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

Have you come to a decision @MNHQ ?

Good Lord, no: on multiple levels.

I absolutely wouldn't support an assembly. I would support a people's vote where everyone has a say. An assembly is too open to being cherry picked. Like Farage always being on Question Time for 'balance'.

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.

Certainly not.

*George Soros wants the EU to have a common fiscal policy so that it can borrow money... from him8

Why not say what Soros really wants?

For the EU to borrow the money from a "surge fund" (backed by him) to support the refugees both inside and outside of the EU.

Reason being is that donor EU countries are under funding this urgent need, year in year out.

You are making out this is sort of Machiavellian plot to destabilise democracy :(

Definitely not.

I would have supported convening a citizens' assembly in the immediate aftermath of the vote, but not now.

Ireland's citizen's assembly was a very different beast. It was brought together to discuss a number of topics of constitutional relevance, of which abortion was only one, which were in turn decided on by a preceding constitutional convention. The abortion referendum was held on the basis of a recommendation made by the assembly - so, far from a small number of citizens deciding for others, it was more of a testing the waters as regards to what should go to a referendum (and in the case of abortion, the extent to which the electorate would be willing to relax restrictions).

I think a citizens assembly could have been useful in the aftermath of the referendum as a formal channel through which ordinary citizens, removed from the levers of power and party interests, could express their reasons for voting leave and what they wanted from Brexit. If I were PM, I would have delayed Article 50 for at least 18 months, officially notifying the country, then convened a citizens' assembly as a consultative process - not to stop Brexit. Their recommendations, combined with those of a cross-party committee, separately convened, would have formed the basis of the UK's 'wish-list' going into negotiations on a united front*.

I also would have called another referendum in Northern Ireland only, basically as follows:
The UK is leaving the EU. Northern Ireland will remain part of the UK. In the event that the UK leaves the Single Market, Customs Union, and/or in any fashion that legally requires the maintenance of a 'hard' border and customs checks between the UK and EU member states, do you want to:
a) maintain full alignment with the rest of the UK and maintain a hard border with Ireland, acknowledging that this affects provisions within the Belfast Agreement 1998?
or
b) diverge from the rest of the UK and maintain regulatory alignment with the EU and an open border with Ireland, acknowledging that this affects provisions within the Belfast Agreement 1998?

There you go. Democratic legitimacy in NI whatever the outcome and the rest of the UK can have the Brexit it wants and move forward. NI is the stumbling block in all of this.

*If I were PM, naturally trains would run on time, education and the NHS would be fine and dandy and we would have full employment and 300 annual leave days a year while living in luxury

I don't care but.. the 2017 citizen's assembly declared the below things. They aren't being respected (FoM) or they are unicorns (frictionless EU border & free to make separate deals). Why would a 2018 version have any influence? So sorry, I think it would be a waste of money.

The (2017) Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit made recommendations on the UK’s post-Brexit policies for trade and migration.

....On trade, it preferred a bespoke UK/EU trade deal and a customs union that would allow the UK to conduct its own international trade policy while maintaining a frictionless UK/EU border.

....On migration, it voted to retain free movement of labour, but with the UK government exercising all available controls to prevent abuse of the system.

....If a deal cannot be reached in negotiations
on trade, it preferred to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union to no deal at all.

After that very long post, I forgot to say I wouldn't support a citizens assembly now because it's too late. It would be, as others have argued here, a subversion of democracy at this point as you'd be getting people to decide on a specific matter rather than just acting as a focus group. And it's been FUBAR already so you'd be passing the buck. It would be an act of desperation now.

The 2017 assembly only had 45 people and was more of a small academic project than a publicly convened body, no?

Absolutely not. This is what parliament is for. If it’s turned out that they’re a bunch of self serving fools* then it’s time for an election.

A citizens assembly is a ridiculous idea. Are they legal experts? Diplomats? Businesses? No? Just more “people” to lend an added layer of uncertainty and confusion. Brilliant. Exactly what’s needed.

*polite version.

Who decides what "representative" means?

