The Constitution Unit Blog

Menu

Skip to content
  • Home
  • Constitutional Standards and the Health of Democracy
  • Brexit
  • Parliament
  • Elections and referendums
  • Democratic Engagement and Citizens’ Assemblies
  • Government
  • Devolution
  • Events
  • About the Constitution Unit
  • Copyright
  • Judiciary and human rights
  • Parties and politicians
  • Constitutions and constitution making
  • Freedom of information
  • Monarchy, church and state

Tag Archives: Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit

Post navigation

← Older posts

Local citizens’ assemblies in the UK: an early report card

Posted on January 8, 2021 by The Constitution Unit

Citizens’ assemblies are now being widely used in the UK and elsewhere to promote thoughtful policy discussion. But do they actually work in terms of delivering substantive policy change? In this post, Robert Liao addresses that question by looking at local citizens’ assemblies in the UK. He finds that the record is overwhelmingly positive: councils that have invested in running an assembly have generally followed through with action.

The past 18 months have seen a wave of citizens’ assemblies in the UK and beyond. At the national level, there have been assemblies on climate change in the UK, Scotland, and France, on constitutional issues in Scotland and Germany, and on gender equality in Ireland. This post focuses on the numerous assemblies convened by local authorities. Citizens’ assemblies are widely lauded for bringing together representative samples of the population to learn about and produce recommendations on difficult policy questions. As shown by the Constitution Unit’s 2017 Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit, the deliberative conversations that they engender point to a better way of doing democratic conversation. But do they have a real impact beyond the people in the room? In particular, do elected officials really listen to them, and can they bring about substantive political change? 

The table below summarises evidence from local citizens’ assemblies in the UK. By trawling through assembly and council websites and reports, alongside press releases, and news articles, I have identified 13 citizens’ assemblies convened by local authorities in the UK since the beginning of 2019 which have completed their work and published reports. Three of these – in Cambridge, Dudley, and Romsey – were supported by the UK government’s Innovation in Democracy programme, designed to enable assembly pilots (the IIDP’s work was summarised on the Unit blog, here). In others, local authorities acted independently. Reflecting perhaps campaigning for citizens’ assemblies by Extinction Rebellion, seven of the 13 assemblies focused on climate change, and another two on the related topic of air quality. Two looked at urban regeneration, one at hate crime, and one at social care provision. Each one has presented a report containing policy recommendations to its sponsoring council.

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • Email
  • Print & PDF

Like this:

Like Loading...
Posted in Public Engagement and Policy Making | Tagged Brent climate assembly, camden citizens' assembly, Camden Health and Care Citizens' Assembly, citizens' assemblies, Citizens' Assembly on Brexit, Croydon Citizens' Assembly, Dudley people's panel, Greater Cambridge Citizens' Assembly, Innovation in Democracy Programme, Kingston citizens' assembly, Lancaster District People's Jury, Leeds climate change citizens' jury, local government, Newham Citizens' Assembly, Oxford citizens' assembly, robert liao, Romsey citizens' assembly, Waltham Forest Citizens' Assembly | 27 Comments

The Constitution Unit turns 25!

Posted on June 15, 2020 by The Constitution Unit

0_25 years image - Copy

This year, 2020, marks a full 25 years since the foundation of the Constitution Unit. It has been a hugely eventful period, both in terms of real-world constitutional change and controversies, and in terms of the Unit’s own work. To mark our silver anniversary, we are celebrating some of the key ways in which the Unit has contributed to public debates, and helped to inform policy change, over this period. What better way to celebrate 25 years than with 25 of our most notable achievements?

Note that this post reproduces the text from a new page on our website celebrating our 25 years. That contains a full set of 25 images, so some readers may prefer to access the website version.

