EC 59/15
Referendum on membership of the European
Union: question assessment
Meeting date
17 August
Agenda item
Purpose of paper
3
Decision
Decision
recommended
Key risks
Resource implications
Communication and
next steps
Programme
Author
Protected
That the Commission Board agrees with the:
a) recommendation at 5.5
b) recommendation at 5.11
c) recommendation at 5.18
a) Not reaching an agreed, clear
recommendation on the question in
sufficient time to publish our assessment
ahead of the end of summer recess
b) Not reaching an agreed recommendation
on the provision of public information
None immediately but the decision on the
approach to public information could have future
resource implications
The Commission will publish its report on the
assessment of the Government’s proposed
referendum question on 1 September 2015.
Report stage of the EU Referendum Bill is in the
House of Commons on 7 September.
EU Referendum
Phil Thompson (Head of Research and Party
registration (02072710570)
Programme Director: Alex Robertson (0207 271
0568)
1
EC 59/15
1
Executive summary
1.1 This paper is strictly private and confidential and should not be shared
with or disclosed to anyone outside the Commission. The paper:




contains information on our role in assessing the referendum question
summarises the main findings from our external public opinion research
summarises the main issues raised by interested parties
contains our draft assessment of the referendum question
2
Questions and recommendations
2.1 The Commission Board is invited to agree with the:



recommendation at 5.5
recommendation at 5.11
recommendation at 5.18
3
Background
3.1 On 28 May 2015, the UK Government introduced the European Union
(Referendum) Bill to Parliament. The Bill makes provision for a referendum by
the end of 2017 on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union.
The Bill contains the following referendum question:
Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?
Yes
No
3.2 Where a referendum question is set out in a Bill providing for a
referendum, as in the case of the European Union Referendum Bill, the
Political Parties, Referendums and Elections Act 2000 (PPERA)1 requires the
Commission to consider the wording of the referendum question and publish a
statement of our views as to its intelligibility:


as soon as is reasonably practical after the Bill is introduced and
in such manner as the Commission may determine.
3.3 The introduction of the European Union (Referendum) Bill triggered our
duty to consider the intelligibility of the referendum question.
3.4 We have followed our published preferred approach to assessing
referendum questions by:
1
Section 104(1) and (2).
Protected
2
EC 59/15




