EU Referendum


EU Referendum: asking the wrong questions


23/09/2015



000a YouGov-023 analysis.jpg

YouGov
is the polling organisation which, along with many others, managed to get their general election predictions totally wrong, forecasting 284 Conservative seats against the 331 actually gained.

Undeterred, the company is now taking it upon itself to instruct referendum campaigners on how they might conduct their battles, all on the basis of a new poll which has 50 percent "currently leaning" towards voting to remain, with 40 percent leaning towards voting to leave. Only ten percent have no idea at all.

Broken down into strength of voting intentions, the company has 31 percent saying they will definitely vote to remain, and 19 percent saying they would currently vote to remain but could be persuaded to vote to leave. Core support for leaving is 23 percent, with 17 percent currently voting to leave but open to persuasion.

Crucially, YouGov has tested what it believes to be the positive and negative arguments for both sides of the campaign (negative arguments about the EU, and positive ones about the opportunities outside the EU; positive arguments about the EU and negative ones about the risks of the leaving the EU).

For those in favour of staying, the arguments that were seen as most convincing were that EU market access brings jobs and prosperity, that outside of the EU we would end up having to follow the same rules to trade with Europe, we just wouldn't have any say, and that EU membership offers advantages like being able to live and work elsewhere in the EU. These were also the arguments that soft "leave" voters found most convincing.

For those in favour of leaving, the arguments seen as most convincing were those around immigration and money currently spent on EU membership being better spent on services in Britain. These were also the arguments seen as most convincing by soft "remain" voters.

The most convincing anti-arguments were seen as convincing by over 60 percent of soft "remain" voters, in comparison the strongest pro-arguments were only seen as convincing by just over 40 percent of soft "leave" voters. In effect, the soft "leavers" are harder than the soft "remainers".

From there, however, the company strays into more speculative territory, telling us – but not without good cause – that it would be "wrong to focus solely upon issues and arguments". People, it says, "are not logical calculating machines who vote upon a careful balancing of rival arguments".

It recognises (as not all do) that referendums are not elections and reminds us that what determines who we vote for is far more complicated. In general elections, the drivers are a mix of broad perceptions of the parties, who is competent, who we identify with and who reflects our values, and of the party leaders themselves.

On the other hand, while in a referendum we are not picking a party or politicians, perceptions of values and identities are still important. It still matters what we think we are saying about ourselves when we vote.

Asked about the typical supporter of EU membership and the typical opponent, supporters of the EU are perceived as being "well-informed, sensible, open-minded, liberal". Those who support leaving the EU tend to perceive its supporters as being "out of touch, part of the establishment, liberal and left-wing".

The words most associated with supporting leaving are "sensible, right-wing, ignorant, ordinary, stuck-in the past". Those who would vote to leave see those who agree with them as "sensible, ordinary, well-informed and seeing things others don't". Those who support EU membership see those opposed as "ignorant, stuck in the past, bigoted and out-of-touch".

Unsurprisingly supporters and opponents of EU membership have positive perceptions of those who share their views and negative perceptions of those who don't, says YouGov, but the negative associations of the "leave" campaign seem to be more worrying for them: being associated with backwardness, bigotry and ignorance seems, qualitatively, a more worrying charge than being associated with a liberal, left-wing establishment.

When it comes to the campaign, the company argues that both sides will want to paint themselves as a cause that is supported by well-informed, sensible, ordinary people – the sort of people that floating voters will be happy to be associated with - and play up the negative perceptions of their opponents.

To that extent, there is nothing terribly objectionable about what YouGov is saying, and we can even accept from them the little homily about referendum giving the natural advantage to the status quo, with the public tending to move towards the perceived safety rather than the perceived risk of change.

Historically, we are told, the vast majority of referendum campaigns across the world have displayed a movement towards the status quo during the referendum campaign.

Currently 58 percent of people think leaving the EU would be very or fairly risky for Britain. Only 32 percent think it would pose little or no risk.

