Even Lib Dems Back Brexit Now
Much has been made of a poll of 2,000 people conducted in late July through More in Common at the request of the Sunday Times, who led with ‘Only 29% would back Brexit now‘. Many column inches across the usual journalistic outlets have since pushed this story, jumping on the opportunity to yet again try to sell the narrative that the UK voter has changed his or her opinion and wants to now rejoin the EU.
Thankfully and somewhat coincidentally there was another larger poll already being conducted as this story broke over the weekend, which saw through the potential bias and took a different approach – with frankly quite surprising results.
The YouGov poll of just over 4,500 British adults in Great Britain, conducted on behalf of researchers at Queen Mary University of London (QMUL), removed the trigger words of ‘Brexit’ and ‘EU’ completely from its questioning – on the knowledge that the use of such terms would cause some respondents to align with their hardened binary positions. Instead it focused on where the British voter believes decision making powers should reside. The poll took 20 areas of legislative competence that, when the UK was an EU member, sat either fully or in part within the remit of the EU – areas that are either hot topics such as international trade and AI or are traditionally areas of strong feeling within the UK such as animal rights and fishing. With each of these areas of legislative competency, it asked the respondent to put aside his or her feelings regarding the current Government and consider where he or she thought those decisions ought to be made. Should the UK government have complete independence when making decisions in these areas, or should it look to other governments or bodies around the globe to provide instruction on what the UK should do?
The poll results are fascinating, both at a high level and when drilling down into the responses when broken down into party affiliation.
The most popular answer, for all 20 legislative competency areas, was that the “UK government alone” should decide on the laws and policies that govern them. For 17 of the 20 this was not just the most popular answer but also received an overall majority – without any removal of the “don’t know” responses. For Conservative supporters, all 20 competencies received majority support for the UK being alone in the decision-making process, while Reform UK supporters also gave majority support for 19 of the 20. Labour supporters also came in at a very healthy 15 of the 20, with even the Green Party supporters showing majority support in 11 of the 20 competencies.
The real surprise, however, was the level of support for legislative independence emanating from Liberal Democrat supporters, who gave majority support for going it alone in a massive 16 of the 20 areas. This goes completely against the narrative that Liberal Democrat voters wish to rejoin the EU, as the polling suggests they do not wish these legislative competencies to be returned in full or in part to EU institutions (or, heaven forbid, they ‘didn’t know what they were voting for’ in 2016). For this information to come out on the same day as an opinion piece from Lib Dem leader Ed Davey yet again espousing that the UK should rejoin the EU must be quite awkward for the leader and his team.
Time and time again, we see pro-EU outlets and activists attempting to load the dice and convince the British public that they have changed their minds on UK sovereignty and leaving the EU. The actual data continue to say the opposite, and I applaud the efforts of those still wishing to pursue the truth such as the researchers at QMUL who commissioned this polling – who no doubt would have still published the findings even if they revealed that the pro-EU activists were right. Thankfully we do not live in that delusion and can read the data for ourselves.
Gully Foyle is an outspoken pro-Brexit commentator on social media, and the author of the soon-to-be released book 75 Brexit Benefits: Tangible Benefits from the UK Having Left the EU. You can follow him on X.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I do not know who at Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) commissioned the research but I have attended meetings there and spoken to senior academic staff all of whom were fierce Europhiles. Either this research got through the net by accident or QMUL will be surprised and embarassed among their peers for producing this result.
I think we can safely assume it will not be reported by the BBC or the MSM generally.
Certainly surprising that such a non-loaded poll could emanate from anywhere in British academia.
Perhaps someone was not paying attention, and didn’t spot the severe risk of truth and honesty breaking out!
Heads may roll.
Wanting to have national control, yet still be in the European Union, is typical of the non-thinking liberal left thinkers of our time.
