European Policy Analysis
Three Perspectives to Analyze the Outcome of the EU Referendum
The EU Referendum has been the subject of much debate both domestically and internationally since its inception . When analyzing European integration , a common method is to use statistical measurements to depict the voting pattern in combination with structural , political sociology , or institutional perspectives . Different theoretical perspectives offer different explanations to make sense of the Referendum . The structural argument focuses on the role of inequality , immigration , and the role of winners and losers of globalization . In contrast , the institutional perspective regards the democratic deficit debate within the EU , the second-order national contest syndrome and the new media landscape as the most important factors . The political sociology perspective discusses the role of identity , values , nationalism , and populism .
These schools of thought each offer valuable perspectives on the EU Referendum , but they also reveal the very complex nature of understanding what the Referendum was actually about , or rather , what aspects of the Referendum mattered most to voters . There is no doubt that the Referendum is one of the most important political events in our times ; hence , we need to understand it well to draw the right lessons for the future .
Is the UK a Post-Democracy Now ?
Unfortunately , the debate concerning the Referendum has not been able to forge a complete and comprehensive understanding of the results with the help of an interdisciplinary synthesis . As a result , important issues have been discussed in a simplistic way . A common explanation of the EU Referendum is that the election was a display of how people , and here the people should be understood as the groups that voted Leave , were tired of and mistrusted experts . The rhetoric of experts versus peoples ’ feeling that was coined in the debate before the referendum took place continues to be a dominant narrative . Political scientist Colin Crouch ( 2000 ) coined the term post-democracy to describe a state in which the pillars of a democracy , such as advisory expertise , are not functioning . In a post-democracy all democratic institutions are in place and elections are held , but the electoral debate is , as Crouch puts it , “ a tightly controlled spectacle , managed by rival teams of professional experts in the techniques of persuasion , and considering a small range of issues selected by those teams ” ( 2000 , 1 ). In a post-democracy , facts and expertise thus no longer play a central role in the political scene , as they are produced in a context that does not give most voters enough incentives or information to participate in elections .
In the debate surrounding the EU Referendum , a common claim is that this was exactly the state in the UK prior to the Referendum . Blogger Vincent F . Hendricks writes that today , politicians win elections by getting the feelings right , even if the facts are wrong . As an illustration , he refers to the way the leaveside politician Nigel Farage promised that if the UK left the Union they could take the £ 350 million a week that the country sent to the Union and instead spend it on
13