The arrival of Boris Johnson in Downing St has resulted in a marked change of tone in the debate about Brexit. The new administration has signalled that, if it is unable to secure a new Brexit deal by the scheduled date for the UK’s departure of 31 October, it will leave the EU without a deal. It hopes this stance will persuade the EU to change its mind about reopening the agreement that the former Prime Minister, Theresa May, had reached with the EU but for which she had been unable to secure the support of MPs. However, some MPs are hoping that they can stop the government from pursuing a no deal Brexit should it be unable to reach an accommodation with the EU.
But what do voters think about the prospect of leaving the EU without a deal? Is this an option that has widespread public support? And might, as the Prime Minister hopes, such a step bring an end to the divisions created by the Brexit impasse? These key questions are addressed by a new analysis paper published by The UK in a Changing Europe.
Drawing on data from a wide variety of published polls, the paper reports three main findings:
- There is widespread support for a no deal Brexit among those who voted Leave. At least half would probably prefer such an outcome come what may, while another quarter would probably regard it as acceptable – and especially so if the alternative is further delay or if the EU were thought responsible for failure to reach an agreement.
- However, at least three-quarters of Remain voters are opposed to leaving without a deal, whatever the circumstances, and many appear to be antipathetic to the idea. At the same time, those who did not vote in the EU referendum are more likely to oppose than support a no deal Brexit.
- As a result, most polling suggests that the balance of opinion among voters as a whole is tilted somewhat against leaving without a deal. Meanwhile, so far at least, there is no evidence that the new government’s backing for leaving without a deal has resulted in an increase in support for taking such a step.
Given these findings, the paper concludes that the government’s stance is largely in tune with the mood of those whose instructions it is seeking to implement, that is those who voted Leave in 2016. However, leaving without a deal could serve to perpetuate the division over Brexit rather than provide a foundation for uniting the country.
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.
“Simon Thorpe: Can those who are posting here and arguing that No deal is a good option give their position on a Yes/No referendum on the question “Do you want the UK to leave with no deal on the 31st October”? ”
I’ll be honest, I would only support ‘no-deal’ if the EU refused to reopen the WA agreement to let us remove the items that were clearly colluded to make us rethink leaving, trapping us in the EU.
In the same way, that the polls analysed by http://www.whatukthinks.org don’t ask a good question, your question is equally unfair to the situation, as it is ruling out any negotiation, and asserting that ‘no-deal’ can only be left on the table at this stage. IMO a valid question to map the situation would be: “Do you wish to leave the EU, with or without a deal on the 31st October 2019?”
That way the answer to the question restores the power of the Government to be the Executive of our democracy – as they are constitutionally supposed to be – and carry out the negotiation un-handicapped. Obviously, the person that chooses the question can’t really do so without showing their own bias for their desired outcome – my question would almost certainly get a majority in a referendum for leaving, “come what may”, and yours (before the EU budged and started to negotiate in late October) would probably be a favourable result for supporting us only leaving with a deal.
However, the time for further referenda on the Brexit issue probably ended after more than 500 MPs were elected in 2017’s GE on a mandate to uphold the result, and I’m sure there is poll analysis on this very website that shows more referenda isn’t popular with the public at this point in time, so the point is probably moot anyway.
Ultimately this deadlock is likely to be broken by the EU undermining the opposition coalition by refusing to extend IMHO, because the EU taking advantage of a member state because its democracy and ability to have a majority Government run it has been paralysed by rebels looks predatory by the EU. They’ve also got the problem that because we contribute £1 billion per month (plus 20% on all goods imported from the rest-of-world) if they extend without a mandate from our people (not our parliament) the PM could sue them for extortion for that money; or just threaten to veto every piece of business they attempt in the EU until they release us from the extension. The rebels only chance to reverse the referendum now is to get the GE on October 15th, and win enough support to have a coalition government to revoke A50… but they won’t because they worry that Johnson will win a 50 majority or more, with all the tricks we’ve seen to undermine the Ref1 result in the last few years.Report
And if we have another referendum it will tear this country apart Report
They asked to leave EU didn’t ask for a deal or no deal just asked to leave Report
Wayne : “No more referendum do what the people ask for or pay the consequences”
Sorry, when exactly did the British people ask for a No-deal Brexit??
Give them a referendum on that specific question, and you could be proved correct in your claim that a no-deal brexit is what the majority of the public want.
John Curtice’s analysis (at the head of this exchange) does suggests that the majority of people who voted leave in 2016 would support a No-deal brexit, but that cannot be used to claim that the majority of people in the UK would want that option. Three quarters of 52% is only 39%. And there is clearly a huge difference between an opinion poll based on a few thousand people at best, and a proper organised referendum.
