Braking and Exiting: Referendum Games, European Integration and the Road to the UK’s Brexit Vote

IF 1.4 3区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Political Studies Review Pub Date : 2024-04-17 DOI:10.1177/14789299241239002
Joseph Ganderson, Anna Kyriazi
{"title":"Braking and Exiting: Referendum Games, European Integration and the Road to the UK’s Brexit Vote","authors":"Joseph Ganderson, Anna Kyriazi","doi":"10.1177/14789299241239002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The UK’s in-out referendum on European Union membership is often attributed to an incompatibility inherent in the UK–EU relationship, or else a rising tide of Euroscepticism forcing a reckoning. We argue that the referendum should be understood as the culmination of parliamentary ‘referendum games’ in the preceding years, whereby backbenchers periodically applied pressure to office-seeking leaders who strategically defused this by promising public votes. These games were episodic and escalatory, coinciding with integrative European treaties which activated transient Eurosceptic backlashes. While referendum avoidance was personally rational, leaders’ repeated parlays created a standalone referendum politics, ratcheting up the intensity of backbench demands based on past promises and democratic renewal. After the Lisbon Treaty, a tipping point was reached, transforming calls for a ‘brake’ on integration to demand for binary ‘exit’ vote at the next treaty moment. This accompanied the Euro-area crisis in 2011, effectively ending David Cameron’s discretion to continue the game. To show this, we plot all mentions of EU-related referendums and adjacent terms in the House of Commons between 2000 and 2015. We descriptively identify five peak salience flares around EU treaty moments and then analyse 263 interventions by Members of Parliament to show how referendum pressure ratcheted up over time.","PeriodicalId":46813,"journal":{"name":"Political Studies Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Studies Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299241239002","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The UK’s in-out referendum on European Union membership is often attributed to an incompatibility inherent in the UK–EU relationship, or else a rising tide of Euroscepticism forcing a reckoning. We argue that the referendum should be understood as the culmination of parliamentary ‘referendum games’ in the preceding years, whereby backbenchers periodically applied pressure to office-seeking leaders who strategically defused this by promising public votes. These games were episodic and escalatory, coinciding with integrative European treaties which activated transient Eurosceptic backlashes. While referendum avoidance was personally rational, leaders’ repeated parlays created a standalone referendum politics, ratcheting up the intensity of backbench demands based on past promises and democratic renewal. After the Lisbon Treaty, a tipping point was reached, transforming calls for a ‘brake’ on integration to demand for binary ‘exit’ vote at the next treaty moment. This accompanied the Euro-area crisis in 2011, effectively ending David Cameron’s discretion to continue the game. To show this, we plot all mentions of EU-related referendums and adjacent terms in the House of Commons between 2000 and 2015. We descriptively identify five peak salience flares around EU treaty moments and then analyse 263 interventions by Members of Parliament to show how referendum pressure ratcheted up over time.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
刹车与退出:公投游戏、欧洲一体化和英国脱欧投票之路
英国就欧盟成员国资格进行的 "脱欧 "公投通常被归因于英国与欧盟关系中固有的不相容性,或者是欧洲怀疑论浪潮的兴起迫使英国进行清算。我们认为,公投应被理解为前几年议会 "公投游戏 "的高潮,即后座议员不时向寻求职位的领导人施压,而领导人则通过承诺公众投票来策略性地化解压力。这些游戏具有偶发性和升级性的特点,与欧洲一体化条约的签订相吻合,而欧洲一体化条约的签订又激发了欧洲怀疑论者的短暂反弹。虽然避免公投对个人而言是合理的,但领导人的反复试探创造了一种独立的公投政治,使后座议员基于过去的承诺和民主革新的要求更加强烈。里斯本条约》签订后,公投达到了一个临界点,要求对一体化 "刹车 "的呼声转变为在下一个条约签订时刻进行二元 "退出 "投票的要求。这伴随着 2011 年的欧元区危机,实际上结束了戴维-卡梅伦继续游戏的自由裁量权。为了说明这一点,我们绘制了 2000 年至 2015 年间下议院中所有与欧盟相关的公投和相邻术语的提及情况。我们描述性地确定了围绕欧盟条约时刻的五个高峰突出事件,然后分析了议员的 263 次干预,以说明公投压力是如何随着时间的推移而不断增加的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Political Studies Review
Political Studies Review POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
10.50%
发文量
62
期刊介绍: Political Studies Review provides unrivalled review coverage of new books and literature on political science and international relations and does so in a timely and comprehensive way. In addition to providing a comprehensive range of reviews of books in politics, PSR is a forum for a range of approaches to reviews and debate in the discipline. PSR both commissions original review essays and strongly encourages submission of review articles, review symposia, longer reviews of books and debates relating to theories and methods in the study of politics. The editors are particularly keen to develop new and exciting approaches to reviewing the discipline and would be happy to consider a range of ideas and suggestions.
期刊最新文献
Commissioned Book Review: David Cutts, Andrew Russell and Joshua Townsley, The Liberal Democrats: From Hope to Despair to Where? Commissioned Book Review: Anita R. Gohdes, Repression in the Digital Age–Surveillance, Censorship, and the Dynamics of State Violence Commissioned Book Review: Robin Attfield, The Ethics of the Climate Crisis Commissioned Book Review: Elena Llaudet and Kosuke Imai, Data Analysis for Social Science: A Friendly and Practical Introduction Partisanship, Social Desirability, and Belief in Election Fraud: Evidence from the 2022 US Midterm Elections
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1