Final referenda motions now online:
21 Feb 2005 17:47
| Comments (8)
| Report a problem
Was it composite who added 'Further resolves' to the two motions on international politics? If so it was a good idea.
21 Feb 2005, 20:28
Yes, composite added the 'Further resolves' although that was in the light of amendments submitted to both motions in relation to this matter.
Composite spent a long time making sure that the motions put to a vote were incompatible before confirming this decision.
For the people who attended Composite Group, it amounts to 5 hours 40 minutes that is probably best forgotten!
22 Feb 2005, 00:00
Some of that is truly shocking. It's unbelievable that Union politics can be so contradictory. No doubt I will get a blog entry up sometimetime over the weekend to rant about this further…
24 Feb 2005, 11:41
Warren, why is it shocking that Union politics can be contradictory? It's politics – there's always more than one side.
24 Feb 2005, 11:55
Hows it goin? You ok with being called BJ?
A few questions. Were these referenda topics discussed at an AGM / at council meetings?
Did something happen on campus regarding abortion that lead to that motion? (Not been reading the boar or union council minutes)
I find the international issue motions annoying, as I agree with both to an extent. For example I believe we should condemn breaches of human rights, but not other things that are going to cause an over big Kerfuffle like certain things last month. So I'm thinking I'd probably vote for both and hope they are both passed (thus annulling one another).
Do you know if there was much hoo-har back when the Union condemned Apartheid many years back? Did any foolish people argue against that?
24 Feb 2005, 17:52
Hi Reemal –
I'm not doing bad – lots of dissertation to do, but I guess you'll know all about that next year!
No, the motions weren't discussed at AGM or Council, all the six motions were submitted with a petition of 80 signatures.
As far as I am awear nothing much has happend on campus about abortion in the lead up to this motion being proposed.
The international issues are in direct conflict with each other, it's impossible to believe that decisions about international issues should only be taken on a case by case basis, and also believe that there should be a blanket ban on certain types of international isseus, however feel free to vote for them both if you want – that's one of the options available!
I don't know a lot about condemming aparthied though I'd be surprised if there were no disenting voices at all!
24 Feb 2005, 18:40
I do very much agree that politics has more than one side, as does almost everything. This is why it surprises (shocking was used to exagerate, in case you didn't notice the hint of sarcasm) me that the first international motion is to allow a stance on ALL international issues, many of which will be against the interests of a large number of Warwick students.
If individual students have a specific view on an international issue, they should surely have the right to promote their cause, and indeed use the Union as a base from which to launch any campaign. To do this in the name os all the students at Warwick, however…
This is even more of an issue in the Union than on a governmental level, as the Union has no real power to go beyond "having a stance". More students would be estranged by this policy than would benefit.
Reemal, you know that first international motion is a big load of cock, so don't vote for it!
26 Feb 2005, 22:57
There was much hoo-har over apartheid. The tories at the time used to run round with t-shirts saying hang nelson mandela (lovely chaps that they are).
01 Mar 2005, 10:42