The Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit reached its climax yesterday. After two weekends of intense deliberation, the members voted on a range of options for the form they want Brexit to take in relation to trade and immigration. Their conclusions will surprise some, and they deserve detailed attention from politicians and commentators. Assembly Director Alan Renwick summarises these conclusions and reflects on the weekend as a whole. He argues that, while the Brexit debate is often presented in stark binary terms, the Citizens’ Assembly suggests that the British public are capable of much subtler thinking – if only they are given the chance.
In my last post on the Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit, I reported on a hugely successful first weekend of deliberations. In advance, we had, through stratified random selection, recruited a group of Assembly members who reflected the composition of the UK electorate in terms of age, sex, ethnicity, social class, where they lived, and how they voted in last year’s referendum (25 voted Leave, 22 voted Remain, and three did not vote). We had also developed a programme and set of briefing papers that had been vetted by our advisory board, comprising supporters of both sides in the referendum, as well as experts in balanced communication. At the first weekend itself, remarkably, every Assembly member attended. They showed immense dedication, working long hours as they reflected on their own views, discussed ideas with fellow members, listened to experts, and quizzed those experts in depth. The experts presented diverse perspectives, some emphasising the benefits of single market membership or immigration, while others pointed out the costs of high immigration or argued for the advantages of cutting free from the single market and customs union. Our team of professional facilitators from Involve did a superb job of guiding proceedings and keeping the discussions on track.
This time I can report on an equally successful second – and final – weekend. Attendance was again astonishingly high: every member but one (who was ill) returned. Once again, all (and I do mean all) were tremendously focused and limitlessly good humoured. Members naturally did not always share each other’s views, but they listened and spoke respectfully and genuinely. Our facilitation and support teams were again inspirational. It was a privilege to be there.
While the first weekend focused on learning, the second was all about deliberation and decision-making. We began on Friday evening with short talks and Q&A sessions with two prominent politicians: Graham Brady MP, chair of the Conservative backbench 1922 Committee, spoke for leaving the single market and customs union; Labour MP Kate Green advocated the opposite. Thereafter, there were no more external speakers. The weekend was devoted to the Assembly members, who reflected on what they wanted post-Brexit policy-making to achieve and then on which policy options they wanted the government to pursue.
As at the first weekend, we focused on post-Brexit policy towards trade and migration. After carefully considering long lists of potential policy objectives, members voted on those that they wanted to prioritise. Each member could vote for six objectives relating to trade policy and six relating to migration.
Through this process, members decided that UK trade policy should, above all: minimise harm to the economy; protect the NHS and public services; maintain living standards; take account of impacts on all parts of the UK; protect workers’ rights; and avoid a hard border with Ireland.
They decided that UK migration policy should, above all: be linked to investment in training for UK nationals; keep better data on migrants; enable us to sustain public services; benefit our economy; be responsive to regional needs; and include better planning of public services.
Trade with the EU
Having discussed their objectives, members moved on to consider concrete policy options. They began by considering options for how we trade post-Brexit with the EU. They considered four possible approaches:
- Option A: stay in the single market, at least as it relates to goods and services
- Option B: leave the single market, and seek a comprehensive trade deal; this would keep trade with the EU as open as possible by maintaining zero tariffs and minimising non-tariff barriers through harmonisation or mutual recognition
- Option C: leave the single market and seek a limited trade deal that would maintain zero tariffs but not address non-tariff barriers
- Option D: do no trade deal with the EU
The implications of these options were set out (in so far as they are knowable) in relation to the economy, public services, the degree to which the UK can set its own rules, contributions to the EU budget, and the regulation of workers’ rights, environmental standards and other matters. (This and other presentations will be available soon on our website.) After further detailed discussion, members voted by ranking the options in order of preference.
As the first chart below shows, members’ first preferences spread widely across the options. Few went for the ‘no deal’ option – hardly a surprise, given that it is generally seen as no more than a fall-back if talks fail. The most popular option was a limited trade deal, though a majority of members wanted, if possible, some kind of closer relationship with the EU.