Carrying out qualitative public opinion research with people from
different backgrounds and demographics across the UK, through focus
groups and one-to-one in-depth interviews
Asking for advice from experts on accessibility and plain language
Writing to interested parties including political parties and would-be
campaigners, to seek their views and to offer meetings to hear from
them
Receiving views and comments from individual people or organisations
who contacted us, having seen from our website or otherwise heard that
we were undertaking the question assessment
3.5 Our public opinion research is complete. A copy of the final report from
our research Agency, GfK NOP, will be circulated for information.
3.6 We have received a high number of responses to our consultation. In
total, including unsolicited responses from members of the public, we received
nearly 1,600 responses (by comparison, we received around 450 responses
as part of our consultation on the question for Scotland).
3.7 Depending on the Board’s decision we intend to publish our assessment
report (alongside the full research report) on 1 September 2015.
Previous assessment
3.8 The Commission has previously assessed the wording of a question for
a referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union,2
which was included in a Private Members’ Bill introduced in 2013.3 That
question was:
Do you think the United Kingdom should be a member of the European
Union?
Yes
No
3.9 Our research and consultation found that, although the question used
brief and straightforward language, the phrase ‘be a member of the European
Union’ to describe the referendum choice was not sufficiently clear to ensure
a full understanding of the referendum as a whole. This was because some
participants in our research did not know that the United Kingdom is currently
a member of the European Union while others who did know thought the
question suggested the United Kingdom was not a member or was unclear.
2
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/elections-andreferendums/upcoming-elections-and-referendums/eu-referendum/eu-referendum-questionassessment
3 We also tested Welsh translations of the question.
Protected
3
EC 59/15
3.10 We recommended, in October 2013, that the proposed question wording
should be amended to reduce the risk of misunderstanding or ambiguity about
the current membership status of the United Kingdom within the European
Union. We also recommended making the question more to the point by
removing ‘Do you think…’.
3.11 We recommended amending the question to:
Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union
Yes
No
3.12 However, it was clear from our research that some people will perceive
either positive or negative associations with the phrase ‘remain a member of
the European Union’, although there was no evidence to suggest that this
wording resulted in participants changing their voting preference in any way.
Our testing suggested that, in the context of a referendum on the UK’s
membership of the EU, question wordings using ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ as response
options may not be able to fully resolve these complex issues.
3.13 We therefore provided a second recommended question wording which
included both options (to remain and leave the EU) to reduce the risk of
perceived bias for either outcome. We indicated that this highlighted an
important decision for Parliament about retaining or moving away from the
UK’s recent experience of referendum questions using ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ as
response options. This second question was considered the most neutral of
all those we tested and asked:
Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union
or leave the European Union?”
Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union
3.14 However, we also highlighted in October 2013 that we had not been able
to fully test the second of these two alternative question wordings in the time
available to us before we reported. We therefore made clear that, if
Parliament amended the question in the Bill to include this wording, the
Commission would undertake further work to check whether this wording
raised any new issues of intelligibility.
3.15 After the question wording included in the Private Members’ Bill had
been amended in Parliament to “Should the United Kingdom remain a
member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”, we carried
out this further research in early 2014. Taking into account the results of that
research, we were satisfied that the amended question wording (using
“Remain a member of the European Union” and “Leave the European Union”
Protected
4
EC 59/15
as response options) was not only clear and straightforward for voters but
was, at that time, also thought to be the most neutral wording from the range
of options we had considered and tested.
3.16 At that time we also sought evidence from potential referendum
campaigners about the impact of this question wording for them.
Unfortunately, at that stage, we received no responses to our request.
Therefore, while we were satisfied that the question wording would be clear
and straightforward for voters, we recognised that the absence of evidence
about the potential implications for referendum campaigners represented a
gap in our ability to assess the intelligibility of question in the widest possible
sense. This new assessment has sought to address that gap as well as
providing further, updated evidence of public views on the question.
4
Summary of issues
4.1 Our report will describe the context for the referendum, which sets the
scene for our assessment. In particular, that, at the time of undertaking our
question assessment, we know that the Government has committed to a
process of negotiation on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European
Union. That process is not yet complete. There is therefore a level of
uncertainty about the specific issues which will frame the vote and what
impact or otherwise these may have on how people approach the question.
4.2 There is also uncertainty about the precise steps that will be taken
immediately following a referendum. The Government has made clear that a
vote, at this referendum, to leave the European Union would be binding and
result in the UK ending its membership. However, the UK’s membership
status would not immediately change following the vote and there would be
likely to be discussions following the referendum on how this change would be
implemented. This referendum is therefore more similar to the referendum on
independence for Scotland, in terms of outcomes, than to those held in 2011.
4.3 Participants in our research expected to be provided with information
around the time of the referendum that would enable them to gain a greater
understanding of the implications of voting to remain a member of the
European Union or to leave the European Union. This paper sets out our
recommended approach to public information provision.
Research
4.4 Our report will contain a detailed chapter explaining the nature of our
public opinion research and the findings.
4.5 Our question testing research included: five mini-group discussions, 24
extended mini-depth interviews and 65 mini-depth interviews.

five mini-group discussions, in a geographic spread of locations and
covering a wide demographic sample,
Protected
5
EC 59/15


65 mini-depth interviews, also in a spread of locations and with different
demographics
24 extended mini-depth interviews including participants with lower
literacy, learning difficulties and visual impairments.
4.6 Within the research we sought a spread of individual views regarding
personal importance of the United Kingdom’s membership of the European
Union and individual views regarding how personally informed participants felt
regarding issues relating to the United Kingdom’s members of the European
Union.
4.7 In addition, we sought a mix of those who felt that they were decided or
undecided regarding which way they would vote in the referendum. Across all
methods the proportion of participants that answered either way (e.g. ‘yes’/
‘remain’ or ‘no’/ ‘leave’) ‘- to the referendum questions were monitored via the
completed mock ballot papers to ensure a reasonable mix.
4.8 We use alternative questions in our assessment exercises to maximise
the usefulness of the research by eliciting further thoughts and comments
from participants, both on the proposed question and the alternative
presented. We developed alternative questions in this assessment based on
the findings from the previous assessment, responses to the consultation and
emerging findings from the research.
4.9 Across this and the previous assessment we have fully tested 11
different questions relating to UK membership of the European Union plus
additional variations which were explored through prompting of participants
during fieldwork (these variations did not appear on mocked up ballots but
were the subject of discussions within groups and interviews).
4.10 The main findings in relation to the question were:



In line with the previous research, there is still a need for the question
to clarify that the UK is currently a member of the European Union.
Partly because a small number of people do not know whether the UK is
or is not a member and partly because the question otherwise lacks
clarity and risks confusing voters.
The Government’s proposed question was found to be easy to
understand, to the point and did not mislead participants in the
research.
However, as we found in the previous assessment in 2013/14, there
is a perception of bias related to this question because it only sets
out the ‘remain’ option in the question. None of the participants in the
research felt that the wording of this question would affect their own
personal voting behaviour. But some participants felt that only including
Protected
6
EC 59/15





the ‘remain’ option could influence people to vote yes due to the fear of
change or going against the status quo.4
Participants considered an alternative question, giving both voting
choices in the question (remaining/staying a member and leaving the
European Union) and moving away from yes/no answer options, to be
more balanced than the Government’s question.
This ‘remain’/’stay’ or ‘leave’ question was also considered easy to
understand. A few participants noted that it was longer than the yes/no
question. In previous research this was more of an issue when the
question was directly compared to a shorter one rather than if it was
seen in isolation. Also, in this and previous research even those who
preferred a more concise question did not feel that the length of this
question affected their ability to mark their ballot paper as intended.
The word ‘remain’ was tested against the word ‘stay’ and the
research found views among participants mixed. Both words were found
to be plain English and easy to understand and both suffered from the
perception of bias point set out above (notably in the yes/no question
and much less so when used alongside ‘leave’). ‘Remain’ was
considered a more formal word which some participants preferred for
use at the referendum while others expressed a preference for ‘stay’ as
simpler, everyday language.
The phrase ‘a member of the European Union’ was tested with the
alternative ‘in the European Union’. A few participants felt that the word
‘member’ could convey positive feelings. For example, being part of a
group or team. However, the majority of participants felt that the word
‘member’ in the context of the question was a neutral and factual
description of the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European
Union. Views were mixed on whether including the word ‘member’ in the
question added clarity or merely made the question longer.
The Welsh translation of the question was also tested. Largely,
feedback on the questions, eg on neutrality, was the same as for the
English variants. However, participants did not like the word ‘para/ bara’
or the alternative ‘parhau/ barhau’ (remain/stay) as used in the non-Yes/
No question. They felt that they sounded too similar to other words such
as the Welsh for ‘bread’. Participants preferred ‘aros’ or ‘ddal i fod’ and
preferences for each of these words were based on personal opinion.
Overall, participants agreed that either ‘aros’ or ddal i fod’ could be used
as synonyms alongside the English words ‘remain’ or ‘stay’.
Consultation
4.11 In total, we received almost 1,600 responses to our consultation, the
vast majority of which were from members of the public. We received 29
4
Note that while qualitative research can identify participants’ reported views on the neutrality
of question wording based on their perceptions, the approach does not capture any
unconscious impact of question wording and structure. It is thus possible that questions
might influence participants to answer in a particular way without them being aware of it.
Protected
7
EC 59/15
responses from elected representatives and accessibility or language experts,
many of whom we had written to as part of our consultation.
4.12 We received official responses from several political parties: Democratic
Unionist Party (DUP), Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru, Scottish National
Party (SNP), UKIP and the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP). Therefore, from the
parties represented at Westminster, we did not receive official party
responses from the Conservative Party, Green Party, Labour Party, Sinn Fein
or the Social and Democratic Labour Party (SDLP).
4.13 Some of these responses were on behalf of many others. For example,
we heard representations from various political parties, as well as from
Conservatives for Britain (who represent a number of Conservative MPs). We
heard from a coalition of campaigning organisations (the Equality and
Diversity Forum), as well as the charity Mencap.
4.14 We received many submissions from members of the public which
appear to have been in response to the official UKIP submission. In some
cases the public submissions stated that the person was a UKIP supporter
and/or member, in others they used the same or similar text to that submitted
by UKIP. While in many other cases submissions largely or partly reflected
the sentiment of the official response we received from UKIP. We also
received a significant number of these responses in the one to two days
immediately following UKIP’s submission. We have taken all of these
responses into account but it is important to be clear that public responses to
the consultation are not necessarily representative of the views of the public
as a whole.
4.15 Overall therefore we received responses from some potential nascent
‘Leave’/’No’ campaigners and we received responses from some of the
political parties likely to support a vote to stay a member of the European
Union.
4.16 The key themes raised with us were:

There was support for the proposed question - the Liberal
Democrats, Plaid Cymru, the SNP and the Ulster Unionist Party all
indicated that they support the current question. Several individual MPs
and some members of the public also indicated their support. However,
this was not the majority view in the consultation.

