This piece is a guest post from Conor Black. Conor is a former student of the University of Glasgow who wrote his MRes dissertation on ‘Mini-Publics in the Deliberative System’.

 The first meeting of the Citizens’ Assembly of Scotland is scheduled to take place in Edinburgh this weekend. 

This group of randomly selected citizens will meet intermittently over six months to consider the trajectory of Scotland’s future, and produce a report of its recommendations for the Scottish Parliament to consider.

Citizens’ Assemblies can help to establish a more direct link between ordinary citizens and the policy-/decision-making process than currently exists in our political system. Click To Tweet

Citizens’ Assemblies can help to establish a more direct link between ordinary citizens and the policy-/decision-making process than currently exists in our political system. Importantly, Citizens’ Assemblies are grounded in the ideals of deliberation – that is, meaningful communication between informed individuals working towards reaching a mutually beneficial and collective decision.

If done correctly, the Citizens’ Assembly of Scotland has the potential to redress some of the democratic deficits that plague our political system, as well as signalling a shift away from adversarial politics.

If done correctly, the Citizens’ Assembly of Scotland has the potential to redress some of the democratic deficits that plague our political system, as well as signalling a shift away from adversarial politics. Click To Tweet

The Citizens’ Assembly of Scotland has been heavily influenced by the highly regarded – and widely successful – Irish model. There are nonetheless lessons to learn.

Here are four areas where action can be taken to ensure the success of the Citizens’ Assembly of Scotland and the wider project of deliberative democracy in Scotland.

The Media

It is rare that in any political endeavour the media do not play an integral role, and the Citizens’ Assembly is no exception. A well-funded and concerted media campaign is necessary to ensure the forum’s success and to raise public awareness of the presence, function and purpose of the Assembly. This is integral if the process is to be repeated.

Reporting on the Assembly during the deliberation phase could be in the form of a brief segment to accompany the news showing a snapshot of the deliberative process, or vox pops with participants to be broadcast on both TV and radio.

Ultimately, the success of any citizens’ assembly is reliant on a willingness of parliamentarians to listen to the demands of citizens and to respect the recommendations of the assembly, even if they contradict/go against their political agendas. With this in mind, it is necessary to increase the accountability and democratic pressure of our elected officials. A media campaign that makes clear the recommendations of the assembly – and the need to listen – has the potential to achieve this.

High-Quality Information

Our current political eco-system is awash with misinformation and highly charged rhetoric.

When engaging in political decision-making, citizens tend to rely on cognitive shortcuts such as partisan cues. This is an accepted phenomenon and only becomes an issue when there is a lack of high-quality information.

In contrast, citizens’ assemblies rely on high-quality information in order for participants to make informed decisions. High-quality information should be similarly disseminated to the wider public, in order to inform and enhance public debates and aid decision-making processes.

This could be achieved by ensuring that every citizen has access to/is provided with the substantive policy information on the recommendations of the Citizens’ Assembly and at a level that enabled all members of the public to engage with it meaningfully.

In the lead up to the Scottish Independence Referendum in 2014, a white paper was produced and distributed to all Scottish households. It does not seem impossible for something similar to be repeated with the assembly, helping to establish a direct link between citizens and the deliberative process.

The purpose of this approach would be to bypass traditional institutions, and allow citizens to pursue the Assembly’s recommendations in a way that is not reliant on a governmental response to initiate the discourse.

Making deliberation the norm

Unfortunately, deliberative initiatives tend to be deployed in an ad-hoc fashion.

In order to realise their full potential they must be systematised and institutionalised at both national and local levels.

Doing so has the potential to inculcate a culture of political participation, which extends beyond the simple casting of votes, and would foreground citizen engagement as central to the political decision-making process.

A promising sign is that the Scottish Government has already made tentative references to further Citizens’ Assemblies – but whether they materialise remains to be seen.

Funding

While it may seem to be an obvious consideration, a secure funding stream is often treated as an afterthought. In fact, it is perhaps the most important factor.

This is particularly apparent if we look at the fate of the Scottish Civic Forum, which facilitated a variety of forms of deliberation in the early days of Scottish devolution. Despite its successful and integral role in Scottish politics, the Forum was disbanded due to questions over how it should be funded. Given this historical perspective, adequate and secure funding is of particular importance. If we understand that the aim of a Citizens’ Assembly is to work towards creating a better society, what real hope is there of achieving this if we cannot learn from our mistakes?

