Growing pressure for a referendum

At the May 2012 NATO summit meeting, UK Prime Minister David Cameron, Foreign Secretary William Hague and Ed Llewellyn discussed the idea of using a European Union referendum as a concession to energise the Eurosceptic wing of the Conservative Party.^[14] On 20 June 2012 a three clause private member's bill was introduced into the House of Commons by then Eurosceptic MP Douglas Carswell to end the United Kingdom’s EU membership and repeal the European Communities Act 1972 but without containing any commitment to the holding of any referendum and it received a second reading in a brief half long debate in the chamber which was held on 26 October 2012 however the Bill did not progress any further. ^[15]

Conservative MP James Wharton introduced a Private member's bill to the House of Commons in 2013 committing the UK to holding a referendum on continued EU membership by the end of 2017 which passed all of its stages in the chamber before it was blocked in the House of Lords early in 2014.

During the 2015 general election campaign, David Cameron promised to renegotiate the terms of the UK's EU membership and later hold a referendum on the subject if a Conservative majority government was elected.

In January 2013, Cameron delivered the Bloomberg speech and promised that, should the Conservatives win a parliamentary majority at the 2015 general election, the British government would negotiate more favourable arrangements for continuing British membership of the EU, before holding a referendum on whether the UK should remain in or leave the EU.^[16] The Conservative Party published a draft EU Referendum Bill in May 2013, and outlined its plans for renegotiation followed by an in-out vote (i.e. a referendum giving options only of leaving and of remaining in under the current terms, or under new terms if these had become available), were the party to be re-elected in 2015.^[17] The draft Bill stated that the referendum had to be held no later than 31 December 2017.^[18]

The draft legislation was taken forward as a Private member's bill by Conservative MP James Wharton which was known as the European Union (Referendum) Bill 2013.^[19] The bill's First Reading in the House of Commons took place on 19 June 2013.^[20] Cameron was said by a spokesperson to be "very pleased" and would ensure the Bill was given "the full support of the Conservative Party".^[21]

Regarding the ability of the bill to bind the UK Government in the 2015–20 Parliament (which indirectly, as a result of the referendum itself, proved to last only two years) to holding such a referendum, a parliamentary research paper noted that:

The Bill simply provides for a referendum on continued EU membership by the end of December 2017 and does not otherwise specify the timing, other than requiring the Secretary of State to bring forward orders by the end of 2016. [...] If no party obtained a majority at the [next general election due in 2015], there might be some uncertainty about the passage of the orders in the next Parliament.^[22]

The bill received its Second Reading on 5 July 2013, passing by 304 votes to none after almost all Labour MPs and all Liberal Democrat MPs abstained, cleared the Commons in November 2013, and was then introduced to the House of Lords in December 2013, where members voted to block the bill.^[23]

Conservative MP Bob Neill then introduced an Alternative Referendum Bill to the Commons.^[24][25] After a debate on 17 October 2014, it passed to the Public Bills Committee, but because the Commons failed to pass a money resolution, the bill was unable to progress further before the dissolution of parliament on 27 March 2015.^[26][27]

At the European Parliament election in 2014, the UK Independence Party (UKIP) secured more votes and more seats than any other party, the first time a party other than the Conservatives or Labour had topped a nationwide poll in 108 years, leaving the Conservatives in third place.^[28]

Under Ed Miliband's leadership between 2010 and 2015, the Labour Party ruled out an in-out referendum unless and until a further transfer of powers from the UK to the EU were to be proposed.^[29] In their manifesto for the 2015 general election, the Liberal Democrats pledged to hold an in-out referendum only in the event of there being a change in the EU treaties.^[30] The UK Independence Party (UKIP), the British National Party (BNP), the Green Party,^[31] the Democratic Unionist Party^[32] and the Respect Party^[33] all supported the principle of a referendum.

When the Conservative Party won a majority of seats in the House of Commons at the 2015 general election, Cameron reiterated his party's manifesto commitment to hold an in-out referendum on UK membership of the EU by the end of 2017, but only after "negotiating a new settlement for Britain in the EU".^[34]

Renegotiation before the referendum

In early 2014, David Cameron outlined the changes he aimed to bring about in the EU and in the UK's relationship with it.^[35] These were: additional immigration controls, especially for citizens of new EU member states; tougher immigration rules for present EU citizens; new powers for national parliaments collectively to veto proposed EU laws; new free-trade agreements and a reduction in bureaucracy for businesses; a lessening of the influence of the European Court of Human Rights on British police and courts; more power for individual member states, and less for the central EU; and abandonment of the EU notion of "ever closer union".^[35] He intended to bring these about during a series of negotiations with other EU leaders and then, if re-elected, to announce a referendum.^[35]

In November that year, Cameron gave an update on the negotiations and further details of his aims.^[36] The key demands made of the EU were: on economic governance, to recognise officially that Eurozone laws would not necessarily apply to non-Eurozone EU members and the latter would not have to bail out troubled Eurozone economies; on competitiveness, to expand the single market and to set a target for the reduction of bureaucracy for businesses; on sovereignty, for the UK to be legally exempted from "ever closer union" and for national parliaments to be able collectively to veto proposed EU laws; and, on immigration, for EU citizens going to the UK for work to be unable to claim social housing or in-work benefits until they had worked there for four years, and for them to be unable to send child benefit payments overseas.^[36][37]

The outcome of the renegotiations was announced in February 2016.^[38] The renegotiated terms were in addition to the United Kingdom's existing opt-outs in the European Union and the UK rebate. The significance of the changes to the EU-UK agreement was contested and speculated upon, with none of the changes considered fundamental, but some considered important to many British people.^[38] Some limits to in-work benefits for EU immigrants were agreed, but these would apply on a sliding scale for four years and would be for new immigrants only; before they could be applied, a country would have to get permission from the European Council.^[38] Child benefit payments could still be made overseas, but these would be linked to the cost of living in the other country.^[39] On sovereignty, the UK was reassured that it would not be required to participate in "ever closer union"; these reassurances were "in line with existing EU law".^[38] Cameron's demand to allow national parliaments to veto proposed EU laws was modified to allow national parliaments collectively to object to proposed EU laws, in which case the European Council would reconsider the proposal before itself deciding what to do.^[38] On economic governance, anti-discrimination regulations for non-Eurozone members would be reinforced, but they would be unable to veto any legislation.^[40] The final two areas covered were proposals to "exclude from the scope of free movement rights, third country nationals who had no prior lawful residence in a Member State before marrying a Union citizen"^[41] and to make it easier for member states to deport EU nationals for public policy or public security reasons.^[42] The extent to which the various parts of the agreement would be legally binding is complex; no part of the agreement itself changed EU law, but some parts could be enforceable in international law.^[43]

