ABSTRACT

Proposal for a pan-European Citizens Assembly

whose members are chosen by sortition, not
A CITIZENS election, to discuss issues on race, identity, social
marginalisation and inequality. It seeks to
complement DIEM25 existing work by allowing a

ASSEMBLY ON greater diversity of voices to articulate an inclusive

vision of the future and reconnect the European
project to the needs and concerns of ordinary
people. This is a separate project proposal from the

THE FUTURE OF DIEM25 convention on the constitution.

Gavin Barker

THE EU
A project proposal for a more participatory politics
as the basis of an invigorated, radically democratic
European Union
1

Proposal for DIEM 25 Citizens Assembly on

the future of the EU

Contents
Forward ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
Project proposal ......................................................................................................................................... 4
To recruit a representative sample of 50 members of the public to deliberate on the future of the
European Union ..................................................................................................................................... 4
What is a citizen’s assembly?..................................................................................................................... 4
Five broad stages: ...................................................................................................................................... 5
1. Planning and recruitment. ................................................................................................................. 5
2. Learning phase. .................................................................................................................................. 5
3. Deliberative phase. ............................................................................................................................ 6
4. Decision-making phase. ..................................................................................................................... 6
5. Follow up. ........................................................................................................................................... 6
Concluding remarks ................................................................................................................................... 7
Cost ............................................................................................................................................................ 7
Next Steps .................................................................................................................................................. 8
Annex: Example of Irish Citizens Convention on Abortion ........................................................................ 9

1
2

Forward
The European Union is at a crossroads. It has already lost one of its most important members
– the UK – and it is facing multiple crises, from insurgent nationalist movements, public
concern over migration and refugees, to inequality and the impact of the Euro on economic
health.
All these issues now pose an existential threat to its future. A root cause is a pervading sense
of disconnection and alienation to the European project. It is seen as managerial and
technocratic with bankers and bureaucrats deciding our future rather than elected
representatives.
DIEM25 seeks to address this issue through a Citizens Convention on a written constitution
through elected representatives.
This proposal is a different but complementary project: a Citizens Assembly which seeks to
have a much broader conversation about the future of Europe. A written constitution would
likely be one agenda item among many; it would not go into specific details but leave this for
the DIEM25 convention on the written constitution.
All its members would be chosen by sortition not election in order to capture a diverse and
representative sample of a target population, be it a region, a country or all 25 EU member
states.
The Citizens Assembly would seek to address the populist undercurrents of a divisive and
xenophobic politics. It would conduct a wide ranging conversation on issues to do with race,
identity, belonging, economic inequality, austerity, social marginalisation, refugee and
migration flows: all factors that are driving authoritarian populist movements hijacked by
unscrupulous politicians. It would also acknowledge the over-arching context of climate
change and the disruptive effects on civil society, migration, and the threat to national
security.
The Citizens Assembly would be led by neutral, professional facilitators and follow a tried and
tested 3- step format followed by citizens assemblies: Learning (fact-based evidence and
information along with presentations by witnesses) , Deliberation (discussion and debate),
and Decision making (recommendations and decisions, ideally consensual).
The Assembly would provide a safe space where these issues can be boldly addressed in a
careful, considered and deliberative manner. Its deliberations would be live-streamed on the
internet and by doing so, it seeks to trigger a much wider, better informed, more balanced
public conversation that allows grievances to be aired rather than buried. To ignore or deny
questions of faith, identity and belonging is to allow them to poison our politics and give
permission to unscrupulous politicians and polarised and inflammatory media coverage. We
need instead a safe space in which these issues can be aired.
The Citizens Assembly would strive to bridge social divides and complement DIEM’s main
work of building a positive vision of a radically democratic and inclusive future for all
European peoples.

2
3

How this proposal could be used

One way forward is for DIEM25 to present this proposal to EU official bodies and challenge
them to allow an open public conversation by a diverse and representative sample of a target
population. The proposal could be outsourced to a non-government organisation trusted by
both DIEM25 and the EU Commission.
The incentive for EU officials is that such an assembly affords the opportunity for a deep
understanding of the thinking, values and aspirations of a representative sample of a target
population. This could in itself be a powerful means of introducing new ideas and shaping
future policy.
While it is likey that EU officials and politicians will initially resist this proposal, they may in the
end have no choice. Ultimately DIEM25 and EU officials share common ground in one vital
respect: both are aware that the EU stands at a crossroads; both seek to secure a settled
future for the EU; and both understand the catastrophic consequences of failure.
This proposal seeks to build on that common understanding and sidestep adversarial
argument by suggesting a neutral referee: ‘Let the people decide’.
Gavin Barker, Truro, Cornwall gavinbark@gmail.com
25 Aug 2018