Many responses highlighted concerns about the neutrality of the
proposed question. This includes the responses from Conservatives
for Britain, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) and UKIP, as well as
many members of the public (noting the point above regarding public
responses in line with UKIP views).
The reasons given here tended to be similar to those highlighted in the
research, i.e. that using a word such as ‘remain’ is leading, that only
giving one side of the debate in the question is leading and that making
the ‘yes’ outcome the status quo would create further ‘acquiescence
Protected
8
EC 59/15

5
bias’ (whereby there is a tendency to say ‘yes’ rather than ‘no’ and a
tendency to support the status quo rather than change).
There was support for a non-yes/no question mostly based on
concerns about the neutrality of a yes/no question and the view that the
question with different answer options was significantly less biased.
Conservatives for Britain and UKIP explicitly supported a non-yes/no
question in their responses.5
Our assessment
5.1 We have concerns about the proposed ‘yes/no’ question. This is
because of what we heard through the consultation and research about the
perception that the question encourages voters to consider one response
more favourably than the other. These views raise concerns about the
potential legitimacy, in the eyes of those campaigning to leave and some
members of the public, of the referendum result – particularly if there was a
vote to stay a member of the European Union.
5.2 Our assessment suggests that it is possible to ask a question which
would not cause comparable concerns about neutrality, whilst also being
easily understood.
5.3 We have previously recommended both a yes/no and a non-yes/no
question for use at a referendum on European Union membership. However,
in this assessment we have heard clearer views, particularly from potential
campaigners to leave the European Union, about their concerns regarding the
proposed yes/no question.
5.4 In addition, we have not as part of this assessment heard significant
concerns from campaigners about campaigning on a non-yes/no question.
5.5 We recommend that the following question be used at the referendum
on Britain’s future in the European Union:
Should the United Kingdom stay a member of the European Union
or leave the European Union?
Stay a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union
5.6 Both this and our previous assessment found that both of the words
‘remain’ and ‘stay’ were easy to understand and plain English. It is therefore a
fine judgment which would be better for use in the referendum question. The
research did find that, while easy to understand, ‘remain’ is a more formal
word than ‘stay’ and we believe that it is preferable for both sides of the
Their preference was for a yes/no question which did not use the word remain – “Should the
UK be a member of the European Union” – although they acknowledged our existing
concerns about this question and also supported the non-yes/no question.
5
Protected
9
EC 59/15
question to use equivalent language. ‘Leave’ is relatively informal language,
compared to other terms such as withdraw or depart, and we have therefore
recommended that ‘stay’ be used in place of ‘remain’. We also heard via our
consultation that some people such as those with learning disabilities may find
‘stay’ a more accessible word than ‘remain’, although this was not found in our
research.
5.7 The use of equivalent language is also important for campaigners who
will be likely to use the two verbs in the question as key terms in their
campaigns.
5.8 This recommendation is a change from a ‘yes/no’ question to one that
has longer answer options based on the specific action to be taken. However,
this would not be the first time that a referendum in part of the UK has not
used a ‘yes/no’ question. The most recent national referendums not to use
‘yes/no’ were those held in Scotland and Wales in 1997.
5.9 In relation to the Welsh version of this recommended question, as with
the English version, research participants did not raise significant issues with
its intelligibility or neutrality.
5.10 The significant amendment identified was to replace the word ‘para’ or
‘bara’ with either ‘aros’ or ‘ddal i fod’. Support for either was based on
personal preference and was mixed. Overall, participants agreed that either
‘ddal i fod’ or ‘aros’ could be used as synonyms alongside the English words
‘remain’ and ‘stay’.
5.11 We recommend the use of ‘aros’ as in the following question:
A ddylai’r Deyrnas Unedig aros yn aelod o’r Undeb Ewropeaidd
neu adael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd?
Aros yn aelod o’r Undeb Ewropeaidd
Gadael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd
Public information
5.12 Across the research, participants felt information on the benefits and
drawbacks of continued membership would be essential for informing how
they cast their vote.
5.13 Specifically, participants were keen to know what the consequence of
the referendum would mean for a range of issues that were important to them
or their local area, as well as key issues that they had heard about in the
media. This interest in the implications of the vote is also similar to what we
found when assessing the question for the referendum on Scottish
independence.
Protected
10
EC 59/15
5.14 Participants indicated that they wanted the following questions
answered:

What will a majority ‘yes/ remain/ stay’ vote mean? For example, will it
mean:

Continuation of current terms of membership?

