MNHQ here: should we support a Citizens Assembly as a way of breaking a Brexit deadlock?

[RowanMumsnet]

Hello

We've been asked whether Mumsnet would support the idea of a Citizens Assembly to try to bridge the divide within the UK electorate over what should happen next with Brexit, and address what's looking like a deadlock in Parliament .

Current polling seems to suggest no majority in the country at large for any one Brexit outcome, from May's deal to a second referendum to no deal. (Here are YouGov's figures on May's deal from a few days ago and here's another set of YouGov figures appearing to show that no current proposal has majority support). Inasmuch as anyone knows anything, the conventional wisdom seems to be that there's also no majority in Parliament for any of the possible ways forward.

Citizen's Assemblies aim to be neutral forums for participative decision-making. (You can see the Wikipedia definition here.)

The Republic of Ireland set up a Citizens Assembly as part of the process that resulted in the repeal of the 8th Amendment to the Irish constitution, contributing to the recent referendum decision to change Ireland's abortion laws.

For Brexit, the proposal is that an assembly of 500 citizens (from a longlist of 10,000 people drawn from the electoral register) would be randomly selected by a polling organisation to be demographically representative of the UK electorate. The Electoral Commission would facilitate the process, and a non-voting Chairperson would call experts to give evidence from a variety of perspectives. The aim is that the Assembly would take place within the space of a week towards the end of 2018 or the beginning of 2019, and that its recommendations would be passed to Parliament for a vote.

A previous Citizens Assembly on Brexit was held in 2017: you can see the summary report of its recommendations here.

We'd be interested to know whether you think this is something MN should support - please let us know what you think (and if you're an expert on constitutional conventions please feel free to contribute )

Thanks
MNHQ

If this has already been done, why do it again? The advice the panel offered to the government is still relevant and pertinent. The government have clearly taken no notice, so what’s the point?

I liked the idea at first but the more I think about it, the more it seams like a jury without the benefit of guidance of law and a judge to guide and advise.

My sentiments entirely. Some people will turn up with very pre-conceived ideas, others will not care two hoots, and there will be a whole bunch of people who will sway whatever way the wind blows. Additionally who decides what "balance" consists of? Directly proportional to the population as a whole, or an effort to include every possible permutation of religion/sex/gender/nationality/etc etc etc?

You sound like a miserable very resentful person. All those ugly things you like to believe, Augusta.

No, ta.

No thanks, I think it's a dreadful idea coming from a biased perspective.

Augusta loves to argue so much that she'll even put the words she disagrees with into your mouth for you, jasjas. You should be applauding her philanthropy.

I think it’s a good idea, but would want them to take real steps to try to include women with young children. Often we have insights that get missed. You don’t want it to be made up solely of one type of person.

I think MN should sit out political issues like this.

Great idea

Hello

Thanks for all your comments - seems fairly clear this proposal doesn't have the sort of support from MNers that we'd need to get behind it so we will steer clear of supporting.

I was thinking that it had kind of been overtaken by events @RowanMumsnet

@dippledorus

I was thinking that it had kind of been overtaken by events *@RowanMumsnet*

Lord knows where we shall be by tomorrow, events-wise

@RowanMumsnet it's terrible for me getting any work done ....

Citizens' Assemblies are based on Sortition (random selection of people) and it is the original form of democracy. It's being practised all over the world now. In fact the UK Government is doing trails of it with local councils.

What you get is a microcosm of society who are given critical thinking training, listen to evidence and with the help of facilitators, deliberate (not debate) about the issues.

One of the key advantages is that there is a mix of people. Some stratification is done so that you end up with a group that generally reflects the society it is trying to represent (way to go to get women properly represented!).

There was mention of child care. Anyone who wants to attend is given support to ensure that there are no obstacles to their attendance. This includes travel and care. People are also paid for their time.

Another big advantage is that the people making the decisions are not trying to get elected, climb their party ladder or get a job at the end of their tenure.

There was mention in this discussion about MPs being steeped in evidence. Went to a talk by Zac Goldsmith. He said that a lot of MPs around him didn't know what they were voting on, let alone have read any evidence. They just followed what the whips said.

Our current system was put in place to limit engagement not to increase it. If you think this is a fair system then ask why are there parties and whips?

Should Mumsnet support this? Almost certainly. This is taking the politics out of the decision and letting the people themselves decide. A referendum gives public opinion. A Citizens' Assembly gives you informed public judgement.

@Augusta12, and what is your response to the fact most of the main Leave campaigners and donors were all very rich, far right dream of a low tax, dysregulated economy that will shaft the poor even more?

Love to see where your proof is saying that most that voted to leave are rich ? Never heard so much rubbish in my life

@Maryjoyce, I wasn’t referring to Leave voters, but the people who set up the Leave campaigns and the hedge fund investors who supported it. Arron Banks rich, Ree Mogg, John Redwood wealthy investment managers. Farage worked on the stock exchange, big spread better and has many hedge fund pals. There is suggestion he deliberately move the currency markets on the night of the referendum to enrich his hedge fund pals by conceding Remain won before final vote was called.

