Brexit Solution Prize – See winning entry
The Brief
The referendum in 2016 was won by those wishing to exit the EU. Since then, the government and politicians have failed to agree on how this can and should be achieved. 12RPrizes crowdsourced for a solution that we could present as viable options to the Prime Minister. Our panel selected the winning entry shown below.
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.
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