1. Hitting the ground running

Robert Hazell founded the Constitution Unit in 1995, with funding from six charitable trusts, to help with detailed planning for big constitutional reforms following a possible change of government. The initial research team included Graham Leicester (from the Foreign Office), Nicole Smith (Home Office) and Katy Donnelly. The Unit published seven book-length reports the following year: the first on how to prepare and deliver a big constitutional reform programme, and others on devolution to Scotland, Wales and the English regions, reform of the House of Lords, human rights legislation, and the conduct of referendums (the latter recommending the establishment of an Electoral Commission). From 1997, the new Labour government began to implement its constitutional reform programme, which often reflected Unit recommendations. Responding to the intense reform activity in government, the Unit published 17 further reports in 1998 and 20 more in 1999.

2. Monitor goes to print

In September 1997 the Unit published the first issue of Monitor, its regular bulletin of constitutional news. Monitor continues today to provide an essential digest of political and constitutional changes three times a year, valued by over 4800 subscribers – if you are not among them, you can sign up here. 

3. Reform of the House of Lords

From its earliest years, the Unit has fed in regularly to debates about reform of the House of Lords. It published ten briefings for the Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords in 1999, several of them authored by the Unit’s future Director Meg Russell and drawing on analysis of overseas experience. In 2000, she published the book Reforming the House of Lords: Lessons from Overseas. This body of comparative research has influenced debates on second chamber reform in various other countries as well as the UK – including Canada, Italy and Japan. Meanwhile Meg’s 2013 book The Contemporary House of Lords is today’s definitive work on the chamber, underpinned by research funded by the ESRC.

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • Email
  • Print & PDF

Like this:

Like Loading...
Posted in Brexit, Constitutions and constitution making, Devolution, Elections and referendums, Europe, Events, Freedom of information, Government, International, Judiciary and human rights, Monarchy, church and state, Parliament, Parties and politicians, Public Engagement and Policy Making | Tagged 20th Anniversary, 25 years, Akash Paun, All women shortlists, Backbench Business Committee, Baroness d'Souza, Ben Seyd, Ben Yong, Bernard Jenkin, boris johnson, Brexit, Cabinet manual, Catherine Haddon, Citizens' Assembly on Brexit, Constitutional Futures, Constitutional Futures Revisited, Council of Europe, Daniel Gover, Democracy Matters, Doing Democracy Better, Dominic Grieve, Electoral Commission, English devolution, expenses scandal, Gordon Brown, Graham Gee, Graham Leicester, Hilary Benn, House Full, House of Lords, house of lords reform, human rights, hung parliament, Independent Commission on Referendums, Jenny Watson, Jo Murkens, Judicial independence, Kate Malleson, Katy Donnelly, Labour party, Leanne Wood, Legislation at Westminster, Lord Bingham, Lord Irvine of Lairg, Lord Speaker's Committee on the Size of the House of Lords, Making Minority Government Work, Mark Chalmers, Michael Keating, Michela Palese, minority government, misinformation, Monitor, MPs expenses, Nicky Morgan, Nicola Sturgeon, Nicole Smith, Northern Ireland, Options for an English Parliament, PACAC, Patrick O'Brien, Peter Jones, Politics of Judicial Independence, referendums, Reforming the House of Lords: Lessons from Overseas, Replacing the Lords: The Numbers, robert hazell, Robin Cook, Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords, Ruth Davidson, Scotland, Scottish Independence, Stephen Sedley, The Contemporary House of Lords, The Mechanics of a Further Referendum on Brexit, Tony Wright, Vernon Bogdanor, Wales, women MPs, Women's representation in UK politics, Working Group on Unification Referendums on the Island of Ireland, Wright Committee, Wright report

Citizens’ Assemblies: what are they good for?

Posted on July 19, 2019 by The Constitution Unit

0.000.jpg (1)Citizens’ assemblies are suddenly in vogue. National, devolved and local bodies (including several Commons committees) have held or are intending to make use of citizens’ assemblies to seek guidance on topics such as climate change and social care. At the same time, senior politicians are now advocating for an assembly on Brexit. However, citizens’ assemblies are not a miracle cure: like any method of determining the public will, they have limitations. In order to explore the benefits of citizens’ assemblies, the Unit organised a seminar to discuss how they work, best practice and when they should be used. Lucie Davidson summarises the main contributions. 