Ultimately, although presented separately, these recommendations should not be viewed as mutually exclusive – and if they were implemented would work well alongside each other.

ERS Scotland has been involved in multiple deliberative democratic processes in Scotland, including Democracy Max – a programme to involve Scottish citizens in a conversation about what makes good democracy. ERS Scotland is now involved in the ‘Act As If We Own the Place’ project, exploring new methods of collective decision-making.

The ERS have been central in promoting deliberative forms of democracy across the UK, and ERS Scotland director Willie Sullivan is on the 13 strong stewarding group for the Citizens’ Assembly of Scotland.

This piece was originally published by The Scotsman.

Talk of citizens’ assemblies is in the air. Former Conservative leadership contender, Rory Stewart has suggested holding one to break through the Brexit impasse. And on Monday, the Scottish Government released their plans for a citizens’ assembly to discuss Scotland’s democratic future.

But what are they? A citizens’ assembly is made up of a representative group of around 50 to 200 citizens, put together from the general public, like a jury. The selection of members is stratified to ensure that participants are as representative as possible of the general population according to certain criteria – usually gender, age, ethnicity, geographical location, and social background. Being put together like a jury means that the wider public can be confident that members are fellow citizens, just like them, and are not representing special interests.

Citizens then hear from experts and campaigners from across the spectrum and society to learn, consult, and then discuss between them on ways forward on complicated issues – away from the sometimes shrill, antagonistic process of (for example) an immediate, full-scale referendum.

The most well-known citizens’ assembly is that which took place in Ireland between 2016 and 2018. The Assembly was composed of a chairperson, appointed by the government, and 99 ordinary citizens ‘randomly selected so as to be broadly representative of Irish society’ in terms of age, gender, social class, and regional spread.

Members debated on a number of topics, including removing the country’s constitutional ban on abortion – and it had a huge impact. Several recommendations – including ending the ban on abortion – were successfully put to a referendum in May 2018.

When just 4% of people feel properly represented by Westminster (BMG polling for the ERS, May), they are looking for new ways to be speak out.

The ERS recently published a report on moving beyond the ‘Westminster model’ of politics, backing a more ‘deliberative’ model of democracy. We’ve been working on public engagement and innovations in democracy in Scotland for years, through public events collectively involving thousands of citizens, helping to shape their communities.

The ERS have also published new proposals for a fresh model for local democracy in Scotland, featuring permanent citizens’ assemblies to feed into local decision-making. And on a UK-wide level, we helped run a national citizens’ assembly on Brexit – which could form a template for an government-backed one in future.

So we’re delighted that the Scottish Government has decided to use citizens’ assemblies to upgrade Scottish democracy.

Old fashioned party politics and a binary vision have failed to provide solutions that Scots can unite around.

The initial structure and the open questions are a good start. Our campaign for more people power at a local level through our ‘Act As If You Own the Place’ initiative has taught us a great deal about what the gold standard in public involvement might look like. We know from our own experience and research that the assembly design and the way assemblies are run are crucial for their success. The devil will be in the detail.

The hard work starts now: there is a lot of work to do on this and in making sure the Scottish people see the assembly as the trusted, independent institution that it should be.

It’s positive that the government are keen to hear from experiences here in Scotland and from around the world.

So our verdict is so far so good – and we look forward to working with all partners on ensuring this is the best deliberative democratic process possible.

On the evening of Monday July 8th the ERS will be hosting a public debate in Edinburgh – featuring experts and politicians – to discuss the citizens’ assembly plans. 

Contact mediaoffice@electoral-reform.org.uk to find out more. Joanna Cherry MP QC, Dr Jess Garland, and Dr Oliver Escobar are confirmed already. 

Sign up for ERS Scotland’s Citizens’ Assembly event

Last summer, ministers announced genuinely exciting plans for piloting ‘deliberative democracy’ across the UK. The plan was to use a series of citizens’ assemblies to engage people with politics, to tackle complex and contested topics, and to break through local political deadlock.

