Post by A labour member on Nov 8, 2016 4:35:47 GMT
NOTE THIS IS NOW AN OLD VERSION OF THE MOTION, THE NEW, IMPROVED MODEL MOTION CAN BE FOUND HERE:-
momentumunofficial.freeforums.net/thread/75/model-motion-unlawful-constitutional-changes
This BLP/CLP resolves that:-
1) During the distribution of the agenda for this meeting, video evidence from the Labour Party's own youtube channel channel at was provided as an internet address bit.ly/2fjvUsa . At 31:25 - 34:00 in the video Paddy Lillis fails to comply with delegates from the floor calling for a card vote.
Chapter 3 Clause 3 Rule 3 of the Labour 2016 rules requires that the CAC condition that "voting is by show of hands unless delegates request a card vote or at the decision of the chair" is complied with. The failure to hold a card vote at this time is therefore a breach of the rules.
This video evidence therefore demonstrates conclusively that during conference conference chair Paddy Lillis violated Labour party voting rules during voting on the report in question. The video also shows that he did this despite attention being drawn to the fact by dozens of people on the conference floor and representations by an NEC member, Christine Shawcroft, and the reference back motion mover, Manuel Cortes.
The report decribed a package which authorised a single vote on a large package of constitutional changes. One of these constitutional changes had the effect of adding 2 unelected representatives to the National Executive Committee.
Because Mr. Lillis violated the rules and the rules regulate the relationship between members of the party and the party officers, Mr Lillis therefore acted unlawfully by denying a card vote he was required to provide. As such no lawful process altered the rules with any of the rules contained in the package.
The platform Labour party and NEC chair therefore justified a breach of the democratic constitution of Labour and the law to alter the result of the vote on adding new unelected members to the NEC.
2) No reasonable person would conclude that a party that breaches its own rules to alter its supreme executive body is democratic in any reasonable sense of the term. If this is not corrected, therefore, no reasonable person can believe Labour is a democratic party.
3) Brecon and Radnorshire CLP in Wales previously recognised this rule violation by passing a motion stating “The decision to allow the rule changes cannot be allowed to stand as Labour Party voting rules were broken on at least two occasions. As they stand, these rule changes are unenforceable and no party unit is obliged to abide by any decisions made under them." This BLP /CLP endorses these conclusions of the Brecon motion.
4) We resolve that a conference must be called specifically to move and vote by card on the packaging of the multiple rules illegitimately created by the unlawful process and, if the packaging of the multiple rules is not ratified in the conference card vote, then to hold card votes on the individual seperate constitutional changes contained in the package.
5) The Brecon CLP resolution states:- “representatives of Welsh Labour and Scottish Labour to sit on the NEC ... have a conflict of interest and may not vote on it.” This BLP/ CLP endorses this statement. This BLP/CLP also highlights that since the rule changes were generated in an unlawful process, any representative participating in any vote as a result of the illegitimate rule changes invalidates the NEC vote they participated in.
6) This BLP/CLP continues to recognise and be bound by the legitimate 33 member NEC as described by the 2016 rules which have not been, as of November 15th 2016, legitimately modified by any lawful process with reference to any NEC composition alteration. We assert that the 33 member NEC should be called by the General Secretary or by individual members themselves to:-
i) appoint its own chair and subcommittees
ii) determine the legitimacy and therefore the legality of the rule package and therefore the legitimacy of any 35 member NEC in its function as dispute resolver in the interim until special conference meets to vote by card on the rule package and
iii) to call a special conference to finalise the matter.
Administrative Clauses:-
7) Any clause of this motion which is found by conference, the courts or the 2016/2017 NEC as described by the unaltered 2015/2016 rules to be in direct violation of those rules shall nullify that clause of this motion and any logically dependent clauses causing them it to be of no recognition, force or value in any party unit while the rest of the motion remains an accurate representation of the BLP / CLP which passed it.
