Proposed Amendments to the UKIP Constitution

mkpdavies · 18-01-2006, 05:45 PM

http://www.ukip.org/ukip_news/gen12.php?t=1&id=1841

Quote:

Members are being asked to vote by postal ballot on two amendments to the Constitution. The amendments are unlinked, so you may vote either way on both.

[ The link below leads to the current constitution and the amendments. ]

Amendment 1 is a composite set of a large number of amendments to the existing constitution. Some are minor drafting changes, others are significant. However it would be too complex to list and vote on each amendment separately. The changes have therefore all been grouped together and their overall effect is to revise the constitution in the way shown in the following version.

If you support some of the changes but oppose others you will have to decide on balance whether to go for the revised constitution or stick with the existing one. Whilst in theory we would have liked to have given you a choice on each amendment, in practice this would have been enormously complex in terms of balloting and counting - and then sorting out potentially contradictory results.

You are advised that the simplest way of assessing the changes is to study the Revised Constitution and decide whether or not you feel this is broadly to your liking. If so, please vote in favour; if not then your choice would be to vote against. If sufficient vote in favour then the whole set of amendments take effect as set out in the Revised Constitution. If insufficient vote in favour, then the amendments fall and the existing constitution remains.

An alternative way to assess the changes is to read each paragraph of the revised constitution against the existing one. The existing constitution may be read on our website; or you may obtain a copy by post if you send a C5 stamped addressed envelope to: Constitution Request, UKIP, PO Box 9876, Birmingham B6 4DN.

Amendment 2 relates only to the composition of the NEC. Voting for the amendment effectively restricts MEPs to two seats plus the Leader. Voting against the amendment retains the current arrangement. This amendment could take effect in either the existing or revised constitution.

Both amendments require a two-thirds majority of those voting except for changes to paragraphs 2.1, 2.3 and 18.2 of the existing constitution where a three-quarters majority is necessary.

All the amendments are being proposed by the NEC under paragraph 18.2 of the existing constitution which reads:

"Such ballots shall be held when a constitutional amendment is proposed either by the NEC, after its approval by a two thirds majority of NEC members voting, or at the requirement of 20 or more constituency associations or branches, communicated in writing to the Party Secretary."

Click this link to view the current Constitution and Proposed Amendments :

http://www.ukip.org/index.php?menu=t...e=constitution

C_steam · 18-01-2006, 06:20 PM

Phew. Thank goodness for something simple!

Actually, this is as good a place as any to start discussion of the changes.

I'll start with SECTION 4, Membership.

Revision a reads:-

Quote:

Membership is open to UK citizens and resident foreign nationals over the age of 16 years who share its aims and who are not members of any other political party or organisation membership of which the National Executive Committee ("NEC") has declared is incompatible with membership of the Party.

I like this, now we need to know the list of incompatable organisations and parties!

Anthony Butcher · 18-01-2006, 06:46 PM

Quote:

8.4 A leadership election shall be called in the event of the Party Leader's death, incapacity or resignation; on the passing of a vote of no confidence in the Party Leader by the NEC if this is endorsed by an Extraordinary General Meeting of the Party; and on the Party Leader's completion of his term of office.

I would much rather have used the Lib Dem system of annual ratification of the party leader at the same time as the NEC elections. It is almost impossible to remove a UKIP party leader and four years is a very long time in politics.

Quote:

8.1 The Party Leader shall give political and administrative direction to the Party. The Party Leader may appoint a political committee to advise him with day to day political decision making. He or she will inform the NEC of the membership of that committee.

This removes control of policy from the NEC, which is a measure I approve of generally. The party leader has to sell the policies and should be responsible for them. However, this is dangerous if there is no mechanism for removing the leader - we will be stuck with a single person's vision for four years whether we like it or not.

At least under the present constitution, the NEC is responsible for political direction and can be voted for annually.

Quote:

10.1 The Party Secretary shall be appointed by the NEC from amongst full Party members in good standing. The Secretary's term of office shall be annual, he or she may be removed by a 2/3rds majority vote of the NEC. He or she will be an ex officio member of the NEC if not already a member of it. The Secretary does not hold voting rights on the NEC by virtue of his or her office.

This is sensible - the secretary no longer has to be an NEC member.

Anthony Butcher · 18-01-2006, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Amendment 2 relates only to the composition of the NEC. Voting for the amendment effectively restricts MEPs to two seats plus the Leader. Voting against the amendment retains the current arrangement. This amendment could take effect in either the existing or revised constitution.