Continued membership with different terms of membership?
What will a majority ‘no/ leave’ vote mean? For example, will it mean:

Entire separation from the European Union?

Renegotiated terms of membership?

A relationship with the European Union with trade agreements
similar to other European countries that are not part of the
European Union?

5.15 Participants were asked to consider how they would expect to receive or
obtain this information. Some expected that the majority of information would
come from campaigners in a similar format to information provided during a
general election. They had the view that, whilst some factual information
should be provided, most would probably be opinion-based. They also
recognised that full details regarding the terms of membership may not be
decided prior to the referendum itself.
5.16 Others struggled with the notion that there would be limited factual
information and found it difficult to envisage making a voting decision without
a clear understanding of what a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ vote would mean in practice. In
addition to information from campaigners, these participants also wanted to
receive information from an independent organisation.
5.17 Given the nature of the challenge in providing information on this subject
which could be confidently considered authoritative and impartial, the
Commission cannot take on this role. Indeed, considering the experience of
the campaign in Scotland, it is likely that there will be no single accepted
independent, impartial source of information depending on what side of the
debate people are on.
5.18 We are therefore recommending that:

The designated lead campaigners (if appointed) include on their
websites a section responding to the questions at para 5.13. This will
not be a criteria used in the designation assessment, but if both lead
campaigners agree, we will link to the relevant sections of their
websites through aboutmyvote. If they can prepare this information in
time, we will also include the web addresses in our public information
leaflet, explaining the background to this recommendation;

all registered campaigners also include on their websites a section
answering these questions from their viewpoint. This will not be a
Protected
11
EC 59/15
criteria for using in the registration process, but we will highlight the
questions to campaigners at the point of registration

Voters also expressed a wish to see answers to a wide range of other
general issues and questions, many of which will inevitably form part of
the detailed campaign debate. These included: finances (such as the
cost of being a member); trade and the economy (such as the impact
on trade agreements); immigration, travel and border control (including
the impact on immigration numbers and the ability to work or travel in
countries in the European Union); laws (such as which laws will be
impacted); impact on jobs, working directives and housing; impact on
public services (for example, the NHS, police and education) and the
impact on the European Union (for example, on remaining members).
5.19 We do not propose asking campaigners to provide answers to this wider
list of questions on their websites. However, we will highlight that they are
issues voters have said they are particularly interested in and suggest that
they consider how to include information about these areas as part of their
wider campaign plans. Again, we will highlight these to campaigners at the
point of registration.
6
Wider implications
6.1 We anticipate significant interest in our recommendation on the question.
It is therefore important that we are ready to explain and justify our view when
the recommendation becomes public. Any early release of information into the
public domain would be a significant problem and could undermine our ability
to support our recommendation.
7
Risk
7.1 There is a risk that if we do not make a clear recommendation to the
planned timetable (i.e. publishing on 1 September) we will be criticised for
failing to meet our statutory duty to assess the question and/or the
recommendation we make will fail to have any authority or impact.
7.2 There is a general risk (in addition to the point above) that the
Parliament will not accept our assessment of the question and will not amend
the question that it has included in the Referendum Bill. Not accepting our
advice may cause controversy and there may be other attempts to amend the
Bill in line with our recommendation.
7.3 The outcome of our question assessment is likely to have a high
external profile. Views about the question tend to reflect whether people are
likely to vote for one outcome or another and it is very unlikely that we will
satisfy all political commentators, whatever recommendations we make.
Significant external criticism is therefore possible.
Protected
12
EC 59/15
7.4 An important mitigation against the risk of our assessment being
undermined is the strong evidence base which underpins our decision. Our
research methodology has been rigorous and designed to withstand close
scrutiny, as well as following the approach we have adopted for referendum
question assessments since 2009.
7.5 There is a significant risk to the Commission if our recommendation
becomes public before our intended publication date (as set out in 6.1). As a
mitigation all relevant documents are clearly marked as confidential and will
be circulated as links (except in a few specific cases) in order to restrict
access.
7.6 There is a risk that our proposed recommendation about public
information will be criticised as side stepping the challenge and leaving a
potential information vacuum to the detriment of voters. However, it is equally
possible that any recommendation which goes further in involving the
Commission in the provision of public information would be criticised as a
naïve intervention in the debate.
8
Key audiences/stakeholders, and their views
8.1 We will publish all relevant documents on Tuesday 1 September,
including::




