The Routledge Handbook of the Politics of Brexit

Patrick Diamond, Peter Nedergaard, Ben Rosamond, Patrick Diamond, Peter Nedergaard, Ben Rosamond

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781351689472
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

The surprise decision expressed by the British people in the referendum held in June 2016 to leave the European Union was remarkable. It also presents a "natural experiment" where the exposure of a society to an extraordinary event allows scholars to observe, in real time in the real world, the interaction of variables.

The Routledge Handbook of the Politics of Brexit takes stock of what we know in the social science community about the Brexit phenomenon so far and looks to make sense of this remarkable process as it unfolds. The book asks simple questions across a range of areas and topics so as to frame the debate into a number of navigable "subdiscussions", providing structure and form to what is an evolving and potentially inchoate topic. As such, it provides a systematic account of the background for, the content of, and the possible implications of Brexit.

The handbook therefore does not examine in detail the minutiae of Brexit as it unfolds on a day-to-day basis but raises its sights to consider both the broad contextual factors that shape and are shaped by Brexit and the deeper sources and implications of the British exit from the European Union. Importantly, as interest in Brexit reaches far beyond the shores of the United Kingdom, so an international team of contributors examines and reveals the global implications and the external face of Brexit.

The Routledge Handbook of the Politics of Brexit will be essential reading and an authoritative reference for scholars, students, researchers and practitioners involved in and actively concerned about research on Brexit, British politics, European Union politics, and comparative politics and international relations.

1
Introduction

Patrick Diamond, Peter Nedergaard and Ben Rosamond

Whether ‘Brexit’ materializes or whether Brexit is ultimately ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ in character, the decision taken by the British people in the referendum held in June 2016 to leave the European Union (EU) was a remarkable development from both political and scholarly points of view. Politically, exiting the EU represents easily the most significant realignment of United Kingdom (UK) foreign policy for many decades. In terms of process and consequence, Brexit poses stark challenges. As the only example of a member state opting to leave the EU, Brexit raises huge questions about the future integrity and coherence of the EU itself. Domestically, Brexit poses a series of ‘wicked problems’ in terms of the UK polity and its politics and policy. The challenges to policymaking and public administration of disentangling the UK from four and a half decades of accumulated EU legislation are immense. Most serious projections suggest that Brexit will have a negative impact upon the UK economy, which in turn provokes the urgent search for viable post-Brexit growth models for the UK. Moreover, Brexit provides a stark reminder of the peculiar character of the UK’s plurinational constitutional settlement, not to mention its increased delicacy. Beyond Europe, the prospect of the UK leaving the EU and (very possibly) the Single Market and the Customs Union has wide-ranging and unpredictable implications for the foreign economic policies and domestic politics of a significant number of countries. Actors across the world have attached symbolic value to Brexit. For some, it represents the triumph of a form of sovereign freedom consistent with an open liberal trading order. For others, it signifies nothing less than the dangers of populist demagoguery and the pernicious spread of ‘post-truth’ politics. Brexit inevitably shapes external views of both the UK and the EU (Oliver 2017).

Of course, social scientists in general and political scientists in particular are interested in these Brexit effects. Changes in the world we study, especially when they are as visible and as obviously significant as Brexit, provoke a flurry of academic activity, often in defiance of the rhythms of normal scholarly time. The scholar’s impulse is to seek deeper explanation and understanding of the phenomenon in question, to ask ‘Of what is this an instance?’ (Rosenau and Durfee 1995), even if the thing we are witnessing seems to be without precedent. Needless to say, different subfields will pose distinct versions of this question and will seek to situate Brexit within a set of pre-existing debates. So for those who have spent time researching the history of UK–EU relations and/or the evolution of British attitudes to European integration, Brexit may come to be seen as the ultimate expression of the UK’s status as an ‘awkward partner’ (George 1994; Wall 2008), or of the fundamental ambivalence of its appropriate foreign policy orientation (Sanders and Houghton 2016; Grob-Fitzgibbon 2016), or of the UK’s peculiar orientation to the global economy (Gamble 2005), or of the way in which all of the foregoing have yielded a particularly toxic version of Euroscepticism in the context of the UK (or perhaps, more accurately, England’s) distinctive pattern of inter- and intra-party politics (Baker and Schnapper 2015). At the same time, for students of British politics, Brexit is not just about ‘Europe’. Brexit touches every aspect of politics and policymaking in the UK – parliamentary politics, public administration, party politics, electoral politics, devolved government, foreign policy, economic policy and so on (Armstrong 2017; Evans and Menon 2017).

