The Brexit negotiations are about to enter a critical phase. Between now and October the UK government and the EU have to agree an outline of what their relationship will be once the transition/implementation phase ends in December 2020. In the UK, that agreement will need to secure the approval of a House of Commons where a divided government does not have an overall majority. This has led, perhaps inevitably, to increasingly intense speculation about whether Brexit is bound to happen or whether a political spanner might yet be put in the withdrawal works.
This speculation focuses, amongst other things, on two inter-related issues. First, are most voters still in favour of leaving the EU? After all, the Leave majority in June 2016 was no more than a narrow one and would take little to overturn. Second, is there (growing) support for another referendum on Brexit once the negotiations with the EU have concluded? While these questions are inevitably asked more often by those opposed to Brexit, Nigel Farage’s suggestion that perhaps there should be another referendum indicates that these questions are also now in the minds of some Leave supporters. But, with many a claim and counterclaim about exactly where public opinion now lies, what answers to the two questions can we draw from a dispassionate look at the polls?
Questions about how people would vote in another referendum have not been asked particularly frequently. Moreover, even when the issue has been addressed, the polls have not necessarily posed the question that appeared on the ballot paper in June 2016. However, BMG have posed the referendum question on a regular monthly basis since the autumn of 2016. And, as we can see, up until May 2017, Remain had never been ahead of Leave. However, subsequently, Remain have never been behind. That would seem to suggest there might well have been a small swing in favour of Remain.
A similar impression is gained if we look at all of the polls (undertaken by a variety of companies) that have asked something other than an exact replication of the referendum question (and, in so doing, for clarity’s sake we leave aside the Don’t Knows). During the general election and immediately thereafter, these polls all put Remain ahead. But since then Remain has nearly always been in the lead. A not dissimilar turning of the tide shortly after the general election is also evident in YouGov’s regular Eurotracker series.
So, there appears to be consistent evidence across a number of poll series that what until the middle of last year was still a small majority in favour of leaving the EU has now become a small majority for remaining. That said, we have to sound the warning that, with the polls as close as they mostly are, nobody can be sure that there would be a different outcome if another referendum were held now. After all, most (though not all) of the polls conducted immediately before the EU referendum had Remain narrowly ahead, yet in the event it was Leave that prevailed.
But, more importantly, if we look underneath the bonnet at the ebb and flow of voting intentions since the EU referendum, there is relatively little evidence that many Leave voters have jumped ship. Table 1 below is based on the detailed figures from four recent polls and surveys (including the NatCen Panel) that not only asked people how they would vote in a EU referendum held now, but also how – and whether – they voted in June 2016.
Table 1: Referendum Vote Intention Now by 2016 Referendum Vote
Those who voted Leave are now a little less likely than those who voted Remain to say that they would vote the same way again. However, the difference – four points – is a small one. Moreover, Leave voters are barely any more likely than Remain supporters to say they would now vote differently from how they did in June 2016. Instead, they are slightly more likely to say they are not sure which way they would vote a second time around, or else that they might not make it to the polls at all. Where Remain does gain ground is amongst those (disproportionately younger voters) who did not vote last time. In short, it looks as though the outcome of another referendum could well depend on which side’s supporters proved more likely to turn out, and that must be regarded as a highly uncertain foundation on which to rest any hopes that Remain supporters may have that the June 2016 verdict can be overturned.
But do voters want a second bite at the cherry in the first place? Much excitement was caused at the weekend by an ICM poll for The Guardian that suggested there was now a clear majority in favour of holding another referendum. But, in truth, respondents’ views on this subject depend heavily on how the issue is put to them. This should not surprise us for, after all, there is more than one possible form that a second ballot could take. There is no reason why voters should hold the same opinion about a referendum where the choice is, on the one hand, between accepting the deal that is agreed between the UK and the EU and, on the other hand, leaving the EU without any deal at all, as they do about one where the choice is between accepting the deal and reversing Brexit. Meanwhile, we can also conceive of a referendum where the alternative to acceptance of the deal was renegotiating it, while we might imagine a referendum which was simply a rerun of the ballot in June 2016 without any reference to a deal at all.