If you are so opposed to having a referendum on the subject, I am tempted to conclude that it is because you suspect that it may fail to get the result you so clearly want. Report
No more referendum do what the people ask for or pay the consequences Report
When we vote in the General election, we need to considered who we are voting for as the majority of MP’s are not listening to the people wishes and the only way to make them listen is to vote for boris then finally we can become Great Britain again not Great Britain/EU Report
Can those who are posting here and arguing that No deal is a good option give their position on a Yes/No referendum on the question “Do you want the UK to leave with no deal on the 31st October”?
Surely, this is probably the only way to settle the question. Boris Johnson believes that this is what the majority want, so he should presumably see this as a real way to get what he (and his Brexiteer cabinet) want. And currently, he will have just three options:
1) Get parliament to approve a deal
2) Get parliament to approve a no-deal
3) Request and extension
He has said that he would prefer to be dead in a ditch than go for 3. He could try 1) or 2), but I presume would be almost certain to fail. But, I would think that any who believes in democracy would agree that a referendum of the UK public that voted for No-deal Brexit should override any opinions expressed by MPs.
If he is not allowed to have a general election on the 15th of October, I would have thought that a Yes/No referendum would be a perfectly acceptable alternative. Report
“John Torrance: I do not believe it is democratic to leave without a deal, given all that was promised during the referendum and the fact it does not even appear to suit at least a quarter of those who voted Leave, meaning it is not favoured by the majority.”
Morally I would agree with you, if it weren’t for the fact that Project-Fear claimed far worse happening than no-deal’s current worst projections, and those apocalyptic outcomes were supposed to happen straight after the Ref1 result for Out – and they certainly didn’t materialize – so on balance morally I think it is fair to say people knew what they were potentially voting for(in a no guarantees situation). Factually it was an In / Out binary vote, so the mandate – the biggest in UK history – still carries. Obviously polls can be wrong in both result, error margin because of methodology. Brexit opinion being independently devolved and party agnostic makes it hard to poll accurately, when polling is done mostly in cities for cost reasons, and cities are predominantly ‘Remain’. So if we ignore the polls on the basis of flawed methodology, and look at the 2017 General election – over 500 MPs were elected on a pledge to honour the referendum In/Out result – so regardless of how MPs are acting now. Factually that is still a mandate for leaving – with or without a deal; especially with a slogan: “No deal is better than a bad deal!” – and then when we look at the EU elections – which was a single issue vote on Brexit – which for the Conservatives and Brexit party (and UKIP) was to leave with or without a deal. The results of voting for those three parties combined was greater than those pushing for remain. So, factually that is a third mandate for: with or without a deal.
Even if you disagree and would assert these mandates also guaranteed a ‘deal’. ‘No-deal’ has far more democratic legitimacy than forcing an anti-brexit delay, again or removing the ‘no-deal’ bargaining chip from the PM’s hand, or blocking a general election for two months when we have no government with a working majority – implicitly the sovereignty of the people always provides the highest mandate for having a working Government at all times; that is one with a working majority.
“John Torrance: They are being told No deal would mean ‘it is all over’ and they seem to believe this when it is the absolute opposite of the truth.”
How do you conclude that people think ‘no-deal’ means it is over – when leaving was sold as the start of being able to trade beyond the EU again? People actively wanting ‘no-deal’ surely just want the WA part to be over, don’t they? They fear any deal will either schematically be the same as being in the EU to satisfy our undemocratic Remain majority parliament, or be used as a delaying tactic to get people to give up on getting the democratic result of Ref1.Report
now that Boris Johnson no longer has a majority in any shape, might he be just as well off jettisoning the DUP?Report
I do not believe it is democratic to leave without a deal, given all that was promised during the referendum and the fact it does not even appear to suit at least a quarter of those who voted Leave, meaning it is not favoured by the majority. .
Nor am I convinced that all those in favour of No deal are aware that, as the polls show, it would merely accentuate the conflict in our national life and mean more negotiations and Brexit controversies than over.. They are being told No deal would mean ‘it is all over’ and they seem to believe this when it is the absolute opposite of the truth.
