DOCSLIB.ORG

Understanding the Leave Vote

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Understanding the Leave Vote Understanding the Leave vote Author: Kirby Swales Acknowledgements: Thank you to the following people who assisted in the production of this report: Allison Dunatchik, Anne Summers, Curtis Jessop, Ian Simpson, John Curtice, Leigh Marshall, Martin Wood, Matt Jonas and Sean Willmott. With thanks also to UK and a Changing Europe and ESRC for funding this project. NatCen Social Research 35 Northampton Square London EC1V 0AX Tel. 020 7250 1866 Fax. 020 7250 1524 E-mail: [email protected] www.natcen.ac.uk Cover photo: BTN/LMUG photowalk. 2012. © Flickr/Betsy Weber Contents 1 Summary 2 2 Introduction 3 Data sources 3 3 Background 4 The rise of Euroscepticism 4 What tipped the balance? 5 4 The demographics of the vote 7 Objective characteristics 7 Subjective characteristics 7 5 The policy issues at stake 13 Which issues were most important in the Referendum? 13 Did views on the EU vote match wider policy concerns? 14 The EU vote in the context of general political attitudes 15 6 The politics of the vote 19 The role of ‘new’ voters 19 Understanding turnout 19 How did political allegiance influence the vote? 20 Did the public know where MPs stood? 21 7 Segmenting the population 25 8 Conclusions 27 Notes and references 28 NatCen Social Research: Understanding the Leave vote 1 1 Summary Identity politics played a role The Leave victory was not about objective demographics alone. Matters of identity were equally, if not more strongly, associated with the Leave vote – particularly feelings of national identity and sense of change over time. Voters not persuaded by arguments about economic risks The Leave campaign resonated more strongly with the public. There was a greater sense of certainty about what impact leaving the EU would have on immigration and independence. People were less persuaded by the Remain campaign’s focus on the economic risks. ‘New voters’ leant towards Leave The Referendum attracted a group of ‘new voters’ who did not participate in the 2015 General Election. A majority (60%) of this group voted Leave. The vote split across traditional party lines The Referendum was not decided along typical party political lines. It is clear that Conservative supporters rejected the position of their party leader, David Cameron. However, the position of Conservative MPs was better understood by the public than that of their Labour counterparts. Conventional left-right politics do not help explain the Referendum vote. The public splits across party lines and people’s broader social values were more helpful at explaining the result. Turnout favoured Leave Turnout played a potentially decisive role. Those who said they leant towards Remain in the run- up to the Referendum were more likely to not vote (19% vs. 11% of Leave supporters). If turnout among supporters of both sides had been equal the vote would have been closer still. Leave brought together a broad coalition of voters The Leave campaign’s success was underpinned by a broad-based coalition of voters which is much more wide-ranging than the ‘left behind’. This included three main groups; affluent Eurosceptics, the older working class and a smaller group of economically disadvantaged, anti- Immigration voters. 2 NatCen Social Research: Understanding the Leave vote 2 Introduction What were the ‘real’ reasons behind the Brexit vote? It is one of the most pressing questions Data sources of our times and the level of comment and This report is based on a synthesis of evidence analysis has already been significant. The from three of the highest quality sources of answer matters because interpretations will data available on the EU Referendum. Data guide policy responses. Most obviously, it from other relevant sources and reports is also helps inform the type of relationship with the referenced where relevant. European Union that would be acceptable to public opinion as part of the eventual Brexit deal. Beyond this, what are the broader implications – for example, should it be British Social Attitudes interpreted as a call for more focus on tackling poverty, or income inequality, or for increasing British Social Attitudes is the longest running community cohesion? study of political, social and moral attitudes in Britain. The study is an annual cross-sectional The UK Government is already signalling a study using a sample of around 3,000 adults, major change in policy direction, in an attempt selected using a random probability method. to tackle what they believe to be the underlying The survey tracks attitudes to the EU and reasons for the Leave vote. In particular, relevant policy issues all the way back to 1983. Theresa May has stated that her Government will be focussed on supporting the ‘JAMs’ (just www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk about managing) and will be less driven by the needs of big business. The election of Donald Trump in the US has further reinforced a sense NatCen Panel Pre- and Post- of changing political times, and that these Referendum surveys results represent a shock to the political order. There are a number of important European The NatCen Panel is a research panel of elections in the coming year, which could also nearly 4,000 people in Britain, recruited via see a similar phenomenon. the British Social Attitudes survey, using a random probability sampling method. Those Social and political science has an important taking part receive invitations to take part in role to play in helping politicians and others surveys around once every two months.Two understand the vote to leave the EU, by surveys about the EU Referendum have been bringing