The second chart takes account of lower preferences by assigning three points to a first preference, two to a second preference, and one to a third preference. Here, the option of a comprehensive trade deal came marginally ahead, as it received many second preferences. (Electoral system aficionados will want to know that counting by alternative vote produces the same result.)
Of course, we don’t know whether a trade deal will be possible. The lower figures show how members’ first preferences split if a comprehensive trade deal proves impossible and if no trade deal at all can be done. Members preferred a limited trade deal to single market membership. If it comes down to a choice between the single market and no deal at all, however, they would prefer the single market.
Trade beyond the EU
Next the Assembly considered how it would like UK trade with countries beyond the EU to be governed. It assessed three options:
- Option A: stay in the customs union, so that the UK applies EU external tariffs and trade deals
- Option B: do a customs deal allowing the UK to conduct its own international trade policy while maintaining a frictionless UK/EU border
- Option C: do no customs deal, so that the UK can conduct its own trade policy, but physical customs controls are needed
We presented the implications that each of these options would have for the quality (from a UK perspective) of trade deals with countries outside the EU, the appropriateness of tariffs to UK needs, the degree of control that the UK has over trade policies, and the level of customs controls on the UK/EU border, with its potential effects both on trade and on community relations in Northern Ireland.
This time, as shown below, members preferred a bespoke deal by a clear majority. If it turns out that no such deal is possible, however, they would prefer to stay in the customs union than to leave with no deal.
Migration between the UK and the EU
The third area that members considered was policy towards migration between the UK and the EU. Here there were five options:
- Option A: maintain free movement of labour as now
- Option B: maintain free movement of labour, but make full use of available controls to prevent abuse of the system
- Option C: end free movement and reduce immigration overall, but continue giving EU citizens favourable access compared with people from outside the EU
- Option D: remove any preference for EU over non-EU citizens, while maintaining current immigration levels
- Option E: remove any preference for EU over non-EU citizens, and reduce immigration overall
We presented the implications of these options for the economy, jobs and wages, public services, population, housing, culture, and the ease with which UK citizens could move to EU countries.
We had not included the second option in our original plans, but added it in light of members’ feedback at the first weekend: they were interested to hear that single market rules do not confer an unconditional right on all EU citizens to reside in the UK, but that the UK makes little attempt to remove those who do not have a right to remain. Though we emphasised to members that the impact of exercising the available controls on total immigrant numbers would be small, the option of maintaining free movement of labour while using permitted measures to prevent abuse was supported by the majority – though only the bare majority – of members. Strikingly, only seven members chose option E, which we made clear was the option that would reduce total immigration furthest.
That most members took such a permissive attitude to immigration may surprise some: national debate suggests that a desire to reduce immigration is a primary driver of public concerns towards Brexit. The discussions among members suggested, however, that they had come to a subtler view. Most wanted a system that would maintain the benefits of immigration while also minimising the costs. Beyond measures to remove migrants who cannot support themselves financially and prevent benefit fraud, they also wanted better training for UK citizens so that the need for immigration is reduced. And they wanted more effort to relieve pressure on public services in parts of the country where immigration is particularly high.
Fitting it all together
Finally, members considered a range of possible Brexit packages, focusing on the relationship between trade with the EU and migration to and from the EU. We considered six packages:
- Option A: stay in the single market, with free movement of labour as now
- Option B: stay in the single market, with free movement subject to all available controls
- Option C: do a comprehensive trade deal and allow favourable access for EU citizens short of free movement
- Option D: do a limited trade deal with the EU, without giving favourable access for EU citizens
- Option E: do no trade deal with the EU, and allow EU citizens favourable access or free movement
- Option F: do no trade deal with the EU, and allow EU citizens no favourable access
As shown below, their preferences at this stage were strongly consistent with those they had expressed earlier. In terms of first preferences, option C came top, closely followed by option B. Giving points for preferences again put option C marginally ahead, while counting by the alternative vote (not shown below) revealed a tie, with 25 votes each for options B and C. These patterns fit the previous preferences for a bespoke trade deal and free movement of labour with controls.
