Will the UK vote to exit the EU on June 23rd (referred to as ‘Brexit’) or not?

Placing bets on Brexit is the new parlor sport that engages every business, trader and policymaker. Although 8 out of 10 UK-based businesses have stated that it would be better for the UK to remain in the EU, no one can guess how Brits will vote; most Brits have not decided what they want — mainly because they have little ability to assess what is in their interest.

The UK joined the EEC, as it was then, in 1973, without a referendum. Two years later, under Prime Minister Harold Wilson, there was a referendum on whether to continue membership, but the impact was not yet well understood and votes were paltry. On September 21, 1988, Prime Minister Maggie Thatcher gave a famous Eurosceptic speech at Bruges that became the birth cry of the Bruges Group, the right wing of the Conservative party, where my former father-in-law (and renowned Thatcherite), Bill Cash, MP, is hailed as an icon.

Frankly, not much has changed in the intervening 28 years. There have been many economic warnings of the negative consequences of Brexit on stocks, the pound sterling, and London real estate on March 1, 2, and 3 in a row.

However, Prime Minister David Cameron is between an increasingly large rock and a harder place: he must achieve the contradictory goals he requires: keep his campaign promise of a Brexit referendum, while keeping Britain in the EU. The key is Cameron’s delivering a “reformed” relationship with the EU. On March 9th Bank of England governor Mark Carney embraced Cameron’s ‘new’ deal for Bremain (Britain remaining in the EU).

The problem is that entrance into the EU is now so long ago, most voters don’t really have something to compare it to, and for all of the hoopla about the economic losses that would ensue from Brexit, there are no reliable or credible metrics on the benefits accrued to staying in the UK. There is no accurate and credible study that demonstrates the different outcomes; there is no document that demonstrates that “the UK is here at this high point as a fantastic benefit of having joined; if we had not joined, the UK would be at this low point.” There is nothing like that. The statements (of both sides) are therefore all viewed as unfounded and suspect.

Brexit proponents view the EU as a plot against The City, as the globally powerful financial center is known. They’re not entirely wrong, as outlined in the Bruges Group’s publications on the “Norway Option.”

However, the powers (and money) behind the very powerful Tory policy think tank Center for Policy Studies (CPS) and the Tory in-house magazine The Spectator think that the Norway Option is not good either: “you get no say and you get handed a bill for things over which you have no influence.” In their view (echoed elsewhere) the “EU gave Cameron nothing. The four points he got are minor. It’s an embarrassment.” Brexiters also think Europe is sinking, while the UK is not and there is no reason of the UK to tie itself to a sinking ship and contribute to a bail it out. There is no vision of a reversal of that situation; the probability of that scenario is deemed too low.

Overwhelmingly, Brexit v. Bremain is a tale of two narratives and which prevails: fear of the unknown v. sovereignty.

‘Bremainers’ argue that the UK needs unity of purpose and intelligence and finances — all of which will be harmed by Brexit — and that Brexit would be “a leap into the unknown.”

‘Brexiters’ consider the EU an assault on British sovereignty. After all, Britain is the island that conquered the world just fine without Europe and Britain must protect its borders and all that makes it unique. Appeals to the British Empire still resonate.

Both sides — Brexiters and Bremainers — use the immigration hysteria to bolster their position, therefore neither is credible.

The June 23rd referendum will hinge on what we political theorists call ‘the intensity problem,’ plotted on two related dimensions: the intensity of emotions, and voter turnout.

Bremainers more or less shrug their shoulders thinking the EU has been overall good and “better the Devil you know, than the one you don’t” — an oft-repeated quote. However, fear of the unknown might be countermanded by shrugging of shoulders in light of absence of good metrics, as above.

Brexiters, on the other hand, have very strong emotions (view the EU as an affront, a plot not just against British sovereignty but superiority) and are therefore highly motivated to vote. Brexiters are more likely to stampede to the polls, whereas the Bremainers are less likely to stampede.

It all hinges on how the Midlands and the North feel and vote. Both regions traditionally distrust London (not unfounded). They are expected not to be committed to staying. This is Daily Mail land: right wing working class, with heads full of stories of Polish immigrants coming to work in the UK and drawing medical and family pensions for their children back in Poland. This is actually accurate, a legal requirement of the EU and another point the Brexiters are using: those Eastern Europeans come here to work and not only use our NHS and housing, but (by EU law) draw child benefits for their kids back home, where £1 stretches a lot further. In short, they benefit from both forex differentials and legislative unity to the detriment of the British taxpayer. It is no surprise then that Birmingham (the industrial heart of the Midlands) will be the site of a May 8th Brexit music festival that will feature young pop stars like Pixie Lott and a parade of celebrities to motivate the young to vote for Brexit.

With Brexit, as with so many policy issues submitted to an electorate, the result will depend on who crafts the more emotive narrative that gets those emotions going. Plus ça change.