Sovereignty and stupidity*

Remainer discourse assumes people voted Leave out of racism or ignorance about the effects (parroted last night by the Green Party). A survey in the Staggers says I think you might find it's more complicated than that (but not much more complicated in the end):

A recent survey carried out by UCL, with fieldwork by YouGov, shows that one of the biggest divides between Leave and Remain voters was over the importance of returning sovereignty to the UK: Leave voters see this as a top priority whereas most Remain voters do not. When we asked respondents to prioritise what they mean by sovereignty, we found that Leave voters cared most about the legislative functions of government taking place at the level of the nation state, reflecting a common complaint that the EU is undemocratic and/or that its institutions are remote and unaccountable... the ability to vote does not in itself make an institution feel democratic. Many Britons clearly believe that the disparate voters of Europe do not constitute a proper “demos”, ie a group of people who feel sufficiently connected to each other to engage in joint decision-making processes. Without any feeling of common connection with the rest of Europe, then the UK will always be just one nation among 28, with the constant risk of being outvoted by other countries who do not care about our interests. 

Budget payments into the EU are a particular concern: the survey found that this was seen as the third most important aspect of sovereignty by Leave voters. The fact that a large proportion of the UK’s contributions come back into the country makes little difference; Leavers would argue that the same amount of regional aid and subsidies could come from national government, with British voters in control of what happened to the money.

 So: 

out of four outcomes – Remaining, a softer Brexit, Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement and no deal – there is no option which unambiguously commands popular support. Attitudes among Leavers have hardened since 2016: 53 per cent of Leavers (and 27 per cent of all voters) favour a no-deal exit, which roughly coincides with the percentage of voters who are planning to either vote for Ukip or the Brexit Party in the European Parliamentary elections. Given that these parties already regard the withdrawal agreement as an unacceptable betrayal, it seems unlikely that many of their voters would be persuaded by an even softer Brexit. At the other end of the spectrum are those Remainers who would be very unhappy about leaving the EU at all – the size of this group is also likely to be around 25 per cent of the electorate (the current total polling numbers for all the parties explicitly backing a “people’s vote”).

 
The Staggers resorts to the same sort of commonsense that we have found already:

Instinctively [from pollsters!], a compromise solution such as the Common Market 2.0 proposal (where the UK stays within the EEA and the customs union) seems the most likely to end up being grudgingly accepted by most voters. While few name it as their first choice, it is most voters’ second choice.[but]...Leavers do see intrinsic value in the fact of leaving the EU, no matter what the terms of departure – 86 per cent of Leavers preferred a softer Brexit to Remain. However, the problem remains that the biggest win of Common Market 2.0 is economic, but Leave voters care more about sovereignty, and Common Market 2.0 does not deliver any of the Leavers’ top sovereignty priorities.

 
Intrinsic value! Who would have thought the simple folk capable of detecting that? Surely there must be a negative aspect of this belief:

[Common Market 2.0]  supporters argue that the UK would be subject to fewer laws and regulations and potentially pay less money into the EU budget. But these are gradualist and technocratic points, and the referendum campaign of 2016 showed how ineffective this type of argument can be against simpler messages.[ah yes -- lies on the bus and Russian tweets]

And the analysts insist that Remaining makes (common) sense:

There are strong arguments in favour of the UK remaining inside European institutions after Brexit...The seamless trading relationship...Issues such as the governance and taxation of multi-national corporations and climate change can only be tackled by international bodies. The lack of a common “demos” does not prevent membership of European institutions being seen as a practical solution to the practical problems thrown up by a globalised world.

The simple folk have just misunderstood the concept of sovereignty. They really are worried about:

... issues that are most relevant to Britons’ daily lives – the state of the health service, whether trains arrive on time, whether the local school is any good, the level of taxation – will continue to be determined at national level. So if it were possible to persuade Leavers that belonging to rule-making European institutions does not pose an existential threat to British sovereignty,[surely they have already rejected this view, you people found?]  then why not go all the way and argue to stay in the EU, when this would have the advantage of keeping the dedicated Remainers on board? 

So easy really, once you see things with such clarity. But the proles/elites are stubborn :

Common Market 2.0 would be an enormous bet that Leave voters would be content to live within an EU regulatory system over which Britain has far less democratic oversight than before. Over the medium-term, this is a gamble that seems unlikely to pay off.