dissertation about brexit

• How it works

Useful Links

How much will your dissertation cost?

Have an expert academic write your dissertation paper!

Dissertation Services

Get unlimited topic ideas and a dissertation plan for just £45.00

Order topics and plan

Get 1 free topic in your area of study with aim and justification

Yes I want the free topic

Brexit Dissertation Topics

Published by Alvin Nicolas at January 6th, 2023 , Revised On August 16, 2023

Introduction

Brexit is the term given to Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union. The impact of this withdrawal on the UK economy seems to be harsh. If rebuilding steps are not appropriately implemented, the UK’s economic growth might experience adverse consequences in the short and long term.

Brexit’s events are continuously evolving, leaving a vast space open to research regarding the missing pieces. As a student, you must understand all concepts relating to Brexit and be aware of the consequences. Here are a few Brexit dissertation topics that will help you understand the whole idea in a much more detailed manner:

These topics have been developed by PhD qualified writers of our team , so you can trust to use these topics for drafting your dissertation.

You may also want to start your dissertation by requesting  a brief research proposal  from our writers on any of these topics, which includes an  introduction  to the topic,  research question ,  aim and objectives ,  literature review  along with the proposed  methodology  of research to be conducted.  Let us know  if you need any help in getting started.

Check our  dissertation examples  to get an idea of  how to structure your dissertation .

Review the full list of  dissertation topics for 2022 here.

2022 Brexit Research Topics

Investigating the impact of britain’s exit from european union on businesses in the uk.

Research Aim: The research will aim to investigate the impact of Britain’s exit from EU on the UK businesses. It will include the challenges faced by the firms and organization after Brexit. The study will also explain the strategies and policies that helped the businesses to get back to their original position.

Brexit: How did it impact the construction industry in the UK?

Research Aim: The research will aim to find the impact of Brexit on the UK’s construction industry. The study will explain the contribution of construction industry on UK’s growth. The study will also explain the challenges, problems and loss faced by the construction sector of the UK. It will also explain the policies passed by the UK government for the firms and labors to reduce the negative impact of Brexit.

Exploring the disadvantages of Brexit on trade in the UK

Research Aim: The research will aim to explore the negative impact on Brexit on trade in the UK. After leaving the European Union, UK faced a great loss in the trade. The UK lost free trade benefit with neighboring countries. Brexit also affected food trade in the country. Trade with the EU fell sharply towards the expiry of the Brexit transitional phase in Jan 2021, with exports to European states falling by 45 percent and imports falling by 33 percent compared to the past months.

The impact of Brexit on education sector of the UK

Research Aim: The research will aim to find the impact of Britain’s exit from EU on the education sector of the UK. One of the most challenging obstacles will be the termination of open borders, which currently permits EU students, teachers, and researchers to freely migrate to the UK. In addition to restricting freedom of movement, overseas employees face the additional danger of bilateral double taxation. The research will also suggest ways to mitigate the threats imposed on education sector due to Brexit.

How did Brexit impact the Labor market of the UK?

Research Aim: The research will aim to find the effect of Brexit on UK’s labor market. The UK will no longer be required to adhere to EU labor rules. However, existing EU law was converted into domestic law at the end of the Brexit transition period. This might therefore operate as a stumbling block for UK ambitions in terms of reforms to labour standards. These will likely have a significant influence on businesses’ access to talent and skills, as well as their capacity to retain people and skills. The research will examine the possible impact of Brexit on workers in different industries in the UK.

Covid-19 Brexit Research Topics

Impacts of covid-19 on brexit.

Research Aim: This study will focus on the impacts of COVID-19 on Brexit

Brexit strict border check plan and its impact on the UK during COVID-19

Research Aim: This study will investigate the impacts of Brexit strict border check plan on the U.K during the COVID-19

The economics of Brexit and COVID-19

Research Aim: This study will review the economics of Brexit during COVID-19

Brexit Research Topics 2021

Topic 1: the use of referendum as a form of direct democracy voting method for major political decisions; an analysis of the brexit campaign bus's impact on the leave campaign referendum win..

Research Aim: This research will focus on how the Brexit campaign bus information led to a popular opinion of how the UK pays weekly to the European Union. How this opinion made a lot of people came out to vote for the leave campaign. It will also analyse the accuracy of the information on the bus and how public opinion, whether right or wrong, influences public decisions.

Topic 2: Building an economically friendly relationship between the UK and the EU in post-Brexit and the need for legislation on developing a non-regressive environment.

Research Aim: This research will focus on maintaining a friendly relationship with the EU post-Brexit to maintain good economic stability in the United Kingdom and ensure that both regions maintain a good environment for economic growth. It also explains why low conflicts are necessary for considering the environment sector of both the UK and the EU.

Impact of Brexit on the UK and the World’s Political Scenario

Research Aim: Brexit was one of the most crucial decisions in the history of the European Union. Thus, the impact of this historical event is also of great significance. The UK trade ties were in question when Brexit happened, and the world was in shock. Many questions arose, such as whether or not the UK will follow the EU rules and regulations, trades, and policies post-Brexit. This research will analyse Brexit’s impact on the United Kingdom and how the world’s political scenario was affected.

How Can ResearchProspect Help?

ResearchProspect writers can send several custom topic ideas to your email address. Once you have chosen a topic that suits your needs and interests, you can order for our dissertation outline service , which will include a brief introduction to the topic, research questions , literature review , methodology , expected results , and conclusion . The dissertation outline will enable you to review the quality of our work before placing the order for our full dissertation writing service !

Does Brexit Mean The End of Britain?

Research Aim: Many experts suggested that Brexit meant the end of the UK’s influence over the world. Since the UK decided to exit the European Union, it will now find it hard to survive independently. This dissertation will help answer these questions and present how the country is doing to date.

Brexit and the UK Economy: Benefits and Challenges

Research Aim: There is no doubt that Brexit had enormous economic repercussions. The economy of the country dripped, and a lot of businesses were impacted. Industries were affected as well, and many research studies suggested that the services industry suffered the most.

This thesis will investigate the country’s current economic situation, how Brexit has affected it, its benefits, and the challenges the country faces in the upcoming times.

Assessing the Effect of Brexit on UK Businesses

Research Aim: Some of the leading businesses in the United Kingdom were hit hard by Brexit. Not only was the UK economy impacted, but businesses of all sizes experienced the consequences. Separating from the EU meant the businesses now have to follow different rules and regulations to operate. This research will focus on the impact Brexit had on businesses and their strategies to recover from it.

Evaluating the Immigration Number Post Brexit

Research Aim: Many people feared that there would be fewer migrants in the United Kingdom due to Brexit. They believed that the number of immigrants would fall due to the stricter immigration laws, which will be enforced post-Brexit. This research will focus on the policy that helped the UK to maintain its immigrant policy program. Also, this thesis will discuss how Brexit did not affect the program to a significant extent.

Brexit: Can the EU and UK be separated?

Research Aim: Brexit meant that the United Kingdom is now completely separate from the European Union. The country does not have to follow the rules, regulations, and laws set out by the European Union; it does not have to follow the EU’s trade policies. It does not have to work following the business policies already set by the region.

This research will evaluate whether or not the United Kingdom can survive on its own in the long run or whether it will have the need to get back to the EU.

Order 5 research topic ideas in your area of study and a 500 words outline/proposal on the chosen topic.

An Investigation into the UK Financial Services Sector Post Brexit

Research Aim: The UK Financial Services sector was the most affected due to Brexit. When the decision was made, companies operating in this sector were taken aback due to the expected change in policies and regulations.

