scholarly journals Brexit and Parliament: The Anatomy of a Perfect Storm

Author(s):  
Meg Russell

Abstract The Westminster parliament lies at the heart of UK democracy. Yet its role and powers became increasingly controversial during the ‘Brexit’ process, following the 2016 referendum decision to leave the European Union. Fierce arguments were framed as ‘parliament versus people’, which fed a populist narrative and raised fundamental questions about where UK sovereignty should lie. This article charts the stages of parliament’s Brexit ‘perfect storm’, tracing its causes to four factors: the design of the referendum, a period of (unfamiliar) minority government, deeply divided political parties, and the weakness of parliamentary rules in facilitating a solution. In the end, the Brexit argument was primarily one inside the Conservative Party, but parliament got the blame.

2013 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 394-399
Author(s):  
Pieter Emmer

In spite of the fact that negotiations have been going on for years, the chances that Turkey will eventually become a full member of the European Union are slim. At present, a political majority among the EU-member states headed by Germany seems to oppose Turkey entering the EU. In the Netherlands, however, most political parties are still in favour of Turkey's membership. That difference coincides with the difference in the position of Turkish immigrants in German and Dutch societies.


2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (4-1) ◽  
pp. 21-30
Author(s):  
Uğur Burç Yıldız İ ◽  
Anıl Çamyamaç

Abstract Having previously remained impartial on the Gibraltar question between Spain and Britain since both were member states, the European Union suddenly changed its position after the Brexit referendum in favor of the Spanish government at the expense of breaching international law. In doing so, the European Union, for the first time, created a foreign policy on the long-standing Gibraltar question. This article explores the reasons behind the creation of this foreign policy in support of Spain. The European Union feared that the idea of Euroscepticism may escalate among remaining member states after the Brexit referendum because of wide-spread claims that it would dissolve in the near future, fuelled by farright political parties. The European Union therefore created a foreign policy regarding Gibraltar in Spain’s favor in order to promote a “sense of community” for thwarting a further rise in Euroscepticism. While making its analysis, the article applies the assumption of social constructivism that ideas shape interests, which then determine the foreign policy choices of actors.


Author(s):  
Nicholas Allen

This chapter charts the story of the Conservatives in government between 2015 and 2017. It examines why David Cameron called a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union, why Theresa May succeeded him as prime minister, and why May decided to call a snap election in the spring of 2017. It locates these decisions against deep and bitter divisions within the Conservative party over the issue of EU membership, and further examines the broader record of the Conservatives in government. Above all, it seeks to explain how both prime ministers both came to gamble their fortunes on the electorate – and lose.


Author(s):  
Anthony Salamone

As Scottish Conservative leader, Ruth Davidson was a prominent campaigner for a ‘Remain’ vote in the European Union referendum of June 2016. Following the 2017 general election, meanwhile, Davidson repositioned herself as someone who could – aided by 13 Scottish Tory MPs in the House of Commons – influence the Brexit negotiations and nudge the UK Conservative Party towards a ‘soft’ rather than ‘hard’ deal with the EU. This chapter considers the impact of Brexit on the Scottish Conservatives during the leadership of Ruth Davidson in four dimensions: Brexit’s distinct Scottish political context, its electoral consequences, the conduct of Brexit within the UK, and the Brexit negotiations themselves. It concludes with reflections on the future prospects for the Scottish party in light of all four dimensions.


Author(s):  
Federico Fabbrini

This chapter analyses the European Union during Brexit, explaining how the EU institutions and Member States reacted to the UK’s decision to leave the EU. It outlines how they went about this in the course of the withdrawal negotiations. The EU institutions and Member States managed to adopt a very united stance vis-à-vis a withdrawing state, establishing effective institutional mechanisms and succeeding in imposing their strategic preferences in the negotiations with the UK. Nevertheless, the EU was also absorbed during Brexit by internal preparations to face both the scenario of a ‘hard Brexit’—the UK leaving the EU with no deal—and of a ‘no Brexit’—with the UK subsequently delaying exit and extending its EU membership. Finally, during Brexit the EU increasingly started working as a union of 27 Member States—the EU27—which in this format opened a debate on the future of Europe and developed new policy initiatives, especially in the field of defence and military cooperation.


2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Mahoney ◽  
Tony Kearon

In this article, we seek to provide a social quality–led analysis of some of the conditions that led to the UK population’s collective decision to leave the European Union in June 2016. We draw on interview data collected between 2010 and 2012 to argue that while not predictable, the seeds of the Brexit vote are well rooted in the conditions experienced by many of the working classes in Britain’s most deprived postindustrial communities. We argue that the ongoing decline in economic security, effective enfranchisement, social inclusion, and social empowerment have all had profound consequences for working-class communities and that the outcome of the Brexit vote was rooted, at least in part, in their subjective experiences and disenchantment forged in this ongoing decline.


2020 ◽  
pp. 000276422098111
Author(s):  
Cristina Del-Castillo-Feito ◽  
Gabriel Cachón-Rodríguez ◽  
Iria Paz-Gil

According to political science, modern societies can separate the state function and the politicians’ mission. However, the existing relationship between political disaffection and state legitimacy indicates the contrary. The interest held by the European Union inhabitants in their politicians has been decreasing, and the closeness to a specific political party or political leader has been weakening. Many European countries have a great degree of polarity in their political parties’ system, which augments the complexity of forming governments or even makes it impossible. Citizens have been affected by corruption, the economic situation, migratory crisis, or the European project weakness. They feel that politicians have forgotten their role as the people’s representatives and their responsibility to behave according to society’s general interest. Through its institutions, the state must ensure the country’s performance and maintain it despite the change in the political leaders. Moreover, its legitimacy will depend on the level of social support received by these institutions. This research aims to quantify if the current political disaffection influences the European Union states’ social support level or state legitimacy. It also expects to demonstrate which sociodemographic and psychographic variables influence on governments’ fragility and the dilution of state legitimacy, which is critical for countries’ stability. For this purpose, we used the available data from the European Social Survey for 2016, and we developed a statistical analysis through variation and regression analysis. The results highlight the strong effect that political disaffection, as well as variables such as religion, immigration perception, citizenship, or emotional state have on state legitimacy and reveal the need for changes in the political parties’ performance and behavior to maintain the countries’ stability.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document