28+ perspectives on Brexit: a guide to the multi-stakeholder negotiations
Lead Research Organisation:
Loughborough University
Department Name: Loughborough University in London
Abstract
This project proposes to inform the Brexit negotiations in real time via up-to-date, research-informed knowledge about the EU Member States' Brexit positions and the Brussels negotiating environment.
The task in the months ahead for any policy-maker or researcher is not just to identify the interests and positions of the EU member states, but, crucially, to understand how these will be amalgamated to produce the EU's interests and strategies in the Brexit negotiations. The knowledge to be generated, transferred and disseminated in this proposal will, accordingly, take two main forms. First, via qualitative research methods, the project will track the Brexit negotiating positions and in particular the 'red lines' of selected member states (Netherlands, France, Germany, Italy) which during the project lifespan (April 2017 to September 2018) are due to hold national elections. The countries have in common a potentially strong presence of populist parties with a Eurosceptic agenda, and our specific contribution will be to offer a framework for understanding the pressures of populist parties on the member states' Brexit negotiating positions (and in particular on the drawing of their 'red lines'). We will draw on existing academic literatures and add findings from new fieldwork conducted in real time during these electoral contests.
Second, the project will draw on existing understandings of how 'Brussels' (not only the Council of the EU but also European Commission and the European Parliament) typically aggregates national preferences, in order to show the forces at work behind the formation of the EU's negotiating position following the invoking of Article 50. The research here will principally constitute a synthesis and commentary of state-of-the art academic research, with particular reference to the emerging field of the role of emotions in diplomatic and multi-stakeholder negotiations. Limited additional fieldwork (a review of official documents by Member States and institutions) conducted in real-time during the project will consolidate this meta-analysis.
This project proposes to build a dynamic knowledge base on these subjects for transfer to a maximum number and broadest diversity of stakeholders in real time, and also for future use by policy-makers and other Brexit stakeholders. As such, the project will operate on the guiding principle of 'open science' which aims to 'make research more open, global, collaborative, creative and closer to society' (https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/open-science). In particular, it will engage in a systematic and rolling exercise of stakeholder identification and needs analysis with the support of the project partners and in conjunction with the UK in a Changing Europe evidence hub. This will enable the project to construct a living map of interested stakeholders and their needs, designed to chart a dynamic reality, and to be made publicly available to benefit policy makers and other users, as per our commitment outlined above. With the support of its partners, the project will also generate multi-media information for wider dissemination via a diversity of interventions. The team of investigators itself is designed for resilience and to build capacity into the project, the Brexit environment, and the academic profession. It is multi-generational, multi-disciplinary and multi-skilled and is housed in a stable and supportive UK higher educational institution (Loughborough University). Loughborough has been a hub of expertise in European Studies since 1973 and principal investigator Drake is currently holder of a European Commission Jean Monnet Chair award (2013-17) in European integration. Many PhD alumni from Loughborough are currently working in professional capacities relevant to this proposal, and Hardacre and Pomorska are included in this bid in partner and consultancy roles.
The task in the months ahead for any policy-maker or researcher is not just to identify the interests and positions of the EU member states, but, crucially, to understand how these will be amalgamated to produce the EU's interests and strategies in the Brexit negotiations. The knowledge to be generated, transferred and disseminated in this proposal will, accordingly, take two main forms. First, via qualitative research methods, the project will track the Brexit negotiating positions and in particular the 'red lines' of selected member states (Netherlands, France, Germany, Italy) which during the project lifespan (April 2017 to September 2018) are due to hold national elections. The countries have in common a potentially strong presence of populist parties with a Eurosceptic agenda, and our specific contribution will be to offer a framework for understanding the pressures of populist parties on the member states' Brexit negotiating positions (and in particular on the drawing of their 'red lines'). We will draw on existing academic literatures and add findings from new fieldwork conducted in real time during these electoral contests.
Second, the project will draw on existing understandings of how 'Brussels' (not only the Council of the EU but also European Commission and the European Parliament) typically aggregates national preferences, in order to show the forces at work behind the formation of the EU's negotiating position following the invoking of Article 50. The research here will principally constitute a synthesis and commentary of state-of-the art academic research, with particular reference to the emerging field of the role of emotions in diplomatic and multi-stakeholder negotiations. Limited additional fieldwork (a review of official documents by Member States and institutions) conducted in real-time during the project will consolidate this meta-analysis.
This project proposes to build a dynamic knowledge base on these subjects for transfer to a maximum number and broadest diversity of stakeholders in real time, and also for future use by policy-makers and other Brexit stakeholders. As such, the project will operate on the guiding principle of 'open science' which aims to 'make research more open, global, collaborative, creative and closer to society' (https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/open-science). In particular, it will engage in a systematic and rolling exercise of stakeholder identification and needs analysis with the support of the project partners and in conjunction with the UK in a Changing Europe evidence hub. This will enable the project to construct a living map of interested stakeholders and their needs, designed to chart a dynamic reality, and to be made publicly available to benefit policy makers and other users, as per our commitment outlined above. With the support of its partners, the project will also generate multi-media information for wider dissemination via a diversity of interventions. The team of investigators itself is designed for resilience and to build capacity into the project, the Brexit environment, and the academic profession. It is multi-generational, multi-disciplinary and multi-skilled and is housed in a stable and supportive UK higher educational institution (Loughborough University). Loughborough has been a hub of expertise in European Studies since 1973 and principal investigator Drake is currently holder of a European Commission Jean Monnet Chair award (2013-17) in European integration. Many PhD alumni from Loughborough are currently working in professional capacities relevant to this proposal, and Hardacre and Pomorska are included in this bid in partner and consultancy roles.
Planned Impact
This proposal is explicitly designed to account for a specificity of Brexit, namely the multiplicity of the number and type of potential stakeholders, defined here as those individuals and organisations who stand to be affected, directly or indirectly, by the outcomes of Brexit in the short, medium and long terms. Accordingly, our pathway to impact is characterised by a commitment to widen the net as far as possible in terms of who we can expect to reach, engage and influence by the transfer of the knowledge generated by the proposed project.
First, we have devised a strategic method for doing so that builds not only on the investigators and their skills and experience, but on a carefully-chosen team of partners and consultants; this is the generation and ongoing updating of a live stakeholder map. Second, we have been guided in our planned activities and outputs by an understanding of 'impact' as a multi-dimensional process where 'one size does not fit all', but where knowledge is best transferred to a maximum of end-users by targeted and specific activities and interventions (see below). Third, we start from the clear expectation that one critical success factor of the project is a collaborative relationship with the UK in a Changing Europe initiative and in particular its director, Professor Anand Menon. Fourth, we anticipate a 'snowball' effect from our planned activities and outputs, whereby those stakeholders and other end users who we reach will amplify our impact through the mobilisation of their own networks and resources.
Despite the open-ended and uncertain nature of the Brexit negotiations as referred to above, we have nevertheless, for practical purposes, classified our potential end-users with reference to the type of impact that researchers can expect from their knowledge and its transfer, and the concrete means of doing so (people-based, problem-solving or community-based). By way of example, impact can be for primarily economic or political purposes, and be expected to engage end users who prioritise the instrumentalisation of knowledge for specific and direct ends (such as policy-making). Here, we anticipate direct engagement with UK diplomatic and political Brexit stakeholders (e.g. DexEU), informed by input from their equivalents in Brussels and other EU member states, by way of a workshop to be held at Loughborough University's London-based Academy for Diplomacy and International Governance. Impact can also take a more diffuse and conceptual character whereby the aim is to support paradigm-shifting understandings, and here we envisage a facilitated training and learning intervention with socio-economic-type actors affected by Brexit; informed by our wide understanding of Brexit, and in order to provide an innovative feature to our paths to impact, such actors actors can be drawn from sectors of high socio-cultural importance, such as the sports, audiovisual and financial/business sectors. To that extent our pathways to impact are well aligned with the expertise of the project team, as well as with the reputation of Loughborough University. That combination shall enhance the impact potential of the project. Finally, we intend to generate impact at the broader societal level (general public and educational sectors) of both conceptual and capacity-building type by means of a learning intervention (based on policy simulation and negotiations educational tools) based at the Loughborough main or London campus, where the target audience will include university educators and students.