The whole EU follows a certain set of rules, which did not apply to the UK after the Brexit. This means new rules had to be implemented and followed. This dissertation will assess and evaluate how companies in this sector emerged successful even after Brexit.

Will Brexit Help UK Increase its Trade with the Rapidly Expanding Emerging Markets Around the World?

Research Aim: According to the European Union rules and regulations, trades of certain products and services between countries are not allowed. Following Brexit, many experts suggested that the United Kingdom will now enhance its trade and benefit from the emerging markets worldwide. This research will talk about whether the country could benefit from new trade policies post-Brexit, and whether or not it benefitted by trading with the most emerging markets of the world.

Brexit Referendum: Did the Masses Make an Informed Decision?

Research Aim: Referendum is considered an extremely effective method to determine the public’s choice in democracies; however, in the case of the United Kingdom, the referendum decision is highly questioned.

This means that the masses who voted in this referendum were either not aware of what they were going ahead with or hated the European Union because of their poor understanding of the actual situation.

This dissertation will investigate whether the masses made an informed decision through a referendum and whether they were aware of the actual scenario.

The Future and Challenges of Brexit

Research Aim: Now that Brexit has happened, the UK government must find a way to move forward. The future of this event should be investigated to understand and assess the importance of Brexit, the benefits it has, and what the future will be.

This thesis will focus on the future of Brexit as to how it will help the economy, how it will prove to be beneficial for the businesses, and how essential it will be for individuals and businesses of the country to understand the new rules and regulations. Also, the challenges of Brexit will be discussed to help people understand how they can overcome them.

Important Notes:

As a Brexit student looking to get good grades, it is essential to develop new ideas and experiment with existing Brexit theories – i.e., to add value and interest in the topic of your research.

The field of Brexit is vast and interrelated to so many other academic disciplines like economics , business , politics , international relations, and more. That is why it is imperative to create a Brexit dissertation topic that is particular, sound, and solves a practical problem that may be rampant in the field.

We can’t stress how important it is to develop a logical research topic based on your entire research. There are several significant downfalls to getting your topic wrong; your supervisor may not be interested in working on it, the topic has no academic creditability, the research may not make logical sense, and there is a possibility that the study is not viable.

This impacts your time and efforts in writing your dissertation , as you may end up in the cycle of rejection at the initial stage of the dissertation. That is why we recommend reviewing existing research to develop a topic, taking advice from your supervisor, and even asking for help in this particular stage of your dissertation.

While developing a research topic, keeping our advice in mind will allow you to pick one of the best Brexit dissertation topics that fulfil your requirement of writing a research paper and add to the body of knowledge.

Therefore, it is recommended that when finalizing your dissertation topic, you read recently published literature to identify gaps in the research that you may help fill.

Remember- dissertation topics need to be unique, solve an identified problem, be logical, and be practically implemented. Please look at some of our sample Brexit dissertation topics to get an idea for your own dissertation.

How to Structure your Brexit Dissertation

A well-structured dissertation can help students to achieve a high overall academic grade.

• A Title Page
• Acknowledgements
• Declaration
• Abstract: A summary of the research completed
• Table of Contents
• Introduction : This chapter includes the project rationale, research background, key research aims and objectives, and the research problems. An outline of the structure of a dissertation can also be added to this chapter.
• Literature Review : This chapter presents relevant theories and frameworks by analysing published and unpublished literature on the chosen research topic to address research questions . The purpose is to highlight and discuss the selected research area’s relative weaknesses and strengths whilst identifying any research gaps. Break down the topic and key terms that can positively impact your dissertation and your tutor.
• Methodology : The data collection and analysis methods and techniques employed by the researcher are presented in the Methodology chapter, which usually includes research design , research philosophy, research limitations, code of conduct, ethical consideration, data collection methods, and data analysis strategy.
• Findings and Analysis : Findings of the research are analysed in detail under the Findings and Analysis chapter. All key findings/results are outlined in this chapter without interpreting the data or drawing any conclusions. It can be useful to include graphs, charts, and tables in this chapter to identify meaningful trends and relationships.
• Discussion and Conclusion : The researcher presents his interpretation of the results in this chapter and states whether the research hypothesis has been verified or not. An essential aspect of this section of the paper is to link the results and evidence from the literature. Recommendations with regards to implications of the findings and directions for the future may also be provided. Finally, a summary of the overall research, along with final judgments, opinions, and comments, must be included in the form of suggestions for improvement.
• References : This should be completed following your University’s requirements
• Bibliography
• Appendices : Any additional information, diagrams, and graphs used to complete the dissertation but not part of the dissertation should be included in the Appendices chapter. Essentially, the purpose is to expand the information/data.

About ResearchProspect Ltd

ResearchProspect is a  UK based academic writing service  that provides help with  Dissertation Proposal Writing ,  PhD. Proposal Writing ,  Dissertation Writing ,  Dissertation Editing, and Improvement .

Our team of writers  is highly qualified. They are experts in their respective fields. They have been working for us for a long time. Thus, they are well aware of the issues and the trends of the subject they specialize in.

Free Dissertation Topic

Phone Number

Academic Level Select Academic Level Undergraduate Graduate PHD

Academic Subject

Area of Research

Frequently Asked Questions

How to find brexit dissertation topics.

To find Brexit dissertation topics:

• Analyse political, economic, and social aspects.
• Investigate trade, immigration, or EU relations.
• Examine impacts on specific industries.
• Explore legal or regulatory changes.
• Study public opinion and media discourse.
• Select a focused and relevant angle for your research.

You May Also Like

If you are writing a research paper on criminal psychology, you can discuss any relevant topic. Do psychopaths have an innate or developed nature? Is there a way to help criminals get better?

Need interesting and manageable Sexual Harassment of Women dissertation topics? Here are the trending Sexual Harassment of Women dissertation titles so you can choose the most suitable one.

Employment law governs the relationship between employers and employees largely. A contract outlines what employers expect from their employees, what they may ask them to accomplish.

USEFUL LINKS

LEARNING RESOURCES

COMPANY DETAILS

• How It Works

No notifications.

Dissertations on Brexit

Brexit refers to the withdrawal of the UK from the EU on 31st January 2020 following a UK wide vote in 2016 in a referendum held by David Cameron’s pro-Europe government. 51.9% of voters voted in favour of leaving.

View All Dissertation Examples

Latest Brexit Dissertations

Including full dissertations, proposals, individual dissertation chapters, and study guides for students working on their undergraduate or masters dissertation.

Effect of Brexit on UK and EU Financial Market Regulation

Dissertation Examples

This paper considers the implications of Brexit on the regulation of financial markets in the United Kingdom and the broader European Union. Abstract: On 23 June 2016, the United Kingdom triggered one of the most sign...

Last modified: 19th Nov 2021

Impact of the EU on Member States Policy Making

The aim of this dissertation is to analyse how the European Union impacts on the national level of the foreign policy-making of its smaller Member States....

Last modified: 5th Nov 2021

Brexit: The Beginning of the End or the End of the Beginning?

In this dissertation, my interest is to discover the effects of the withdraws of the UK from the European Union, especially the consequences on economy in UK and the main European countries....

Last modified: 25th Oct 2021

Impact of EU Membership on Tesco

This report will explain the role of the European Union and describe the impact which UK membership of the EU has on Tesco....

