Brexit and the union: Territorial voice, exit and re-entry strategies in Scotland and Northern Ireland after EU exit
| Published date | 01 June 2022 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0192512121990543 |
| Date | 01 June 2022 |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512121990543
International Political Science Review
2022, Vol. 43(3) 374 –389
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0192512121990543
journals.sagepub.com/home/ips
Brexit and the union: Territorial
voice, exit and re-entry strategies
in Scotland and Northern
Ireland after EU exit
Nicola McEwen
University of Edinburgh, UK
Mary C Murphy
University College Cork, Ireland
Abstract
This article examines the effects of Brexit on the internal boundaries and territorial future of the United
Kingdom (UK). Divergent Brexit preferences, coupled with the process of negotiating and preparing for
Brexit, have raised new questions about the ability of the UK to remain united. Focusing upon Scotland
and Northern Ireland, where territorial challenges are most acute, the article draws upon and adapts
Hirschman’s voice, exit and loyalty framework to examine the strategic choices and options faced by
institutional actors in each case when determining constitutional and political options in response to Brexit.
The article contends that, while credible exit threats were used to bolster voice in the Brexit negotiations,
the Brexit vote and subsequent process have exposed the limitations of territorial voice, and unleashed new
exit dynamics. We enhance the framework by exploring the concept of re-entry, exploring the contrasting
paths these territories would face to re-enter the European Union (EU).
Keywords
Brexit, union, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Hirschman, borders, voice, exit, re-entry
Introduction
While the United Kingdom’s (UK) external borders with the European Union (EU) have been the
focus of much Brexit scholarship, the actual and symbolic significance of the UK’s internal territo-
rial boundaries is the focus of this article. The narrow 52% majority who voted Leave in the 2016
referendum masked deep territorial divisions in Brexit preferences, raising new questions about the
Corresponding author:
Nicola McEwen, School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8 8AQ, UK.
Email: n.mcewen@ed.ac.uk
990543IPS0010.1177/0192512121990543International Political Science ReviewMcEwen and Murphy
research-article2021
Special Issue: The Brexit Effect
McEwen and Murphy 375
ability of the ‘kingdom’ to remain united. We focus on Scotland and Northern Ireland, where the
territorial issues raised by Brexit are most acute.
The plurinational character of the UK is at least partially recognized and embodied in its system
of asymmetrical multi-level government. Since 1999, Scotland and Northern Ireland, along with
Wales, have had their own elected legislatures and governments, with varying degrees of devolved
political autonomy, but there is no legislative devolution in England. As a strategy of accommodat-
ing national minorities and, in Northern Ireland, of conflict resolution, devolution has been largely
successful, despite periodic disruptions in Northern Ireland. Yet, devolution never eliminated disa-
greement over the UK’s constitutional future. It also generated an opportunity to govern for those
seeking a new constitutional order, including the pro-independence Scottish National Party (SNP)
and Sinn Féin, the most radical pro-Irish reunification party. The 2014 Scottish independence ref-
erendum, spearheaded by the SNP government, represented the union’s biggest test since devolu-
tion. Arguably, Brexit poses even stiffer territorial challenges.
The Brexit process was initiated after a simple majority in a UK-wide ballot voted for the UK
to leave the EU. That two of the four constituent territories voted Remain had no bearing on the
outcome. In both Scotland and Northern Ireland, the grievances resulting from having to leave
the EU, despite a clear majority in each case voting Remain, have been reinforced by the frus-
trated efforts of key political and institutional actors to influence the Brexit process. The UK
government’s pursuit of a ‘hard’ Brexit, which entails leaving both the EU customs union and
internal market, heightened territorial anxieties, and contributed to the resurgence of nationalist
claims for a new independence referendum in Scotland and a border poll (unity referendum) in
Ireland.
In examining the strategic responses of territorial actors to Brexit grievances, we have drawn
upon and adapted Hirschman’s voice, exit and loyalty framework. Hirschman’s original study
focused on how consumers adapt to dissatisfaction, but his framework has been frequently deployed
to aid understanding of political behaviour (Dowding et al., 2000), including by Hirschman him-
self (Hirschman, 1993). Most of these studies focused on the behaviour of individuals or groups of
individuals, with exit associated, for example, with member or voter decisions to leave a political
party, service users leaving a service provider or citizens leaving a country (Sharp, 1984; Weber,
2011). Instead, we examine collective exit and voice as strategic constitutional and political options
facing sub-state territories. We also adapt Hirschman’s framework by adding a category of re-entry,
with a particular focus on the cases under discussion of re-entry into the EU. Our unit of analysis
is thus the territorial community. For the most part, this is examined in the actions and discourse of
the governing administrations and political elites representing these communities, but we also
consider the aggregate views of the communities themselves, expressed in voting behaviour and
survey data. Our key aim was to determine the effectiveness of these territorial communities in
using the credible threat of exit from the state to enhance their voice and influence over the Brexit
process.
Although the challenges we discuss are set within the particular context of the UK and Brexit,
they provide broader insights into the accommodation and marginalization of territorial voices
within a plurinational state. In particular, the case studies reveal how the existing balance of voice,
exit and loyalty can be disrupted in the face of an exogeneous or endogenous shock. In the UK’s
asymmetrical setting, where Brexit represents an endogenous shock, our analysis portrays a story
of deep complexity in the articulation and influence of voice, and multifarious challenges and
incongruities in relation to Scotland’s and Northern Ireland’s ability to effectively employ an exit
strategy. Exit is not inevitable in either case, and so any challenges of re-entry may not arise. But
their contrasting exit paths and routes to re-entry into the EU shape the dynamics of contemporary
exit debates, and the options associated with a new constitutional order.
To continue reading
Request your trial