Britain’s voters did not just surprise many a commentator on June 23rd – they also surprised themselves. In one poll conducted on referendum day itself Lord Ashcroft found that 70% reckoned Remain would win and only 30% that Leave would do so, while in another YouGov ascertained that 52% expected Remain to win and only 19%, Leave (the remainder didn’t know). Yet in the event, of course, rather over half of those who participated voted to Leave. In so doing they not only brought down a Prime Minster but instigated a fierce debate amongst politicians and the public about the wisdom of the decision that has been made and on what kind of future relationship with the EU the UK should now seek to secure.
Regret?
So far, however, this debate seems to have done little to change voters’ minds about the merits of the decision to leave. For example, during the last six months YouGov have regularly asked people, ‘In hindsight, do you think Britain was right or wrong to vote to leave the European Union?’. Typically, almost 90% of Remain voters have said that they thought that the decision was wrong, while almost 90% of Leave supporters have said that it was right. Given that slightly more people voted Leave in June than voted Remain, this means that on most occasions YouGov have found that, overall, slightly more people think the decision was right.
Perhaps even more importantly, there is little consistent evidence that people would vote any differently if the referendum were to be held once again. True, as Table 1 shows, a couple of readings taken immediately after the referendum suggested that many a Leave voter now regretted their decision. However, of the nine (variously worded) readings that have been taken since the beginning of July, six have put Leave (narrowly) ahead, two had the two sides tied and just one reported that Remain supporters now outnumber Leave ones. It seems that six months on from the referendum, Britain is simply just as divided over the merits of leaving the EU as it was on referendum day itself.
Table 1 Polls of EU Referendum Voting Intention Since June 23rd
Free Trade or Control Immigration?
But what do voters want to happen now that we are seemingly destined to give notice to quit by the end of March next year? On this the evidence from the polls has been far from straightforward to interpret.
It is widely thought that the key choice with which the EU will face the UK is between retaining free access to the single market and continuing to accept freedom of movement to the UK for EU citizens, or being able to limit immigration from the EU but losing access to the single market. This supposed choice is, in a sense, a rerun of the arguments during the referendum itself, when many a Remain voter said that the (supposedly adverse) consequences of leaving the EU were the central issue in the referendum, while many Leave voters felt that the (supposedly adverse) consequences of staying in the EU for the UK’s ability to control immigration was the key issue at stake.
Indeed, the polls have consistently found that Remain voters are more inclined to prioritise access to the single market, while Leave voters consider it more important to control immigration. However, that does not mean the polls have always found opinion to be evenly balanced on the issue. Rather, as Table 2 shows, some have found substantial majorities saying it is more important for the UK to retain access to the single market, while others have reported the very opposite. In some instances, even the same company, employing much the same method, has obtained very different results.
Table 2 Preference for Retaining Access to EU Single Market versus Being able to Limit Immigration
Much of the explanation for this variation would seem to lie in differences of wording. (There is, for example, no obvious trend over time.) Every single reading reported in Table 2 has in fact been obtained using a different question wording. Even in the case of those companies that have addressed the issue more than once, not a single one of them has repeated the same wording.
We can gain some idea of just why wording might have made so much difference to the pattern of responses by comparing the question asked by the poll that secured the lowest proportion of people prioritising access to the single market (conducted by Lord Ashcroft in July) with that posed by the poll that secured the highest proportion (conducted by ComRes, also in July). Lord Ashcroft asked:
On a 0-10 scale where 0 means securing access to the EU single market at all costs and 10 means being able to control immigration at all costs, where do you think the balance should lie?
While ComRes’ question read as follows:
Which of the following do you think should be the priority for the British Government when negotiating the UK’s withdrawal from the EU?
Maintaining access to the single market so Britain can have free trade with the EU
Restricting the freedom of movement so immigration from the EU is reduced
It does not require a great deal of imagination to anticipate that ‘being able to control immigration’ sounds more attractive to most voters than ‘restricting the freedom of movement’, as does ‘maintaining’ access to the single market to ‘have free trade’ than ‘securing’ access ‘at all costs’.