Last modified: 29th Sep 2021

UK Parliamentary Sovereignty in the UK in the Wake of Brexit

This paper discusses the topic of parliamentary sovereignty in the UK, particularly in the wake of Brexit, and briefly touches on some social consequences had Parliamentary Sovereignty not been respected....

Last modified: 26th Aug 2021

Demographics of Leave and Remain Voters

This essay will cover these points in further detail, examining studies of why people voted either way, from a variety of sources, including the media, university, and professional research results, before comparing these with a survey taken in north-east London by the author....

Last modified: 5th Jan 2021

Impact of Brexit on European Financial Market Regulation

Finding ‘The Third Man’: Untangling the UK’s under EU financial systems equivalence frameworks post-Brexit Abstract: On 23 June 2016, the United Kingdom triggered one of the most significan...

Last modified: 16th Dec 2019

Impact of Brexit on International Development and Developing Countries

Abstract Before the people of Britain voted to leave the EU, UK and other members of the EU collaborate through common policies in dealing with international issues or in forming relationship wit...

Last modified: 13th Dec 2019

Impact of Brexit on the Tata Group

INTRODUCTION The British individuals voted to leave the Europe Union, and the will of the general population ought to win. Be that as it may, the general population voted without learning of the g...

Brexit: Causes and the Future of Britain

Abstract A referendum was held on June 23rd 2016, to decide whether the United Kingdom (UK) should leave or remain as a part of the European Union (EU). This vote is commonly referred to as Brexit...

Effect of Brexit on the Financial Markets

What are financial markets? Financial markets are an open and regulated system where companies can raise large amounts of capital through bonds and stock markets, or offset their risk by investing...

Why Did Britain Vote to Leave the EU?

Introduction On the 23rd June 2016, in a nationwide referendum, British voters were asked the question: Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Uni...

Economic Impacts of Brexit

International Business Project: Brexit: The Beginning of the End or the End of the Beginning? INDEX Abbreviation……………………………...

Last modified: 11th Dec 2019

The Impact of Brexit on the Financial Services in the UK

The impact of Brexit on the financial services in the UK Contents Acknowledgements Abstract 1. Introduction 1.1. Brexit 1.2. European Union 1.3. Analysis of the current Brexit/EU situation 2. Li...

Last modified: 9th Dec 2019

Impact of Government Policies on Tesco

Introduction   This report will identify and explain a range of current government policies which have a significant effect on Tesco. An analysis will also be carried out on the implications of thes...

Impact of Brexit on the UK's Construction Industry

Evaluating the Impact and Implication of BREXIT in the UK Construction Industry Abstract Brexit is an abbreviation of ‘British exit’ and was introduced in 2016 following Britain’s decision to h...

Popular Tags

• Browse All Tags
• Biomedical Science
• Business Analysis
• Business Strategy
• Computer Science
• Construction
• Consumer Decisions
• Criminology
• Cultural Studies
• Cyber Security
• Electronics
• Engineering
• Environmental Science
• Environmental Studies
• Food And Nutrition
• Health And Social Care
• Human Resources
• Information Systems
• Information Technology
• International Business
• International Relations
• International Studies
• Mental Health
• Pharmacology
• Social Policy
• Sustainability
• Young People

Dissertation Writing Service

Dissertation Proposal Service

Topic with Titles Service

Samples of our work

Post-Brexit Europeanization: re-thinking the continuum of British policies, polity, and politics trajectories

• Original Article
• Open access
• Published: 25 April 2022
• Volume 20 , pages 513–526, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Sarah Wolff   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6225-3500 1 &
• Agathe Piquet   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0438-4983 1  

5339 Accesses

12 Citations

13 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

What is the impact of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU on British policies, polity and politics and their future trajectories? This question has been overlooked so far, as many observers have focused on the identity, cultural, and political reasons behind the Brexit vote or scrutinized closely the process of withdrawal. The de-Europeanization literature has tried to capture the new dynamics behind the impact of Brexit on the domestic scene by understanding it as a will to dismantle policies and politics previously Europeanized. On the contrary, we argue here that Brexit is not necessarily the end of UK’s engagement with the EU. This editorial and this special issue provide a more nuanced explanation and support the idea that Brexit is not putting an end to the EU’s influence over British public policies. In fact, we identify several pathways to the EU–UK relationship which can be conceptualized along a continuum from de-Europeanization to re-engagement scenarios. Building on the literature that has suggested the trajectories of disengagement and de-Europeanization, this editorial more specifically contributes to the debate by coining the concept of continued engagement and re-engagement and highlighting the need to analyse British politics, policies, and polity in relation to the EU through a variety of pathways.

Similar content being viewed by others

The EU Referendum and British Politics

Aspects of British History and Policy

Political community and the new parochialism: Brexit and the reimagination of British liberalism and conservatism

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

The exit from the EU by one of its member states is unprecedented. Consequently, the drivers behind the Leave vote have been extensively analysed by academics. Various reasons have been emphasized: the global cultural backlash and the rise of populism (Norris and Inglehart 2019 ), the role of austerity politics and of global economics (Fetzer 2019 ), the role of domestic British politics and divisions on Europe amongst British political parties (Menon and Salter 2016 ) and the contribution of UKIP (Ford and Goodwin 2017 ). The novelty of the withdrawal from the EU also led many scholars to study the very cumbersome process Brexit initiated at the domestic level, leading to the production of an academic literature on the Withdrawal Agreement, the role of Westminster and the support from the Tories to the whole process (e.g. McConnell and Tormey 2020 ; Martill 2021 ). As we are moving into new governance arrangements for the implementation of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA), a lot of attention has also been devoted to the formal and procedural agreement (e.g. Usherwood 2021 ; Eckes and Leino-Sandberg 2022 ).

So far however there is little knowledge on the concrete consequences the withdrawal has on domestic politics and policies in the UK. This special issue starts from the assumption that the withdrawal does not necessarily mean a complete rupture with the EU and that, after 47 years of membership, the effects of Europeanization are still present on the domestic British scene and could take different trajectories in the future. Here we engage with Radaelli’s comprehensive definition of Europeanization ( 2001 , p. 108) as “processes of (a) construction (b) diffusion and (c) institutionalization of formal and informal rules, procedures, policy paradigms, styles, ‘ways of doing things’ and shared beliefs and norms which are first defined and consolidated in the making of EU public policy and politics and then incorporated in the logic of domestic discourse, identities, political structures and public policies”. Based on this definition, the exit from the EU raises new research questions on British politics and policies which have been transformed under the influence of the EU: will Brexit automatically put an end to the Europeanization process? Or could it lead to a ‘reverse gear’ dismantling some of the EU acquis so far, as suggested by the slogan ‘Brexit means Brexit’? Or will withdrawal from the EU have a more diversified and perhaps unexpectedly limited impact, with Europeanization having lasting effects even once the UK is no longer a member State?

This special issue argues that there is not a single scenario, but rather multiple pathways to exiting the EU for British politics, polity, and policies. The special issue shows that there are historical legacies determining the current and future trajectories of EU’s influence. Thus, although Brexit is now a reality, the road towards exiting EU public policies is not a straightforward one and requires further conceptualization. We distinguish in this special issue four varieties of pathways towards exiting to think about the influence of the EU on British public policies and politics: de-Europeanization, disengagement, re-engagement and continued engagement. These scenarios can be placed on a continuum, showing that Brexit is not the end of Europeanization but rather the start of a process that calls for a nuanced reflection on the future relationship with the EU and its impact on British domestic politics and policies, and even polities to a certain extent.