One person from every religion, political party, sex NOT gender, age group, income bracket, marital and parental status, job, UK country.....

What if they forget to include a fisherman, or a Muslim, or a transvrstite? Would that be representative?

I support a Citizen Assembly

Good points, loony. What I'd add to that is that it would have been good if the advisory nature of the referendum had fed into that process, i.e. now that we've established there's an appetite for the possibility of leaving the EU, what kind of Brexit do most people want, how viable does that seem to be, what detail do we want/definitely not want, and do we still want to leave once we have some more thorough answers to those questions. Tbh, though, we didn't need a citizen's assembly for that, just a government run by grown-ups.

I don't care but.. the 2017 citizen's assembly declared the below things. They aren't being respected (FoM) or they are unicorns (frictionless EU border & free to make separate deals). Why would a 2018 version have any influence? So sorry, I think it would be a waste of money.

Yes, those things stood out to me too. This clearly had no traction last time in terms of affecting govt policy so why would things be different now?

Also, last time it seems to have been 50 people. Now you are talking about 500. Is 500 a typo or a real figure?

I am not in favour, btw.

Interesting to see people saying that 500 people is not enough to decide the UK's future. There are 650 MPs in the House of Commons.

Are you delusional?? I've never heard anything so ridiculous.

For the EU to borrow the money from a "surge fund" (backed by him) to support the refugees both inside and outside of the EU.

Reason being is that donor EU countries are under funding this urgent need, year in year out.

You are making out this is sort of Machiavellian plot to destabilise democracy

This is very interesting. I’ve just had a look at Soros’ own site about this, as I haven’t heard of it before.

Soros himself actually admits that the reason the EU doesn’t put the amount of funding he says is necessary into refugee projects, is because they just can’t afford it.

So George Soros’ solution is that they borrow money off him to pay it. Which he will profit from, the cost of that borrowing would come out of the pocket of every person in Europe, ordinary people, into his pockets. He’s already a billionaire. One of the richest people in the world.

jasjas, why are you trying to paint this as some sort of kind, altruistic act? If it was done out of genuine kindness and altruism, surely he would donate that money, rather than lending it for repayment plus profit for him in interest and fees?

These are huge amounts of money he’s suggesting he lend: $45,000,000,000 from the EU alone. He also wants Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey to borrow from him too. They are not rich countries and have their own social problems. Yet you think it is a kindness for one of the richest men in the world to lend them money, at interest, which will come out of the pockets of their poor citizens (including the refugees) so this billionaire can get even richer?

He’s not giving it jasjas, this isn’t a concerned man stepping in to offer his money to help people. It’s a man who has seen an opportunity to turn a quick buck and dress it up as altruism. He’s not giving a penny to help, he’s only making a loan, every penny of which will be paid back, plus interest, by ordinary people, some of whom are very poor.

And it is an attempt to subvert democracy. Setting up an unelected assembly which openly says it aims to force a democratically elected government to had over governmental powers to this assembly - short of an armed coup, nothing else could be as destabilising as democracy.

I’m just flabbergasted that people can be so deluded they would view any of that as noble or altruistic.

If he handed over his own money to refugees, then I might take him a little more seriously.

As it is, I view him as a rich man exploiting a humanitarian disaster to take even more money out of the pockets of ordinary people to line his own.

www.georgesoros.com/2016/02/17/the-case-for-surge-funding/

I don't care but.. the 2017 citizen's assembly declared the below things. They aren't being respected (FoM) or they are unicorns (frictionless EU border & free to make separate deals).

The 2017 citizens wasn’t Soros funded. It was a tiny sample (45 people) and was only intended to be a tool for debate, it wasn’t suggested it should be binding, as this one did. It was run by academics and hosted by the UCL in London.

The found the attitudes rather striking from that survey. They came absolutely nowhere near the attitudes other poll companies with bigger samples have found. In fact, they look strikingly like attitudes which would be palatable to middle class, professional, university educated people who live in the South. And the event was run by middle class, professional, university educated people from the south.