8) If this motion is passed at a BLP (Branch Labour Party) then the BLP resolves that the BLP secretary shall pass this motion to the CLP secretary at the earliest opportunity to be moved there and mandates any delegates to the CLP to move and second the motion at that time. If passed at CLP, then the CLP resolves that the motion shall be passed to the 33 member NEC
===
APPENDIX A:- EVIDENCE
i) There is a critical and alarming video named "Annual Conference 2016 - Tuesday Morning" which is, at the time of writing, visible on Labour's youtube channel. The video shows Paddy Lillis, Conference and NEC chair, violate the Labour party rules when passing a report which attempted to alter the voting process to add unelected representatives to the National Executive Committee. The national executive committee is the supreme executive power inside Labour. Labour rules dictate that conference is the Labour party's sovereign body. This video undermines that belief and suggests that the conference chair or NEC chair can now overrule conference simply by ignoring delegates and the rules constraining the chair. The video is named "Annual Conference 2016 - Tuesday Morning". At the time this motion is drafted, the video is visible at this web address:- bit.ly/2fjvUsa . The first 90 minutes of the video show events surrounding a vote to reference back the Conference Arrangements Committee report. A reference back vote means a vote to reject the report until edits are made to satisfy conference. It then shows Christine Shawcroft rising to alert Paddy to the calls for a card vote. Paddy again overrules this and many other calls for a card vote and subsequently carries out a show of hands vote to accept the report, ignoring the motion to reference back.
ii) Manuel Cortes then rises to highlight the fact that the rules have just been broken. At 43:55-44:15 in the same video Leigh Drennan rises to quote from the relevant part of the CAC voting conditions which the chair is required by the rules to follow.
iii) At 26:10-26:56 in the same video is a delegate who came to speak on the stage claiming that similar votes on previous days motions relating to this issue the were carried on not voted on by a show of hands only were too close to call and uncertain.
iv) A card vote is specifically designed to address this lack of certainty when a show of hands vote occurs. Paddy implies this during his spoken attempts to defend his rule violation from the platform.
v) The Brecon CLP motion states “On Sunday, September 25, Mr Lillis refused calls by members for a proper debate and ballot on each individual NEC rule change and called a vote by a simple show of hands on the Conference Arrangements Committee’s report, that said the NEC’s proposals would be packaged as one ‘take it or leave it’ bundle. Forcing the vote to be by show of hands only meant there was no proper oversight. Although the numbers of hands for and against were clearly closely-matched, Mr Lillis called out “overwhelmingly carried” and moved on, ignoring demands that he abide by the rules and carry out a card vote that would be properly monitored and counted. If a single delegate requests a card vote, then it must take place, so this was a clear breach of the voting rules."
===
APPENDIX B:- SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS
i) Most of these rule changes were popular but two changes added unelected members to Labours supreme executive body and were hugely divisive and hotly contested during the NEC meeting which forwarded to conference.
ii) This hotly controversial rule change was added at short notice a few days before it was voted on at conference.
iii) Kate Lewis, Salford and Eccles CLP asserted during the video that a special conference should be held specifically to analyse and idscuss the individual constitutional changes.
iv) The Brecon CLP motion calls on the NEC “to nullify the recent vote at party conference on a package of 15 rule changes, including the addition of Welsh Labour and Scottish Labour representatives to the NEC, on the grounds that Mr Paddy Lillis, who was chairing the conference at the time of the vote, prevented members from voting on the changes in the proper manner."
v) The Brecon CLP resolution referring to the Tuesday vote states that: “The show of hands was again hard to judge, but Mr Lillis simply said it was clearly carried. The vote then took place in the early afternoon. Because the Unite union had a number of rule changes it wanted included in the bundle, delegates from the UK’s largest union were instructed to abstain, meaning that the eventual vote (which was always going to be by card) was won by a significant majority that does not reflect conference’s feeling on the individual rule changes or the manner in which they were presented."
vi) The Brecon CLP resolution states: "Mr Lillis and the CAC chair dismissed demands that the rules of the Labour Party be followed, insisting on only a show of hands – even when a member of the NEC itself, Christine Shawcroft(sic), spoke..."
vii) since calling a meeting of the 33 member NEC is an available option to any 35 member group to resolve this dispute, there is no legitimacy to claims that junior party units should be bound by the actions of an unlawfully generated and therefore illegitimate 35 member NEC for any period until the 35 member group does so and the 33 member NEC group ratifies the alleged validity of the 35 member group.
viii) There is an ongoing dispute with reference to the CAC chairmans claim to conference that the NEC had agreed upon the single vote on the entire package of constitutional changes. Anonymous NEC members are cited as claiming that this agreement did not happen.
momentumunofficial.freeforums.net/thread/75/model-motion-unlawful-constitutional-changes
This BLP/CLP resolves that:-
1) During the distribution of the agenda for this meeting, video evidence from the Labour Party's own youtube channel channel at was provided as an internet address bit.ly/2fjvUsa . At 31:25 - 34:00 in the video Paddy Lillis fails to comply with delegates from the floor calling for a card vote.
