Union members have decided in a landslide result to allow Julian Assange to speak at the Union following a referendum over the controversial invitation.

With a turnout of 1,463 Union members, 1,125 voted for Assange to speak via videolink, a 76.9 per cent share of the vote.

Only 338 Union members voted against the motion, entitled: "Do you agree that the Cambridge Union should host Julian Assange via videolink on November 11th at 7pm?" a mere 23.1 per cent of the total.

A referendum was called by President Oliver Mosley after the decision to invite the Wikileaks founder to speak via camera proved highly controversial. 

Mosley, who was also Co-Returning Officer for the referendum, said after the result: “In the 200th year of free speech and the art of debating, the voice of our membership has rung out clearly. With record turnout, they have clearly stated that they believe the Union should host Assange.

“The unique nature of this situation means that this does not set a precedent for future invitations, but this matter has now been decided.

“The format of the coming event will be announced closer to the time, and the Union will ensure that it can act as a platform for those that wish to criticise or question, as has been the case so many times in the past.

“Thank you to all who voted.”

The referendum is widely believed to have been a compromise move on the part of the Union to prevent further resignations from its Executive over the decision.

The announcement of the intention to invite Assange and of the referendum were immediately followed by the resignation of the Women's Officer, Helen Dallas, which prompted national media coverage.

Following the result of the referendum, the Union posted a statement to its Facebook event.

“As has been released previously, the Union believes that the unique situation of Julian Assange warranted a consultation of its membership,” it read.

“As a man who cannot stand trial or be questioned, the legal situation of Assange is completely unique. As a result, the lack of precedent means the only option available was to consult our members.”

It is believed that this was the first time the 200-year-old debating society had held a referendum of its members over whether to issue an invitation to a speaker.

Protests against the invitation are expected outside the Union building on the 11th. As a result, the Union is believed to have already hired private security for the event.

Voting was originally scheduled to take place between 9am and 10pm on Thursday 22nd October, but the online voting system was opened immediately following the debate on Wednesday evening, entitled 'This House would host Julian Assange.'

Assange blazed to worldwide notoriety in 2010 when he released a huge trove of politically sensitive documents supplied by Chelsea Manning through his organisation, WikiLeaks. The debate then was one of Assange’s threat to national security, triggering a US government investigation still thought to be ongoing.

In 2011, charges of sexual assault came to light, brought against Assange by women in Sweden. Assange subsequently applied for and was granted asylum by the Ecuadorian government in June 2012.

However, Assange’s time within the Ecuadorian Embassy in London has not reduced his profile. He has hosted a Russian talk show, been on The Simpsons, and has played host to a queue of notables, including most recently Lady Gaga.

Over the course of his three-year self-imprisonment in the Embassy, Assange has also appeared writ large for multiple public occasions, usually via a weblinked screen. His latest invitation to do so is from none other than the Cambridge Union Society.

Despite having hosted Assange several times before, the Union’s Standing Committee has on this occasion faced an unprecedented backlash from its own members.

Dallas's resignation over the decision to issue the invitation in October sparked national press coverage. 

Union President Oliver Mosley has been on the defensive, insisting that it would be wrong to talk of the Cambridge Union being “in turmoil”.

“We have 50 people working at the union,” he said. “Following Helen Dallas’s resignation, we still have 49.”

The Union’s debate on Wednesday night reflected the way in which the focus is now almost entirely on Assange’s alleged sexual crimes. Over the course of the debate, only one fleeting mention was made of Assange’s controversial past as the editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks.

Instead, the debate centred on the “legal grey area” of a man who is technically innocent because the statute of limitations on most of the charges against him has expired, but whose “running away from the law” in the words of one debater, condemns him with an aura of implicit guilt.

Debate raged between speakers who either promoted Assange or his potential victims. Opposing the motion, speakers James and Eleanor railed against a man “who had refused to co-operate in law enforcement” and for whom the Union “was providing yet another platform”, potentially contributing to “the glamorisation of Assange” at the expense of women who claim to be victims sexual abuse.

The proposition debaters instead focused on “providing Union members value for their money”, claiming that the Assange invite “practically only impacts people who are interested” and even provided an opportunity to hold Assange “to account”.

They added that this referendum could set a bad precedent for the future, noting that the “Union had a long history of controversial speakers” and that deciding not to host Assange would put the Union “on a slippery slope,” such that “all future standing committees will fear what will happen” if they try to invite contentious figures.

A statement from CUSU’s Women’s Officer, Charlotte Chorley, was read out during the debate, in which she criticised the Union’s initial move to invite Assange as a sign that the institution is “so pre-occupied by the tired narrative Assange offers that they are turning back on their promise to update their structure and their substance.”

Chorley claimed that by inviting Assange, the Union was visibly “struggling to remain interesting”, but risked threatening “fair debate”. The statement was met by a momentary pause for thought in the chamber, before general debate resumed.

Following a further two speeches, Union President Oliver Mosley drew the debate to a close, reminding all present that the 24-hour referendum period on whether to extend the invitation to Assange was then officially open.