Our question assessment report.
GfK NOP’s research report
Board paper
Draft minutes of Board meeting
8.2 This is immediately after the August Bank Holiday and the week before
parliament returns, which should ensure the report has the maximum reach
and impact possible at the point of publication during the summer period. We
anticipate a high media profile and will have a suitable handling plan in place.
It is essential that no information about the Commission’s
recommendation is made public until the point of publication and staff
across the Commission have been reminded of this.
8.3 Our report will inform the UK Parliament’s consideration of the EU
Referendum Bill and given the proximity of publication to Report Stage in the
House of Commons, we will include a draft amendment with our preferred
question as part of our parliamentary briefing so that it is as easy as possible
for parliamentarians to give effect to our recommendation. We will provide
further advice and assistance during consideration of the Bill by Parliament.
9
Attachments
9.1 The following are attached as appendices:
1.
Draft text on our assessment from full report
Protected
13
EC 59/15
2.
3.
List of questions tested across this and previous assessments
Recommended question in ballot paper format
Contact Details
Name of author:
Contact telephone number:
Job title:
Email address:
Date of issue of this paper:
Alternative contact name:
Contact telephone number:
Protected
Phil Thompson
02072710570
Head of Research and Party Registration
pthompson@electoralcommission.org.uk
12/8/2015
Alex Robertson
0207 271 0568
14
ECxx/year (number to be inserted by secretariat)/classification
Appendix 1 – Extract from Commission
assessment report
1.1 We have considered the question proposed by the UK Government
against our guidelines for assessing referendum questions that we published
in November 2009.
1.2 Our guidelines say that a referendum question should present the
options clearly, simply and neutrally. So it should:





Be easy to understand
Be to the point
Be unambiguous
Avoid encouraging voters to consider one response more favourably
than another
Avoid misleading voters
1.3 In arriving at our assessment, we have taken account of the context for
the referendum question and all the evidence we have received.
Our conclusions
1.4 Set out below is our assessment of the referendum question in the Bill
(Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?):
Is the question easy to understand?
1.5 We mostly heard that the question ‘Should the United Kingdom remain a
member of the European Union’ was easy to understand. The majority of our
consultation responses did not have concerns about comprehension and this
was also the case for those who participated in the research.
1.6 However, our research did find that some participants with English as a
second language, lower literacy and learning difficulties found the non-yes/no
questions easier to understand. Through our consultation we also heard this,
in relation to those with learning disabilities, from Mencap who told us the
answer options which did not use yes and no were more accessible.
1.7 Consequently, whilst we regard the question as generally easy to
understand, we are concerned that there may be some people who struggle
to answer it as they intend.
Protective marking classification
15
ECxx/year (number to be inserted by secretariat)/classification
Is the question to the point?
1.8 The question was regarded as to the point. Research participants noted
that it was short and concise and we did not receive any other evidence to the
contrary. We have no concerns about this.
Is the question unambiguous?
1.9 The words used in the question were not found to be ambiguous and we
feel that the question itself is therefore sufficiently unambiguous.
1.10 However, it is clear that the consequences of the question remain
unclear. This means that any ambiguity relating to the question was generally
part of a wider ambiguity relating to the consequences of the referendum,
rather than anything that can be addressed in the question itself.
1.11 We also heard from some respondents to our consultation/research that
the proposed ‘yes/no’ question was less clear about the consequences of the
referendum than a question based on ‘either/or’ answer options.
Does the question avoid encouraging voters to
consider one response more favourably than
another?
1.12 There were no participants in our research who felt that the wording of
this question affected their own personal voting intention. However, some felt
that the question lacked neutrality. As noted previously this research can
identify participant’s reported views regarding neutrality of question wording
but it cannot capture any unconscious impact of wording and structure. It is
thus possible that questions might influence participants to answer in a
particular way without them being aware of it. Many respondents to our
consultation also perceived the question in the Bill to be biased.
1.13 There were two main reasons why consultation respondents and
research participants viewed the question as bias – it only sets out the
‘remain’ option in the question, and the ‘yes’ response is for the status quo.
1.14 Consequently, while the question is not significantly leading, we have
concerns about the perception that this question will encourage voters to
consider one response more favourably than another. Importantly, some
respondents to our consultation, particularly those likely to campaign or vote
to leave the European Union, believed this perception could undermine the
legitimacy of the referendum result in the event of a ‘yes’ vote. While we
cannot know if this is a concern that would be shared by the general public as
a whole we are concerned about the risk of using a question at this
referendum which is not accepted as valid by one side of the debate.
Protective marking classification
16
ECxx/year (number to be inserted by secretariat)/classification
Does the question avoid misleading voters?
1.15 The question is clear that the United Kingdom is currently a member of
the European Union and we do not have concerns that it would mislead
voters.
Our recommendation
1.16 We have concerns, based on our assessment, about the proposed
‘yes/no’ question. This is because of what we heard through the consultation
and research about the perception that the question encourages voters to
consider one response more favourably than the other. These views raise
concerns about the potential legitimacy, in the eyes of those campaigning to
leave and some members of the public, of the referendum result – particularly
if there was a vote to stay a member of the European Union.
1.17 Our assessment suggests that it is possible to ask a question which
would not cause comparable concerns about neutrality, whilst also being
easily understood.
1.18 We have previously recommended both a yes/no and a non-yes/no
question for use at a referendum on European Union membership. However,
in this assessment we have heard clearer views, particularly from potential
campaigners to leave the European Union, about their concerns regarding the
proposed yes/no question.
1.19 In addition, we have not as part of this assessment heard significant
concerns from campaigners about campaigning on a non-yes/no question.
1.20 . We also found, through the research and consultation, concerns that
some people, such as those with lower levels of literacy, may find it easier to
answer a non-yes/no question.
1.21 Our proposed question retains the word ‘member’ because the research
found views to be mixed about the advantages and disadvantages of asking
about membership or staying/remaining ‘in’ the European Union. On balance
we think it is preferable for the question to be specific about what voters are
being asked to give their views on.
1.22 Our proposed question recommends a change from using the word
‘remain’ to using the word ‘stay’ (see para below for full details).
1.23 We recommend that the following question be used at the referendum
on Britain’s future in the European Union:
Should the United Kingdom stay a member of the European Union
or leave the European Union?
Protective marking classification
17
ECxx/year (number to be inserted by secretariat)/classification
Stay a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union
1.24 We have assessed this recommended question against our referendum
guidelines.
Is the question easy to understand?
1.25 The question is easy to understand. Research participants indicated that
the question was simple and easy to understand. A small number of
stakeholders who responded to the consultation made the case for the
‘yes/no’ question being simpler but this was not supported by the research.
1.26 Both this and our previous assessment found that both of the words
‘remain’ and ‘stay’ were easy to understand and plain English. There was also
no significant distinction between the translation of either word for use in the
Welsh question. It is therefore a fine judgment which would be better for use
in the referendum question. The research did find that, while easy to
understand, ‘remain’ is a more formal word than ‘stay’ and we believe that it is
preferable for both sides of the question to use equivalent language. ‘Leave’ is
relatively informal language, compared to other terms such as withdraw or
depart, and we have therefore recommended that ‘stay’ be used in place of
