Students determined for YUSU to disafiliate from the National Union of Students have discovered a near certain method to force a referendum on YUSU NUS affiliation in week 8.
The election of Malia Bouattia, who is accussed of holding antisemitic views, as NUS President and the defeat of One Member One Vote at the NUS national conference sparked widespread desire to dissafiliate before the next compulsory referendum next year.
At an unprecedently well-attended YUSU AGM yesterday YUSU President Ben Leatham revealed that if YUSU received a policy proposal to disafiliate from the NUS then it would almost certainly trigger a referendum for week 8.
YUSU policies are initially debated by the Policy Review Group, YUSU networks and the Trustee Board and, if considered contentious enough, policies will be put to the student body for a referendum.
At the AGM Leatham claimed that there definitely would be a referendum if they received a policy proposal to disafiliate from the NUS.
York Vision can exclusively reveal that a core group of elected coordinators of the disifiliation campaign are currently drafting such a proposal.
One Member One Vote, proposed by YUSU President Ben Leatham, would have created a new NUS electoral system whereby the Vice-President and the President would be elected via a direct ballot by students.
Currently the NUS President and Vice-President are elected by delegates to the NUS national conference who are elected in turn by students during local Student Union elections.
The NUS conference has also been criticised for passing a motion that some say constitutes a ban on Yik Yak during election periods.
Bouattia herself has been accused of antisemitism for comments she has made regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict.
Bouattia, who is widely considered to be pro-Palestine has said in regards to the conflict: “To consider that Palestine will be free only by means of fundraising, non-violent protest and the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement is problematic.”
She has also accused the mainstream media of being controlled by “Zionists” and has described the EU definition of antisemitism as “ominous.”
Additionally, the members of the anti-NUS campaign are trying to force a referendum sooner by circulating a petition amongst students proposing a referendum which, if succesful, would trigger a referendum five days after its submission to YUSU.
The petition, which currently has under 200 signatories, would require 5% of students, around 800 people, for it to force an emergency referendum.
An emergency referendum can also be triggered by a simple majority of the Trustee board or the full-time officers – however Leatham has made clear that neither of these routes will be pursued.
YUSU NUS affiliation must be renewed via a referendum every three years. The last one took place in the 2014/15 academic year, and students voted overwhelmingly to remain affiliated.
The next compulsory referendum is scheduled for the next academic year, however campaigners fear the summer break will sap the monentum out of their movement.
Students from several other universities including Oxford, Cambridge, Manchester, Birmingham, Exeter, Aberystwyth and Kings Colleges London have organised similar campaigns to disafiliate from the NUS.
If all the campaigns are successful the NUS will face an unprecedented mass disaffiliation.
One student, who wanted to remain anonymous, criticised how the AGM was conducted purporting that votes on reaffiliation took place at the last two AGMs.
He told York Vision: “Based on the experience of past AGMs, there were votes described as being on the affiliation with the NUS.
“I believe it was most likely that this was an error in the explanation of what these were at previous AGMs – but I am unhappy to think that YUSU believes the triennial consultation is sufficient.”
The university campaign attracted members of several political societies including the Labour Club, the York Tories, the UoY Lib Dems, the York UKIP Association, York Greens, PalSoc, York Liberty and the York Union.
Leatham said: “There are definite issues with NUS democratic process.
“I know many students have legitimate frustrations and it’s absolutely right that they’re asking if the NUS representing all students.
"That is why we submitted a One Member One Vote motion and pushed so hard to get it heard.
"Hopefully the national discussion that is now taking place will encourage NUS to think about the way they operate and whether or not improvements can be made."
Neither the prg or the trustees debate policy. A propsal is consulted on by several groups including networks, colleges and a few other groups, and the prg attempts to determine if there is a consensus amongst the responses. If there isnt, the proposal goes to referendum.
My major disappointment is that Mr Leatham and the rest of the Sabbs, and the Trustees, have decided to make this harder than it has to be. He near enough admitted that a referendum is a certainty, so why did he not instruct one of these bodies to trigger an extraordinary referendum, saving students trying to trigger one through any of the procedures time and effort?