Councils leapt at the opportunity to do democracy differently, with seventy local authorities expressing an interest. Eight experiments were given the green light, with local authorities given £60,000 each to run them: Waltham Forest sought to involve residents in seeking solutions around hate crime, Barking and Dagenham Council proposed an assembly to look at regulating the use of bailiffs in the borough, while Greater Manchester Combined Authority planned to use an assembly to look at the development of transport priorities across the city.

Drawn from long-standing ideas about the power of selection by lot, combined with more institutions such as juries, citizens’ assemblies offer a deliberative and participative form of democracy. They’re popular all over the world – in Ireland, a Convention on the Constitution and Citizens’ Assembly led to the referendums agreeing to legalisation of same-sex marriage and access to abortion.

It all shows that even on the seemingly most-divisive issues, voters can come together and unite around key principles.

Panellists are selected to be broadly representative of the wider population, taking into account of demographic characteristics such as gender, age, ethnicity and social class. The goal is for the members to engage in serious and informed reflection on the topic at hand discussing and deliberating the issue before making recommendations.

At a time of overwhelming distrust in politics and an apparent breakdown in the machinery of democracy, the local initiatives – backed by central government – sent a powerful message. That there’s another way let voters work through this.

So it was dispiriting to learn in the Times this week that the government plans to shelve all but three of the proposed local citizens’ assemblies agreed last year – keeping only the least controversial projects on the table. That sort of defeats the power of a citizens’ assembly.

[bctt tweet=”The government plans to shelve all but three of the proposed local citizens’ assemblies agreed last year – keeping only the least controversial projects on the table” username=”electoralreform”]

The apparent motivation for scrapping the schemes is revealing: one government source put the change of position down to “deep-seated fears about giving the public a greater democratic voice”

Put simply, the government is running scared.

Today we find ourselves in a ‘constitutional crisis’ over Brexit – with MPs with opposing views seemingly unable to come together and find a way forward in the national interest. Day in, day out, voters see politicians arguing across the aisle and failing to find consensus on many of the big issues of the day.

We need to be innovative in finding solutions to the problems we face – from education funding to social care, council cuts, to climate change. Citizens’ assemblies provide a way to bring people together – to discuss and debate to find solutions. They offer a less adversarial forum than existing political spaces where people work together to explore the common beliefs, not line up to argue for their differences. And unlike the vitriol of elections, these properly-facilitated, informed debates ensure respectful conversations and learning.

Recent polling shows over two-thirds of people do not feel represented by politicians. When faith in politics is so low, it’s surely time to look at new ways of breaking the deadlock.

At the ERS, we have called for a Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit to encourage in-depth discussions and understanding on the UK’s future relationship with Europe. Indeed, we’ve seen a glimpse of how it might work: a 2017 trial Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit which we co-ran showed that passionate Leavers and Remainers can work together. Who knows what would have happened if it had official government backing?

The 50-strong Assembly was endorsed by a range of high-profile figures from across the Brexit divide, including MPs Sir Bernard Jenkin, Nicky Morgan and Chuka Umunna, demonstrating real buy-in from across the Brexit spectrum.

And now, as we edge nearer to the 29 March exit, using a citizens’ assembly to break the Brexit logjam has been supported by MPs Lisa Nandy and Stella Creasy, while former Prime Minister Gordon Brown has argued for the need to ‘talk to the people’ through a series of nationwide consultations on what Brexit should look like.

From the local level to the national, we know that citizens’ assemblies work. Yet at the very time our centralised system is being exposed as inadequate, the government is bringing the hammer down on a positive alternative to broken Westminster politics.

[bctt tweet=”At the very time our centralised system is being exposed as inadequate, the government is bringing the hammer down on a positive alternative to broken Westminster politics.” username=”electoralreform”]

Rather than cancelling the local citizens’ assembly plans, the government should be expanding them and letting truly deliberative democracy flourish.

This article was originally published on the Local Government Chronical

Citizens’ Assemblies are often in the news, from the assemblies that led to the referendums on equal marriage and abortion in Ireland, to the Citizens’ Assembly of Scotland and local council climate assemblies.

While the Electoral Reform Society has helped run two citizens’ assemblies, and political scientists have been studying them for years, for most of us the phrase ‘Citizens’ Assembly’ means little.

Isn’t Parliament a Citizens’ Assembly?

Firstly, Parliament is not a citizens’ assembly. Rather than elections, the members of a citizens’ assembly are typically put together like a jury, where we all have an equal chance of joining. It is still up to elected politicians whether or not to follow the assembly’s recommendations.