The EU had reportedly offered David Cameron a so-called "emergency brake", which would have allowed the UK to withhold social benefits to new immigrants for the first four years after they arrived; this brake could have been applied for a period of seven years.^[44] That offer was still on the table at the time of the Brexit referendum, but expired when the vote determined that the UK would leave the EU. Cameron claimed that "he could have avoided Brexit had European leaders let him control migration", according to the Financial Times.^[45][46] However, Angela Merkel said that the offer had not been made by the EU. Merkel stated in the German Parliament: "If you wish to have free access to the single market then you have to accept the fundamental European rights as well as obligations that come from it. This is as true for Great Britain as for anybody else."^[47]

Date

Prior to being officially announced, it was widely speculated that a June date for the referendum was a serious possibility. The First Ministers of Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales co-signed a letter to Cameron on 3 February 2016 asking him not to hold the referendum in June, as devolved elections were scheduled to take place the previous month on 5 May. These elections had been postponed for a year to avoid a clash with the 2015 general election, after Westminster had implemented the Fixed-term Parliament Act. Cameron refused this request, saying people were able to make up their own minds in multiple elections spaced at least six weeks from each other.^{[61] [62]}

On 20 February 2016, Cameron announced that the UK Government would formally recommend to the British people that the UK should remain a member of a reformed European Union and that the referendum would be held on 23 June, marking the official launch of the campaign. He also announced that Parliament would enact secondary legislation on 22 February relating to the European Union Referendum Act 2015. With the official launch, ministers of the UK Government were then free to campaign on either side of the argument in a rare exception to Cabinet collective responsibility.^[63]

Eligibility to vote

The right to vote in the referendum in the United Kingdom is defined by the legislation as limited to residents of the United Kingdom who were either also Commonwealth citizens under Section 37 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (which include British citizens and other British nationals), or those who were also citizens of the Republic of Ireland, or both. Members of the House of Lords, who could not vote in general elections, were able to vote in the referendum. The electorate of 46,500,001 represented 70.8% of the population of 65,678,000 (UK and Gibraltar).^[64] Other than the residents of Gibraltar, British Overseas Territories Citizens residing in the British Overseas Territories were unable to vote in the referendum.^[65][66]

Residents of the United Kingdom who were citizens of other EU countries were not allowed to vote unless they were citizens (or were also citizens) of the Republic of Ireland, of Malta, or of the Republic of Cyprus.^[67]

The Representation of the People Acts 1983 (1983 c. 2) and 1985 (1985 c. 50), as amended, also permit certain British citizens (but not other British nationals), who had once lived in the United Kingdom, but had since and in the meantime lived outside of the United Kingdom, but for a period of no more than 15 years, to vote.^[68]

Voting on the day of the referendum was from 0700 to 2200 BST (WEST) (0700 to 2200 CEST in Gibraltar) in some 41,000 polling stations staffed by over 100,000 poll workers. Each polling station was specified to have no more than 2,500 registered voters. Under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act 2000, postal ballots were also permitted in the referendum and were sent out to eligible voters some three weeks ahead of the vote (2 June 2016).

The minimum age for voters in the referendum was set to 18 years, in line with the Representation of the People Act, as amended. A House of Lords amendment proposing to lower the minimum age to 16 years was rejected.^[69]

The deadline to register to vote was initially midnight on 7 June 2016; however, this was extended by 48 hours owing to technical problems with the official registration website on 7 June, caused by unusually high web traffic. Some supporters of the Leave campaign, including the Conservative MP Sir Gerald Howarth, criticised the government's decision to extend the deadline, alleging it gave Remain an advantage because many late registrants were young people who were considered to be more likely to vote for Remain.^[70] According to provisional figures from the Electoral Commission, almost 46.5 million people were eligible to vote.^[71]

Registration problems

Nottingham City Council emailed a Vote Leave supporter to say that the council was unable to check whether the nationality that people stated on their voting registration form was true, and hence that they simply had to assume that the information that was submitted was, indeed, correct.^[72]

3,462 EU nationals were wrongly sent postal voting cards, due to an IT issue experienced by Xpress, an electoral software supplier to a number of councils. Xpress was initially unable to confirm the exact number of those affected. The matter was resolved by the issuance of a software patch which rendered the wrongly recorded electors ineligible to vote on 23 June.^[72]

Crown Dependencies

Residents of the Crown Dependencies (which are not part of the United Kingdom), namely the Isle of Man and the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey, even if they were British citizens, were excluded from the referendum unless they were also previous residents of the United Kingdom (that is: England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland).^[73]

Some residents of the Isle of Man protested that they, as full British citizens under the British Nationality Act 1981 and living within the British Islands, should also have been given the opportunity to vote in the referendum, as the Isle and the Bailiwicks, although not included as if they were part of the United Kingdom for the purpose of European Union (and European Economic Area (EEA)) membership (as is the case with Gibraltar), would also have been significantly affected by the outcome and impact of the referendum.^[73]

Party policies

In the run up to the referendum, of the 650 MPs elected to the 2015-17 UK Parliament a total of 479 MPs publicly declared their intention to vote in favour of remaining in the European Union compared with just 158 MPs who declared their intention to vote in favour of leaving the European Union.

  Leave

  Remain

The tables list political parties with representation in the House of Commons or the House of Lords, the European Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Welsh Parliament, or the Gibraltar Parliament at the time of the referendum.

