17 thoughts on “Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit: how were the members selected?

  1. Pingback: A deliberative approach to complex policy issues – The Citizens’ Assembly on Social Care | The Constitution Unit Blog

  2. Pingback: Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit: full report launched today

  3. Pingback: Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit: full report launched today | The Constitution Unit Blog

  4. Diversity should not be used as English culture is English culture not all the other tribes around the world.

  5. Pingback: Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit: results and initial reflections – UCL Brexit Blog

  6. Pingback: The Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit: how did it work?

  7. Pingback: Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit: results and initial reflections

  8. Pingback: The Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit: how did it work? | The Constitution Unit Blog

  9. Pingback: The Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit: how did it work? - Involve

  10. Pingback: Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit: reflections on the first weekend – Electoral Reform Society

  11. Pingback: Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit: results and initial reflections | The Constitution Unit Blog

  12. Pingback: The Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit: reflections on the first weekend : Democratic Audit UK

  13. Pingback: Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit (II): reflections on the first weekend – UCL Brexit Blog

  14. Pingback: Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit: reflections on the first weekend

  15. Pingback: Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit: reflections on the first weekend - Involve

  16. Pingback: Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit: reflections on the first weekend | The Constitution Unit Blog

  17. ‘…depending on the context of the assembly.’
    Indeed. Everything depends on context starting with the definition of the groups in the stratification. Presumably you define them by characteristics you deem relevant to your purpose and the influence they would be expected to have on any decisions or views asked of the assembly at any particular time. What constitutes a quorum? What about the group represented by one person who just can’t make it that day? I would assume that the people keenest to attend would represent groups making the most noise, whatever age, gender or other category is applied to them.
    It’s ironic that this proposal comes from people who dismiss political groups like UKIP and their views as mere populism.
    How many in your strata represent, prisoners in various categories, homosexuals, lesbians and other varieties of sexuality, unemployed, social security net beneficiaries, the wealthy, the self-employed, retired, poor, skilled, unskilled, managerial, professionals, medics, climate scientists, media. political activists (anything from restoration of capital punishment to CAGW activists, Black Lives Matter or SJWs), supporters or members of political parties etc.
    I guess you have decided some of these people are less important than others.
    And then you get to analysis. rather than the principle of all views matter equally I have not the slightest doubt you will analyse them by strata so that action can be taken to deal somehow with those not conforming to what you or some small part of the assembly will define indirectly as the central consensus. In fact it would not be a consensus unless all agreed. Consensus lies in what is agreed, not the numbers supporting or rejecting it.
    And what exactly will the Assembly be asked to consider. No doubt it will be carefully framed and discussion monitored to manoeuvre the outcome as you wish.
    it has become very clear to me reading a great deal about Brexit that most people do not check the facts themselves, they rely on the say-so of someone whose views they tend to agree with. Thanks to the EU popping up for the second reading of the Great Repeal Bill to tell us the notice under Article 50 can be withdrawn. that was always true, provided all parties agreed. But before the referendum the commonly held view on both sides was that it could not. They relied on it either to vote yes and get the notice sent out asap for a quick clean Brexit or to vote no and afterwards to use every means possible to delay its being sent. The fact none of these people checked is that the EU treaties are silent on the question. There was no legal barrier but they all made it sound as if there were and the population just took their word for it.

    The issue of the ECJ’s jurisdiction is another. The idea that one party to a treaty should not be the arbitrator in any dispute should be beyond discussion. So why is it being discussed at all? The media, who love to consider themselves as guardians of liberty happily take it seriously. MPs do. If they are that bad what are to make of untutored plebs in a citizen’s assembly?

    Oh well, if you are not going to ask them anything difficult or subtle, I guess it doesn’t matter what the outcomes of the assembly’s deliberations are.
    So, good luck. Don’t ask for money.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s