We need a constitutional innovation to deal with the constitutional crisis Brexit has caused

An new, elected body to deal with this issue could help the United Kingdom move forward and heal its divisions

In June we learned the hard way that referendums are a shitty way to inform public policy. Yes the public voted to leave the European Union, but voters were able to give us little guidance as to what relationship the UK should have with the EU instead.

What’s more, the politicians now in charge of negotiating an exit from the EU have little personal mandate to shape the UK’s future status. Boris Johnson, Liam Fox and David Davies were elected by voters in their respective constituencies, but on a Conservative manifesto that did not envisage this eventuality. Nigel Farage lost his fight to represent the people of Thanet, as he has lost every Westminster election he has ever stood in, but arguable has a greater mandate to speak on European issues as an elected MEP for the South East region of England.

As we have seen, leave and remain voters are not solid blocks of likeminded people. Within the 52% who voted for leave there are libertarians, socialists, nationalists, ecologists — all of whom have a different idea of Britain’s place in the world. The same can be said for the remain side.

One attractive answer to this democratic deficit is the Liberal Democrat plan to hold a second referendum on the outcome of the UK’s exit negotitations. I agree this would be better than nothing and could give legitimacy to the resulting agreement, but it still only offers a binary choice to the electorate. What happens if the public votes against the agreement? We will have voted for leave but against the government’s best attempt to find a way forward. Could the UK be stuck in limbo indefinitely?

It is not too late to get some more nuanced direction from the British people. Now that we have the leave vote under our belt, let’s go back to the electorate and request more information as to what they actually want. Let’s give the politicians who have to negotiate the British exit from the EU the guidance they require and the mandate to move forward.

We need a constitutional innovation to solve this constitutional crisis. Why not, for the first time, elect a single issue assembly? A body to guide and decide the UK’s relationship with the EU. A cross between a devolved parliament and a parliamentary committee, that can be a focus for national debate on this issue.

It would derive its power by Act of Parliament, which would state that Brexit can only happen with the consent of this body. It should be large enough to be representative of the people of Britain, small enough to tackle the the European issue in detail.

We need a Council of One Hundred.

The Council of One Hundred, or C100, would have a few defining characteristics:

It would be directly elected, by Single Transferable Vote, using the European Parliament election constitutencies. Using a preferential system will allow voters to express a more nuanced viewpoint than a simple referendum question. For example, some voters may prefer Britain remain in the EU, but would vote as a second choice for a soft Brexit option.

It would be elected by an ‘enhanced’ franchise to achieve maximum stakeholder participation. This would include anyone over the age of 16, anyone resident in the United Kingdom (whether citizen or not) and any British citizen (whether living in the country or not).

It would contain no official party structures. Votes would not be whipped. MPs, Lords, MEPs can stand as candidates in these elections, as indeed can anyone included in the enhanced franchise. Members would act independently, following their conscience.

Candidates would stand for election with a manifesto setting out in detail their vision for Britain’s relationship with the EU. Voters would know if they were electing a remainer, a soft Brexiter or a hard Brexiter, and whether their focus was on borders and security, the economy, the environment etc.

The C100 would serve a term of a maximum of four years, but could be dissolved earlier if an agreement is reached. If after four years no agreement is made then new elections to the C100 would take place, unless at some point the C100 votes to dissolve itself permanently (thereby retaining the status quo) — although this would be unlikely given the proportional voting system.

As, in theory, the C100 will only exist for one term to settle this one issue, members should be freer to compromise and reach an agreement that commands the consent of the majority. They shouldn’t be pushed into an extreme corner by whatever narrow section of the electorate their re-election might rely on.

The Government would conduct Brexit negotiations with the knowledge that they had to achieve the consent of the C100, so their negotiating position would be informed and led by the results of the elections.

During the negotiations the C100 would have the ability to call expert witnesses to give evidence. This would include Government ministers, but also European Union officials and potentially foreign governments should they agree to participate. The body could also take evidence from business leaders, charities, scientists etc.

The body would help to unify the United Kingdom as like-minded members would form alliances across the country. Remainers in Scotland would work together with remainers in the South West of England. The current perceived polarisation between English Leavers and Scottish Remainers would be diminished.

The Conservative Party caused this Brexit mess through their desperate attempts to keep their party together. But now we’re in the mire it is incumbent on us all to find a way out. The Government is split between remainers and leavers, soft-brexiters and hard-brexiters, and the fundamental problem is they have no way of knowing which way the electorate wants them to move. A Council of One Hundred could be a bold innovation to reach a consensus on the European Union that a majority can live with.