Finally, we looked at what members would prefer if it turns out that a trade deal is not an option. As previously, they favoured staying in the single market over doing no deal.
The top headline from the Assembly – as reflected in our immediate post-Assembly press release – is that members rejected the ‘no deal’ option. In most respects, their optimal outcome (at least among the options currently on the table) is that the UK should decouple itself from the EU and secure its own bespoke arrangements. Should that prove unattainable, however, members would prefer to stay in the single market rather than do no deal at all. Just as some of our leading politicians are talking up the no deal option, the Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit – by a substantial majority – has said that it does not want the UK to take that route.
We should remember that this is not because the Assembly was full of Remainers. As noted above of the 50 members who attended the second weekend, 25 voted Leave in the referendum last year, while 22 voted Remain and three did not vote. Nor was the Assembly given a biased picture of the options. As noted above, the programme for the Assembly, the briefing papers, and the options were vetted by our diverse advisory board, and the speakers at both weekends represented a balance of views.
Rather, the results simply reflect the conclusions of a cross-section of the UK electorate who have dedicated two weekends to learning about and discussing the issues in depth and come to carefully considered views. Whether they reached the ‘right’ conclusions is not for me or anyone else to say: there is no one right answer to such complex questions, and legitimate disagreement will continue. But their conclusions deserve to be taken seriously.
In a democracy, policy decisions must ultimately be based on public opinion. For democracy to work well, public opinion should be informed and considered: people should be able to reflect on their own values and interests, assess how the available options might affect those values and interests, and choose accordingly. Far too often, our democracy falls well short of those ideals. Voters are expected to make major decisions in an environment of rhetoric and misinformation; they often lack the time needed to cut through the cacophony of voices and find those worth listening to.
The Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit has gone further than any previous exercise in revealing what members of the public think about the Brexit options when they have had the chance to learn about the issues, consider their own priorities, and work out what they want. It has revealed a much subtler picture of public opinion than many have come to presume. It deserves to be listened to. I hope very much that politicians of all persuasions will pay careful attention to what the Assembly has said and reflect on how best to respond.
About the author
Dr Alan Renwick is the Director of the Citizens’ Assembly of Brexit, and the Deputy Director of the Constitution Unit.
Pingback: Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit – Reflections on Politics
Pingback: How to get out of a gigantic mess – of Brexit, citizens assemblies, and popular sovereignty | Radio Free
Pingback: Report of the Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit: the public reject ‘no deal’ | The Constitution Unit Blog
I don’t indulge hopeless hand-wringers. The name of the Constitution Unit implies a concern for constitutional matters. The content of the site indicates extreme bias in favour of the EU and intolerance of other views which are habitually dismissed as those of uneducated, ignorant and less than honest people. This is not prejudice but observation. I have in the past made constructive informed and accurate criticisms and the result is usually abuse by Remainers. Paul above (I do not know who he is) is a rare exception. The issue has been decided. UK is leaving. Unfortunately what is now happening is nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of leaving the EU. The Government, insofar as it seems capable of conscious deliberate decision-making at all, is allowing UK to be pushed up a blind alley of some sort of ill-defined ‘Transition’ which constitutionally and legally, the EU may not be able to agree, and which would be worse than ‘No Deal’ for UK. Divisions in Government render UK weak and open to exploitation by the EU, which is utterly ruthless. Dissent in the media and active opposition by various groups in UK are other vehicles by which the EU undermines the UK government. If there is a constitutional issue worth addressing it is what can be done to strengthen the government’s position in order to ensure it has all the necessary support and power to pursue UK’s interests and to protect the country from the predations of the hostile power that is the EU. That is the reality. With very few exceptions commentary on this web site undermines the Government’s negotiating position.
You have now changed your position of wishing disaster upon UK to ‘wishing disaster upon those who are steering it towards what I believe is disaster’, by which you mean Brexit. You lack logic. Disaster for those trying to get the best Brexit deal for UK would mean disaster for UK.
