Citizens' Assembly on Brexit

Jan 19 '18

Author:

Problems and Purpose

The outcome of the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum (Brexit referendum) established that the majority of those voting in the referendum wanted to leave the EU. However, the outcome of this referendum did not indicate what the public believed the UK’s future relationship with the EU should be. The government and the EU have negotiated with only a limited understanding of the priorities of the UK electorate. The Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit was therefore established for a diverse group of individuals to learn about issues of trade and migration from a variety of experts and politicians, deliberate with each other and come to recommendations on what form Brexit should take. The Assembly was held over two weekends, totalling around twenty-eight hours of consideration, in September 2017. The project was run as part of an academic research project led by the Constitution Unit at University College London. A full report on the project can be found here.

History

The Brexit referendum took place on 23 June 2016 and presented the question of whether the UK should remain within or leave the EU. Of those who voted, 51.9% supported leaving the EU. The government initiated the official withdrawal process on 29 March 2017, which puts the UK on course to complete the withdrawal process by 29 March 2019. Despite ongoing negotiations, following the referendum the British public were not offered the opportunity to vocalise what form Brexit should take, and the future of the UK’s relationship with the EU.

Therefore, the need for a Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit was great. Brexit has stood as the biggest set of decisions to face the UK political system since the 1940s. Quality, informed debate about the kind of Brexit that the British public want is vitally important, but it has not happened on anything like the scale it should have. This Assembly therefore provides that debate in microcosm: it shows us what a diverse sample of the UK electorate concluded about the Brexit options when they had had the chance to learn about them, listen to the arguments, and reflect on their own preferences and those of their fellow Members. It provides a unique insight into public priorities for Brexit.

Notable citizens’ assemblies in the past have focused on topics such as: electoral reform (2004 British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly, 2006 Dutch Civic Forum, and 2006-7 Ontario Citizens’ Assembly); devolution (2015 Assembly North in Sheffield and 2015 Assembly South in Southampton); and other constitutional issues (2012-14 Irish Constitutional Convention and 2016-18 Irish Citizens’ Assembly).

Originating Entities and Funding

The Assembly was organised and led by the Constitution Unit at UCL, and supported by an independent group of academics and civil society organisations; these were the University of Westminster, University of Southampton, the Electoral Reform Society, and Involve. The project was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council as part of its UK in a Changing Europe programme.

Participant Recruitment and Selection

The Assembly was comprised of fifty members of the general public. They were selected via an online panel-based survey which was administered to a sample of 5000 respondents and included a total of thirty-nine questions. The fifty members were selected randomly from this pool to reflect, as far as is feasible within a group of this size, the demographic and attitudinal characteristics of the wider British population. This was in terms of age, sex, ethnicity, social class, place of residence and referendum vote. Unlike previous citizens’ assembly projects, this Assembly was unique in choosing to stratify on an attitudinal basis. Overall, the Members were demographically and attitudinally well-matched to the to the broader British population. To incentivise participation in the Assembly, those who wished and were selected to participate within the project were offered £200 for each weekend they attended, in addition to expenses for all associated travel costs and accommodation in a 4* hotel.

Methods and Tools Used

Main method: A citizens’ assembly is a body of randomly selected citizens who meet to learn about the issues at stake, hear from and question experts, campaigners, and others with relevant insights, and reflect on their own views and those of their fellow members. They then deliberate in depth before reaching conclusions.

Tools and techniques: The Assembly was designed with five key principles in mind: fostering inclusion of all Members, from all parts of society; enabling the development of deep understanding of the issues in hand; maintaining balance among competing perspectives on Brexit; encouraging open-minded deliberation; and helping all members to engage in personal reflection. These principles were captured in a series of basic features of Assembly design. Much of the business was conducted through small-group discussions, with seven or eight Members per group. These groups and the Assembly overall were directed by professional and experienced facilitators. Clear, agreed conversational guidelines were established. Expert advice and briefing materials were prepared, these can be found here. A variety of experts spoke at the weekends and answered questions of Members; these included academics, politicians and practitioners, a full list can be found here. Detailed briefing papers were also provided that outlined the issues on the agenda. These included: an introductory briefing paper sent ahead of the first weekend; background papers explaining the EU, the Brexit process, and the concept of a citizens’ assembly; papers on trade; and papers on immigration. The design of the weekends and the content of the briefing papers were developed in close consultation with a diverse Advisory Board. Careful attention was also given to a range of other design elements, such as the structuring of discussions within the Assembly; the scheduling of all aspects of the Assembly’s work; the development of good relations with recruited Members before the first weekend; and the selection of a suitable venue and maintenance of regular communications with the venue managers. A full chronological outline of the Assembly’s events is listed below.

