Abstract
Of all the paradoxes that Brexit contains, one of the lesser noticed is the tension between the demand for research-led publications on an issue of critical public interest and the realities of academic publishing timelines. With a subject that can shift radically within days, even hours, to risk publishing a work that might only appear months after submission has been a cause for concern for many publishers.
The result has been a relative paucity of such titles, with the running instead being filled by journalistic accounts of the 2016 European Union (EU) referendum and its aftermath, or polemics written by politicians and activists. While these offer some useful insights, they lack the rigour and theoretically informed input that research monographs can provide.
It is thus fitting that one of the academics who has done most to bring very rapid academic input to the public debate on Brexit should be co-author of this current volume. Anand Menon’s work with the Economic and Social Research Council’s (ESRC) ‘UK in a Changing Europe’ programme has shown what is possible in bringing social science research to bear on the political and media conversation, and that experience clearly informs this volume with Geoffrey Evans, with his insights from the British Election Study.
Evans and Menon’s approach to tackling the rapid pace of events is twofold. First, there is an unpacking of the deeper roots of public opinion towards European integration, immigration, and political disconnection, as well as the (non-)responsiveness of political parties thereto. As a summary overview, this serves to highlight the core themes of the referendum itself and the assorted logics behind peoples’ votes.
The second part of the approach is frame the post-referendum period not in terms of ‘who said what’, but rather to explore how the various tensions and dynamics identified earlier shape the space in which the Brexit process is unrolling. It is here that the work has perhaps its greatest value, in avoiding the twists and turns of the political battles and instead focusing on the bigger structures and frameworks in operation. The confidence with which the book sets out its stall is impressive and warranted, given Evans and Menon’s close engagement with both the data sources and the evolving debate. As the authors note in a short Afterword, there is currently much bitterness and even poison in British politics these days, and with so many moving parts, it remains unclear where this might all be leading.
While that conclusion has undoubtedly stood the test of time since the book’s publication in late October 2017, the challenge that sets academic research is all the more difficult. In a highly contingent, systemic rupture that has no obvious analogies elsewhere, how does one gain purchase and build a means of analysing and understanding what is going on?
It is here that the more rounded approach taken by Evans and Menon pays dividends. The interplay of party politics and polling data allows for a more considered evaluation than would be possible by looking at only one of these. Importantly, the consideration of the growing disconnection between politicians and electorate highlights how these two groups have not necessarily moved in the same direction in recent years. Given the abject confusion that Brexit appears to have caused all involved, this point towards a further reinforcement of that disconnection, as voters see politicians seemingly fail to operationalise the simple decision made in the referendum.
If the volume is a very useful first guide to the Brexit debate in the UK, then it also reflects some of the weaknesses of that debate. The continual ‘othering’ of the EU by successive generations of British politicians – implicit in the overview provided – evidently contributed to the current situation, where levels of understanding of how the EU works are low and ‘Brussels’ is seen as a remote and inaccessible rule-generator. That remoteness and lack of understanding have subsequently translated into a UK debate that is largely only concerned with how Brexit works for the UK.
Arguably, the failure of British politicians and media to extend that debate to include the EU as a necessary and unavoidable player in this process has further complicated matters. Both the unwinding of UK membership and the establishment of a new relationship cannot be determined by the UK alone: even the more extreme positions of ‘walking away’ from the Article 50 process require an engagement with other international bodies, such as the World Trade Organisation (WTO). In the same way, this work could have further increased its value as a vade-mecum if the strength of its domestic scoping had been extended to the European and international levels.
But this is to bring us back to the opening paradox: to extend and refine is also to delay. For those looking to make sense of contemporary British politics and the sea-change that Brexit represents, this work represents an excellent starting-point and a reminder of the value of informed and evidence-led academic analysis.