If it is now impossible to write about and teach British politics without putting Brexit centre stage, then the same is surely true for EU studies. Here there are two obvious foci for Brexit-related work. The first is the assessment of the impact of British withdrawal from the Union upon the EU’s polity, policymaking and politics. Research in the field has a long track record of dealing with these effects in relation to the expansion of the EU to include more member states, but never before have scholars of EU politics been forced to contemplate and assess the institutional, policy and political consequences of a member state (and a large one at that) exiting the Union. The second focal point is the question of the extent to which Brexit is representative or perhaps constitutive of a broader crisis of European integration (Dinan et al. 2017). Of special interest here is the question of whether Brexit can be understood as an instance of European dis-integration, perhaps presaging the ultimate collapse of the EU or, if not that, then maybe a new phase where integration becomes more differentiated and the EU itself emerges weakened and less effective (Vollaard 2014, Webber 2014, Rosamond 2016). A strong counter-hypothesis is the idea that Brexit, by removing the EU’s primary gadfly, will actually come to be seen as a harbinger of much deeper integration, at least among the core member states (De Witte 2017).

Brexit will clearly occupy a prime place on the research agendas of specialists in EU and British politics for many years. But it also holds important implications for a much broader community of scholarship. For example, Brexit has become a key case for comparative discussions of populist politics and especially in the search for the drivers of the revolt of the so-called left-behinds or losers of globalisation in the rich democracies. There is a good deal of agreement that the result of the Brexit referendum and the election of Donald Trump to the US presidency should be understood as parts of the same political moment (Barnett 2017; Blyth 2016) but there less certainty as to whether Trump and Brexit are best explained in relation to identity or economic variables or through some permutation of the two (see variously Hobolt 2016; Clarke et al. 2017; Inglehart and Norris 2016; Becker et al. 2016; Gidron and Hall 2017). Either way, Brexit would seem to tell us at least two things about the general trajectory of democratic politics in the early decades of the twenty-first century. First, it is suggestive of the presence of an aggressive anti-establishmentarianism at work within mature democracies, characterized by a distrust of elites and the projects and institutions with which elites are associated (Hopkin 2017). Second, Brexit seems to have been propelled by a distinctively populist and plebiscitary understanding of democracy. The reduction of democratic politics to the ‘will of the people’ (as expressed by a bare majority of the population) can be read as either a very effective campaigning tactic by those Brexiteers who are keen to deliver on the result of the referendum, or it could be taken as indicative of the broader ‘hollowing out’ of democratic politics (Mair 2013) where established political parties have, in recent decades, become less able to mediate between the imperatives of ‘responsible’ government on the one hand and the need to represent and channel popular will into the political system on the other.

It is hard to think of a political science subfield or, for that matter, any social science discipline that will remain untouched by Brexit or that will fail to develop its own distinctive debates around Brexit. This book represents a relatively early but – we hope – reflective and systematic contribution to this scholarly conversation. As previously noted, much has been written already about why Brexit occurred, but there have been relatively few attempts to understand the long-term impact of the Brexit process on the UK and on those countries with ties to the UK. In methodological terms, Brexit might even be thought of as a ‘natural experiment’, where the exposure of a society to an extraordinary political shock or contingent event allows scholars to observe, in real time and in the real world, the interaction of a variety of complex social, political and economic variables. There are obvious dangers in trying to grapple with a rapidly changing analytical object in real time. For example, happenings that might seem vitally important in the eye of the political storm might, in the longer run, turn out to be merely incidental details. Nevertheless, we maintain that Brexit is too important and frankly too interesting to ignore. As we will explain, our approach – while not completely ‘future proof’ – is designed to put Brexit into broader perspective and to make a meaningful scholarly contribution to a societal and academic conversation that has been on going in advance of and since the referendum.