evidence, analysis and theory to carried out using the panel; one just before bear. The purpose of this report is to provide a the Referendum, in May/Junea, and the other high-level overview of the main findings from afterwards in September. an analysis of the latest and highest quality data. We hope that it will stimulate debate, www.natcen.ac.uk/probability-panel discussion and further research. We use three main data sources, described below. This report, and the accompanying table annex British Election Study Internet Panel and discussion event, have been produced as part of the UK in Changing Europe initiative. The British Election Study Internet Panel is a We are very grateful to the ESRC for their panel of around 30,000 individuals. The panel support. was recruited using quota sampling methods, via YouGov’s self-selecting online panel. The panel study asks the same questions at key points over the electoral cycle so the evolution of voter attitudes can be tracked over time. www.britishelectionstudy.com NatCen Social Research: Understanding the Leave vote 3 3 Background This was not the first time the public had been The rise of Euroscepticism asked for their views on Britain’s relationship with Europe. The previous Referendum in On 23rd June 2016, the United Kingdom voted 1975 was called by the Labour Party, which to leave the European Union with 17.4 million was internally divided on the benefits of the people voting Leave and 16.1 million voting Conservative Government’s decision to join Remain (equivalent to 51.9% and 48.1%). The the European Economic Community (EEC) Referendum was called by a Conservative in 1973. The Referendum asked the public to Prime Minister in response to pressure from a vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to remaining in the EEC. In the strong Eurosceptic movement within his own event, Yes won with 67% of the vote, though party and the potential political threat from it should be noted that the vast majority of the the rise of the UK Independence Party. The media and political establishment supported Government was pro-Remain but it allowed remaining within the EEC.b senior members of the party to campaign for the Leave side. Figure 1. Long-term rise in Euroscepticism Leave the EU Stay in EU but reduce its powers 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2008 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Euro introduced UK votes leave in Referendum European Social Great recession EU bans export Charter signed begins, followed by of British beef Eurozone debt crisis Schengen agreement David Cameron introduced Ten new countries in promises renegotiation Eastern and Central and a referendum Maastricht treaty Europe join the EU Base: British Social Attitudes 1993-2015, expt. 1992 British Election Study 4 NatCen Social Research: Understanding the Leave vote Between 1975 and 2016, we have seen many against Europe, the majority clearly felt that, events in the history of British-European on balance, remaining in the EU was the best relations. NatCen has been tracking overall course of action. attitudes to the European Union since 1993 (see Figure 1).1 The core anti-European vote remained stable during the 1990s and early 2000s but rose steeply afterwards, doubling What tipped the balance? from 15% to 30% between 2006 and 2012. On the face of it, people were weighing up Alongside this, there has been a long-term rise the arguments and policies of the respective in more general scepticism about the EU. campaigns. For the Leave campaign, the key By 2015 there was clear evidence that the UK messages were mainly about ‘taking back was in a Eurosceptic mood, with two thirds control’ of borders, law-making, and the money opposed to the UK’s existing relationship Britain contributes to the EU budget. For the with the EU. Twenty two per cent said that Remain side, the main arguments were about we should leave the EU and 43% wanted a the economic benefits of membership and reduction in EU powers.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Report of an Investigation in Respect Of
    Report of an investigation in respect of - Vote Leave Limited - Mr Darren Grimes - BeLeave - Veterans for Britain Concerning campaign funding and spending for the 2016 referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU 17 July 2018 1 Other formats For information on obtaining this publication in a large-print or Braille version, please contact the Electoral Commission. Tel: 020 7271 0500 Email: [email protected] The Electoral Commission is the independent body which oversees elections and regulates political finance in the UK. We work to promote public confidence in the democratic process and ensure its integrity. 2 Contents 1 Introduction..................................................................................................... 4 2 The decision to investigate ............................................................................. 9 3 The investigation .......................................................................................... 12 4 The investigation findings ............................................................................. 16 Joint spending by Vote Leave and BeLeave ................................................... 16 Vote Leave’s spending limit ............................................................................. 21 Other issues with Vote Leave’s spending return ............................................. 24 BeLeave’s spending ........................................................................................ 25 Mr Grimes’ spending return ............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Brexit: Where Is the EU–UK Relationship Heading?