‘remain’. We also heard via our consultation that some people such as those
with learning disabilities may find ‘stay’ a more accessible word than ‘remain’,
although this was not found in our research.
1.27 The use of equivalent language is also important for campaigners who
will be likely to use the two verbs in the question as key terms in their
campaigns.
Is the question to the point?
1.28 This is a longer question and answer than the ‘yes/no’ option. This was
noticed in the research when compared directly with the ‘yes/no’ question.
When participants considered this question in isolation, the research did not
find concerns about the length of this question.
1.29 A small number of stakeholders also noted, through the consultation,
that this was a longer question than the proposed ‘yes/no’ one. However, noone in the research felt the length of the question would influence their voting
behaviour or understanding and we believe the question is sufficiently to the
point.
Is the question unambiguous?
1.30 The question was not regarded as ambiguous. Ambiguity was not a
notable concern in either the consultation or the research.
Protective marking classification
18
ECxx/year (number to be inserted by secretariat)/classification
Does the question avoid encouraging voters to
consider one response more favourably than
another?
1.31 We did not hear from respondents to the consultation that this question
encouraged one response to be viewed more favourably than another.
Participants in the research also considered this formulation of question to be
more balanced.
1.32 We are therefore confident that this question avoids encouraging voters
to consider one response more favourably than another. We did not hear any
substantive concerns about this question being biased or leading. Both
options are set out in the answer options, giving a clearer balance compared
to the ‘yes/no’ option.
Does the question avoid misleading voters?
1.33 We did not hear concerns that this question is misleading for voters.
Respondents to the consultation and participants in the research made the
case that a question with ‘either/or’ answer options was clearer about the
option being presented to voters.
Welsh language version of the question
1.34 As with the English version of the question, research participants who
saw this question in Welsh did not raise significant issues with its intelligibility
or neutrality.
1.35 As set out above, the significant amendment identified through the
research was to replace the word ‘para’ or ‘bara’ with either ‘aros’ or ‘ddal i
fod’. Support for either was based on personal preference and was mixed.
Overall, participants agreed that either ‘ddal i fod’ or ‘aros’ could be used as
synonyms alongside the English words ‘remain’ and ‘stay’.
1.36 We have recommended the use of ‘aros’:
A ddylai’r Deyrnas Unedig aros yn aelod o’r Undeb Ewropeaidd
neu adael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd?
Aros yn aelod o’r Undeb Ewropeaidd
Gadael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd
Protective marking classification
19
ECxx/year (number to be inserted by secretariat)/classification
Moving away from a ‘yes/no’ question
1.37 We are aware in making this recommendation that we are
recommending a change from a ‘yes/no’ question to one that has longer
answer options based on the specific action to be taken.
1.38 This would not be the first time that a referendum in part of the UK has
not used a ‘yes/no’ question. The most recent national referendums not to use
‘yes/no’ were those held in Scotland and Wales in 1997.
1.39 The Scotland referendum asked two questions. The first question
presented two answer options, asking voters to mark either, ‘I agree that there
should be a Scottish Parliament’ or ‘I do not agree that there should be a
Scottish Parliament’. The second question to voters asked them to mark
either, ‘I agree that a Scottish Parliament should have tax-varying powers’ or ‘I
do not agree that a Scottish Parliament should have tax-varying powers’.
1.40 The 1997 Wales referendum asked voters to mark either, ‘I agree that
there should be a Welsh Assembly’ or ‘I do not agree that there should be a
Welsh Assembly’.
1.41 A few stakeholders raised concerns about campaigning on a
‘remain/leave’ question. For example, Caroline Flint MP said a yes/no
question would be preferable for campaigning. However, this was not a theme
that was raised as a concern by most of the potential campaigners we heard
from.
1.42 The Commission always seeks to put the voter first. We received many
responses from members of the public expressing concerns about the use of
a ‘yes/no’ question, with only a small number of exceptions to this. We have
taken serious consideration of their views in reaching our recommendation.
Protective marking classification
20
ECxx/year (number to be inserted by secretariat)/classification
Appendix 2
The following questions were tested in the 2015 public research:6
1
Question wording
Previously tested?
Should the United Kingdom remain a
member of the European Union?
Also tested in 2013
research
Yes/No
2
Should the United Kingdom remain a
member of the European Union or leave the
European Union?
Also tested in 2013 and
2014 research
Remain a member of the European Union /
Leave the European Union
3
Should the United Kingdom stay a member
of the European Union or leave the
European Union?
New version for 2015
Stay a member of the European Union/
Leave the European Union
4
Should the United Kingdom remain a
member of the European Union or leave the
European Union?
New version for 2015
Remain in the European Union/ Leave the
European Union
These questions were tested in either the 2013 and 2014 public research:
5
Question wording
Tested in
Do you think that the United Kingdom should
be a member of the European Union?
2013 research
Yes/No
6
Should the United Kingdom continue to be a
member of the European Union?
2013 research
6
Other questions were tested during the fieldwork through use of prompts and stimulus
materials. For example, “Should the United Kingdom be a member of the European Union”.
Although these questions were not given out on mocked up ballot papers for voting the
wording etc was explored with participants.
Protective marking classification
21
ECxx/year (number to be inserted by secretariat)/classification
Yes/No
7
The United Kingdom is a member of the
European Union.
2013 research
Do you think the United Kingdom should be
a member of the European Union?
Yes/No
8
Should the United Kingdom leave the
European Union?
2013 research
Yes/No
9
Should the United Kingdom stay a member
of the European Union or get out of the
European Union?
2014 research
Stay in the European Union / Get out of the
European Union
10
Should the United Kingdom remain a
member of the European Union (EU) or
leave the EU?
2014 research
Remain a member of the European Union /
Leave the European Union
11
Should the United Kingdom remain a
member of the European Union or leave the
European Union?
2014 research
Remain / Leave
Protective marking classification
22
ECxx/year (number to be inserted by secretariat)/classification
Appendix 3
Referendum on the United Kingdom’s
membership of the European Union
Vote only once by putting a cross (X) in the box next to
your choice
Should the United Kingdom stay a member of the
European Union or leave the European Union?
Stay a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union
Protective marking classification
23