Crispin Odey made £220 million on Brexit night. Robert Mercer bank rolled VoteLeave & made $690m
bloomberg.com/news/articles/…

Rees-Mogg had huge personal windfall ftalphaville.ft.com/2018/02/08/219…

Farage cashed in & his “concession speech” made hedgefunders billions thefinanser.com/2018/07/much-n…

The referendum result was achieved with criminal activity, dark money & foreign interference.

Johnson, Mogg, Daniel Hannan have all said they believe in a completely free market model with low tax and v little regulation, similar to Singapore. This cannot be achieved by being an EU member. Low tax means little money for public services and welfare. NHS sold off piece by piece to private companies resulting in a for profit medical insurance system. If that is the model here u want for the UK (would not be my choice, find it utterly dreadful) then that is your right. I just hope Leave voters are aware this is the aim of key Leave campaigners and its rich hedge fund donors.

Think your away with the fairies to think that they are the only people that made money and that there are not as many that promoted remain that have made tons too.
As always a total one sided post to try and show only one side in a bad way.
like everything in life there’s good and bad and one thing that’s bad throughout the world are politicians. One thing you can assure is corruption and dodgy dealings by them all no matter what party they represent or what way they vote on Issues as it’s simply how quick they can ram there own pockets full of cash.
They dont vote on issues that make them nothing most don’t even bother to crawl out of bed to attend parliament unless there on a back hander.

I think the discussion after my last post provides excellent evidence for why we need a Citizens' Assembly. People with differing views creating a microcosm of society being brought together to hear the evidence and deliberate together. Working together over weeks/months to figure out the best way forward.

@Maryjoyce, will there be some hedge funders who made money on referendum night who supported Remain? Very possible. However, you are not addressing the issue that many of those who donated and helped to set up the Leave campaign have written articles and books who make clear they want a an unfettered free market with as little regulation as possible and a low tax economy. Why don’t you address that? Is that the kind of economy you wish for?

@KeithGarrett, thank you for your post. I too can see the benefits of a citizens assembly and would support it.

I don't because these people are unaccountable and those making these long lasting, if not permanent recommendations, may lack the specific knowledge and intellect to decide on what is an extremely complex issue.

I am always very shocked when i hear a random person from a street interview who can hardly string a coherent sentence together telling the world he voted to end immigration and we should leave on a no-deal.
Why on earth should we be taking any notice of his voice? If i need a specialist life changing operation, i do not seek the opinions of the regulars at my local pub.

We live in a representative democracy and our elected representatives can take note of our opinions but not necessarily act on them.

The process is open and transparent. So any issues with the decisions can be reviewed in hindsight. Compare this to the current system where decisions are made according to a hidden set of criteria, with lobby groups, party pressure, jobs at the end.

Current representatives are not chosen as specialists. Their only skill is to get elected. They don't need to present a CV. In a lot of places they get effectively brought in by default as that is how the party system works.

When you hear random people in the street they are giving their first opinion of a matter they may not have thought about. Now collect a group of these 'people on the street' sit them down for 6 weeks, give them access to proper facilitation, experts and evidence, critical thinking training, deliberation with each other - you'll see a much more balanced opinion.

Here is a good talk about sortition (selection by lot):

www.ted.com/talks/brett_hennig_what_if_we_replaced_politicians_with_randomly_selected_people?language=en

but @KeithGarrett how can there be accountability in a system like that? how could someone who was selected but then turned out to be too stupid, selfish or actually evil to do the job be identified and removed? whose decision would that be? if a suitably well-informed panel made a decision that was at odds with popular opinion, how could the general public be satisfied that the decision was the right one, and fairly made? for such a system to function, the civil servants administering the process would have to be perfectly neutral, beyond reproach, and be immune to influence from the wealthy and powerful lobbies wishing to access panel members. the panel members would also surely need to consent to being effectively spied on throughout their term - a massive invasion of privacy - or else there would be no way to stop them being unduly influenced by those with power and money - you can't use an "honour-based" system if the selection process has no safeguards against dishonorable or irresponsible persons being appointed.

Now collect a group of these 'people on the street' sit them down for 6 weeks, give them access to proper facilitation, experts and evidence, critical thinking training, deliberation with each other

This where your theory falls down, who is providing this training? expert opinion? evidence? training?
Also, many people have deep seated views that will not change, look at how few Brexitiers or Remainers have changed their minds, despite some very compelling argument, from experts and evidence?

I completely agree our present system is far from perfect but at least (however poorly) politicians are accountable... personally a PR system and stronger laws on dereliction of duty (thinking Cameron and Blair here) is a better reform.

A peoples assembly might work on relatively benign reversible decisions eg Dog Licences but huge matters of state need to be left to Parliament.