Cabinet ministers

The Cabinet of the United Kingdom is a body responsible for making decisions on policy and organising governmental departments; it is chaired by the Prime Minister and contains most of the government's ministerial heads.^[128] Following the announcement of the referendum in February, 23 of the 30 Cabinet ministers (including attendees) supported the UK staying in the EU.^[129] Iain Duncan Smith, in favour of leaving, resigned on 19 March and was replaced by Stephen Crabb who was in favour of remaining.^[129][130] Crabb was already a cabinet member, as the Secretary of State for Wales, and his replacement, Alun Cairns, was in favour of remaining, bringing the total number of pro-remain Cabinet members to 25.

Business

Various UK multinationals have stated that they would not like the UK to leave the EU because of the uncertainty it would cause, such as Shell,^[131] BT^[132] and Vodafone,^[133] with some assessing the pros and cons of Britain exiting.^[134] The banking sector was one of the most vocal advocating to stay in the EU, with the British Bankers' Association saying: "Businesses don't like that kind of uncertainty".^[135] RBS warned of potential damage to the economy.^[136] Furthermore, HSBC and foreign-based banks JP Morgan and Deutsche Bank claim a Brexit might result in the banks' changing domicile.^[137][138] According to Goldman Sachs and the City of London's policy chief, all such factors could impact on the City of London's present status as a European and global market leader in financial services.^[139] In February 2016, leaders of 36 of the FTSE 100 companies, including Shell, BAE Systems, BT and Rio Tinto, officially supported staying in the EU.^[140] Moreover, 60% of the Institute of Directors and the EEF memberships supported staying.^[141]

Many UK-based businesses, including Sainsbury's, remained steadfastly neutral, concerned that taking sides in the divisive issue could lead to a backlash from customers.^[142]

Richard Branson stated that he was "very fearful" of the consequences of a UK exit from the EU.^[143] Alan Sugar expressed similar concern.^[144]

James Dyson, founder of the Dyson company, argued in June 2016 that the introduction of tariffs would be less damaging for British exporters than the appreciation of the pound against the Euro, arguing that, because Britain ran a 100 billion pound trade deficit with the EU, tariffs could represent a significant revenue source for the Treasury.^[145] Pointing out that languages, plugs and laws differ between EU member states, Dyson said that the 28-country bloc was not a single market, and argued the fastest growing markets were outside the EU.^[145] Engineering company Rolls-Royce wrote to employees to say that it did not want the UK to leave the EU.^[146]

Surveys of large UK businesses showed a strong majority favoured the UK remaining in the EU.^[147] Small and medium-sized UK businesses were more evenly split.^[147] Polls of foreign businesses found that around half would be less likely to do business in the UK, while 1% would increase their investment in the UK.^{[148][149][150]} Two large car manufacturers, Ford and BMW, warned in 2013 against Brexit, suggesting it would be "devastating" for the economy.^[151] Conversely, in 2015, some other manufacturing executives told Reuters that they would not shut their plants if the UK left the EU, although future investment might be put at risk.^[152] The CEO of Vauxhall stated that a Brexit would not materially affect its business.^[153] Foreign-based Toyota CEO Akio Toyoda confirmed that, whether or not Britain left the EU, Toyota would carry on manufacturing cars in Britain as they had done before.^[154]

Exchange rates and stock markets

In the week following conclusion of the UK's renegotiation (and especially after Boris Johnson announced that he would support the UK leaving), the pound fell to a seven-year low against the dollar and economists at HSBC warned that it could drop even more.^[155] At the same time, Daragh Maher, head of HSBC, suggested that if Sterling dropped in value so would the Euro. European banking analysts also cited Brexit concerns as the reason for the Euro's decline.^[156] Immediately after a poll in June 2016 showed that the Leave campaign was 10 points ahead, the pound dropped by a further one per cent.^[157] In the same month, it was announced that the value of goods exported from the UK in April had shown a month-on-month increase of 11.2%, "the biggest rise since records started in 1998".^[158][159]

Uncertainty over the referendum result, together with several other factors—US interest rates rising, low commodity prices, low Eurozone growth and concerns over emerging markets such as China—contributed to a high level of stock market volatility in January and February 2016. On 14 June, polls showing that a Brexit was more likely led to the FTSE 100 falling by 2%, losing £98 billion in value.^[160][161] After further polls suggested a move back towards Remain, the pound and the FTSE recovered.^[162]

On the day of the referendum, sterling hit a 2016 high of $1.5018 for £1 and the FTSE 100 also climbed to a 2016 high, as a new poll suggested a win for the Remain campaign.^[163] Initial results suggested a vote for 'Remain' and the value of the pound held its value. However, when the result for Sunderland was announced, it indicated an unexpected swing to 'Leave'. Subsequent results appeared to confirm this swing and sterling fell in value to $1.3777, its lowest level since 1985. On the following Monday when the markets opened, £1 sterling fell to a new low of $1.32.^[164]

Muhammad Ali Nasir and Jamie Morgan two British economists differentiated and reflected on the weakness of the Sterling due to the weak external position of the UK's economy and the further role played by the uncertainty surrounding Brexit^[165] They reported that during the week of the referendum, up to the declaration of the result, exchange rate depreciation deviated from the long-run trend by approximately 3.5 per cent, but the actual immediate effect on the exchange rate was an 8 per cent depreciation. Furthermore, that over the period from the announcement of the referendum, the exchange rate fluctuated markedly around its trend and one can also identify a larger effect based on the "wrong-footing" of markets at the point when the outcome was announced.^[165]

When the London Stock Exchange opened on the morning of 24 June, the FTSE 100 fell from 6338.10 to 5806.13 in the first ten minutes of trading. It recovered to 6091.27 after a further 90 minutes, before further recovering to 6162.97 by the end of the day's trading. When the markets reopened the following Monday, the FTSE 100 showed a steady decline losing over 2% by mid-afternoon.^[166] Upon opening later on the Friday after the referendum, the US Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped nearly 450 points or about 2½% in less than half an hour. The Associated Press called the sudden worldwide stock market decline a stock market crash.^[167] Investors in worldwide stock markets lost more than the equivalent of US$2 trillion on 24 June 2016, making it the worst single-day loss in history, in absolute terms.^[168] The market losses amounted to US$3 trillion by 27 June.^[169] Sterling fell to a 31-year low against the US dollar.^[170] The UK's and the EU's sovereign debt credit ratings were also lowered to AA by Standard & Poor's.^[171][172]