The importance of these distinctions were made apparent by polling recently undertaken by Lord Ashcroft. He administered four different versions of a ‘second referendum’ question and, as Table 2 shows, each of them secured rather different patterns of response (for full details of the questions and responses see here). The balance of opinion was relatively firmly weighted against an unspecified second referendum. It was also against a ballot that was essentially described as a rerun of the last referendum without reference to the outcome of the Brexit negotiations. In contrast, opinion was relatively evenly divided on a post-deal referendum where the choice was between the negotiated deal and staying in the EU, while there was actually a balance in favour of a ballot on leaving on the negotiated terms or without any deal – though in this instance many voters (30%) were undecided about the merits of being presented with what might regarded as Hobson’s Choice.
Table 2: How Support for Different Kinds of Second Referendum Varies
What is also worth noting that is that most of the variation in the pattern of responses to these questions is occasioned by the answers given by Leave voters, who are much more opposed to an unspecified second referendum (83%) than they are to a choice between a deal or no deal (52%). In contrast, Remain voters are more consistent in their answers, though they find the prospect of a deal versus no deal ballot somewhat less attractive. Neither of these patterns should come as much of a surprise. But they are a reminder that we should not assume that a poll that shows relatively high levels of support for holding another referendum is necessarily a reflection of greater enthusiasm for the idea amongst Remain voters.
This point is reinforced when we look at the divergent results that have been produced by other polling companies that have delved into this subject. On the one hand, both Opinium and YouGov have consistently reported that the opponents of another ballot outnumber supporters. In contrast, on the more limited occasions that Survation have addressed the issue, they have more often than not found the balance of opinion to be in the opposite direction, as did ICM in its question (asked for the first time) in its poll for The Guardian last week. As Table 3 indicates, it is again Leave voters whose answers appear to be more sensitive to how the issue is approached. There is no more than a seven-point difference in the levels of support and opposition registered to any of these questions amongst Remain voters, whereas there is as much as a 24-point difference in the level of opposition registered by Leave voters.
Table 3 The Divergent Pattern of Responses to Questions About A Second Referendum
The variation in the wording of the questions asked by the four companies can be summarised as follows:
Opinium: Post-negotiations, a second referendum in which ‘voters can choose between leaving under the terms negotiated or remaining in the EU after all?’
YouGov: Post-negotiations, ‘a referendum to accept or reject [the terms]?’
ICM: Agree/Disagree that ‘the public should have the chance to take a final decision on whether or not to leave the EU in another referendum’
Survation: ‘holding a referendum asking the public if they will accept or reject the deal’
Two of these questions, those asked by YouGov and Survation, ask respondents whether or not they want a vote on the outcome of the negotiations, without specifying what the implications of rejecting the deal might be. In contrast, Opinium and ICM pose the prospect of a referendum on staying in the EU versus leaving. But given that these two pairs of questions produce rather different answers, these features cannot adequately explain the divergence between them. What distinguishes Survation’s question from YouGov’s is a more ‘populist’ tone, that is, it emphasises the ability of ‘the public’ to make a decision rather than simply referring to holding ‘a referendum’. Similarly, while Opinium simply refer to voters being able to ‘choose’, ICM pose the prospect of voters making the ‘final decision’. In short, it looks as though the way a hypothetical second referendum itself is described matters as well as what a no vote in that referendum is stated or implied to mean.
But leaving aside the subtleties of how the question of another referendum is posed, is there any consistent evidence that support for having another referendum has increased? Neither of the two most substantial time series we have, from YouGov and Opinium, provides much evidence in support of this proposition. In YouGov’s case, there is some indication that perhaps opinion has moved very slightly in favour of a second ballot; their last two polls put support at 33% and 36%, whereas in April it stood in two polls at 31%. But in the case of Opinium, whose time series is the longest of all, it is very difficult to discern any evidence of a long-term trend at all. Detecting a shift in public opinion on Brexit – in either direction – is, it seems, very hard to do.
By John Curtice
John Curtice is Senior Research Fellow at NatCen and at 'UK in a Changing Europe', Professor of Politics at Strathclyde University, and Chief Commentator on the What UK Thinks: EU website.
Odd sort of piece. For example, it is dated 31st January 2018. Did I lose a couple of weeks somewhere?