3
4

Project proposal
To recruit a representative sample of 50 members of the public to deliberate on the
future of the European Union

Stage 1: This would initially be for two or three countries in order to test out this approach
and address teething problems: one northern state (for example Germany) and one or two
southern state (Greece or Italy).
Stage 2: build on the lessons from Stage 1, and inaugurate citizens assemblies in all 25
countries
Stage 3: this would be a multi-state Citizens Assembly whose members are drawn from the
national Citizens Assemblies convened in stages 1 and 2.
At all stages, both national and supra-national, a comprehensive record and report composed
of policy recommendations would be written in order to give a deep insight into the thinking
of the Assembly Members.
To stress again, the proposed Citizens Assembly is separate but complementary to DIEM25
proposal for a Citizens Convention on a draft constitution.

What is a citizen’s assembly?

Citizens Assemblies are a form of ‘mini-public’ which include citizen juries and consensus
conferences. Participants are typically selected through stratified random sampling so that a
range of demographic characteristics from the broader population are adequately
represented–e.g. age, gender, ethnicity, disability, income, geography, education, religion.
Participants are remunerated, the discussions are facilitated, and experts provide evidence
and advocacy of relevant information and positions and are then cross-examined by the lay
citizens.
Central to the success of such deliberative forums is good quality facilitation which promotes
trust, constructive dialogue and respect for different opinions. Good facilitation builds a sense
of community, thoughtful, informed deliberation and consensus.

4
5

Five broad stages:

A suggested minimum time frame is 6 to 10 weekends over a three-month period to cover
the Learning, Deliberative and Decision Making Phase.

1. Planning and recruitment.

Usually, an Independent Advisory Committee (or Stewarding Committee) which oversees the
process to ensure its quality and fairness. It may include academics and public figures from a
range of backgrounds and opposing viewpoints. Mini-publics usually deal with divisive topics
and their legitimacy depends on the buy-in from a range of voices across divides. For example
it would be difficult for DIEM25 to be part of the Stewarding Committee if it also sought to be
a ‘witness’ before a Citizens Assembly since this would be seen as a conflict of interest.
This is critical to the success of the project. Their role will be to ensure that the Assembly
hears from a diverse range of viewpoints including individual and group testimonies.
Additional notes: recruitment would need to be especially careful to ensure women’s voices
and voices from minority communities who are less likely to participate in such forums. The
induction phase is also critical in order to build a sense of community, confidence and trust
between Assembly Members and the knowledge that each person will be heard respectfully
and reciprocate that value in turn.

2. Learning phase.
Participants are supported to learn about the topic from diverse perspectives. Time for
individual learning (e.g. citizens receive information packages checked by the Independent
Advisory Committee (IAG) to minimise bias), with group learning. During the latter, they are
exposed to a range of evidence, views and testimonies covering the topic from various angles.
Depending on the topic, this may include experts, officials, politicians, activists, and
stakeholder representatives of various sorts. Participants are empowered to interrogate these
‘witnesses’, and sometimes to choose them from a list prepared by the IAG in order to ensure
that assembly members are exposed to a balanced range of evidence and views.
Additional notes: The Citizens Assemblies would be livestreamed on the internet, with a
dedicated website, Facebook page, Twitter account and a media relations officer to maximise
media coverage in mainstream news and TV. The aim here is to develop a high profile media
presence and trigger a wider, better informed public conversation.
Briefing papers for Assembly Members would be carefully checked to root out bias and ensure
a careful, factual presentation of evidence. Briefing papers would also be available on the
internet for wider consumption by journalists and the public.
Whether this is a German Citizens Assembly or an Italian (or another named Northern or
Southern EU Country), the assembly should be exposed to views and testimonies of individuals
and civil society organisations outside the host country, not just within. It should also include
both DIEM25 representatives and the voice of different EU institutions such as the EU
Commission, in order to allow them to put their case.
Additional examples might include:

