Brexit Solution Prize

Brexit Solution Prize

We are offering a cash prize for the most credible solution proposed to the current Brexit mess, as judged by our panel.

We’re crowd-sourcing solutions to Brexit. The politicians have failed, we’d now like to hear your ideas on how to solve some of the challenges that have confounded them. For example:

Do you have the perfect solution for managing the Northern Irish border?

Have you come up with a workable plan for ensuring that lorry drivers aren’t queuing for days at Dover?

How would you negotiate with our ongoing relationship with our closest neighbours?
Opening Date
15th March 2019
Application Deadline
Competition Closed
Prize Sponsor
The Prize
£500 cash prize

The Brief

The Government has failed to find a solution to Brexit. Now it’s your turn to solve the national problem.

For this competition, we’re looking for a realistic solution to the challenges presented by Brexit.

You will need to briefly detail the problem you believe you can solve and an explanation of how you would solve it.

If you’re recommending the use of technology, please ensure you give a detailed explanation of that technology and the company behind it.

The winning entry will provide a workable solution, within the time constraints, to one of the key Brexit issues. This will then be presented to the Government.

What Are We Looking For?

Your idea
Your idea must be outlined in 500 words or less.
Leave on WTO/WA/Remain are not options
Please offer your ideas, not ones that have already been discussed. So anything like Remain or Leave without a deal/on WTO rules will be not be entered to the competition.
We love creative and fresh ideas but your idea also needs to be credible and doable.

How Does The Competition Work?

The winning idea will be chosen by our panel with comments and likes taken into consideration

Competition Winner

"Special Counsel: Grand Jury" process
Christopher Norris
I'm borrowing an idea from the American political system, most recently exemplified by the Mueller investigation that closed yesterday. Everyone on all sides of the argument agrees that Brexit is a constitutional mess that has clogged up the UK political system. No one can agree a way forward and the nation is split down the middle. The issue will not be solved by either leaving the EU or remaining in the short term, as advocates of the opposite case will simply form political groupings to lobby for a different outcome for years to come. A quick decision will not satisfy the losing side: the issue will never be over and will include lots of shouting.

My idea to get through the problem is two-fold. First, request from the EU a long delay of up to two years to the current Brexit leaving date. Then, via a public poll, set a Grand Jury panel of people with different views about Brexit (7 Remainers; 7 Brexiters), overseen by the Supreme Court (aka Special Counsel). The voting system comprises different categories of candidate - 2 CBI-style business leaders; 2 trade unionists; 2 retailers; 2 manufacturers, 2 unemployed people; 2 students; 2 retired people - of which one person in each category wants to leave the EU and the other wants to remain.

Once the Grand Jury is validated via a public vote (to ensure fairness), the panel then hears empirical evidence from a range of voices (including politicians), conducts interviews, visits relevant locations (e.g. work places) across the UK and seeks out stories, similar to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission held in South Africa after the abolition of the Apartheid. At the end of the agreed period, the Grand Jury casts their individual votes to either leave or remain in the EU. Should there be an even split, the casting vote will be made by the Supreme Court.

By involving everyone in the democratic process (including the millions of people who did not vote in the original Referendum) and taking the time of every point of view to be heard, the decision on Brexit can be made with the knowledge that no stone has been left unturned. The likelihood of powerful protest groups thriving after such a vote would be dramatically reduced.
In the Press