Building on the existing work of de-Europeanization and disengagement, we make three main contributions to this emerging literature. Firstly, we propose two new concepts, re-engagement and continued engagement, to fully capture the plurality of (non-) changes following Brexit. Instead of assuming the post-Brexit pathways of British politics and policies as fixed categories, we analyse Brexit as a constantly evolving process and hence offer to think about these four roads along a continuum ranging from de-Europeanization to continued engagement (see Fig.  1 ). Secondly, we further operationalize our four conceptual tools through the use of two main criteria: the dismantling, or not, of what has been previously Europeanized and the continuation, or not, of active Europeanization. Finally, this special issue explores some key variables, explaining why one path rather than another is witnessed: while the pre-existing degree of Europeanization of British politics and policies play a role, we defend the idea that the way this Europeanization process occurs, the structuration of the field, and the degree of politicization are factors that influence the post-Brexit trajectories.

Continuum of the post-Brexit pathways with Europe

This introductory article is built as follows. Following a literature review of the existing literature on Europeanization, de-Europeanization and disengagement, section two defines the concepts of re-engagement and continued engagement, and sets up our conceptual framework. Based on the examination of the scholarship devoted to existing developments so far in British domestic policies, section three outlines the contributions of this special issue which illustrate the varieties of post-withdrawal trajectories. Finally we conclude on how  the different trajectories that British public policies and politics have taken in a post-Brexit world, might re-define its relationship with the EU.

Reversing the gear of Europeanization: de-Europeanization and disengagement

De-Europeanization can be broadly defined as the ‘reverse gear’ (Gravey 2016 ) of Europeanization. For a long time, the existing scholarship has been mainly dedicated to the ‘forward gear’ of Europeanization to understand the convergence between member States and to shed light to a certain extent on the potential domestic resistance to these processes. In contrast, the concept of de-Europeanization is relatively new in the academic field and has been extensively used to study different phenomena which lead to a back-pedaling and thus question the interactions between the EU and its member States. Brexit is one of them. Indeed, ‘Brexit means Brexit’ is possibly the best summary of what de-Europeanization could mean and t it is the first time that this process is so clearly tangible within the EU with one of its larger member states deciding to withdraw from the union. This section reviews the literature that has explored the concept of de-Europeanization, then discusses how part of the literature has looked at Brexit as a case ‘par excellence’ of de-Europeanization, before complexifying the situation.

Europeanization has been intensively studied and has led to scholarly debates about whether it is a top-down (Wessels and Rometsch 1993 ), bottom-up (Börzel 2002 ) or multi-directional process (Radaelli 2003 ). In terms of scope, scholars have debated the extent to which it is mostly the outcome of formal institutions (Ladrech 1994 ) or informal ones (Radaelli 2001 ). A consensus has nonetheless appeared on the idea that Europeanization needs to be distinguished from mere convergence, notably by considering national institutions as filtering EU developments and hence being able to resist Europeanization (Risse et al. 2001 ).

Since the Eurozone crisis and ensuing migration crisis and pandemic, which have impacted EU governance, recent work has explored the possibility of a halt in the Europeanization process or even of a ‘reverse gear’ of the previous transformations (Gravey 2016 ). This is what the concept of de-Europeanization proposes to capture, yet in relation to very different phenomena. Some scholars have defined de-Europeanization as all the dynamics aiming at ‘less harmonization, and less collective action, all possibly augmented by resistance at the national level’ (Radaelli and Salter 2019 , p. 36). De-Europeanization could be witnessed in the defence of national interests leading to an opposition of the EU being granted additional powers (Copeland 2016 ), in the resistance to implement EU legislation (Raagmaa et al. 2014 ) or in the most extreme case in the ‘dismantling’ of EU policies i.e. the ‘cutting, diminution or removal’ (Jordan et al . 2013 , p. 795) of EU policies. Some dismantling has occurred at the EU level following the adoption of the ‘better regulation’ strategy by the European Commission or in the aftermath of the Eurozone crisis (e.g. Gravey 2016 ; Steinebach and Knill 2017 for environmental policies), with the European Commission withdrawing some of its legislative proposals for instance. The national level has also been the locus of some dismantling of what has been previously Europeanized, for instance the 2011 Hungarian Constitution removing some EU acquis (rights for minorities, independent justice, diversity of media, etc.) (Leontitsis and Ladi 2018 ). To some extent one could argue that the refusal of the UK to engage in the second generation of asylum directives, and a selective engagement marked since the 2010s on immigration and asylum, had some dismantling effect for the Common European Asylum System as a whole and in particular for the rights of asylum-seekers within the EU (El-Enany 2017 ).

For other scholars, de-Europeanization equates to a ‘progressive detachment (…) from the political, administrative and normative influence of the European Union and/or by a more overt and growing contestation over the EU or its policies’ (Tomini and Gürkan 2021 , p. 286). Drawing from the case of Turkey (e.g. Yilmaz 2015 ; Aydın-Düzgit and Kaliber 2016 ; Ertugal 2021 ; Tomini and Gürkan 2021 ) and to a lesser extent on Serbia (Castaldo and Pinna 2018 ) and Central and Eastern European States (Àgh 2015 ; Szymański 2017 ), these scholars conceive de-Europeanization in a deeper and broader way in comparison with those mentioned above: de-Europeanization is not restricted to resistance to change or to a removal of what has changed under the influence of the EU, but rather relates to a loss of EU attractivity due to processes of ‘autocratization’ (Öniş and Kutlay 2019 ; Tomini and Gürkan 2021 ) or ‘de-democratization’ (Àgh 2015 ; Ertugal 2021 ).

Another part of the existing literature has used de-Europeanization to qualify the ‘polycrisis’ the EU seems to be enduring. Here, de-Europeanization is understood as a form of dis-integration (Murphy and O’Brennan 2019 , p. 474) or of differentiated dis-integration (Leruth et al . 2019 ). Starting with the creation of a ‘Europe à la carte’ with the Maastricht Treaty, these dynamics have intensified with successive EU enlargements and the ‘polycrisis’ ongoing since 2008. In this specific meaning, de-Europeanization can be understood in relation to the end of the ‘permissive consensus’ and the growing politicization of EU integration (De Wilde et al. 2016 ; Leruth et al . 2019 ).

Despite these divergences on the meanings and mechanisms of de-Europeanization, Brexit appears at first as the materialization of this ‘reverse gear.’ Examples of resistance to European integration were already multiple before 2016. For instance, the UK resisted the adoption at the EU level of new national targets in the framework of Europe 2020 and the European Semester, advocating for a more decentralized approach in relation to employment policy. Through this decision, the coalition government ‘reversed the procedural and cognitive shifts that had occurred under its predecessor [New Labour government]’ (Copeland 2016 , p. 1136) In so doing, it displayed a deliberate will of dismantling the politics and policies previously Europeanized with the aim to ‘prevent future uploading and downloading in the governance process’ (Copeland 2016 , p. 1126). The 2016 referendum campaign exacerbated this dynamic, being mostly about affirming the need for British citizens to regain national sovereignty and control over their identity, borders, laws, budgets, etc. This is well illustrated by the mottos of the Leave campaign to ‘Take Back Control’ and of Theresa May declaring that ‘Brexit means Brexit’. Therefore, scholars have interpreted these events as ‘an intention to de-Europeanize’ (Burns et al. 2019 , p. 273) insofar as they appear as an ‘opportunity for wide-ranging reform at the domestic level to ‘roll back’ decades of embedded EU policy’ (Radaelli and Salter 2019 ).

