The Paradox of Brexit and the Consequences of Taking Back Control

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The Brexit debate in the UK revealed a sharp division in political opinion that was not evident prior to the referendum in 2016. On the majority side were those who valued national sovereignty and wished to be governed by those within the nation. On the remain side more value was put on international cooperation including a willingness for much of government to come from the EU. The tendency of the EU to move (albeit fitfully) towards the creation of a United States of Europe led to increasing alarm among those in the UK who preferred national sovereignty and the call for a referendum. This call was strengthened by very high levels of immigration from the EU with no power to reduce this.

This represents a reasonable difference of outlook but has been distorted in much post-referendum coverage into a dichotomy between enlightened, informed and well-intentioned remainers and poorly-informed and malign leavers.  This travesty of interpretation poses real problems for a democracy like the UK where parliament came close to reversing the result of a well-conducted a fully-legal referendum and voters had to elect a prime-minister with well-known faults in order to have the referendum result finally delivered five years after the referendum.

This article fully reflects the slanted and pejorative  views of UK remainers that makes the Brexit debate unrecognisable to Leave-supporting voters. Supporting Brexit is largely described as an act of populism which itself is seen as opposition to immigration for reasons connected with dislike of foreigners.

The conflation of Brexit and populism within the article is asserted rather than debated and reads more like a set of jibes than honest inquiry. This is all done through a large number of quotes from selected studies almost all of which appear to reflect these slanted views. For example, in L194 ‘populism was used to frame the leave campaign’.  Populism is described a mixture of right-wing-populism and nativist identity. It is completely unsatisfactory that populism is nowhere properly defined but  instead is described via quotes. For instance a quote is used to describe populism as ‘a thin-centred ideology of pure people v the corrupt elite’ (L136). In L130 populism has been presented as voices of fear anger hatred and revenge. Populism is associated with anti-immigration policies which in turn are encouraged by media coverage and party positions (L174pp). No rational motives are considered for wishing to assert national control over immigration, instead it is all got up by the press and self-serving political parties.

Other pejorative and misleading statements include ‘attitudes towards the (sic) European integration tend to be largely based on a general hostility to other cultures’ (L 164). Astoundingly, in L374  Brexit is referred to as ‘a policy fiasco and system-wide deceit’. Most of this comes through the authors’ literature review, but the inclusion of these views without any accompanying criticism implies agreement. The reader is left at the sharp disadvantage of not knowing what quality of evidence is presented in the large number of articles quoted here. There are in any case far-too many referrals to other studies, often used to support uncontentious or obvious points. The poor quality of the literature review may be commonplace in academic articles but this is no excuse for sloppy work.

This article is a superficial and biased view of Leave-voter’s motives. No mention is made of the Lord Ashcroft exit poll which showed that the overwhelming motive for voting for Brexit was to regain sovereignty and re-establish a direct link between voters and government. A reasonable view that democracy in the EU is weak and indirect is not considered in the article. Instead, the paper baldly states with no supporting evidence that ‘the EU is governed under the principle of representative democracy’ (L301). An important part of the wish to regain direct democratic control over UK policy was control over immigration which leavers not unreasonably wished to have controlled by their national government. Most states in the world exert such control. To dismiss it as populism is shallow.

The paper avoids simple truth that referenda in the UK are used to decide major questions of governance rather than issues of government policy. Hence previous referenda have been on accession to the EEC, regional devolution within the UK and on the voting system. This is not a difficult concept but is completely lost among the complex and opaque arguments of this paper which tend to portray referenda as connected with populism.

 This is somewhat hard on the authors who may have been misled by the sheer weight of pejorative and slanted writing about Brexit. It is well-known that in the UK most (but by no means all) academics voted remain, and their ideological positions appear to be reflected in academic analysis of Brexit. The quality of such analysis, at least as it appears in this article, is not high.