By mid-afternoon on 27 June 2016, sterling was at a 31-year low, having fallen 11% in two trading days, and the FTSE 100 had surrendered £85 billion;^[173] however, by 29 June it had recovered all its losses since the markets closed on polling day and the value of the pound had begun to rise.^[174][175]

European responses

The referendum was generally well-accepted by the European far right.^[176] Marine Le Pen, the leader of the French Front national, described the possibility of a Brexit as "like the fall of the Berlin Wall" and commented that "Brexit would be marvellous – extraordinary – for all European peoples who long for freedom".^[177] A poll in France in April 2016 showed that 59% of the French people were in favour of Britain remaining in the EU.^[178] Dutch politician Geert Wilders, leader of the Party for Freedom, said that the Netherlands should follow Britain's example: "Like in the 1940s, once again Britain could help liberate Europe from another totalitarian monster, this time called 'Brussels'. Again, we could be saved by the British."^[179]

Polish President Andrzej Duda lent his support for the UK remaining within the EU.^[180] Moldovan Prime Minister Pavel Filip asked all citizens of Moldova living in the UK to speak to their British friends and convince them to vote for the UK to remain in the EU.^[181] Spanish foreign minister José García-Margallo said Spain would demand control of Gibraltar the "very next day" after a British withdrawal from the EU.^[182] Margallo also threatened to close the border with Gibraltar if Britain left the EU.^[183]

Swedish foreign minister Margot Wallström said on 11 June 2016 that if Britain left the EU, other countries would have referendums on whether to leave the EU, and that if Britain stayed in the EU, other countries would negotiate, ask and demand to have special treatment.^[184] Czech prime minister Bohuslav Sobotka suggested in February 2016 that the Czech Republic would start discussions on leaving the EU if the UK voted for an EU exit.^[185]

Non-European responses

Economists

In November 2015, the Governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney said that the Bank of England would do what was necessary to help the UK economy if the British people voted to leave the EU.^[210] In March 2016, Carney told MPs that an EU exit was the "biggest domestic risk" to the UK economy, but that remaining a member also carried risks, related to the European Monetary Union, of which the UK is not a member.^[211] In May 2016, Carney said that a "technical recession" was one of the possible risks of the UK leaving the EU.^[212] However, Iain Duncan Smith said Carney's comment should be taken with "a pinch of salt", saying "all forecasts in the end are wrong".^[213]

In December 2015, the Bank of England published a report about the impact of immigration on wages. The report concluded that immigration put downward pressure on workers' wages, particularly low-skilled workers: a 10 per cent point rise in the proportion of migrants working in low-skilled services drove down the average wages of low-skilled workers by about 2 per cent.^[214] The 10 percentage point rise cited in the paper is larger than the entire rise observed since the 2004–06 period in the semi/unskilled services sector, which is about 7 percentage points.^[215]

In March 2016, Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz argued that he might reconsider his support for the UK remaining in the EU if the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) were to be agreed to.^[216] Stiglitz warned that under the investor-state dispute settlement provision in current drafts of the TTIP, governments risked being sued for loss of profits resulting from new regulations, including health and safety regulations to limit the use of asbestos or tobacco.^[216]

The German economist Clemens Fuest wrote that there was a liberal, free-trade bloc in the EU comprising the UK, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Sweden, Denmark, Ireland, Slovakia, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, controlling 32% of the votes in the European Council and standing in opposition to the dirigiste, protectionist policies favoured by France and its allies.^[217] Germany with its 'social market' economy stands midway between the French dirigiste economic model and the British free-market economic model. From the German viewpoint, the existence of the liberal bloc allows Germany to play-off free-market Britain against dirigiste France, and that if Britain were to leave, the liberal bloc would be severely weakened, thereby allowing the French to take the EU into a much more dirigiste direction that would be unattractive from the standpoint of Berlin.^[217]

A study by Oxford Economics for the Law Society of England and Wales has suggested that Brexit would have a particularly large negative impact on the UK financial services industry and the law firms that support it, which could cost the law sector as much as £1.7bn per annum by 2030.^[218] The Law Society's own report into the possible effects of Brexit notes that leaving the EU would be likely to reduce the role played by the UK as a centre for resolving disputes between foreign firms, whereas a potential loss of "passporting" rights would require financial services firms to transfer departments responsible for regulatory oversight overseas.^[219]

World Pensions Forum director M. Nicolas J. Firzli has argued that the Brexit debate should be viewed within the broader context of economic analysis of EU law and regulation in relation to English common law, arguing: "Every year, the British Parliament is forced to pass tens of new statutes reflecting the latest EU directives coming from Brussels – a highly undemocratic process known as 'transposition'... Slowly but surely, these new laws dictated by EU commissars are conquering English common law, imposing upon UK businesses and citizens an ever-growing collection of fastidious regulations in every field".^[220]

Thiemo Fetzer, professor of economics from University of Warwick, analyzed the welfare reforms in the UK since 2000 and suggests that numerous austerity-induced welfare reforms from 2010 onwards have stopped contributing to mitigate income differences through transfer payments. This could be a key activating factor of anti-EU preferences that lie behind the development of economic grievances and the lack of support in a Remain victory.^[221]

Michael Jacobs, the current director of the Commission on Economic Justice at the Institute for Public Policy Research and Mariana Mazzucato, a professor in University College London in Economics of Innovation and Public Value have found that the Brexit campaign had the tendency to blame external forces for domestic economic problems and have argued that the problems within the economy wasn't due to 'unstoppable forces of globalisation' but rather the result of active political and business decisions. Instead, they claim that orthodox economic theory has guided poor economic policy such as investment and that has been the cause of problems within the British economy.^[222]

Lawyers

A poll of lawyers conducted by a legal recruiter in late May 2016 suggested 57% of lawyers wanted to remain in the EU.^[224]