Building on the work of Burns et al. ( 2019 ) we question these claims on de-Europeanization and argue instead that it is possible to consider that Brexit has also led to a continuation or an acceleration of Europeanization dynamics. Thus, confronted to the prospect to leave the EU, British legislators have hastened the transposition of EU law before the effective withdrawal of 2020. Various citizen-led marches to demonstrate the British public’s attachment to the EU were also historical. In some policy areas de-Europeanization did not take place due to a lack of political will, or capability at the domestic level. This scenario of ‘passive de-Europeanization’ has been visible in the field of environmental policies where the UK is not necessarily able to produce fundamentally different public policies than from the EU. This is explained as following some transfer of powers and prerogatives to the EU level the UK does not hold sufficient expertise to innovate (Burns et al. 2019 ). There are therefore two possible scenarios to consider: ‘failed de-Europeanization’ and ‘passive de-Europeanization’, which can be labelled as ‘disengagement’, corresponding to situations in which ‘a state retreating from active Europeanization, maintaining the domestic processes and structures affected by Europeanization, but not seeking to adapt them further to the EU’s influence’ (Burns et al. 2019 , p. 273). Disengagement has led to different results in comparison with de-Europeanization: while Brexit puts an end to the active Europeanization of domestic policies and politics, no dismantling can be observed. Therefore, contrary to de-Europeanization having noticeable consequences on the short-term due to a sudden ‘reverse gear’, when disengagement occurs changes are only observable on a longer term perspective. In this scenario, change is not occurring immediately. Politics and policies remain as they were before Brexit, but the end of the domestic alignment with the EU acquis leads to diverging pathways between the EU and the UK.

The reality of post-Brexit British politics and policies is thus more complex than just a scenario of ‘reverse gear’, The following section proceeds to examine the possible trajectories more deeply by proposing the complementary concepts of re-engagement and continued engagement.

Forward gear: conceptualizing continued engagement and re-engagement in the diversity continuum of post-Brexit pathways with Europe

The existing literature has started to demonstrate how de-Europeanization is far from being the only path to be envisioned beyond the withdrawal of the EU for British polity, politics and policies. Yet the varieties of these (non)-changes have not been adequately conceptualized, and even the literature on disengagement is not sufficient to capture all the nuances. We therefore propose to work around a continuum and to add the concepts of continued engagement and re-engagement (see Fig.  1 ). These concepts assume that Brexit did not necessarily put an end to active Europeanization. Instead, the EU maintains some influence on Britain’s domestic stage while the UK keeps uploading its model, practices, priorities, etc., albeit from the position of a third country. More specifically these two concepts enrich our conceptualization of the different trajectories of British politics and policies in relation to Europe along a continuum. Beyond Brexit, Europe’s role on the UK domestic scene is one of a variety of pathways in terms of (non)-changes.

On the continuum below, while de-Europeanization is the most extreme case of change, we propose to add continued engagement at the opposite end of the scale; where any transformation of the interactions between the EU and the domestic levels are almost imperceivable and interaction continues as before the effective withdrawal from the EU. Methodologically, in order to assess which path corresponds the most to the post-Brexit configuration, and drawing from the existing literature, two questions need to be answered:

Are pre-Europeanized politics and policies being dismantled following the UK withdrawal from the EU? In other words, is there any removal, reduction or cutting of the existing politics and policies?

Are processes of active Europeanization still happening in the aftermath of Brexit? Put differently, is downloading of the EU acquis at the UK level and/or uploading of UK outputs at the EU level still occurring with the same intensity?

As detailed in Fig.  1 , de-Europeanization occurs in the case of a deliberate dismantling of what has been previously Europeanized and involves the termination of any interaction between the EU and the domestic levels in the studied politics or policies. Disengagement means the absence of dismantling but the end of active Europeanization. Re-engagement corresponds to situations where the UK, being no longer a member State, must disengage from EU policies but reengages in them as a third country. In this case, not only the Europeanized acquis stays in place, but the UK is also pursuing intensive exchanges with the EU. However, due to the changes of legal status, UK influence on the EU level and the EU one on the domestic stage are more limited than what they used to be when the UK was still a member State. Finally, continued engagement is the scenario where there is no dismantling and Europeanization is continuing as it was before, and thus can be considered as active. The change to a third country status for the UK does not impact the intensity of the uploading and downloading processes, either because it still has the same rights and benefits as other EU member states or because it could create more complex relationships with the EU and its members.

Re-engagement and continued engagement have been frequently observed in this special issue. Re-engagement is visible in the case of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. Although when becoming a third country the UK had to leave EU tools in criminal matter and to disengage, the authors observe no dismantlement at the domestic level. Instead there has been a re-engagement and to a lesser extent a form of active Europeanization has been maintained, both in its top-down and bottom-up dimensions. Re-engagement is also the strategy used by the British Council to preserve its reputation that could have been damaged by Brexit. Through the deployment of new narratives and initiatives, the British Council has proven very willing to re-engage in Europe after having focused for years on other regional areas such as its Asian, South American or Easter European audiences. Finally, based on the Brussels effect, Jancic sheds light on the economic and regulatory strings that bind UK Parliament to EU developments beyond the legal commitments, at least on a short term.

Continued engagement is again observable in police cooperation matters. Wolff, Piquet, Carrapico demonstrate that the UK has the same rights and benefits as other EU member states in relation to the Prüm decision or to cybersecurity where the withdrawal from the EU seems to have a limited impact as the UK maintains an identical participation.

Governance structures are also there to maintain forms of diplomatic engagement and thus can enhance or disable future trajectories. A Partnership Council co-chaired by relevant EU Commissioners and UK ministers should meet at least once a year in different configurations. It is assisted by a Trade Partnership Committee and specialized committees on a series of trade and non-trade policy areas. The Partnership Council aims to oversee the attainment of the objectives, to implement the TCA, and adopt decisions where required by the TCA. It should also establish a forum to resolve disputes (Inst. 13) and adopt a list of arbitrators (inst. 27). The Commission acts based on a formal decision determined by Council decision (Art. 218(9) of the TFEU and all decisions are taken by mutual consent of the co-chairs. EU member states can attend meetings and also send one representative to accompany the Commission but cannot vote and the European Parliament is informed. Maroš Šefčovič, the Vice-President of the European Commission for Interinstitutional Relations should co-chair the Partnership Council. A Joint Civil Society Forum should be composed of employers’ association, trade unions and NGOs, etc. A Dispute Settlement Mechanism has also been introduced. There are also subsidies and fisheries remedial measures as well as safeguard measures in case of serious economic, society or environmental difficulties (inst. 36). Although quite technical in appearance these are the formal structures where the UK will continue to exert influence and negotiate the road of its de-Europeanization and possible disengagement in various policy areas.

Furthermore, the political landscape of the UK has been profoundly changed by the withdrawal from the EU. UK members have left the European Parliament and political parties will not campaign anymore for referendums or European elections, signalling therefore a de facto de-Europeanization of their presence in Brussels. A Parliamentary Partnership Assembly is about to be established in order to provide a forum to exchange views on the partnership and make recommendations to the Partnership Council. There is however no guarantee if or how the UK can continue to exert influence in the future. The context of the new governance structure of the TCA might also bring some additional explanations.

