Welsh Referendum ‘No’ campaign sparks outrage

The ÔÇÿNoÔÇÖ Campaign in the Welsh Full-Time Officer referendum relied on significant exaggeration and ÔÇ£scaremongeringÔÇØ statements, a Gair Rhydd investigation can reveal.

During the week-long referendum, officers including the SU President, VP Education and VP Societies sought to push forward the ÔÇÿNoÔÇÖ campaign, claiming that creating an eighth sabbatical position would cut sports and societies budgets by up to ┬ú46,000. In addition, President Elliot Howells said that a new officer would cost ÔÇ£in excess of ┬ú30,000ÔÇØ when wages, training, and benefits such as the company pension were factored in.

However, Gair Rhydd can confirm that this figure was significantly inflated, after the SU president told the newspaper ÔÇ£confidentlyÔÇØ that ÔÇ£on average, an Officer doesnÔÇÖt cost the organisation any more than ┬ú26k a year.ÔÇØ Neither he, nor any members of the No campaign, could provide a specific breakdown of what these costs would be, despite consistently warning of the threat to the union budget.

Howells said that ÔÇ£the information certainly does exist, but it exists in various budget pots and to bring all of that together would just take some work.ÔÇØ

Gair Rhydd can confirm that the 26k figure includes benefits not afforded to student staff, such as a leased iPhone and laptop, as well as company pension contributions. Other costs, such as ÔÇ£branded clothing for eventsÔÇØ, were included in various estimates provided to Gair Rhydd. We can also confirm that sabbatical officers received a pay rise this year, as did all career staff.

However, while Sabbatical officers receive the same benefits as career staff, they are not counted as such for the purposes of the StudentsÔÇÖ Union Staff-Student Protocol, which would prohibit them from ÔÇ£seek[ing] to influence the democratic processes of the UnionÔÇØ.

Barney Willis sent an email to society committee members on the 24th, before voting had opened, in which he included a ÔÇ£brief note on how [the referendum] could impact societies,ÔÇØ urging them to vote. He threatened that it would lead to cuts to the ┬ú20,500 societies budget, but did not specify the extent to which the budget would realistically be reduced. The email received a negative response, with various Yes campaign members and undecided voters describing it as a ÔÇ£threatÔÇØ.

Gair Rhydd asked the VP Societies what his intention was, and put forward allegations that the message was intended to be a threat designed to influence voters to cast a ballot for No. Barney responded, saying that he was expressing his view ÔÇ£to assist others in making their decision and influence the result of the referendum for the reasons […] stated.ÔÇØ

Rhys sent out a number of emails. One to student reps set out the No Campaign and urged them to vote yes. Another, described by recipients and observers as ÔÇ£scaremongering,ÔÇØ was sent to sports clubs, and began with ÔÇ£Your clubÔÇÖs budget could be in danger…ÔÇØ.

It went on to suggest that the officer position would be entirely funded by cuts from the Athletic Union: ÔÇ£┬ú26k of the AU budget or your clubÔÇÖs equipment cost is a high price to pay for a political statement, regardless of whether we are in the capital city or notÔÇØ. These claims do not appear to be substantiated, and, when combined with BarneyÔÇÖs unspecified cuts to the Guild of Societies budget, add up to projected cuts exceeding ┬ú46,500.

Whilst sabbatical officers sent ÔÇÿmass emailsÔÇÖ to students listing the potential cuts, leader of the ÔÇÿYesÔÇÖ campaign Steffan Bryn was refused the same platform, denying the Welsh language officer the ability to respond to these claims or set out the ÔÇ£YesÔÇØ campaign case for a Welsh Language Officer.

Documents seen by Gair Rhydd confirm that Steffan Bryn was not allowed the opportunity to use the same platform as full-time officers on the grounds that officers simply ÔÇ£communicated using their regular channelsÔÇØ. But inconsistencies remain: VP Education Rhys Jenkins set out the No Campaign case in the AU Newsletter, something that he does not use regularly.

Elliot Howells claimed that he ÔÇ£would not expectÔÇØ Steffan Bryn to allow the ÔÇÿNoÔÇÖ campaign to send out mass mail using lists that only he had access to, such as Y Gym GymÔÇÖs mailing list. However, Steffan is not on the Y Gym Gym committee, and so cannot send mail using this list without someone elseÔÇÖs permission.

While the ÔÇÿYesÔÇÖ campaign relied on face-to-face canvassing, there appears to have been no physical campaign undertaken by the ÔÇÿNoÔÇÖ camp at all, leading some to question whether or not the No campaign ever really existed, or whether or not it was simply a StudentsÔÇÖ Union front. Indeed, the ÔÇÿNoÔÇÖ campaign took a bizarre turn when it was revealed that campaign leader Rhys Jenkins had taken annual leave, and was not present for a large part of the referendum.

