ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

The outcome of the British referendum on EU membership sent shockwaves through Europe. While Britain is an outlier when it comes to the strength of Euroscepticism, the anti-immigration and anti-establishment sentiments that produced the referendum outcome are gaining strength across Europe. Analysing campaign and survey data, this article shows that the divide between winners and losers of globalization was a key driver of the vote. Favouring British EU exit, or ‘Brexit’, was particularly common among less educated, poorer and older voters, and those who expressed concerns about immigration and multi-culturalism. While there is no evidence of a short-term contagion effect with similar membership referendums in other countries, the Brexit vote nonetheless poses a serious challenge to the political establishment across Europe.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjpp20
Download by: [LSE Library Services] Date: 05 January 2017, At: 02:37
Journal of European Public Policy
ISSN: 1350-1763 (Print) 1466-4429 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjpp20
The Brexit vote: a divided nation, a divided
continent
Sara B. Hobolt
To cite this article: Sara B. Hobolt (2016) The Brexit vote: a divided nation, a divided continent,
Journal of European Public Policy, 23:9, 1259-1277, DOI: 10.1080/13501763.2016.1225785
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2016.1225785
View supplementary material
Published online: 07 Sep 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 7788
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
The Brexit vote: a divided nation, a divided continent
Sara B. Hobolt
London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK
ABSTRACT
The outcome of the British referendum on European Union (EU) membership
sent shockwaves through Europe. While Britain is an outlier when it comes to
the strength of Euroscepticism, the anti-immigration and anti-establishment
sentiments that produced the referendum outcome are gaining strength
across Europe. Analysing campaign and survey data, this article shows that
the divide between winners and losers of globalization was a key driver of the
vote. Favouring British EU exit, or Brexit, was particularly common among
less-educated, poorer and older voters, and those who expressed concerns
about immigration and multi-culturalism. While there is no evidence of a
short-term contagion effect with similar membership referendums in other
countries, the Brexit vote nonetheless poses a serious challenge to the
political establishment across Europe.
KEYWORDS Brexit; Britain; Euroscepticism; populism; referendum; voting behaviour
There was a sense of shock and disbelief in the early morning hours of 24 June
2016, both in Britain and across European capitals, when it became clear that a
small majority (51.9 per cent) of British voters had cast their ballot in favour of
leaving the European Union (EU). Markets reacted quickly to the Brexit vote:
the British pound plummeted to a 31-year low against the dollar and over 2
trillion dollars were wiped off shares globally. The political ramifications
were almost as immediate and dramatic, as the British Prime Minister David
Cameron resigned, the main opposition Labour Party fought a bruising
internal leadership battle, and the Scottish First Minister signalled Brexit
could mean the break-up of the United Kingdom (UK). Even the leaders of
Leave camp seemed surprised by the outcome as they admitted they had
no plan for what Brexitwould look like. Meanwhile leaders of other EU
member states called for Britain to invoke Article 50 of the EUs Lisbon
Treaty so that exit negotiations could begin immediately.
In many ways, however, the outcome of the UKs referendum on EU mem-
bership was not surprising. First, the British public has consistently been the
© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
CONTACT Sara B. Hobolt s.b.hobolt@lse.ac.uk
Supplemental data and underlying research materials for this article can be accessed at http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/13501763.2016.1225785
JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN PUBLIC POLICY, 2016
VOL. 23, NO. 9, 12591277
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2016.1225785
most Eurosceptic electorate in the EU ever since the UK joined in 1973, and
opinion polls had suggested that this referendum would be a very close
race. Second, in stark contrast to the pro-EU position held by most other EU
governments, leading figures in Britains governing Conservative Party are
fiercely opposed to the EU, thus bringing the Eurosceptic message into the
mainstream (De Vries and Edwards 2009). Third, it is well-established that
referendums on European integration are highly unpredictable, and that
voters often reject the proposals put to them by the government, even
when supported by a consensus among mainstream political parties and
experts (e.g., Franklin et al.1994,1995; Hobolt 2009). Finally, the anti-establish-
ment message that made the Brexit Leave campaign so effective has also led
to electoral successes of populist parties across Europe in recent years, gener-
ally fuelled by worries about immigration, lack of economic opportunities and
anger with the political class (Hobolt and Tilley 2016; Kriesi et al.2012).
Hence, on the one hand, the outcome of the Brexit referendum is a unique
event, since no other member state
1
has ever decided to exit the European
Union. Yet, on the other hand, the sentiments that led to this outcome are
by no means a distinctively British phenomenon. The analyses presented in
this article show that British Leave voters were motivated by anti-immigration
and anti-establishment feelings. They also reveal stark demographic divides,
as the less well-educated and the less well-off voted in large majorities to
leave the EU, while the young graduates in the urban centres voted to stay.
This divide between those who feel left behind by the forces of globalization
and mass immigration and those who welcome such developments is also a
driving force behind the increasing support for Eurosceptic parties on the
radical right and left across Europe (see Kriesi et al.2012; Teney et al.2014).
Concerns about the cultural and economic threats of globalization, immigra-
tion and European integration are effectively mobilized by parties, especially
on the populist right, that have been gaining ground in national and Euro-
pean elections (see Hobolt and De Vries 2015,2016b; Van Elsas et al.2016).
The challenge that the EU faces thus go beyond the loss of a major
member state, and the economic and political ramification that follows
from that. Perhaps more significant is the fact that many voters across
Europe see the EU as part of the problem rather than the solution when it
comes to protecting ordinary citizens from the challenges of an ever more
globalized and integrated world.
The article proceeds as follows. First, it discusses the background of the
British EU referendum and describes the campaign leading up to the vote.
Second, the article presents an analysis of voting and survey data to explain
the main divisions in the British electorate and the attitudes that explain
support for Brexit. Finally, I consider some of the implications for European
politics, with a particular focus on the likelihood of a domino effect with
1260 S. B. HOBOLT
other EU membership referendums across Europe and the electoral successes
of Eurosceptic parties.
The Brexit referendum campaign
The Brexit referendum came about as the culmination of decades of internal
division in the British Conservative Party on the issue of European integration.
To appease the Eurosceptic wing of the party and to avoid a flight of voters to
the populist right-wing United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), the 2015
Conservative Party manifesto included a pledge of a straight in-out referen-
dum of the European Union by the end of 2017(Conservative Party Manifesto
2015: 32). Hence, as with many other EU referendums, this referendum was
called for domestic party political and electoral reasons (Prosser 2016). After
the Conservative Party won an outright majority in the May 2015 General Elec-
tion, Cameron set out to negotiate a new settlementfor Britain in Europe,
promising to win a host of concessions from Brussels. On 20 February 2016,
Cameron finalized that deal with 27 other European leaders and set the
June date for the EU membership referendum. The deal included the power
to limit EU migrantsin-work benefits, a treaty change so the UK would not
be bound by ever closer union, and the ability for the UK to enact an emer-
gency safeguardto protect the interests of the City of London and British
businesses (Jensen and Snaith 2016). Yet this much-heralded new settlement
was widely derided by the British press for amounting to very little, and the
announcement of the deal even led to a boost for the Leave side in the
polls (YouGov 2016). The deal subsequently played a very minor role in the
referendum campaign.
Despite the failure to win over voters with a new settlement for Britain in
the EU, the government nonetheless felt confident that it could win the refer-
endum. All the major parties in Parliament were in favour of remaining in the
EU, including the major opposition party, Labour. The Remain side also had
the major business interests and trade unions on its side, as well as most
foreign leaders and international organizations. The governing Conservative
Party itself, however, was openly divided in the campaign with several
cabinet members, including the charismatic former mayor of London (and
now foreign secretary) Boris Johnson campaigning to leave the EU. The news-
papers were split when it came to recommending an In or Out vote. A media
study of the campaign by Loughborough University shows that Conservative
politicians dominated media coverage on both sides of the campaign,
accounting for almost two-thirds of all referendum-related media appear-
ances, with David Cameron the most prominent In campaigner (mentioned
in 25 per cent of news items) and Boris Johnson the most prominent Out cam-
paigner (mentioned in 19 per cent of news items). In contrast, the Labour
Party led a more lacklustre campaign (its leader, Jeremy Corbyn, was only
JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN PUBLIC POLICY 1261
mentioned in 6 per cent of news items) (see Loughborough University 2016).
The poll of polls, shown in Figure 1, reveals a very close race with slight lead
for the Remain side during most of the campaign, but with some fluctuation in
the last month of the campaign, when several polls indicated a Leave majority.
There were two official campaign organizations, Britain Stronger in Europe
and Vote Leave.
2
From the outset of the campaign, the battle lines were
starkly drawn up by the two sides: the economy versus immigration. The
messages were clear: vote Remain to avoid the economic risk of a Brexit
(A leap in the dark) or vote Leave to regain control of British borders,
British law-making and restrict immigration (Take back control). On both
sides, the campaign rhetoric was largely negative with the In camp focusing
on the threat of economic disaster in the case of Brexit vote (dubbed Project
Fearby the Leave camp) and the Out campaign mobilizing peoples fears of
immigration (referred to as Project Hateby the Remain camp). The Remain
side was hopeful that the economic uncertainties associated with Brexit
would ultimately persuade voters to choose the status quo option, since
there was an overwhelming consensus among experts that a Brexit
outcome would have negative economic consequences for Britain. In contrast,
the Leave camp presented the referendum as a unique opportunity to regain
control of British law-making, borders and restrict immigration. The media
analysis of the campaign reveal that both camps were successful in setting
the agenda, since the economy and immigration clearly dominated the
news coverage. In the first three weeks of the campaign economic issues
received considerably more attention than immigration, to the benefit of
the Remain camp. There was, however, a shift towards immigration as the
dominant issue in the latter weeks of the campaign, which may have bene-
fitted the Leave campaign (Loughborough University 2016). Interestingly,
other issues, such as sovereignty, security, democracy and devolution, were
much more marginal issues in the media coverage of the referendum.
Figure 1. Referendum vote intention Poll of Polls. Source: Poll of Polls of referendum
vote intention, compiled by Prof. John Curtice and NatCen Social Research, available
at http://whatukthinks.org.
1262 S. B. HOBOLT
This picture of a simple choice between the economy and immigration is
also reinforced by survey evidence. According to one YouGov poll, 84 per
cent of Leave voters thought that there would be less immigration into
Britainif we left the EU, compared to only 27 per cent of Remain voters.
The same survey asked about whether Britain would be worse or better off
economically following Brexit, and only 4 per cent of Leave voters thought
Britain would be worse off, despite a broad consensus among experts that
this would indeed be the case. In contrast, 78 per cent of remainers
thought Britain would be worse off economically (YouGov/Times 2022
June 2016). To explore votersreasoning further, Christopher Wratil and I
designed a survey where a representative sample of over 5,000 British citizens
were asked to think about the arguments they have personally heard during
the referendum campaign and summarize the main argument in their own
words (Hobolt and Wratil 2016). When analysing these thousands of open-
ended responses, we find that immigration and the economy emerge as
the main arguments. The analysis identifies around nine distinct arguments
mentioned by voters that centre on immigration, sovereignty, the economy,
lack of information, and distrust in the government, as summarized in Table
1. Similar to the media analysis, we find that a number of other issues often
central to the debate on European integration, notably democracy and
environmental protection, do not appear as prominent arguments for or
against membership in the minds of voters in this referendum debate.
The British public was clearly sharply divided in what it considers to be the
main issue of the referendum. As Table 1 shows, the two key arguments that
resonate more with Remain voters than with Leave voters relate to the
economy, specifically the loss of economic stability in the event of Brexit
and the economic benefits of EU membership, while Leave voters highlight
mainly concerns about immigration as expressed by one respondent: Immi-
grants flooding into the country if we dont regain control of our own borders.
Another key argument for Leave voters is lack of trust in David Cameron
and his government. Hence, the Leave side successfully mobilized not only
Table 1. Main arguments for Remain and Leave voters.
Mentioned mainly by
Main referendum arguments: Leave voters Remain voters
Immigration control X
No trust in Prime Minister/Government X
Cost of EU membership X
Security implications X
Lack of knowledge and trust X
Lack of information X X
Economic risk of Brexit X
Economic stability in the EU X
Economic benefits from the EU X
Source: Original poll by Sara B. Hobolt and Christopher Wratil conducted by YouGov between 9 and 11
May 2016. See Hobolt and Wratil (2016) for more details.
JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN PUBLIC POLICY 1263
salient concerns about immigration but also anti-establishment attitudes, por-
traying the vote as a chance for ordinary citizens to take back controlfrom
the élites in Brussels. The analysis of vote choice below shows that such
anti-élite sentiments appealed to many Leave voters.
Explaining the Brexit vote
While the Brexit referendum was only the second membership referendum
in an existing member state (the first being the British EEC referendum in
1975, where 67 per cent voted to remain), there have been over 50 referen-
dums on other aspects of European integration, mainly accession and treaty
ratification (Hobolt 2009). Consequently, there is a large literature on how
voters decide in such referendums. Much of the scholarly debate has
focused on whether voters decide on the basis of their attitudes towards
the EU (the issue-voting approach) or whether they use the referendum to
express their dissatisfaction with the government (the second-order
approach). The first approach focuses on individualsvalues and beliefs
and argues that voting behaviour in EU referendums reflects peoples under-
lying, broad attitudes towards European integration (Garry et al.2005; Siune
et al.1994). The alternative explanation of voting behaviour in EU referen-
dums is inspired by the second-ordertheory of elections (Reif and
Schmitt 1980), where voters are thus expected to use their vote as a
means of signalling their dissatisfaction with the government, or the dom-
estic political class more generally (Franklin et al.1994,1995). Other work
on referendums has argued that these approaches are not mutually exclu-
sive, but that the nature of the referendum campaigns influences how
voters decide. For example, Hug (2002) argues that punishment strategies
(second-order voting) are more likely to occur when governments employ
referendums in an attempt to shore up support and when the outcome is
legally non-binding. Other studies have examined how the salience of the
issue of European integration affects attitudes and reception of élite cues
and, in turn, influences patterns of voting behaviour in referendums (see
Franklin 2002; Hobolt 2009). When salience is high, and voters have a
greater interest in European affairs, they are more likely to rely on their atti-
tudes towards European integration and less likely to treat the referendum
as a second-order election.
As the Brexit referendum was clearly a high salience referendum with a
long and intense campaign and high turnout (72.2 per cent), we would
expect that issue-specific attitudes (Euroscepticism) to matter, but importantly
we also want to examine from where such opinions originate. The literature
on Euroscepticism outlines three main approaches to explaining variation in
support for, and opposition to, European integration: utilitarian,identity
and cue-takingapproaches (see Hobolt and de Vries 2016a). The basic
1264 S. B. HOBOLT
proposition of the utilitarian approach is that since European trade liberaliza-
tion favours citizens with higher levels of human capital (education and occu-
pational skills) and income, such individuals will be more supportive of
European integration (Gabel 1998; Gabel and Palmer 1995; Tucker et al.
2002). Moreover, a growing literature has shown that a divide has emerged
between the so-called winners and losers of globalization and that these
groups have coherent and distinct attitudinal positions towards issues such
as international co-operation, European integration and immigration (e.g.,
Azmanova 2011; Evans and Mellon 2016; Kriesi et al.2012; Teney et al.
2014). In a nutshell, the winnersof globalization the young, well-educated
professionals in urban centres favour more open borders, immigration and
international co-operation, whereas the left behind’–the working class, less
educated and the older oppose such openness. There is consistent evidence
to suggest that socioeconomic factors shape attitudes towards European inte-
gration, and recent work even reveals that education has become a more
important determinant of EU support over time, as the less educated are
becoming less supportive of the integration project (Hakhverdian et al.
2013). Similarly, in the Brexit referendum I would expect that those who are
less educated would hold more Eurosceptic and anti-immigration attitudes
and be more likely to vote to Leave.
Demographics may tell part of the story about Euroscepticism, but more
deep-seated attachments have also been found to drive such attitudes. Scho-
lars have argued that European integration is not only, or even primarily,
about trade and the single market, but also about a pooling of sovereignty
that potentially erodes national self-determination and blurs boundaries
between distinct national communities (Carey 2002; Hooghe and Marks
2005,2009; McLaren 2006). Not surprisingly, therefore, individualsattach-
ment to their nation and their perceptions of people from other cultures influ-
ence their attitudes towards European integration. Carey (2002) has shown
that people with strong national identity are less supportive of European inte-
gration. There is also evidence in studies by McLaren (2002,2006) and others
that Euroscepticism is closely related to a general hostility towards other cul-
tures, such as negative attitudes towards minority groups and immigrants (De
Vreese and Boomgaarden 2005; Hobolt et al.2011). Hooghe and Marks (2005)
have demonstrated that individuals who conceive of their national identity as
exclusive of other territorial identities are likely to be considerably more Euro-
sceptic than those who have multiple nested identities. Hence, my expec-
tation is that strong national identity, especially English identity, to be
associated with the Leave vote, while voters with a European identity
would be much more likely to vote to remain in the EU.
Yet, as we know from the second-order election literature on referendum
behaviour, vote choices are not always driven by identities or attitudes
towards the issues at stake, but also by feelings about the political
JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN PUBLIC POLICY 1265
establishment more generally and the government in particular. The literature
on Euroscepticism has also shown that citizens rely on cuesand proxies
when forming opinions about the EU (Anderson 1998). Since citizens gener-
ally pay more attention to the national political arena than European politics,
it makes sense that they employ domestic cues to form opinions about Euro-
pean integration. The recommendations provided by national political parties
are crucial cues (Hobolt 2007; Lupia 1992). These are also likely to have mat-
tered in the Brexit referendum, especially when the parties were united in
their position on the referendum. As already discussed, the governing Conser-
vative party was openly divided during the campaign, and cue-taking could
thus have worked in both directions. Yet attitudes toward the political élite
may also play a very different role in referendums, as voters used the ballot
to punish the political establishment. Indeed, the Leave campaign sought
to frame the referendum as a battle between ordinary people and the political
establishment, in line with the populist idea of a fundamental division
between the the pure peopleand the corrupt elite(Mudde 2007). Hence,
I would also expect that the Brexit vote was, at least in part, driven by such
populist attitudesand a general disaffection with the political class.
Analysis of vote choice
To summarize the discussion above, I expect that four sets of factors shaped
vote choices: socioeconomic factors; geographical identities; feelings about
the domestic political establishment; and, finally, policy attitudes. These
factors are of course highly interrelated. Following the Michigan model of
voting behaviour (Campbell et al.1960), we can think of these predictors as
afunnel of causalitywhere sociodemographic factors and identities are cau-
sally prior to, and shape, political attitudes that in turn are the proximal cause
of vote choice. Hence, each of these models is estimated separately to test the
association with vote choice, but the analysis here does not allow us to disen-
tangle the complex causal mechanisms that link these factors together.
To test each of the explanatory approaches I analyse the rich data con-
tained in the 7
th
Wave of the British Election Study. This wave constitutes
the pre-campaign Panel Survey Study of the 2016 EU Referendum, con-
ducted prior to the referendum.
3
The dependent variable is thus Leave vote
intention in the referendum, where respondents were asked: If there was a
referendum on Britains membership of the European Union tomorrow, how
do you think you would vote?There is very considerable stability in the pre-
dictors of vote intention and actual vote choice. The advantage of this particu-
lar dataset is not only the impressive sample size (30,895 respondents), but
also the number of variables included in the questionnaire that allows us to
investigate all of the hypothesized factors.
1266 S. B. HOBOLT
Starting with the utilitarian model that focuses on how an individuals
sociodemographic position influences her attitudes towards the EU, and in
turn, vote choice, we examine the impact of level of education, household
income, and age. The model also includes individual perceptions of
changes in personal economic conditions in this model.
4
The second model
is the identity model, also discussed above. This includes measures of Euro-
pean identity as well as the strength of British and English identity.
5
The
expectation is that people who feel strongly European would be more likely
to remain in the European Union. In contrast, a stronger national identity is
expected to be associated with the Leave vote.
The third model focuses on how peoples attitude towards the domestic
political class can shape referendum outcomes. Following the second-order
election approach, the expectation is that attitudes towards the domestic pol-
itical élite matter. However, this can lead to two contrasting expectations: cue-
taking and punishment. On the one hand, we know that people take cues
from their preferred party when forming opinions on complex issues such
as EU membership. Hence, the model includes a variable that indicates
which party the respondents would vote for.
6
The expectation is that if a
party recommends a Remain vote, voters who feel close to this party would
be more likely to also vote Remain, and vice versa for Leave. However, as
already mentioned, the parties were not all united in their approach. The Con-
servative Party in particular was internally divided, the Labour Party less so,
while the Liberal Democrats were united for Remain and UKIP united in
their opposition to membership. On the other hand, voters may also use refer-
endums as an opportunity to punish the political establishment and vote
against the status quo. I therefore include a scale of items that captures indi-
vidualsagreement with this populist message,
7
as well as their general dis-
trust in politicians
8
and their (dis)approval of the governments performance.
9
The final model is the classic issue-voting model that assumes that voters
base their choices on relevant policy preferences. The model thus includes a
number of items that capture attitudes towards salient issues discussed by
each camp in the campaign, including EU immigration (should more or
fewer be allowed to come to Britain?), parliamentary sovereignty (should
the UK Parliament override EU laws?), trade with Europe (good or bad for
Britain?), and views on whether the EU has made Britain more prosperous,
undermined Britains distinctive identity, and helped prevent wars. Given
that so much of the debate was focused on what would happen in the
event of Brexit, the model also includes variables capturing the respondents
assessments of whether Brexit will lead to more or less trade and more or less
immigration. The results are shown in a series of logistic regression models in
Table 2.
Model 1 in Table 2 lends support to the utilitarian model of support for the
EU. In line with our expectation, I find that those who have benefitted from
JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN PUBLIC POLICY 1267
Table 2. Explaining the Brexit vote.
(1) Sociodemographics (2) Identity
(2) Anti-elite and
cue-taking (4) Attitudes Marginal effects %
Coef. SEs Sig. Coef. SEs Sig. Coef. SEs Sig. Coef. SEs Sig.
One SD Δ
(one unit Δfor 0/1) (Model #)
Constant 0.45 0.09 ** 0.94 0.12 ** 2.32 0.17 ** 14.99 0.26 **
Gender 0.08 0.03 ** 0.24 0.03 ** 0.00 0.03 0.13 0.05 ** 2 (1)
Age 0.02 0.00 ** 0.03 0.00 ** 0.02 0.00 ** 0.01 0.00 ** 11 (1)
Education 0.40 0.01 ** 0.19 0.01 ** 0.30 0.01 ** 0.08 0.02 ** 13 (1)
Income 0.04 0.01 ** 0.05 0.01 ** 0.07 0.01 ** 0.05 0.01 ** 2 (1)
Personal econ. eval. (positive) 0.10 0.02 ** 2 (1)
European identity 0.80 0.01 ** 37 (2)
English identity 0.18 0.01 ** 10 (2)
British identity 0.13 0.01 ** 5 (2)
Lack of trust in politicians 0.24 0.01 ** 9 (3)
Government disapproval 0.02 0.02 1 (3)
Populist attitudes 0.08 0.01 ** 4 (3)
Conservative supporter 0.49 0.05 ** 12 (3)
Labour supporter 0.99 0.04 ** 25 (3)
Lib Dem supporter 0.00 0.08 0 (3)
SNP/PC supporter 0.83 0.07 ** 21 (3)
UKIP supporter 3.55 0.12 ** 88 (3)
EU has not made UK more prosperous 0.93 0.04 ** 23 (4)
EU has not helped prevent war 0.55 0.03 ** 15 (4)
Free trade bad for UK 0.47 0.03 ** 8 (4)
UK Parliament to override EU law 0.42 0.03 ** 12 (4)
EU has undermined British identity 0.80 0.03 ** 24 (4)
Anti-EU migrants 0.13 0.01 ** 8 (4)
Brexit will not reduce trade 1.07 0.04 ** 24 (4)
Brexit will lower immigration 0.56 0.03 ** 13 (4)
N 23, 914 23, 914 23, 914 23, 914
Pseudo R-squared 0.09 0.35 0.27 0.64
Note: Logistic regression models with Leave vote as dependent variable. Non-voters/dont knows excluded. **p< 0.01.
Source: BES Online Panel Wave 7.
1268 S. B. HOBOLT
increased international co-operation and trade the better educated, the
young and the well-off are less likely to vote for Leave compared to those
who are left behind’–the low-skilled, the old and the poor. Simple descriptive
statistics reveals a clear educational divide in the Brexit vote. Figure 2 shows
that that only a quarter of people with a postgraduate degree voted to leave,
whereas over two-thirds of those with no qualifications did so.
This impact of education on vote choices is also highly significant in the
multiple logistic regression models. As log odds are not straightforward to
interpret, the last column in Table 2 shows the marginal effect of one standard
deviation change in each of the explanatory variables on the probability of
voting Leave. This shows the strongest effect for education and age. Going
from A-level education to an undergraduate degree reduces the probability
of voting Leave by about 10 percentage points, all other things being
equal. Similarly, a 50 year old is 10 percentage points more likely to support
Brexit compared to a 33 year old voter. Men are slightly more likely to vote
Leave (2 percentage points), as are those with lower incomes and those
who feel that their financial situation has deteriorated. These are very substan-
tial differences, especially when it comes to the generation and education
gaps; however, the overall model fit is modest (pseudo R-squared of 0.09).
The model fit is much improved when the subjective assessments of iden-
tity are included in Model 2 (pseudo R-squared of 0.34). Unsurprisingly, Euro-
pean identity in particular is a powerful predictor of the Remain vote. A
standard deviation increase in Europeanessreduces the probability of
voting Leave by as much as 37 percentage points. In comparison, a one stan-
dard deviation increase in English identity increases the likelihood of voting
Leave by 10 percentage points and 5 percentage points for British identity.
It makes sense that we find a greater effect for English national identity com-
pared to the more inclusiveBritish identity, since English nationalism is often
associated with the defence of national sovereignty in opposition to transfers
Figure 2. The education gap. Source: BES Online Panel Wave 7.
JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN PUBLIC POLICY 1269
of powers both upwards (to the EU) and downwards (to devolved nations)
(see Wellings 2012). Overall, the results show that deep-seated identities
matter when it comes to vote choice. But what about attitudes towards the
political class?
Model 3 demonstrates that parties matter, but not necessarily as expected.
While the Conservative-led government advocated Remain, Conservative sup-
porters are 12 percentage points more likely to vote for Brexit compared to
people without a preferred party. Labour voters were more in favour of
Remain (25 percentage points), while we find no statistically significant
effect for Liberal Democrats supporters. The largest effect is found among
UKIP supporters, who were 88 percentage points more likely to be Brexiteers
unsurprising given that opposition to EU membership is the main policy goal
of the party. Supporters of the Scottish National Party (SNP) and the Welsh
Plaid Cymru are more likely to be Remainers. So party cues matter, especially
when they are united in the cause. But for many voters, this referendum was
also an opportunity to vote against the political class in its entirety. There is a
strong impact of lack of trust in politicians on the Leave vote: one standard
deviation increase in distrust leads to a 9 percentage point increase in the
probability of a Leave vote. Similarly, a standard deviation change in populist
attitudes leads to a 4 percentage point change in the Leave likelihood. Inter-
estingly, however, disapproval of the performance of the government has no
effect on the Leave vote, at least not when controlling for preferred party. So
the Brexit vote cannot be interpreted as a straightforward punishment of the
Cameron government. Overall, this anti-establishment and cue-taking model
explains about as much variance as the identity model.
Finally, turning to the attitudes model we see even greater explanatory
power, as we would expect, since EU issue attitudes should be the most prox-
imal cause of vote choice in such a high intensity referendum campaign
(Hobolt 2009). As anticipated, the results show that the issues mobilized in
the campaign the EUs effect on the economy and immigration are
highly correlated with vote choice. Both economic perceptions and cultural
concerns had a substantial impact on vote choices. Those who felt that the
EU had undermined the distinct identity of Britain were much more likely
to vote to leave, whereas the view that the EU had made Britain more prosper-
ous had a similarly sizeable effect. Attitudes towards immigration also mat-
tered: individuals who thought Britain should have many fewer EU migrants
were 32 percentage points more likely to vote for Brexit compared to those
who wanted more migrants. Equally, expectations about the consequences
of Brexit had very significant effects. Voters convinced by the argument
that Brexit would reduce trade and employment were much more likely to
vote to remain compared to those who were not convinced about the nega-
tive impact on the economy. Similarly, anticipation about changes to immigra-
tion post-Brexit mattered to voters (although the effect size is about half).
1270 S. B. HOBOLT
In sum, the analysis shows that EU issue attitudes were mobilized during
this referendum campaign and helped to shape vote choices. Traditional con-
cerns about sovereignty and the economic benefits of membership were
important, but equally salient were identity concerns related to the impact
of immigration and European integration on Britains cultural identity. Are
such concerns unique to Britain or can we expect similar revolts against the
pro-EU élites in other member states?
Is Britain an outlier?
One of the primary concerns in European capitals following the British refer-
endum was the risk of contagion. While the EU may well be able to survive the
exit of Britain always a recalcitrant member state the worry was that this
could trigger a domino effect with referendums in other countries. In the
aftermath of the Brexit vote, several leaders of populist Eurosceptic parties
called for their own EU membership referendums, including in France, the
Netherlands, Denmark, Germany and Sweden. However, unlike in Britain,
where the governing Conservative party called a referendum owing to
internal divisions on the issue, most mainstream parties in Western Europe
are staunchly pro-EU. Even the most successful Eurosceptic parties in
Western Europe, such as the Danish Peoples Party and the Dutch and Austrian
Freedom parties, would need to form a coalition with pro-EU parties in order
gain office, and they would find it hard to muster a parliamentary majority to
call a referendum on EU membership. This makes membership referendums
less likely in other countries, although far from impossible, given pressure
from insurgent populist right-wing parties. But even if the Eurosceptic right
succeeds in their calls for more membership referendums, it is far from
certain that the outcome would be another exit vote. Despite growing Euro-
scepticism is the wake of the eurozone and migrant crises, opinion polls have
consistently shown that Britain is an outlier when it comes to support for
leaving the European Union. Figure 3 shows the Remain inlead in response
to the question If there was a referendum on your countrys membership on
the European Union, how would you vote?since 2012.
It clearly shows that the UK is the only one of the member states surveyed
where there has been public support for leaving the EU for most of the period
since 2012. In contrast, the net gap between those wanting to stay in and
those wanting to leave the EU is well above 20 percentage points in favour
of staying in both Germany and Denmark, and also above 10 percentage
points in France and Finland, with greater fluctuation in support in Sweden.
Yet that is not to say that the Brexit vote represents a uniquely British
phenomenon. Indeed, it can be argued that it reflects the same sentiments
that drive increases in support for populist Eurosceptic parties across
Europe in recent years, especially in the aftermath of the eurozone crisis. In
JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN PUBLIC POLICY 1271
the 2014 European Parliament elections, such parties won around 30 per cent
of the seats (Hobolt and De Vries 2016b; Treib 2014). In national elections
populist right-wing parties opposed to the EU, such as Geert Wilderss far-
right Freedom Party, the Danish Peoples Party, the Finns Party and the
Sweden Democrats, have gained electoral support in the recent decade
(Hobolt and Tilley 2016). These challenger parties also effectively use populist
rhetoric that pits ordinary peopleagainst the political establishment. Recent
studies have shown that the rise in support for these challenger parties reflect
similar divides to those identified in the Brexit campaign, with higher levels of
support for Eurosceptic parties among the less educated, people adversely
affected by the eurozone crisis, and among those who oppose immigration
and multiculturalism (see Hobolt and De Vries 2016b; Hobolt and Tilley
2016). There is a growing divide, both economically and culturally, between
those who feel left behind by the forces of globalization and those who
feel they have benefitted from it. The former group favours a drawbridge
uppolicy of less European integration, closed borders and fewer migrants,
whereas the latter group are in favour of greater openness and international
co-operation. The eurozone crisis and the Mediterranean migrant crisis have
only served to deepen these divides.
Conclusion
Since the Danes rejected the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, referendums on Euro-
pean integration have often had élite-defying consequences. Yet the Brexit
referendum is arguable the most significant in the EUs history. The exit of a
member state from the EU is unprecedented, and the political and economic
consequences are likely to be considerable and prolonged, not only for Britain
but for the EU as a whole. It is convenient to see the outcome of the Brexit
referendum as yet another example of British exceptionalism. After all,
Figure 3. Support for EU membership across Europe. Source: YouGov EuroTrack, 3-
months rolling average.
1272 S. B. HOBOLT
Britain has always been a reluctant partner standing on the side lines of the
European project. As the French President De Gaulle noted as early as 1963:
England is in effect insular She has, in all her doings, very marked and
very original habits and traditions.(Franks 1964: 70)
But this referendum cannot be dismissed as just a sign of English insularity.
Whereas public and party political Euroscepticism is more pronounced in
Britain than in the rest of the EU, the sentiments that led a majority of
voters to opt for Brexit are gaining strength across the continent. Concerns
about immigration and the loss of a distinct national identity were important
to many who favoured Brexit, and they were issues that clearly divided the
Leave and Remain camps. Such fears of immigration and multiculturalism
are more pronounced among voters with lower levels of education and in a
more vulnerable position in the labour market. Such voters also voted most
decisively for Leave, whereas the winnersof globalization the younger
and highly educated professionals were overwhelmingly in favour of
Remain. The results of the Brexit referendum portray a deeply divided
country, not only along class, education and generational lines, but also in
terms of geography. Generally the Remain side did better in the larger multi-
cultural cities (especially in London) and where there were more graduates,
whereas the Leave side was strongest in the English countryside and in the
post-industrial north-eastern towns with larger working class populations. It
also divided the nations of the UK: while both England and Wales voted 53
per cent Leave, Northern Ireland and Scotland voted Remain (at 56 and 62
per cent respectively).
Across Europe we find similar divisions between the so-called winners of
globalization and those who feel left behind. While the former tend to
embrace European integration and multiculturalism, the latter feel threatened
by the changes that globalization and European integration have brought
about. Such divisions have been successfully mobilized by populist parties
across Europe, especially on the right, who give a voice to the fears of ordin-
ary, decent peoplein opposition to a political establishment that has often
failed to listen. We see this expressed not only in referendums, but also in
the electoral successes of populist Eurosceptic parties, such as Front National
in France, the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands, the Danish Peoples Party
in Denmark and the Freedom Party in Austria. While the British experience
may make membership referendums less likely in other EU countries, as it
has starkly illustrated the risks associated with such plebiscites, the rise of
populist Eurosceptic parties nonetheless presents a significant challenge to
the EU. Gone are the days when élites could pursue European integration
with no regard to public opinion. There has been a move away from the per-
missive consensusof the early period of integration towards a period where
the EU is an increasingly contested and politicized issue in the domestic pol-
itical arena. The future of the EU hinges more than ever on citizenssupport for
JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN PUBLIC POLICY 1273
the European integration project. The challenge for European leaders, both
domestically and at the European level, is to find a way of addressing the con-
cerns of the many citizens who have not felt the economic benefits of free
trade and globalization, and who feel that their distinct national identity
and culture is under threat from immigration and European integration.
Notes
1. There is one precedent to the Brexit vote. In 1982, Greenland, part of Denmark,
voted by 52 per cent to secede from the EEC, but Denmark remained within the
EEC. That referendum had limited consequences for the EU as a whole, given
Greenlands small population and its relationship to Denmark.
2. There were also other campaigning groups notably on the Leave side, such
Leave.EU and Grassroots Out with clear anti-immigration and anti-establishment
messages.
3. Wave 7 was conducted online by the survey organization YouGov between 14th
April 2016 and 4th May 2016 (Fieldhouse et al. 2016).
4. The respondents were asked: How does the financial situation of your house-
hold now compare with what it was 12 months ago?
5. Respondents were asked to place themselves on seven-point scales in terms of
the strength of their Europeanesss,Britishnessand Englishness.
6. And if there were a UK General Election tomorrow, which party would you vote
for?
7. The cumulative scale (with an alpha scalability score of 0.84) consists of
responses to the following five items: The politicians in the UK Parliament
need to follow the will of the people;The people, and not politicians, should
make our most important policy decisions;I would rather be represented by
a citizen than by a specialized politician;Elected officials talk too much and
take too little action; and What people call compromisein politics is really
just selling out on ones principles.
8. How much trust do you have in Members of Parliament in general?
9. Do you approve or disapprove of the job that each of the UK government is
doing?
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to the two anonymous reviewers and the editors of JEPP for valuable
comments.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Funding
I am grateful to the British Academy/Leverhulme Trust (SG153370) for financial
support.
1274 S. B. HOBOLT
Notes on contributor
Sara B. Hobolt is the Sutherland Chair in European Institutions and a professor at the
London School of Economics and Political Science. She is vice-chair of the European
Election Studies.
References
Anderson, C.J. (1998)When in doubt use proxies: attitudes to domestic politics and
support for the EU,Comparative Political Studies 31: 569601.
Azmanova, A. (2011)After the leftright (dis)continuum: globalization and the remak-
ing of Europes ideological geography,International Political Sociology 5(4): 384407.
Campbell, A., Converse, P., Miller, W. and Stokes, D.E. (1960)The American Voter,
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Carey, S. (2002)Undivided loyalties: is national identity an obstacle to European inte-
gration?European Union Politics 3(4): 387413.
Conservative Party Manifesto 2015 (2015) Available at https://www.conservatives.com/
yourmanifesto (accessed 23 August 2016).
De Vreese, C.H. and Boomgaarden, H.G. (2005)Projecting EU referendums: fear of
immigration and support for European integration,European Union Politics 6(1):
5982
De Vries, C.E. and Edwards, E. (2009)Taking Europe to its extremes: extremist parties
and public Euroskepticism,Party Politics 15(1): 528.
Evans, G. and Mellon, J. (2016)How immigration became a Eurosceptic issue. LSE
Europp blog: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/2016/01/05/how-immigration-
became-a-eurosceptic-issue/
Fieldhouse, E., Green, J., Evans, G., Schmitt, H., van der Eijk, C., Mellon, J. and Prosser, C.
(2016) British Election Study Internet Panel Wave 7.
Franklin, M. (2002)Learning from the Danish case: a comment on Palle Svenssons cri-
tique of the Franklin thesis,European Journal of Political Research 41: 7517.
Franklin, M., Marsh, M. and McLaren, L. (1994)Uncorking the bottle: popular opposition
to European unification in the wake of Maastricht,Journal of Common Market
Studies 32(4): 45572
Franklin, M., Van der Eijk, C. and Marsh, M. (1995)Referendum outcomes and trust in
government: public support for Europe in the wake of Maastricht,West European
Politics 18(3): 10117.
Franks, O. (1964)A New Europe?Daedalus 93(1): 6782.
Gabel, M.J. (1998). Interest and Integration: Market Liberalization, Public Opinion and
European Union, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Gabel, M.J., and Palmer, H.D. (1995)Understanding variation in public support for
European integration.European Journal of Political Research 27: 319.
Garry, J., Marsh, M. and Sinnott, R. (2005)Second order versus issue voting effects in EU
referendums: evidence from the Irish Nice Treaty referendums,European Union
Politics 6(2): 20121.
Hakhverdian, A., Van Elsas, E., Van Der Brug, W. and Kuhn, T. (2013)Euroscepticism and
education: a longitudinal study of 12 EU member states,European Union Politics 14
(4): 52241.
Hobolt, S.B. (2007)Taking cues on Europe? Voter competence and party endorsements
in referendums on European integration,European Journal of Political Research 46
(2): 15182.
JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN PUBLIC POLICY 1275
Hobolt, S.B. (2009)Europe in Question: Referendums on European Integration, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Hobolt, S.B. and De Vries, C.E. (2015)Issue entrepreneurship and multiparty compe-
tition,Comparative Political Studies 48(9): 115985.
Hobolt, S.B. and De Vries, C.E. (2016a)Public support for European integration,Annual
Review of Political Science 19: 41332.
Hobolt, S.B. and De Vries, C.E. (2016b)Turning against the union? The impact of the
crisis on the Eurosceptic vote in the 2014 European Parliament elections,Electoral
Studies.doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2016.05.006.
Hobolt, S.B. and Tilley, J. (2016)Fleeing the centre: the rise of challenger parties in the
aftermath of the Euro crisis,West European Politics 39(5): 97191.
Hobolt, S.B., Van der Brug, W., De Vreese, C.H., Boomgaarden, H.G. and Hinrichsen, M.C.
(2011)Religious intolerance and Euroscepticism,European Union Politics 12(3):
35979.
Hobolt, S.B. and Wratil, C. (2016)Which argument will win the referendum immigra-
tion, or the economy?, LSE EUROPP blog: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2016/
06/21/brexit-winning-argument-immigration-or-economy/ (accessed 23 August
2016).
Hug, S. (2002)Voices of Europe: Citizens, Referendums and European Integration, Boulder,
CO: Rowman & Littlefield.
Hooghe, L. and Marks, G. (2005)Calculation, community and cues: public opinion on
European integration,European Union Politics 6(4): 41943.
Hooghe, L. and Marks, G. (2009)Postfunctionalism. A postfunctionalist theory of
European integration: from permissive consensus to constraining dissensus,
British Journal of Political Science 39(1): 123.
Jensen, M.D. and Snaith, H. (2016)When politics prevails: the political economy of a
Brexit,Journal of European Public Policy,doi:10.1080/13501763.2016.1174531
Kriesi, H., Grande, E., Dolezal, M., Helbling, M., Hoglinger, D., Hutter, S. and Wuest, B.
(2012)Political Conflict in Western Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Loughborough University (2016)EU referendum 2016. Media analysis from
Loughborough University Centre for Research in Communication and Culture, avail-
able at https://blog.lboro.ac.uk/crcc/eu-referendum/uk-news-coverage-2016-eu-
referendum-report-5-6-may-22-june-2016/ (accessed 23 August 2016).
Lupia, A. (1992)Busy voters, agenda control, and the power of information,American
Political Science Review 86: 390403.
McLaren, L. (2002)Public support for the European Union: cost/benefit analysis or per-
ceived cultural threat?,Journal of Politics 64(2): 55166.
McLaren, L. (2006)Identity, Interests and Attitudes to European Integration, Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Mudde, C. (2007)Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Prosser, C. (2016)Calling European Union treaty referendums: electoral and insti-
tutional politics,Political Studies 64(1): 18299.
Reif, K. and Schmitt, H. (1980)Nine second-order national elections: a conceptual fra-
mework for the analysis of European election results,European Journal of Political
Research 8(1): 344.
Siune, K., Svensson, P. and Tonsgaard, O. (1994)The EU: the Danes said noin 1992,
but yesin 1993: how and why?,Electoral Studies 13(2): 10716.
Teney, C., Lacewell, O.P. and De Wilde, P. (2014)Winners and losers of globalization in
Europe: attitudes and ideologies,European Political Science Review 6(4): 57595.
1276 S. B. HOBOLT
Treib, O (2014)The voter says no, but nobody listens: causes and consequences of the
Eurosceptic vote in the 2014 European elections,Journal of European Public Policy 21
(10): 154154
Tucker, J.A., Pacek, A.C., Berinsky, A.J. (2002). Transitional winners and losers: attitudes
toward EU membership in post-communist countries,American Journal of Political
Science 46(3): 55771.
YouGov (2016)Draft EU deal gives boost to Leave campaign, available at https://
yougov.co.uk/news/2016/02/04/eu-referendum-leave-leads-nine/
YouGov/Times (2016) Survey. Fieldwork: 20th-22nd June 2016. Available at: https://
d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/atmwrgevvj/
TimesResults_160622_EVEOFPOLL.pdf (accessed 23 August 2016).
Van Elsas, E., van der Brug, W. and Hakhverdian, A. (2016)United against a common
foe? The nature and origins of Euroscepticism among left-wing and right-wing
voters,West European Politics.doi:10.1080/01402382.2016.1175244
Wellings, B. (2012)English Nationalism and Euroscepticism: Losing the Peace. British
Identities since 1707, Oxford, Peter Lang.
JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN PUBLIC POLICY 1277
... There is a large strand of literature also highlighting the link between other socioeconomic variables and partisan polarization. The recent rise in support of parties opposing to EU and the rise of populist parties in the EU is found to be negatively associated with income and education (Hobolt 2016;Goodwin and Heath 2016;Becker et al. 2017;Ford and Goodwin 2017;Rodrik 2018;Dijkstra et al. 2020). The argument behind the vote for the populist parties is that individuals lacking opportunities and future prospects (i.e. less educated and low pay), thus, left behind by the modern economy, are found to vote for anti-establishment political options (Ford and Goodwin 2017;Rodríguez-Pose 2018). ...
... With the use of a wide range of partisan polarization measures, this paper demonstrated that the increased corruption in European countries led to increased partisan polarization. This paper's main finding, increased corruption leading to increased partisan polarization, provides another important mechanism beyond the standard socio-economic factors that led to the current rise in support of parties opposing to EU and rise of populist parties in EU (Hobolt 2016;Goodwin and Heath 2016;Becker et al. 2017;Ford and Goodwin 2017;Rodrik 2018;Dijkstra et al. 2020). ...
Article
Full-text available
Recent work documents that even though partisan polarization may have detrimental economic and social outcomes, polarized societies lead to better governance and less corruption. However, the effect of corruption on partisan polarization has been mostly ignored by the literature. By using various measures of partisan polarization and corruption, this paper demonstrates that corrupt behaviours are associated with more partisan polarization in the European Union, indicating that a stronger presence of corruption leads to higher partisan polarization. The findings are robust to the use of different polarization measures, methodologies, and a battery of control variables. This paper’s main finding, increased corruption leading to increased partisan polarization, provides another important mechanism beyond the standard socio-economic factors that led to the current rise in support of parties opposing to European Union and rise of populist parties in European Union. Polarized societies tend to generate inefficient economic outcomes and the alleviation of corruption could improve economic outcomes by decreasing partisan polarization.
... In weak territorial contexts, migrant inflows act as a catalyst to channel natives' fears, which are both economic (Guiso et al. 2017) and linked to a supposed dilution of local or national identity (Hobolt 2016;Rodrik 2018). For this reason, rural and low population density areas have experienced a rise in the populist vote (Gordon 2018;Martin et al. 2018), with those parties easily capitalizing on natives' fears of migration flows Norris 2005;Rydgren 2008;Arzheimer 2009). ...
Article
Full-text available
Does the settling of foreigners cause a rise in anti‐immigrant sentiment due to resource competition? Or do direct interactions lead to more respectful relations? And what if one also considers the settlement of foreigners in neighbouring municipalities? Applying an instrumental variable approach to variables collected at the Italian municipality level and including neighbouring areas, this paper aims to answer these questions by considering the vote for the Lega party in 2019 European parliamentary election as a proxy for the anti‐immigration sentiment. Our results point out that, once controlling for most socio‐economic variables and remoteness, a larger presence of foreigners within the municipality reduces the vote for the Lega. In contrast, the presence of immigrants in the neighbouring municipalities does not show a significant effect.
... The overriding motto of "taking back control" was formulated in opposition to the perceived integration dynamic and the specific federal shape the EU represented. Brexit exemplifies a type of politicization that activates the globalization winnerloser cleavage that has evolved as a new political dividing line across the Europe (Hobolt, 2016) and on which an EU federation in the making is perceived as the unwanted incarnation of globalization (Kriesi et al., 2008). It is this image of the EU on the new societal dividing line which is exploited both by anti-EU populists, such as the Polish PiS, Hungarian Fidesz or Italian Lega Parties who argue against the threat of federalization, and by promoters of EU integration, like Emmanuel Macron, to exploit EU images and normative stands in electoral competitions. ...
Chapter
This chapter examines the evolution of Spain and the United Kingdom (UK) as federal political systems. Neither Spain nor the UK qualifies as a full-fledged federation, but an identifiable process of federalization has taken root in both cases. Unpacking the experience of political decentralization, the chapter examines the efficacy of current arrangements vis-à-vis the politics of accommodation, with specific reference to elements of symbolic recognition, self-rule and shared rule, and identifies ongoing challenges to the development of federalism in Spain and the UK. In discussing the origins, evolution and challenges of the territorial models in both cases, the analysis highlights the evolving practice of territorial reform in these political systems, notwithstanding the absence of a conscious federal teleology. The analysis shows that federalism—as an enhanced model of territorial accommodation—has much to offer both Spain and the UK, but hitherto remains a marginalized option for constitutional reform.
Chapter
Identifying and describing attitudes to immigration , let alone explaining them and their effects, is not a simple matter. In this chapter, we first outline the major scholarly works explaining attitudes to immigration. We identify six broad theoretical categories: economic interests, socialisation, psychological explanations, cueing, contact and context, and finally 'attitudinal embeddedness'. For each of these we present the key findings and consider the strengths and shortcomings of the literature, where applicable. We also sketch out existing research on the politics of immigration and the effects of attitudes to immigration on democratic politics, which we categorise as research on policy responsiveness, effects on party family support (notably the radical right), party competition, and polarisation. We end by considering future avenues for research.
Article
In this paper, we review the concept of collective narratives and their role in shaping group behaviour. We see collective narratives as ‘meta‐stories’ embraced by groups that incorporate values and beliefs about social reality, therefore providing a blueprint for group norms which, in turn, inform group members' behaviour. Our aim is to both describe the psychological processes underpinning the relation between collective narratives and group behaviours and develop an integrative typology of the functions of collective narratives (as they connect to various collective behaviours). We start by discussing definitions in the recent literature and propose an integrative conceptualisation which positions collective narratives in the context of collective action research. Next, we focus on the process by which collective narratives provide the bases for identity formation, development, and change, thus shaping group behaviour. We see collective narratives as central in understanding group behaviour, as they function as ‘meta‐stories’ that incorporate moral codes and values, and beliefs about the ingroups and outgroups—providing a blueprint for group norms which, in turn, inform group members' behaviour. In the second part of the article, we describe a typology of collective narratives according to their functions, structured around two core dimensions: the context/s in which collective narratives develop and are shared (i.e., intragroup vs. intergroup) and their effects within these contexts (i.e., driving consensus vs. driving dissent). We identify four distinctive types of collective narrative functions and review research showing how each of them shapes specific social identity content, including behaviour prescribing norms. We then show how these specific norms shape behaviours ranging from cooperation and pro‐social action to hostile intergroup conflict. The implications of this contribution are twofold. First, by providing a systematic account and categorisation of how collective narratives function in society and of their connections to social identities (and their content), we can more accurately deduct group norms and predict behaviours in specific circumstances, including in relation to political violence. Second, by better understanding the narratives that provide the bases of identity formation, development, and change, we can improve attempts to create alternative narratives that unify rather than divide people, so that pathways to co‐operation might be chosen over conflict.
Chapter
There are two conceptualizations of the European Union (EU) as federation. First, the EU is a normative project. Building a federal European entity remains a guiding theme of European integration. This teleological goal serves both as a hands-on political program and as an ultimate threat by EU-skeptics who insinuate an inevitable teleology of EU integration. However, empirically, a consistent federal state-building process can hardly be observed, albeit European integration has proceeded. The EU falls still short of key state features. This leads to the second, analytical notion of the EU as a federal polity beyond the state. The analytical definition enables us to compare the EU on key dimensions of federalism: federation/confederation, coming-together/holding-together federations as well as divided/integrated and coordinated/cooperative federalism. It is shown that the EU falls by-and-large between all categories. Comparative federalism conveys which type of specific federal system the EU represents and can, in addition, pinpoint which systematic weaknesses this specific system produces. Whereas the EU is a highly functional federal polity, normative questions about the prerequisites for democratic legitimacy of federal polities beyond the state persist. The EU is a prototype of a federal polity in action—rather than a federal state in the making.
Chapter
There is an extensive spectrum of literature among various disciplines that deals with the phenomenon of play. From these discussions it seems clear that play is a phenomenon with more than just one dimension: as a specific type of activity, as a form or structure, as an ontologically distinctive phenomenon, as a type of experience, or as a stance or an attitude in particular activity (Feezell, 2010). This paper focuses on the importance of the playful attitude in sport. It begins by providing an overview of the key literature and definitions of play and the notion of a playful attitude. Then, it considers and critically evaluates the relationship between play and sport and the importance of the playful attitude in sporting activities. Finally, it attempts a definition of the playful attitude and considers its relation to Suits’s lusory attitude and the concept of gamification.
Technical Report
Full-text available
Η παρούσα έκθεση πραγματεύεται τις ελληνικές στάσεις απέναντι στην ευρωπαϊκή ολοκλήρωση, με ιδιαίτερη έμφαση στην νεολαία. Από τη λεπτομερή ανάλυση πρωτογενών δεδομένων εντοπίστηκαν διακριτές διαφορές μεταξύ των γενεών, ανάμεσα στα άτομα ηλικίας κάτω και άνω των 35 ετών, τόσο στην εξέλιξη όσο και στους προσδιοριστικούς παράγοντες των στάσεων απέναντι στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση (ΕΕ). Πρώτον, οι νέοι Έλληνες είναι γενικά πιο θετικά διακείμενοι απέναντι στην ΕΕ και πιο αισιόδοξοι για το μέλλον της σε σύγκριση με τις ομάδες μεγαλύτερης ηλικίας. Η εθνική (ελληνική) τους ταυτότητα δεν έρχεται σε αντίθεση με την ευρωπαϊκή : και οι δύο συνυπάρχουν και είναι αμφότερα σημαντικές για το πώς οι νέοι αξιολογούν τις μελλοντικές προοπτικές τους. Αντιθέτως, ο βαθμός στον οποίο οι νέοι είναι ευχαριστημένοι συνολικά από τη ζωή τους στην Ελλάδα επηρεάζει, σε μεγάλο βαθμό, τον τρόπο που βλέπουν την ΕΕ. Δεύτερον, οι νέοι Έλληνες έχουν απόλυτη συνείδηση των ελλείψεων της ευρωπαϊκής ενοποίησης, όπως αυτές εκδηλώθηκαν στον χειρισμό της οικονομικής κρίσης. Συγκεκριμένα, θεωρούν ότι η ΕΕ έχει επωφεληθεί δυσανάλογα από την ελληνική ένταξη και όχι το αντίστροφο και είναι επικριτικοί για τον χειρισμό της κρίσης τόσο από τις ελληνικές κυβερνήσεις, όσο και από την ΕΕ. Τρίτον, μολαταύτα, οι νέοι στην Ελλάδα αρνούνται να συμμετάσχουν σε παιχνίδια απόδοσης ευθυνών για το ποιός έκανε τί και πότε. Αντιθέτως, επικεντρώνονται σε συγκεκριμένες δημόσιες πολιτικές, αναμένοντας ότι η ΕΕ θα συνεχίσει να βοηθά τη χώρα τους στο χειρισμό διεθνικών προβλημάτων, όπως η κλιματική αλλαγή και η μετανάστευση, και υποστηρίζοντας τις μεταρρυθμίσεις της ελληνικής δημόσιας διοίκησης σύμφωνα με τις βέλτιστες πρακτικές της ΕΕ. Τέταρτον, οι νέοι Έλληνες απέχουν πολύ από το εγωιστικό στερεότυπο της μεγιστοποίησης της ατομικής ωφέλειας. Η στάση τους προς την ΕΕ επηρεάζεται έντονα από αυτό που θεωρούν ότι είναι συμφέρον της χώρας και όχι από τις προσωπικές τους οικονομικές συνθήκες. Οι νέοι επίσης αποδέχονται εμφατικά την προσωπική ευθύνη για την αντιμετώπιση συλλογικών προβλημάτων. Τέλος, οι στάσεις για την ευρωπαϊκή ενοποίηση επηρεάζονται από πολύ συγκεκριμένους στόχους πολιτικής. Η υποστήριξη στην ΕΕ συμβαδίζει με θετικές στάσεις απέναντι στην ιδιωτική επιχείρηση, την επιχειρηματικότητα, τις πολιτικές υπέρ της ανάπτυξης, τη μείωση της ανισότητας και του αυταρχισμού. Εκείνοι που βλέπουν την κρίση ως ευκαιρία υποστηρίζουν την περαιτέρω ολοκλήρωση, έχοντας επίγνωση του γεγονότος ότι οι κρίσεις μας επιτρέπουν να επανεκτιμήσουμε λάθη του παρελθόντος και να χαράξουμε νέες προοπτικές για το μέλλον. Το κεντρικό συμπέρασμα της έκθεσης, οπως προκύπτει από τη διεξοδική ανάλυση πρωτογενών δεδομένων, είναι ότι οι καλές πολιτικές, και όχι μόνον η καλή πολιτική, αποτελεί τον αποτελεσματικότερο τρόπο για να εδραιωθεί η ευρωπαϊκή προοπτική της Ελλάδας.