The aim is to secure a group of people who are broadly representative of the electorate across characteristics such as their gender, ethnicity, social class and the area where they live.  The Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit that the ERS helped run also selected participants on the basis of whether they voted to leave or to remain in the EU referendum.

Citizens’ Assemblies can come in any size, but the larger they are the more representative of the electorate they will be.

Are Citizens’ Assemblies just focus groups or consultations?

These aren’t just focus groups or consultations though. The goal isn’t to just hear what people already think – but for the members to engage in serious, informed reflection on important policy matters with people they may never normally meet.

Assemblies are generally set a clear task. The Irish Convention on the Constitution of 2012–14, for example, was asked to deliberate on a set list of eight constitutional proposals, including allowing same-sex marriage and removing the offence of blasphemy from the constitution. In British Columbia, the mandate of the Citizens’ Assembly was to “assess models for electing Members of the [province’s] Legislative Assembly”.

Participants will typically have a set time to complete this. They may meet for one weekend a month for a year, or every weekend for a few months – or just a few times. The Irish Convention on the Constitution met for 10 weekends from December 2012 to March 2014. The Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit ran for two weekends in late 2017.

In order to ensure that people from as wide a range of backgrounds as possible can attend (e.g. those with dependent children or relatives, or just people who wouldn’t usually get involved can attend), participants are typically paid for their time.

What happens at a Citizens’ Assembly

A citizens’ assembly will typically go through three phases: learning; consultation; deliberation and discussion.

Firstly, a learning phase where participants get to know each other and how the assembly works and what its aims are. In this phase, relevant facts about the issue at hand are presented to the participants, who get to ask questions of experts and access background and contextual information.

Secondly, during the consultation phase, campaigners from each side get to present their arguments, and be questioned on them. Sometimes, the assembly might run a public consultation during this phase to understand what the broader public thinks about an issue.

Thirdly, the participants deliberate amongst themselves – discussing which arguments they found convincing and which they saw straight through. Generally, assembly members will make recommendations at the end of this phase.

Deliberative processes emphasise the importance of reflection and informed discussion in decision-making. This allows people to adopt more nuanced positions on the issues at hand, with a better understanding of the trade-offs inherent in a given decision.

It is essential for a Citizens’ Assembly to be balanced in terms of the information presented to participants.

Generally, the organisers will build an Advisory Board comprising of independent experts and campaigners from both sides of the issue to vet the information given to the participants. The assembly’s speakers will be carefully chosen to give equal representation to all sides of the debates. Participants will be carefully seated to ensure a balance of views and perspectives on each table. The table discussions will also be facilitated to ensure that everyone’s views are heard, but the facilitators are barred from discussing the issues raised.

What is the point of Citizens’ Assemblies?

One of the problems with popular self-government, is that we are all far too busy leading our lives to also govern. The only way the ancient Athenians managed it was by excluding all the women and the massive slave population from the process. While the men informed themselves on the issues of the day, the women and slaves did all the work.

We could have rule by direct democracy with regular referendums, but only a small percentage of the population can or want to spend all their spare time learning about fishing quotas one month, then social security rules the next.

Representative democracy is a way around this problem. We vote for a small group of people to work full time on getting themselves informed on important issues, and then let them get on with it – throwing them out if they do anything too wrong. But, this can lead to the formation of a political class with interests of their own.

Citizens’ Assemblies are a way around this problem. By assembling a representative group and giving them the tools and time, you can create a proxy for what it would be like if everyone had the tools and time to discuss and debate the important issues.

Around the world, people are innovating with new forms of democracy. Drawing from traditional juries and modern institutions such as citizens’ juries, more deliberative and participatory forms of democracy are taking shape. With our long democratic heritage, it is an area where Britain can take the lead.

Follow @UKassemblies for updates on Citizens’ Assemblies

The likelihood of politicians reaching a consensus on Brexit appears to be diminishing by the day – to consternation on all sides. But what if there’s another way?

Parliament is split on May’s deal and even that is not along party lines. There are what appear to be unbreachable schisms within both the Tories and Labour.

Bringing the country together on this issue can seem almost an impossible task. But there is a tried and tested way of doing this: a Citizens’ Assembly.