Campaigners who requested referendum regulations did not receive a response from the StudentsÔÇÖ Union. ÔÇÿYesÔÇÖ campaigner Daniel Roberts stated he waited three days for relevant documentation, but did not receive anything. Without this, Roberts was prevented from launching a complaint regarding the behaviour of the full-time officers, as it was not clear to him whether the allegations ÔÇÿcarried any weightÔÇÖ.

Gair Rhydd has reviewed the StudentsÔÇÖ Union constitution (which is comprised of various documents) and can find little governing the way referenda should be conducted. While StudentsÔÇÖ Unions typically apply the same rules as elections, this is not true for Cardiff University StudentsÔÇÖ Union. As such, with regards to our above findings, no rules have been broken. A ÔÇÿYesÔÇÖ campaign member, speaking to Gair Rhydd, accused the StudentsÔÇÖ Union of ÔÇ£making it up as they wentÔÇØ.

We can confirm that, as per StudentsÔÇÖ Union policy, somebody working in Y Plas would be prohibited from discussing an election while on duty. This publication is also expected to remain impartial during elections. However, sabbatical officers are not denied the platform and can intervene as they see fit while undertaking their salaried work. Steve Wilford, director of Membership Services, told Gair Rhydd that with regards to previous elections, they have simply ÔÇ£chosen to abstain.ÔÇØ

Yes leader Steffan Bryn later accused the ÔÇÿNoÔÇÖ campaign of using ÔÇ£scaremongering tactics from the hea┬¡rt of the UnionÔÇØ, and accused the Union of failing to meets its aims of ÔÇ£representing and supporting studentsÔÇØ. Many have joined him in saying this, particularly on social media. Harry Thompson, a Cardiff student, said that he voted yes partly because that the campaign had ÔÇ£more convincing arguments,ÔÇØ but also because he ÔÇ£dislik[ed] the dodgy was the SU ÔÇÿestablishmentÔÇÖ has fought for No.ÔÇØ

When asked to comment on the allegations and criticism the No campaign had received, Rhys responded that they had done nothing wrong. He explained that he and his colleagues ÔÇ£undergo several months of training and as a result become knowledgeable in the Union, how itÔÇÖs run, and how to effectively achieve change.ÔÇØ

ÔÇ£We have done what sabbs do all over the country. It was entirely appropriate we did and potentially have been neglectful had we not.ÔÇØ

Elliot Howells, who leads the officer team as part of his role as SU President, supported this defence

But these explanations are unlikely to satisfy even No voters. Students have labelled the actions of the sabbatical officers a ÔÇÿmisuse of powerÔÇÖ, regardless of any policy breaches. Journalism student Lewis Hopkins, a No voter, was dismayed: ÔÇ£[they] should have to stay neutral through official channels.ÔÇØ

Morgan Owen, a ÔÇÿYesÔÇÖ campaigner, expressed his disappointment in the StudentsÔÇÖ Union: ÔÇ£They preach democracy and have tried to shoot this grass-roots movement down from step one.ÔÇØ

ÔÇ£It is absolutely fucked up. We on the yes side are genuinely worried that the UnionÔÇÖs undemocratic, autocratic and outrageous intervention could skew the resultÔÇØ, he said, prior to print. The result, now revealed, was a ÔÇÿNoÔÇÖ.

Critiquing the ÔÇÿNoÔÇÖ campaign, Owen went on to describe the promises made to improve language facilities as ÔÇ£insultingÔÇØ.

ÔÇ£I have noticed in my time at the University that the Union have been extremely dismissive of my first language, and I simply cannot trust them when they say they will find other ways to improve provision.ÔÇØ

Law student Dewi Jones also condemned the ÔÇÿNoÔÇÖ campaign, claiming to be ÔÇÿashamedÔÇÖ of the behaviour of the ÔÇÿNo campaignÔÇÖ and the elected Union members.

ÔÇ£Rather than engaging in a positive debate as to why they disagreed with a Full time Welsh Language officer, they almost immediately resorted to undermining the Yes campaign in a rude and condescending manner.ÔÇØ

Steffan Bryn, speaking to Gair Rhydd, said: ÔÇ£Cardiff University StudentsÔÇÖ Union needs a democratic revolution.ÔÇØ

This inability to provide the costs of full-time officers was later condemned by the leader of the ÔÇÿYesÔÇÖ campaign. He expressed concerns about how opaque the UnionÔÇÖs finances were: ÔÇ£How much do senior Union staff earn? Why arenÔÇÖt we allowed to know? These questions that should concern all students.ÔÇØ

The result – where ÔÇÿNoÔÇÖ secured victory by a thin margin – was received poorly by the Welsh language community, in part because of the way ÔÇÿNoÔÇÖ had undertaken their campaign. Those in attendance when the results were announced claimed that ÔÇÿNoÔÇÖ was just an ÔÇ£anti-WelshÔÇØ campaign. The ÔÇÿNoÔÇÖ campaign was also accused of ÔÇÿfeeding prejudiceÔÇÖ against the Welsh language, and encouraging a superficial, almost racist understanding of the Welsh language and culture.