During a Treasury Committee shortly following the vote, economic experts generally agreed that the leave vote would be detrimental to the UK economy.^[225]

Michael Dougan, Professor of European Law and Jean Monnet Chair in EU Law at the University of Liverpool and a constitutional lawyer, described the Leave campaign as "one of the most dishonest political campaigns this country [the UK] has ever seen", for using arguments based on constitutional law that he said were readily demonstrable as false.^[226]

NHS officials

Simon Stevens, head of NHS England, warned in May 2016 that a recession following a Brexit would be "very dangerous" for the National Health Service, saying that "when the British economy sneezes, the NHS catches a cold."^[227] Three-quarters of a sample of NHS leaders agreed that leaving the EU would have a negative effect on the NHS as a whole. In particular, eight out of 10 respondents felt that leaving the EU would have a negative impact on trusts' ability to recruit health and social care staff.^[228] In April 2016, a group of nearly 200 health professionals and researchers warned that the NHS would be in jeopardy if Britain left the European Union.^[229] The leave campaign reacted by saying more money would be available to be spent on the NHS if the UK left the EU.

British health charities

Guidelines by the Charity Commission for England and Wales that forbid political activity for registered charities have limited UK health organizations' commentary on EU poll, according to anonymous sources consulted by the Lancet.^[230] According to Simon Wessely, head of psychological medicine at the Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London – neither a special revision of the guidelines from 7 March 2016, nor Cameron's encouragement have made health organisations, willing to speak out.^[230] The Genetic Alliance UK the Royal College of Midwives the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry and the Chief Executive of the National Health Service had all stated pro-remain positions by early June 2016.^[230]

Fishing industry

A June 2016 survey of British fishermen found that 92% intended to vote to leave the EU.^[231] The EU's Common Fisheries Policy was mentioned as a central reason for their near-unanimity.^[231] More than three-quarters believed that they would be able to land more fish, and 93% stated that leaving the EU would benefit the fishing industry.^[232]

Historians

In May 2016, more than 300 historians wrote in a joint letter to The Guardian that Britain could play a bigger role in the world as part of the EU. They said: "As historians of Britain and of Europe, we believe that Britain has had in the past, and will have in the future, an irreplaceable role to play in Europe."^[233] On the other hand, many historians argued in favour of leaving, seeing it as a return to self-sovereignty.^[234][235]

Exit plan competition

Following David Cameron's announcement of an EU referendum, in July 2013 the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) announced the "Brexit Prize", a competition to find the best plan for a UK exit from the European Union, and declared that a departure was a "real possibility" following the 2015 general election.^[236] Iain Mansfield, a Cambridge graduate and UKTI diplomat, submitted the winning thesis: A Blueprint for Britain: Openness not Isolation.^[237] Mansfield's submission focused on addressing both trade and regulatory issues with EU member states as well as other global trading partners.^[238][239]

On the day YouGov poll

Shortly after the polls closed at 10 pm on 23 June, the British polling company YouGov released a poll conducted among almost 5,000 people on the day; it suggested a narrow lead for "Remain", which polled 52% with Leave polling 48%. It was later criticised for overestimating the margin of the "Remain" vote,^[255] when it became clear a few hours later that the UK had voted 51.9% to 48.1% in favour of leaving the European Union.

Regional count results

Results by constituent countries & Gibraltar

Voter demographics and trends

Voting figures from local referendum counts and ward-level data (using local demographic information collected in the 2011 census) suggests that Leave votes were strongly correlated with lower qualifications and higher age.^{[309][310][311][312]} The data were obtained from about one in nine wards in England and Wales, with very little information from Scotland and none from Northern Ireland.^[309] A YouGov survey reported similar findings; these are summarised in the charts below.^[313][314]

Researchers based at the University of Warwick found that areas with "deprivation in terms of education, income and employment were more likely to vote Leave". The Leave vote tended to be greater in areas which had lower incomes and high unemployment, a strong tradition of manufacturing employment, and in which the population had fewer qualifications.^[315] It also tended to be greater where there was a large flow of Eastern European migrants (mainly low-skilled workers) into areas with a large share of native low-skilled workers.^[315] Those in lower social grades (especially the 'working class') were more likely to vote Leave, while those in higher social grades (especially the 'upper middle class') were more likely to vote Remain.^[316]

Polls by Ipsos MORI, YouGov and Lord Ashcroft all assert that 70–75% of under 25s voted 'remain'.^[317] Additionally according to YouGov, only 54% of 25- to 49-year-olds voted 'remain', whilst 60% of 50- to 64-year-olds and 64% of over-65s voted 'leave', meaning that the support for 'remain' was not as strong outside the youngest demographic.^[318] Also, YouGov found that around 87% of under-25s in 2018 would now vote to stay in the EU.^[319] Opinion polling by Lord Ashcroft Polls found that Leave voters believed leaving the EU was "more likely to bring about a better immigration system, improved border controls, a fairer welfare system, better quality of life, and the ability to control our own laws", while Remain voters believed EU membership "would be better for the economy, international investment, and the UK's influence in the world".^[320] Immigration is thought to be a particular worry for older people that voted Leave, who consider it a potential threat to national identity and culture.^[321] The polling found that the main reasons people had voted Leave were "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK", and that leaving "offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders". The main reason people voted Remain was that "the risks of voting to leave the EU looked too great when it came to things like the economy, jobs and prices".^[320]

One analysis suggests that in contrast to the general correlation between age and likelihood of having voted to leave the EU, those who experienced the majority of their formative period (between the ages of 15 and 25) during the Second World War are more likely to oppose Brexit than the rest of the over-65 age group, for they are more likely to associate the EU with bringing peace.^[322]

• 
  EU referendum vote by age and education, based on a YouGov survey.^[313][314]
• 
  EU referendum leave vote versus educational attainment (Highest level of qualification for Level 4 qualifications and above) by area for England and Wales.^[309]

Ipsos MORI demographic polling breakdown

On 5 September 2016, the polling company Ipsos MORI estimated the following percentage breakdown of votes in the referendum by different demographic group, as well as the percentage of turnout among registered voters in most of those demographic groups:^[323]