First, we have devised a strategic method for doing so that builds not only on the investigators and their skills and experience, but on a carefully-chosen team of partners and consultants; this is the generation and ongoing updating of a live stakeholder map. Second, we have been guided in our planned activities and outputs by an understanding of 'impact' as a multi-dimensional process where 'one size does not fit all', but where knowledge is best transferred to a maximum of end-users by targeted and specific activities and interventions (see below). Third, we start from the clear expectation that one critical success factor of the project is a collaborative relationship with the UK in a Changing Europe initiative and in particular its director, Professor Anand Menon. Fourth, we anticipate a 'snowball' effect from our planned activities and outputs, whereby those stakeholders and other end users who we reach will amplify our impact through the mobilisation of their own networks and resources.
Despite the open-ended and uncertain nature of the Brexit negotiations as referred to above, we have nevertheless, for practical purposes, classified our potential end-users with reference to the type of impact that researchers can expect from their knowledge and its transfer, and the concrete means of doing so (people-based, problem-solving or community-based). By way of example, impact can be for primarily economic or political purposes, and be expected to engage end users who prioritise the instrumentalisation of knowledge for specific and direct ends (such as policy-making). Here, we anticipate direct engagement with UK diplomatic and political Brexit stakeholders (e.g. DexEU), informed by input from their equivalents in Brussels and other EU member states, by way of a workshop to be held at Loughborough University's London-based Academy for Diplomacy and International Governance. Impact can also take a more diffuse and conceptual character whereby the aim is to support paradigm-shifting understandings, and here we envisage a facilitated training and learning intervention with socio-economic-type actors affected by Brexit; informed by our wide understanding of Brexit, and in order to provide an innovative feature to our paths to impact, such actors actors can be drawn from sectors of high socio-cultural importance, such as the sports, audiovisual and financial/business sectors. To that extent our pathways to impact are well aligned with the expertise of the project team, as well as with the reputation of Loughborough University. That combination shall enhance the impact potential of the project. Finally, we intend to generate impact at the broader societal level (general public and educational sectors) of both conceptual and capacity-building type by means of a learning intervention (based on policy simulation and negotiations educational tools) based at the Loughborough main or London campus, where the target audience will include university educators and students.
Publications
Baldini G
(2021)
The Brexit effect: Political implications of the exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union
in International Political Science Review
Bressanelli E
(2021)
Managing Disintegration: How the European Parliament Responded and Adapted to Brexit
in Politics and Governance
Bressanelli E
(2021)
Assessing What Brexit Means for Europe: Implications for EU Institutions and Actors
in Politics and Governance
Bressanelli E
(2019)
Negotiating Brexit: the European Parliament between participation and influence
in Journal of European Integration
Fagan Adam
(2023)
The Failure of Remain: Anti-Brexit Activism in the United Kingdom
Georgiadou E
(2020)
Big data analytics and international negotiations: Sentiment analysis of Brexit negotiating outcomes
in International Journal of Information Management
Pirro A
(2018)
The populist politics of Euroscepticism in times of crisis: Comparative conclusions
in Politics
Pirro A
(2018)
Populist Eurosceptic trajectories in Italy and the Netherlands during the European crises
in Politics
Rooduijn M
(2019)
Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics
Van Kessel S
(2022)
Mobilising around Europe: a conceptual framework and introduction to the special section
in Social Movement Studies
| Description | The most significant achievements to date have arisen from the academic research that we have undertaken and published (plus work-in-progress). Our academic research has already generated specific research insights that are twofold, as follows: FIRST, we found that the UK's vote by referendum to leave the EU did not trigger a domino effect whereby other member states found themselves pressured to 'leave' the EU in the wake of the UK. The research focused on those member states most susceptible, in the immediate aftermath of the 2016 UK referendum, to pressure from radical right, Eurosceptic parties to also 'leave': in none of the national elections held in the Netherlands, Germany, France or Italy, in 2017-18, were those parties in fact 'eager to leave'. The main factors behind their strategies concerned inter-party competition, the (low) salience of 'Europe' in voting behaviours, and intra-party leadership issues. These were findings - albeit true for a specific point in time - that ran counter to prevailing fears of the 'contagion' of Brexit, and thereby injected fact into a highly-emotional political context. If EU matters become more salient in national contexts, then pressure for further exits could well materialise. Examples of the dissemination of these findings, in addition to the academic publications recorded elsewhere in this report, can be found as follows: https://ukandeu.ac.uk/no-push-for-a-domino-effect-brexit-doesnt-loom-large-in-populist-radical-right-parties-campaigns/ https://ukandeu.ac.uk/populist-radical-right-parties-across-europe-not-eager-to-leave-the-eu/ SECOND, we found that both parties - the UK and the EU - to the first stage of the negotiations (leading to the Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration on the Future Relationship) conducted the talks by and large in traditional 'dyadic' negotiations mode. This is a negotiations format that offers no or little opportunity for rigorous or systematic stakeholder input beyond obvious suspects; public opinion on the detail is excluded, for example. Our research combined data analytics, social media and sentiment analysis with international relations and international business scholarship to demonstrate the added value of an understanding by negotiators of stakeholders' emotions as expressed on social media (Twitter); in the case of Brexit, opportunities were lost to formulate potentially more popular win-sets (outcomes) than was the case. Our results demonstrated a lack of negotiation capital on the part of both parties leading to opportunities missed especially so at the start of the negotiations. Moves and countermoves were against textbook negotiations often raising questions of preparedness and motivation. In terms of public sentiment, analysis of a month's worth of Twitter data demonstrated that emotions heightened as a response to specific negotiation events and certain hashtags generated more and different emotions than others. Overall emotion fluctuated significantly over the course of the negotiations at times favouring one possible outcome or another. There was however conversion in positive emotions such as happiness in soft types of Brexit especially so from the business community. By contrast, negative emotions such as shame, anger and sadness were associated with harder types of Brexit. Combining methods from data science with epistemologies from social sciences enabled us to address the plurality of societal voices in public policymaking, and peer into possible remedies for the informational gap between governments and those voices. In doing so, we demonstrated the relevance and application of the said epistemology to international negotiations: today for Brexit, tomorrow for yet unknown public policy and international negotiation challenges. To this end, we concluded that big data analytics is growing in significance in the era of data overflow and can provide solutions to decision-makers who need to extract meaningful information about decisions and policies with political, business, humanitarian, and technological impact. The research also generated insights into the negotiating behaviours of specific EU institutions, including the European Parliament, with specific reference to the role that emotions played in the process; and into the negotiating behaviours of the EU27 member states. Dissemination of the findings, in addition to the academic publications recorded elsewhere in this report, include: https://ukandeu.ac.uk/public-emotions-as-an-indicator-of-the-outcomes-of-the-brexit-negotiations/ https://ukandeu.ac.uk/brexit-negotiations-day-one-turning-points-and-concessions/ https://ukandeu.ac.uk/managing-the-brexit-negotiations-deadlock/ https://ukandeu.ac.uk/all-we-need-isclarity-some-notes-from-brussels/ https://ukandeu.ac.uk/article-50-one-year-on-politics-in-the-eu/ https://ukandeu.ac.uk/pessimistic-confused-and-frustrated-how-the-eu-views-westminsters-mess/ https://ukandeu.ac.uk/october-extension-how-significant-are-divisions-among-the-eu27/ |
| Exploitation Route | First, the outcomes have already been taken forward to academic work-in-progress (accompanied by dissemination strategies including events such as workshops bringing academics and non-academics, including activists, together) on the subject of pro-Remain, pro-Europe mobilisation in the UK and EU member states in an age of populism. The initial project research on euroscepticism (see findings above) led onto new research questions and fieldwork looking at the opposite perspective: who mobilised AGAINST Brexit, how and why? A blog on this subject can be found here: https://ukandeu.ac.uk/event/mobilising-around-europe-pro-and-anti-eu-politics-in-an-era-of-populism/ and a later blog here: https://ukandeu.ac.uk/the-anti-brexit-movement-failing-to-remain-united/ In addition, on this same spin-off, a book by A. Fagan and S. van Kessel entitled 'The Failure of Remain: anti-Brexit activism in the United Kingdom' is due out with McGill-Queen's University Press, in 2022; and two journal articles, also due out in 2022. Second, the project has been taken forward to generate ongoing research into the innovative research pathways adopted (Brexit cafes) which are evolving into objects of research in themselves, having found that the impacts of Brexit on a variety of stakeholders are generated in non-negligible part by interaction between stakeholders who otherwise would remain unconnected. Third, the project dedicated a small part of the research, within the mapping of UK stakeholders' reactions, to the possible effects of Brexit on sport. This has been published and disseminated mostly through blog contributions to the UK in a Changing Europe hub, as follows: The consequences of Brexit for the Premier League: https://ukandeu.ac.uk/will-brexit-break-up-the-premier-league/ The hosting of Euro 2020 and Brexit: https://ukandeu.ac.uk/it-might-come-home-in-2020/ Economic consequences of Brexit for professional football: https://ukandeu.ac.uk/forever-bursting-bubbles-the-premier-league-meets-the-new-brexit-reality/ Freedom of movement and regulated professions in the sports sector after Brexit: https://ukandeu.ac.uk/a-cold-brexit-the-future-of-snow-sport-instructors-is-far-away-pyeongchang/ Some of these pieces were also translated into Spanish and published in the web www.lamediainglesa.com, hence reaching an international audience. This website has a wider audience in Latin America, which amplifies the reach of the research. Two pieces were published here: http://www.lamediainglesa.com/articulo/la-premier-league-se-topa-con-la-nueva-realidad-tras-el-brexit http://www.lamediainglesa.com/articulo/acabara-el-brexit-con-la-premier-league This side of the project also produced audio content. One edition of Loughborough University "Experts in Sport" podcast was dedicated to Brexit. This podcast is available in most podcast platforms, such as apple podcast, ivoox or Spotify (https://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ssehs/experts-in-sport/). In each of the three fields above, we have identified and in most cases connected with relevant stakeholders who stand to benefit from increased knowledge and awareness of our findings. |
| Sectors | Education,Leisure Activities, including Sports, Recreation and Tourism,Government, Democracy and Justice,Security and Diplomacy |
| Description | It is less than one year since the project ended, and there is follow-on work to be done to trace the impact opportunities we created in the project's lifetime, to reflect on these, and to publish and disseminate our findings. Our project addressed Brexit as a 'wicked', i.e., complex problem of process involving multiple and diverse stakeholders. This focus on process was designed to deliver impact in the form of learning opportunities for stakeholders who testified, in the stakeholder events that we ran, to new understandings and positions with regards to the ongoing and long term ramifications of Brexit. These were stakeholders largely excluded from the formal Brexit decision-making itself and they included: - Business and its representatives (large, small, medium, local, regional, national, in the East Midlands and London; including CBI and government departments) - Politicians and policy making circles (national, regional, local, in the East Midlands and London) - Specific companies, large and small, in the East Midlands and London. - Civil society groups and invididuals eg NHS; youth theatre. - Students and their representatives on Loughborough University's two campuses in the East Midlands and London. We aimed overall for impact in the form of a change in the understanding and awareness of stakeholders, and created pathways accordingly: our three stakeholder events (two Brexit cafes and one university student event) all provided opportunities for stakeholder peer-to-peer knowledge exchange. We recorded participants' instant impressions of their changed understandings and awareness and intend to build on this feedback. We empowered a diversity (in age, gender, status, occupation, and nationality) of stakeholders from business (business and industry actors), politics and civil society to reflect on the multiple impacts of Brexit on their activities and identities. It connected otherwise disparate stakeholders in low-risk, collaborative and participative settings for mutual confidence-building, learning, knowledge-exchange, intelligence and information-sharing. This work was amongst other things presented at the Confederation of the British Industry in February 2019 in their Brexit Briefing for the East Midlands Region. The objective of this presentation was to inform regional businesses on the active possible outcomes of Brexit negotiations and public sentiment toward them. At the same time, this work was presented to the Department of International Trade in several meetings aimed at informing their management on the fluctuations of public sentiment toward Brexit. |
| First Year Of Impact | 2018 |
| Sector | Education,Leisure Activities, including Sports, Recreation and Tourism,Government, Democracy and Justice,Security and Diplomacy |
| Impact Types | Societal,Economic,Policy & public services |
| Description | Brexit and You: a university student event bringing together the project investigators and Brexit stakeholders (May 17, 2019, Loughborough University). |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Regional |
| Primary Audience | Undergraduate students |