Yet as this special issue goes to print, the Johnson government has decided to make parliamentary scrutiny all the more difficult. In 2022, the government has announced that it will adopt ‘Brexit Freedom bill’ to facilitate the possibility to amend or repeal retained EU law. It seems therefore that de-Europeanization is leading to a battle between the executive and the parliament. Yet the willingness of the Johnson government and its ministers to ‘reform, replace and repeal’ EU law has not been justified adequately nor have new purposeful changes been proposed. However, it does seem like an opportunity at domestic level to tighten parliament democratic scrutiny (White 2022 ).

The de-Europeanization literature has been criticized for mostly analysing formal and vertical forms of uploading and downloading of national preferences to and from the EU level (Aggestam and Bicchi 2019 , p. 515). Informal and horizontal forms have been looked at less but are nonetheless increasingly important in global governance. Mechanisms of cross-loading defined as ‘the mutual influence among member states independent of mediation by EU actors’ (Ibid, p. 515) are increasingly relevant and should not be overlooked in the case of post-Brexit trajectories. This ‘informal side of Europeanization’ pays attention to EU member states who step out of the formal structures of EU governance and exert leadership through cross-loading (Aggestam and Bicchi 2019 , p. 516). This kind of ‘satellite cooperation’ has multiplied outside of the formal structures of the EU (Parkes 2011 ) and in particular as a response to the communitarization and politicization of Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) with the Prüm framework or the G6 (Wolff and Mounier 2012 ), but also of foreign policy, with for instance the E3 grouping of the UK with France and Germany. The E3 looks like a strategic venue to coordinate foreign policy coordination. In fact, in the wake of Brexit ‘these trilateral meetings have become more frequent and covered more ground’ (Brattberg 2020 ). Sixty-seven statements have been signed between 2016 and June 2020 (Ibid.) on a variety of foreign policy issues such as the Middle East Conflict, Russia or Venezuela. In addition, ‘an informal working arrangement’ has been established ‘on the sidelines of the UN Security Council’ ( Ibid. ). The UK is also part of the European Intervention Initiative, a joint military project between 14 European countries outside of the existing structures of NATO or the EU, led by the French.

Assessing whether the UK participation in these more informal mechanisms falls under continued engagement or re-engagement varies across policy fields. When cross-loading and alternative venues replace formal UK participation to EU tools, it is more accurate to talk in terms of re-engagement. On the contrary, when these fora have been the dominant forms of cooperation between EU member states, the possibility for the UK to maintain its input can be interpreted as aligning with continued engagement.

In addition, these examples raise questions on the mechanisms at the foundation of these different trajectories. In other words, identifying different scenarios requires capturing the variables explaining why one specific path rather than another one is dominating patterns of post-Brexit trajectories. This special issue analyses patterns prevailing in UK policy, polity, and politics.

Policy relates to the degree but also the nature of the Europeanization process in British public policy prior to the effective withdrawal of 2020. Policies where EU influence has been marginal are more likely to be de-Europeanized, especially if these changes have limited costs (from an economic, a social, an organizational perspective, etc.) (Burns et al . 2020 ). On the contrary, when deep changes have previously occurred and when these changes have been costly, opting for the ‘reverse gear’ is more unlikely. Yet, this assumption does not fully explain what could happen to policies in which Europeanization has not only been top-down, but also bottom-up. Indeed, if the UK has strongly influenced the EU and has turned out to be a norm exporter, few changes at the domestic level might have happened when the UK was still a member of the EU and they were probably not particularly difficult to achieve. In this case, de-Europeanization is not the most plausible scenario as the UK does not have any motive to dismantle the existing policies, especially if it can still influence the EU. Furthermore, due to the obstacles linked to the dismantling of EU policies, there is a high probability of convergence between the EU and the UK and of Europeanization, whether under the form of re-engagement or continued engagement. Consequently, uploading processes, when they exist, could hinder de-Europeanization.

At the polity level , the analysis of the formal decision-making structure of a policy field, in particular its degree of centralization and the presence of ‘veto players’, i.e. ‘the collective or individual actors whose agreement is necessary to change the status quo’ (Tsebelis 2002 , p. 19) is key. In this article we define the status quo as the status of Europeanization that existed on the day of the UK’s withdrawal on the 31st December 2020. Here, veto players can prevent de-Europeanization, especially if joint-decision traps occur (Burns et al. 2019 ). Copeland demonstrates that the strong centralization of employment policy in the UK, excluding the participation of any veto player to decision-making, explains how Whitehall and the Conservatives easily dismantled and hampered further Europeanization. Nonetheless, centralization could also favour scenarios of re-engagement or continued engagement if the administration has been Europeanized and is in capacity to implement its preferences. Instead in the cases of devolved administrations of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland there has been a vote in favour of remaining in the EU; indicating a possible different trajectory of continued engagement and re-engagement.

Finally, domestic politics can impact post-Brexit pathways, though their effects are complex. Indeed, de-Europeanization could be facilitated by the low visibility of the policy field, leading to minimal opposition and contestation to the removal, cutting or diminishing of existing pre-Europeanized policies, as occurred for employment policy (Copeland 2016 ). However, Burns et al. ( 2019 ), drawing from environmental policies, show that de-Europeanization can on the contrary be favoured by strong politicization, i.e. intense polarization of a topic among public opinion and political elites. Within the UK itself, Brexit has demonstrated the entrenched differences between the Leave and Remain camp. Though in the current context of polarized politics and tension in the EU/UK relationship, one may assume that continued engagement and re-engagement can be facilitated if de-politicized, remaining at the level of technical and operational cooperation. In foreign policy however the war in Ukraine and ensuing crisis could also leave the door open for a visibility of re-engagement and visible rapprochement around the concept of ‘European security’.

The double-edged nature of policy, polity and politics explains the need to think jointly about these three dimensions. This is necessary for instance to consider the impact of the decision-making structure on the post-Brexit path (polity) dependent on the degree of pre-existing Europeanization (policy). Similarly, the policy and politics facets interact: a very politicized policy field leaves less space to Europeanized technical actors to support the status quo while the latter can more easily implement their ideas if the decision-making process is taken out of the political sphere to be handled by technical actors. This is what the contributors to the special issue offer to capture.

Special issue structure

In this special issue, we argue that, in spite of political declarations, the road towards dismantling and de-Europeanizing is not straight forward and needs a nuanced analysis along the continuum proposed in the previous section. We argue that the consequences of exiting the EU depend on various factors contingent upon the pre-existing Europeanization process and mechanisms. We also support the idea that there will be a variety of trajectories in relation to the way the UK (dis)engages from the EU depending on whether we study policy, polity, or politics.

From a polity and politics point of view, we have seen that a series of political crises, beginning with the Eurozone crisis, and including Brexit and the pandemic, have called into question how democracy works in a multi-layered and transnational polity such as the EU. Debates about democracy , and popular vs. state sovereignty have significantly influenced research on Europeanization of polity/ies (Beetz 2019 ). And a debate has re-emerged about popular sovereignty , which is precisely where Alexandre-Collier’s main contribution lies. Studying how this willingness to re-engage with the people has been instrumentalized by British political elites, and more specifically the Conservative party, Alexandre-Collier shows that it has acted as a means to disengage from the EU. Using P. Mair’s concept of ‘populist democracy’ she provides a detailed comparison of the procedural disengagement undertaken by David Cameron to the substantial disengagement of Boris Johnson. This helps to identify to what extent the re-engagement with the polity away from Europe has nourished a substantive populism, which started well before Brexit. From a polity perspective, the withdrawal of the UK has a considerable impact on Northern Ireland (NI). In their article Colfer and Diamond show that Europeanization before Brexit had a strong impact polity-wise as it provided ‘a constructive context for societal normalisation’ and a ‘shared political space that helped transcend binary political, religious and ethnic differences’ in NI. The EU also played an important role in ‘promoting power-sharing and post-nationalist politics’. Colfer and Diamond show nonetheless that the way the Johnson government deals with NI is a case of de-Europeanization which could eventually lead to ‘disintegration’.