Two final examples. The article describes Brexit as having a negative impact on recruitment to the NHS. The article correctly states that recruitment from the EU fell substantially after 2016. However, it then completely fails to mention that recruitment from non-EU countries and from within the UK expended by more than the fall from the EU, leading to a higher level of total employment in the NHS. This either sloppy or deceptive. Similarly, in the reference to shortages of lorry drivers no mention is made of Covid or to the suspension of HGV driving tests during lockdowns or to the fact of shortages across most western nations.  Nor are the alarming failures in Treasury forecasts for the impact of Brexit even alluded to. Such poor quality of analysis contributes more to public misunderstanding of Brexit than the opposite and should not be encouraged.

Author Response

Thank you so much for the suggestions and recommendations which were very insightful. I have reflected on your recommendations and revised the draft accordingly. Thank you.

Reviewer’s comments

The conflation of Brexit and populism within the article is asserted rather than debated and reads more like a set of jibes than honest inquiry. This is all done through a large number of quotes from selected studies almost all of which appear to reflect these slanted views. For example, in L194 ‘populism was used to frame the leave campaign’.  Populism is described a mixture of right-wing-populism and nativist identity. It is completely unsatisfactory that populism is nowhere properly defined but  instead is described via quotes. For instance a quote is used to describe populism as ‘a thin-centred ideology of pure people v the corrupt elite’ (L136). In L130 populism has been presented as voices of fear anger hatred and revenge. Populism is associated with anti-immigration policies which in turn are encouraged by media coverage and party positions (L174pp). No rational motives are considered for wishing to assert national control over immigration, instead it is all got up by the press and self-serving political parties.

Response: Thank you very much for this observation, a more balance views of populism has bee presented as in line 125 – 128; 142 - 149

Other pejorative and misleading statements include ‘attitudes towards the (sic) European integration tend to be largely based on a general hostility to other cultures’ (L 164).

Thank you very much for this observation. This statement has been removed from the draft.

Astoundingly, in L374  Brexit is referred to as ‘a policy fiasco and system-wide deceit’. Most of this comes through the authors’ literature review, but the inclusion of these views without any accompanying criticism implies agreement.

Thank you very much for this observation. This statement has been removed from the draft.

The reader is left at the sharp disadvantage of not knowing what quality of evidence is presented in the large number of articles quoted here. There are in any case far-too many referrals to other studies, often used to support uncontentious or obvious points. The poor quality of the literature review may be commonplace in academic articles but this is no excuse for sloppy work.

This article is a superficial and biased view of Leave-voter’s motives. No mention is made of the Lord Ashcroft exit poll which showed that the overwhelming motive for voting for Brexit was to regain sovereignty and re-establish a direct link between voters and government.

Lord Ashcroft findings has been added to the draft Line 50-56

A reasonable view that democracy in the EU is weak and indirect is not considered in the article. Instead, the paper baldly states with no supporting evidence that ‘the EU is governed under the principle of representative democracy’ (L301). An important part of the wish to regain direct democratic control over UK policy was control over immigration which leavers not unreasonably wished to have controlled by their national government. Most states in the world exert such control. To dismiss it as populism is shallow.

An alternative view has been added to the draft as you suggested, see, Line 308

The paper avoids simple truth that referenda in the UK are used to decide major questions of governance rather than issues of government policy. Hence previous referenda have been on accession to the EEC, regional devolution within the UK and on the voting system. This is not a difficult concept but is completely lost among the complex and opaque arguments of this paper which tend to portray referenda as connected with populism.

An alternative view has been added to the draft as you suggested, see, Line 84-85

 

 This is somewhat hard on the authors who may have been misled by the sheer weight of pejorative and slanted writing about Brexit. It is well-known that in the UK most (but by no means all) academics voted remain, and their ideological positions appear to be reflected in academic analysis of Brexit. The quality of such analysis, at least as it appears in this article, is not high.

Two final examples. The article describes Brexit as having a negative impact on recruitment to the NHS. The article correctly states that recruitment from the EU fell substantially after 2016. However, it then completely fails to mention that recruitment from non-EU countries and from within the UK expended by more than the fall from the EU, leading to a higher level of total employment in the NHS. This either sloppy or deceptive. Similarly, in the reference to shortages of lorry drivers no mention is made of Covid or to the suspension of HGV driving tests during lockdowns or to the fact of shortages across most western nations.  Nor are the alarming failures in Treasury forecasts for the impact of Brexit even alluded to. Such poor quality of analysis contributes more to public misunderstanding of Brexit than the opposite and should not be encouraged.

