The Anatomy of Brexit: Separatism, Populism and the Social Transformation of British Society

On January 31, 2020, the UK left the European Union. Since the 2016 referendum, there has been a significant body of literature designed to answer the question of why the country’s residents made such a decision. This article contributes to scientific research on the subject under consideration.
The novelty of the presented research is that, unlike most of the available works, it does not focus on the problems of migration and the deterioration of the socio-economic conditions of the country’s indigenous population. The article proves that these factors alone do not explain such broad support for Brexit by all segments of the population. The social transformation of the entire Western society, which led to the destruction of the usual social ties and traditional foundations of self-identification, is considered as one of the key reasons for the development of separatist sentiments in the UK. A person ceases to feel part of something whole and unchangeable, which causes a sense of fear, uncertainty and helplessness in many people, regardless of social affiliation. This forces us to look for a source of stability in the country’s past, when it was an independent and great Empire, which is embodied in the myth of “Global Britain”.
The populist slogan “Take Back Control” is based on the historically insurmountable institutional differences between the UK and Europe, the main one being the UK’s attitude to the case law of the European court of justice, whose broad interpretations were included in the country’s administrative practice, which clearly contradicted the residents’ idea of democracy.
Finally, author analyzes how these deep assumptions were embodied in the populist rhetoric of the “Leave” company, whose supporters used the post-truth methodology, offering a wide range of populist tools of both intellectual and emotional nature for almost all groups of the population, very accurately selecting information for various communication channels.
The results of this study can be useful for analyzing nationalist and separatist sentiments in Western countries and predicting future developments.

1. Ananieva E.V. (2017) Brexit: Reasons, Political Background, Implications. Outlines of Global Transformations: Politics, Economics, Law, vol. 10, no 6, pp. 98–119 (in Russian). DOI: 10.23932/2542-0240-2017-10-6-98-119

2. Ananyeva E.V., Kanevsky P.S. (2016) Brexit-1 and Brexit-2: Are Britain and the US Changing the Paradigm? Monograph, Moscow: Institute of Europe RAS (in Russian).

3. Bergmann E. (2020) Populism and the Politics of Misinformation. Safundi, vol. 21, no 3, pp. 251–265. DOI: 10.1080/17533171.2020.1783086

4. Bhambra G.K.(2017) Brexit, Trump, and ‘Methodological Whiteness’: On the Misrecognition of Race and Class. The British Journal of Sociology, vol. 68, no 1, pp. 214– 232. DOI: 10.1111/1468-4446.12317

5. Blagoveshchenskiy R.I. (2017) Results of the Referendum in Great Britain: Reasons for the Victory of Eurosceptics. Bulletin of the Moscow University. Series 25: International Relations and World Politics, no 2, pp. 105–133. Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/itogi-referenduma-v-velikobritanii-prichiny-pobedy-evroskeptikov, accessed 23.09.2020 (in Russian).

6. Brubaker R. (2017) Between Nationalism and Civilizationism: The European Populist Moment in Comparative Perspective. Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol. 40, no 8, pp. 1191–1226. DOI: 10.1080/01419870.2017.1294700

7. Crozier A.J. (2020) British Exceptionalism: Pride and Prejudice and Brexit. International Economics and Economic Policy, vol. 17, pp. 635–658. DOI: 10.1007/s10368-020-00469-z

8. De Cleen B., Stavrakakis Y. (2017) Distinctions and Articulations: A Discourse Theoretical Framework for the Study of Populism and Nationalism. Javnost – The Public, vol. 24, no 4, pp. 301–319. DOI: 10.1080/13183222.2017.1330083

9. Della Sala V. (2016) Europe’s Odyssey? Political Myth and the European Union. Nations and Nationalism, vol. 22, no 3, pp. 524–541. DOI: 10.1111/nana.12159

10. Dobreva D., Grinnell D., Innes M. (2020) Prophets and Loss: How “Soft Facts” on Social Media Influenced the Brexit Campaign and Social Reactions to the Murder of Jo Cox MP. Policy & Internet, vol. 12, no 2, pp. 144 –164. DOI: 10.1002/poi3.203

11. Eaton M.Ø. (1) (2020) Duelling Commonwealth Family of Nations Metaphors and Britain’s Post-Brexit Global Identity. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, vol. 33, pp. 283–307. DOI: 10.1007/s10767-019-09326-7

12. Eaton M.Ø. (2) (2020) ‘We Are All Children Of The Commonwealth’: Political Myth, Metaphor and the Transnational Commonwealth ‘Family of Nations’ in Brexit Discourse. British Politics, vol. 15, pp. 326– 348. DOI: 10.1057/s41293-019-00117-4

13. Emmerson C., Johnson P., Mitchell I., Phillips D. (2016) Brexit Could Add Two Years to Austerity. Institute for Fiscal Studies, May 25, 2016. Available at: https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/8297, accessed 23.09.2020.

14. Fadeeva I.A. (2018) Disintegration Processes in Europe: Causes and Impact on Russia. Fundamental Research, no 4, pp. 125– 129. Available at: https://www.fundamental-research.ru/ru/article/view?id=42130, accessed 23.09.2020 (in Russian).

15. Favell A. (2020) Here, There and Everywhere: Nationalism after Brexit. Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol. 43, no 8, pp. 1446–1452. DOI: 10.1080/01419870.2020.1740759

16. Frosini J.O., Gilbert M.F. (2020) The Brexit Car Crash: Using E.H.Carr to Explain Britain’s Choice to Leave the Europe an Union in 2016. Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 27, no 5, pp. 761–778. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13501763.2019.1676820?-journalCode=rjpp20, accessed 23.09.2020.

17. Grachev M.N., Evstifeev R.V. (2020) The Concept of the “Truth Decay” in a Digital Society (an Analytical Review). Outlines of Global Transformations: Politics, Economics, Law, vol. 13, no 2, pp. 229–248 (in Russian). DOI: 10.23932/2542-0240-2020-13-2-12

18. Goldsworthy J. (2015) Losing Faith in Democracy: Why Judicial Supremacy Is Rising and What to Do about It. Launch of Policy Exchange Judicial Power Project. Available at: http://judicialpowerproject.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Losing-Faith-in-Democracy-Lecture.pdf, accessed 23.09.2020.

19. Gromyko А. (2016) New Populism and the Post-Cold War Order in the Making. Contemporary Europe, no 6(72), pp. 5–10 (in Russian). DOI: 10.15211/soveurope620160510

20. IMF Says Brexit “Pretty Bad to Very, Very Bad” (2016). BBC News, May 13, 2016. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36284200, accessed 23.09.2020.

21. Khudoley K., Eremina N. (2017) Brexit: The New “Old” Choice of Great Britain. Contemporary Europe, no 3(75), pp. 28–36. Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/brekzit-novyy-staryy-vybor-velikobritanii, accessed 23.09.2020 (in Russian).

22. Krastev I. (2018) After Europe, Moscow: Delo (in Russian).

23. Kuznetsova M.A., Khakhalkina E.V. (2018) Processes of Transformation of the National Identity of Britain in the Context of Brexit. Bulletin of Tomsk State University, no 53, pp. 52–58 (in Russian). DOI: 10.17223/19988613/53/11

24. Levy D.A.L., Aslan B., Bironzo D. (2016) UK Press Coverage of the EU Referendum, Oxford: Reuters Institute. Available at: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2018-11/UK_Press_Coverage_of_the_%20EU_Referendum.pdf, accessed 23.09.2020.

25. Mandelbaum M. (2020) ‘Making Our Country Great Again’: The Politics of Subjectivity in an Age of National Populism. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, vol. 33, pp. 451–476. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11196-020-09717-6, accessed 23.09.2020.