The nonsense about delays at ports etc is a self fulfilling prophecy. Lack of preparedness and government incompetence are the threat there but fortunately our ports are already preparing countermeasures and options. I am on the board of a company that work with our own global supply chain and as an integrated part of others. We do not expect to experience the problems it is suggest will come from non EU membership. Ships come into British ports from outside the EU and unload 20,000 full size containers from China. Much of the system is prefiled and electronic. Tankers can end up cost 20,000 a day to keep in port unecessarily. Hence they are electronically cleared before they arrive in many cases and only recieve random checks or issues where documents have not been cleared properly. In fact, the entire world has been moved to electronic measures. Some countries are painful, Brazil, UAE, Iraq etc but even there, it is possible to get documents which arrive before the shipment in most cases. We can even deal within a conflict free supply chain compliant structure which can contain low level radioactive material. We do not experience delays as a result of this. It is ridiculous to suggest that this is not emminently solvable and likely to be a non issue. Indeed, if Britain had been led by someone with a iota of sense this could have been an opportunity to introduce blockchain and other far more effective automated technologies to improve this even further. I am told by our logistics people that trucks take 5-6 minutes through customs unless there is an anomaly.
If the leave campaign focussed on the fact that we are being asked to vote on the same issue that one already voted on, again. Pushing the second vote as an opportunity to reject the establishment and reduced oversight and accountabiliity from our politicians resulting the devaluation of their vote.
Then many on both sides would take this opportunity to stick it the establishment with glee. I certainly know people who voted both ways that would be keen to do just that. Not everyone is a fanatic and many understand that unravelling the sanctity of democratic principles is doubling down on a difficult situation to the point that something is lost that could take generations to get back. We have already lost a huge amount of credibility around the world because of the incompetence of our government in delivering up the referendum result. Increasing the duration of the uncertainty and embarassing ourselves further is no answer at all.
A second referendum would achieve nothing but to increase the anger and division within the UK to a level never seen in modern times and add to market perceptions of a Britain spinning out of control. The effects of that would be very far reaching indeed.
I suspect leave would win again but, even were that not so. Leavers would simply demand best out of three and British democracy, being utterly illegitimate at that point, would be completely paralyzed. Civil unrest would likely dwarf that of France and we would simply have another country being torn apart by the forces of globalism. I work in a global business. Many of the public seem to think that this is ‘globalism’. It isnt. Globalism simply means a race to the equilibrium. Where the most developed nations and the least seek a middle ground. Perfectly evidenced by the European Project where you see economic forces at work which can only lead to austerity and a worsening environment for workers in more developed nations as has been pointed out by most of the worlds most respected economists.
The one thing May achieved was to seem to get so completely ‘off piste’ that no one could figure out if she was simply delusional, treasonous or simply incompetent. I think we now have an answer. But that uncertainty kept people guessing and stopped more pressure being brought to bear and people rallying around a particular position. Now that has passed things will get even more intense.
Report
In 1973 l voted to join the EEC as l was delivering into Europe on TIR plates this made European Deliveries easier no waiting times at border customs post this could be days of delays. I am now engaged Delivering product to Germany Holland Belgium France, here is an example of a normal load, we leave Hull Sunday Night arrive Rotterdam Monday morning Deliver Amsterdam reload Rotterdam return to Ferry arrive Hull Tuesday Morning Deliver to the North West UK or the Midlands.
The entire journey is Electric Tagged to pay road taxes and to allow Border Customs to confirm Driver Load Truck destination correct weight in minutes in fact l have never been stopped at a border crossing for a document check, l have had my Tanker X/Rayed at the Tunnel that take 5 to 6 mns.
This is happening daily at all our ports l voted to stay due to the free flow of goods and the damage any restrictions on our UK Industry would cause, l am convinced the whole of the UK was not informed of all the complications involved in a Leave Vote.
Report
I voted to remain. However, looking back, I didn’t really look at the facts, I didn’t really look at the other sides point of view seriously. Since we have had more information I am very much for leaving the EU. There will still be immigration, but it will be fairer, it will be controlled. If people from Europe want to live and work in the UK they will now be on a level playing field with immigrants from outside the EU. I do realise the benefit that immigration brings, I enjoy diversity. What we have with the EU open door project is not diversity. It allows anyone from the EU to including the million refugees that the Germans allowed in. You go to many major UK and EU cities and you have large areas where you do not feel like a citizen in your own country, the kind of unchecked immigration that the elite establishment are completely blind to. With Trump and Brexit you had a forgotten working class rising up against the political and mainstream media establishment.