 

Thank you very much for this observation. The NHS outcomes has been reviewed as 508-509

Reviewer 2 Report

Some remarks for consideration:

• I recommend narrowing the focus of this paper down. It's very broad and talks about too many things in a very short length.
• Another problem is that the first half of the paper is a collection of news from 4-5 years ago, storytelling.. (Those who followed the Brexit know this information, they do not need it to understand the conclusions. Those who did not follow, probably do not need all detailed information. So I recommend reforming the message, the hypothesis and the conclusions based on the formers..)
• the evaluation of the referendum is not clear ...
• the hypothesis shall be formed and focused
• the methodology is not clear (which methods are used by the author and why)
• the article is multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary - it is not clear from which scientific field the author comes and expresses his / her view. I would categorize the paper into political sciences but has some legal and social affections besides the constitutional issues.
• How did the author reach the conclusions? it is not clear... the main message of the conclusion should be defined also in the abstract with a conditional sentence (to prove or deny the hypothesis)...
• The Author uses multiple resources, but probably he could add more purely scientific evidence. There are great experts on Brexit, multiple resources could be found on SSRN, Academia, Publons, Researchgate, Google Scholar. 
• The main message of the article has to be structured and formed in a clear and conscious way. It is not clear - after multiple readings - what the Author wants to say.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the recommendations and suggestion. This much appreciated. I have incorporated your recommendations and revised the draft. Best wishes

• I recommend narrowing the focus of this paper down. It's very broad and talks about too many things in a very short length.

Thank you very much for the suggestions. The draft has been revised and re-structred as highlighted in colour

• Another problem is that the first half of the paper is a collection of news from 4-5 years ago, storytelling.. (Those who followed the Brexit know this information, they do not need it to understand the conclusions. Those who did not follow, probably do not need all detailed information. So I recommend reforming the message, the hypothesis and the conclusions based on the formers..)

Thank you very much, the conclusion has been revised.

• the evaluation of the referendum is not clear ...

Thank you very much, the referendum section has been revised, Line 43-47

• the hypothesis shall be formed and focused

Thank you very much. The aims, objectives and research questions has been streamlined for a clearer focus see Line 43-47 and 60-69

• the methodology is not clear (which methods are used by the author and why)

Thank you very much, Line 9 and 69, states the method – conceptual

• the article is multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary - it is not clear from which scientific field the author comes and expresses his / her view. I would categorize the paper into political sciences but has some legal and social affections besides the constitutional issues.

Thank you very much, this has been clarified see, Line 47

• How did the author reach the conclusions? it is not clear... the main message of the conclusion should be defined also in the abstract with a conditional sentence (to prove or deny the hypothesis).

Thank you very much, the conclusion section has been revised.

• The Author uses multiple resources, but probably he could add more purely scientific evidence. There are great experts on Brexit, multiple resources could be found on SSRN, Academia, Publons, Researchgate, Google Scholar

Thank you very much for the observation, we have reviewed a wider source of literature as you suggested

• The main message of the article has to be structured and formed in a clear and conscious way. It is not clear - after multiple readings - what the Author wants to say.

Thank you very much for the observation. Alternative views and balanced views have been incorporated into the draft.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

It is great to read your paper on the second anniversary of Brexit. It is a timely paper. Some points should be changed before this paper is publishable.

Line 56: You said: ‘This article applies policy process theory to evaluate the underlying factors for the demand for the referendum’. But in line 45 you said ‘This article is not about the underlying issues that led 45 to the Brexit referendum, as these issues have been investigated at length by many scholars’. Better to revise them.

 

Line 8: it is not clear (no contraction should be used in an academic paper)

Line 25: delete Consequently

Line 42: no contraction should be used in an academic paper

Line 47: delete e.g.

Line 48: problems

Line 49: have

Line 54: the recruiting system, as well as EU migrants...