26. Martinsen D.S., Falkner G. (2011) Social Policy: Problem-solving Gaps, Partial Exits, and Court-decision Traps. The EU’s Decision Traps: Comparing Policies (ed. Falkner G.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 128–145.

27. Mattei U., Pes L.G. (2008) Civil Law and Common Law: Toward Convergence? The Oxford Handbook of Law and Politics, pp. 267–281. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199208425.003.0015

28. Pensiero N. (2020) To Leave or not to Leave? Understanding the Support for the United Kingdom Membership in the European Union: Identity, Attitudes towards the Political System and Socioeconomic Status. Rationality and Society, vol. 32, no 3, pp. 255–277. DOI: 10.1177/1043463120945268

29. Robertson J. (2016) Brexit Vote May Spark Recession, Mark Carney Warns. BBC News, May 12, 2016. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-36273448, accessed 23.09.2020.

30. Schmidt S.K. (2020) No Match Made in Heaven. Parliamentary Sovereignty, EU Over-constitutionalization and Brexit. Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 27, no 5, pp. 779–794. DOI: 10.1080/13501763.2020.1733635

31. Seidler V.J. (2020) Brexit Futures: A Brexit World’s Anxieties, Fears and Hopes: A Response to Shakuntala Banaji’s “A Review of Victor Seidler’s Making Sense of Brexit: Democracy, Europe and Uncertain Futures”. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, vol. 33, pp. 439–448. DOI: 10.1007/s10767-020-09351-x

32. Sennett R. (1998) The Corrosion of Character. The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism, New York: W.W. Norton.

33. Shibkova M.O. (2016) Modern Euroscepticism as a Challenge to European Solida. MGIMO Review of International Relations, no 6(51), pp. 31–41. Available at: https://mgimo.ru/upload/iblock/223/004_shibkovamo_0.pdf, accessed 23.09.2020 (in Russian).

34. Sorensen L. (2018) Populist Communication in the New Media Environment: A Cross-regional Comparative Perspective. Palgrave Communications, vol. 4, no 1, pp.1–12.DOI: 10.1057/s41599-018-0101-0

35. Spiering M. (2015) A Cultural History of British Euroscepticism, London: Palgrave MacMillan. DOI: 10.1057/9781137447555

36. Tabarelli M. (2013) The Influence of the EU and the ECHR on ‘Parliamentary Sovereignty Regimes’: Assessing the Impact of European Integration on the British and Swedish Judiciaries. European Law Journal, vol. 19, no 3, pp. 340–363. DOI: 10.1111/eulj.12027

37. The European Union at the Crossroads of Internal and External Challenges (RISI Analytical Report) (2018). Problems of the National Strategy, no 5(50), pp. 13–53. Available at: https://riss.ru/article/14753/, accessed 23.09.2020 (in Russian).

38. Treaty on European Union. Available at: https://eulaw.ru/treaties/teu/, accessed 23.09.2020 (in Russian).

39. Valluvan S. (2020) Rejoinder: Clamour of Nationalism Symposium. Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol. 43, no 8, pp. 1453–1466. DOI: 10.1080/01419870.2020.1740760

40. van der Walt S. (2020) Populism and the Yearning for Closure: From Economic to Cultural Fragility. European Journal of Social Theory, vol. 23, no 4, pp. 477–492. DOI: 10.1177/1368431019866338

41. Vorobievа L.M. (2016) The British Choice: With Europe but Outside the EU. Problems of the National Strategy, no 6(39), pp. 38–62. Available at: https://riss.ru/journal/39/, accessed 23.09.2020 (in Russian).

42. Wincott D. (2017) Brexit Dilemmas: New Opportunities and Tough Choices in Unsettled Times. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, vol. 19, no 4, pp. 680–695. DOI: 10.1177/1369148117725316

43. YouGov Survey Results (2016). Available at: http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/463g4e5e0e/LBCResults_160614_EUReferendum_W.pdf, accessed 23.09.2020.