed of how some of the people in these chambers have been acting and am embarrassed to call myself English sometimes. Get it together people, WORK TOGETHER! If you spent as much energy working together as you do fighting, just think of all that you could accomplish."
The veto has resulted in diverse comments from members of parliament. Some were even questioning whether the vote to call off the NEA was valid and legal. There were claims of invalidity of the vote, due to Lancaster and Sussex's lack of participation. Hagman de Stryke, Baron of Clifton, explained: "I believe the Regent is within her rights under charter to issue the veto. However, the Parliament, itself, is in violation of its own charter on the whole matter, because the alleged amendment being quoted as precedent to justify the current voting procedures was never passed legally in the first place. Parliament, per its own charter, requires a two thirds vote, seventy one votes to be concise, in favour of amending, out of the whole of its one hundred eight members. The article of amendment being quoted as precedent for the current votes never achieved more than forty votes total, much less the seventy one required to amend. Therefore, the voting is illegal even without Her Highness' veto. Further, the Parliament, by its own charter, will require the same seventy one votes to overturn this veto, else be further in violation of its own charter. I therefore am of the opinion that Her Royal Highness should be doing a lot more than simply issuing a veto."
The vetoing of HRH has caused a major crisis amongst other members of Parliament. Sir Aeneas from Stafford had initiated a vote of no confidence in response of the Regent's veto, though he stresses that he had many other reasons for which to call this vote. He said: "Now we stand here, at the brink of civil war. And I call Cruzincat out for her term full of doing nothing and causing damage to the kingdom of England. These are facts mixed with my opinions, you may very well feel differently. But above all, Cat as regent has done nothing to improve England. And now the bickering is as worse as it has ever been, with our national institutions falling apart, and she has not halted it. And NO, putting a veto on disbanding the NEA is not halting it, it is merely not acknowledging that the NEA is over."
Chaucer for the AAP