That’s one of the problems, if you’re putting people in this alien atmosphere, some people are going to be more comfortable and confident than others. So in the environment of 2017, people who had been to University, were comfortable in academics, had participated in public debates and meetings before, would naturally have had a stronger voice than others.

I know extremely bright welders, factory workers, steel workers, builders, care assistants and secretaries who can hold an extremely intelligent conversation about politics with other working class people. But they would be intimidated by that environment and also know that their opinions would probably be disapproved of or held in contempt by the organisers.

It’s a pretty uncontroversial view in northern working men’s clubs to say the influx of Romanians has led to worse pay and conditions. For example they break safety rules and will work weekends and overtime at normal rates of pay instead of double, so everyone else has to do the same. But even though we know that is true, not many of us would feel comfortable saying that in a room full of Southern academics.

There are so many problems with this, the reason our ballots are secret is exactly to stop that sort of social pressure distorting politics or people having to face negative reactions for their vote. It completely distorts the results.

I don't care but.. the 2017 citizen's assembly declared the below things. They aren't being respected (FoM) or they are unicorns (frictionless EU border & free to make separate deals). Why would a 2018 version have any influence? So sorry, I think it would be a waste of money.

That’s a laughable analogy. We had an ordinary and peaceful referendum and have followed the EUs own processes to leave. We have behaved entirely legally through, not committed a crime.

Shall we go back and demand all our former colonies give us money? It cost us time, money and damaged our economies, surely they should pay that back? How about the IRA? Shall we make the Irish pay us back for the damage? And we never had any reparations from Germany post WW2. If you want us to be punished for taking a part in a legitimate legal process then surely invading half of Europe, quite a bit of Africa, blockading the British Isles and gassing 6 million Jews ought to be very costly.

What you are suggesting is downright evil. It would be the actions of a corrupt, oppressive, totalitarian state. If the EU did that, they’d deserve everything they got, if they did that, they’d be violently overthrown. And they’d deserve it. It would be an act of pure evil and would signal the EU had absolute contempt for its citizens.

I think you have mistaken my point, Victoria. I was actually responding to Augusta, who was ranting along the lines that the correlation between affluence and voting Remain was some kind of plot to disenfranchise the working class. I was trying to explain why there might be a statistical relationship between the two, assuming that Augusta's point was even true, which I'm not entirely convinced of tbh.*

It is true.

www.li.com/activities/publications/48-52-healing-a-divided-nation

No other group except the ABs voted to remain in a majority. The richer people were, the more likely they were to vote remain.

You can make any excuse you want. It doesn’t change the fact that remaining now would mean that the poor, the working classes, the most disadvantaged, had the majority of their voices silenced and they would be forced to stay in an unwanted political system which only the elite and wealthy significantly support.

We would be a plutocracy, not a democracy. A society where the rich hold the power.

Paranoid class statements. I'm so pleased not to be a tribal person.

ragged they are not paranoid class statements, they’re backed up by statistics from reputable institutions. Remainers are demanding that the voices of the rich take precedence and have more value than the poor.

I suppose it’s easy not to be tribal if you’re in that group or one of their supine pet minority of the working class who agrees with them so they deign to allow you to be heard.

For all their left wing posturing,Remainers are the most aggressively elitist, disenfranchising force the UK has seen since the Peterloo massacre. The fact so many of you find a home with Labour is a disgrace.

... oh and if you're listening Jeremy, you're part of the problem. Endless vacillation will not resolve this issue, nor does it constitute leadership.

@Augusta2012

Sorry can you point to the sentence i said that Soros was acting out of altruistic reasons? i didnt say that at all.

I was replying to the PP who tried to paint this as EU borrowing general funds direct from Soros, he isn't that rich! having given 18 billion to his "charitable fund"
Poor chap is down to his last 8 billion!

I don't know his reasoning and neither do you!

i can't see what conditions this money would be lent under nor the rates and presumably the EU would use Soros if it was cheaper than the money markets, considering member states, like the UK wont be coughing up.

BUT if the funds end up helping refugees in Lebanon and Jordan, that is a good thing i'd have thought.