On 1 July, the Constitution Unit held an event entitled ‘Citizens’ Assemblies: What are they good for?’. Speaking were Joanna Cherry QC MP, SNP Justice and Home Affairs Spokesperson at Westminster; Sarah Allan, Head of Engagement at Involve; Lilian Greenwood MP, Chair of the Commons Transport Select Committee; and Professor Graham Smith, Director of the Centre for the Study of Democracy at the University of Westminster. Chaired by the Unit’s Deputy Director, Alan Renwick, the event discussed past use of assemblies, what they can be best used for in the future, and what constitutes a ‘good’ citizens’ assembly. 

Joanna Cherry

Joanna Cherry offered an overview of the Citizens’ Assembly of Scotland,  which was announced by Nicola Sturgeon in April. Just as Ireland’s Citizens’ Assembly and Constitutional Convention were born out of a time of crisis following the financial crash in 2008, the constitutional crisis caused by Brexit stimulated the political interest necessary for the creation of Scotland’s own assembly. The Brexit process has reignited debate about the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK; Scotland voted to remain in the EU but has had ‘no say’ in the Brexit negotiations. In addition, if Brexit happens, Scots will lose their EU citizenship, despite the argument that independence was a threat to Scotland’s place in the EU being a prominent part of the 2014 ‘No’ campaign. A recent poll by the Sunday Times has indicated a majority of Scots would vote for independence if faced with a ‘no deal’ Brexit or a Boris Johnson premiership.  Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • Email
  • Print & PDF

Like this:

Like Loading...
Posted in Events, Public Engagement and Policy Making | Tagged Brexit, citizens jury, citizens' assemblies, citizens' assembly, Citizens' Assembly on Brexit, Citizens' Assembly on Social Care, citizens' initiatives, climate change, deliberative democracy, Events, Extinction Rebellion, Graham Smith, Irish Citizens Assembly, Joanna Cherry, Lillian Greenwood, Lucie Davies, parliament, public engagement, Sarah Allan, Scottish government, Scottish Independence, scottish parliament, select committees

Scotland’s plans for doing referendums better: an assessment

Posted on June 25, 2019 by The Constitution Unit

alan.jfif (1)Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, recently announced plans for new rules on referendums and for a citizens’ assembly on Scotland’s constitutional future. Drawing on his recent research, Alan Renwick assesses the proposals. He argues that they are useful first steps towards enhanced democratic practice, and he urges all sides to engage constructively in strengthening them further.

The Scottish Government has recently proposed two important constitutional innovations. First, it has introduced a bill designed to regulate the conduct of any future referendum called by the Scottish Parliament. Second, it has announced a citizens’ assembly to encourage constructive public discussion of Scotland’s constitutional future. Opposition parties may be wary of these proposals, seeing them through the lens of the debate for and against Scottish independence. But the proposals deserve to be assessed on their own merits. Whatever our view of independence, no one can deny that active debate on this question exists. It is in everyone’s interests that that debate be conducted fairly and honestly.

Much of my recent work at the Constitution Unit is relevant to the proposals. In conjunction with the Independent Commission on Referendums and the Council of Europe, I have examined the principles and rules that should shape referendum conduct. In the Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit, my colleagues and I considered how such deliberative institutions can best be designed and operated. My recent report with Michela Palese on Doing Democracy Better explores ways of fostering better information and discussion during referendum campaigns. In what follows, I draw on these projects – as well as the work of the Electoral Commission and others – to assess the Scottish government’s proposals and consider what further steps may need still to be taken.

Referendums Bill – an important step forward…

The Referendums (Scotland) Bill was introduced in the Scottish Parliament by Cabinet Secretary Mike Russell on 28 May. It does not call any referendum. Rather, it is intended to provide the framework for any future referendum that might be called by the Scottish Parliament on any matter. It covers the rules for triggering such a vote, conducting the campaign, and running the poll itself.

