Brexit: How Rhetoric Became Reality Year: 2017 ​ ​ ​ Semester: 6th ​ Supervisor: Helene Dyrhauge ​ Group Members: ​ Christopher Molge Andersen: #55629 Timothy Peter Murphy: #55636 Character Count: 112,348 ​ 1 Table of Contents Chapter 1: Problem Area 3 Chapter 2: Methodology 5 2.1. Introduction 5 2.2. Quantitative Methods 5 2.3. Qualitative Methods 6 2.4. Reliability and Validity of Sources 7 2.5. Project Structure 7 Chapter 3: Theory 8 3.1. Introduction 8 3.2. Euroscepticism 8 3.3. Nationalism 11 3.4. Populism 13 3.5. Use of Theory 14 Chapter 4: Background 15 The UK’s Relationship With the EU 15 4.1. Introduction 15 4.2. British Euroscepticism 16 4.3. UKiP and Euroscepticism 20 4.4. Sub-conclusion 21 Chapter 5: Analysis (Part 1) 23 5.1. Introduction: History Revisited 23 5.2. Statistical Findings 25 5.3. The Rise of UKiP 30 5.4. The Success of UKiP 31 5.5. Sub-conclusion 36 Chapter 6: Analysis (Part 2) 38 6.1. Introduction 38 6.2. David Cameron’s Miscalculations 38 6.3. How The Conservative Party Split Impacted Voters 39 6.4. Factors external to UKiP and the Conservatives (Demographics) 42 6.5. Sub-conclusion 44 2 Chapter 7: Discussion 45 Chapter 8: Conclusion 50 Bibliography 50 3 Chapter 1: Problem Area The United Kingdom’s (UK) withdrawal of its membership from the European Union (EU) (referred to as Brexit) in the EU Referendum that took place on the 23rd June 2016 (from here on known as the 2016 EU Referendum) has come to represent an internal division within both the EU, and the UK itself. The referendum was meant to represent British public opinion on whether the UK should remain or leave the EU and the high voting turnout (72.2%) illustrated much success in regards to democratic representation. However, empirical evidence also suggests an apparent division - along generational, educational and regional lines - among the British public, as demonstrated by the marginal difference of the outcome in the 2016 EU Referendum; with 51.9% of total votes in favour of a Brexit and 48.1% against (YouGov 2016). This division was further emphasised in the political rhetoric surrounding the most prioritised debate issues presented by the two official campaign organisations - the Remain (‘In’) camp and the Leave (‘Out’) camp (Hobolt, 2016). The rhetoric used by each campaign to win over voters was largely negative, and the ways in which the issues of the economy and immigration were framed at the ​ ​ national level can serve as a basis for understanding why voters chose to support Leave or Remain - where the United Kingdom’s Independence Party (UKiP) was the most united (anti-EU) political party and was influential in gaining support for the leave camps (Goodwin & Heath, 2016). While the focus of this paper will be on the role that right wingism - in particular, the role UKiP - played in the 2016 EU Referendum, it cannot sufficiently explain the Brexit outcome on its own. As such, we have chosen to look at the ongoing division within the Conservative Party (also referred to as the Tory Party or Tories) that can be seen as a closely-related explanatory factor. As Eurosceptic views are an inherent feature within the two parties, Euroscepticism will be used as a theoretical lens through which to understand each party’s positions and interests in the referendum and how these spread throughout voters in Britain. Several conceptions of nationalism will be applied to our analysis of UKiP, and, more broadly, to those advocates of the leave camps. Through our analysis of the 2016 EU Referendum, we aim to show how 4 nationalistic sentiments and Eurosceptic views were key determinants in the Brexit outcome. In doing this, we have proposed the following research question: How can the role of the United Kingdom’s Independent Party (UKiP) and Conservative Party explain the outcome of the 2016 EU referendum? In order to fully address each aspect of the research question, we have selected the following sub-questions to structure our empirical analysis: 1. What factors contributed to British Euroscepticism and the rise of United Kingdom’s Independent Party (UKiP), and how? 2. How did the division within the Conservative Party contribute to the success of the Leave Camps? 5 Chapter 2: Methodology 2.1. Introduction The purpose of this section is to identify the type of methodology that will be applied to our empirical analysis, as well as how it will be applied as such. As mentioned earlier, the aim of this paper is to explain how nationalistic sentiments and Eurosceptic views were key determinants in the Brexit outcome. As much research has been done on Brexit, we aim to use a mixed methods approach. Qualitative methods will enable us to use rich data that can provide for in-depth explanations of the phenomenon (Brexit) under observation, while quantitative methods allows us to assess such explanations through empirical testing; whether a correlation and/or causality exists between the variables (factors) under observation. As such, the quantitative inferences made can be confirmed or falsified through explanatory qualitative analysis. 