Deliberation, Decisions, and Public Interaction

The first weekend provided an opportunity for Assembly Members to learn about the Brexit issues from experts and each other; the second allowed them to deliberate on the options before reaching conclusions. The following outlines chronologically the events of the two weekends.

Weekend one: The ‘learning weekend’

The first weekend aimed to give Assembly members the chance to:

Hear and explore key information on trade and migration;
Have their questions answered;
Think about and identify the arguments and issues they found most important;
Find out more about the views of their fellow Assembly Members.

It began on Friday evening with two brief exercises: one to explore Members’ hopes and fears for the weekend ahead, and one to set the aforementioned conversation guidelines. Members reconvened on Saturday for a detailed introduction to the Assembly – including its aims, personnel and funders – and an icebreaker. This was followed by the first main exercise: a discussion of what Members valued, and would like to be able to value, about the country they live in. The purpose of this exercise was to give Members a prism through which to view the rest of the weekend’s proceedings. Ideas put forward by Members and voted as important by at least one of them were collected in and saved for later.

The first panel provided Members with an introduction to the EU, UK and Brexit, and the issues – trade and migration – on which the Assembly would focus. Members were introduced to key concepts, including tariff and non-tariff barriers, the single market and the customs union, and immigration and emigration. No arguments were made at this stage about the relative merits or importance of any of the ideas introduced. At the end of the presentations, Members discussed questions for the speakers. Three tables asked their priority questions to the panel speakers, with any questions left unanswered at the end of the session collected in. The other four tables reviewed a themed wall display of their values from the earlier session. Each Member wrote a postcard to themselves listing the five things they most want to be able to value about the country in which they live. The groups then reversed.

Saturday afternoon started with the Assembly’s second panel, which focused on trade. Four speakers – two emphasising the benefits of the single market and customs union to the UK, two emphasising the advantages of cutting free – presented their arguments. Two further experts followed with brief reflections on what they had heard. After the presentations, Members worked at their tables to discuss and prioritise questions for all six speakers. Speakers then visited each table, spending ten minutes answering questions. Any questions left unanswered at the end of the session were collected in. The Assembly’s first proper deliberation then took place. Members each wrote a postcard to themselves capturing the five most important arguments, issues or points they felt they’d heard on trade, and then discussed and agreed the eight considerations on trade that felt most important to them as a table.

Sunday saw a repeat of this process for migration. Members heard from a third panel focused on migration, asked them their priority questions (in split plenary this time, not at tables), wrote a postcard to themselves about the most important arguments they had heard and agreed their top eight considerations as a table. This was the end of weekend one.

Weekend two: the ‘discussion and decision weekend’

The aim of weekend two was for Members to discuss the options and reach decisions on:

Guidelines to inform what the UK’s trade and migration policy should be after Brexit;
What the UK’s policy post-Brexit should be on (1) trade with the EU, (2) trade with countries outside of the EU, and (3) migration;
How to fit trade and migration preferences together.

Friday night was dedicated to answering the unanswered questions from weekend one. It also saw two guest speakers address Members and answer their questions. Graham Brady MP spoke for leaving the single market and customs union; Labour MP Kate Green advocated the opposite. On Saturday morning Members’ first task was to review the themed wall chart on values from weekend one, and the postcard they had written on the same subject. They then voted on the values that were most important to them. From there, Members were asked to decide their guidelines for the UK government on what the UK’s trade policy should be after Brexit. They reviewed their trade postcards to themselves, and the top eight trade considerations put forward by all tables in weekend one. Members then worked at their tables to decide their five to six priority endings to the sentence, ‘The UK’s trade policy after Brexit should….’. Their answers were collected in, entered into the online voting platform Mentimeter and then voted on. The results of this vote and all subsequent ones can be found here. This process was then repeated to determine the Assembly’s guidelines for the UK government on what the UK’s migration policy should be after Brexit.

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

The processes on voting for all three decisions (on trade with the EU, trade beyond the EU, and migration) were the same. Firstly, the Assembly’s Director, Dr Alan Renwick, presented a range of policy options to Assembly members, these can be found here. Tables then spent an extended amount of time discussing the pros and cons of each option and attempting to rank the options as a table. This enabled Members to explore and argue the case for each alternative. Finally, Members voted individually, ranking the options in their order of preference. Outcomes were decided by assigning three points to a first preference, two to a second preference, one to a third preference, and none to a fourth preference. All the vote results were announced at the end of the migration discussion, mid-morning on Sunday.