Such apparent confusion and sensitivity to wording in these polls inevitably makes it difficult to assess quite where public opinion stands on the issue. It certainly suggests that much will depend on how it becomes framed in voters’ minds should the UK indeed find itself faced with a stark choice. But leaving this aside, most likely public opinion is just as divided on the subject as it is on the merits of the Brexit decision in the first place. Certainly if we make the heroic assumption that the best guide to the underlying balance of opinion is likely to be found by taking the average of the very divergent readings in Table 2, we find that 44% apparently prioritise keeping access to the single market and 41% being able to limit immigration.
The Wrong Choice?
But there is, in truth, another important reason why polling on this subject is apparently so difficult. Voters’ attitudes are not structured in the same way as the views of those who lead the EU, for whom free trade and free movement go together like a horse and carriage. This was demonstrated in an analysis paper we published last month that reported the findings of questions that were included in the latest wave of NatCen’s random probability panel. Rather than asking people to choose which mattered to them more, this survey simply invited respondents to say whether they were ‘in favour’ or ‘against’ various possible components of a deal between the UK and the EU.
No less than 90% said they were in favour of ‘Allowing companies based in the EU to sell goods and services freely in Britain in return for allowing British companies to sell goods and services freely in the EU’, while at the same time, 74% stated that they were in favour of ‘Requiring people from the EU who want to come to live here to apply to do so in the same way as people from outside the EU’. Indeed, more generally, majorities – including majorities of both Remain and Leave voters – backed a range of options that are often thought to comprise part of a ‘soft’ Brexit (such as bank passporting) while at the same time majorities also supported options often thought to constitute part of a ‘hard’ Brexit (such as leaving the EU customs union).
Doubtless to many in the EU this apparent wish on the part of the British public to want to retain free trade while no longer granting freedom of movement will seem like a desire by voters to have their cake and eat it. An alternative view, however, is that many people in the UK, including some of those who voted to Remain, reject the EU’s recipe for baking the cake in the first place. For them freedom of movement as currently implemented in the EU is not seen as a necessary concomitant to free trade. But none of this is likely to make it any easier for the UK government to secure a deal that is welcomed by a majority of voters in a nation that looks just as divided now as it was half a year ago.
This is an expanded and updated version of a chapter in ‘Brexit: Six Months on’ published by the UK in a Changing Europe initiative.
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.
I am sure that the trade reasons for remaining in the EU are strong and very valid, but I am even more concerned about losing the freedom to live, work and study anywhere in the EU. Sadly, UK citizens are prepared to abandon that right based on a big fat lie; they honestly believe that Brexit will reduce immigration when, in reality, the only change will be where we will scavenge cheap labour from in future.
For years now there has been a conscious policy of not training enough Doctors and Nurses to meet the needs of the NHS. In a strong commitment to continue this flawed logic the Nursing Bursary has been removed by the Tory government. We might get fewer Nurses from Spain and a greater number from the Philippines, but how does that resolve the migration issue? The inability of West Africa to combat the Ebola epidemic is just one example of the collateral damage of this morally bankrupt policy.
However, medical staff are not the only human recourse commodity we are bargain basement shopping for overseas; every area of our labour market from IT to construction is being affected by the disincentive to providing training in the UK. Theresa May might not want a points based system but we will still be scavenging the best and the brightest from overseas as it is so much cheaper to import qualified people than to invest in training. Unskilled workers will continue to be recruited from abroad too, from care workers to farm labours they will endure conditions and wages unacceptable to UK workers.
Migrants coming here from the EU have the same rights and privileges as UK workers; they currently offer a level playing field in terms of access to jobs. However, those relying on the insecurity of a temporary work visa from an impoverished developing country will be willing to work for a lot less money and zero benefits. Because they will live in fear of being fired and thrown out, they will work harder and remain obediently compliant with even the worst excesses of employer abuse. That will be the new competition in the workplace that so many irrationally voted for with Brexit; all part of an underlying agenda to break the unions and keep wages extremely low.