2.2. Quantitative Methods Quantitative methods incorporates both descriptive and inferential statistics, and, through the use of statistical methods, allows for the provision of more critical reviews of the data being observed. Broadly, statistics can be defined as “the art and science of collecting, analysing, presenting and interpreting data” (Anderson et al, 2011:3). As our statistical findings are based on secondary sources, the first stage - collection of data - has already been conducted and will thus be excluded from our methodological approach. Essentially, the use of statistics from secondary sources will enable us to quantify our qualitative findings, thus leading to more (conclusive) evidence-based results. The bulk of statistical data will come from both official and unofficial databases, including from the Electoral Commission, YouGov and the European Commission. Standard Eurobarometer 85 (May 2016) is a questionnaire conducted by the European Commission on public opinion regarding the EU (europa.eu). It was conducted among the EU’s 28 member states (as well as five candidate countries and the Turkish Cypriot Community) and consisted of around 1000 face-to-face interviews per country (Ibid). As the objective was to 6 gather information on public perceptions regarding a number of national- and European- issues, the national reports from the UK have been selected particularly for our analysis of the factors contributing to increased Euroscepticism and the rise of UKiP in the first working question. The questionnaires consist of a wide range of questions covering a number of topics and, as such, only those that can help to identify (and potentially explain) the causes of Eurosceptic- and nationalist- sentiments among the British public have been selected for analysis. While the data sample (of around 1000 respondents) does not sufficiently represent the views of the whole British public, it allows for the identification of general public concerns about the EU in the UK. This is due to the use of random sampling, being unbiased in its nature. 2.3. Qualitative Methods As mentioned, qualitative methods is useful for understanding the broader social context/phenomenon under observation. While the aim of using quantitative methods is to provide inferences based on statistical findings (facts), qualitative research allows for a more in-depth and comprehensive understanding of the research topic. In this paper, the purpose of the former is to identify a list of factors contributive to the Brexit outcome, and potentially whether a correlative and/or causal relationship exists between them. The purpose of the latter is to interpret how such factors have been constructed in the broader context in which they are situated. Through the use of rich, detailed and complex data, the role that these factors played in Brexit can be more thoroughly described. Our chosen qualitative sources will mostly comprise of journal articles, some newspaper reports (BBC, the Independent), and other academic publications (such as blog posts). British Social Attitudes (BSA) is one survey that will be used to gain a better insight into British attitudes towards the UK. BSA is headed by NatCen Social Research, which is Britain’s largest independent social research agency, and several reports have been selected for our analysis of nationalism and Euroscepticism. The data sample of 3000 respondents allows for a more in-depth understanding of British public concerns, and is meant to supplement the (smaller) data sample obtained from the Eurobarometer questionnaire. Surveys and reports from the UK 7 Migration Watch (2015) and the Migration Observatory (2016) will also be heavily integrated in our analysis, to complement our other selected sources. 2.4. Reliability and Validity of Sources When reviewing the sources that have been selected for our analysis, it is important to test them for both reliability and validity. Reliability involves whether or not the results obtained from the research conducted can be obtained several times if the research was to be repeated, ruling out any potential anomalies and shedding light on some external factors that may have affected the research (Hesse-Biber et al 2011:52-54). Validity refers to the correct methodological procedure being applied to research which in turn affects the accuracy of the results (Hesse-Biber et al 2011:48-51). One advantage of testing for validity is that it allows one to identify any potential bias that may have had an effect on the research be it from the author or from the sample that is being researched (Ibid). As the majority of academic literature to be used has been peer-reviewed this makes it a valid source.