All: 48% Remain, 52% Leave (72% turnout)

By Gender:
Men: 45% Remain, 55% Leave (74% turnout)
Women: 51% Remain, 49% Leave (71% turnout)

By Age:
18–24: 75% Remain, 25% Leave (60% turnout)
25–34: 60% Remain, 40% Leave (66% turnout)
35–44: 55% Remain, 45% Leave (71% turnout)
45–54: 44% Remain, 56% Leave (73% turnout)
55–64: 39% Remain, 61% Leave (79% turnout)
65–74: 34% Remain, 66% Leave (82% turnout)
75+: 37% Remain, 63% Leave (73% turnout)

Men by Age:
18–34: 64% Remain, 36% Leave (64% turnout)
35–54: 44% Remain, 56% Leave (74% turnout)
55+: 35% Remain, 65% Leave (80% turnout)

Women by Age:
18–34: 67% Remain, 33% Leave (64% turnout)
35–54: 55% Remain, 45% Leave (70% turnout)
55+: 39% Remain, 61% Leave (76% turnout)

By Social Class:
AB: 59% Remain, 41% Leave (79% turnout)
C1: 52% Remain, 48% Leave (75% turnout)
C2: 38% Remain, 62% Leave (70% turnout)
DE: 36% Remain, 64% Leave (65% turnout)

Men by Class:
AB: 54% Remain, 46% Leave (81% turnout)
C1: 51% Remain, 49% Leave (75% turnout)
C2: 35% Remain, 65% Leave (70% turnout)
DE: 36% Remain, 64% Leave (67% turnout)

Women by Class:
AB: 65% Remain, 35% Leave (76% turnout)
C1: 54% Remain, 46% Leave (74% turnout)
C2: 41% Remain, 59% Leave (70% turnout)
DE: 37% Remain, 63% Leave (63% turnout)

By Educational Level:
Degree or higher: 68% Remain, 32% Leave (78% turnout)
Qualifications below degree: 44% Remain, 56% Leave (71% turnout)
No qualifications: 30% Remain, 70% Leave (71% turnout)

18–34 Year Olds by Class:
AB: 71% Remain, 29% Leave (71% turnout)
C1: 71% Remain, 29% Leave (67% turnout)
C2: 54% Remain, 46% Leave (58% turnout)
DE: 56% Remain, 44% Leave (54% turnout)

35–54 Year Olds by Class:
AB: 61% Remain, 39% Leave
C1: 53% Remain, 47% Leave
C2: 35% Remain, 65% Leave
DE: 36% Remain, 64% Leave

55+ Year Olds by Class:
AB: 48% Remain, 52% Leave
C1: 37% Remain, 63% Leave
C2: 32% Remain, 68% Leave
DE: 30% Remain, 70% Leave

By Ethnic Group:
White: 46% Remain, 54% Leave (74% turnout)
All Non-White: 69% Remain, 31% Leave (57% turnout)

More breakdown by Ethnic Group:
White: 46% Remain, 54% Leave
Black: 73% Remain, 27% Leave
South Asian: 67% Remain, 33% Leave
Chinese: 70% Remain, 30% Leave
Mixed race: 67% Remain, 33% Leave
Other: 65% Remain, 35% Leave

By Work Status:
Full-time: 53% Remain, 47% Leave
Part-time: 53% Remain, 47% Leave
Unemployed (and claiming UC or JSA): 40% Remain, 60% Leave
Not working - looking after home: 36% Remain, 64% Leave
Student: 80% Remain, 20% Leave
Retired: 36% Remain, 64% Leave
Other: 39% Remain, 61% Leave

By Housing Tenure:
Fully owned: 42% Remain, 58% Leave (79% turnout)
Mortgage: 54% Remain, 46% Leave (75% turnout)
Social renter: 37% Remain, 63% Leave (61% turnout)
Private renter: 56% Remain, 44% Leave (65% turnout)

By Work Sector:
Public sector: 56% Remain, 44% Leave
Private sector: 52% Remain, 48% Leave

By 2015 General Election vote:
Conservative: 41% Remain, 59% Leave (85% turnout)
Labour: 64% Remain, 36% Leave (77% turnout)
Lib Dem: 69% Remain, 31% Leave (81% turnout)
UKIP: 1% Remain, 99% Leave (89% turnout)
Did not vote (but not too young): 42% Remain, 58% Leave (45% turnout)

Immediate reaction to the vote

Petition for a new referendum

A pro-EU demonstration in Manchester in October 2017

Within hours of the result's announcement, a petition, entitled "EU Referendum Rules triggering a 2nd EU Referendum" and calling for a second referendum to be held in the event that a result was secured with less than 60% of the vote and on a turnout of less than 75%, attracted tens of thousands of new signatures. The petition had actually been initiated by someone favouring an exit from the EU, one William Oliver Healey of the English Democrats on 24 May 2016, when the Remain faction had been leading in the polls, and had received 22 signatures prior to the referendum result being declared.^{[347][348][349]} On 26 June, Healey made it clear on his Facebook page that the petition had actually been started to favour an exit from the EU and that he was a strong supporter of the Vote Leave and Grassroots Out campaigns. Healey also claimed that the petition had been "hijacked by the remain campaign".^[350] English Democrats chairman Robin Tilbrook suggested those who had signed the petition were experiencing "sour grapes" about the result of the referendum.^[351] It attracted more than four million signatures, meaning it was considered for debate in Parliament;^[352][353] this debate took place on 5 September 2016.^[354]

On 27 June 2016, David Cameron's spokesperson stated that holding another vote on Britain's membership of the European Union was "not remotely on the cards".^[355] Home Secretary Theresa May made the following comment when announcing her candidacy to replace Cameron as Conservative leader (and hence as Prime Minister) on 30 June: "The campaign was fought ... and the public gave their verdict. There must be no attempts to remain inside the EU ... and no second referendum. ... Brexit means Brexit."^[356] The petition was rejected by the government on 9 July. Its response said that the referendum vote "must be respected" and that the government "must now prepare for the process to exit the EU".^[357]

Political

Conservative Party

Further information: 2016 Conservative Party leadership election

Prime Minister David Cameron announced his resignation following the outcome of the referendum.