Report
@Chris Kimberley
I personally still want a WA deal, by keeping ‘no-deal’ as a bartering tool in the PM’s hands if absolutely needed – but one that is actually leaving, and wasn’t colluded between May and Barnier to either semantically keep us in, or be so unpalatable that it could be used as false evidence to back ‘remain’ falsehoods and reverse the result – however, with so many of the EU gravy train Europhiles trying to block the direct democracy (as they don’t believe in elections and don’t believe in democracy), I fear that ‘no-deal’ is the only way we will be able to wrestle our nation’s sovereignty back from Europhiles at home and abroad, which is the saddest part of this whole situation.
Those actively wanting ‘no-deal’ only do so out of wanting to audit our nation’s things, that have been lobbied away between closed doors over the past 40years. Auditing is usual good in most aspects of life – say like restarting your smartphone/computer and letting the operating system reclaim all its resources 🙂 Some of the latest and greatest smartphones now tell you when you haven’t ‘restarted’ for over a week for this very purpose. Only the other week – while we all become experts in UK and EU politics, so not such a bad thing that needs healing IMHO – we found out that Ireland buy British milk from Northern Ireland (70% of all they produce) and pay less than 50% the price the UK mainland pay per litre, and further to that, they would still pay 9% less that the UK even if the 26pence per litre WTO tariff was paid on top.
I would also disagree with your complaint about the work involved in trade agreements (free-trade or WTO) taking years. The EU didn’t become what it is today overnight when we joined the common market; and it provided plenty of civil service employment for 40 years, but there’s an old axiom for that issue: something like “Anything worth doing is difficult”, although Theordore Roosevelt said it better:
“Nothing in the world is worth having or worth doing unless it means effort, pain, difficulty… I have never in my life envied a human being who led an easy life. I have envied a great many people who led difficult lives and led them well.”
People may wrongly believe they have the moral high-ground in trying to block the PM having ‘no-deal’ in his arsenal in this economic/political war, but you only need look at who is backing ‘Remain’ against the largest mandate in British history, to realise that they are enabling people that really don’t believe in democracy at all.Report
No Deal is just the brexiteers admitting they never had a plan (they used to tell us we’d get the ‘easiest deal in history)
For Leave Voters Its far easier to go for No Deal because it looks simpler & less messy than accepting a compromise deal
But compromise is the reality of politics
Its why No Deal will be far messier and we will repeat the last 3 years of chaos for the next 10+ years arguing over what trade deals & future relationship we want with the EU & the ROW.
Withdrawl Agreement (supposedly the easy bit!) was 500 pages, and has split the country & broken the government.
Next up, 40 odd 1000(s) pages long trade deals …. its going to be an order of magnitude worse
Brexit, especially No Deal Brexit has damaged this country for a generation, it will not be healing any time soon.Report
Richard “Why are Remainers calling for another Referendum?”
First, if there was a referendum on No-deal Brexit, as I have suggested, it would absolutely not be a rerun of the 2016 one. A no-deal brexit is a very different one to a negotiated one (which was the proposal in 2016). And if Boris Johnson and the government believe that they proposal has the support of the majority of the public, it would be a simple way to get what they want. Indeed, it may be the only way left for them to achieve that.
Second, it is an option that could be included in the Bill that is currently going through parliament. Currently, there are only three options for the government – getting parliament to agree to a deal, getting parliament to agree to no-deal, or asking for an extension.
Since Boris Johnson has now said that he would rather be “dead in a ditch” than ask for an extension, he should leap at the possibility of proving that he really has the backing of the public.
He is unlikely to get his wish for an election on the 15th, so a referendum on No-deal, which would be simple to organise, could be his best option.
Once the question of No-deal has been settled, a general election could be much more useful in determining what sort of government the public really want.
As you point out, opinion polls are no substitute for a proper test of public opinion.
I won’t try to hide the fact that I am personally very opposed to No-deal brexit. However, as a democrat, I would say that if that is what the majority of the public want, then so be it.
Report
Why are Remainers calling for another Referendum? The first one was ignored, so it’s a pointless exercise as Leavers, with justification, can ignore that.
If Article 50 is to be Revoked, then what sort of future relationship / membership with the EU is going to occur. If the plan is to join the Euro, without it being clearly stated then Leavers will be as annoyed as Remainers are now.
Opt out Britain was being left behind in the growing European integration.
How much research / opinion polling has been carried out to establish what relationship with Europe we want should Article 50 be revoked?
What research has been undertaken on our No Deal Relationship with our leading single trading partner the USA?
The truth is Remainers have never accepted the Referendum result yet clearly think IF they win a second Ref then Leavers will quietly go away.
Finally, the opinion polls were wrong when predicting the outcome of the first referendum so why can assume they are accurate now?Report
“Simon Thorpe:I’m 100% in favour of having a general election rapidly. But I believe that the sequence needs to be
1) Yes/No vote on No-deal Brexit (e.g. 15 October)
2) General Election (e.g. beginning of November).”