The mere fact of establishing a standing framework of referendum rules is a welcome step forward. Scotland currently has no such framework, meaning that all the rules have to be created afresh when a referendum is called. That is in contrast to the UK as a whole, where referendum rules were established by the Political Parties, Elections, and Referendums Act (PPERA) 2000. The danger created by having no standing framework is that the rules can be manipulated by those in power to enhance their chances in a particular vote. Last year’s Independent Commission on Referendums suggested that Scotland might introduce such a law. The change also fits with the principle that basic referendum rules should be settled well before any actual vote. This is enshrined in the Code of Good Practice on Referendums produced by the Council of Europe’s legal wing, the Venice Commission, and was endorsed earlier this year by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • Email
  • Print & PDF

Like this:

Like Loading...
Posted in Devolution, Elections and referendums, Public Engagement and Policy Making | Tagged 2016 EU referendum, Alan Renwick, citizens' assemblies, citizens' assembly, Citizens' Assembly on Brexit, Code of Good Practice on Referendums, confirmatory referendum, confirmatory vote, Council of Europe, Doing Democracy Better, Electoral Commission, Independent Commission on Referendums, Michael Russell, Michela Palese, Mike Russell, Nicola Sturgeon, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act, PPERA, referendums, Referendums (Scotland) Bill, Scottish government, Scottish Independence, Scottish independence referendum, scottish parliament, Second Scottish independence referendum, secondary legislation, SNP, Venice Commission

Citizens’ assemblies: breaking the Brexit deadlock?

Posted on April 5, 2019 by The Constitution Unit

picture.744.1437133902A week after the original date set for the UK to leave the European Union, there is still no firm plan for how to do so. The Prime Minister has sought a further extension of the Article 50 process, but it remains unclear how the different factions in the House of Commons can be brought together. Jim Gallagher argues that the citizens’ assembly process might offer a way around the current impasse.

With parliament unable to agree away forward on Brexit, the only option other than ‘no deal’ is a long delay for the UK to rethink its approach. Europe is still open to this, but says it needs a ‘strong justification’.

Citizens’ Assemblies offer a new way to resolve the issue and help unite the country during that period.

A no plan Brexit and broken public trust

The Tory party’s search for a quick, simple fix, largely driven by its internal needs, has defined the Europe debate so far. Contrast this with Harold Macmillan’s decision to apply for membership in 1961, based on a deep and comprehensive analysis, or Labour’s 23 volumes on whether to join the euro. Little wonder Westminster and Whitehall failed to secure a workable agreement, and that few members of the public find it possible to support the options now on the table.

This present deadlock is reason enough to bring the public back into the debate. But, more importantly, we have not just a government unable to lead but a public unwilling to be led. 68% of people now feel none of the main political parties speaks for them. ‘Betrayal’ and ‘treason’ are the everyday language of debate. Remain supporters say the referendum was won by lies and stolen data; Leave supporters feel robbed of a clean break with Europe.

A last minute compromise deal, with far-reaching economic and social consequences, conjured up behind closed doors in Westminster, will not get public acceptance from either Remainers or Leavers. People already deeply distrust the Brexit political process. Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • Email
  • Print & PDF

Like this:

Like Loading...
Posted in Brexit, Europe, Public Engagement and Policy Making | Tagged Article 50, Article 50 extension, Brexit, Brexit negotiations, citizens' assemblies, Citizens' Assembly on Brexit, Citizens' Assembly on Social Care, deliberative democracy, Further referendum on Brexit, Jim Gallagher, no deal Brexit

Post navigation

← Older posts

The Constitution Unit Website

Monitor 82: Achieving a new normal for the constitution?

Parliament’s Watchdogs: Independence and Accountability of Five Constitutional Regulators

Northern Ireland’s Political Future

Report of the Citizens’ Assembly on Democracy in the UK


Enter your e-mail address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by e-mail.

Join 2,508 other subscribers

Unit Mailing List: Sign up to receive notifications of of our events, newsletter and publications

Link to Join the Unit's Mailing list
Blog at WordPress.com.
The Constitution Unit Blog
Blog at WordPress.com.
  • Follow Following
    • The Constitution Unit Blog
    • Join 1,676 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • The Constitution Unit Blog
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d bloggers like this: