theguardian.com
Majority of Leave Voters Now Favor Free Movement for Single Market Access
A new study reveals that 54% of Britons who voted Leave would now accept free movement of people in exchange for access to the EU's single market, reflecting a shift in public opinion since the 2016 referendum.
- How has the post-2016 net migration affected British public opinion on Brexit and free movement?
- The change in public opinion reflects a reassessment of Brexit's impact, particularly regarding immigration. The post-2016 surge in net migration lessened the appeal of Brexit's anti-immigration stance for some of its initial supporters. This shift is reflected across party lines, with majorities in every party except Reform UK favoring the compromise.
- What percentage of Britons who voted Leave would now accept free movement in exchange for single market access?
- A majority of Britons who voted to leave the EU (54%) now favor re-joining the single market, even if it means accepting free movement of people. This shift is particularly pronounced among voters in traditionally pro-Brexit "red wall" constituencies (59%). Among all UK voters, 68% support free movement for single market access.
- Given the disparity between public opinion and government policy, what are the potential political consequences and policy shifts in the UK and EU regarding closer ties?
- This significant shift in British public opinion presents a critical opportunity for a reassessment of UK-EU relations. The current government's reluctance to pursue closer ties contrasts sharply with public sentiment, suggesting a potential political realignment in response to the evolving geopolitical landscape. The UK and EU could strengthen their positions against global challenges by acting quickly on this opening.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The headline and introduction emphasize the surprising shift in public opinion towards closer EU-UK ties, particularly among Leave voters. This framing prioritizes the shift in public opinion, potentially overshadowing other important aspects of the report's findings, such as the significant differences between public and governmental stances. The repeated emphasis on the desire for closer ties among Britons could also sway reader interpretation towards viewing the case for closer cooperation as more compelling than perhaps warranted by the full range of findings in the report.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral, but phrases such as "remarkable consensus" and "strongest enthusiasm" show a degree of positive framing. These could be replaced with more neutral phrases such as "widespread agreement" and "significant support", respectively. The use of terms like 'red wall seats' might not be easily understood by all readers. The use of 'go big and go fast' presents a stronger tone than other findings might otherwise suggest.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on public opinion but doesn't delve into the potential economic or political ramifications of closer EU-UK ties. Counterarguments from those who oppose closer relations are largely absent, potentially creating an unbalanced view. The lack of detail on the potential drawbacks of a renewed relationship is a notable omission.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the choice as solely between closer ties and distant ties with the EU, overlooking the possibility of maintaining the status quo or exploring alternative levels of cooperation. This simplification ignores the complexities and nuances of potential future UK-EU relations.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights a shift in public opinion in both the UK and the EU favoring closer ties. This suggests a potential for increased cooperation on security matters, contributing to stronger institutions and a more stable geopolitical environment. The desire for closer collaboration to counter the influence of the US and China also reflects a pursuit of a more multipolar and less conflict-prone global order.