Asking the public twice: why do voters change their minds in second referendums on EU treaties?

On three occasions – Denmark on the Maastricht Treaty, Ireland on the Nice Treaty and Ireland again on the Lisbon Treaty – voters have initially rejected an EU treaty only to vote in favour of it in a second referendum. Based on research conducted in Denmark and Ireland, Ece Özlem Atikcan assesses the reasons why voters changed their minds in each case. She illustrates that ‘Yes’ campaigners in both states learned from previous referendums and developed an approach that reframed the issue by emphasising concessions gained from the EU and the risks of rejecting a treaty for a second time

Diffusion in referendum campaigns : the case of EU constitutional referendums

The problem of cross-case influences is crucial in the analysis of social phenomena. Is a referendum held in a state entirely a ‘domestic’ event? No work has applied diffusion theories to the study of referendum campaigns. In this paper, I show diffusion effects among the 2005 Constitutional Treaty referendums. Spain, France, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg used the referendum method to ratify the European Constitution. Based on 85 interviews with campaigners in all four countries, I find that campaign arguments and strategies were not always homegrown. However, such diffusion is not automatic and depends on diffusion channels

Framing risky choices: how the Leave campaign convinced Britain to take a leap into the unknown

Prior to the Brexit referendum in 2016, many observers expected that floating voters would swing toward Remain due to the perceived risks and uncertainty associated with leaving the European Union. Drawing on a new book, Ece Özlem Atikcan, Richard Nadeau and Éric Bélanger explain how the Leave campaign managed to reframe the risks associated with Brexit and win the referendum

When who and how matter: explaining the success of referendums in Europe

This article aims to identify the institutional factors that make a referendum successful. This comparative analysis seeks to explain the success of top-down referendums organized in Europe between 2001 and 2013. It argues and tests for the main effect of three institutional factors (popularity of the initiator, size of parliamentary majority, and political cues during referendum campaigns) and controls for the type of referendum and voter turnout. The analysis uses data collected from referendums and electoral databases, public opinion surveys, and newspaper articles. Results show that referendums proposed by a large parliamentary majority or with clear messages from political parties during campaign are likely to be successful

Emotions, cognitions and moderation : understanding losers’ consent in the 2016 Brexit referendum

Why do some voters accept their defeat and agree to a democratic verdict while some do not? This distinction between “graceful” and “sore” losers is essential for the stability of democratic regimes. This paper focuses on the phenomenon of losers’ consent in the 2016 Brexit referendum using original public opinion data. Extant studies suggest that post-electoral reactions are mainly outcome-driven, consider winners and losers as homogeneous groups, and neglect the individual-level profile and motivations of graceful losers. Using an innovative and direct question to measure losers’ consent, this research finds that voters’ reaction to the outcome is also process-driven. Graceful losers are politically involved and principled citizens who are more inclined to judge the merits of democracy in procedural terms. They are also more politically sophisticated, less emotionally engaged in the electoral decision, hold more moderate views on the object of the vote, and are torn between the options until the end of the campaign. These findings have important implications for democratic theory. The stability of democracies depends not only on sophisticated voters capable of prioritizing the benefits of the democratic process over disappointing outcomes but also on voters who are indecisive, hesitant, and above all, moderate

Framing risky choices : Brexit and the dynamics of high-stakes referendums

Why the British public voted - against all expectations and in the face of economic uncertainty - to leave the European Union, explained from a comparative perspective. The majority of policymakers, academics, and members of the general public expected British citizens to vote to remain in the European Union in the 2016 referendum. This perception was based on the well-established idea that voters don't like change or uncertainty. So why did the British public vote to take such a major economic risk? Framing Risky Choices addresses this question by placing the Brexit vote in the bigger picture of EU and Scottish independence referendums. Drawing from extensive interviews and survey data, it asserts that the framing effect - mobilizing voters by encouraging them to think along particular lines - matters, but not every argument is equally effective. Simple, evocative, and emotionally compelling frames that offer negativity are especially effective in changing people's minds. In the Brexit case, the Leave side neutralized the economic risks of Brexit and proposed other risks relating to remaining in the EU, such as losing control of immigration policy and a lack of funding for the National Health Service. These concrete, impassioned arguments struck an immediate and familiar chord with voters. Most intriguingly, the Remain side was silent on these issues, without an emotional case to present. Framing Risky Choices presents a multi-method, comparative, state-of-the-art analysis of how the Brexit campaign contributed to the outcome. Uncovering the core mechanism behind post-truth politics, it shows that the strength of an argument is not its empirical validity but its public appeal

Political controversy about international economic agreements: Lessons for Canada–UK trade negotiations after Brexit

The withdrawal of the UK from the EU, if and when it occurs, will likely imply that Canada must conclude a new bilateral trade agreement with the UK. In light of recent trends toward an increasing politicization of trade negotiations, this policy brief assesses the respects in which a Canada–UK agreement could become politically controversial. Drawing on explanations for the politicization of recent trade deals, it identifies potential flashpoints for political conflict in the Canada–UK trade relationship. It then discusses how policy-makers can channel trade-related controversies into the policy process in an inclusive and evidence-based manner