From a policy perspective, Jancic shows that the so-called ‘Brussels’ effect’ on regulatory standards is so high that it is likely that the UK Parliament’s legislative and regulatory choices remain deeply influenced by the EU. Indeed, in the past even the most Eurosceptic select committees across both Houses of Parliament have advocated for a close alignment with EU regulatory standards in export-intensive economic sectors such as automotive, pharmaceuticals, chemicals and financial services. In a way the choices made by the British policy-makers is a form of re-engagement with some arguments that in order to achieve Global Britain there ought to be a re-engagement with the regulatory requirements of the EU. According to Jancic, although there has been some disengagement in the political rhetoric, the practice of regulatory standards policy-making points to the inescapability of re-engaging with the normative gravity of the EU. In the case of cultural policy, the British Council on the other hand has voluntarily undertaken a process of re-engagement in EU-UK Relations. Fearing from its reputation to be damaged by Brexit, the institution has developed new narratives on its independence from the government and thus on the very limited impact the UK’s withdrawal from the EU will have on its own activities. Furthermore, the British Council has been capitalizing on Brexit to strengthen its soft power, its bilateral ties and initiate new partnerships with EU member States, as argued by Riotte. Cultural policy is therefore a key case study on how bottom-up Europeanization can still take place in a post-Brexit era.

Finally, Wolff, Piquet and Farrand-Carrapico analyse the impact of Brexit on the engagement of British policy-makers and law enforcement officials in the so-called area of ‘ Justice and Home Affairs ’. In contrast with migratory policies, continued engagement is observable in police cooperation matters. For instance, the EU acquis on Prüm has been downloaded and complies with EU norms so it could keep exchanging fingerprints and genetic data with its EU partners. Similarly, in cybersecurity where many soft law tools exist through dialogue or consultation, there are instances, including at bilateral and global levels, where the withdrawal from the EU seems to have a limited impact as the UK maintains an identical participation. Moreover, despite leaving key agencies and the UK is not automatically seeking to distance itself from the EU’s activities and approaches to the policy field of police and judicial cooperation. Wolff, Piquet and Farrand Carrapico show that the UK has managed to keep some access and participation to EU mechanisms such as the conclusion of an operational agreement with Europol, the setting up of a special EU-UK committee on these matters, and the adoption of an EU-UK surrender agreement. This re-engagement is nonetheless halted by Europeans who have proved reluctant to any close cooperation in the field of JHA in the absence of mutual trust in the rest of the Brexit negotiations.

Conclusions

Far from understanding Brexit as the end of a process and a critical juncture, the contribution of this special issue is to highlight the various post-Brexit pathways. Engaging with the literature on de-Europeanization and dismantlement we have shown that there are more options to full dismantlement and de-Europeanization. The future of trajectories, from a polity, public policy, and politics perspective, is one that can be thought through also around the concepts of disengagement, re-engagement, and continued engagement.

This special issue argues that the post-Brexit UK’s pathways of polity, politics, and policy will be multiple and varied. Preliminary findings across the various case studies in public policy, but also touching upon politics and polity, show that although the pre-existing degree of Europeanization may matter, prior existing alignment, historical legacies, and the role of the EU in the negotiations have all (and will continue to) influence different trajectories.

We also identify a gap between rhetoric and practice at several levels. For instance, while the discourse of regulatory policy-makers is that of disengagement, as well as for the settled status, there are in fact forms of re-engagement that have appeared in practice. This adds to the complexity and diversity of future trajectories post-Brexit.

Finally, we advocate for a conceptualization of Brexit as a process and not as a circumscribed event. This is because we contend that in the future, the direction of public policies may be affected by the future domestic politics of the UK. For instance, the pro-European marches in the streets of British cities could have a legacy in the long term, offering a different trajectory to those in British society who are still open to some European influence.

Aggestam, L., and F. Bicchi. 2019. New directions in EU foreign policy governance: Cross-loading, leadership and informal groupings. Journal of Common Market Studies 57 (3): 515–532.

Article   Google Scholar  

Àgh, A. 2015. De-Europeanization and De-democratization trends in ECE: From the Potemkin democracy to the elected autocracy in Hungary. Journal of Comparative Politics 8 (2): 4–26.

Google Scholar  

Aydın-Düzgit, S., and A. Kaliber. 2016. Encounters with Europe in an era of domestic and international turmoil: Is Turkey a de-Europeanising candidate country? South European Society and Politics 21 (1): 1–14.

Beetz, J.P. 2019. Safeguarding, shifting, splitting or sharing? Conflicting conceptions of popular sovereignty in the EU polity. Journal of European Integration 41 (7): 937–953.

Börzel, T. 2002. Member state responses to Europeanization. Journal of Common Market Studies 40 (2): 193–214.

Brattberg, E. 2020. The E3, the EU, and the Post-Brexit diplomatic landscape. Carnegie Endowment for Peace, https://carnegieendowment.org/files/Brattberg_E3.pdf . Accessed 4 Mar 2022.

Burns, C., V. Gravey, A. Jordan, and A. Zito. 2019. De-Europeanising or disengaging? EU environmental policy and Brexit. Environmental Politics 28 (2): 271–292.

Castaldo, A., and A. Pinna. 2018. De-Europeanization in the Balkans. Media freedom in post-Milošević Serbia. European Politics and Society 19 (3): 264–281.

Copeland, P. 2016. Europeanization and de-Europeanization in UK employment policy: Changing governments and shifting agendas. Public Administration 94 (4): 1124–1139.

De Wilde, P., A. Leupold, and H. Schmidtke. 2016. Introduction: The differentiated politicisation of European Governance. West European Politics 39 (1): 3–22.

Eckes, Ch., and P. Leino-Sandberg. 2022. The EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement: Exceptional circumstances or a new paradigm for EU external relations? Modern Law Review 85 (1): 164–197.

El-Enany, N. 2017. The perils of differentiated integration in the field of asylum. In Between flexibility and disintegration: The trajectory of differentiation in EU Law , ed. B. De Witte, A. Ott, and J. Monnet, 362–383. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Ertugal, E. 2021. Hidden phases of de-Europeanization: Insights from historical institutionalism. Journal of European Integration 43 (7): 841–857.

European Union. 2020. Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union And the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the Other Part. OJ L 444, 31.12.2020

Fetzer, T. 2019. Did austerity cause Brexit? American Economic Review 109 (11): 3849–3886.

Ford, R., and M. Goodwin. 2017. Britain after Brexit: A nation divided. Journal of Democracy 28 (1): 17–30.

Gravey, V. 2016. Does the European Union have a reverse gear? Environmental policy dismantling, 1992-2014, doctoral dissertation, University of East Anglia, UK.

Jordan, A., M. W. Bauer and C. Green-Pedersen. 2013. Policy dismantling. Journal of European Public Policy 20 (5): 795–805.

Ladrech, R. 1994. The Europeanization of domestic politics and institutions: The case of France. Journal of Common Market Studies 32 (1): 69–88.

Leontitsis, V., and S. Ladi. 2018. The changing nature of European governance and the dynamics of Europeanization. In The Palgrave handbook of public administration and management in Europe , ed. E. Ongaro and S. Van Thiel, 765–781. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Leruth, B., S. Gänzle and J. Trondal. 2019. Exploring differentiated disintegration in a Post-Brexit European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies 57 (5): 1013–1030.