Rather than accept the outcome, the Remainers have doubled down, claiming that Britain is a systemically racist country, one of “white male privilege”, the same country who has elected two female prime ministers. The feminists should be happy, but they are happy to bash Theresa May because she doesn’t fit their political ideology. Remainers give us scare tactics, that the country would fall down, a no-deal Brexit would be a disaster. Think of how many products the British buy from the EU, the amount of European cars you see on the road, the amount of food we import from Europe. European companies like Aldi and Lidl who are very profitable in the UK. Do you really think that businesses are just going to stop trading with us? Do you really think that the EU will break WTO rules just to make a political point?
Remainers will say, well I can’t easily move to the EU now if I wanted to work over there. How many people actually move to work in Europe? Not many. You can still go and work in the Europe, just apply for a visa. Remainers will say we are too small to have our own trade deals. Countries smaller than us have made trade deals with countries like China. Britain still has an important presence in the world.
It is largely unknown how young people who didn’t get to vote will vote. Labour had a good turnout from young voters, although I have seen more and more young people become more conservative. The conservative movement has been winning the culture war, the mainstream media are becoming less relevant and more out of touch. The way the Remain leaning mainstream media and elites have shown complete contempt for the general population is really shocking, and to makes things worse, rather than admitting they got it wrong, they blame the Russians, they blame Cambridge Analytica, they say people didn’t have enough information (i.e. they are too dumb). I feel the complete opposite, the more information I get, the more pro-leave I am. Sure there maybe a little dip in the stock markets, there will be a period of adjustment, but I am sure we will look back 10 years from now and think this was the best decision Britain ever made. For the EU, this is political, they want Britain to fail, or Britain to coming running back. Other smaller countries have tried to leave, but have been bullied into staying. If Britain leaves, it will be like a house of cards, other countries in the EU will start to follow Britain out of the EU and the whole EU project that career politicians have tried so hard to make a reality will collapse.Report
I voted to leave brexit 2 years ago and I remain a leaver. The continued tirade from the remainders asking for another referendum infuriates me. It also infuriates me that we have voted in a prime minister and then we are not supporting her efforts to bring the exit deal. Get over whether you think it’s a good idea or jot to leave, the people gave voted. Please let’s do it. I am not that old that I don’t remember life before we were in brexit. We survived then and we will again. Scaremongers like the head of the Bank of England saying house prices will fall, will frighten people from buying now as they will automatically think the house prices will fall, so no one will buy, waiting to see what happens after brexit…… So guess what, house prices will have to come down cause no one is buying . It’s idiots like that putting scare rumours around which are causing more harm. Yes we may find some things tougher but we will recover. I remember when the interest rates on my mortgage hit over 11percent. We have a wAy to go before we are in serious problems. The snowflake generation think everything should be given on a plate. Unfortunately we have to work for things and be a bit patient. Report
I refer again to Tim’s posting and my own following Tim’s in order to add the following.
The Conservatives, as I understand it, changed the law for industrial action in 2015 by requiring that for an industrial action ballot to be valid 50% of eligible members must vote and 40% of eligible members must be in favour of taking that industrial action. These rules were introduced to prevent the country from being held to ransom and ensure democracy prevails.
Ok, the referendum passed the first requirement in that 72.21% of eligible voters actually voted with 51.89% of said voters voting to leave it failed the second requirement because only 37.5% of eligible voters voted to leave (72.21% x 51.89% = 37.5%). Are we saying that a trade union is legally required to be more democratic than the country?
It is this lack of proper democracy that prevailed in the referendum that concerns me, the more so because leaving the EU is not readily reversed. Ok my views are much exacerbated by lack of clarity as to the real benefits of leaving Europe and the lies put out in the run up to the referendum. In addition, we now know there is a monetary cost to leaving and in any case exactly what are these much talked of trade deals?
Finally, I also believe we do not realise just how much benefit we have had out of Europe I think we are hell bent in going over the cliff!
Report
the actual rules written by the EU on a member leaving are.
Article 50 launched (no return) UP to 2 years sort out. Then the leaving country can scrap all EU laws.
The above was the actual rule by law at the time of the referendum, now these hard rules are ignored, and possible been tampered with.
The muddle of it all is by people who do not like the referendum result, so according to the actual rules of the EU leaving can not be stopped.Report
Not really.
“The Treaties shall cease to apply … unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.”
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Consolidated_version_of_the_Treaty_on_European_Union/Title_VI:_Final_Provisions#Article_50
Text from consolidated Treaty on European Union Article 50 follows.
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.Report
Tim has hit the nail bang on.
