Abstract:The Leave majority recorded in England was decisive in determining the UK-wide referendum result. Brexit was made in England. We take this as a prompt to challenge the conventional Anglo-British mindset that animates most studies of 'British politics', and has shaped public attitudes research on the United Kingdom. We explore the persistence of distinctive Eurosceptic views in England and their relationship to English national identity prior to the referendum. We then model referendum vote choice using data fr… Show more
“…Three out of four devolved regions-Greater London, Northern Ireland and Scotland-voted in favour of remaining in the EU but they were dragged into Brexit against their will by England's vote. 12 Second, representatives of all devolved administrations, including Wales (where 'Leave' won), have expressed serious concerns about the possible economic implications of Brexit for their regions. Third, in the absence of well-regulated intergovernmental co-decision making, strong disagreements on the process of Brexit and on the allocation of repatriated competences across the levels of governments (Westminster versus the devolved administrations) are quickly degenerating into constitutional conflicts.…”
Section: Brexit and The Territorial Question(s)mentioning
This article provides a preliminary assessment of the impact of the Brexit process—from the June 2016 referendum to June 2018—on the British political system. Drawing on the classic work of Arend Lijphart and the ensuing scholarship applying the Westminster model to Britain, it seeks to understand whether and to what extent Brexit has impacted on the majoritarian features of the system. Adapting Lijphart's criteria, it focuses on the electoral‐party dimension, the executive–legislative relations and the territorial power‐sharing arrangements. It argues that Brexit has brought to light several intertwined tensions that had been brewing inside British politics over the course of a number of years, and which are likely to continue unfolding for several years to come. Even if emerging trends tend to be fragile, complex, even contradictory, and the current uncertainty makes any long(er)‐term assessment futile, recent developments appear to signal a possible strengthening of the executive over the legislature and of the central over the devolved administrations, thus consolidating the majoritarian traits of the British political system.
“…Three out of four devolved regions-Greater London, Northern Ireland and Scotland-voted in favour of remaining in the EU but they were dragged into Brexit against their will by England's vote. 12 Second, representatives of all devolved administrations, including Wales (where 'Leave' won), have expressed serious concerns about the possible economic implications of Brexit for their regions. Third, in the absence of well-regulated intergovernmental co-decision making, strong disagreements on the process of Brexit and on the allocation of repatriated competences across the levels of governments (Westminster versus the devolved administrations) are quickly degenerating into constitutional conflicts.…”
Section: Brexit and The Territorial Question(s)mentioning
This article provides a preliminary assessment of the impact of the Brexit process—from the June 2016 referendum to June 2018—on the British political system. Drawing on the classic work of Arend Lijphart and the ensuing scholarship applying the Westminster model to Britain, it seeks to understand whether and to what extent Brexit has impacted on the majoritarian features of the system. Adapting Lijphart's criteria, it focuses on the electoral‐party dimension, the executive–legislative relations and the territorial power‐sharing arrangements. It argues that Brexit has brought to light several intertwined tensions that had been brewing inside British politics over the course of a number of years, and which are likely to continue unfolding for several years to come. Even if emerging trends tend to be fragile, complex, even contradictory, and the current uncertainty makes any long(er)‐term assessment futile, recent developments appear to signal a possible strengthening of the executive over the legislature and of the central over the devolved administrations, thus consolidating the majoritarian traits of the British political system.
“…If fishermen equate and justify their Euroscepticism because leaving the EU will make them and their industry more prosperous, then we can say that it is indeed instrumental. However, if it is driven by other concerns, such as immigration, then it is likely to be more general in nature and not unlike the population as a whole (Clarke et al 2017;Goodwin and Milazzo 2017;Henderson et al 2017). It is expected that their Euroscepticism is more instrumental in nature given the direct and explicit impact that the CFP has on their everyday lives.…”
Section: Scottish Fishermen the Cfp And Brexitmentioning
There is a substantial amount of literature that focuses on the governance of offshore fisheries in Europe and abroad, the history of fishing industries in different countries, and anthropological studies of fishing communities around the world. There is also a large amount of literature that explores the attitudes of fishermen towards fisheries governance and management. However, there is very little research that has explored the political attitudes of fishermen through the use of quantitative survey data. Using a survey carried out just ahead of the referendum on the UK's membership of the EU, this paper analyses data from a sample of Scottish skippers who work on vessels over 10 m in length. The paper focuses on how fishermen in Scotland vote at both UK and Scottish elections, how they voted in the Scottish independence and EU referendums, their political and social attitudes and their demographic breakdown. On the EU referendum, the paper finds that fishermen, as well intending to overwhelmingly voting to leave the EU, did so for instrumental reasons in the belief that this course of action would benefit them and their industry.
“…( Hennig and Dorling : 20)Geoffrey Evans and Jonathan Mellon's research similarly revealed a wider social base that supported leaving the EU than had been assumed by politicians and academics (Evans and Mellon ). Ailsa Henderson et al went further still and argued that Brexit was essentially an English nationalist moment, suggesting too that ‘English national identity was mobilised by the Brexit question’ and concluding that ‘Brexit was made in England’ (Henderson et al : 631–32).…”
Section: Brexit and The Dilemmas Of English Nationalismmentioning
In British political and intellectual circles, there is a longstanding disagreement between those envisaging an opportunity for the development of a radical English patriotism and those resistant to the idea of a progressive English imaginary. Despite their antithetical quality, both divergent frameworks were explored in the work of Scottish nationalist and New Left intellectual Tom Nairn, long before mainstream social science preoccupied itself with the ‘English Question’. Notwithstanding his later espousal of Englishness as a contribution to democratic renewal, Nairn's earlier notion of an inherently regressive nationalism remains the dominant frame for many intellectuals and politicians confronted by the challenges of increasingly politicised English identities. Whilst he has been only one of a number of thinkers and writers who have informed and contested political thinking on this question in the UK, the influence of his early work upon liberal and left circles has been underestimated, an oversight that this article addresses.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