Line 55: reduces the power of a sovereign nation

Line 68: The different interpretations of Brexit suggest

Line 68: etc. should not be used in an academic paper. Rewrite this sentence (use such as)

Line 73: etc. should not be used

Line 98: have revealed

Line 102: analysed whether   (When you report a past study or quote someone, use either present or past tense in the whole paper. Do not mix both tenses)

Line 114-115: use either referenda or referendums. not both

Line 123: prioritised (Choose either American English or British English, and keep it consistent)

Line 125-128: rewrite, unclear.

Line 132: such as what?

Line 136: no quotation mark for any block quotation

Line 154: Dent’s (2008, p. 6)? Typo?

Line 157: (When you report a past study or quote someone, use either present or past tense in the same paper and keep it consistent)

Line 171: Boomgaarden & Vliegenthart, 2017  (check all the references: & in the blanket, ‘and’ in text)

Line 221: standards” (check all the quotation marks. Sometimes single quotation marks are used)

Line 227: check all the quotation marks. Sometimes single quotation marks are used

Line 242: no quotation mark for any block quotation

Line 248: single quotation mark vs. double quotation mark

Line 259: British English vs. American English

Line 321: Multiple Streams Approach

Line 361: The UK

Line 365: The UK and EEC, that is now EU, have

Line 416: Feldmann and Morgan  (check all the references: & in the blanket, ‘and’ in text)

Line 401, 426, 468: This is an interesting phenomenon. In Scotland, if you look at the referendum results, it was actually people in the Central Belt who were against Brexit. These places are mainly Edinburgh and Glasgow two big cities. The figures for London, Edinburgh and Glasgow, as well as the numbers of young people opposed to Brexit, all reflect the generation gap and the results of internationalisation of three places: all three have more European immigrants than the rest of the UK. They also embrace Europe, and their sense of identity is Eurpoeness more than Britishness. In northern England and the Scottish Border, where the population is generally older and therefore still heavily Anglicized – they more agree to Britishness (That’s why some people scoff at Northern England for being Little England).

Britishness is difficult to define because Britain is made up of four countries. In the era of the British Empire, Britishness could represent the empire. In the multicultural 21st century, Britishness is considered to be Britain’s liberal economy, the rule of law, democracy, freedom, and political values. Former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown explained that British democracy and the rule of law were Britishness in 2006. The pro-Conservative Daily Telegraph had a similar debate in 2006.

I don’t think Brexit is just about being against immigration. Yesterday the British government promoted the first anniversary of the BNO visa, which allows Hong Kong people to stay in the UK. The British do not oppose immigration from Hong Kong to the United Kingdom. Why is this? It is perhaps because the people of Hong Kong have values ​​similar to those of the United Kingdom: support for democracy, freedom, the rule of law, and a free economic society. These are elements of Britishness that Conservative politicians in the UK are promoting.

If you look at the Eurosceptic Conservative MPs, many of them also support CANZUK at the same time to promote freedom of movement between Canada, New Zealand and Australia. While some people mock that CANZUK is to promote the revival of the empire, or the fantasy of the empire, CANZUK is exactly the four countries with the most Britishness in the Commonwealth.

You may be interested in and cite a recently published article as it talks about Birithness, Commonwealth and Hong Kong immigrants under the post-Brexit Global Britain banner:

Yu, A. (2022). Hong Kong, CANZUK, and Commonwealth: The United Kingdom’s role in defending freedom and the global order under ‘Global Britain’. The Round Table: The Commonwealth Journal of International Affairs, 111.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your recommendations. I have revised the draft as you suggested and highlighted in colour and presented below. Best wishes

It is great to read your paper on the second anniversary of Brexit. It is a timely paper. Some points should be changed before this paper is publishable.

Thank you very much for the compliment and finding this article valuable

Line 56: You said: ‘This article applies policy process theory to evaluate the underlying factors for the demand for the referendum’. But in line 45 you said ‘This article is not about the underlying issues that led 45 to the Brexit referendum, as these issues have been investigated at length by many scholars’. Better to revise them.

Thank you very much. This contradiction has been revised. see line 42 - 47

 

Line 8: it is not clear (no contraction should be used in an academic paper)

This has been removed from the paper, thank you

Line 25: delete Consequently

Removed, thank you

Line 42: no contraction should be used in an academic paper

Removed

Line 47: delete e.g.

Done

Line 48: problems

Done

Line 49: have

Done

Line 54: the recruiting system, as well as EU migrants...

Done

Line 55: reduces the power of a sovereign nation

Done

Line 68: The different interpretations of Brexit suggest

Done

Line 68: etc. should not be used in an academic paper. Rewrite this sentence (use such as)

Line 73: etc. should not be used

Done

Line 98: have revealed

Done

Line 102: analysed whether   (When you report a past study or quote someone, use either present or past tense in the whole paper. Do not mix both tenses)

Done

Line 114-115: use either referenda or referendums. not both

Referenda used - thanks

Line 123: prioritised (Choose either American English or British English, and keep it consistent)

Line 125-128: rewrite, unclear.

Done

Line 132: such as what?

Done

Line 136: no quotation mark for any block quotation

Done

Line 154: Dent’s (2008, p. 6)? Typo?

Corrected, thank you

Line 157: (When you report a past study or quote someone, use either present or past tense in the same paper and keep it consistent)

Done

Line 171: Boomgaarden & Vliegenthart, 2017  (check all the references: & in the blanket, ‘and’ in text)

Done

Line 221: standards” (check all the quotation marks. Sometimes single quotation marks are used)

Done

Line 227: check all the quotation marks. Sometimes single quotation marks are used

Done

Line 242: no quotation mark for any block quotation

Done

Line 248: single quotation mark vs. double quotation mark

Done

Line 259: British English vs. American English

Done

Line 321: Multiple Streams Approach

Done

Line 361: The UK

Done

Line 365: The UK and EEC, that is now EU, have

Done

Line 416: Feldmann and Morgan  (check all the references: & in the blanket, ‘and’ in text)

Done

Line 401, 426, 468: This is an interesting phenomenon. In Scotland, if you look at the referendum results, it was actually people in the Central Belt who were against Brexit. These places are mainly Edinburgh and Glasgow two big cities. The figures for London, Edinburgh and Glasgow, as well as the numbers of young people opposed to Brexit, all reflect the generation gap and the results of internationalisation of three places: all three have more European immigrants than the rest of the UK. They also embrace Europe, and their sense of identity is Eurpoeness more than Britishness. In northern England and the Scottish Border, where the population is generally older and therefore still heavily Anglicized – they more agree to Britishness (That’s why some people scoff at Northern England for being Little England).

Thank you very much for these comments, which has been integrated in the conclusion.

Britishness is difficult to define because Britain is made up of four countries. In the era of the British Empire, Britishness could represent the empire. In the multicultural 21st century, Britishness is considered to be Britain’s liberal economy, the rule of law, democracy, freedom, and political values. Former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown explained that British democracy and the rule of law were Britishness in 2006. The pro-Conservative Daily Telegraph had a similar debate in 2006.

I don’t think Brexit is just about being against immigration. Yesterday the British government promoted the first anniversary of the BNO visa, which allows Hong Kong people to stay in the UK. The British do not oppose immigration from Hong Kong to the United Kingdom. Why is this? It is perhaps because the people of Hong Kong have values ​​similar to those of the United Kingdom: support for democracy, freedom, the rule of law, and a free economic society. These are elements of Britishness that Conservative politicians in the UK are promoting.

Thanks for these views.

If you look at the Eurosceptic Conservative MPs, many of them also support CANZUK at the same time to promote freedom of movement between Canada, New Zealand and Australia. While some people mock that CANZUK is to promote the revival of the empire, or the fantasy of the empire, CANZUK is exactly the four countries with the most Britishness in the Commonwealth.

Thank you for the favourable comments

You may be interested in and cite a recently published article as it talks about Birithness, Commonwealth and Hong Kong immigrants under the post-Brexit Global Britain banner:

Yu, A. (2022). Hong Kong, CANZUK, and Commonwealth: The United Kingdom’s role in defending freedom and the global order under ‘Global Britain’. The Round Table: The Commonwealth Journal of International Affairs, 111.

Thank you, this article has been added to the concluding argument, Line 697-700

 

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

the final point about lorry drivers made in my original comments needs to be taken on board

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the corrections.