    Simon Hix Brexit: where is the EU–UK relationship heading? Article (Accepted version) (Refereed) Original citation: Hix, Simon (2018) Brexit: where is the EU–UK relationship heading? Journal of Common Market Studies. ISSN 0021-9886 (In Press) DOI: 10.1111/jcms.12766 © 2018 University Association for Contemporary European Studies and John Wiley & Sons Ltd This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/89976/ Available in LSE Research Online: August 2018 LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. This document is the author’s final accepted version of the journal article. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it. The JCMS Annual Review Lecture 2018 Brexit: Where is the EU-UK Relationship Heading?1 Simon Hix London School of Economics and Political Science 1 I would like to thank Angus Armstrong, Catherine Barnard, Theofanis Exadaktylos, Anand Menon, Jonathan Portes, Brendan O’Leary and Simon Usherwood for their helpful comments on an earlier version.
    [Show full text]
  • Brexit Jargon Buster
    Brexit Jargon Buster Brexit Jargon Buster • 1 2 • Brexit Jargon Buster AAgencies European Union agencies regulate a number of regimes for goods and services; the European Chemicals Agency in Helsinki regulates chemicals and biocides; the European Medicines Agency, formerly in London is now relocated in Amsterdam responsible for the scientific evaluation, supervision and safety monitoring of medicines in the EU; the European Aviation Safety Agency. AIFMD The Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive. This EU Directive regulates the managers (AIFMs) of alternative investment funds (AIFs). AIFMD includes passporting rights (see separate definition) for EU AIFMs to market funds across the EU. The Directive also contains provisions allowing non-EU AIFMs to become part of the passporting regime by way of a ‘third country passport’ (see separate definition) which may, in the future, provide a means for UK AIFMs to retain passporting rights post-Brexit. Competition law Competition laws of the EU are set out in the TFEU. They are a very important aspect of the single market. The European Commission is tasked with developing policy and enforcing the law ensuring that the European Union remains free from business practices that could ultimately be harmful to competition and consumers. In doing so, the Commission works with national competition authorities which are obliged also to apply EU competition law as well as domestic law. Particular emphasis is placed on ensuring businesses do not enter into anti-competitive agreements or abuse dominant positions in markets; the consequences of doing so can be severe. Brexit Jargon Buster • 3 The European Commission also assesses very large mergers and state aid.