Theresa May succeeded David Cameron as Prime Minister following the vote.

On 24 June, the Conservative Party leader and Prime Minister David Cameron announced that he would resign by October because the Leave campaign had been successful in the referendum. The leadership election was scheduled for 9 September. The new leader would be in place before the autumn conference set to begin on 2 October.^[358] Unexpectedly, Boris Johnson, who had been a leading figure for Vote Leave, declined to be nominated shortly before the deadline for nominations. On 13 July, almost three weeks after the vote, Theresa May succeeded Cameron as Prime Minister.

Economy

On the morning of 24 June, the pound sterling fell to its lowest level against the US dollar since 1985.^[372] The drop over the day was 8% – the biggest one-day fall in the pound since the introduction of floating exchange rates following the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1971.^[373]

The FTSE 100 initially fell 8%, then recovered to be 3% down by the close of trading on 24 June.^[374] The FTSE 100 index fully recovered by 29 June and subsequently rose above its pre-referendum levels.^[375]

The referendum result also had an immediate impact on some other countries. The South African rand experienced its largest single-day decline since 2008, dropping over 8% against the United States dollar.^[376][377] Other countries affected included Canada, whose stock exchange fell 1.70%,^[378] Nigeria^[377] and Kenya.^[377]

On 28 June 2016, former governor of Bank of England Mervyn King said that current governor Mark Carney would help to guide Britain through the next few months, adding that the BOE would undoubtedly lower the temperature of the post-referendum uncertainty, and that British citizens should keep calm, wait and see.^[379]

On 5 January 2017, Andy Haldane, chief economist and the executive director of monetary analysis and statistics at the Bank of England, admitted that the bank's forecasts (predicting an economic downturn should the referendum favour Brexit) had proved inaccurate given the subsequent strong market performance.^[380] He stated that the bank's models "were rather narrow and fragile [and] ill-equipped to making sense of behaviours that were deeply irrational" and said that his "profession is to some degree in crisis" due to this and the unforeseen 2007–2008 crisis.^[380][381]

Electoral Reform Society

In August 2016, the Electoral Reform Society published a highly critical report on the referendum and called for a review of how future events are run. Contrasting it very unfavourably with the 'well-informed grassroots' campaign for Scottish independence, Katie Ghose described it as "dire" with "glaring democratic deficiencies" which left voters bewildered. Ghose noted a generally negative response to establishment figures with 29% of voters saying David Cameron made them more likely to vote leave whereas only 14% said he made them want to vote remain. Looking ahead, the society called for an official organisation to highlight misleading claims and for Office of Communications (Ofcom) to define the role that broadcasters were expected to play.^[382]

Television coverage

The BBC, ITV and Sky News all provided live coverage of the counts and the reaction to the result. The BBC's coverage, presented by David Dimbleby, Laura Kuenssberg and John Curtice, was simulcast domestically on BBC One and the BBC News Channel, and internationally on BBC World News. ITV's coverage was presented by Tom Bradby, Robert Peston and Allegra Stratton.

The BBC called the referendum result for Leave with its projected forecast at 04:40 BST on 24 June. David Dimbleby announced it with the words:

Well, at twenty minutes to five, we can now say the decision taken in 1975 by this country to join the Common Market has been reversed by this referendum to leave the EU. We are absolutely clear now that there is no way that the Remain side can win. It looks as if the gap is going to be something like 52 to 48, so a four-point lead for leaving the EU, and that is the result of this referendum, which has been preceded by weeks and months of argument and dispute and all the rest of it. The British people have spoken and the answer is: we're out!

(The remark about 1975 was technically incorrect; the UK had joined the Common Market in 1973 and the 1975 referendum was on whether to remain in it.)

Campaign spending

A protest following the Cambridge Analytica allegations, 29 March 2018

On 9 May 2016, Leave.EU was fined £50,000 by the UK Information Commissioner's Office 'for failing to follow the rules about sending marketing messages': they sent people text messages without having first gained their permission to do so.^[383][384]

In February 2017, the Electoral Commission announced that it was investigating the spending of Stronger in and Vote Leave, along with smaller parties, as they had not submitted all the necessary invoices, receipts, or details to back up their accounts.^[385] In April 2017, the Commission specified that 'there were reasonable grounds to suspect that potential offences under the law may have occurred' in relation to Leave.EU.^[386][387]

On 4 March 2017, the Information Commissioner's Office also reported that it was 'conducting a wide assessment of the data-protection risks arising from the use of data analytics, including for political purposes' in relation to the Brexit campaign. It was specified that among the organisations to be investigated was Cambridge Analytica and its relationship with the Leave.EU campaign.^[388][387]

ICO report: Investigation into the use of data analytics in political campaigns

In May 2017, The Irish Times reported that £425,622 donated by the Constitutional Research Council to the Democratic Unionist Party for spending during the referendum may have originated in Saudi Arabia.^[389]

In November 2017, the Electoral Commission said that it was investigating allegations that Arron Banks, an insurance businessman and the largest single financial supporter of Brexit, violated campaign spending laws.^[390] The commission's investigation focuses on both Banks and Better for the Country Limited, a company of which Banks is a director and majority shareholder.^[391] The company donated £2.4 million to groups supporting British withdrawal from the EU.^[390] The investigation began after the Commission found "initial grounds to suspect breaches of electoral law".^[392] The Commission specifically seeks to determine "whether or not Mr Banks was the true source of loans reported by a referendum campaigner in his name" and "whether or not Better for the Country Limited was the true source of donations made to referendum campaigners in its name, or if it was acting as an agent".^[390]

In December 2017, the Electoral Commission announced several fines related to breaches of campaign finance rules during the referendum campaign.^[393] The Liberal Democrats were fined £18,000 and Open Britain (formerly Britain Stronger in Europe) paid £1,250 in fines.^[393] The maximum possible fine was £20,000.^[393]

