Well thought out piece in my view.
A week before the European referendum I sat on a terrace with a friend and, as the sun went down literally and metaphorically, tried hard to persuade him not to vote Leave. I did not succeed. Yes, he said, he agreed that leaving wasn’t a great idea, but he was sure that if we voted to depart, we wouldn’t actually have to go. Brussels would give us a fresh deal to stay in, he insisted. A better one than David Cameron had got. no they won’t, I replied. And, of course, I was right. Although fat lot of good it did me. But there were millions of people who voted like my friend did, fondly imagining all sorts of different outcomes that will not happen and having all sorts of hopes that will be dashed. So surely if we had another referendum, people like my friend would leave Leave, and Remain would win? I’m not so sure. I think it’s quite possible that if we had another vote, Leave would get a bigger majority than it did last time. I’m not in favour of holding a second vote but there is clearly a serious push for one. So let’s try to work out what could happen.
The argument that the British people would reverse their decision is reasonably strong. Leave was a coalition of different views and any deal on our future trading relationship with Europe would disappoint some of them. During the first vote, for example, some Leave voters wanted us to stay in the European single market, while others regarded the single market and its reliance on the rulings of the European Court of Justice as the heart of the problem with the EU. A deal could send these voters in different directions. The powerful Leave argument about taxpayers’ money being “sent to Brussels” would be blunted by the proposal to continue sending such money for years. And, just as Leave relied in the first vote on a misunderstanding about how much of that money could really be spent on things like the NHS, so, in a second vote, Remain could rely on a misunderstanding that there was a “divorce bill”.
In 2016 Leave voters were much more motivated than Remain ones and, so analysts suggest, turned out to vote in greater numbers. It could well be that the shock of that result for Remainers may make next time different. Would more young people vote? Perhaps Jeremy Corbyn would feel he should campaign more enthusiastically this time, bringing out more Labour voters for staying in. And finally, Remain would have a second chance to land the argument it failed to land last time. Having at least the outlines of a deal to point to, there is a chance that people will find more persuasive the argument that Brexit would be economically damaging.
Yet there are three big arguments that could help Leave and outweigh any of these points. The first concerns the deal that another vote could be fought on. One of the biggest advantages that Remain had in the first referendum was that Leave wasn’t sure what alternative it was really offering. This meant that Remain was able to offer the status quo against uncertainty. This is always a powerful (if not decisive) factor. In a second referendum that advantage would be removed. Leave would be able to offer greater clarity about what life would look like after leaving the EU while, perhaps, arguing the real uncertainty lay in trying to stay in. Which was the status quo and which the risky leap into the unknown may be much less clear to voters.
Naturally, big business would argue that the new deal was not as good as current trading terms and that it would damage the economy. But that would rely on exactly the same forecasts that Remain used last time — “Project Fear” — and which failed to convince Leave voters then.
Indeed, since some Remain forecasting about the immediate consequences was unduly pessimistic (there has been economic harm but no recession, for instance) it may prover even harder next time to make the argument on the basis of such assessments. So the deal may not have the political impact that the Remainers imagine. The next big thing that could help Leave in a second referendum is the support of the government. Having negotiated a deal, it would be only human nature if Theresa May decided that it was a good one and recommended it.
During the first referendum, the majority of Conservative MPs and the most senior members of the cabinet supported remaining in the EU. Depending, of course, on the outcome of negotiations, this could be reversed next time. The prime minister might not be very popular, and she may even put some people off, but the authority of her office should not be underestimated. The support of 10 Downing Street could make leaving appear less risky. It is hard to think of any leading Leave advocates who have changed their minds since the vote in 2016. Contrast that with the change of heart of several leading Remain advocates, such as Jeremy Hunt, who have indicated they may support a Leave vote next time — however baffling and dispiriting I regard their defection. The assumption that Leavers are the only people who will have second thoughts is wrong. There is one more reason to think Leave’s vote share could go up rather than down in a second ballot and it is the most important one. It has to do with attitudes to “the establishment”. If voters believed that a second referendum was being held just because politicians didn’t fancy doing what they were told to do by the first one, it could provoke a reaction that increased support for leaving.
Much qualitative research shows that among Remain voters there is a fairly substantial group who, while regretting the result, strongly believe that it was morally binding. They could be angry about a second referendum and express it by voting for Leave. Appealing to this sentiment may be one of the most powerful aspects of a second Leave campaign. Remainers will want to rely on strong, consistent support for having a second ballot so they can avoid a backlash among their own voters. As yet, however, opinion polls vary depending on how you put the question. For those of us convinced that the first referendum produced the wrong answer, it may be hard to accept that a second referendum could repeat the error. But I very much fear it could.
daniel.finkelstein@thetimes.co.uk