Brexit, Parliament and the Constitution: UK In A Changing Europe Senior Fellowship

This Fellowship will support Professor Meg Russell, Director of the UCL Constitution Unit and one of the UK's leading authorities on parliament and constitutional politics, to produce research and contribute to debates on Brexit, parliament and the constitution.

The decision to leave the EU has created particular tensions for parliament, which have become more prominent as debates have developed. The 2016 referendum, although itself approved by parliament, gave a result that conflicted with most parliamentarians' personal preferences. The government had offered no clear vision of what 'Leave' should mean. Since the referendum, parliament has increasingly asserted its role in deciding the way forward. But this has been controversial, with criticism and questions about the role of the House of Commons Speaker, government backbenchers, the opposition and the House of Lords. At time of writing the Commons had yet to agree a Brexit deal, and the outcome was uncertain. Possibilities included a 'hard' or 'no deal' Brexit, a 'soft' Brexit, no Brexit at all, or a further referendum.

The central research focus of the Fellowship would be parliament's role. The applicant's previous research has focused substantially on parliament's power and policy impact. This theme would be developed in the Brexit context, with a detailed analysis of the extent to which, how, and thanks to whom, parliament has affected policy outcomes. Such work would be conducted through a combination of careful documentary analysis and interviews with senior figures involved, likely resulting in a book and several papers. These would document both the ways in which parliament has influenced the process, and crucially what this is likely to mean for the future of parliament's role in the British constitution - including the balance of power between government and parliament.

Another detailed research theme would be how the media, and parliamentarians themselves, have discussed parliament's proper role vis-a-vis implementation of the referendum. Traditionally, 'parliamentary sovereignty' (whereby the highest decision-making authority is parliament) has been seen as central to the unwritten British constitution. But referendums emphasise 'popular sovereignty' (whereby the people's decisions trump those of parliament). By studying parliamentary and media debates the project would assess whether views are shifting from support for one principle to the other.

The research would also explore decision-making inside parliament itself. The Brexit debates have raised various questions including about the power of the Speaker and rights of MPs versus the government to decide parliament's agenda. The applicant, who has worked on such issues before both inside and outside parliament, will review these questions and produce a report on what, if anything, needs to change.

The Fellowship would facilitate a high degree of public and policymaker dissemination and engagement, on these topics and broader questions of Brexit and the constitution. Two seminars or roundtables will be held each year on topical issues, involving academics, policymakers, journalists and the wider public. These will feed the research, and also non-academic publications, including blog posts, short briefings, and social media engagement. One public event will be a larger one day conference. As well as the topics indicated above, possible themes include how parliament needs to adapt to a post-Brexit policy environment, how future referendums should be conducted (including a possible further referendum on Brexit), and the effects of Brexit on the UK Union and dynamics of devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

In addition to these events and research outputs, the Fellowship would free up greater time for Professor Russell to contribute to public debates through the media, public meetings and other outlets such as evidence to parliamentary committees.

This Fellowship is very centrally focused on impact, as set out in the case for support. Throughout the Fellowship the applicant will seek actively to contribute to public, policy and media debates about Brexit, parliament and the constitution. Ever since the 2016 referendum result these have been high profile topics, and their salience has gradually grown - until by late 2018/early 2019 the proper role of parliament in the Brexit process was regularly front page news. The applicant contributed actively to these debates, while nonetheless being significantly constrained by other commitments. She also actively contributed to debates about a possible further Brexit referendum (following a jointly authored report, co-sponsored by UKICE, published in October 2018). The Fellowship, by freeing up her time and providing research support, is therefore likely to have high impact. The research centre led by the applicant, the UCL Constitution Unit, has a long track record of producing high-quality research and commentary with wide reach among policymakers and a wider public.

Nonacademic beneficiaries can be identified in four broad interconnected groups. The first is policymakers, in government, parliament, other public bodies (e.g. Electoral Commission), devolved authorities and overseas. Through providing high quality, evidence-based research and commentary, the applicant would inform debates in these groups and help to encourage sound decision-making. The Brexit debate has often been characterised by wild and unrealistic claims, which are often very polarised. For example some proponents of a further Brexit referendum have claimed that this could be organised within a few weeks, while opponents have claimed it would take at least a year. The applicant's joint-authored report analysed the evidence and concluded that roughly 5 months was needed - a finding that has since been widely reported. Through written outputs, public commentary, private meetings and events, and evidence to parliamentary committees, the Fellowship would likewise seek to encourage sound public decision-making based on balanced and reliable evidence.

The second set of beneficiaries are other specialists, outside both government and academia - for example think tanks, professional organisations and campaign groups. These groups can be very influential on policymakers, and on the media and wider public. Through engaging directly with such groups, as collaborators and attendees at public and private events, the Fellowship would both seek to inform their thinking, and enhance its wider reach.

The media clearly provide an important conduit to all other groups, including the wider public. A high level of media engagement is likely during the Fellowship: for example through broadcast interviews, articles, blogs, press releases and social media. The applicant is a very experienced media commentator, and would seek to inform debate through all of these avenues, both via UK-based and international news media.

Finally, a crucial set of beneficiaries comprises the wider public who fall into none of the categories above. Through media work, engagement with parliament, appearances on public platforms, publications of various kinds on the UKICE and Constitution Unit websites, and social media, the Fellowship would seek to enhance public information about constitutional aspects around Brexit, and the impact of Brexit on the UK constitution, based on high-quality analysis and evidence.