IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Who voted for a No Deal Brexit? A Composition Model of Great Britains 2019 European Parliamentary Elections


  • Stephen Clark


The purpose of this paper is to use the votes cast at the 2019 European elections held in United Kingdom to re-visit the analysis conducted subsequent to its 2016 European Union referendum vote. This exercise provides a staging post on public opinion as the United Kingdom moves to leave the European Union during 2020. A composition data analysis in a seemingly unrelated regression framework is adopted that respects the compositional nature of the vote outcome; each outcome is a share that adds up to 100% and each outcome is related to the alternatives. Contemporary explanatory data for each counting area is sourced from the themes of socio-demographics, employment, life satisfaction and place. The study find that there are still strong and stark divisions in the United Kingdom, defined by age, qualifications, employment and place. The use of a compositional analysis approach produces challenges in regards to the interpretation of these models, but marginal plots are seen to aid the interpretation somewhat.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephen Clark, 2020. "Who voted for a No Deal Brexit? A Composition Model of Great Britains 2019 European Parliamentary Elections," Papers 2001.06548,
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2001.06548

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Scott Basinger & Damon Cann & Michael Ensley, 2012. "Voter response to congressional campaigns: new techniques for analyzing aggregate electoral behavior," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 150(3), pages 771-792, March.
    2. Eleonora Alabrese & Thiemo René Fetzer, 2018. "Who is NOT Voting for Brexit Anymore?," CESifo Working Paper Series 7389, CESifo.
    3. Liberini, Federica & Oswald, Andrew J & Proto, Eugenio & Redoano, Michela, 2017. "Was Brexit Caused by the Unhappy and the Old?," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 342, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    4. Mia Gray & Anna Barford, 2018. "The depths of the cuts: the uneven geography of local government austerity," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 11(3), pages 541-563.
    5. Alabrese, Eleonora & Becker, Sascha O. & Fetzer, Thiemo & Novy, Dennis, 2019. "Who voted for Brexit? Individual and regional data combined," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 132-150.
    6. Mia Gray & Anna Barford, 2018. "The Depths of The Cuts: The Uneven Geography of Local Government Austerity," Working Papers wp510, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    7. Richard Harris & Martin Charlton, 2016. "Voting out of the European Union: Exploring the geography of Leave," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 48(11), pages 2116-2128, November.
    8. Tomz, Michael & Tucker, Joshua A. & Wittenberg, Jason, 2002. "An Easy and Accurate Regression Model for Multiparty Electoral Data," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(1), pages 66-83, January.
    9. Katz, Jonathan N. & King, Gary, 1999. "A Statistical Model for Multiparty Electoral Data," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(1), pages 15-32, March.
    10. Joshua Matti & Yang Zhou, 2017. "The political economy of Brexit: explaining the vote," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(16), pages 1131-1134, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2001.06548. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (arXiv administrators). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.