I personally think we all have to accept that we’ll be inclined to order things in ways that suit our own underlying agendas/objectives, in much the same way politicians do. I mean, Brexit hasn’t changed the nature of politicians it has just exposed their underlying motives clearly. Like how new Labour has destroyed Labour’s ability to be a real opposition since Corbyn became leader – but that still shouldn’t stop an opposition agreeing to an immediate election, when a Government has lost the Common’s confidence to govern.
Even as a last ditch effort to honour the Ref1 result, if Boris Johnson was to now go to the SNP and broker a deal, one that passed a law that said if the UK left the EU without a deal, Scotland would automatically become an independent nation – no need for an indy ref2 – in return for SNP support to vote with the Government to rescind the most recent law – requiring him to seek an extension – I would be all for that as a political manoeuvre in these strange times; especially as the support for revoke and no-deal would look decidedly different nationally (in percentage terms) if you had to factor out how Scotland attributed to Remain/Revoke in those polls; especially as the double standards of people like Ian Blackford would happily crash Scotland out of the UK without a indy ref2 on those terms.Report
“Paul :I think Brexit isn’t the only problem and the reason why a general election is needed is driven by the public losing all faith in parliament, now.”
I’m 100% in favour of having a general election rapidly. But I believe that the sequence needs to be
1) Yes/No vote on No-deal Brexit (e.g. 15 October)
2) General Election (e.g. beginning of November).
That’s the only way that you could have a general election where people could vote freely and take into account other pressing policy issues.
I wouldn’t personally recommend having the General Election immediately after the No-deal brexit referendum, because it will be important to allow the various parties to reconfigure depending on the result. For example, if No-deal got the majority, the Brexit party could effectively disband. But if No-deal was voted down, it would be important for parties such as Labour to clarify their real position. Currently, it’s not clear whether Labour actually wants to leave (with a deal), or not. They may need some time to allow a clear position to emerge.Report
“Simon Thrope: Why not, as I have suggested, just have a straight Yes/No referendum on No-deal Brexit on the 15th October? It would be infinitely easier to interpret than a General Election, where the No-deal brexit vote will almost certainly be split between the Tories and Farage’s Brexit party – not to mention the distinct possibility that some of the Tories who have just been evicted for voting against the government could be tempted to stand as Independents.”
I think Brexit isn’t the only problem and the reason why a general election is needed is driven by the public losing all faith in parliament, now. Both the speaker of the house and the opposition coalition have corrupted our de facto constitutional convention. If they wanted someone else to seize executive power from the government, then they do that by a vote of no-confidence to form an alternative government to command a commons majority, or let a no-confidence vote trigger a general election. Perversely, both May and now Johnson have had their executive power reduced to a vulgar ventriloquism act. So, whether the current opposition coalition would let this ‘dummy’ PM get any referendum passed by majority – before deferring the UK public’s mandate to leave the EU, again – when the PM can’t even get a general election triggered, is highly unlikely. So many of those currently corrupting our constitutional norms and collaborating with our government’s opponent in exit negotiations don’t want an election, as they wouldn’t get re-elected – and that is also true of our (nolonger) impartial speaker of the house.
Oddly, we also have a situation where the SNP vote denies the UK Government a working majority, and gives an unconstitutional opposition control of the order paper, yet not power to form an alternate government; and if that wasn’t bizarre enough, the SNP are predicted to get re-elected by a landslide in Scotland – despite their main policy being to have Indy Ref2 (which has no majority in Scotland) and then staying in the EU…but even that is bizarre because the EU have repeatedly said Scotland couldn’t be a member on existing UK terms, and would need to leave and reapply as a new applicant. So why are they blocking the UK leaving on October 31st when it would help fasttrack their so-called primary objective to get independence and join the EU?Report
I tried to reply to Stephen Parker’s post using the reply button, but it doesn’t appear to work (anyone know why?). So here goes:
“Since most of those who voted voted to leave, and since most of those who voted to leave are now in favour of leaving even if that means leaving without an agreement on the terms of leaving, that is what our representatives should do. ”
For me, your suggestion that since the majority voted to leave in 2016 (52%) and that (according to some opinion polls) the majority of them would go for a no-deal brexit, that this means that our government should follow their wishes is profoundly undemocratic. You’re suggesting that 75% of 52% of the electorate (i.e. 39%) should decide the future of the country?
