This task is about reading the given passage and construct a question about the information present in the passage. Construct a question in such a way that (i) it is unambiguous, (ii) it is answerable from the passage, (iii) its answer is unique (iv) its answer is a continuous text span from the paragraph. Avoid creating questions that (i) can be answered correctly without actually understanding the paragraph and (ii) uses same words or phrases given in the passage.

In November 2012, a referendum resulted in 54 percent of respondents voting to reject the current status under the territorial clause of the U.S. Constitution, while a second question resulted in 61 percent of voters identifying statehood as the preferred alternative to the current territorial status. The 2012 referendum was by far the most successful referendum for statehood advocates and support for statehood has risen in each successive popular referendum. However, more than one in four voters abstained from answering the question on the preferred alternative status. Statehood opponents have argued that the statehood option garnered only 45 percent of the votes if abstentions are included. If abstentions are considered, the result of the referendum is much closer to 44 percent for statehood, a number that falls under the 50 percent majority mark.
What percentage of voters rejected the status of territory?

In Hong Kong, the Supreme Court of Hong Kong (now known as the High Court of Hong Kong) was the final court of appeal during its colonial times which ended with transfer of sovereignty in 1997. The final adjudication power, as in any other British Colonies, rested with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) in London, United Kingdom. Now the power of final adjudication is vested in the Court of Final Appeal created in 1997. Under the Basic Law, its constitution, the territory remains a common law jurisdiction. Consequently, judges from other common law jurisdictions (including England and Wales) can be recruited and continue to serve in the judiciary according to Article 92 of the Basic Law. On the other hand, the power of interpretation of the Basic Law itself is vested in the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) in Beijing (without retroactive effect), and the courts are authorised to interpret the Basic Law when trying cases, in accordance with Article 158 of the Basic Law. This arrangement became controversial in light of the right of abode issue in 1999, raising concerns for judicial independence.
When did Britain formally surrender sovreignty over Hong Kong?

No provision within the constitution grants the monarch an ability to veto legislation directly; however, no provision prohibits the sovereign from withholding royal assent, which effectively constitutes a veto. When the Spanish media asked King Juan Carlos if he would endorse the bill legalising same-sex marriages, he answered "Soy el Rey de España y no el de Bélgica" ("I am the King of Spain and not that of Belgium")—a reference to King Baudouin I of Belgium, who had refused to sign the Belgian law legalising abortion. The King gave royal assent to Law 13/2005 on 1 July 2005; the law was gazetted in the Boletín Oficial del Estado on 2 July and came into effect on 3 July 2005. Likewise, in 2010, King Juan Carlos gave royal assent to a law permitting abortion on demand.
What was King Juan Carlos' response to the media when asked if he would sign a bill supporting same-sex marriage?