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.
“Kirk: How is religion any different from any other kind of belief system?”
Because indoctrination is not learning by experience/education like instinct and intellect. In many ways the hypothetical claimed negative aspects of Leaving the EU make the Remain side look like a religion.
“Kirk: With regards to organisational unit size for the government of societies, the claim that the UK’s current composition and size is optimum seems entirely arbitrary”
I meant to say in comparison to every other nation in the world, at present – obviously nothing stays that way, but part of the reason Brexit is so controversial is because the whole world feels like they have a vested interest in our awesome nation; and how they can access it, or its market or its territorial waters, etc when we leave. France is awesome, but it wouldn’t have resulted in half this battle between those that lost and the majority that won IMHO.
“Kirk: Diversity is a strength not a weakness, that goes for politics as well as genetics. In any case Indo-European culture shares a common root, this can be seen in our languages e.g. Mama, Mutter, Mother.”
I don’t disagree with that, and I wasn’t saying I wanted 27 bloc countries to have a single language, just that it would be essential to properly hold the EU parliament to account given the vast population it represents – with so few political parties. So I was actually highlighting that as a design flaw in the EU democracy by current composition.
“Kirk:In the long-term nation states will inevitably give way to blocs as kin-groups gave way to tribes and tribes gave way to kingdoms. Organisational units that are too small to manage the growing complexity, “
We are already past that point IMO, and now organisational units are too big, too clumsy, too difficult to fix as is. I predict leeter optimal organisational units around the Germany, France, UK nation sizes. All the big units like American, China, India, Russia, North Korea have fundamental issues that will have internal fixes forced upon them in the coming decades and repartitioning into multiple smaller units seems like an inevitable consequence for some of them.
“Kirk: accept one of the founding pillars of democracy as a system: Majority rule is in balance with minority rights…..I did not agree to my rights and status as an EU citizen being taken from me, yet I have no recourse to defend against the loss of these rights many of which have no analogue to transfer to within UK law. Does that seem legitimate or reasonable? ”
Us leaving is in balance with minority rights, no one is being enslaved, etc . In the exact same way for the last 40 or so years it was in balance with the minority rights lost of Eurosceptics in joining the Common Market – lost rights I doubt you can claim to have championed being returned to them. I would also point out that never was there a mandate for you or anyone else to claim EU Citizenship – if only holding a UK passport. We have been asked exactly once about the in/out question to be part of the EU and that was 3 years ago – the first question was only about a trade relationship. We voted no and I’m sorry you weren’t on board with that view, but in reverse I would have accepted the result, the meaning of the result and the clarification of my new reality as an EU citizen; as opposed to just being a Brit.
“Kirk: I believe in a federal Europe and in the longer term I believe in a one world system of government….. I take your point about power being in the hands of too few I agree this can be applied as a truth in the EU but likewise it is also a truth within the UK, the majority of native land-owner families today have held those positions since the Norman conquest. The UK is a prime example of where the few regardless of political structure have held power over the many”
My cynicism of human nature with power is such that a world government is a pipe dream, and getting on that path with a federal EU creates more problems. If we take the old axiom : “trusted with small things.. trusted with big things”. Surely, before joining a big EU system we should of first had a few decades of having a Government we could trust with something small(the UK) first, yes?
“Kirk: I also see it as a analogous to a student who turns up to an exam they have not studied or prepared for, their chances like ours of passing the test are small indeed.”
And yet, in the real world, the students that can pass in those circumstances are ones companies would really want. Real world problems are ones you can rarely fully prepare for, but if you have something a bit special or extraordinary about you, you’ll succeed regardless. Report
How is religion any different from any other kind of belief system? religion being a subset of philosophy and human thought is comparable to any other kind of idea including political ideas. Indeed the sacrificial cycle was part of Aztec politics, just as witchcraft trials and the persecution of women was both religious and political in the UK. In that sense I suppose the witch hunting and inquisitorial phenomenon of the early modern across Europe is an even better example. Witchcraft trials while on the surface seemingly religious in drive were in fact political in motivation as a way of reducing the power and prestige of women in their local communities, especially in their ancient role as healers and midwives.
With regards to organisational unit size for the government of societies, the claim that the UK’s current composition and size is optimum seems entirely arbitrary, what foundation is there for this assertion? The UK’s size did not protect it from the economic downturn and social unrest of the 1960’s and 1970’s, where in the end we required help from our European neighbours. It didn’t protect us from the influence of Saudi political interference in the 1970’s when their threat to pull out investment from the UK lead to the fall of a democratically elected government. The position of our economy in terms of a global ranking is fluid and changes it is not a stable marker or indicator of optimal unit size. Indeed the argument that our power and prosperity will remain unchanged assumes that our power and prosperity has in no way grown as a result of our EU membership, this is clearly incorrect as the UK has over the course of decades built it’s position through the benefits offered to it by EU membership and was in a less than optimal position before we joined the EU. Our economy also contains many structural weaknesses, firstly political and economic power is held mainly in London to the detriment of the country at large; secondly that power is largely based on financial services which will be negatively impacted by leaving the bloc; thirdly we have no source of rare natural resources to call on to address the imbalance (contrast this with Sweden (ores) and Australia (Uranium and ores). I also don’t agree with the idea that the EU’s multicultural an multi-lingual composition is a bar to democratic function or a bar to integration. The USA was an agglomeration of immigrant nationalities and they still managed to form a strong democratic republic despite what has happened since then. Diversity is a strength not a weakness, that goes for politics as well as genetics. In any case Indo-European culture shares a common root, this can be seen in our languages e.g. Mama, Mutter, Mother.
