Brexit Rhapsody: Exploring Patterns of Issue Salience in the Negotiations

IF 3.1 1区 社会学 Q1 ECONOMICS Jcms-Journal of Common Market Studies Pub Date : 2024-05-06 DOI:10.1111/jcms.13624
David Moloney, Mads Dagnis Jensen
{"title":"Brexit Rhapsody: Exploring Patterns of Issue Salience in the Negotiations","authors":"David Moloney, Mads Dagnis Jensen","doi":"10.1111/jcms.13624","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study revisits the salience of the Brexit negotiations using an advanced Decision‐Making in the European Union (EU) methodology to assess the relative importance of 20 key issues amongst the EU27 member states, the European Commission and the UK. Unlike earlier studies that suggest more uniform salience levels, except for the UK, our analysis identifies eight clusters of actors influenced by their political, economic and geographical contexts. These differences in salience levels have been conducive to logrolling, which likely supported a unified EU stance and a successful agreement with the UK. Additionally, our research quantitatively confirms the UK's distinct salience position, highlighting its isolation and reducing its ability to use divisive negotiation tactics. These findings offer insights into both the dynamics of past Brexit negotiations and ongoing EU–UK policy developments. They contribute to the analysis of Brexit and international negotiations in general by systematically exploring salience in high‐level diplomatic negotiations.","PeriodicalId":51369,"journal":{"name":"Jcms-Journal of Common Market Studies","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jcms-Journal of Common Market Studies","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13624","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study revisits the salience of the Brexit negotiations using an advanced Decision‐Making in the European Union (EU) methodology to assess the relative importance of 20 key issues amongst the EU27 member states, the European Commission and the UK. Unlike earlier studies that suggest more uniform salience levels, except for the UK, our analysis identifies eight clusters of actors influenced by their political, economic and geographical contexts. These differences in salience levels have been conducive to logrolling, which likely supported a unified EU stance and a successful agreement with the UK. Additionally, our research quantitatively confirms the UK's distinct salience position, highlighting its isolation and reducing its ability to use divisive negotiation tactics. These findings offer insights into both the dynamics of past Brexit negotiations and ongoing EU–UK policy developments. They contribute to the analysis of Brexit and international negotiations in general by systematically exploring salience in high‐level diplomatic negotiations.
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
英国脱欧狂想曲:探索谈判中问题的突出模式
本研究采用先进的欧盟决策(Decision-Making in the European Union,EU)方法重新审视了英国脱欧谈判的显著性,以评估欧盟 27 个成员国、欧盟委员会和英国之间 20 个关键问题的相对重要性。除英国外,早先的研究表明脱欧谈判的突出程度较为一致,与此不同的是,我们的分析确定了受政治、经济和地理环境影响的八个行动者集群。这些显著性水平的差异有利于 "逻辑滚动",这很可能支持了欧盟的统一立场和与英国的成功协议。此外,我们的研究从数量上证实了英国独特的突出地位,突出了其孤立性,削弱了其使用分裂性谈判策略的能力。这些发现为过去的英国脱欧谈判动态和当前的欧盟-英国政策发展提供了见解。它们通过系统地探索高层外交谈判中的显著性,为英国脱欧和国际谈判的总体分析做出了贡献。
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
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
18.20%
发文量
137
期刊最新文献
Contested but Resilient: Accounting for the Endurance of the European Union's Foreign Policy European Union Normative Positions, Resilience and Contestation: A Perceptual Approach Two Norms Collide: EU Policy on Fragile and Conflict‐Affected Countries Decentring European Union Foreign Policy: Addressing Colonial Dynamics in EU‐Algeria Relations Everything Everywhere All at Once? Introducing a Field‐Theoretic Model for Party Politics in the European Union
×
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