    [Show full text]
  • The Brexit Vote: a Divided Nation, a Divided Continent
    Sara Hobolt The Brexit vote: a divided nation, a divided continent Article (Accepted version) (Refereed) Original citation: Hobolt, Sara (2016) The Brexit vote: a divided nation, a divided continent. Journal of European Public Policy, 23 (9). pp. 1259-1277. ISSN 1466-4429 DOI: 10.1080/13501763.2016.1225785 © 2016 Routledge This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67546/ Available in LSE Research Online: November 2016 LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. This document is the author’s final accepted version of the journal article. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it. The Brexit Vote: A Divided Nation, a Divided Continent Sara B. Hobolt London School of Economics and Political Science, UK ABSTRACT The outcome of the British referendum on EU membership sent shockwaves through Europe. While Britain is an outlier when it comes to the strength of Euroscepticism, the anti- immigration and anti-establishment sentiments that produced the referendum outcome are gaining strength across Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • Vote-Leave-For-Hand-Down-002.Pdf
    Neutral Citation Number: [2019] EWCA Civ 1938 Case No: C1/2019/0150 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM the High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) Administrative Court Mr Justice Swift Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 12/11/2019 Before : LORD JUSTICE UNDERHILL (Vice-President of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division)) LORD JUSTICE SINGH and LADY JUSTICE NICOLA DAVIES - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : VOTE LEAVE LTD Appellant - and - THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION Respondent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr Timothy Straker QC and Mr James Tumbridge (respectively instructed by, and of, Venner Shipley) for the Appellant Mr Philip Coppel QC and Mr Ravi Mehta (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Respondent Hearing date: 3rd October 2019 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Approved Judgment Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Vote Leave v Electoral Commission & Ors Lord Justice Underhill: INTRODUCTORY 1. The Appellant, Vote Leave Ltd (“VL”), was the designated lead campaigner for the “leave” outcome in the 2016 EU referendum. The Electoral Commission, which is the Respondent, has responsibility under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (“PPERA”) for, among other things, monitoring and ensuring compliance with the statutory rules which apply to the financing of referendum campaigns. Non- compliance may constitute an offence. I give details of the relevant statutory provisions below. 2. In November 2017 the Commission opened an investigation under Part X of PPERA into related allegations of contraventions of those rules by various persons, including VL. The details of the matters investigated are not material for the purpose of this appeal: broadly speaking, they concern payments made to a Canadian data analytics firm called Aggregate IQ (“AIQ”) for campaign services during the referendum campaign and how those payments were reported to the Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • Our Guide to Britain's EU Referendum
    JUNE 2016 The Brexit briefs Our guide to Britain’s EU referendum THE BREXIT BRIEFS ON JUNE 23rd Britain will hold a referendum on whether to remain in or leave the European Union. This will be the country’s most important vote in at least half a century. Alas, the debate has often been neither informative nor enlightening. The Economist is not neutral: we are convinced that a decision to leave (a so-called Brexit) would be bad for Britain, Europe and the world. But we also believe in the importance of objective analysis and reasoned argument. Over the past few months we have published a series of factual briefs that examine the main issues around Brexit. To help interested readers, we have now assembled all our Brexit briefs together. Zanny Minton Beddoes, Editor-in-chief CONTENTS 1. March 5th 2016 7. April 16th 2016 13. May 28th 2016 TRUTH AND LIES BUSINESS BUREAUCRACY Voters want clear facts about the Most businesses want to stay in the EU Brexiteers say they will scrap much EU European Union. They are given myths but some are cautious of saying so regulation, but they may not end up instead doing so 8. April 23rd 2016 2. March 12th 2016 THE TERMS OF THE DEAL 14. June 4th 2016 EUROSCEPTICISM Being out of the euro and Schengen HOW TO LEAVE Hostility to the EU in Britain is different gives Britain the best of both worlds Britain’s withdrawal process from the EU from anything found on the continent could be long and painful 9.
