Last week, as part of a series of events and publications linked to the tenth anniversary of the EU referendum, the Constitution Society, together with the Irish Consulate and the Scottish Council on Global Affairs, welcomed guests to the French Institute in Edinburgh to reflect on the questions which continue on, ten years since the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union.
Opening proceedings, Jerry O’Donovan, Ireland’s Consul General in Edinburgh, reflected on the material consequences of Brexit for British and Irish citizens across the UK and Ireland. He thanked the many guests in attendance, and introduced the panel for the evening’s discussion, which was made up of Professor Dame Linda Colley (Princeton University), Professor Nicola McEwen (Glasgow University) and former Ireland/UK Ambassador, David Cooney, ably chaired by John Edward of the Scottish Council on Global Affairs.
Discussion opened with emphasis that Brexit and the evening’s event should not solely be considered within the question of Britain’s relationship with Europe. Professor Colley began instead by arguing that the UK’s relationship with the European Union has always been shaped by broader historical and geopolitical factors; the legacy of empire, our enduring ties with the United States and UK’s distinctive experience of the Second World War. For France and Germany, by way of comparison, European integration emerged from the devastation of conflict as a project of reconstruction and reconciliation. Britain’s experience was different, producing a more ambivalent relationship with the European project from its outset.
Taking up the theme, David Cooney reflected on the irony that the UK had often been a highly effective actor within the European Union, especially at the time of the Referendum itself. Elsewhere, though, its involvement in the Five Eyes intelligence alliance and position as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, to say nothing of the history of the Commonwealth, perhaps meant that the UK’s horizons had been set wider than Europe and some member states within the EU.
With the audience eager to hear about Brexit’s impacts on territorial links within the United Kingdom itself, Nicola McEwen emphasised that the referendum had exposed and perhaps intensified preexisting constitutional fissures. With Scotland and Northern Ireland voting to remain inside the European Union, and England and Wales voting to leave, there were clearly very real differences in people’s attitudes towards the EU across the UK. However, beyond this, Professor McEwen suggested that the political narrative of “take back control” had come to shape a political undertaking which perhaps ran counter to the rationale which had constructed the devolved institutions, one which sought to give out control. After the Referendum, controversies over the Sewel Convention and the Internal Market Act evidenced an increasing willingness on the part of Westminster executives to exercise control.
With pre-existing fault lines across the United Kingdom, then, the panel were asked whether they felt that Brexit, or at least a referendum, had been inevitable. While the panel was reluctant to wade too far into these waters, there was broad agreement that the Referendum, while influenced by historic factors, was probably not determined by them. In particular, the role that internal party management within the Conservative and Labour parties played in shaping the Referendum and its outcome was emphasised.
As the panel came to reflect, though, if the UK’s exit from the European Union wasn’t pre-determined, then neither is our relationship to the EU today. While challenges in the outworking of Brexit are multiple, each speaker was inclined towards a degree of optimism about a general direction of travel since the Referendum. Indeed, practical progress might yet be made at this summer’s UK-EU summit, which was cited as an opportunity to advance cooperation, or at least one to better facilitate shared working. Professor Colley particularly expressed hope that the relationship could continue to improve, but warned against assumptions about linear progress, and reminded the audience that devolved and general elections could do much to destabilise relations between the UK and the EU.
As the event drew towards its end, questions from the audience began to broaden out, and discussion came to consider Irish, English and British identity, the possibility of alternative models for UK-EU cooperation, and the prospects of future constitutional referendums. Key among these was the latter, and with debates on the future of Scottish independence, Irish reunification and European integration likely to continue, it’s essential not to consider these issues in isolation from one another. Whatever developments occur, and whatever resolution might be reached in each, it will indelibly impress upon the others.
Ten years on from the EU referendum, Brexit remains a topic of debate across the UK and in Ireland. The nature of that debate is changing rapidly, though. Whatever a voter’s position on the original question, there is an emerging appetite once again to discuss the UK’s relationship with the EU and what it should look like post-Brexit. Across the event that appetite was well in evidence, and throughout two hours of discussion the conversation between panellists and audience demonstrated the utility of reflecting on the Referendum and its legacy.
The event and the evening’s reflections ultimately concluded with remarks from Dr Dexter Govan, director of research at the Constitution Society, who thanked the panel, the Irish Consulate and the Scottish Council on Global Affairs as cohosts of the event, and finally the audience for their contributions to such an engaging discussion.
The Constitution Society is committed to the promotion of informed debate and is politically impartial. Any views expressed in this article are the personal views of the author and not those of The Constitution Society.