The referendum was not an election, the outcome of which can easily be reversed anytime if we don’t like what we get. This decision is of major significance and will change our way of life for the foreseeable future in addition to which there will be many thousands of young people who were not old enough to vote who will be affected, all because a mere 5% more voted to leave. I have conducted my own ‘pole’ and found that not one person I polled actually really understood the implications of leaving (and still don’t).
Charles HeapReport
the hard fact is right or wrong the actual EU rule at the time of the referendum was a few words long, but that is law. simply says article 50 (no return)UP TO 2 years allowed to organize, Then the leaving country can scrap any EU rule/ law.
So all of the hot air being belched today by non democratic people can do nothing by law to stop the UK leaving. As for referendums the majority win.Report
Not really.
“The Treaties shall cease to apply … unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.”
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Consolidated_version_of_the_Treaty_on_European_Union/Title_VI:_Final_Provisions#Article_50Report
Why does everyone miss the crucial point about referenda? A simple majority should not be sufficient to change a major constitutional issue like remaining in (or leaving) the EU. Perhaps a 60 or 66% majority should be necessary so that one is not forever discussing whether opinion has changed by one or two percent and so whether or not we need another referendum. It would provide some stability to the political framework within which both the politicians and we exist. It is not the same as voting someone to be your representative where a simple majority is sensible. Report
Perhaps we should all get behind the government in getting the best deal for us. All this constant remoaning and trying to run the referendum again by some people is only encouraging the EU to give us a bad deal. This may then lead to no deal which is bad for us and the EU.Report
As the last general election showed, public opinion can move quite rapidly, so it’s unwise to read too much into these polls. If another EU referendum was called the Remain side would face some pretty serious headwinds, not least the fact that the referendum would be a slam-dunk betrayal of promises made during the previous referendum and the equally undeniable fact that much of “project fear” has proved to be unfounded. Add to that the near certainty that the campaign would be framed as a straight fight between the “ordinary people” versus “a self-serving cabal of bankers, lawyers, unelected peers, hypocritical celebrities and metropolitan elitists”, and it’s easy to see how public opinion could shift dramatically. In fact I’m struggling to see how Remain could improve upon its 2016 performance. Sure, they could claim that the Brexit process has been shambolic (and indeed it has), but the obvious riposte is that it has been so because Remainers have deliberately sabotaged it. And then of course there’s the loveable Herrs Junker and Barnier to remind us why we all adore he EU. Sorry, but all in all the current polls are probably meaningless.Report
It looks like Brexit will happen. The current government is hell-bent on implementing it as it will result in much personal gain and as the cabinet is made up of politicians who came out of retirement when Cameron resigned, they probably don’t care about being re-elected.
After Brexit there will be a general election which will become an opinion poll on how the country things Brexit is going. If Jeremy Corbyn is still leader of Labour, he will probably lose again as he did in 2017. The Tories will limp on in whatever coalition they have to cobble up (they seem to be being nicer to DUP than the Lib Dems as they are running out of potential collaborators).
Labour will then have to chose a new leader because even Labour won’t allow a leader to contest a third election after two defeats (see Kinnock). The new leader will come from the centre-left when they conclude that several years of a far-left leader has kept them out of power. The new leader, and the changing demographic, younger voters being pro-Remain, etc. will prompt a pro-European stance.
Depending on how badly life outside the EU is going for the young, the poor, etc. and how expensive food and other essentials become alongside other irritations around travel, etc. the Labour Party will adopt policies such as joining the Customs Union, joining the EEA – all the through to triggering Article 49.
Then the UK’s re-entry will be on the cards but will be uncertain as any one of the other 27 member states has the option of vetoing the UK’s membership. This happened before when Charles de Gaulle blocked the UK’s entry for a while, which prompted a Daily Mail campaign in favour of the UK’s membership. Report
God help you all. If sliding from #2 in the EU to #7 even before we leave is anything to go by, imagine how bad it could be after we leave. I’m going to Australia.Report
So dumbReport
I am reminded of Thomas Khun’s revolution in Scientific thought. Perhaps we are approaching a breakthrough point were the paradim of Brexit is discredited Report
Apology: This comment was posted in error under another article at this website.
Just how the people of the UK can obtain a referendum on a matter of national importance or controversy is by no means clear. The existing process resembles the practice of ancient times when a monarch or despot would, rarely, ask her or his subjects for their opinion on her/his idea or plan, expecting an acclamatory response, becoming enraged if criticism should be expressed in the poll.