The overwhelming interest in the Brexit phenomenon amongst the media and decision-makers and within the social scientific community is hardly surprising, but the resulting cacophony demands that we take stock, making sense of this remarkable process as it unfolds. It is increasingly clear that the UK’s departure from the EU will have far-reaching consequences for the future shape and cohesion of the UK polity, the UK model of capitalism, UK foreign policy, and Britain’s role in the world. It is also important to remember that interest in Brexit reaches far beyond the shores of Britain. Brexit is, of necessity, a key agenda item in capitals around the world. For example, Commonwealth countries that were once integral to the UK’s foreign economic policy are anxious to assess the likely impact of the UK’s departure from the EU on their domestic economy and politics. It is not just in the UK where it is important to understand both why Brexit came about and how the Brexit process will unfold in years to come.

The rationale of this handbook is to take stock of what we know in the social science community about Brexit so far. Our intention is to be among the first to do so on a large scale. As previously noted, the UK’s departure from the EU is self-evidently a moving target, which poses significant challenges for those seeking to produce a ‘state-of-the-art’ analysis of the Brexit process. Our approach is to ask a very simple question across a range of thematic areas and topics in the chapters: what does Brexit tell us about this topic or area? Inevitably, this question leads our contributors to assess the impact of Brexit on, inter alia, the territorial constitution of the UK, the UK economy, UK policymaking, UK foreign policy, the European Union, international trade and so on. But it is also worth noting that, by analysing Brexit in relation to particular domains of inquiry, we also have the chance to reflect on what we already know about those domains and how Brexit fits into long established scholarly literatures and policy discourses. As such, the handbook will not bury itself in the minutiae of the Brexit negotiations as they unfold on a day-to-day basis. Rather, the volume raises its sights to consider both the broad contextual factors that shape and are shaped by Brexit, as well as the deeper sources and longer-term implications of the UK’s exit from the EU.

Our primary criterion for inviting authors to contribute to this handbook has been simple. They are all scholars with a track record of delivering outstanding publications in the relevant areas of concern. For some of our authors, their chapter in this handbook will be one of many contributions that they produce on Brexit. For others, this chapter here may be the only thing that they publish on the politics of the UK’s departure from the EU. Our contributors have been recruited on an international scale, since it is obviously vital to explore not only the internal political, societal and economic dynamics of the UK leaving the EU but also the global implications and external dimensions of Brexit. In any case, as previously argued, Brexit is not just about British politics. Like it or not, many scholarly fields are now stakeholders in Brexit.

As far as disciplinary coverage is concerned, the field of political science is, for obvious reasons, well represented among the authors; we hope that the book will be used widely among political scientists and in university political science courses. However, a project such as this must take proper account of contributions from a variety of subfields and disciplines across the political and social sciences. As such, we have recruited expert contributors from the fields of law, political economy, political sociology, international relations, security policy and so on.

Themes and objectives

In this handbook, we want to take stock of the scholarly discussion and debate on the Brexit process. We aim to structure this somewhat inchoate and multifaceted debate into two dimensions to provide a systematic analysis of the background for, as well as the content and the possible implications of, the Brexit process. In order to structure the book, we have divided the contributions into the following key sections:

• Brexit from the inside. How does Brexit affect the United Kingdom as a multinational state, especially in terms of its distinctive plurinational territorial compact? How far will Brexit influence the future politics of the UK, and will it lead to far-reaching realignment of the party system? Is it likely that Brexit will lead to the reshaping of the British model of capitalism? How far will Brexit lead to the revival of the ‘Anglosphere tradition’ in British politics?
• Brexit from the outside. How does Brexit affect the political system of the EU as well as various member states of the EU? How will Brexit shape the political system and the institutions of the EU (e.g. the European Parliament and the European Commission)? How will Brexit influence the policies of the EU in key areas such as trade, the internal market, employment and social affairs and agriculture? And how will Brexit change the relationship between the EU and the UK on the one hand, and the United States, Russia and China on the other?

Inevitably, there are important topics that we have not been able to cover specifically, such as the strategic implications of Brexit for the UK’s ‘special relationship’ with the United States (see Wilson 2017) or the gender dimensions of Brexit (see Hozić and True 2017). But it also strikes us that this volume breaks new ground by exploring aspects of Brexit that have been largely neglected in the scholarly literature so far.

