Minority Rule: Migration, Brexit Together With Mandates

It is mostly (not universally) agreed that the number of migration played a large business office inwards leading 52% of Great Britain voters to desire to leave of absence the EU. However that does non hateful at that topographic point is a mandate to cease Freedom of Movement (FoM) at the cost of losing access to the unmarried market. I’m rather surprised past times the number of people who hollo back it does. There are lots of reasons why it does not, similar voters existence told they could cease FoM in addition to silent remain inwards the unmarried market, similar that many people voted to cease FoM because they wanted a improve NHS, whereas the contrary volition live on truthful inwards practice. (Tony Yates discusses this full general betoken here).

However the clearest argue why Brexit does non hateful at that topographic point is a mandate for ending FoM was made past times Ian Dunt yesterday. Put simply, it is that a bulk of a bulk tin live on a minority. The fact that many people voted Brexit because they wanted to a greater extent than command over immigration does non imply that a bulk of all voters did.

Suppose that everyone understood that at that topographic point was an unbreakable link betwixt liberty of motion (FoM) in addition to membership of the unmarried market. Suppose all the 48% who voted to Remain prefered to proceed membership at the ‘cost’ of retaining FoM. Suppose 48% of those voting Leave felt the opposite. But 4% of those voting Leave wanted a Kingdom of Norway way arrangement, in addition to wanted to leave of absence for another argue than FoM . In this instance a bulk desire to proceed FoM, in addition to create non desire farther migration controls if that agency existence out of the unmarried market.

Of shape these numbers are made up, although polling evidence does advise a bulk of people prefer existence inwards the unmarried marketplace to ending complimentary movement. But the substitution betoken is that nosotros create non know what the truthful numbers are. Yet the presumption seems to live on existence made inwards lots of quarters, from researchers to politicians, that the plebiscite consequence agency that nosotros cannot larn for whatever organisation involving FoM. This exactly does non follow.

Nor does the fact that the Leave drive focused on immigration brand whatever difference. Again imagine that the 4% who wanted to leave of absence for reasons other than immigration were stone company well-nigh voting Leave. For the undecideds, however, immigration was critical. In which instance whatever decent drive would focus on the undecideds. We could modify the figures to come inwards fifty-fifty clearer: 30% of Leavers were stone company because of sovereignty or fiscal issues, but 22% were undecided in addition to also worried well-nigh immigration. Again a practiced drive would focus on immigration, fifty-fifty though it was a minority concern. Election results, similar prices, are determined at the margin.

There is hence no mandate from the plebiscite consequence to sacrifice membership of the unmarried marketplace inwards gild to cease complimentary movements. Which is 1 fantabulous argue why nosotros quest a minute plebiscite on the terminal terms for Brexit earlier nosotros leave.

Postscript (17/10/16) Here is about polling evidence supporting these arguments.