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

Atikcan, Ece Özlem

Bélanger, Éric

Nadeau, Richard

English

LSE Research Online

Framing	risky	choices:	How	the	Leave	campaignconvinced	Britain	to	take	a	leap	into	the	unknownPrior	to	the	Brexit	referendum	in	2016,	many	observers	expected	that	floating	voters	would	swing	toward	Remaindue	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	reframethe	risks	associated	with	Brexit	and	win	the	referendum.The	UK’s	decision	to	leave	the	European	Union	in	2016	defied	the	well-established	idea	that	voters	don’t	likechange	or	uncertainty.	It	has	been	perceived,	both	in	policy	and	academic	circles,	as	a	major	shock.	But	why	didthe	British	public	vote	to	take	such	an	important	economic	risk?In	a	new	book,	we	bring	a	new	angle	to	this	question	by	paying	special	attention	to	referendum	politics	and	byplacing	the	Brexit	case	in	the	bigger	picture	of	the	EU	and	Scottish	independence	referendums.	To	do	so,	wepresent	a	much-needed	multi-method	and	comparative	analysis	of	how	the	Brexit	campaign	contributed	to	theoutcome.Political	scientists	have	been	baffled	by	the	Brexit	result.	However,	it	looks	less	surprising	when	four	crucial,	butneglected	factors	are	highlighted.	Most	studies	treat	the	Brexit	referendum	as	a	single	case,	overlooking	thepeculiar	dynamics	of	referendum	politics,	ignoring	the	power	of	certain	kinds	of	political	arguments,	and	lacking	asystematic	analysis	with	a	multi-method	approach.Our	core	argument	is	as	follows.	The	opinion	polls	showed	a	critically	split	public	in	the	run-up	to	the	referendum,and	the	main	expectation	was	that	status	quo	bias	would	shift	enough	voters	to	produce	a	tight	result	in	favour	ofremaining	in	the	EU.	But	the	opposite	happened.	Knowing	how	the	Brexit	referendum	compares	to	previousreferendums	is	crucial	in	understanding	this	unusual,	anti-status-quo	outcome.In	the	Brexit	vote,	as	in	any	referendum,	the	risk	assessment	depended	primarily	on	the	campaign	strategies	of	thetwo	main	campaigns.	These	strategies	helped	voters	understand	the	risks	involved	in	the	choice.	Voting	against	thestatus	quo	for	an	uncertain	future	outside	the	EU	was	made	easier	for	a	critical	section	of	society	because	the	pro-Leave	arguments	strongly	suggested	that	remaining	in	the	EU	would	be	at	least	as	risky	as	leaving	it.	These	voterschose	to	‘Take	Back	Control’	of	their	country.	Strikingly,	the	Leave	campaign’s	strategy	also	had	an	impact	on	thedegree	to	which	Remain	voters	accepted	the	referendum	result.	By	effectively	‘de-risking’	the	Brexit	decision,	thepro-Leave	arguments	convinced	a	group	of	moderate	Remain	voters	that	the	concept	of	Brexit	could	potentially	bepalatable.We	make	this	argument	by	adopting	a	multi-method	approach,	showing	how	the	campaign	contributed	to	theoutcome	via	three	kinds	of	data:	over	150	interviews	with	campaigners	in	Scotland	and	England	and	acrossEurope,	media	content	analysis	of	the	news	media,	and	a	detailed	post-referendum	survey	involving	surveyexperiments.As	a	first	step,	we	compare	the	Brexit	campaign	to	other	referendums.	At	first	glance,	the	outcome	of	the	Brexitreferendum	cannot	be	understood	within	existing	explanations	of	referendums	elsewhere	in	the	world.	In	previousEU	referendums,	whenever	an	anti-EU	vote	was	presented	as	having	drastic	economic	consequences	or	potentiallyleading	to	an	exit	from	the	EU,	a	majority	tended	to	vote	in	favour	of	European	integration.	In	independencereferendums	as	well,	economic	costs	consistently	trump	national	identity,	as	a	majority	of	voters	worry	about	theeconomic	costs	of	a	departure	from	the	host	state.The	strategies	employed	in	the	Brexit	referendum	were	broadly	in	line	with	the	strategies	used	in	these	previousreferendums,	but	the	Leave	side’s	specific	framing	choices	saved	them	from	key	mistakes	that	others	have	oftenmade.	In	comparison	to	other	EU	referendums,	the	Leave	side	benefitted	from	the	advantages	of	being	on	the	anti-EU	side	while	successfully	avoiding	the	typical	challenge	of	being	seen	as	extremist.LSE European Politics and Policy (EUROPP) Blog: Framing risky choices: How the Leave campaign convinced Britain to take a leap into the unknown Page 1 of 3		Date originally posted: 2020-11-03Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2020/11/03/framing-risky-choices-how-the-leave-campaign-convinced-britain-to-take-a-leap-into-the-unknown/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/In	comparison	to	the	Scottish	referendum,	on	the	other	hand,	the	Leave	side	faced	a	much	weaker	opponent	andalso	successfully	avoided	the	usual	questions	on	their	exit	plan’s	economic	viability.	