UK Euroscepticism and the Brexit Referendum

This article shows that key to understanding the referendum outcome are factors such as a profoundly eurosceptic public, high levels of citizen uncertainty, divided mainstream political parties on the EU and lack of unity within the ‘Leave’ campaign. The Brexit referendum is more than just about domestic issues and government approval. Utilitarian concerns related to economic evaluations of EU integration coupled with support of or opposition to EU freedom of movement are very likely to influence vote choice. Those campaigns that focus on rational utilitarian arguments about the costs and benefits related to EU membership as a whole but also to EU freedom of movement are expected to swing voters.     

The Brexit Negotiations and the Anglosphere

The Brexit negotiations raise the question of what Britain’s future role in the world should be. Brexiters have drawn on ideas of the Anglosphere to imagine what that future might be. The Anglosphere belongs in a long line of thinking about uniting English speaking communities around the world. Different conceptions of the Anglosphere such as CANZUK are identified. The Anglosphere appeals to many Brexiters because it gives them a positive vision of ‘Global Britain’ as an alternative to EU membership. The advantages to Britain of regaining full sovereignty and associating once more with its ‘true friends’ are stressed. What is ignored is the lack of support among Anglosphere countries for much closer relationships except in the security sphere, and the inability of increased economic ties with the Anglosphere to begin to match what the UK will lose by severing itself from its most important economic partner.     

England,Englishness and Brexit

In the 1975 referendum England provided the strongest support for European integration, with a much smaller margin for membership in Scotland and Northern Ireland. By 2015 the rank order of ‘national’ attitudes to European integration had reversed. Now, England is the UK's most eurosceptic nation and may vote ‘Leave’, while Scotland seems set to generate a clear margin for ‘Remain’. The UK as a whole is a Brexit marginal. To understand the campaign, we need to make sense of the dynamics of public attitudes in each nation. We take an ‘archaeological’ approach to a limited evidence‐base, to trace the development of attitudes to Europe in England since 1975. We find evidence of a link between English nationalism and euroscepticism. Whatever the result in 2016, contrasting outcomes in England and Scotland will exacerbate tensions in the UK's territorial constitution and could lead to the break‐up of Britain.     

Constitutional Illegitimacy over Brexit

Members and supporters of the British government say that the only constitutionally legitimate course of action over Brexit after the referendum is to press ahead with withdrawal from the European Union, even if that would entail the complete severance of all ties (which we normally call ‘hard Brexit’). A more sophisticated view of the constitution, however, shows that these more or less populist arguments are false. As the Supreme Court confirmed in the recent Gina Miller judgment, the constitution did not change with the June referendum. Parliament is still supreme and determines both ordinary legislation and constitutional change. In fact, if one examines closely the claim that the referendum entails hard Brexit, it becomes obvious that this claim is false as well. The referendum opened the door for one among four different possibilities. Which Brexit option—if any—the United Kingdom should take is a matter for Parliament now to decide, following the normal processes of democratic deliberation and representation.     

Brexit and UK International Development Policy

In this article we explore the implications of Brexit for the UK and the EU's development policies and strategic directions, focusing on the former. While it is likely that the operational process of disentangling the UK from the various development institutions of the EU will be relatively straightforward, the choices that lie ahead about whether and how to cooperate thereafter are more complex. Aid and development policy touches on a wide range of interests—security, trade, climate change, migration, gender rights, and so on. We argue that Brexit will accelerate existing trends within UK development policy, notably towards the growing priority of private sector‐led economic growth strategies and blended finance tools. There are strong signals that UK aid will be cut, as successive secretaries of state appear unable to persuade a substantial section of the public and media that UK aid and development policy serves UK interests in a variety of ways.     

Brexit and the British Constitution: a Long View

The Brexit referendum of 2016 brought a new concept to British politics, namely the ‘people’s will’, one that is seemingly at odds with conventional notions of parliamentary sovereignty, even a threat to its very existence. This article argues that although the device of the referendum is relatively new, the kind of popular control over Parliament and the executive that it invokes has long been a part of British politics. Ranging over 200 years, examples are drawn from the recall and deselection of MPs, mass petitioning campaigns, the role of the Speaker, and the flourishing of independent parties.     

Divergent preferences and legislative speeches on Brexit

ABSTRACT

How do legislators deal with having preferences that go against those of the principals that they represent in parliament? This article analyzes the debate in the aftermath of the Brexit referendum in the House of Commons to explore the relationship between divergent preferences and legislative speeches. It finds that legislators who defy the will of their country or constituency are rather communicative, and their speeches reveal higher levels of negativity. In contrast, those defying their party refrain from speaking in parliament, but if they speak, they use a significantly less negative language. These findings suggest that legislators behave strategically in deciding whether and how to justify their positions publicly when in conflict with their various principals.     

People and Power: Democracy after Brexit

The result of the 2016 European Union (EU) referendum revealed a disconnect between policy makers and the public, particularly those who could be considered part of Britain’s contemporary working class. Whilst there has been significant attention paid to the parliamentary activity to agree the terms under which Britain will leave the EU, there has been comparatively less attention paid to the causes of the vote, and what can be done to improve public trust in democracy. This article proposes a new public attitudes‐led policy‐making model, using democratic innovations and design thinking, to reconnect policy making to the public and improve political equality.     

Welsh Devolution and the Union: Reform Debates after Brexit

The survey addresses three key reform debates relating to devolution in Wales. These concern first, the case for the further devolution of powers, notably those over criminal justice and policing; second, the defence of Wales’ devolved powers in the context of Brexit; and third, the rooting of devolution in new constitutional ideals, primarily the Welsh government’s preferred model of the UK as a voluntary association of nations, or the alternative pressed by the independence movement. In each case, there are strong pressures within Wales for resolutions which sustain and develop devolution; and in the case of independence, have the potential, with reform debates elsewhere, to transform the UK Union. However, there are also grounds for reflecting on the contested nature of further change, the long road that a case for independence may yet have to travel, and the interests of UK government.     

The Democratic Duty to Oppose Brexit

What should be the position of democrats in response to the Brexit referendum? Many urge a duty to accept the result. This article argues the contrary. If someone is a UK citizen, has a belief that leaving the European Union will be damaging to the common good of the UK and is a convinced democrat, then that person has a duty to oppose Brexit. Neither of the two principal reasons for accepting the result—a claim of popular sovereignty or of parliamentary sovereignty—imply a duty not to continue to oppose. Arguments from political equality for simple majority rule do not apply when the alternatives are ill defined. More generally, popular sovereignty presupposes and does not replace constitutional democracy, and in a parliamentary democracy there is always a continuing right to oppose.