5
6

• A German Assembly might listen to a Greek civil society organisation helping homeless
people, the elderly, the unemployed in Greece or Spain, not just local German civil
society organisations
• An Italian Citizens Assembly might cross question a representative of the European
Central Bank, a representative of the EU Commission, an NGO helping refugees, an
Italian politician who argues for ending EU membership as well as another who argues
for staying in the EU.
• Citizens assemblies would also listen to the experiences of Muslim communities living in
Europe: representatives from Muslim organisations, but also individuals – a young
unemployed Muslim man, a woman who wears the Niqab – in order to better
understand their experience of being a citizen of an EU member state, yet not feeling
that they belong Other minority communities should also be allowed to give
testimony– Jewish, African, other.
• Testimonies would also include indigenous citizens who feel resentful of newcomers
and migrants, in order to better identify the populist roots of xenophobic movements.
This is critical and goes to the heart of what this deliberative exercise is all about: to
build a deep understanding of social divides and to allow a safe space for difficult
conversations.
• Testimonies could also include expert witnesses on climate change, ecosystem collapse
and national security, and how these amplify wars and civil conflicts leading to refugee
and migrant flows

3. Deliberative phase.
Aided by impartial facilitators and recorders, participants then engage in small group face-to-
face deliberation where they reconsider their initial ideas on the topic, in the light of the
evidence and testimonies given in the learning phase. It is also about listening respectfully and
with care to opposing opinions and arguments presented by fellow assembly members.

4. Decision-making phase.
The learning and deliberative work from previous stages enables participants to engage in
considered judgement and informed decision-making. Depending on the topic, this may lead
to a particular recommendation or set of recommendations which are articulated through
reasoned arguments in the final report statement.
Where possible, both the deliberative and decision-making phase would seek to find common
ground as the basis of consensual recommendations and decisions. However, it is also be
honest and acknowledge irreconcilable differences of opinion. In either case, these would be
set out in the report.

5. Follow up.
The focus in this stage is impact. Ideally, the citizens assembly has already been in the ‘public
eye’ from its inception. One way to ensure impact is to involve key public figures and
broadcasters in the process and Stewarding Committee (or Independent Advisory

6
7

Committee). The outcomes of the citizens assembly are shared through all relevant networks,
thus informing broader public deliberation and decision-making1.
Additional notes: follow up would also include learning lessons that build on the success as
well as the mistakes of this deliberative assembly prior to enlarging its application to include
other EU member states.
Thought should also be given to the consideration of equipping assembly members to key skills
in deliberative dialogue that they can take back to their respective communities. This approach
could be formalised as part of a wider network of community development and conflict
mediation.

Concluding remarks
The deliberations of mini-publics can offer a deep insight into the thinking, values and
aspirations of a broader pubic which can help shape strong, sustainable policy objectives.
Moreover, evidence suggests that the public place greater trust in outcomes which they did
not agree to, if they have confidence that it was reached through a fair process by people like
themselves. For this reason it is vital that the whole process is seen as fair and impartial.
Given the highly contentious and divisive issues that member states now face – from the
refugee crisis, economic inequality, issues of race and faith – all of which impinge on EU
membership, a citizens assembly may be a strong platform for promoting a wider public
conversation which is more balanced and better informed. A good example is the recent Irish
Citizens Assembly on abortion – see Annex.

Cost
£150,000 to £200,000, possibly more for 50 Assembly Members2. Stage one would require
two to three citizens assemblies at a potential cost of £600.
Citizens Assemblies conducted on a national scale do not come cheap. One of the biggest
costs is the hire of a professional polling company to identify a representative sample of the
population based on age, class, ethnicity, faith, political affiliation etc. Another is hotel costs
for say 50 people plus cost of professional facilitators, note-takers, photographer, dedicated
website as part of a high profile social media strategy.
Expert presenters and interpreters will also be need to be paid for their time.
Clearly these costs are considerable but given the magnitude of the challenge facing us,
budgetary considerations should be low on the list of concerns.

1
These notes are taken from Forms of Mini Publics by Dr Escobar and Dr Elstub published on the New Democracy
Website
2
See Forms of Mini Publics
7
8

Next Steps
This is an outline proposal which serves as a discussion paper between DIEM25 and EU
officials.
Depending on the outcome of those discussions, a much more detailed project plan would
have to be developed. A range of policy experts drawn from both sides would also need to be
consulted and involved. This includes academics and organisations who have either conducted
deliberative forums or who are knowledgeable about how these work, particularly in an EU
context.

