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.

You can find out who is on the NEC here and you can see who represents your sector and your region. Some members of the NEC strongly favour a ballot. But those who stood on the slate of the "UCULeft" tend to oppose a ballot, preferring to decide on the issue at Congress, without members having a direct voice. Members who want a direct vote need to tell UCULeft to stop blocking a ballot.

The London School of Hygiene believes that another full year of arguments about a potential boycott of Israeli academic institutions without a decision will be divisive and hence counter to the interests of the members of this union.

In the event of such a ballot we call on all branches to do their best to get a high turn out.

Yes, for all its weaknesses, Congress is the supreme policy making body of the union. The ballot that we want is an indicative one.. Congress ought to know what the members of the union think, and must be guided by that knowledge.

Shouldn’t we hear the debates first, then decide?

Yes, we should hear the debates. UCU is organising debates which are to be held in the first term.. UCU members should go to the debates. We are asking that the debates should be followed by an indicative ballot. The rationale for the debate is to inform members of the arguments for and against a boycott. By the end of October, the debates will have taken place: then the members should, based on the debates and other information, have a direct say.

Are the members informed enough to make a decision?

You’re not in UCU Left are you? Our members are the most highly informed, thoughtful union members in the country. They have a right to express their views, and make their voice heard. We think this is an elitist question, which runs counter to the democratic and member-led nature of the UCU.

Don’t we need an active membership?

We want members to take an active role in the union. We believe that many want to do so – and many want to have a direct vote particularly on the issue of a boycott. One way in which they and we want to be active is to help to determine the direction of the union, is by having a direct vote in a ballot on the boycott. Blocking a ballot stops people form taking an active role. And passing a boycott policy in the absence of a ballot would simply alienate members.

What should be the question in this ballot?

The debate is focussed on one question: Should the UCU adopt a boycott of Israeli academic institutions?

In theory, worries about the question might matter, in practice, everyone knows what this is about.

You are both anti-boycott. Isn’t this just a ruse to defeat it?

It’s true that we both oppose a boycott, but this isn’t a ruse. Some supporters of the boycott also favour a ballot. They realise that a boycott without a democratic mandate will lack legitimacy. We agree with them. Either the members will support a boycott or not. The Union must let us, the members, decide.

Wouldn’t a ballot be expensive?

The current disruption to the normal working of the union is much more expensive than a simple ballot would be. And deciding on a policy without knowing the views of the members would be a catastrophic – and expensive – mistake, as hundreds of members tear up their union cards.

This Branch/LA of UCU recognises that the Israel/Palestine issue is one on which many members hold strong but often divergent views.

In order to facilitate the maximum democratic participation on the decision on whether to have a boycott of Israeli Academic Institutions, this meeting calls on the NEC to organise a ballot of all members on the issue. The Union must carry out the actions mandated by Resolution 30, but move to a ballot as soon as possible after that.