Technical Report
Full-text available
Η παρούσα έκθεση πραγματεύεται τις ελληνικές στάσεις απέναντι στην ευρωπαϊκή ολοκλήρωση, με ιδιαίτερη έμφαση στη νεολαία. Από τη λε- πτομερή ανάλυση πρωτογενών δεδομένων εντοπίστηκαν διακριτές δια- φορές μεταξύ των γενεών, ανάμεσα στα άτομα ηλικίας κάτω και άνω των 35 ετών, τόσο στην εξέλιξη όσο και στους προσδιοριστικούς παράγοντες των στάσεων απέναντι στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση (ΕΕ). Πρώτον, οι νέοι Έλληνες είναι γενικά πιο θετικά διακείμενοι απέναντι στην ΕΕ και πιο αισιόδοξοι για το μέλλον της σε σύγκριση με τις ομάδες μεγαλύτερης ηλικίας. Η εθνική (ελληνική) τους ταυτότητα δεν έρχεται σε αντίθεση με την ευρωπαϊκή: και οι δύο συνυπάρχουν και είναι αμφότερα σημαντικές για το πώς οι νέοι αξιολογούν τις μελλοντικές προοπτικές τους. Αντιθέτως, ο βαθμός στον οποίο οι νέοι είναι ευχαριστημένοι συνολικά από τη ζωή τους στην Ελλάδα επηρεάζει, σε μεγάλο βαθμό, τον τρόπο που βλέπουν την ΕΕ. Δεύτερον, οι νέοι Έλληνες έχουν απόλυτη συνείδηση των ελλείψεων της ευρωπαϊκής ενοποίησης, όπως αυτές εκδηλώθηκαν στον χειρισμό της οικονομικής κρίσης. Συγκεκριμένα, θεωρούν ότι η ΕΕ έχει επωφεληθεί δυσανάλογα από την ελληνική ένταξη και όχι το αντίστροφο και είναι επικριτικοί για τον χειρισμό της κρίσης τόσο από τις ελληνικές κυβερνήσεις, όσο και από την ΕΕ. Τρίτον, μολαταύτα, οι νέοι στην Ελλάδα αρνούνται να συμμετάσχουν σε παιχνίδια απόδοσης ευθυνών για το ποιος έκανε τι και πότε. Αντιθέτως, επικεντρώνονται σε συγκεκριμένες δημόσιες πολιτικές, αναμένοντας ότι η ΕΕ θα συνεχίσει να βοηθά τη χώρα τους στον χειρισμό διεθνικών προ- βλημάτων, όπως η κλιματική αλλαγή και η μετανάστευση, και υποστηρί- ζοντας τις μεταρρυθμίσεις της ελληνικής δημόσιας διοίκησης σύμφωνα με τις βέλτιστες πρακτικές της ΕΕ. Τέταρτον, οι νέοι Έλληνες απέχουν πολύ από το εγωιστικό στερεότυπο της μεγιστοποίησης της ατομικής ωφέλειας. Η στάση τους προς την ΕΕ επηρεάζεται έντονα από αυτό που θεωρούν ότι είναι συμφέρον της χώρας και όχι από τις προσωπικές τους οικονομικές συνθήκες. Οι νέοι επίσης αποδέχονται εμφατικά την προσωπική ευθύνη για την αντιμετώπιση συλλογικών προβλημάτων. Τέλος, οι στάσεις για την ευρωπαϊκή ενοποίηση επηρεάζονται από πολύ συγκεκριμένους στόχους πολιτικής. Η υποστήριξη στην ΕΕ συμβαδίζει με θετικές στάσεις απέναντι στην ιδιωτική επιχείρηση, την επιχειρηματικότη- τα, τις πολιτικές υπέρ της ανάπτυξης, τη μείωση της ανισότητας και του αυταρχισμού. Εκείνοι που βλέπουν την κρίση ως ευκαιρία υποστηρίζουν την περαιτέρω ολοκλήρωση, έχοντας επίγνωση του γεγονότος ότι οι κρίσεις μας επιτρέπουν να επανεκτιμήσουμε λάθη του παρελθόντος και να χαράξουμε νέες προοπτικές για το μέλλον. Το κεντρικό συμπέρασμα της έκθεσης, όπως προκύπτει από τη διεξοδική ανάλυση πρωτογενών δεδομένων, είναι ότι οι καλές πολιτικές, και όχι μόνο η καλή πολιτική, αποτελεί τον αποτελεσματικότερο τρόπο για να εδραιωθεί η ευρωπαϊκή προοπτική της Ελλάδας.
Book
Full-text available
This book seeks out the origins of contemporary English nationalism. Whilst much academic and political attention has been given to England’s place within the United Kingdom since devolution, the author argues that recent English nationalism actually derives from Britain’s troubled relationship with European integration. Drawing on political evidence from the former Empire, the debates surrounding EEC accession and the United Kingdom’s ongoing membership in the European Union, the author identifies the foundations of contemporary English nationalism. In doing so, he adds an important corrective to the debate about nationalism in England, pulling our gaze out from the United Kingdom itself and onto a wider field. Far from being ‘absent’, English nationalism as we know it today has been driven by resistance to European integration since the end of Empire in the 1960s.
Article
Full-text available
This article analyses Britain’s quest to negotiate its future membership of the European Union (EU) through the lens of Liberal intergovernmentalism. The article demonstrates that despite the significant economic consequences of a potential Brexit, party political factors have hitherto proven more significant in defining the terrain of the debate than lobby group influence where a cross section of United Kingdom (UK) lobby groups are either actively or passively in favour of remaining within the EU ahead of the referendum.
Article
Full-text available
The Eurozone crisis has altered the party political landscape across Europe. The most visible effect is the rise of challenger parties. The crisis not only caused economic hardship, but also placed considerable fiscal constraints upon a number of national governments. Many voters have reacted to this by turning their back on the traditional parties and opting instead for new, or reinvigorated, challenger parties that reject the mainstream consensus of austerity and European integration. This article argues that both sanctioning and selection mechanisms can help to explain this flight from the centre to challenger parties. First, voters who were economically adversely affected by the crisis punish mainstream parties both in government and in opposition by voting for challenger parties. Second, the choice of specific challenger party is shaped by preferences on three issues that directly flow from the Euro crisis: EU integration, austerity and immigration. Analysing both aggregate-level and individual-level survey data from all 17 Western EU member states, this article finds strong support for both propositions and shows how the crisis has reshaped the nature of party competition in Europe.
Article
Full-text available
Public opinion is increasingly at the heart of both political and scholarly debates on European integration. This essay reviews the large literature on public support for, and opposition to, European integration, focusing on conceptualization, causes and consequences: What is public support for European integration? How can we explain variation in support and Euroskepticism? And, what are the consequences of public support for elections and policy-making in the European Union? The review reveals that while a growing literature has sought to explain individual support for European integration, more work is still needed to understand the ways in which opinions are shaped by their national context and how public contestation of the EU poses a challenge to, and an opportunity, for the future of the integration project.
Article
The 2014 European Parliament elections were held against the backdrop of the worst economic crisis in post-war Europe. The elections saw an unprecedented surge in support for Eurosceptic parties. This raises the question of whether the crisis, and the EU's response to it, can explain the rise of Eurosceptic parties. Our analysis of the 2014 European Election Study demonstrates that the degree to which individuals were adversely affected by the crisis and their discontent with the EU's handling of the crisis are major factors in explaining defection from mainstream pro-European to Eurosceptic parties in these elections. This suggests that far from being second-order national elections concerned only with domestic politics, European issues had a significant impact on vote choices.
Article
In Western European democracies opposition to the European Union is commonly found at the ideological extremes. Yet, the Euroscepticism of radical left-wing and radical right-wing parties has been shown to have distinct roots and manifestations. The article investigates whether these differences are mirrored at the citizen level. Using data from the European Election Study (2009/2014) and the European Social Survey (2008/2012) in 15 West European countries, it is found that left-wing and right-wing citizens not only differ in the object of their Euroscepticism, but also in their motivations for being sceptical of the EU. Left-wing Eurosceptics are dissatisfied with the current functioning of the EU, but do not oppose further European integration per se, while right-wing Eurosceptics categorically reject European integration. Euroscepticism among left-wing citizens is motivated by economic and cultural concerns, whereas for right-wing citizens Euroscepticism is solely anchored in cultural attitudes. These results refine the common ‘horseshoe’ understanding of ideology and Euroscepticism.
Article
This research note argues that much of the literature on support for European integration misses the heart of the nature of opposition to this process by ignoring the notion of perceived threat. Essentially, people are hostile toward the European project in great part because of their perceptions of threats posed by other cultures. I analyze this hypothesis by replicating a piece of research that previously appeared in this journal. adding measures of perceived threat to that model. The results support the main contention, which is that perceived cultural threat is an important factor that has been mistakenly ignored in explanations of hostility toward the European Union.