Where is the EU–UK relationship heading? A conjoint survey experiment of Brexit trade-offs

Abstract

The Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) is the start of a new relationship between the UK and the European Union (EU). As the consequences of Brexit unfold, there will be pressure to change the TCA, either in a “softer” or “harder” direction. To determine the potential medium-term direction of the EU–UK relationship, we conducted a conjoint survey experiment with a sample of British voters, where we asked them to choose between different hypothetical package deals. When faced with such choices, British citizens overall mostly support a softer relationship in which the UK applies EU regulatory standards in return for greater access to the single market. However, Leave voters most often support a much harder trade-off of full regulatory sovereignty but continued restrictions on UK exports.

Keywords

Brexit conjoint experiment external differentiation public opinion

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abramson

Kocak

Magazinnik

(2022) What do we learn about voter preferences from conjoint experiments? American Journal of Political Science. Forthcoming.

Auerbach AM and T Thachil (2018) How clients select brokers: Competition and choice in India’s slums. American Political Science Review 112(4): 775–791.

Bansak

Hainmueller

Hopkins

, et al. (2021a) Beyond the breaking point? Survey satisficing in conjoint experiments. Political Science Research and Methods 9(1): 53–71.

Bansak

Hainmueller

Hopkins

, et al. (2021b) Conjoint survey experiments. In: Druckman

Green

(eds) Advances in Experimental Political Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 19–41.

Becker

Fetzer

Novy

(2017) Who voted for Brexit? A comprehensive district-level analysis. Economic Policy 32(92): 601–650.

Carey

(2002) Undivided loyalties: Is national identity an obstacle to European integration? European Union Politics 3(4): 387–413.

Carl

Dennison

Evans

(2019) European but not European enough: An explanation for Brexit. European Union Politics 20(2): 282–304.

Crespi De Valldaura

Frommelt

Hix

, et al. (2021) External differentiated integration in the EU: A practitioner report, working paper, Integrating Diversity in the European Union project.

Curtice

(2017) Why leave won the UK’s EU referendum. Journal of Common Market Studies 55(S1): 19–37.

10.

De Vries

(2018) Euroscepticism and the Future of European Integration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

11.

DeBell

Krosnick

(2009) Computing weights for American National Election Study survey data. ANES Technical Report series, no. nes012427. Ann Arbor, MI, and Palo Alto, CA: American National Election Studies. Available at: http://www.electionstidies.orghttps://electionstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/nes012427.pdf.

12.

Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (2020) DCMS Sectors Economic Estimates 2019: gross value added. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/959053/DCMS_Sectors_Economic_Estimates_GVA_2018_V2.pdf.

13.

Duttle

Holzinger

Malang

, et al. (2017) Opting out from European Union legislation: The differentiation of secondary law. Journal of European Public Policy 24(3): 406–428.

14.

Eggers

Vivyan

Wagner

(2018) Corruption, accountability, and gender: Do female politicians face higher standards in public life? The Journal of Politics 80(1): 321–326.

15.

Engels

Huther

Schafer

, et al. (2013) Public climate change scepticism, energy preferences and political participation. Global Environmental Change 23(5): 1018–1027.

16.

Fisher

(2019) What kind of Brexit would honour the referendum. DeltaPoll blog post Available at: https://www.deltapoll.co.uk/steve-fisher-honour-brexit.

17.

Fossum

Vigrestad

(2021) Is the grass greener on the other side? Norwegians’ assessments of Brexit. Politics and Governance 9(1): 79–89.

18.

Gabel

(1998) Interests and Integration: Market Liberalization, Public Opinion and European Integration. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan University Press.

19.

Gabel

Hix

(2005) Understanding public support for British membership of the single currency. Political Studies 53(1): 65–81.

20.

Gärtner

(1997) Who wants the Euro – and why? Economic explanations of public attitudes towards a single European currency. Public Choice 93(3/4): 487–510.

21.

Goodwin

Heath

(2016) The 2016 referendum, Brexit and the left behind: An aggregate level analysis of the result. The Political Quarterly 87(3): 323–332.

22.

Hainmueller

Hangartner

Yamamoto

(2015) Validating vignette and conjoint survey experiments against real-world behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(8): 2395–2400.

23.

Hainmueller

Hopkins

(2015) The hidden American immigration consensus: A conjoint analysis of attitudes toward immigrants. American Journal of Political Science 59(3): 529–548.

24.

Hainmueller

Hopkins

Yamamoto

(2014) Causal inference in conjoint analysis: Understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Political Analysis 22(1): 1–30.

25.