Chapter 3 Clause 3 Rule 3 of the Labour 2016 rules requires that the CAC condition that "voting is by show of hands unless delegates request a card vote or at the decision of the chair" is complied with. The failure to hold a card vote at this time is therefore a breach of the rules.
This video evidence therefore demonstrates conclusively that during conference conference chair Paddy Lillis violated Labour party voting rules during voting on the report in question. The video also shows that he did this despite attention being drawn to the fact by dozens of people on the conference floor and representations by an NEC member, Christine Shawcroft, and the reference back motion mover, Manuel Cortes.
The report decribed a package which authorised a single vote on a large package of constitutional changes. One of these constitutional changes had the effect of adding 2 unelected representatives to the National Executive Committee.
Because Mr. Lillis violated the rules and the rules regulate the relationship between members of the party and the party officers, Mr Lillis therefore acted unlawfully by denying a card vote he was required to provide. As such no lawful process altered the rules with any of the rules contained in the package.
The platform Labour party and NEC chair therefore justified a breach of the democratic constitution of Labour and the law to alter the result of the vote on adding new unelected members to the NEC.
2) No reasonable person would conclude that a party that breaches its own rules to alter its supreme executive body is democratic in any reasonable sense of the term. If this is not corrected, therefore, no reasonable person can believe Labour is a democratic party.
3) Brecon and Radnorshire CLP in Wales previously recognised this rule violation by passing a motion stating “The decision to allow the rule changes cannot be allowed to stand as Labour Party voting rules were broken on at least two occasions. As they stand, these rule changes are unenforceable and no party unit is obliged to abide by any decisions made under them." This BLP /CLP endorses these conclusions of the Brecon motion.
4) We resolve that a conference must be called specifically to move and vote by card on the packaging of the multiple rules illegitimately created by the unlawful process and, if the packaging of the multiple rules is not ratified in the conference card vote, then to hold card votes on the individual seperate constitutional changes contained in the package.
5) The Brecon CLP resolution states:- “representatives of Welsh Labour and Scottish Labour to sit on the NEC ... have a conflict of interest and may not vote on it.” This BLP/ CLP endorses this statement. This BLP/CLP also highlights that since the rule changes were generated in an unlawful process, any representative participating in any vote as a result of the illegitimate rule changes invalidates the NEC vote they participated in.
6) This BLP/CLP continues to recognise and be bound by the legitimate 33 member NEC as described by the 2016 rules which have not been, as of November 15th 2016, legitimately modified by any lawful process with reference to any NEC composition alteration. We assert that the 33 member NEC should be called by the General Secretary or by individual members themselves to:-
i) appoint its own chair and subcommittees
ii) determine the legitimacy and therefore the legality of the rule package and therefore the legitimacy of any 35 member NEC in its function as dispute resolver in the interim until special conference meets to vote by card on the rule package and
iii) to call a special conference to finalise the matter.
Administrative Clauses:-
7) Any clause of this motion which is found by conference, the courts or the 2016/2017 NEC as described by the unaltered 2015/2016 rules to be in direct violation of those rules shall nullify that clause of this motion and any logically dependent clauses causing them it to be of no recognition, force or value in any party unit while the rest of the motion remains an accurate representation of the BLP / CLP which passed it.