I’m not surprised. It’s like spending all our money on welfare, particularly on foreigners, and NET Zero policies, yet still pining for an enormous sovereign wealth fund, to be spent in a similar manner, no doubt. Then there’s our most intelligent section of school leavers studying for useless degrees, then wondering why they can’t get a well paid job. The list is endless.
I’m not really surprised at this at all, just surprised we found out.
Should the UK government have complete independence when making decisions in these areas, or should it look to other governments or bodies around the globe to provide instruction on what the UK should do? This is a false dichotomy worded in a loaded way in order to make people chose the first instead of the second option. While the UK was in the EU, it participated in EU legislative decisions in four ways: The prime minister was part of the EU council creating general directives about future EU legislation. The UK had a commissioner in the EU commission responsible for creating policy proposal from these directives. UK members of the European Parliament where among the EU MPs voting on such proposals. Either a UK minister or the prime minister was part of the council also voting on such proposals. The question would thus be more appropriately worded as Should the UK always go alone in these ares or should it coordinate with the governments of other European states in order to create EU-wide solutions in line with the interests of the UK? And I strongly suspect a lot of people who objected to the notion that the government of the… Read more »
I agree with your re-wording of the question as being less loaded. However, the issue would still remain of how much influence the UK would have over its European counterparts and thus how much it could shape any coordinated approach. Finding a straightforward question that considered that aspect would be tricky.
“… how much influence the UK would have over its European counterparts…”
None! We know that. The Germans and French – the Motor of Europe – always have had pre-meetings before important decisions to make sure things went they way they wanted.
The Germans and French via the European Commission decided what regulations would be promulgated to their best advantage.
European Commissioners are mostly former political hacks, booted out by their own electorates, or failures who are corrupt and do what the people who got them their high paid jobs – the Motor of Europe – get what it wants.
That’s the obvious drawback of such an arrangment: The other national governments also have their own interests and will also try to get as much out of anything as they can. This is especially true in the area of EU funds: The UK used to be one of the six countries which paid more into the EU as they got out of it. Most EU members get much more money from the EU than they have to pay to the EU. Yet, all have the same voting rights.
Alberta, and the other western provinces. wanting to develop their natural resources, like Oil and Timber, have been blocked by Ottawa for years. They are in the process of trying to go their own way, realising that Mark Carney, the surprise winner of the last general election, and NET Zero fanatic while at the Bank of England, won’t be changing national policy while he’s in charge.
It looks like a rerun of Brexit, with North American trappings. There’s a difference between consultation and then being ignored’, and being in charge and responsible.
Much you know.
“UK members of the European Parliament where among the EU MPs voting on such proposals.”
They can vote as much as they like but to no effect.
The European Parliament can neither promulgate legislation nor revise or veto it. It is, as our American cousins would say, just a hood-ornament, decorative but of no practical use. It’s a pretence that the EU is democratic.
”This is a false dichotomy worded in a loaded way in order to make people choose the first instead of the second option.”
That was the choice: we are self-governing or we submit to what foreigners want.
We don’t want EU-wide solutions, we want British solutions relevant to us, it’s about what serves OUR interests not those of Italians, Greeks or French… the EU is a Treaty, a piece of paper, not a Country of which we are part. Councils of Ministers are not accountable to, voted in by or under the control of the British electorate.
The further away government is from the people, the less well it can serve them; the less well it will serve them.
That was the choice: we are self-governing or we submit to what foreigners want.
That wasn’t the choice. Former UK governments may have “submitted to what foreigners wanted¹” but they always did so because they voluntarily decided to do so. Eg, during all of the time of its EU membership, the UK never paid its theoretical EU dues. All British governments during this time always insisted that they simply wouldn’t. And hence, none of them ever did.
¹ Thank God that Starmers Chagos deal and Johnsons resistance to WHO pandemic policies prove that this shameful practice has finally ended!
Completely wrong.
