UA : Об’єктом дослідження даної роботи є Сполучене Королівство Великої Британії та Північної Ірландії.
Предмет дослідження – особливості висвітлення Брекзиту у політичній думці Сполученого Королівства.
Метою цього дослідження стало з’ясування позицій щодо ідеї Брекзиту серед представників політичної еліти Сполученого Королівства а також доведення тези про те, що Брекзит спричинив ідеологічний розкол у політичній думці держави.
Наукова новизна одержаних результатів дослідження полягає у виявленні тенденцій зміни політичних переваг у британської політичної еліти. Крім, цього у дослідженні було широко освітлено думки основних акторів політичного життя держави стосовно питання Брекзиту. У даній науковій роботі подається удосконалений опис особливостей позицій політичної еліти Великої Британії на ідею виходу держави з Європейського Союзу.
Основні висновки, до яких дійшов автор:
Основні партії в Вестмінстері зіткнулися зі змаганнями за лідерство своїх позицій щодо ідеї Брекзиту. Найбільше зрушення у зовнішній та торговельній політиці за більш ніж 40 років, розбіжності у думках з приводу Брекзиту призвели до фрагментації британської політики, зламавши традиційні партійні лінії та створивши нові спеціальні коаліції. Відносна урядова та парламентська стійкість у Сполученому Королівстві та курс консервативного уряду Б. Джонсона дозволили досягти результатів у переговорах з Європейським Союзом, але дестабілізували відносини із шотландським та ірландським урядами. Результати Брекзиту створили неабиякі виклики і для окремих частин Сполученого Королівства, населення яких висловилося на референдумі на підтримку Європейського Союзу. Брекзит дав додаткову нагоду Шотландській національній партії стати провідником європейської ідеї. Брекзит надав прихильникам єдності Ірландії додаткові аргументи для проведення референдуму. Проведене дослідження підтверджує, що Брекзит призвів до ідеологічного розколу в політичній еліті Великої Британії, а також показує роль політичних еліт у врегулюванні внутрішньополітичних конфліктів.
EN : Today Brexit is one of the most influential and far-reaching changes in the international, political and social life of the United Kingdom (UK). This event supposes to mark the beginning of the transformation of the UK and the international community for a long time to come.
The relevance of the research topic is in the fact that we can trace the fundamental changes in British politics related to the Brexit process.
The contentious relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union (EU) has been a subject of discussions since January 1, 1973, when the state joined the European Economic Community.
Over the years the United Kingdom has gained a reputation as one of the most eurosceptic European Union member-state, and at the same time one of the most centralized EU state with relatively poorly regulated regional policies. Brexit turned out to be a very challenging assignment that had to be solved at various levels of negotiations: at the supranational level – with the European Union, at the international level – with certain EU member-states and third countries, within the country – with the administration of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.
This issue has been widely discussed in the scientific literature. There is a perception amongst scientists that the result of the referendum was partly provided by the implicit or explicit support for the campaign for leaving the EU from many members of the British political elite. A number of influential and authoritative people in the United Kingdom took the side of Brexit, which produced confidence to eurosceptics and convinced voters that by voting for Brexit, they supported the point of view held by distinguished and respected figures of the state. On the other hand, one of the weak sides of the campaign for the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Economic Community in 1975 was the fact that the eurosceptics were not supported by any of the distinguished figures, either politicians or financial magnates. Therefore, the support of Brexit idea among the members of the ruling elite is considered as an important factor in the victory of this idea at the 2016 referendum.
The research object of our master’s thesis is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The subject of this research paper is the specificities of Brexit revelation in the political thought of the United Kingdom.
The aim of this study is to find out the positions on the Brexit idea of the political elite’s members in the United Kingdom, as well as to prove the thesis that Brexit caused an ideological division in the political thought of the state.
For achieving the above aim, the research objectives were set:
- to trace the conflicts and ideological divisions amid the UK Parliament;
- to disclose the positions of the Conservative Party of Great Britain regarding the state’s withdrawal from the European Union;
- to describe the changes of the stands of the main members of the UK’s political elite during the Brexit process;
- to point out the approaches of the Labour Party and the Independence Party of the United Kingdom to the idea of the state’s withdrawal from the European Union;
- to analyze the stands of members of the administrative-territorial governments of the United Kingdom regarding the break of the relationship between the state and the EU;
- to consider Brexit as a consequence of the efforts of political elites, and not of the broad masses.
The chronological frame of this study includes the period from 2012 to 2020. In 2012 the term "Brexit" was first published, and on February 1, 2020 the United Kingdom officially left the European Union.
The geographical boundaries of the research cover the current territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
As for the novelty of the paper, it lies in the complex research of the problem; therefore the attention is paid to identify the trends in changing the political preferences of the British political elite. In addition, the study widely covered the stands of the main officials in the political life of the state regarding the issue of Brexit. This scientific paper presents an improved description of the features of the political elite’s stands on the idea of Great Britain leaving the European Union.
The theoretical significance of the research lies in the prospect of further scientific use of the results obtained during the study as a basis for further investigation of the reasons for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU, influence of political elites on the internal political situation and political differences within the state.
Conclusions. It is a well-known fact that two of the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom voted against Brexit at the 2016 referendum, while two others supported it. Instead of having one-dimensional structure of political competition, Great Britain had political differences not only on the territorial issues. The state also passed through two significant splits between the left and right wings: the first was related to markets, the other – to immigration and identity. In part, those challenges were due to what is an undoubtedly compelling feature of Brexit: it is the difficulty defining any stability and balance in any approach to leaving the European Union in British politics.