I don’t wish disaster on this country, only on the plans of those who are steering it towards what I believe is disaster. But I am listening, Peter D Gardner, and you are not. Try reading the rest of my post. Try thinking outside your prejudices, as I am trying to think outside mine, as I look for a way out of this mess. We do not yet recognise thought crimes in this country. By my actions, not my instincts, you should make judgements. Try and think past your instincts and prejudice. Listen to some rational debate (the Assembly) and try and engage with it rather than dismissing it.
Daniel Monks, The fundamental issue is about motivation however it it is dressed up as constitutional, legal or moral argument. You have explained yours openly as ‘wishing that Brexit either won’t happen or will be a disaster.’ What are we to make of people who wish disaster upon their country? I hope you would say we should not listen to them other than in order to find ways to defeat them.
I write as a committed remainer, still very angry about the referendum and wishing that Brexit either won’t happen or will be a disaster. But I wanted to respond to Dr Gardner’s attempts to rubbish the Assembly. I found the results set out in Alan Renwick’s report quite unpalatable at times, but read them with pained interest. They are at least a repudiation of the shallowness of the referendum debate and the failure of both the Government and Parliament to really engage in a grown-up discussion of the consequences of that ill-advised vote. The country is split 50:50, the aim of politicians should be to reunite it, not alienate one or other half. Zealotry is not what we need now, and deafness to the complex, multi-layered, ambivalent and contradictory wishes of the “people” is a recipe for disaster. Instead of seeing in every attempt to capture that complexity a conspiracy, it would be better if he used it as an opportunity to examine his conscience, and think about routes to reconciliation rather than aggression and abuse. It is a marvellous thing that 50 people gave up two weekends and more to examine these issues; it is heartening that they seem to have managed to debate them in a spirit of mutual respect; and wherever we stand on the dogmatic issue, we would all do well to think about whether they offer a road to peace.
Pingback: Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit: results and initial reflections – UCL Brexit Blog
Very interesting stuff, though it’s a bit disappointing for me that a research method best suited to qualitative data production and analysis has been analysed with such quants-minded methods, related charts and even an emphasis (very questionably appropriate) on representativeness. Still v. interesting though!
This is in response to Peter D Gardner’s posts of 2 October to which I am unable to reply directly for some reason.
As a participant in the assembly I would like to answer your concerns regarding our discussions on trade. On the first weekend we were visited by four economists who were each given the same length of time to present their opinions, beliefs and what they felt to be relevant statistics to the group. They then spent a further period, on each separate table of assembly members, answering questions on their own presentations and those of the other speakers. Two of the four (Dr Thomas Sampson and Dr Angus Armstrong) argued for the UK to remain in the SIngle Market; the other two (Shanker A Singham and Professor David Paton) emphasised the potential benefits of leaving in regards to the opportunities presented by making trade deals globally if we were to exit the Customs Union. Certainly the topics that you mention in your post of 2 Oct at 11:09pm, including opportunities in growing markets outside the EU and the UK’s declining share of trade with the EU, were both covered and indeed pressed quite strongly by both Shanker and David.
It is, of course, impossible for any group of 50 citizens to resolve, in two weekends, an issue which will take Governments and officials years. Not every potential opportunity or pitfall can be examined in microscopic detail in such a timescale and I am sure that many involved will be able to come up with further questions and arguments both now and over the coming months. The end of the assembly process is clearly not the end of the debate. The results only partially reflect my own opinions and who knows whether we would get the same result after another twelve months of negotiations have taken place? Nevertheless, whatever anyone may feel about the conclusions, it certainly seems to me that the findings were in line with the opinions expressed by the participants over the course of the two weekends and therefore they are nothing if not an accurate reflection of the general feelings of the assembly at the end of the discussions.
Your arguments are valid and a welcome addition to the debate. The final sentence of your 1.30pm post less so.
The situation regarding coffee revenue in Germany v Africa was certainly mentioned as part of the argument in favour of leaving the Customs Union and setting our own tariffs.
