The 2016 motion stated it was an additional criterion, to be added. An additional over-riding criterion would not in itself be a problem to implement.
The five-year rule maintaining continuity of eligibility was a problem already in existence - this would affect any new restriction on eligibility. It was clearly intended that by the movers the motion submitted (that basically you can't have two countries to choose from) should over-ride this. This does not seem to be incompetent, as submitted.
Members submitting a motion simply to correct a perceived anomaly aren't expected to re-write the rules.
Also, there was confusion about the existing criteria which at best were not very visible.
Perhaps most relevantly, the 2016 motion was subject to an amendment from the AGM floor, as noted in the minutes (and cited by the Championship report of this year). However though this was noted at the time as a 'minor amendment', it changed the motion fundamentally.
It's worth remembering that there were only 12 at the meeting, but 30 votes recorded, most presumably proxy voters, who would not have known what they were ultimately going to vote for.
However despite all this, the 2016 motion can not be the main issue - there is no reason why a simple motion aimed at only reducing eligibility should logically result in the creation of a new category of eligibility.
I hope this is helpful
The five-year rule maintaining continuity of eligibility was a problem already in existence - this would affect any new restriction on eligibility. It was clearly intended that by the movers the motion submitted (that basically you can't have two countries to choose from) should over-ride this. This does not seem to be incompetent, as submitted.
Members submitting a motion simply to correct a perceived anomaly aren't expected to re-write the rules.
Also, there was confusion about the existing criteria which at best were not very visible.
Perhaps most relevantly, the 2016 motion was subject to an amendment from the AGM floor, as noted in the minutes (and cited by the Championship report of this year). However though this was noted at the time as a 'minor amendment', it changed the motion fundamentally.
It's worth remembering that there were only 12 at the meeting, but 30 votes recorded, most presumably proxy voters, who would not have known what they were ultimately going to vote for.
However despite all this, the 2016 motion can not be the main issue - there is no reason why a simple motion aimed at only reducing eligibility should logically result in the creation of a new category of eligibility.
I hope this is helpful