Perceptions of its riskiness are concentrated amongst those who support staying but - even among those who would vote to leave but might change their mind - over a third see leaving the EU as risky. This suggests there is potential for a campaign playing upon the risks of exit to drive some voters away from "leave".

For 38 percent of respondents, though, the status quo is perceived as very or fairly risky. Yet 48 percent think it poses little or no risk. The status quo is seen as less risky than change, but it is less clear cut that might be expected. Some 26 percent of soft "remainers" think continued membership of the EU is very or fairly risky.

Now, however, YouGov starts laying down campaign advice. It assumes that the "leave" campaign will want to try and persuade voters that staying in the EU might also bring risks, and suggests that there is "potential for both sides".

Those in favour of EU membership currently have the lead and have a larger base of support. They also benefit from the status quo. However, the obvious arguments in favour of EU membership poll badly when compared to some of the arguments against.

Arguments about leaving the EU costing jobs and prosperity are not seen as being as convincing as more straightforward arguments about being able to cut immigration and spend EU contributions on services. The campaign to remain in the EU, we are told, needs to find some arguments that are as effective as those of their opponents.

From the other side, anti-immigration arguments look like a winner on paper, but people will judge the campaigns and arguments as a whole. YouGov's polling also found potential for the "leave" campaign to be seen as ignorant and bigoted. Playing the anti-immigration card may play to those negatives.

Therefore, YouGov opines, the "leave" campaign will need to paint a positive image of Britain outside Europe to counter people's fear of the unknown, and not be seen as "narrow-minded and fearful".

So speaks the great polling pundit, but its approach is dangerously misleading. By polling on specific issues, and then opining on how they might affect campaigning, YouGov assumes that these are the issues that matter.

For instance, the question on whether we "continue contributing billions to an EU budget that would be better spent in this country" yields 58 percent who believe this to be a convincing argument, while only 28 percent think it unconvincing.

At one level, though, it points to a battle won – which we need not keep fighting. But of those who find the argument "convincing", 24 percent are "soft". A sustained attack on the idea of money-saving could turn sentiment, and give the majority to the other side.  This is most definitely a double-edged sword. 

On this and other such issues, we believe the best way to handle them is to by-pass them, reframing the campaign as a tight, binary contest on a limited number of issues where we can show clear blue water between us and the opposition. Getting bogged down in detail spells defeat. Thus, we argue for a focus on Mr Cameron's "new relationship".

Where Cameron goes wrong, of course, is in wanting "a relationship between Britain and the EU that keeps us in it", as he said in his Bloomberg speech. That is impossible - not least because the EU wants to forge ahead with greater integration in the eurozone - the are going to a destination where we cannot follow.

That leaves only a form of "associate membership" on offer (which is proposed in the Spinelli/Bertelsmann "Fundamental Law" treaty draft. It is a second-class relationship that successive prime ministers since Macmillan have rejected as inappropriate for a country of the UK's status.

Thus, the only way we can forge a successful new relationship is to allow the EU to go ahead with its greater integration, while we step aside and negotiate using the provision that was added in the Lisbon Treaty (Article 50).

That requires us to give notice of leaving, but that notice only takes effect after we have already negotiated a new deal. There is no break in our relationship - just a transition from one to another. We avoid disruption and possible damage to the British economy.

We thus need to leave in an entirely positive sense - in order to create a new relationship with the EU.

The interesting thing here is that YouGov does not ask any questions relating to what sort of relationship we should have with the EU. The core issue is completely unaddressed.

And this is why the ignorati get caught out. Asking the wrong questions, the real issues creep up on them without them have the first idea of what is really at stake.

In any referendum, there is the question on the ballot paper, and then the actual question that people answer. They are not always the same, and most often are not. YouGov don't even seem to be aware of what questions need to be asked. But then, back in 2013, YouGov's Peter Kellner reckoned we were not going to leave the EU. It looks as if YouGov might be doing its best to make his prediction come true.