In March 2018, Deutsche Welle reported that Canadian whistleblower Christopher Wylie "told UK lawmakers during a committee hearing...that a firm linked to Cambridge Analytica helped the official Vote Leave campaign [the official pro-Brexit group headed by Boris Johnson and Michael Gove] circumvent campaign financing laws during the Brexit referendum".^[394]

In May 2018, the Electoral Commission fined Leave.EU £70,000 for unlawfully overspending by a minimum of £77,380 – exceeding the statutory spending limit by more than 10%, inaccurately reporting three loans it had received from Aaron Banks totalling £6 million including "a lack of transparency and incorrect reporting around who provided the loans, the dates the loans were entered into, the repayment date and the interest rate", and failing to provide the required invoices for "97 payments of over £200, totalling £80,224". The Electoral Commission's director of political finance and regulation and legal counsel said that the "level of fine we have imposed has been constrained by the cap on the commission's fines".^[395][396] In the same month, the Electoral Commission issued a £2,000 fine to the pro-EU campaign group Best for Our Future Limited; it also fined Unison £1,500 for inaccurately reporting a donation to Best for Our Future and failing to pay an invoice; and it fined GMB £500 for inaccurately reporting a donation to Best for Our Future.^[397]

In July 2018, the Electoral Commission fined Vote Leave £61,000 for not declaring £675,000 incurred under a common plan with BeLeave, unlawfully overspending by £449,079, inaccurately reporting 43 items of spending totalling £236,501, failing to provide the required invoices for "8 payments of over £200, totalling £12,850", and failing to comply with an investigation notice issued by the commission. Darren Grimes representing BeLeave was fined £20,000, the maximum permitted individual fine, for exceeding its spending limit as an unregistered campaigner by more than £660,000 and delivering an inaccurate and incomplete spending return. Veterans for Britain was also fined £250 for inaccurately reporting a donation it received from Vote Leave.^[398] The Electoral Commission referred the matter to the police. On 14 September 2018, following a High Court of Justice case, the court found that Vote Leave had received incorrect advice from the UK Electoral Commission, but confirmed that the overspending had been illegal. Vote Leave subsequently said they would not have paid it without the advice.^[399][400]

In February 2019, the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee's 18-month investigation into disinformation and fake news published its final report,^[401] calling for and inquiry to establish, in relation to the referendum, "what actually happened with regard to foreign influence, disinformation, funding, voter manipulation, and the sharing of data, so that appropriate changes to the law can be made and lessons can be learnt for future elections and referenda".^[402]

Speculation about Russian interference

In the run-up to the Brexit referendum, Russian President Vladimir Putin refrained from taking a public position on Brexit,^[403] but Prime Minister David Cameron suggested that "Putin might be happy" with Britain leaving the EU,^[404] while the Remain campaign accused the Kremlin of secretly backing a "Leave" vote in the referendum.^[405] Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova denied these allegations, saying that "Russia is blamed for everything. Not only in the UK but all over the world. (...) But Russia has nothing to do with Brexit at all. We're not involved in this process."^[403] Steve Rosenberg, the Moscow correspondent for BBC News, suggested on 26 June 2016 that the Russian government stood to gain from Brexit in several ways: (1) enabling Russian state media "to contrast post-referendum upheaval and uncertainty abroad with a picture of 'stability' back home and images of a 'strong' President Putin at the helm" in a way that bolstered the ruling United Russia party; (2) to place the value of the British pound under pressure and thereby exact retaliation for sanctions against Russia imposed after its occupation of Crimea; (3) to "make the European Union more friendly towards Russia" in the absence of British membership; and (4) to force the resignation of Cameron, who had been critical of Russian actions.^[405] After the referendum result Putin said that Brexit brought "positives and negatives".^[405]

In December 2016, MP Ben Bradshaw speculated in Parliament that Russia may have interfered in the referendum.^[406] In February 2017, he called on the GCHQ intelligence service to reveal the information it had on Russian interference.^[407] In April 2017, the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Select Committee (PACAC) issued a report suggesting that there were technical indications that a June 2016 crash of the voter-registration website was caused by a distributed denial-of-service attack using botnets.^[408] The Cabinet Office, in response, stated that it did not believe that "malign intervention" had caused the crash, and instead attributed the crash "to a spike in users just before the registration deadline".^[408]

In October 2017, MP Damian Collins, chairman of the House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, sent a letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg requesting documents relating to possible Russian government manipulation of Facebook during the Brexit referendum and the general election the following year.^[409]

In October 2017, a study by researchers at City, University of London was published in the journal Social Science Computer Review. The article identified 13,493 Twitter accounts that posted a total of about 65,000 messages in the last four weeks of the Brexit referendum campaign, the vast majority campaigning for a "Leave" vote; they were deleted shortly after the referendum.^[410][411] A further 26,538 Twitter accounts suddenly changed their username.^[411] The research findings "raised questions about the possibility that a coordinated 'bot army' was deployed, and also about the possibility that Twitter itself may have detected and removed them without disclosing the manipulation".^[410]

In November 2017, the Electoral Commission told The Times that it had launched an inquiry to "examine the growing role of social media in election campaigns amid concerns from the intelligence and security agencies that Russia is trying to destabilise the democratic process in Britain".^[412] The commission was in contact with Facebook and Twitter as part of the inquiry.^[412]

According to Facebook, Russian-based operatives spent 97 cents to place three adverts on the social network in the run-up to the referendum, which were viewed 200 times.^[413]

On 10 June 2018, The Guardian reported that investigators from The Observer had seen evidence that Leave.EU funder Arron Banks had met Russian officials "multiple times" from 2015 to 2017 and had discussed "a multibillion dollar opportunity to buy Russian goldmines".^[414]

In July 2020, the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament published a report on Russian interference in British politics, which concluded that the government "had not seen or sought evidence of successful interference in UK democratic processes" and criticised the government for failing to conduct an assessment of Russian attempts to interfere in the Brexit referendum.^[415] Three months later, Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham, who had decided to look into potential unlawful marketing involving repurposing of data during the referendum, produced her final report. She concluded that she had found no evidence of Russian involvement in the referendum.^[416][417]