Bringing the country together on this issue can seem almost an impossible task. But there is a tried and tested way of doing this: a Citizens’ Assembly. Click To Tweet

You may not have heard of a Citizens’ Assembly before, but it is not something to be afraid of. It’s a simple way of reaching answers to difficult questions.

On Brexit, it would involve a representative group of people, initially selected at random, meeting over a few days to learn about and discuss the various issues and possible solutions.

At the end of these sessions, which can involve independent experts in an educative role as well as thinkers and campaigners on all sides, the Assembly reaches recommendations.

It’s a simple idea, but one which has proved to be very effective. The 2016 citizens’ assembly in Ireland has been credited with finding a way forward through complex and contested constitutional issues including laws on abortion and same-sex marriage.

The huge benefit of a Citizens’ Assembly is that it provides a constructive setting which emphasises knowledge and constructive debate.

When compared to the bickering we see in the House of Commons, or the outright bullying we see online, it could be just the forum needed to unite the country on Brexit.

When compared to the bickering we see in the House of Commons, or the outright bullying we see online, it could be just the forum needed to unite the country on Brexit. Click To Tweet

It is a solution the Electoral Reform Society have now backed, having had experience running civil society-led assemblies in the past. The way citizens came together to find solutions across divides was inspiring.

Lots of people agree, it turns out: including the likes of Damon Albarn and former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams.

Below is the full text of a letter published in the Guardian this week:

Our politics and our parliament is in deadlock over Brexit. But if we choose to learn from other countries in how we resolve our differences, this could be a moment when Britain comes together rather than falling apart in constitutional chaos.

Looking on, we cannot see how a majority can be found for any proposition in parliament: some want to remain, some want no deal, some want Norway, some want to vote again. The same rifts exist across the UK. Anger and resentment are growing, splitting families, communities and our country. Without a new intervention, the toxic culture which has infected public life will irrevocably damage democracy and the future for us all.

Each of us individually has different views on what should happen next when it comes to Brexit, but we all agree that finding a way forward is vital to restoring faith in our democracy. We are not MPs and we respect the important work they do. Yet we also recognise that there are important ways to help heal this rift and involve the public in deeper and more meaningful ways.

Citizens’ assemblies operate around the world to create a neutral forum for evidence-based, participative decision-making. In recent years, they have been used in Ireland, British Columbia and Iceland, and in national and local government in the UK, as democratic “circuit-breakers” on contentious and complex issues. Taking eight weeks to organise, such assemblies are constructed of a randomly chosen representative group of up to 500 members of the public. They hear a broad range of evidence and arguments on a subject, which they discuss and weigh up before making considered recommendations to their political representatives.

A forum led by the public, not by politicians. People talking and listening to each other, not shouting and arguing on or offline, to find common ground. Not superseding MPs by judging the outcome, but offering recommendations on how Brexit should be decided, to help break this deadlock and start to heal the nation’s bitter divisions.

Brexit has come to test the patience of the British public. To make progress we should instead trust their wisdom and use it to resolve our differences, deepen our democracy and unite us all.

Rowan Williams, Damon Albarn,  Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner, Jonathan Coe, Ian McEwan, Caitlin Moran, Neal Lawson Compass, Dr Jess Garland Electoral Reform Society, Ruth Lister Labour, House of Lords, Anshu Srivastava The Full Brexit, Alexandra Runswick, Unlock Democracy,  Prof Graham Smith Centre for the Study of Democracy, Francesca Klug Human rights expert, Nick Lowles Hope Not Hate, Anthony Barnett Co-founder of openDemocracy, Michael Wills Labour, House of Lords, Graham Allen Citizens’ Convention on UK Democracy, Tim Hughes Involve, Prof Nick Pearce Institute for Policy Research, University of Bath, Nick Baines Bishop of Leeds, Peter Cross Sortition Foundation

There’s a way through this Brexit impasse – let’s embrace it.

In a historic referendum on Friday, the Irish electorate voted with a resounding Yes in favour of removing the Eighth Amendment (article 40.3.3) from the Constitution.

Citizens were asked whether or not to replace the Eighth Amendment, which banned abortion in almost all circumstances by recognising the constitutional right to life of the unborn, with a provision enabling the Oireachtas (the Irish Parliament) to regulate the termination of pregnancy by law.