Why not, as I have suggested, just have a straight Yes/No referendum on No-deal Brexit on the 15th October? It would be infinitely easier to interpret that a General Election, where the No-deal brexit vote will almost certainly be split between the Tories and Farage’s Brexit party – not to mention the distinct possibility that some of the Tories who have just been evicted for voting against the government could be tempted to stand as Independents.
Whether you are a Brexiteer or a Remainer, surely everyone must agree that a referendum on No-deal would be a perfectly satisfactory way out of the situation? Report
Now that it looks pretty certain that a No-deal brexit by default on the 31st Oct can be avoided (the Bill will be passed by the Lords), it seems to me that Boris Johnson and the other hard-brexiteers in the government actually only have one option, if they want a No-deal Brexit. It is to ask the British Public to vote in a Yes/No referendum on No-deal brexit before the EU meeting. For example, why not choose the 15th October?
If there is a majority of Yes votes, then Johnson can go to the EU with the strong negotiating position that he craves.
If the public say No, then it would disarm the risk of the Tories being demolished by Farage’s Brexit party. They will have had their chance, and lost.
In either case, it would then be possible to have a sensible General Election that is not contaminated by the No-deal Brexit issue.
It seems to me that this is what everyone should be pushing for – including Labour, the LibDems, the Greens and the SNP. A general election where No-brexit is still an issue would probably force those parties to withdraw candidates locally to ensure that the Tories and the Brexit party don’t take over. That would not be an attractive option. Report
I’m little surprised that http://www.whatukthinks.org hasn’t highlighted the disingenuous nature of questioning in these polls, regarding the ‘no-deal’ problem.
At a most basic level of bartering in life, we all keep ‘no-deal’ as an option in everything we do, even if we’d need extreme circumstances to actually select ‘no-deal’ doesn’t mean we ever pre-emptively rule it out.
These polls are being used to falsely suggest that there is an equivalence between a theoretical choice of removing ‘no-deal’ as an option in a theoretical bartering and the reality of bartering with ‘no-deal’ as an extreme case.
As an example: A railway station with attendant managed toilets requiring people to pay to spend a penny is a situation in which ‘no-deal’ would be considered unthinkable, because if you need the toilet you need to go. But if it was late at night with no other toilet options open elsewhere or time constraint pressures that would lead to missing your connection and an opportunistic attendant ransomed you for £100 to go, the unthinkable options – buying a drink to use the empty bottle or even risking soiling yourself, etc – all might become thinkable – as least objectionable options – in such an extreme circumstance. Theoretical poll answers saying they’d pay wouldn’t match the reality IMHO.
Further to the problem of reality bartering being massively different to theoretical bartering, the questioning fails to ask a question that matches up to the actions of what the opposition party coalition in parliament is doing. The questions should be: ‘Whether you would use it or not, do you believe in keeping ‘no-deal’ as an option throughout bartering?’.
In a general election, the alignment of voters on the ‘no-deal’ issue will almost certainly come down to a judgement call of trust on whether they believe the PM really wants a deal and can be trusted to identify what constitutes as ‘extreme circumstances’ to reluctantly select no-deal.Report
It seems clear to me we need a runoff vote – either for the public (which I’d prefer) or Parliament.
Trying to get a majority out of (at least) 3 options just isn’t going to work – hasn’t worked. No wonder we’re going round in circles.Put your first choice in column A and your second choice in column B – if your first choice isn’t one of the top two in the first round then your second choice vote gets counted in the second round. That way a majority will be making the decision. Fair, sensible, democratic.
Report
We didn’t vote for or against a referendum. We voted for or against leave.Report
I would have thought that another option for Boris Johnson would be to call for a referendum before the 31st October deadline. Once the meeting with the EU is over, he would be able to propose his best option (be it a renegotiated deal, or a no-deal exit), and ask the British public to simply say Yes or No. Presumably, Johnson believes that the majority of the public would back him. If they do, so be it. If the majority said “No”, at the very least it would be necessary to extend article 50.
Surely, everyone – whether they are Brexiteers or Remainers – should be happy to go this route. And it would certainly be infinitely better than trying to use a General Election to decide the issue. With a first past the post electoral system, and both the leave and remain votes split between several parties, no-one will be able to claim that the public had what they really wanted.Report
There is, clearly, no compromise between leaving and not leaving.
Since most of those who voted voted to leave, and since most of those who voted to leave are now in favour of leaving even if that means leaving without an agreement on the terms of leaving, that is what our representatives should do.
Report
What does “acceptable compromise” mean in the context of a no deal Brexit?
Is it perceived as a half-way house between membership and an actual trade war?Report