This longitudinal study uses stated preference discrete choice experiments to explore and quantify how the British public value key dimensions of a future relationship with Europe and how these have changed between 2017 and 2018. Key dimensions included freedom of movement for working and holidays, contributions to the EU, free trade with other countries, access to the EU single market for goods and services and sovereignty.

Cover: What sort of Brexit do the British people want?
Read Online

What sort of Brexit do the British people want?

A longitudinal study examining the "trade-offs" people would be willing to make in reaching a Brexit deal — technical addendum

by Hui Lu, Charlene Rohr, Alexandra Pollitt, David Howarth, Jonathan Grant

Download eBook for Free

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 2.5 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

Research Questions

  1. How do the British public value different aspects of the UK's relationship with the EU that may form part of the Brexit negotiations?
  2. Have their priorities changed in the last year?
  3. What does this mean for the sort of relationship that the British public want with the EU post-Brexit?

In July 2017 we undertook a 'proof-of-concept' study using stated preference discrete choice experiments (SPDCEs) to quantify how the British public value key dimensions of a future relationship with the EU. This follow-on study undertakes the same experiments with many of the same respondents one year later to explore whether and how people's preferences have changed. This report provides details of the technical aspects of the work, including the survey methodology, the design of the experiments and the model analysis. A companion report summarises the key policy findings. In terms of methodology, we again find that people were able to undertake the choice experiments, even though they were complex. We find little change in people's preferences in the last two years, although we see some evidence of movement towards a closer relationship to the EU. Again, we find that those dimensions directly influencing the economy — such as free trade deals with countries outside the EU and access to the EU Single Market — are valued most highly, and that preferences vary significantly by education level. Using the model results we find that Britons place a negative value on a 'no deal' option of about £14 per household per week of EU expenditure relative to remaining in the EU (noting that the absolute values derived from the study should be used to provide order-of-magnitude estimates). Having a 'Norway-like' relationship is valued positively at about £11 per household per week of EU expenditure relative to remaining in the EU.

Key Findings

Policy findings

  • The British public still want a deal, which is based on a close relationship with the EU with the most preferred option resembling membership of the EEA (a 'Norway-like' relationship).
  • Over the last year we see a 'softening' of the type of relationship that Britons want with the EU as well as an increase in the number of people who want to Remain in the EU.
  • Education level is important in explaining the continued polarisation of views on the way forward for Brexit.
  • The value British people place on the proposals set out in the government's White Paper ('Chequers') is difficult to quantify due to its vagueness on key issues of concern.
  • Should there be another referendum, the options offered in a vote will significantly influence the outcome.

Methodological findings

  • People have been able to undertake the choice experiments, even though they were complex.
  • We do not observe significant differences in the value that people place on different attributes describing the UK's relationship with the EU between 2017 and 2018, except for the need for a work permit for non-UK nationals to work in the UK (and UK nationals to work in the EU), which was valued slightly less positively in 2018.
  • The British public are relatively insensitive to the level of UK contribution tested in the choice experiments.
  • The results provide quantitative estimates of the value that people place on the different attributes describing Britain's relationship with the EU.

Table of Contents

  • Chapter One

    Background

  • Chapter Two

    Designing the stated preference discrete choice experiments

  • Chapter Three

    Findings from background questions and the stated preference discrete choice experiments

  • Chapter Four

    How can we use the choice modelling results to inform Brexit negotiations?

  • Chapter Five

    Methodological findings, recommendations and caveats

  • Appendix A

    Fieldwork and characteristics of the survey sample

  • Appendix B

    Detailed choice model results

Research conducted by

This project is a RAND Venture. Funding was provided by gifts from RAND supporters and income from operations. The research was conducted by RAND Europe in cooperation with he Policy Institute at King's College London and Professor David Howarth and researchers at the University of Cambridge.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation Research report series. RAND reports present research findings and objective analysis that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.