This clause is just silly. Why on Earth should MEPs have reserved places on the NEC? If they aren't good enough to be elected in the normal way, and the members don't think that it is important to have an MEP on the NEC, then they shouldn't be on the NEC. Simple as that.

I will be voting AGAINST this amendment - I believe in trusting the democratic process to elect the best people.

mkpdavies · 18-01-2006, 07:27 PM

I agree. The membership should decide if they want 2 or 10 MEPs (or any other elected member) sitting on the NEC. In reality, they probably will put a few on, which is fair enough.

Vote AGAINST amendment 2!

TomPhil · 18-01-2006, 09:36 PM

When do we receive the postal ballots?

Mark Croucher · 18-01-2006, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony Butcher

Quote:

Amendment 2 relates only to the composition of the NEC. Voting for the amendment effectively restricts MEPs to two seats plus the Leader. Voting against the amendment retains the current arrangement. This amendment could take effect in either the existing or revised constitution.

This clause is just silly. Why on Earth should MEPs have reserved places on the NEC? If they aren't good enough to be elected in the normal way, and the members don't think that it is important to have an MEP on the NEC, then they shouldn't be on the NEC. Simple as that.

I will be voting AGAINST this amendment - I believe in trusting the democratic process to elect the best people.

Fine, but I think the idea is to prevent having an NEC with 8 MEPs on it; the seats aren't reserved for them.

Ballot papers will be in Independence, which is being mailed on the 2nd.

Rgds

Mark

Alex McKee · 18-01-2006, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Amendment 2 relates only to the composition of the NEC. Voting for the amendment effectively restricts MEPs to two seats plus the Leader. Voting against the amendment retains the current arrangement. This amendment could take effect in either the existing or revised constitution.

Short sighted. 1. This is a constitution, yet the wording effectively suggests the leader will be an MEP, which grounds the constitution to the present day. In 5 years time we may have an MP (unlikely, but don't rule it out).

Secondly, as Anthony says if they are good enough then they will be elected, fine. Credit the members with enough intelligence to elect those they wish to see on the NEC - it may be that an NEC entirely composed of MEPs is what is wanted - again unlikely but in 5 years time we may have a very different party.

If you truly wish to restrict MEPs from the NEC simply rewrite the clause to bar them from standing. Simple as that

mkpdavies · 18-01-2006, 09:57 PM

If that was the case, they sould have said the maximum number of MEP's/elected members allowed onto the NEC should be 2.

I would still disagree with that though. If MEPs want to run and the membership want to vote for them, then what is the problem?

The fact I would not vote for an MEP for NEC is neither here nor there, that's just my personal choice. If the parties will was to entrust the whole NEC to our elected MEPs, then thats the democratic choice of the membership.

Anthony Butcher · 18-01-2006, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Croucher

Fine, but I think the idea is to prevent having an NEC with 8 MEPs on it; the seats aren't reserved for them.

Is there any reason why we shouldn't have an NEC with 8 MEPs on it, if that is what the membership wants? We have already voted to have 5 plus the leader on there (I think).

I understand the intention was actually to limit the number of MEPs on the NEC, but it is an artificial fudge that in fact just reserves two spaces for them. There is no reason that the MEPs should get this kind of special treatment.

I also note that it is worded to exclude all of UKIP's councillors because they don't receive a full-time salary. It stinks of self-importance to me.

I think that we should trust in the democratic process. Since it is done on an annual basis, it comes round often enough for the membership to control it to some extent.

18-01-2006, 07:27 PM	#5 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,183 Party: Libertarian Party	I agree. The membership should decide if they want 2 or 10 MEPs (or any other elected member) sitting on the NEC. In reality, they probably will put a few on, which is fair enough. Vote AGAINST amendment 2! __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

18-01-2006, 09:36 PM	#6 (permalink)
TomPhil Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Stockport Posts: 498 Party: UKIP	When do we receive the postal ballots? __________________ "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." In Labour we trusted and now we are busted... again. It's the economy, stupid.

18-01-2006, 09:57 PM	#9 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,183 Party: Libertarian Party	If that was the case, they sould have said the maximum number of MEP's/elected members allowed onto the NEC should be 2. I would still disagree with that though. If MEPs want to run and the membership want to vote for them, then what is the problem? The fact I would not vote for an MEP for NEC is neither here nor there, that's just my personal choice. If the parties will was to entrust the whole NEC to our elected MEPs, then thats the democratic choice of the membership. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode