Peter Holmes and Sahana Suraj, UKTPO, University of Sussex
Brexit was presented to the public as a question of “taking back control”. Politically, the campaign was effective partly because it was presented as a constitutional rupture with minimal disruption to everyday economic life. Research on the referendum campaign notes that there was considerable ambiguity among different constituencies in how they perceived the meaning of “Brexit”. This ambiguity masked a substantive tension between two visions: an outward-looking “Global Britain”, premised on independent trade deals and regulatory freedom and another appealed to a more protectionist, sovereignty-first “Little England”. The result was that Brexit generated a mandate to leave, but not a mandate for any coherent economic settlement.
The government’s policy is clearly driven by its fear of alienating pro-Brexit voters. This paper is not the place to address that debate in full, but it is very clear that many of Labour’s potential voters would prefer an attempt to re-join to the ‘Halfway House”. The logical implication is that the UK remain open to debate the possibility of attempting to Re-Join. This paper is not necessarily seeking to pre-empt the conclusion of such a debate, but we feel it must be opened up.