8) If this motion is passed at a BLP (Branch Labour Party) then the BLP resolves that the BLP secretary shall pass this motion to the CLP secretary at the earliest opportunity to be moved there and mandates any delegates to the CLP to move and second the motion at that time. If passed at CLP, then the CLP resolves that the motion shall be passed to the 33 member NEC
===
APPENDIX A:- EVIDENCE
i) There is a critical and alarming video named "Annual Conference 2016 - Tuesday Morning" which is, at the time of writing, visible on Labour's youtube channel. The video shows Paddy Lillis, Conference and NEC chair, violate the Labour party rules when passing a report which attempted to alter the voting process to add unelected representatives to the National Executive Committee. The national executive committee is the supreme executive power inside Labour. Labour rules dictate that conference is the Labour party's sovereign body. This video undermines that belief and suggests that the conference chair or NEC chair can now overrule conference simply by ignoring delegates and the rules constraining the chair. The video is named "Annual Conference 2016 - Tuesday Morning". At the time this motion is drafted, the video is visible at this web address:- bit.ly/2fjvUsa . The first 90 minutes of the video show events surrounding a vote to reference back the Conference Arrangements Committee report. A reference back vote means a vote to reject the report until edits are made to satisfy conference. It then shows Christine Shawcroft rising to alert Paddy to the calls for a card vote. Paddy again overrules this and many other calls for a card vote and subsequently carries out a show of hands vote to accept the report, ignoring the motion to reference back.
ii) Manuel Cortes then rises to highlight the fact that the rules have just been broken. At 43:55-44:15 in the same video Leigh Drennan rises to quote from the relevant part of the CAC voting conditions which the chair is required by the rules to follow.
iii) At 26:10-26:56 in the same video is a delegate who came to speak on the stage claiming that similar votes on previous days motions relating to this issue the were carried on not voted on by a show of hands only were too close to call and uncertain.
iv) A card vote is specifically designed to address this lack of certainty when a show of hands vote occurs. Paddy implies this during his spoken attempts to defend his rule violation from the platform.
v) The Brecon CLP motion states “On Sunday, September 25, Mr Lillis refused calls by members for a proper debate and ballot on each individual NEC rule change and called a vote by a simple show of hands on the Conference Arrangements Committee’s report, that said the NEC’s proposals would be packaged as one ‘take it or leave it’ bundle. Forcing the vote to be by show of hands only meant there was no proper oversight. Although the numbers of hands for and against were clearly closely-matched, Mr Lillis called out “overwhelmingly carried” and moved on, ignoring demands that he abide by the rules and carry out a card vote that would be properly monitored and counted. If a single delegate requests a card vote, then it must take place, so this was a clear breach of the voting rules."
===
APPENDIX B:- SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS
i) Most of these rule changes were popular but two changes added unelected members to Labours supreme executive body and were hugely divisive and hotly contested during the NEC meeting which forwarded to conference.
ii) This hotly controversial rule change was added at short notice a few days before it was voted on at conference.
iii) Kate Lewis, Salford and Eccles CLP asserted during the video that a special conference should be held specifically to analyse and idscuss the individual constitutional changes.
iv) The Brecon CLP motion calls on the NEC “to nullify the recent vote at party conference on a package of 15 rule changes, including the addition of Welsh Labour and Scottish Labour representatives to the NEC, on the grounds that Mr Paddy Lillis, who was chairing the conference at the time of the vote, prevented members from voting on the changes in the proper manner."
v) The Brecon CLP resolution referring to the Tuesday vote states that: “The show of hands was again hard to judge, but Mr Lillis simply said it was clearly carried. The vote then took place in the early afternoon. Because the Unite union had a number of rule changes it wanted included in the bundle, delegates from the UK’s largest union were instructed to abstain, meaning that the eventual vote (which was always going to be by card) was won by a significant majority that does not reflect conference’s feeling on the individual rule changes or the manner in which they were presented."
vi) The Brecon CLP resolution states: "Mr Lillis and the CAC chair dismissed demands that the rules of the Labour Party be followed, insisting on only a show of hands – even when a member of the NEC itself, Christine Shawcroft(sic), spoke..."
vii) since calling a meeting of the 33 member NEC is an available option to any 35 member group to resolve this dispute, there is no legitimacy to claims that junior party units should be bound by the actions of an unlawfully generated and therefore illegitimate 35 member NEC for any period until the 35 member group does so and the 33 member NEC group ratifies the alleged validity of the 35 member group.
viii) There is an ongoing dispute with reference to the CAC chairmans claim to conference that the NEC had agreed upon the single vote on the entire package of constitutional changes. Anonymous NEC members are cited as claiming that this agreement did not happen.
