The EUSA AGM held Tuesday night in George Square Lecture Theatre failed to attract enough students to reach quorum – as such, none of the motions passed had a binding effect on EUSA policy.

But low numbers did not deter heated debates over several of the motions proposed.

The financial report was first to cause consternation. Some in the audience made it clear they felt the budget was being rushed through and the sabbatical officers came under fire for a lack of transparency. 

One attendee questioned why, when EUSA came out of the last financial year with a debt of £35,000 and was budgeting for a loss next year of £99,000, had it not spent cash on improving awareness of disabled access to Teviot.

The losses were blamed by the sabbatical officers on the “dramatic” wage increases – however, the crowd was fairly hostile to this excuse when, answering a question about how many of EUSA’s staff earned a living wage, president Liz Rawlings told the audience that “about 60% of our staff earn a living wage… we’re working towards improving this”.

The vice-president of services Sam Hansford said next year’s budget is “a very conservative budget but a good one I think… with only a small deficit”.

Rawlings angered the audience when she appeared to dismiss the significance of the AGM, saying that “we don’t have to vote on the budget because we’re not in quorum and it doesn’t matter”.

The first motion, one higher education funding, was notable as being one of two that failed; getting bogged down in a discussion about whether EUSA should support a graduate tax contribution or whether it should continue to support fully free education.

 An audience member speaking against the proposition said that “once we start looking at education as consumers, once we start seeing education as a product… that’s when we’ve lost the argument”.

The motion entitled ‘Referendum on EUSA’s Membership of NUS’ saw a heated argument between several speakers, though was passed with a large majority.

Liz Rawlings appealed to the AGM that “education is a right not a privilege…we must not risk division, we need to be united now more than ever”, but her pleas fell on deaf ears.

Motions passed without much incident included the banning Southwestern Company from EUSA property, a motion urging the University to switch from RBS to a ‘greener’ bank, another mandating the use of more sustainable food in student unions, a motion mandating that clothing sold by EUSA shops be fair trade and another motion entitled ‘Resistance to Government Cuts’

The motion proposing the un-banning of Nestle products, including Kit Kats, flopped.

However, the motion urging ‘Unity With Student Protestors’ quickly became the contention point of the evening.

Although several impassioned speech were made against the motion, including one by second year Hugh Murdoch, who asked the audience to remember that “the receptionist in the lobby of Millbank was not a Tory, the security guards holding the crowd back were not Lib Dems, and the policemen who got glass smashed centimetres from their faces were not Conservatives. Violence against those people completely undermines our cause”, the audience was undeniably hostile towards attempts to discredit the actions at Millbank.

The proposer of the motion, Kate Harris, argued in her speech that “vandalism is not violence”, and the motion was passed, albeit closely.