Meanwhile EU citizens who are still flocking to the UK, hoping to get in under the wire before a breakoff point, will not be so eager to simply leave after Brexit. Although they are currently contributing to our taxes while working here legally, after Brexit a significant number could disappear into the illegal job market. We are not doing even a reasonable job of tracking down and deporting illegal workers at present, so how will UK immigration cope when the workload increases exponentially after Brexit?
Do not count on a department that has also suffered deep cuts, suddenly becoming ruthlessly efficient. The situation will soon get too overwhelming to be effectively policed. We could then see a lot of unscrupulous business owners take full advantage of the illegal foreign workers while the risk of being caught out remains low and those penalized most severely are the workers. The government is counting on angry UK citizens to turn into hateful, shop-thy-neighbour vigilantes.
Just as Brexit starts to bite down exceptionally hard on the working poor, the Tories will blame those who foolishly voted to leave, for the hardship they must subsequently be subjected to. As the UK heads for the economic abyss the government will claim that UK businesses must be protected or there will be no jobs. At that point they will strip away all that pesky EU “Red Tape” that once protected workers, the environment and our human rights while we remained in the EU.
By examining these painful realities it is abundantly clear why so many Tories voted for Brexit. Now it is important for the Tory elite to distance themselves from this shameless manipulation by keep insisting that only uneducated, very stupid poor people voted to leave because of immigration. In reality a lot of super wealthy corporate types stand to benefit from forcing through the so called “will of the people!”
There is a way forward if we can overturn Brexit. It would require the government to eliminate the punitive measures that currently make it impossible for young people to be able to afford higher education, skills training or even have a secure enough job to simply leave home. It requires a genuine commitment to UK training even if we need to outsource that training to another country where it is more affordable; this is one component of “Collaborative Circular Migration.”
We can reduce net migration, but only if we create incentives for people to not just pour into the UK, but to leave as well. Retirees represent another sector of our society who might like to leave for a place in the sun, but the government would need to negotiate agreements that would facilitate this process. This needs to be beneficial to all parties, but it is essentially an enhancement of free movement of people and, as such, should be acceptable to the EU. I believe this will not happen unless we form a progressive political alliance in favour of remaining in the EU so that Brexit can be overturned in a snap election. Report
1. “access to single market”
2. “limit immigration”
Elite polsters are at it again.
These polls presume and thus assert “as fact” that these two are the only principal debating issues and reasons why a majority wanted to leave and still wish to
These questions are based on a false premise and once again show how the entire opinion poll industry is seeking to stage-manage and influence opinion to their paymasters’ ends.
Basically, these poling people think they are clever and we are stupid, so we won’t notice.
Well, it seemed to have worked with 48%, so perhaps I should grant you credit for that.
How about other and real questions excluded from the debate
3. pointless and very-dangerously-irresponsible EU policy towards Russia. The EU, whelched on a prior agreement not to expand NATO towards Russia
4. Common Agricultural Policy (don’t get me started..) a transfer of wealth from poor to rich
5. Fisheries (still no MP or polster dare mention this , but how much are we giving away here ?)
6. UK taxpayer (via 13% share of ECB) bailing out bankrupt Italian banks (over Xmas period I see)
7. Out of control corruption with staggering amounts of money lost to organised crime, with new syndicates often set up precisely because of the EU funds available. No accountancy firm will sign off the EC’s books for this reason alone.
8. Out of control costs for UK taxpayers – way more than “£350 m per week” when hidden costs and inefficiencies are also added
I could go on..
But I hope I make a point: the pollsters start off their questioning with false premises and narrow the debate towards issues (two in your case) that they know the side that they want to win feels comfortable with and the side they want to loose may struggle with.
Fortunately people have seen through the super-normalisation of truth (assertions passed off as fact) and the ‘group think’ that follows directly from this, something which too many pollsters have bought into, albeit unwittingly and innocently in some cases such as your own.
Go well
DW Report