The chapters

The first section of the book examines the impact of the Brexit process internally on the polity, economy and society of the UK.

Daniel Wincott assesses the underlying disunity that has framed the debate about the UK’s membership of the EU over the last decade. According to Wincott, this discord arises because none of the major political parties have been able to address coherently the European question in British politics. Political divisions have also grown because of the emergence of plural-national identities across the UK, alongside the development of spatial inequalities in economic growth breeding new resentments and material grievances. Wincott examines the multiple challenges that now confront the UK state in the aftermath of the Brexit decision. There is a deep legacy of division and mistrust among citizens following the referendum outcome. There are also growing concerns about the capacity of British public administration and the Civil Service to address the issues raised by Brexit, and meanwhile the decision of British voters to leave the EU is destabilising the territorial and judicial framework of the UK after two decades of intensive constitutional reform. In particular, Brexit is ‘set to transform the territorial state’ in the years ahead. Moreover, the economic instability that is likely to accompany the UK’s transition away from the EU might exacerbate the very geographical, political and social divisions that produced the outcome of the EU referendum in the first place.

In her chapter on Brexit and the Irish case, Mary Murphy looks at the impact of the Brexit vote on the Republic of Ireland, the country outside the UK that is likely to be affected the most by the decision of the British people to leave the EU. After several decades of generally cordial relations between the UK and the Irish Republic, Brexit is likely to create new strains, given both its certain effect on Ireland’s domestic economy and its external trade patterns and the constitutional and territorial upheaval implied by the UK ceasing to be an EU member state. The process of the British departure is already fomenting tensions between the north and south of Ireland. In turn, this threatens to imperil the peace process that has brought an end to decades of political violence in Northern Ireland following the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in 1998. The Dublin Government’s concern that the UK Government has failed to give proper consideration to the Irish dimension of Brexit is rooted in deep uncertainties about the nature of the border regime after the UK’s departure from the EU. The Irish border is the only physical land frontier between the UK and another EU member state. It would be an important space of Brexit with no other factors in play, but, as Murphy shows, the precise configuration of the UK’s post-Brexit relationship with the Customs Union and the Single Market is overlain with deep – and arguably intractable – security concerns.

Michael Keating’s chapter assesses Scotland’s position in the light of the Brexit vote against the backdrop of the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence and the ongoing political tensions between nationalism and unionism in Scotland. In the period following British withdrawal from the EU, England and Scotland are more likely to diverge politically and constitutionally, while the apparatus of the state in Westminster will inevitably struggle to maintain the cohesion of the UK. The disagreement stems not merely from different orientations towards the EU but also from diametrically opposed views of the very nature of the British state. Many supporters of Brexit believe that the Westminster Parliament is ‘supreme’ and that leaving the EU allows the UK to reclaim its sovereignty. On the other hand, those parties most invested in the process of political devolution argue that the UK is now a ‘union of nations’ and that the future status of the UK and its relationship with the European Union has to be negotiated between each of the constituent nations. Membership of the EU has enabled the UK to evolve as a multinational state with a shared identity that has contributed since the 1990s to a significant modernisation of the UK’s governing arrangements. It is as yet unclear whether Brexit will reverse this process, in so doing imperilling the 400-year-old union between Scotland and England.

Leila Simona Talani’s chapter considers the likely impact of Brexit on the City of London. It is widely accepted that the dominance of financial services, the core activity of the City, is the centrepiece of the British model of capitalism. Talani notes that the impact of the UK’s departure from the EU will have unpredictable consequences for the City. On the one hand, the City’s financial services sector depends on open access to global markets, which Brexit will almost certainly undermine. On the other hand, the UK leaving the EU might be the ‘catalyst’ for a new phase of liberalisation, including further deregulation of product and capital markets, lower taxes and the retrenchment of the welfare state: ‘the revenge of the ultra-liberals’. The paradox, as other authors in this collection note, is that such a shift towards ultra-liberalisation would cut across the political and economic aspirations of many of those who voted for Bre...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• CONTENTS
• Figures
• Tables
• Box
• Contributors
• Preface
• 1 Introduction
• PART I Brexit from the inside
• PART II Brexit from the outside
• Index