All comments are in a personal capacity

Philip Burgess, Dundee UCU and National Executive:

The UCU Left leadership believes that “democracy by plebiscite is a fallacy.” They argue that the members are not well enough informed about Middle-East politics to merit a direct vote on the boycott.
Nonsense. The right to insist on a ballot derives not from “expertise” or political commitment, but from the fact that the members ARE the union. The function of Executive and Congress is to serve the membership by improving salaries and conditions of service. We elect them for that, not to foist their political prejudices on us.

If you want to know what the Union thinks; ask the members. Hold a ballot.

Andrew Morgan, President, Swansea UCU and National Executive

Staff join the Union to gain a measure of individual protection and to have an effective collective voice on employment issues. Where the Union departs from direct employment matters then there is, and must be, a democratic deficit – a deficit that can only be addressed through a direct consultation of the members. Members are owed a ballot on the issue of the Israeli Boycott.

Dr John Fry, President, Liverpool UCU:

Congress delegates and committee members are elected to represent members on UCU core issues, not foreign policy. For an “Israeli boycott” to become UCU policy or be struck from UCU business for the foreseeable future we therefore need a referendum of all members. Anything less will be divisive and will not be accepted by the membership

Bob Mason, Branch Committee, Ulster UCU

There is no clear division between "work" and "political" issues: both are central union functions. However, this a highly divisive issue and moreover one in which Congress mandated a national debate and information campaign. As UCU needs more member engagement, this is surely an issue on which a ballot is essential if we are to have a clear unified voice on the issue.

Alex Arthur, Treasurer, Aberdeen UCU:

There are many ways in which UCU members can, individually or through appropriate collectives, oppose the appalling treatement of the Palestinian population by the Israeli state machinery. Why do we need to use the UCU to do this? The boycott debate is damaging the Union's capacity to fulfil its central purpose. Its credibility and its decision making processes are both being undermined. This is doing constitutional damage, and the membership should be allowed to express an opinion.

Tom Pike, Branch Committee, Imperial UCU:

A boycott has to be a concerted, collective action, if it is to be effective. Otherwise it's empty, gesture politics. So whatever one's views on the boycott, a ballot of all the membership has to determine the way forward. A majority for a boycott would certainly cause anger and resignations for what would be a minority. But it would dispel at a stroke the feeling that those calling for a boycott were a group of unrepresentative and disruptive activists. If the vote was against a boycott it it would allow a pause for the UCU to refocus its energies on other pressing issues of immediate interest to UCU members.

Of course UCU should not have to wait until the salary and conditions of its members are appropriate and assured before addressing any wider issues. But the membership are expending disproportionate efforts in discussing the proposed boycott. Meanwhile we disadvantage ourselves with our employers, and dissipate our energies in our own work. We need a ballot of the membership to bring the clarity of democracy to bear.