This article asks how votes in sovereignty referendums translate into policy preferences about future outcomes and influence perceptions of legitimacy, using the 2016 British EU membership referendum as a case. The authors contribute by measuring how different possible Brexit negotiation outcomes were evaluated by the public and whether the referendum result provided clear guidance about what voters would prefer and regard as legitimate.
nationally representative conjoint experiment sharp Leave–Remain divisions on negotiation issues widespread doubts about outcome legitimacy
Data and methods
The study uses a nationally representative conjoint experiment carried out after the 2016 referendum to measure attitudes toward alternative Brexit negotiation outcomes. The experiment varied salient features of possible settlement options and recorded respondents' stated preferences and legitimacy judgments. The abstract identifies the research design as a conjoint-style survey experiment but does not report further procedural details in this summary.
Main findings
According to the abstract, Leave and Remain voters were sharply divided over what they wanted on key negotiation issues, indicating the referendum result did not map cleanly onto specific policy choices. The authors also report that most voters did not regard any of the examined possible outcomes as legitimate, suggesting limited public acceptance of the settlement options presented in negotiations.
- Voter groups (Leave vs Remain) differed substantially in their preferred negotiation outcomes.
- A majority of respondents did not view the possible outcomes included in the experiment as legitimate.