In regards to trade with the EU, the Members were offered four options:

A. Stay in the Single Market as it related to goods and services;
B. Leave the Single Market, and seek a comprehensive trade deal that would keep trade with the EU as open as
possible by maintaining zero tariffs and minimising non-tariff barriers through harmonisation and mutual
recognition;
C. Leave the Single Market and seek a limited trade deal that would maintain zero tariffs but not address non
tariff barriers;
D. Do no trade deal with the EU.

When taking into account Members’ first preferences, the most popular was Option C (38%). However, taking into account multiple preferences, the most popular outcome was Option B (34%). If forced to choose, Members preferred remaining in the Single Market (Option A) over doing no trade deal at all with the EU (Option D) (62%).

In regards to trade beyond the EU, the Members were offered three options:

A. Stay in the Customs Union, so that the UK adheres to EU external tariffs and trade deals;
B. Do a customs deal allowing the UK to conduct its own international trade policy while maintaining a frictionless
UK/EU border;
C. Do no customs deal, so that the UK can conduct its own trade policy, but physical customs controls are
needed.

The majority of Members preferred Option B (70%). If such a bespoke deal is not possible, they preferred to stay in the Customs Union (Option A) than to leave the EU with no deal (Option C) (74%).

In regards to migration between the UK and the EU, the Members were offered five options:

A. Maintain free movement of labour as now;
B. Maintain free movement of labour, but make full use of available controls to prevent abuse of the system;
C. End free movement and reduce immigration overall, but continue giving EU citizens favourable access
compared with people from outside the EU;
D. Remove any preference for EU over non-EU citizens, while maintaining current immigration levels;
E. Remove any preference for EU over non-EU citizens, and reduce immigration overall.

The majority of Members (52%) preferred Option B.

Finally, the Assembly Members were offered six Brexit packages that have been covered by the main political debates in the UK. These were:

A.     Stay in the Single Market, with free movement of labour as now;
B. Stay in the Single Market, with free movement subject to all available controls;
C. Do a comprehensive trade deal with the EU, without giving favourable access for EU citizens short of free
movement;
D.     Do a limited trade deal with the EU, without giving favourable access for EU citizens;
E. Do not trade deal with the EU, and allow EU citizens favourable access or free movement;
F.      Do no trade deal with the EU, and allow EU citizens no favourable access.

In terms of first preferences, Option C gained the most support (32%). Taking account of multiple preferences, a tie emerged between Option C (25%) and Option B (25%). Again, in the event that it transpired that no trade deal was possible, Members strongly favoured staying in the Single Market (Option B) over doing no deal (Option F) (60%).

These findings from the Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit have received notable mentions in the media from the Financial Times, Prospect, and the Guardian, amongst others. Dr Alan Renwick has also given evidence to the Home Affairs Committee on the Assembly’s conclusion in relation to migration; and, along with colleagues from the Assembly, to the EU Committee of the House of Lords. The work of the Assembly was also mentioned in the Report Stage of the EU (Withdrawal) Bill by Stephen Doughty MP.

Analysis and Lessons Learned

Overall, the British public’s opinion on the form that Brexit should take has not been well informed. Citizens find it hard to access balanced information and debates are highly politicised. The Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit went further than any previous exercise in revealing what members of the public thought about the options for Brexit when they had the chance to learn about the issues, consider their own priorities, and work out the future policy direction they supported. It revealed a much more nuanced picture of public opinion than many had come to expect. The recommendations of the Assembly ran counter to the position advocated by various leading politicians who talked up the ‘no deal’ option if a favourable trade deal could not be reached with the EU and who stressed the over-riding importance of strong control over immigration.

The Assembly performed very well against the following established evaluation criteria. First, its membership closely mirrored the diverse composition of the UK electorate; the approach to recruitment and stratification worked well. Second, the Assembly fulfilled the five design principles – inclusion, understanding, balance, deliberation, and personal reflection – to an impressively high level given the contentious nature of the topic. Third, the conclusions reached by the Assembly were clear and consistent. Fourthly, the Assembly was rated highly by participants, with 86% of Members saying they ‘strongly agreed’ with the statement ‘Assemblies like this should be used more often to inform government decision-making’.

In summation, the Assembly offered a model for how high-quality democratic discussion might be fostered on a wide range of issues in the future. It showed that the deliberative approach can be employed successfully even on contentious and polarising issues such as Brexit. Governments, parliamentarians, councillors and others with political power should be encouraged to think carefully about how to design public participation so that engagement is meaningful for both citizens and decision-makers. It is challenging to know the overall impact of the Assembly at this stage as negotiations are ongoing; nonetheless the attention the Assembly’s finding have received in the media and in Parliament thus far suggest that the recommendations are being listened to.