| Results and Impact | Approximately 40 students and staff from across Loughborough University attended this event, entitled 'Brexit and You'. The event brought together this audience with the project investigators and other stakeholders in Brexit, namely the University senior management, the students' union, the local MP, and regional business representatives. The event was in three parts, and in each part, investigators, invited stakeholders and the audience exchanged research findings, knowledge, experiences and understandings, and debated. The three parts were entitled: Governments, Parties and Movements; Citizens and Business; and Students and Higher Education. In each part, a key stakeholder responded to the presentation with their experiences of Brexit. Questions and discussion ensued afterwards, and the invited stakeholders indicated their satisfaction with an event that brought so many different stakeholders together in a constructive and open-minded format. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2019 |
| URL | https://www.lboro.ac.uk/internal/news/2019/may/open-discussion-on-brexit-to-be-held-at-loughborough-... |
| Description | Brexit cafe: stakeholder engagement activity, 1 February 2019, Loughborough University London |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Regional |
| Primary Audience | Public/other audiences |
| Results and Impact | Around 20 people attended this Brexit cafe. The Mayor of Hackney Phillip Glanville opened the event and took part. It was professionally facilitated and a written record was kept of all participants' comments and views, as recorded contemporaneously. These findings will contribute to academic research to follow at the end of the project. Participants were asked to address, on tables hosted by members of the research project, 3 questions as follows: 1. What are your foremost feelings about Brexit? 2. How do you think Brexit will impact on your local community or organisation? 3. What do you hope the UK-EU relationship will look like in 5 years' time? The conversations lasted over the course of the next 2 hours, and participants reported gratitude at the opportunity to hear others' views in a non-conflictual setting. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2019 |
| Description | Brexit cafe: stakeholder engagement event, 13 July 2018 at Loughborough University, Leicestershire. |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Regional |
| Primary Audience | Industry/Business |
| Results and Impact | The 28+ Perspective on Brexit project, part of the UK in a Changing Europe initiative, organised a "Brexit Café" in the East Midlands, providing a platform for deep and meaningful conversations about Brexit for civil society stakeholders in the region. Special guest was Rt. Hon. Nicky Morgan, MP for Loughborough. Away from the Westminster and Brussels bubbles, Loughborough University hosted this version of the World Café format, an event designed to facilitate respectful 'conversations that matter' amongst participants. Almost 50 participants representing a wide variety of business, NGOs, charities, higher education institutions and other civil society stakeholders took place in a very refreshing evening of common conversations about Brexit. The participants were invited to discuss three questions in rounds of around 15 minutes each: What are your foremost thoughts about Brexit? How do you think Brexit will affect you professionally? And how do you hope the UK-EU relationship will look in five years' time? The "Brexit Café" adapts the world café model to encourage meaningful, calm and reflective conversations on Brexit, where participants are required not just to express their views, but to pay attention to others trying to join dots and create new patterns of thoughts. It is designed to generate much needed calm debate and exchange of views in an issue that has certainly divided people across the country. At the end of the three rounds of conversations there is time for "harvesting", so a common discussion of the most important ideas emerges that is then reproduced visually in flipcharts through doodles, post it notes or simple short messages. Three words seemed to dominate the Brexit café in Loughborough: confusion, discussion and uncertainty. Participants in the event shared different views on Brexit, but most were worried by the uncertainty of what lies ahead. A lack of clear political leadership to take the country forward was often cited as one of the reasons for that uncertain future. The disruptive nature of Brexit was also highlighted in the conversations amongst the participants, most of whom seemed to agree that there are still very divided and controversial opinions about Brexit around the country. The economy, and in particular the East Midlands economy, was very much part of the debate. Here one could see a clear differentiation between small local business and larger companies with production plants and headquarters in the region. The divergence concerned the perceived impact of Brexit on the economy. Whereas some participants argued that the globalised nature of the economy means Brexit will hit badly many of the local companies in the Midlands, others considered that the local economy is robust and diverse and should be able to survive in any event. One point where both sides agreed, though, was the need for clarity to enable short and long-term planning and to avoid problems in the future. One of the refreshing features of a (rather