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

I would think that a citizen's assembly could be part of the process deciding what leave option would be on the final ballot of a peoples vote

So what happens i the meantime? We crash out or ask the EU for an extension of a few years while we bugger about deciding what we want?

The time for something like this is long gone. Officially we have less than 5 months before we leave. There may be a short extension allowed, but of course the EU is not going to allow us to extend for a few years while we effectively start again.

"A bit pointless really.
There are really only 3 choices. Out (crash deliberate or accidental).
The WA as it stands.
Remain."

This^ These are the only three options. And number 3 is an increasingly time limited option.

MNHQ: I don't think you should get behind this as it is a)pointless and b) as you were approached by a specific high profile individual rather than a cross party group it is not politically neutral.

we revoke article 50, set up a 2 way ref between remain and leave. Use some kind of delibratative process to work out what leave actually means making it clear that the only available choices are somewhere on the axis between Norway and Canada and leaving the single market +cu means a backstop

And MNHQ should not be getting behind this proposal. It is a proposal that will only be supported by the politically naive, those who have to give in to pressure from the politically naive, and those who are out to promote themselves, their organisation or party. You don't want to get embroiled in this.

Why can’t they all in Parliament sit and work out something together, instead of electing more of them?

Isn’t that why MP are for anyway? Why can’t they deal with the huge problem that is Brexit sensibly, instead of the partisan mess that is now?

so final ref would have remain (no change) versus some kind of leave

It’s just MP’s way of washing their hands of this mess, the way I see it.

I won’t be supporting this.

The pro-life side of the Irish debate (Iona Institute etc) never accepted the Citizen's Assembly as legitimate. Many refused to engage and insisted that the convention had been politically manipulated when it made its very sensible, middle-of-the-road suggestions.

It did not convince any hardliners. Unfortunately, I don't think it has the capacity to make Brexit any better.

It was convened at the beginning of the process in Ireland also - when the issue was relatively un-toxic. Not at the very end as a last ditch attempt.

Revoking A50 and defer all other actions until a properly respected political agreement that involves the people of NI which either means reunification of Ireland as a whole, the willingness to have a suitable trade 'border' acceptable to all or some other amicable resolution. Give it 20 years as an early estimate.
Besides, if the UK revokes, it won't be allowed to call it again for maybe 15 years anyway.

What we need to do is Revoke.

And then find out properly why people voted Leave and propose ways to address those issues, which imo on the whole have little to do with EU membership and more to do with government policy on immigration and austerity.

100% agree with this.

If Stella Creasy wants to break the deadlock she should press for a new party leader.

No politician is going to revoke. It would be political suicide.

No you shouldn't be supporting this, at all. Members of Parliament are accountable to the electorate for what they do and say, members of any citizens assembly are accountable to nobody. If they aren't accountable to anybody they shouldn't have any power over such a decision.

You would think Patel lobbying for Irish famine #2 would be political suicide. Apparently she's still in a job. Stranger things have happened.

This situation needs something beyond party politics. I think a random selection of 500 informed individuals would thrash it out. (No point in having people who just reiterate that 'the people have spoken'.)

I also agree with Peregrina that we need a frank cross-party discussion about why people voted the way they did. I voted Leave as a protest vote. I'm still not happy with the EU but I'd be a darned sight less happy if we left with no deal. Mine wasn't an informed decision. I'd rather we stay in the EU for now. Revoke!

But the decision of the 500 wouldn't be legally binding; it would just be presented as the best way forward, and would need to be put to a vote by MPs, who would be free to vote with their conscience.

Miranda And how is this all possible when we are leaving in March 2019?

I think its a terrible idea. MPs are our elected representatives, they can sort the mess out. I'd have no faith in 500 unelected possibly uneducated randoms. It clearly didn't work for Brexit. So a no from me.

I also think it's a terrible idea, for all the reasons already mentioned.

No politician is going to revoke. It would be political suicide.

And that’s the problem, political inability to see beyond they party interests.

Twats.

It's a NO from me too.

No. I think this is a terrible idea. Such a small number cannot possibly be representative and the findings will be skewed. Who’s to say people asked will be educated to make such decisions? Leave the politicians to do their job. That’s what they’re for.

we already have this thing called representative democracy whereby ordinary people are theoretically selected to take important decisions on behalf of those they represent. up till recently it was always understood that this would sometimes mean our legislators voting against the majority of popular opinion because the representatives get to understand all the information and balance all the pros and cons and eliminate options that aren't even practically possible. eg it's well known that majority opinion in usually in favour of capital punishment yet it doesn't happen because well-informed decision makers know what is actually right.

our democracy is currently failing mainly due to David Cameron's idiocy in calling a referendum in the first place but also because our representatives don't have the courage to explain that the unicorns that people voted for do not actually exist.

a people's assembly would not solve this. instead of an assembly of a few hundred people who have at least gone through some kind of vetting process to be elected, and who have some sense of responsibility, we would get 500 people even less capable. as with jury service anyone with significant responsibilities would have to opt out so the remaining available people would be those least capable of holding any responsibility. we would have no guarantees about their intelligence or abilities. they would have no personal consequences to live with if they made a bad decision so there would be no onus on them to do the job well. I would not trust such a body with the future of the country.

if the bar was set a little higher - perhaps open to anyone who either holds a degree or is professionally qualified in a recognised trade, perhaps a few other equivalent qualifiers to ensure intelligent people who didn't go to university can be included but the terminally thick are excluded. then it might stand a chance.

if it were even feasible to get an assembly that was fully demographically representative this is what it would look like:

460 people would be white
10 black people
10 of Indian heritage
5 of Pakistani heritage
5 would describe themselves as mixed race
10 would be of other heritage

50 of the assembly would have been born outside the UK

40 of them would live in greater London, 380 in the rest of England, 40 Scottish people, 25 welsh and 15 from Northern Ireland.

290 people would be of working age and would have a job.
109 would be of working age but not employed.
81 would be between 65 and 80 and 19 people over the age of 80 - 5 of these would have dementia.

91of the assembly members would not have access to the internet at home. 5 would be illiterate.

185 of the members would not have achieved at least a grade C in English and Maths on their first attempt (some will have got there after retakes).

I don't believe such an assembly would be capable of making good decisions if it could be assembled. I expect any actually assembled group would be even worse once the practicalities of who can actually spare the time are accounted for.

We have a people’s assembly. It’s called the House of Commons and it’s a democratically elected chamber.

Why the hell should some selection of unelected randoms get to decide the most important political issue of this generation?

I would have no confidence that the selection process was genuinely random either.

This would be a complete subversion of democracy.

If an assembly like this was given concrete decision making powers over our elected representatives, I would be out on the streets rioting.