The EU Commission, made up of pro-EU politicians given that anybody not on board with the creation of the EU superstate would not be allowed to be a commissioner, are the ones who decide the EU Directives and the overall direction of travel of the EU. The EU Council while appearing to be at the top of the tree is merely there to sign off on the directives from the Commission. The EU parliament is there to provide a pretence of democracy and while they can vote on Directives they have no power to change them. The Parliament may make proposals on legislation to the Commission but there is no guarantee of accetance.
Potential members of the EU commission are nominated by the national governments of the member states and get appointed if the EU parliament agrees. They’re usually party politicians some national government wanted to get rid off because they proved to be too much of disaster to trust them with positions of actual decision making power over anything. That’s how Ursula v. d. Leyen came to be head of the EU commission: She f***ed up so hard in every ministerial post she ever had in the German government that she was complimented into her present position as head-of-office of a bunch of pencil pushers with no authority over anything. That that’s absolutely not what your (US) keyword providers want you to believe doesn’t change it. The EU is no superstate but a confederation of states and nothing happens EU-wide without consent of the national governments. This goes to the point that right-leaning national governments like that of Hungary have simply refused to implement certain EU-decisions on migration and while there has been a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth about this from the governnents of others member states, nothing else ever happened because the EU is a paper tiger¹ incapable… Read more »
If the EU-wide solutions weren’t in line with the interests of the UK we still had to implement them …. even if they were actively detrimental to the interests of the UK. That’s what Qualitative Majority Voting required. We no longer had a veto.
THAT’s the point.
EUexit was not about money, it was all about Freedom
From six years ago:
https://youtu.be/j6n6_EUOvp8?si=vY46v1pOHDYF3AsB
‘This goes completely against the narrative that Liberal Democrat voters wish to rejoin the EU, as the polling suggests they do not wish these legislative competencies to be returned in full or in part to EU institutions (or, heaven forbid, they ‘didn’t know what they were voting for’ in 2016).’
My money is on the explanation in brackets. Certainly that would be suggested by my few conversations with known LibDem voters in the weeks and months immediately after the 2016 referendum. I doubt that anything has changed.
I suspect many LDs have trouble working out the time of day, not that I am biassed in any way, of course
Take away the emotional trigger created by the word Brexit, and the EU and peoples beliefs change radically.
It shows a certain shallowness and lack of critical thinking, who knew?
It also shows, I believe, that most people don’t have a grasp of certain realities, their ideas and opinions are shaped for them, they are mere automatons lacking reasoning powers and replacing them with knee jerk responses.
There was never a rational discussion of the pro’s and con’s of staying in the EU or leaving, and both sides were equally guilty.
We see the same process happening in our area’s such as climate, Ukraine, Vaccines and others, but now only one side is allowed an opinion, the opposing views are silenced, shunned or dismissed as far-right extremists.
For many people brexit was simply about the ease of getting to France for holiday. I don’t think their imaginations extended to such difficult topics as sovereignty and regulation.
Certainly the mention of adopting the Euro and cost of membership would be great deterrents.
And mentions of Common Agricultural Policy and Fishing quota’s just resulted in bemused looks and confusion.
The EEC begat EU was a vehicle to ensure Franco-German hegemony of Europe (not so much the Franco bit nowadays), using a protectionist Customs Union to make Europe strong, keeping profits of favoured producers high (at consumer expense) by keeping foreign competition out – particularly the USA and Asian Tiger economies.
By “harmonisation” it has destroyed competition internally, with the result technological development has all but stopped, and innovation just isn’t possible. The economic situation demonstrates this.
The goal has always been a centrally ruled pan-European State/Empire of regions replacing individual Nations, reaching from Arctic Sea in the North to Mediterranean in the South, Atlantic Coast in the West to the North Pacific in the East. Both France and Germany have long had designs on Russia.
Only deluded fools and grifters would want to be part of that.
As for the poll. Despite the claims that the Brexit vote was nasty racists and xénophobes, time and time again “ordinary” people talked about voting to take back sovereignty.
You are confusing the Customs Union with the Common Regulatory Area.