warm) evening was the development of deep and mature conversations around Brexit, with arguments both in favour and against it. The Brexit Café format clearly favoured and facilitated much needed dialogue, which is in itself already a positive development. However, there was a clear feeling of anxiety, fear of the unknown and, to some extent, regret of what is happening around the country because of the Brexit referendum. Looking into the future, participants tried to remain optimistic. Most were clearly in favour of a close relationship with the European Union, although there was no common agreement on what shape that relationship should take. Beyond the vagaries of the economy, conversations about the future were underpinned by concerns about the divisions created in British society, future national identity and, especially, the impact that Brexit could have amongst the younger generation. Rt. Hon. Nicky Morgan, MP for Loughborough, attended the Brexit Café and closed proceedings on the evening by thanking all the participants for their views and opinions. She highlighted that it is "very useful to listen to other people's views as to why they voted the way they did". The point that struck her the most in the conversations was that "[our country] needs to be better in the future, whatever better looks like". There is a need to engage in conversations about the shape of this future; at the moment, people do not to talk to each other and are stuck on their views about Brexit, Nicky Morgan added. This edition of the "Brexit Café" demonstrated that the format adapted to the reality of Brexit by the 28+ Perspectives on Brexit project team is an innovative and different way of generating conversations on such a divisive issue. As Nicky Morgan pointed out, Brexit is a topic on which real conversations that acknowledge others' opinions do not always take place, and she added: "I wish we had events like this before the Referendum". (Written after the event by co-investigator, Dr Borja Garcia, Brexit research investigator for the 28 Perspective on Brexit team at The UK in a Changing Europe. Published at https://ukandeu.ac.uk/brexit-cafe-in-the-east-midlands-conversations-amid-the-confusion/ |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2018 |
| URL | https://ukandeu.ac.uk/brexit-cafe-in-the-east-midlands-conversations-amid-the-confusion/ |
| Description | Briefing on project research by co-investigator Dr Geogiadou to Confederation of British Industry (CBI), Midlands, 12 February 2019. |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Regional |
| Primary Audience | Industry/Business |
| Results and Impact | Co-investigator presented audience with emerging findings from the project and answered questions. Discussions begun on future focus groups with regional small and medium-sized enterprises to explore the impact of Brexit on their specific sectors. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2019 |
| Description | Mobilising around Europe: pro and anti-EU politics in an era of populism and nationalism (Kings Colleage London, 7-8 November 2019) |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | This workshop included a roundtable discussion open to the general public and focused on contemporary mobilisation around the theme of European integration. It considered pro and anti-EU forces both at the party-political and the grass-roots level. The sessions were organised in the light of contemporary developments, including Brexit, which have raised questions about the EU's ability to maintain cohesion in the face of rising nationalist and populist challenges across Europe. Conclusions of the sessions included, first, that the embedded assumption that social movements and civil society organisations are the ubiquitous hallmark of left-liberal identity-based politics runs the risk of under-playing the developed and enmeshed networks of far-right Eurosceptic activists, and thus the genuine political contestation around European integration that may well exist. Second, the extent to which discourses on the EU and European integration are changing amongst contemporary activists - a decade or more since the financial crisis, in light of Brexit, and in response to Extinction Rebellion and other forms of 'green'/urban activism - need to be considered more extensively. Positions on the EU - whether and how it should be reformed - may be more similar across the left/right social movement spectrum than anticipated, or at least they may not easily be mapped onto a pro-EU/anti-EU dichotomy. Finally, it is prudent to move beyond a simple 'anti-' vs 'pro-European' dichotomy and recognise the different frames used to interpret European integration. It is also important to be aware of the different degrees of Euroscepticism: the Euroscepticism of the radical right is typically harder than of the radical left, but also among the former parties there is considerable variation. Moreover, on all sides, discussions about the EU or its policies are often framed with reference to domestic politics; European integration as such is often not a key issue for social movements and parties. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2019 |
| URL | http://www.cer.qmul.ac.uk/europemattersblog/items/2018/mobilising-around-europe-pro-and-anti-eu-poli... |