2 ms·
I genuinely wonder what the result would have been if the options were 1: Explicit no-opinion, 2: EEA membership. 3: Complete exit, WTO rules. 4: Status quo. 5:
by DaiPlusPlus 9y ago
I genuinely wonder what the result would have been if the options were 1: Explicit no-opinion, 2: EEA membership. 3: Complete exit, WTO rules. 4: Status quo. 5: Even greater EU federalism.
I imagine the 3rd option (UKIP's favourite) would be the least popular and the EEA option "soft brexit" as the winner - which I feel better reflects voter sentiment... and voter ignorance: as EEA members still pay money to Brussels and are subject to regulation on goods and immigration. At least it would have made it clear to everyone in Whitehall that "hard brexit" was/is unconscienceable.
- viridian 9y agoI'd actually bet the opposite. I think if you only gave people one vote, it's pretty much guaranteed that you'd see 3 then 2 for popularity. More options without introducing rank would be the greatest gift you could give UKIP, whereas you'd lose the majority of remain (ie #4) votes to the flanking opinions of #2 for those wanting greater independence, and #5 for people who are more EU aligned. Thinking that most leave voters would go #2 only makes sense if you are thinking of the vote in the context of right now, not a year ago, when everything was more politically charged. I'd actually bet that had you suggested this a year ago, the people on the remain side would be loudly objecting to it, rather than the other way around.
- abandonliberty 9y agoBased on results it appears that many struggled to understand the two options already on the table. I suspect most people sufficiently informed about all the options would have voted 'No' already, as with that knowledge would come understanding of the risks voting 'Yes' would entail. Are you trying to solve an ignorance/emotional/populist problem with logic?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]