“Calling a referendum, it turns out, does not have anything, in particular, to do with constitutional principle. Rather, it’s about party management and political strategy.” (1)
What is currently the procedure to instigate a statewide referendum?
– For each referendum Parliament (i.e. both houses thereof) must pass an enabling law.
– Parliament as in much lawmaking is not the effective decider but it is the prime minister and government who direct and permit that a referendum shall be held: Parliament merely “rubber stamps” the government’s instruction.
Could we do this in a better, fairer, more open and democratic way?
In the above article about public attitudes to “brexit” the pollsters and Prof. Curtice seem to imply that a referendum may or should be held only if a majority of their sampled citizens (extrapolated to reflect half of the population) have apparently consented to the idea of holding such a ballot. Now, “government by opinion poll” has rightly been criticised but it seems that, here, participative-democracy-by-opinion-poll, is being propagated. There is a known and well-tried improvement both on this and on the hitherto method, namely the citizen launched referendum. This begins with a society-wide competition of ideas and proposals followed by the sovereign democratic act of citizens’ initiative (or proposition). A citizens’ initiative must be registered with a public office such as an electoral commission. Then within a usually defined time period an agreed large number of eligible voters must endorse the proposal to hold a ballot. The percentage of endorsements required is usually in low single figures, rarely above ten percent. Should Parliament reject the proposal then a legally binding referendum of the whole electorate must be held.
To improve our public governance for the future we should seriously consider reforming democracy along these lines. More detail may be found at http://www.iniref.org
1. Peter Wiggins, recent remark at http://www.democraticaudit.com Report
Seriously..Please don’t tell me we are still re-running the referendum. Its ridiculous. We had the vote and we are leaving that’s how a democracy works. . Everyone I meet is getting on with their life and choose which way they voted they say that they wish that the government would walk away from the EU and revert to WTO rules. Polls always turn out to be wrong more than they are right – Very much like the constant economist expert ‘crystal ball’ predictions based on the worse case scenarios we had to put up with every day. In England Leave won by 7% (almost 2m) ) which is a sizable majority. As a matter of interest where did this poll take place – NI or Scotland? Report
Everyone you meet thinks we should revert to WTO rules? No. Fox promised a free trade agreement.
You talk about ‘economist expert ‘crystal ball’ predictions’. Someone who has even a wit of a clue about ‘WTO rules’ simply wouldn’t say that.
What I’m saying is: You don’t have the foggiest notion what ‘WTO rules’ are.
This was published before the referendum. I think you missed it:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36401578Report
I would be interested to know at what point New voters (predominantly “remain”) outweigh the losses of “leavers” inevitably occasioned by mortality. While this will not occur before 2019, will there not come a time when the Conservatives find themselves on exactly the wrong side of history, though taking a short term view.Report
Leave is underway, so the path of least resistance is to roll over and accept disaster. The better poll would be “Do you wish Remain had won the referendum so this Brexit thing would never have started?” YES would win that in a landslide.Report
Romp I have found this a helpful though as a convinced OAP Remoaner’ (my colours on this one nailed to the mast) I was particularly interested in any changes in viewpoint of young voters especially the ‘Leave’ voters aged 18 – 30 and 31 – 45. An hypotheses is that the very young Leavers ( now 19 – 31) who voted have have moved towards Remain, while the older (now 32 – 46) have stayed with ‘Leave’. The younger group seeing their freedoms of movement possibly eroded while the older group seeing that the reduction in competition from EU migration having a possible beneficial impact on their wage rates. One group where I see little change is my own (over 65s) who seem so much more wiling to wrap themselves in a spirit of (in my view) misplaced nostalgia and tacit and unspoken xenophobicia (note the popularity of the films Dunkirk and Darkest hour with this age group). So some work on the the changes (if any) of the views and opinions of these segments of the population would be fascinating. Once more many thanks to Prof Curtiss for his excellent and thought provoking work.
TerryReport
I do wish that when you produce tables of percentages you also disclose the base (sample size) for each column of percentages.
Also, probably nothing to do with you Mr Curtice, but the first page of this website showing a trend of what’s important in one’s Brexit vote is almost indecipherable because (a) the colours are not different enough (dots or dashes would have helped – or a vertically stretched Y axis) and again, what was the question which produced so much duplication of answers?
Why is sample size being kept a secret. Most people these days have some notion of degree of accuracy or significant differences being related ot size of sample Report