As	opposed	to	the	Scottishgovernment,	the	Leave	campaign	chose	not	to	present	a	concrete	‘exit	plan’.	The	success	of	this	strategy	wasdemonstrated	by	the	level	of	criticism	the	‘exit	deals’	of	Prime	Ministers	May	and	Johnson	received	during	theactual	Brexit	negotiations.In	a	second	step,	we	study	the	impact	of	these	campaign	arguments	on	voting	behaviour,	and	more	specificallytheir	differential	impact	on	early	and	late	deciders.	Analyses	from	our	survey	data	first	indicate	that	campaignarguments	had	an	important	effect	on	support	for	Brexit	beyond	the	impact	associated	with	more	long-termdeterminants	such	as	socioeconomic	characteristics	and	general	attitudes	toward	the	EU.	While	the	latter	set	ofdeterminants	did	provide	the	Leave	camp	with	a	significant	reservoir	of	support,	notably	due	to	the	long-term	UKtradition	of	scapegoating	the	EU,	the	campaign	arguments	also	clearly	mattered.Our	analyses	show	that	the	core	Remain	campaign	argument,	about	the	possibility	that	there	would	be	loss	of	jobs,trade	and	investment	in	a	UK	outside	the	EU,	had	traction	among	the	electorate.	But	so	did	the	two	central	Leavecampaign	arguments,	which	claimed	that	the	level	of	immigration	to	the	UK	would	likely	decrease	with	Brexit	andthat	the	NHS	would	be	better	protected	in	a	UK	outside	the	EU.	This	helped	neutralise	the	Remain	camp’s	mainargument	about	the	economic	costs	of	Brexit	and	gave	the	Leave	camp	a	slight	edge.	Furthermore,	resentmenttoward	bureaucracy	in	Brussels	and	arguments	for	regaining	control	of	national	borders	seem	to	have	infused	theLeave	campaign	with	a	higher	emotional	charge	that	ultimately	helped	it	carry	the	day.Another	of	our	key	public	opinion	findings	is	that	the	campaign-related	factors	played	a	more	prominent	role	in	thevoting	decisions	of	late	deciders,	who	constituted	a	sizable	portion	(22%)	of	the	electorate.	As	can	be	seen	inFigures	1	and	2,	the	contribution	of	these	factors	to	the	explanation	of	the	voting	decision	was	much	more	importantfor	those	voters	who	waited	until	the	last	week	of	the	campaign	or	even	until	the	referendum	day	to	make	up	theirmind.Figure	1:	Percentage	of	explained	variance	(pseudo-R-Squared)	with	different	models	for	early	decidersNote:	Compiled	by	the	authors.Figure	2:	Percentage	of	explained	variance	(pseudo-R-Squared)	with	different	models	for	late	decidersLSE European Politics and Policy (EUROPP) Blog: Framing risky choices: How the Leave campaign convinced Britain to take a leap into the unknown Page 2 of 3		Date originally posted: 2020-11-03Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2020/11/03/framing-risky-choices-how-the-leave-campaign-convinced-britain-to-take-a-leap-into-the-unknown/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/Note:	Compiled	by	the	authors.In	studying	campaign	argumentation	strategies,	we	also	uncover	the	core	mechanism	behind	post-truth	politics.	Byshowing	that	the	strength	of	an	argument	is	not	its	empirical	validity	but	its	public	appeal,	our	analysis	illustrateswhy	this	dynamic	happens,	how	it	happened	in	the	Brexit	case,	and	how	it	compares	to	similar	dynamics	in	otherparts	of	the	world.	The	Leave	side’s	strategies,	in	line	with	contemporary	politics	on	closed	borders,	played	aremarkable	role	in	framing	the	choice.	Our	findings	are	therefore	highly	generalisable	to	referendums	and	electionsaround	the	world,	having	significant	implications	for	all	kinds	of	international	regimes	and	states’	faith	andparticipation	in	them.For	more	information,	see	the	authors’	accompanying	book,	Framing	Risky	Choices	(McGill-Queen’sUniversity	Press,	2020)Note:	This	article	gives	the	views	of	the	authors,	not	the	position	of	EUROPP	–	European	Politics	and	Policy	or	theLondon	School	of	Economics.	Banner	image	credit:	Matt	Brown	(CC	BY	2.0).	Featured	image	credit:	Mark	Ramsay(CC	BY-ND	2.0)LSE European Politics and Policy (EUROPP) Blog: Framing risky choices: How the Leave campaign convinced Britain to take a leap into the unknown Page 3 of 3		Date originally posted: 2020-11-03Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2020/11/03/framing-risky-choices-how-the-leave-campaign-convinced-britain-to-take-a-leap-into-the-unknown/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/

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

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/107675/1/europpblog_2020_11_03_framing_risky_choices_how_the_leave_campaign_1_.pdf

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

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online