With a turnout of 64%, all constituencies bar Donegal voted in favour of repealing.

In addition to the salience of the issue (this was the first time since 1983 that citizens had a direct say on this high-profile and divisive topic,) the referendum was significant because of the process that led to its occurrence.

The decision to call a referendum was, in fact, based on the recommendations made by a panel of 99 ordinary people, who deliberated in a ‘Citizens’ Assembly’. Click to tweet

A Citizens’ Assembly is a form of deliberative democracy: a process through which citizens can engage in open, respectful and informed discussion and debate with their peers on a given issue.

The Irish Citizens’ Assembly was established in 2016 by a parliamentary resolution and tasked with deliberating on a number of issues, including the Eighth Amendment.

The Citizens’ Assembly followed the model of its predecessor, the Convention on the Constitution, which ran from 2012 to 2014 and whose recommendations had led to the 2015 marriage equality referendum.

The Assembly was composed of a chairperson, appointed by the government, and 99 ordinary citizens ‘randomly selected so as to be broadly representative of Irish society’ in terms of age, gender, social class, and regional spread.

The assembly deliberated on the Eighth Amendment over the course of five sessions from November 2016 until April 2017. Members were given information on the topic, heard from 25 experts and reviewed 300 submissions (out of around 12,000 received) from members of the public and interest groups.

Members adopted the following key principles to guide their debate: openness of proceedings; fairness in how differing viewpoints were treated and of the quality of briefing material; equality of voice among members; efficiency; respect; and collegiality.

By the end of the deliberations, the Assembly members overwhelmingly agreed that the constitutional provision on abortion was unfit for purpose and that article 40.3.3 should not be retained in full (87% of members agreed).

A majority of members (56%) recommended amending or replacing article 40.3.3, and 57% of members recommended that it should be replaced with a provision authorising the Oireachtas to legislate on matters relating to termination of pregnancy.

The Assembly members also made a series of recommendations about what the legislation should cover and about the gestational limits that should apply.

As per its terms of reference, the Assembly submitted its recommendations and final report to the Oireachtas in June 2017. The Assembly’s findings were reviewed by the Joint Committee of both Houses of the Oireachtas, which agreed with the need to remove article 40.3.3, but advocated a simple repeal (without inserting a new provision in the Constitution).

The final Referendum Bill, however, accorded with the ‘repeal and replace’ recommendations made by the Assembly.

The Irish example shows how bottom-up citizens’ input can complement and enhance representative democracy, and act as an impetus for constitutional renewal. Click to tweet

Despite increasing pressure for change, politicians of all stripes had been reluctant to engage with the issue of abortion directly and to place it firmly on the political and legislative agenda.

But it only took 99 ordinary citizens to help break years of political deadlock and reach a consensus on this highly polarising issue.

Ireland has provided a concrete example of the benefits of a well-structured Citizens’ Assembly. Politicians from across the UK – and the political spectrum – should now reflect on whether they should play a greater role in our democracy. 

It is hard to turn on the TV now without one politician or another telling us what the ‘British people’ want from Brexit.

On one side, one argues that only leaving the single market will fulfill the will of the public – and that anything else would be a betrayal of the referendum result.

Shortly afterwards another will appear – stating categorically that voters want to stay in the single market to protect jobs (this week’s ‘Single Market summit’ appeared to be a reflection of that).

A million and one things have been read into the referendum result since June 2016 – from our views on the Northern Ireland border to the European Convention on Human Rights.

When these assumptions are made, it’s often a struggle to find the evidence. After all, many of the issues have only been debated after the referendum 18 months ago – the last time large numbers have been able to express their will on Brexit specifically.

Our democracy is grounded in the principle of elected officials representing the wants and needs of their constituents.

But when there is an issue as vital as Brexit, it is essential that what people desire is genuinely understood – and that there’s a chance for meaningful, informed discussion.

Polls are woefully insufficient in this regard. Snapshot results – while sometimes helpful – often oversimplify answers to what are complex problems, squeezing huge issues into a ‘yes/no’ binary.

There is however, another way – one which doesn’t second-guess the public.

Over two weekends in September last year, 50 people were selected at random – but in a way that ensured they reflected the socio-demographic characteristics of the EU vote and how people voted – to take part in the Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit.