    [Show full text]
  • The United Kingdom Is Leaving the European Union: Analyzing the Contractual and Legal Implications for a Member Leaving
    THE UNITED KINGDOM IS LEAVING THE EUROPEAN UNION: ANALYZING THE CONTRACTUAL AND LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR A MEMBER LEAVING Duncan A. Taylor* I. INTRODUCTION On June 23, 2016, the United Kingdom, consisting of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, participated in a referendum to determine whether the bloc of countries would maintain membership and remain in the European Union or withdraw.1 Seventy-two percent of 46,501,241 eligible voters voted in this referendum, with “Leave” receiving 51.9% of the votes and “Remain” receiving 48.1% of the votes.2 Despite the overall national results, very different results were seen throughout the countries of the United Kingdom.3 England and Wales narrowly voted to leave the European Union, while an overwhelming majority of voters in Scotland and Northern Ireland chose to remain.4 This significant historic event in the United Kingdom, now termed “Brexit,” was influenced by two distinct ideologies and groups; “Britain Stronger in Europe” and “Vote Leave,”5 each of which attracted the involvement of other groups, entities, and individuals.6 Part I of this Comment provides a history of the United Kingdom as it relates to membership in the European Union, the abilities for the countries * Duncan A. Taylor is a third-year law student at Southern Illinois University School of Law, expecting his Juris Doctor in May of 2018. He would like to thank his faculty advisor, Professor Cindy Buys, for his continued guidance and feedback throughout the writing process. He would also like to thank his friends and family for their substantial support and encouragement.
    [Show full text]
  • Populism Or Embedded Plutocracy? the Emerging World Order
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works Publications and Research Hunter College 2019 Populism or Embedded Plutocracy? The Emerging World Order Michael Lee CUNY Hunter College How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/hc_pubs/603 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] Draft: Populism or Embedded Plutocracy? Envisioning the Emerging World Order Introduction The liberal world order is in dire straits. The world of moderately open migration, free trade, and free flows of capital that has existed since the 1970s is under attack. Liberal democracies around the world have seen the rise of far-right political parties trading in xenophobia, while attacking traditional liberal institutions. Many political scientists, increasingly committed to country-specific studies, or mid-level theories of small phenomenon are picking up many of these developments, while missing common threads between them. We are bearing witness to systemic changes. After the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1971, the United States and its allies in the G-7 constructed a new neo-liberal world order characterized by relatively open migration, free trade, and free flows of capital.1 Today, that order is collapsing in the face of its internal contradictions. Free flows of capital, combined with the privileged position of the American dollar, saddled the global economy with recurrent financial crises. Internally, the implementation of many neoliberal policies (and creation of transnational workarounds) undermined many of the civil society groups vital for broad-based democracy.
    [Show full text]
  • Framing Immigration During the Brexit Campaign
    Unsustainable and Uncontrolled: Framing Immigration During the Brexit Campaign Jessica Van Horne A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in International Studies University of Washington 2018 Committee: Kathie Friedman, Chair Scott Fritzen Program Authorized to Offer Degree: International Studies – Jackson School © Copyright 2018 Jessica Van Horne University of Washington Abstract Unsustainable and Uncontrolled: Framing Immigration During the Brexit Campaign Jessica Marie Van Horne Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Kathie Friedman, Associate Professor International Studies The British vote to leave the European Union in 2016 came as a major surprise to politicians and scholars. Pre-referendum scholarship indicated that while British voters had concerns about cultural issues, such as identity and immigration, they would ultimately decide based on economic considerations. However, post-referendum voter surveys and scholarship showed that immigration was a key issue for many Leave and Undecided voters. This paper addresses why immigration was such a significant issue, and why it was so closely tied to leaving the EU, by discussing how the official campaigns and print media sources prioritized and characterized the issue. I argue that the relative prominence of immigration in media coverage, and the increased likelihood that newspapers would use Leave-associated frames, which also corresponded with pre-existing negative attitudes towards immigrants, contributed to immigration’s overall
    [Show full text]
  • Brexit, the Second World War and Cultural Trauma