Unit size isn’t a static concept it is actually driven by technological change, technology forces societies into ever more complex and larger formations. Unless technology and knowledge are lost societies will continue to grow in complexity and size. In the long-term nation states will inevitably give way to blocs as kin-groups gave way to tribes and tribes gave way to kingdoms. Organisational units that are too small to manage the growing complexity, opportunity and risks of technology become inefficient not the other way around. Consider England’s position after the break-up of the UK what will sovereignty count for in the face of the EU, USA and China? Is England in a position of strength in negotiation with these powers? Self-evidently not. As our technology becomes more advanced it’s impact on the planet becomes such that individual nation states are powerless to control it or mitigate the negative effects of it. We already have examples of this in Nuclear Weapons and Climate Change. Ultimate technology has reached a stage in development that it has created global problems that perhaps only a global government will be capable of solving. Long term if we do not evolve beyond nations states civilisation will collapse under it’s own technological weight, perhaps this is already apparent.
With regards to super-majorities they are not a modern contrivance or a nonsense they are a method of squaring a fundamental principle of democracy. If you adhere to democracy or believe in democracy you must (there can be no equivocation) accept one of the founding pillars of democracy as a system: Majority rule is in balance with minority rights.
“All . . . will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression.” – Jefferson
I did not agree to my rights and status as an EU citizen being taken from me, yet I have no recourse to defend against the loss of these rights many of which have no analogue to transfer to within UK law. Does that seem legitimate or reasonable? As Algernon Sidney stated, “That which is not just is not law”. On the other hand I believe in a federal Europe and in the longer term I believe in a one world system of government, this of course could be seen as making me a traitor to the nation state, should my rights therefore count anyway? In the end it’s a simple position the state of the planet and of human technology leads me to believe that the nation state is an outdated unit and I believe the needs of the British people are best served by being part of a wider federal bloc. I take your point about power being in the hands of too few I agree this can be applied as a truth in the EU but likewise it is also a truth within the UK, the majority of native land-owner families today have held those positions since the Norman conquest. The UK is a prime example of where the few regardless of political structure have held power over the many, in many ways I feel the friction between the EU and UK governments kept both sides more honest and I genuinely fear what the current small coterie will do when they have unilateral power, we’ve already seen the early results. I don’t believe democracy has changed the dynamic all that much in the UK change has only ever occurred because one faction of elites has triumphed over another faction that is evident in our history, one only has to look at the Great Reform Acts. The people have never genuinely driven change of their own accord but have always been led by the nose by one elite group or another. I’m probably wrong to say that has always been the case, maybe Votes for Women or the Labour Movement are counter arguments to this.
With regards to experts, whether there is a legal requirement or not makes no difference, if a task is too complex to understand without expert knowledge it matters not about how the law rules on it, it’s by it’s nature too complex to be left to an unskilled hand. Indeed laws surrounding expertise have only developed as a product of unskilled hands creating sufficient problems that the law must react to. It is one matter to know when to use paracetamol and quite another perform open heart surgery on yourself. I would argue our membership of the EU is closer to open heart surgery, I think the performance of some of our more ill-equipped MP’s is enough to prove that point. In the end I think Churchill was correct in his belief that Britain’s future lies within Europe and I think in saying that he had one eye on the Soviet Union and the other on the United States. However I fully accept your point about experts and how if we had to accept the ruling of experts we’d be living in a technocratic system, but with the continuing and growing complexity of society can we afford to ignore experts? If as voters we have to make choices, should we not weigh in favour of the opinion of the CBI, University Science and Research councils; trade experts and not populist demagogues and politicians whose principles in this case are questionable considering their links to foreign power and foreign money?
From my viewpoint as someone with a background in computer engineering I see the system from the ground up from voltage differentials rather than from the abstract peaks of high-level software. Ultimately programs even simple ones are complex and even a game of noughts and crosses requires the use of a multitude of transistors. I’d actually argue that larger programs are fully capable, in fact they are the only types of programs available that can solve a variety of problems. Take for example any modern operating system, they are effectively overarching systems comprised of many smaller programs, those programs are comprised of many smaller functions, they are libraries that all programs can use from which to draw functions. The Kernel is a constantly growing spine around which communication between hardware and software takes place. Without such a large and complex network of code we could not solve even trivial problems. So I’d actually take the opposite view. That’s not to say that systems cannot become bloated or inefficient but well supported systems are constantly patched and refactored. I take your point arguing for a system of daemons over a monolithic kernel, GNU Hurd however never got off the ground and in any event even with a system of daemons there is a a centralised mechanism for timings that must be maintained so even in such a system there most be a central conducting authority. The same goes for the UK, there are devolved parliaments but there is still a central authority that retains overall power. I don’t think we can make a success of leaving, especially when half of us don’t want to leave, I also see it as a analogous to a student who turns up to an exam they have not studied or prepared for, their chances like ours of passing the test are small indeed.
Report