@terryfuck45 @DurstApologist The NEC and therefore the GS has no authority in the rules to dictate what is 'competent business' for a CLP to discuss. The only authority is in Chap 1, VIII, 3.E-"The NEC shall from time to time, issue guidance and instructions on the conduct of meetings..." CONDUCT not CONTENT
@terryfuck45 @DurstApologist Conduct is a noun meaning 'the manner in which an activity is managed or directed.' That is not the same as the content or subject the meeting deals with. The NEC can issue guidance on how a meeting can be run/organised but not dictate what motions are competent business.
@terryfuck45 @DurstApologist Secondly, the idea discussing the IHRA will "...undermine
Labour’s ability to campaign against any form of
racism..." is so absurd as to be in the realms of irrationality. As previously stated the NEC/GS has no authority in the rules to dictate this. If what is being threatened>
Labour’s ability to campaign against any form of
racism..." is so absurd as to be in the realms of irrationality. As previously stated the NEC/GS has no authority in the rules to dictate this. If what is being threatened>
@terryfuck45 @DurstApologist is disciplinary punishment for breaching the code of conduct in Appendix 9, this is incorrect. The codes are not part of the rules, they are not directly enforceable. They are considered per Chap 2.I.8/9. Exactly what underlying breach of 2.I.8 occurs if a CLP discuses a motion >
@terryfuck45 @DurstApologist requesting the NEC to reverse its decision on the IHRA? Is the GS suggesting that such a request "is prejudicial, or in the opinion of the NEC is grossly detrimental to the Party" REALLY! The absurdity just piles up at times.
