Edinburgh University Students Association suffered a serious blow last week after a key element of its governance review was rejected by students, before it got under way.

The "Enabling Motion" would have allowed future EUSA issues, including constitutional ammendments, to be decided by online referenda.

Despite being cleared unanimously by the Committee of Management and the Student Represenative Council, only 70 per cent of students at EUSA's AGM voted in favour of the motion, falling short of the three quarters majority that is required.

Thomas Graham, EUSA president, said: “We have to respect our democratic processes and it's clear that we didn't do a good enough job of convincing people that referenda were the way forward.”

“We will reflect on the result over the coming days and weeks and decide how we will proceed with the process of putting a new constitution to the members.”

Camilla Pierry, vice president of societies and activities, admitted it was a blow: “We took for granted that it would pass and so didn't explain the motion properly—it was asked for by students in the first place, and passed unanimously through both major committees, and so we thought that it wouldn't be controversial.

“But feedback from the meeting was clear: there wasn't enough information."

Sebastian Osborn, Convenor of the Debates Union told The Journal why he opposed the motion: “I felt the way EUSA is run was about to be changed in a way that wasn't going to be beneficial to students.

“I like the AGM setup and believe that referenda would have deprived students of a proper debate. It would also make it extremely easy for the constitution to be changed.

“An online referendum may be more convenient but this convenience comes at a high price. I do not want to see the passionate discussion that happens at general meetings disappear.”

However, The Journal has discovered Mr Osborn had originally submitted an amendment to the motion but withdrew it at the last minute.

Mr Osborn said: "As Convenor of the Debates Union, I had additional concerns. The Debates Union is a body provided for in the constitution. Therefore, the constitutional instability that comes from online referenda impacts directly on it.

“There had been talk within the ongoing governance review that the Debates Union would have been be demoted to a society using the referenda mechanism.

“One of the concerns here was that because the funding processes for societies are more ad hoc and consequently less stable, there would have been significant financial risk (and thus deterrence) for the Debates Union in running controversial or politically-themed events that people within EUSA may not have approved of.”

The amendment was submitted “to ensure that the Debates Union could not lose more than 15 per cent of its funding each year as a result of this – ensuring a modicum of stability.

“However, after discussions with the sabbaticals and the chief executive we decided to withdraw the amendment.

“I still had many problems with the Enabling Motion so still voted against it."

EUSA's Vice President for Academic Affairs, Evan Beswick told The Journal: “It's frustrating as the arguments brought against it—that introducing referenda mark an attempt to subvert democracy and bring policy in through the back door—couldn't be further from our thinking.

“Those arguments also couldn't be more wrong: I'd much rather we have a debate about a new constitution which allows as many students as possible to get involved in the arguments for and against, rather than just those who can make a meeting on a Tuesday evening.

“Those proposing the new constitution would then have to make the case for it outside the walls of George Square Lecture theatre. That's more democratic, not less."

Mr Graham added: “We will be pressing full steam ahead with our consultation on the new governance structures. It was simply the referendum which didn't get the required support, not the fact that we need to change our constitution.”