So is he refusing to get a security clearance, or is he incapable of obtaining one? If the latter he should be disqualified from running for office.

  • m-p{3}A
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    9 months ago

    Can you even become Prime Minister without a security clearance?

    • ryper
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      9 months ago

      He’ll get it when he’s Prime Minister, because then he’ll be done complaining about the Prime Minister.

      • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Well the contemporary prime minister at least… he’ll never stop bitching about Trudeau.

      • Cobrachickenwing
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        I thought he got one when he was a cabinet minister. How can you be part of a cabinet if you don’t even have security clearance? It would be a major blunder in Harper’s part if he didn’t have one at the start.

    • nyan@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      There doesn’t seem to be a specific list of qualifications for the PM (technically you don’t even have to be an MP), so presumably yes.

      • ILikeBoobies
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        technically you don’t even have to be an MP

        How? It’s just the MP that receives the most votes from other MPs

        • payzdom
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          There are no official requirements to be prime minister, just that they must lead with the confidence of the House. The government general could technically appoint whoever the hell they want, but by convention a prime minister should be an MP (or at least will soon to be an MP) who leads the leading party or coalition and it would be a complete political shitshow that’d likely lead to a constitutional crisis were it egregiously broken.

          Edit: also to specify, the PM isn’t elected by parliament, it’s an appointed position by the governor general

          • GreyEyedGhost
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            It isn’t required that they be an MP, only that they lead the party, have the approval of the governor, and have the confidence of Parliament. In this case, though, they can’t vote on any laws, since they haven’t been elected. The usual solution is for an elected MP of the party in a riding that is strong for that party to step down, triggering a by-election with the PM runs in. This has happened before, and will doubtless happen again.

          • nyan@lemmy.cafe
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            Exactly. Historically, there have also been a couple of cases of Senators succeeding to the post when the incumbent PM died (for example, John Abbott ).

            I’m not sure there’s even any formal legal barrier to the Governor General picking someone off the street at random; it’s just never done.

            • payzdom
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              There’s no legal barrier given the prime minister is barely legally recognized at all, however they would almost certainly not be leading with the confidence of the house and doing so would likely result in a constitutional crisis.

          • ILikeBoobies
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            The MPs can vote for someone who isn’t leader/in their party but thanks