The other thing that should be noted is that there was a key dispute during the Brexit period between the Conservative governments and their MPs; both sides held contentious views on Brexit, and both claimed to be arguing on behalf of people. However, the Parliament as a complex representative body in a fragmented society, eventually took most of the responsibility. These facts gave rise to an important conclusion that this period can damage the parliament’s reputation seriously. Summing this up, we can note that the referendum, which was supposed to decide the future relations of the United Kingdom with the EU, led to the split in the political and public opinions in the state. There was no stable majority for any approach to Brexit in British politics.
It can hardly be doubted that Brexit has resulted in the split in the United Kingdom Parliament, dividing it into 2 camps – supporters of a "soft" Brexit and supporters of a "hard" Brexit.
Part of the government forces expressed its opposition to withdrawal from the European Union and, following the final decision about Brexit taking place in further years, these officials took the position of detachment. Their view stated that Brexit must be "soft" to go the way the UK needed. The point of this strategy was to end the membership in the European Union formally, but at the same time to save the bilateral agreements as similar as possible to those connected with the UK’s membership in the EU.
On the one hand, a Conservative party’s member Neil Carmichael emphasized that "hard" Brexit should be avoided at all costs, since it could damage both the British and European economies. In its “hard” version, leaving the EU means total rejection for the UK of access to the European Single Market, and to the Customs Union. On the other hand, the UK Foreign Trade Secretary Liam Fox said that a tough approach would benefit the country by making it a leader in global trade.
There has been an unprecedented level of conflict between the government and the parliament during and after the referendum, as well as a level of predictable conflicts between the parliament and the people of the United Kingdom caused by a unique series of events. The 2016 referendum gave voters a fundamental solution to the UK’s European Union membership problem and most MPs supported it. Conservatives were deeply divided on Brexit issues, while most Labor Party MPs instinctively stood up against the process of withdrawal.
One more point to be made here is that the 2016 referendum on EU membership has led to a disagreement between parliamentary sovereignty and popular sovereignty in the UK. Great Britain has turned into a state with a deeply divided society and political system which tended to take advantage of pluralism that is exactly opposite to the things necessary for pursuing democratic policies in society.
Throughout her premiership, Theresa May had an intention to keep the Conservative Party as the government party and counter the new polarization between Brexit supporters and opponents. However, the difference of stands of the main political forces involved in the implementation of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union led to the fact that then Prime Minister was unable to make a final agreement on the circumstances under which the state would leave this integrated association. Each version of the EU withdrawal agreement that Theresa May presented was a compromise that completely did not satisfy either party, but which she and her allies introduced as the only way to prevent a complete division of the Conservative Party. On the contrary, Boris Johnson was appointed prime minister at a turning point in the country’s history, after that he experienced several significant defeats in the parliament, announced extraordinary general elections and thereafter proposed the agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU for the final approval.
Most Labor Party politicians have always been pragmatically pro-European oriented. There were failed attempts of removing leader Jeremy Corbin from office by parliament members after the referendum, and the 2017 elections even more strengthened his position. J. Corbin was criticized by his political opponents for both his opposition to Brexit and his position against leaving the EU.
Thus, after carrying out a comparative description and analysis, it became possible to arrive at the following conclusions that both major parties in Westminster faced competition for the leadership of their stands on the idea of Brexit. The largest shift in foreign and trade policy in more than 40 years and different views with regard to Brexit caused the fragmentation of British politics, breaking the traditional party lines and creating new specific coalitions.
Nigel Farage and the enthusiasm for his withdrawal campaign greatly encouraged people to follow and support these ideas. The campaign was described as more persistent and attractive than those presented by his opponents. In addition, immigration was a political catalyst for voters, symbolizing the differences in values that resulted in the conflict with the mainstream liberal consensus, undermining their trust in traditional parties and the political system, and opening the way for a new actor of the state’s political life.
Among the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom, Scotland voted against leaving the EU by almost two-thirds majority. Brexit provided an additional opportunity for the Scottish National Party to become a leader of the European idea. Moreover, Brexit provided the Irish unity supporters with additional excuses for the referendum. Also, the issue of the Northern Ireland border was the toughest one in the discussions over Brexit of the political elites in Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
In addition, the Brexit results brought to the forefront new challenges for parts of the United Kingdom, whose residents voted in 2016 referendum in support of the European Union. The point is that within the EU, certain regions of Great Britain, in particular Northern Ireland, received significant political and financial support from the EU. However, the central leadership often did not to attach value to the regional dimension and ignored the stands of the autonomous bodies on the Brexit idea.
All the stated above allow us to conclude that the relative governmental and parliamentary stability in the United Kingdom and course of the B. Johnson conservative government enabled achievement of successful results in the negotiations with the European Union, but at the same time destabilized the relations with the regional governments. Thus, the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU has only increased tensions between the British government and the governments of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, largely due to the fact that there are different political parties operating in the administrative-political parts of the state. A new sharp territorial division in the United Kingdom is likely to increase the difficulties related to the Brexit results.
The study confirms that Brexit has led to an ideological division in the British political elite, and also shows the role of political elites in resolving internal political conflicts. Despite the long-awaited withdrawal from the EU, the public and political opinions in the United Kingdom remain divided on many issues.
As a result of studying the issue of the British political elites’ stands on the Brexit idea, the following tasks were completed:
- the conflicts and ideological divisions amid the UK Parliament were traced;
- the positions of the Conservative Party of Great Britain regarding the state's withdrawal from the European Union were disclosed;
- the changes in the stands of the main members of the UK’s political elite during the Brexit process were described;
- the approaches of the Labour Party and the Independence Party of the United Kingdom to the idea of the state’s withdrawal from the European Union were revealed;
- the stands of the members of the administrative-territorial governments of the United Kingdom regarding the break of the relationship between the state and the EU were analyzed;
- Brexit was considered as a consequence of the efforts of political elites, and not of the broad masses.