    Journal for Cultural Research ISSN: 1479-7585 (Print) 1740-1666 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcuv20 The language of leaving: Brexit, the second world war and cultural trauma Jon Stratton To cite this article: Jon Stratton (2019): The language of leaving: Brexit, the second world war and cultural trauma, Journal for Cultural Research, DOI: 10.1080/14797585.2019.1633073 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14797585.2019.1633073 Published online: 28 Jun 2019. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 171 View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcuv20 JOURNAL FOR CULTURAL RESEARCH https://doi.org/10.1080/14797585.2019.1633073 The language of leaving: Brexit, the second world war and cultural trauma Jon Stratton School of Creative Industries, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY This article considers the language use in the Brexit debate, espe- Received 3 January 2019 cially by the leading figures who argued for Leave. I argue that Accepted 13 June 2019 historically those who identify as English have had anxieties KEYWORDS focused around invasion, occupation and loss of sovereignty. In Brexit; World War 2; cultural 1940 these fears materialised in the possibility of invasion by trauma; Dad’s Army Hitler’s forces. The unresolved cultural trauma associated with these fears has meant that discussions about the United Kingdom’s presence in the European Union have tended to framed in language referring to World War 2 where the European Union’s impact on the United Kingdom is rhetorically constructed in the emotive terms of Nazi invasion, occupation and loss of sovereignty.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Brexit Negotiations: the Voters’ Scorecard
    HALF-TIME IN THE BREXIT NEGOTIATIONS: THE VOTERS’ SCORECARD John Curtice, Senior Research Fellow at NatCen and Professor of Politics at Strathclyde University Half-Time in The Brexit Negotiations: The Voters’ Scorecard Voters have become more pessimistic about the likely outcome of the Brexit negotiations. 2 HALF-TIME IN THE BREXIT NEGOTIATIONS: THE VOTERS’ SCORECARD Voters increasingly think that both the UK government and the EU are handling the Brexit negotiations badly. However, there is no consistent evidence that voters have changed their views as what kind of Brexit they would like to see HALF-TIME IN THE BREXIT NEGOTIATIONS: THE VOTERS’ SCORECARD 3 INTRODUCTION At the end of last year and again earlier this year, we reported the findings of extensive research into what voters wanted to emerge from the Brexit process (Curtice, 2016; Curtice, 2017a). Since then the UK has given formal notice of its intention to leave the EU, and following a general election in June in which the Prime Minister attempted but failed to secure a clear mandate for her vision of Brexit, the first phase of the negotiations between the UK and the EU has got underway but has yet to reach a conclusion. We are now just over half-way between when the EU referendum was held (23 June 2016) and the date the UK is scheduled to leave the EU (29 March 2019). Since the election, we have returned to our unique panel of respondents – people who were first selected at random to participate in the British Social Attitudes survey and who have agreed to take part in subsequent follow-up surveys – on two further occasions, once in July shortly after the general election, and a second time in October, by which point the negotiations with the EU were well under way.
    [Show full text]
  • Brexit Timeline
    BREXIT TIMELINE BREXIT TIMELINE 1 BREXIT TIMELINE 6 December 2005 David Cameron becomes Conservative leader David Cameron wins the leadership of the Conservative Party. In the campaign, he promises to take the party out of the European People’s Party (EPP) grouping in the European Parliament 1 October 2006 Cameron first conference speech In his first conference speech, David Cameron implores his party to stop ‘banging on about Europe’ 4 June 2009 European Parliament elections The 2009 European Parliament elections see the UK Independence Party (UKIP) finished second in a major election for the first time in its history. 22 June 2009 Conservative Party form new grouping Conservative MEPs form part of a new group in the European Conservatives and Reformists group (ECR), as the party formally leaves the EPP. 20 May 2010 Coalition agrees to status quo on Europe The Coalition Agreement is published, which states that ‘Britain should play a leading role in an enlarged European Union, but that no further powers should be transferred to Brussels without a referendum.’ 5 May 2011 Alternative Vote referendum The UK holds a referendum on electoral reform and a move to the Alternative Vote. The No to AV campaign – led by many figures who would go on to be part of Vote Leave – wins decisively by a margin of 68% to 32%. 9 December 2011 David Cameron vetoes The Prime Minister vetoes treaty change designed to help manage the Eurozone crisis, arguing it is not in the UK’s interest – particularly in restrictions the changes might place on financial services. 23 January 2013 The Bloomberg Speech In a speech at Bloomberg’s offices in central London, David Cameron sets out his views on the future of the EU and the need for reform and a new UK-EU settlement.
    [Show full text]