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

Oh FFS Mumsnet. You’re backing a rabidly pro Remain group which is heavily politically partisan being allowed to set up and heavily influence the decision making body for Brexit?

That proposal looks like it was written by Citizen Smith or Rick from the young ones. Shame on you for even considering supporting this.

I think its a dreadful idea. Who is to say the tiny group chosen would be representative?

My thoughts exactly. Would they be representative and would they be adequately informed, and would they be capable of moving beyond the idiotic memes and tropes that Brexit has already spawned? You would have to find 500 people who've been sequestered for the last 3 years to get away from the brainache of 'Brexit means Brexit' and 'The people have spoken', etc, plus they would also need to be adequately engaged and capable of grasping a complex and multifaceted, but also quite dry topic. Honestly, what are the odds? It's tempting to imagine that random members of the public couldn't fuck Brexit up worse than the government have already done, but it's not a stretch to see that actually they really could if you just pause to consider some of the out and out crap people are spouting on the topic, both on MN and elsewhere. Putting the original vote in the hands of the general public was stupid enough, but this would be beyond irresponsible.

The selection of that 500 people would be blamed on the outcome of their decision whichever way it goes.

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.

Agree with this 100%.

What is the point of a citizens assembly composed of a few people. No we need a general election, because this government is not acting in the interests of the people. The reason for this is that the current Government has defunded the police, the NHS, the social care services, schools, neighbourhoods, and social welfare system, and had caused Brexit related chaos (which has devalued the pound and increased food prices, not to mention the companies and EU regulatory offices (and the jobs) which have already left the UK) this has produced a reduction in the quality of life of every single person in the UK (outside the 5 % richest). The only way out, is to remove this idiotic party out of government. A government that do not want to focus on policies to improve life in Britain, but instead are facing a crisis internally, and has dragged the entire people of Britain into their internal feud.

If something is this difficult and son deadlocked, isn't there a nagging doubt that perhaps it just isn't right, or isn't the right time?

Citizen's input isn't a silver bullet.

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.

Right. You do realise that the only groups who voted in a majority for remain are the As and Bs. The richest and most privileged people in our society.

So basically what you are suggesting is that the majority of lower middle and working class voters that they are so thick that their vote and voice is worthless and you know what they think better than they do.

Plus you’re going to tell everybody who voted for the Tories and therefore austerity and limits on migration that they didn’t mean to, didn’t know what they were doing and are stupid too? How do you intend to get to the position of dealing with those issues if all those awful little plebs don’t cooperate and fall in line with what you think they should be saying? You can’t accept the fact that an awful lot of people know perfectly well what they’re doing but just plain don’t agree with you?

What you’re basically suggesting is scrapping democracy altogether and replacing it with some sort of bien pensant totalitarian state where the richest in society tell the poorest that they know what is best and they should just shut up and let their betters tell is best for them and ignore their votes and voices entirely.

Europe had many, many years of struggle and revolution to get rid of regimes like that and they would do again. It’s absolutely horrific that this sort of stuff is coming out of the left wing which historically has done so much to support the franchise of the working classes.

What you’re describing is basically the USSR.

The only way out, is to remove this idiotic party out of government

And what will you do if the public don’t vote the way you want?

No a dreadful idea. I would have grave concerns about it.

No

if the bar was set a little higher - perhaps open to anyone who either holds a degree

Stop there - Cameron, Davis, Fox, Johnson, Raab, May, Redwood and a good many others hold degrees and from Oxbridge at that. This hasn't stopped them from behaving like stupid fools.

I would watch an average episode of Question time to see how useful an addition to this debate it would likely be- Ie not at all. I think it’s madness. I agree completely with jasjas ‘s post. This is the most anti democratic idea I’ve heard. I’m really disappointed in Stella Creasy if she’s advocating it. So Parliament can’t do its job so they will bring in a bunch of random non elected people to do it instead?

I am laughing at the idea that anyone who has a degree is naturally intelligent.

@lonelyplanetmum your plan A sounds the best option to me. Let’s go with that. All sorted.

I don't mind you backing a rabidly remain group - though I think @Augusta2012 has her own agenda and reasons for calling it that and I don't think MN takes a remain stance officially (more's the pity in my view).

However I think this is a terrible idea. We have a parliamentary democracy, which ought to be serving the purpose a 'Citizens Assembly' does. MPs are after all citizens. They are supposed to take advisement from people expert in their field and listen to their constituents' views and behave accordingly. They are supposed to be representatives of what the country thinks. I don't trust that the selection of this citizens assembly would be done in any random or democratic enough way - if it were, why is Mumsnet being asked about it? What is random about the people who post here?