During the first weekend, the members heard from diverse experts and received balanced briefing papers vetted by an Advisory Board, which featured experts in how to give balanced information on controversial policy issues.

Then, over the second weekend, those same members discussed and debated the issues in depth,  before coming to specific decisions on trade and migration policy (read the final report here).

The Assembly showed that UK citizens are willing and able to learn, then deliberate, and then reach recommendations on complex issues –something which the principle of trial by jury in our justice system has been proving for centuries.

Reflecting on the Assembly’s first weekend in a blog post for the Electoral Reform Society, the project’s director, Alan Renwick, wrote about what he learned:

“[It] reminded me never to underestimate the willingness and ability of members of the public to engage with complex political questions.

“Our political system leaves many people feeling unable to play an effective role. But if we structure political discussions so that people have the time and resources to learn about, discuss, and reflect on the issues and ways forward –  they do a fantastic job.”

Being told by those in Westminster that you believe one thing, when you actually think another, or simply don’t know yet, can be highly frustrating and contributes to mistrust in those wielding political power.

Rather than continually trying to second-guess what the electorate thinks on this issue or that, it would be better if politicians were to go straight to the source.

Find out about the project

By Dr Alan Renwick

A battle broke out in Parliament last week, as MPs across the House successfully pushed for a meaningful vote on the final Brexit deal. It was an attempt to make our departure from the EU more democratic.

And it came as diplomats gave the green light for starting Phase Two of the negotiations – those crucial trade debates that will affect our economy for decades to come.

But amid all this, it’s easy to forget an important point: what do the public really think of all this?

The UK electorate voted to leave the European Union in June last year. But as the formal withdrawal process set out in Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty had not yet been triggered, big questions remained about the form that Brexit might take.

Few people, whatever their view of Brexit, had been impressed by the quality of debate during the referendum campaign, and there was a strong desire to find a way of fostering more informed and considered decision-making in the next phase of the Brexit process.

A little over a year later, much has changed in UK politics: Article 50 has been triggered and the Brexit negotiations have properly begun.

Yet what form the UK’s future relationship with the EU might take remains utterly unclear. A general election has been held, but it sparked remarkably little serious debate about the Brexit options.

The government has lost its Commons majority, but it battles on – as we are now seeing. David Davis and the PM insist they have the Brexit process under control. But there’s a strong feeling among many MPs and the public that we have not been asked about the big questions – from membership of the Single Market to ‘no deal’, from a quota system of immigration to EU citizens’ rights to stay.

Brexit is the biggest set of decisions to face the UK political system since the 1940s. Quality, informed debate about the kind of Brexit that people want is vitally important, but it is not happening on anything like the scale it should.

The Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit has attempted to remedy that. By bringing together 50 randomly-selected members of the public, weighted to reflect the EU vote, it has shown what a diverse sample of the UK electorate feel about the Brexit options when they have had the chance to learn about them, listen to the arguments, and reflect on their own preferences and those of their fellow members.

Last Wednesday, a few corridors down from the Commons fight on ‘Amendment 7’ – that ‘meaningful vote’ motion – we attempted to input the public’s voice into the debate, by launching the findings of the Citizens’ Assembly. Because when you bring people together directly and break down perceived divides, you can get much less tribal outcomes than parliamentary manoeuvrings.

The members of the Citizens’ Assembly worked hard over two intense weekends to grapple with complex issues and difficult trade-offs. They looked past their own viewpoints to engage in constructive discussion and decision-making.

As one member put it to me, they worked in service of the country as a whole, seizing an opportunity to engage in deep and reflective deliberation. Democracy isn’t about one-day of voting. Like Brexit, it is a process – and one that needs all of us on board.

The Citizens’ Assembly should serve as a powerful example of how processes of democratic decision-making could be strengthened on this and many other issues in the future.

Perhaps in the aftermath of the ‘meaningful vote’ win – and as trade talks begin in earnest – both backbench MPs and the government would do well to look at another model of ‘doing’ Brexit.

MPs have done a sterling job highlighting the need for real scrutiny and transparency over these negotiations. The next step means working hand in hand with models like the Citizens’ Assembly – as allies in the push for more a more democratic Brexit process.

That means viewing this next phase of talks and fresh Commons battles not as insular events, but as part of a dynamic relationship between those affected by our departure from the EU and those in the negotiating room.

