Control Taken Back

This Was Your People's Vote

Thank you for making your voice heard

The Vote

This campaign was completely organic. 

There were no paid advertisements on or offline and the responses were generated from less than 20 untargeted tweets and five Facebook comments spread across popular leave and remain pages. 

No emails or other messaging media were used.

The primary content was seen 338,997 times and generated 19,233 engagements.

14,279 people went on to visit this website and 8,928 visitors abstained from the process.

5,503 people commenced the voting process and only 152 dropped out - a completion rate of 97% with 5,351 votes formally cast.

There were no duplicate votes, verified by unique IP address and all participants verified names, emails, eligibility, and consents as regards the use of their data.

Despite the high organic impression rate, less than 6% of the audience went on to engage with the initial social content, dropping off to less than 2% taking part in the voting process.

The narrower field of those who visited the site, versus those who went on to engage with the process, indicates that abstention was significantly stronger as a reaction to the concept of a second referendum than placing a vote.


While not actively measured in this analysis, the general indication is that the wider audience is not engaged with the concept of revisiting the 2016 referendum and this view is supported by extensive datasets elsewhere. 

Leave voters tend to feel the matter is settled while remain voters still want to the result to be different.

This assumption is further supported by the leave versus remain split among those who fully engaged with the campaign and cast votes.

On the first core question, phrased exactly as it was in the 2016 referendum, there was a clear lead for remaining in the EU - but, given the conversion rates, the indicative data on leave voters seeing the matter as settled, and the abstention rate among site visitors, this result cannot be viewed as indicative of broader public sentiment.

The second question asked how Brexit should be resolved.

Among the largely remain-centric voters who participated in the process, there is a clear majority for revocation of Article 50 over a formal second referendum.

Other data supports the view that a People's Vote is not seen as the option to resolve Brexit even by those who might wish to see a different result to that of 2016.

Unsurprisingly, a general election and a no deal outcome are not popular with the remain-centric voters who engaged with the process, while no deal is the preferred option of those leave voters who did participate.

Setting this in the context of visitors to the site versus those who engaged with process as above, it does not appear that there is a general "will of the people" to revisit the process of 2016 at all.

Other data supports the idea that most people simply desire the certainty of a conclusion in the near future, without further votes on the matter.

 Of note, the data shows a near 50/50 split of leave and remain voters concluding that leaving under the terms of May's deal or renegotiating are their ideal endings to Brexit.  

Where sufficient numbers of votes have been obtained, the data has been mapped to show distribution across the country. 

Clearly taking into account the remain-centric engagement with the process, leave and remain are evenly spread across the country in relative terms, as is the preference for revocation. 

Interestingly, the minority preference for a formal second referendum is largely focused on metropolitan areas or areas which are ranked in the mid-upper centiles of the last Index of Multiple Deprivation dated 2015.

By comparison, leave mainly straddles the middle centiles while remain and revoke springs from lower, mid, and upper centiles without apparent restraint.


Even among an engaged, remain-centric audience, a second referendum is not regarded as a desirable option to conclude Brexit.

Over 4,500 people have consented to the final analysis being provided to Downing Street in order to inform conversations over the next few months.

Please take the time to write to your own MP, referring them to this analysis to help them make informed decisions over the short period of Parliamentary time which is left between now and October 31st.

Write To Them