Abstract
This article proposes a decision model of the British support for leaving the European Union (EU) that includes both identity aspirations, attitudes towards the political system and economic interest and test it on the Understanding Society 6th, 7th and 8th surveys. Current studies tend to interpret the British Euroscepticism as a combination of attachment to British identity, lack of economic opportunities and dissatisfaction with the political class. Using this approach where factors are additive, it is not possible to account for the substantial portion of socio-economically advantaged individuals which prefer to leave the EU, and for those who, despite their low attachment to their British identity, the relatively high educational level and satisfaction with domestic democracy, prefer to leave the EU. I use a theoretical approach which considers both economic and cultural considerations as rational considerations and conceptualise their interaction in terms of trade off. I use classification tree analysis to evaluate the relative importance of the main explanatory factors and of their interaction. The results show that the negative evaluation of the political system makes certain groups, which otherwise tend to support European integration, lean towards Euroscepticism. It helps to explain the Euroscepticism of those who are less attached to their British identity and of advantaged classes. The results have also showed that anti-establishment attitudes are not associated with disadvantaged socio-economic groups. The dissatisfaction with domestic democracy is relevant mostly for the advantaged classes, and the lack of political efficacy affects equally the attitudes of advantaged and disadvantaged groups. Last, disadvantaged groups’ support for European integration is driven by identity aspirations not by economic interest.
Highlights
This article analyses the individual and motivational drivers of the support for the departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union (EU) using data from Understanding Society, which in 2016 – the year of the EU referendum – asked the survey members a question about the British membership to the EU. 72.2 percent of British voters participated in the referendum and decided with a slight majority (51.9%) to leave the EU
The results show that the negative evaluation of the political system makes certain groups, which otherwise tend to support European integration, lean towards Euroscepticism
The utilitarian, rational-choice approach to explaining the support for leave argues that Euroscepticism and the outcome of Brexit are the consequence of economic grievances among the losers of globalisation and economic integration, who found themselves competing with migrant workers from eastern Europe and with companies using cheaper labour in developing countries
Summary
This article analyses the individual and motivational drivers of the support for the departure of the United Kingdom from the EU using data from Understanding Society, which in 2016 – the year of the EU referendum – asked the survey members a question about the British membership to the EU. 72.2 percent of British voters participated in the referendum and decided with a slight majority (51.9%) to leave the EU. The existing empirical studies on Brexit and support for EU across Europe have used various theories to analyse the support for the EU, yet none has developed an analysis based on rational behaviour. The utilitarian, rational-choice approach to explaining the support for leave argues that Euroscepticism and the outcome of Brexit are the consequence of economic grievances among the losers of globalisation and economic integration, who found themselves competing with migrant workers from eastern Europe and with companies using cheaper labour in developing countries. A second type of cultural explanation is that the attitude towards European integration is driven by the strategy of punishing or confirming the political establishment which during the Brexit referendum in general backed ‘Remain’ (Abrams, 2018; Fox, 2020; Franklin, 2002; Franklin et al, 1994, 1995; Hobolt, 2009; Hug, 2002; Iakhnis et al, 2018; Reif and Schmitt, 1980)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