Hakhverdian

Van Elsas

Van Der Brug

, et al. (2013) Euroscepticism and education: A longitudinal study of 12 EU member states. European Union Politics 14(4): 522–541.

26.

Hix

(2018) Brexit: Where is the EU-UK relationship heading. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 56(S1): 11–27.

27.

HM Government (2018) EU exit: Long-term economic analysis, November 2018, CM9742.

28.

Hobolt

(2016) The Brexit vote: A divided nation, a divided continent. Journal of European Public Policy 23(9): 1259–1277.

29.

Hobolt

De Vries

(2016) Public support for European integration. Annual Review of Political Science 19: 413–432.

30.

Hobolt

Leeper

Tilley

(2021) Divided by the vote: Affective polarization in the wake of the Brexit referendum. British Journal of Political Science 51(4): 1476–1493.

31.

Hobolt

Tilley

Leeper

(2020) Policy preferences and policy legitimacy after referendums: Evidence from the Brexit negotiations. Political Behavior 44: 839–858. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-020-09639-w.

32.

Hobolt

Wratil

(2015) Public opinion and the crisis: The dynamics of support for the Euro. Journal of European Public Policy 22(2): 238–256.

33.

Hooghe

Marks

(2005) Calculation, community and cues: Public opinion on European integration. European Union Politics 6(4): 419–443.

34.

Hutton

Shalchi

(2021) Financial services: Contribution to the UK economy. House of Commons Library Briefing Paper 6193, 1 February 2021.

35.

Incerti

(2020) Corruption information and vote share: A meta-analysis and lessons for experimental design. American Political Science Review 114(3): 761–774.

36.

Jack

Rutter

(2021) Managing the UK’s Relationship with the European Union. London: Institute for Government.

37.

Jones

(2019) The negotiations: Hampered by the UK’s weak strategy. European Journal of Legal Studies 11(2): 23–58.

38.

Leeper

(2020) Cregg: Simple conjoint analyses and visualization. R package version 0.3.6.

39.

Leruth

Lord

(eds) (2016) Differentiated Integration in the European Union. London: Routledge.

40.

Leuffen

Rittberger

Schimmelfennig

(2012) Differentiated Integration: Explaining Variation in the European Union. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

41.

Martill

(2021) Prisoners of their own device: Brexit as a failed negotiating strategy. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations. https://doi.org/10.1177/13691481211044645.

42.

McLaren

(2006) Identity, Interests and Attitudes to European Integration. London: Palgrave.

43.

Menon

Fowler

(2016) Hard or soft? The politics of Brexit. National Institute Economic Review 238(1): R4–R12.

44.

Renwick

Allan

Jennings

, et al. (2017) A considered public voice on Brexit: The report of the citizens’ assembly on Brexit. The Constitution Unit, UCL, London.

45.

Richards

Heath

Carl

(2018) Red lines and compromises: Mapping underlying complexities of Brexit preferences. The Political Quarterly 89(2): 280–290.

46.

Rohrschneider R (2002) The democracy deficit and mass support for an EU-wide government. American Journal of Political Science 46(2): 463–475.

47.

Rolfe

Katwala

Ballinger

(2021) Immigration: A Changing Debate – Analysis of New Findings From the Ipsos MORI Immigration Attitudes Tracker Survey. London: British Future.

48.

Sánchez-Cuenca I (2020) The political basis of support for European integration. European Union Politics 1(2): 147–171.

49.

Schimmelfennig

Leuffen

De Vries

(2023) Differentiated integration in the European Union: Institutional effects, public opinion, and alternative flexibility arrangements. European Union Politics 24(1): 3–20.

50.

Schimmelfennig

Winzen

(2014) Instrumental and constitutional differentiation in the European Union. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 52(2): 354–370.

51.

Schimmelfennig

Winzen

(2020) Ever Looser Union? Differentiated European Integration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

52.

Sky News (2016) Remain lead falters outside Scotland and London. 13 June 2016. Available at: https://news.sky.com/story/remain-lead-falters-outside-scotland-and-london-10313000.

53.

Stubb

(1996) A categorization of differentiated integration. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 34(2): 283–295.

54.

Sturgis

Nick

Mario

, et al. (2016) Report of the inquiry into the 2015 British General Election Opinion Polls. MRS/British Polling Council/NCRM, London. Available at: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/390588/1/Report_final_revised.pdf.

55.

Tucker

Pacek

Berinsky

(2002) Transitional winners and losers: Attitudes toward EU membership in post-communist countries. American Journal of Political Science 46(3): 557–571.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

2.20 MB