From: andyc@is.morgan.com (Andrew Coad)
Subject: Re: English veto
Organization: Morgan Stanley - IS
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:22:42 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.211546.22657@walter.bellcore.com>, shamim@bellcore.com (Shamim Naqvi,MRE-2E342,829-4711,,21273) writes:
|> In article 134144@is.morgan.com,  andyc@is.morgan.com (Andrew Coad) writes:
|> >In article <1992Nov13.144040.12580@walter.bellcore.com>, shamim@bellcore.com (Shamim Naqvi,MRE-2E342,829-4711,,21273) writes:
|> >
|> >> Actually, England to their credit never used the veto, officially. 
|> >> 
|> >> Privately, of course, many motions were never presented because of the threat of the veto.
|> >> 
|> >> 	--SAN
|> >
|> >Can you give us netters some examples of motions that were never presented? It
|> >would be interesting so see the nature of them. Also, who actually threatened to
|> >veto? Was it England alone, England and Australia or just Australia?
|> >
|> >Andrew Coad
|> 
|> The banning of SA from test status was
|> delayed by several years although the WI, India and Pak pressed for the
|> issue.  Australia and England had some reservations about the ban. 
|> A more recent example was that of SL gaining test status: it was not 
|> presented until there was private agreement from England. 
|> The front foot no-ball rule was delayed a few years by Australia. 
|> There are other less well known examples. 
|> 
|> 	--SAN
|> 

Just spoke to my uncle who was on the ICC from 1967 to 1991 and this is the info
that he has given me on the above issues.

1) There was no private or public threat of veto for the banning of S.A. from
either England or Australia and it was certainly not a drawn out issue as far as
the ICC was concerned (it was belaboured in the press for some time - both for 
cricket and rugby union). He does not recall who proposed and seconded the motion
but he does recall that it was passed unanimously, with very little debate.
   What was a lengthy drawn out debate was whether to re-admit SA to Test cricket.
The principal objectors to this were India, Pakistan and West Indies and England
and Australia did nothing to persuade these countries to change there mind as they
too are opposed to apartheid. When SA relaxed their apatheid policy (relating to
sport) by abolishing separate seating, toilet and transport facilities at and
around sporting venues, the ICC voted shortly thereafter to re-admit SA. This
motion was again passed unanimously with little or no debate.

2) SL gained Test status after their performance in the '79 ICC Trophy showed
them to be clearly way ahead of all other associate members. Apparently, it was
not this performace alone but '79 was the culminating year where their class was
completely evident. Again, Uncle Joe does not recall who proposed and seconded
the motion but it was passed without opposition.

3) Neither he nor I recall when the front foot no-ball rule was introduced as it
was so long ago. We think it was in the fifties and, yes, it affected Australia
the most although neither of us recall why. Whether or not Australia threatened
to use veto power to stop the passing of this rule is probably impossible since
cricket rules are set by the MCC not ICC and Australia has no sway over the MCC.


All in all San, I think you are off the mark when you hint at concious (or
subconcious) control of the ICC by either England or Australia. Also remember that
for motions to be tabled at the ICC you need a proposer and seconder; motions
that do not reach the table probably reflects an inablility to garner a seconder
rather than a veto threat by England/Australia.

One final point: If I were on the ICC and I was threatened with a veto, I would
table the motion just so I could have it on record that the motion had been
vetoed. I assume that existing representatives would do something similar and I
certainly would not expect them meekly accept a veto threat. If any countries
have submitted to the threat of a veto then the problem lies with the
representatives - they should get new ones. 

Good luck buddy.

AC