Although Sovereignty was raised there was no real time to discuss matters such as plans for further integration both politically and economically, nor of the relative merits or otherwise of the EU method of governance, as the weekend was based around the idea that we are leaving the EU and therefore the direction that body goes once we have left is not a matter for the UK.
I think you mean carefully guided towards a Remain stance. The government went so far as to produce a deeply dishonest treasury report that destroyed the treasury’s reputation for impartiality, and produced a biassed and misleading brochure in favour of Remain and still failed to persuade 52% of voters. What more information could people possibly want? Something about the future development of the EU perhaps, the effects of its barriers to trade with African and other developing countries. Did you know Germany makes more money from coffee than the producing nations because the raw materials are imported free of tariffs, yet value added products face very high tariffs. In agriculture as high as 32%. Why? To protect moneymaking by inefficient European industries. What other information was denied? The EU’s plans for a single treasury, submission for approval of national budgets by the EU commission before national parliaments, alignment of national political parties with EU parties and vetting by the commission? the Five Presidents report published in June 2015 and the subsequent white paper in Spring 2017? Was any of that presented in this guidance that so impresses you?
So how many of you actually read the EU Treaties, or any of the EU directives in the pipeline, or that on Clinical Trials (issued and enacted), Ports, Jurisprudence? I’ll bet very few and I’ll bet neither was it presented in the assembly by these highly informed leaders. I don’t know but please show me I’m wrong, if you can.
Oh and was any evidence given for the superiority of technocratic supra-national governance over sovereign parliamentary governance?
Highly informative. The difference between this group and the electorate is that the group’s decisions were guided by an informed debate. So, Westminster continues to play dangerous games. It appears to be a political cliff edge as well as an economic one. We live in interesting times.
Pingback: The Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit: how did it work? | The Constitution Unit Blog
Of course you do. You write anonymously. Speaking of facts, tell me the facts of the assembly’s work that would support some expression in trade policy of an optimistic and confident view of UK’s future trade with the world. What was said about increasing exports, creating wealth and so on that I did not find in the report, which one would reasonably expect to find in any discussion of what is needed in a trade policy? What was said about the opportunities in he growing markets outside the declining EU? What was said about the UK’s declining share of trade in the EU, itself declining in terms of world trade? What was said about a possible objective to ensure UK can and does engage with the growing part of the world? What reasons were given in the assembly for excluding such a policy objective? Note: the assembly was supposed to be addressing what they wanted as trade policy objectives, not prospects for trade. Or did Alan Renwick mis-represent that in his article above?
Hi. The Assembly members were selected to reflect the UK electorate. They were selected on the basis of 6 stratification criteria, region (North, South, East of England, London, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland), ethnicity, age, social class, gender and vote in the referendum.
We also had a good balance within these groups, for example South East and South West. We calculated what proportion of members should be from each group using national data. You can see more on the recruitment process here https://constitution-unit.com/2017/09/08/citizens-assembly-on-brexit-how-were-the-members-selected/
As a member of the assembly I find your comments very derogatory. How can you have such an opinion when you have no clue about what discussions took place over the weekends? How do you know that we suffer a lack of confidence in ourselves? Maybe do a bit of fact finding before spouting your very biased opinion.
I am surprised increasing UK’s wealth was not a priority objective of UK trade policy. Nothing at a strategic level, eg securing energy supplies, nothing about exploiting UK’s own resources, eg fishing, shale, UK’s EEZ, nothing about growth markets in the world, nothing about countries seeking trade relationships with UK, nothing about the USA or Canada. The common factor was protection of one sort or another. Fear of competition. Overall outlook: negative, preference for insularity, clinging to EU for protection against the big bad world, lack of confidence in UK, in themselves, in the government. I wouldn’t want this lot anywhere near government.
This is interesting work. The only issue that surprised me was the views on Immigration outcomes. I note that the group was weighted to reflect the referendum outcome but I didn’t see if the group was balanced by UK geographical location e.g. south east, the North. …I wondered if geographical location influenced respondents views on immigration?
Reblogged this on RemainerAction.