The Citizens’ Assembly was a way of starting that conversation. Whatever comes of today’s debates, May now has no excuse for ignoring voters’ voices in the Brexit process.

Dr Alan Renwick is a political scientist and deputy director of the UCL Constitution Unit. 

This article was first published by Politics.co.uk

The Electoral Reform Society were a partner in the Citizens’ Assembly project. 

Read the full report of the Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit here

Just a few days ago, a representative body of UK citizens came together to do something new: work across divides together to find a way forward on Brexit.

Members of the Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit – randomly selected to capture the diversity of the UK population – met in Manchester to consider options for the UK’s post-Brexit relationship with Europe.

The project, which we at the ERS were partners in, follows a recognition that the public have been largely left out of debates on Brexit, with parties split over what voters want.

What stood out this weekend was this: when given the opportunity to engage in in-depth discussions on everything from the Single Market to migration policy, citizens jump at the chance.

The 50-strong Assembly has been endorsed by a range of high-profile figures from across the Brexit divide, including Conservatives Bernard Jenkin and Nicky Morgan, Labour’s Chuka Umunna, and Leave backer Harsimrat Kaur. That means it has real buy-in from all parts of the Brexit spectrum.

Crucially, the Assembly’s members were selected to reflect last year’s Brexit vote, alongside social class, region, age, gender and ethnicity. Of the 50 members, 25 voted Leave in the 2016 referendum, 22 voted Remain and 3 did not vote.

After hearing from a range of experts, and from politicians from both sides of the Brexit divide, they took four key votes:

• On trade with the EU members voted for a bespoke trade deal ahead of staying in the Single Market. But should that prove impossible, their preference was to stay in the Single Market rather than agree no deal at all.
• On trade outside the EU members preferred a bespoke customs deal, allowing the UK to strike its own international trade deals but maintain frictionless borders. If that can’t be achieved they would opt to remain in the Customs Union rather than do no deal.
• On immigration, Assembly Members were offered five options, of which retaining free movement, but with the government making full use of existing controls, won a clear majority of the vote.
• On the overall deal with the EU, Assembly Members preferred a comprehensive trade deal combined with favourable access for EU citizens. If such a deal proves unattainable, they again wanted the UK to stay in the Single Market rather than do no deal.

What it amounts to in sum is a vote for ‘soft Brexit’ – from a majority Leave-voting Assembly and following a painstakingly balanced process.

While original to the UK, Citizens’ Assemblies have been increasingly used across Europe and North America to formulate proposals on key policy and constitutional issues often associated with referendums.

Ireland’s Constitutional Convention, based on the citizens’ assembly model, recently led to the referendum agreeing to legalisation of same-sex marriage – and the one announced last week on access to abortion.

It all shows that even on the seemingly most-divisive issues, voters can come together and unite around key principles.

The Citizens’ Assembly has proven to be an innovative and exciting way of dealing with complex economic and political questions – and coming to clear conclusions.

And it sets a precedent for dealing with divisive political and constitutional questions. As Dr Alan Renwick, the project leader, said:  

“The Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit not only demonstrates citizens’ views on this key issue, but also the wider benefit of such deliberative processes. Members with very different views came together, listened to each other and to the evidence, and were prepared to reach compromises.”

Feedback from members was overwhelmingly positive – and turnout was almost 100%: only one of the 51 who attended the first weekend could not attend.

Indeed, the pollsters ICM who helped with the recruitment were ‘astonished’ at levels of interest from the wider public. The appetite among people to have their say on the nitty-gritty of our departure from the EU can’t be understated.

And there’s support from politicians to keep this kind of process going. Kate Green, Labour MP for Stretford and Urmston, told Assembly members on Friday ‘it’s a great pity that we didn’t have a citizens’ assembly before the referendum took place’, while Graham Brady MP, Chair of the Conservatives’ 1922 Committee, said the Assembly was ‘a great model for us to follow.’

Now, all politicians should listen to the findings of this landmark event – and ensure people’s voices are heard in the negotiations.

For more information see: www.citizensassembly.co.uk/Brexit    

The Citizens’ Assembly was organised by a consortium of universities and civil society organisations: the UCL Constitution Unit, Centre for the Study of Democracy at the University of Westminster, University of Southampton, Involve, and the Electoral Reform Society.