I don't support this, for the reasons many PPs have given - I'm not confident the panel would be genuinely representative.

One question about it, though, @RowanMumsnet - would there be arrangements for working people to attend, as there are if you are called for Jury service?

For the record, I support the idea of a further referendum allowing people to vote on the specific deal that's on the table versus remaining.

Bad idea.
I don't think 500 people is a large enough representative (from 10 000) to get a fair and balanced view considering the population of the UK is approx. 67 million.

Oh for the love of God Mumsnet. It’s a George Soros foundation, it is overtly politically partisan.

In what crazy world did any of you ever think it would be acceptable that one of the richest men in the world and his staff should select, direct and control a non-elected assembly of people who would take powers for decisions out of the hands of our democratically elected government?

This is incredibly frightening, if this sort of thing was happening in a third world country, we’d be up in arms about the corruption and fearing a dictatorship by the back door.

Incidentally, I took part in Open Democracies pilots in 2015. They were highly partisan and in my opinion were designed with the purpose that the organisers could lead the assembly to give the results that the organisers wished them to reach.

Selection was not truly random at all. They used what they called “stratification” and recruited members via our YouGov accounts which meant they knew our political affiliations and opinions. I assume the same method would be used here so that Open Democracy could decide exactly what the most advantageous mix for them.

Open Democracy also hosted the “Convention on Brexit”, which also paid lip service to the free exchange of ideas but would more accurately have been described as a propaganda exercise for Remain. Of its 9 speakers 8 were passionate remainers and one was a soft brexiteer.

I also think it’s stunningly dishonest of MNHQ to present this as something which MNHQ could endorse without taking sides on the Brexit issue. Here are some quotes from the proposal:

openDemocracy has worked for two years exposing the dark money driving Brexit. Presumably Soros’ money is bathed in angelic light.

Brexit, a crisis of economy, culture, identity, belonging – a crisis of the past, the present and the future, now becomes a constitutional crisis.

It’s clearly not a non-partisan, neutral organisation. If Mumsnet endorsed it, they would in effect be endorsing Remain.

Also, do you think we are stupid? Okay there are some sound bites in there about it’s purpose being to make the process ‘more democratic’, but what sort of idiot would actually believe that an unelected assembly convened by one of the richest men on the planet who is politically highly partisan and intends to use the conclusions of a process which his organisations will control and interpret to pressure elected politicians into abiding by them - well you’d have to be terminally stupid to believe that was democratic.

No. That is what we elect MPs for, useless bunch that they are.Many employed or self employed people would not be able to give up the time to be on a Citizens Assembly so it would not be balanced. If MPs don't know what their constituents want they need to to ask the people again with another referendum. Questions 1 , stay or leave, Q 2. If we leave, with Mays deal or no deal.

I don't mind you backing a rabidly remain group - though I think @Augusta2012 has her own agenda and reasons for calling it that

Well yes I do. Because I’ve actually bothered to find out about the people convening it and their previous activities. And they are. You can carry on making snide remarks all you like, doesn’t make it any less true.

OK @Augusta2012 just carry on slagging me off and calling me 'snide' despite the fact I was actually agreeing with you. Much more fun. This is our country now I suppose.

How anyone can think the word 'rabid' is the result of any level headed research as you claim is laughable, but Brexiters always to prefer an emotive expression to any reasoned debate.

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.*

This is incredibly dangerous. I have seen a lot of remainers recently advocating for this disenfranchisement of people they disapprove of. The exclusion of the people who are the poorest and most vulnerable in society from having any voice in the decision making process. And the most privileged who voted for Remain being given an enhanced position in that process.

If we go any further down this road, it would lay the foundations of a civil war. It’s not democracy or anything approaching it.

We're already at civil war. More or less bloodless so far but who knows how long that will last. And it's worth pointing out that it's the VERY most privileged who started this whole shebang - for their own reasons. They've now protected their money abroad.

However I don't believe a selected rather than elected group of people is the answer either - unless it's a group selected for their particular knowledge and skills - but there is not time for a fair selection process.
Certainly only allowing people with degrees to decide is indeed madness.

mookatron, rabidly is a figure of speech which can be taken to mean blindly and passionately. You were rude, ‘her own reasons and agenda’? Yes I do, but so do you do I don’t know why mine is a problem but yours is okay? Everyone has some sort of agenda on this.

But this idea is suggesting we allow control of this process to be handed over to an unelected body controlled by one of the richest men in the world who has become rich through actions which directly impoverished many people in this country and left them broke and homeless - it’s not my agenda you need to worry about.

We're already at civil war.

Oh, nonsense.