Based in the UK
The names below are UK based and may still be extremely useful consultants despite the fact
that the UK is unlikely to be part of this proposed project:
Firat Cengiz - Senior Lecturer in Law and a Marie Curie Fellow at Liverpool Law School who has
written about deliberative democracy in the EU
Dr Alan Renwick, University College London and project leader on the Citizens Assembly on
Brexit
Matthew Taylor, Chief Executive, RSA. The RSA are working with Involve on promoting
different forms of deliberative democracy
Brett Hennings, director and co-founder of the Sortition Foundation which organises and
promotes deliberative democracy forums
It is likely that all of these people will have contacts in different EU member states who have
experience of conducting citizens assemblies

European organisations
The Irish Citizens Assembly is one of the foremost examples of highly successful deliberative
forums that have profoundly influenced public attitudes and policy formulation. They will
likely have a wealth of expertise to contribute to this project. As a fellow EU member, they are
in a strong position to lead on this initiative should the EU Commission take up the challenge.
https://www.citizensassembly.ie/en/
G1000 org Belgian organisation for deliberative democracy http://www.g1000.org/
Claudia Chwalisz based in Paris who has researched and written about deliberative forums,
including a book which gives 50 examples. See https://claudiachwalisz.com/2017/06/20/the-
peoples-verdict-adding-informed-citizen-voices-to-public-decision-making/

8
9

Annex: Example of Irish Citizens Convention on Abortion

Many credit Citizens Assembly on abortion as breaking the deadlock on one of the most
enduring and divisive public issues in modern day Ireland. Politicians were reluctant to raise
an issue that could end their careers or risk electoral oblivion.
When the idea of a citizens assembly was first mooted, many saw this as a political ploy to
sidestep an intractable issue3. Ultimately the citizens assembly proved to be the opposite: it
broke the wall of silence and facilitated an open public debate and in the process, shifted
public attitudes on abortion. Its deliberations and recommendation to repeal the 8th
amendment lead to the referendum vote and a decisive victory for the Yes campaign the 8the
amendment was repealed.
Across five weekends between November 2016 and April 2017, a specially convened Citizens’
Assembly of Ireland4 whose members were a representative sample of the population
including pro and anti abortionists, met to consider the proposal to repeal the Eighth
Amendment of the Irish Constitution which makes abortion illegal.
In considering this topic the members of the Assembly (the Members) heard from twenty-five
experts, actively taking part in over eighty hours’ worth of listening, discussion and
deliberation. In addition, the Members prepared diligently for meetings, reading papers in
advance and reviewing many of the thousands of submissions received by the Assembly.
All of the public proceedings were live-streamed on the Assembly’s website and the
recordings were made available to view on the Assembly’s YouTube Channel. All of the papers
and presentations produced for the Assembly were also made available on the website.

Addressing fake news on social media

Both Save The Eighth and Love Both, the two main campaign groups that fought to keep the
8th Amendment employed social media experts and Apps used in the Trump and Brexit
campaigns. Yet as Fintan O’toole points out in his article5, they failed to game the debate
through fake news and shock imagery. He attributes the process of the citizens assembly as
part of ‘the immune system that proved highly effective in resisting this [fake news/polarised
debate] virus’
O’Toole sets out four learning points:
First, trust the people. This experiment in deliberative democracy was crucial to the outcome
of the debate and demonstrated a much more open and adult approach to a highly polarised
issue than could have been achieved through their elected representatives who frame
debates on party political divisions. “They came up with recommendations that confounded

3
How 99 strangers in a Dublin hotel broke Ireland's abortion deadlock. Article in The Guardian 8 Mar 2018
4
Final Report on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution. See website Citizens Assembly of Ireland
5
If only Brexit had been run like Ireland’s referendum. Article in The Guardian 29 May 2018

9
10

most political and media insiders, by being much more open than expected – and much more
open than the political system would have produced on its own”.
Second, be honest and clear about intentions “Technically, the vote was merely to repeal a
clause in the constitution. There was no need to say what legislation the government hoped to
enact afterwards. But the government chose to be completely clear about its intentions. It
published a draft bill. This allowed opponents of reform to pick at, and often distort, points of
detail. But it also completely undercut the reactionary politics of paranoia, the spectre of
secret conspiracies. Honesty proved to be very good policy.”
Third, talk to everybody and make assumptions about nobody. Reactionary movements have
been thriving on tribalism. They divide voters into us and them. The yes campaigners in
Ireland – many of them young people – refused to be tribal. They stayed calm and dignified.
And when they were jeered at, they did not jeer back. They got out and talked (and listened)
without prejudice.
Use personal stories. As Fintan O’Toole says, “Even when we don’t trust politicians or experts,
we trust people telling their own tales. We trust ourselves to judge whether they are lying or
being truthful. Irish women had to go out and tell their own stories, to make the painful and
intimate into public property.” Exit polls showed that by far the biggest factors in determining
how people voted were “people’s personal stories that were told to the media”, followed by
“the experience of someone who they know”.

10