Martill, B. 2021. Deal or no deal: Theresa May’s Withdrawal Agreement and the politics of (non-)ratification. Journal of Common Market Studies 59 (6): 1607–1622.

McConnell, A., and S. Tormey. 2020. Explanations for the Brexit policy fiasco: Near-impossible challenge, leadership failure or Westminster pathology. Journal of European Public Policy 27 (5): 685–702.

Menon, A., and J.P. Salter. 2016. Brexit: Initial reflections. International Affairs 92 (6): 1297–1318.

Murphy, M., and J. O’Brennan. 2019. Ireland and crisis governance: Continuity and change in the shadow of the financial crisis and Brexit. Irish Political Studies 34 (4): 471–489.

Norris, P., and R. Inglehart. 2019. Cultural backlash: Trump, Brexit, and authoritarian populism . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Öniş, Z., and M. Kutlay. 2019. Global shifts and the limits of the EU’s transformative power in the European periphery: Comparative perspectives from Hungary and Turkey. Government and Opposition 54 (2): 226–253.

Parkes, R. 2011. G6 and satellite cooperation: Using the European loop? In The Europeanization of control. Venues and outcomes of EU justice and home affairs cooperation , ed. P. Bendel, A. Ette, and R. Parkes, 177–210. Münster: LIT Verlag.

Raagmaa, G., T. Kalvet, and R. Kasesalu. 2014. Europeanization and De-Europeanization of Estonian regional policy. European Planning Studies 22 (4): 775–795.

Radaelli, C. 2001. The domestic impact of European public policy: Notes on concepts, methods and the challenge of empirical research. Politique Européenne 5: 107–142.

Radaelli, C., ed. 2003. The politics of Europeanization . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Radaelli, C., and J.P. Salter. 2019. Europeanization in reverse gear? In Differentiated integration and disintegration in a Post-Brexit Era , ed. S. Gänzle, B. Leruth, and J. Trondal, 36–53. London: Routledge.

Risse, T., M. Green Cowles, and J. Caporaso, eds. 2001. Transforming Europe. Europeanization and domestic change . Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Steinebach, Y., and Ch. Knill. 2017. Still an entrepreneur? The changing role of the European Commission in EU environmental policy-making. Jounal of European Public Policy 24 (3): 429–446.

Szymański, A. 2017. De-Europeanization and de-democratization in the EU and its neighborhood. Yearbook of the Institute of East-Central Europe 15 (2): 187–211.

Tomini, L., and S. Gürkan. 2021. Contesting the EU, contesting democracy and rule of law in Europe. Conceptual suggestions for future research. In Illiberal trends and Anti-EU politics in East Central Europe , ed. A. Lorenz and L.H. Anders, 285–300. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

Tsebelis, G. 2002. Veto Players. How political institutions work . New York: Princeton University, Russell Sage Foundation.

Usherwood, S. 2021. ‘Our friends and partners’? Negotiating the Trade and Cooperation Agreement. Journal of Common Market Studies 59: 115–123.

Wessels, W., and D. Rometsch, eds. 1993. The European Union and member states: Towards institutional fusion? Manchester: Manchester University Press.

White, H. 2022. Government should not use its “Brexit Freedoms” Bill to further sideline parliament. Institute for Government blog, 1 February, https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/brexit-freedoms-bill-parliament . Accessed 4 Mar 2022

Wolff, S., and G. Mounier. 2012. A kaleidoscopic view on the external dimension of justice and home affairs after Lisbon. European Foreign Affairs Review 17 (5): 143–162.

Yilmaz, G. 2015. From Europeanization to de-Europeanization: The Europeanization process of Turkey in 1999–2014. Journal of Contemporary European Studies 24 (1): 86–100.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency [611601-EPP-1-2019-1-UK-EPPJMO-CoE]. More specifically, this paper is a result of the NEXTEUK Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence project on the Future of EU-UK relations and was presented at the UACES Conference of September 2021. Disclaimer: ‘ The European Commission’s support for the production of this publication does not constitute an endorsements of the contents which only reflect the views of the authors and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use of the information contained therein’ . We would like to thank our discussants during workshops and conferences, in particular Theofanis Exadaktylos and all the peer-reviewers of this special issue.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Queen Mary University of London, London, UK

Sarah Wolff & Agathe Piquet

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Wolff .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Wolff, S., Piquet, A. Post-Brexit Europeanization: re-thinking the continuum of British policies, polity, and politics trajectories. Comp Eur Polit 20 , 513–526 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41295-022-00293-6

Download citation

Accepted : 22 March 2022

Published : 25 April 2022

Issue Date : October 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41295-022-00293-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Post-Brexit public policy
• (De-)Europeanisation
• Disengagement
• Re-engagement
• Politicization
• EU-UK relationship
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Evaluating the Brexit and COVID-19’s influence on the UK economy: A data analysis

Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Cardiff School of Technologies, Cardiff Metropolitan University, Cardiff, United Kingdom

Roles Data curation, Methodology, Writing – original draft

Affiliation Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Asian University of Bangladesh, Ashulia, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Roles Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Power Integration System, Faculty of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, Parit Raja, Johor, Malaysia

Roles Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, The Institute for Global Innovation, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom

* E-mail: [email protected]

• Raghav Gupta, 
• Md. Mahadi Hasan, 
• Syed Zahurul Islam, 
• Tahmina Yasmin, 
• Jasim Uddin

• Published: June 15, 2023
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287342
• Peer Review
• Reader Comments

The economic landscape of the United Kingdom has been significantly shaped by the intertwined issues of Brexit, COVID-19, and their interconnected impacts. Despite the country’s robust and diverse economy, the disruptions caused by Brexit and the COVID-19 pandemic have created uncertainty and upheaval for both businesses and individuals. Recognizing the magnitude of these challenges, academic literature has directed its attention toward conducting immediate research in this crucial area. This study sets out to investigate key economic factors that have influenced various sectors of the UK economy and have broader economic implications within the context of Brexit and COVID-19. The factors under scrutiny include the unemployment rate, GDP index, earnings, and trade. To accomplish this, a range of data analysis tools and techniques were employed, including the Box-Jenkins method, neural network modeling, Google Trend analysis, and Twitter-sentiment analysis. The analysis encompassed different periods: pre-Brexit (2011-2016), Brexit (2016-2020), the COVID-19 period, and post-Brexit (2020-2021). The findings of the analysis offer intriguing insights spanning the past decade. For instance, the unemployment rate displayed a downward trend until 2020 but experienced a spike in 2021, persisting for a six-month period. Meanwhile, total earnings per week exhibited a gradual increase over time, and the GDP index demonstrated an upward trajectory until 2020 but declined during the COVID-19 period. Notably, trade experienced the most significant decline following both Brexit and the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, the impact of these events exhibited variations across the UK’s four regions and twelve industries. Wales and Northern Ireland emerged as the regions most affected by Brexit and COVID-19, with industries such as accommodation, construction, and wholesale trade particularly impacted in terms of earnings and employment levels. Conversely, industries such as finance, science, and health demonstrated an increased contribution to the UK’s total GDP in the post-Brexit period, indicating some positive outcomes. It is worth highlighting that the impact of these economic factors was more pronounced on men than on women. Among all the variables analyzed, trade suffered the most severe consequences in the UK. By early 2021, the macroeconomic situation in the country was characterized by a simple dynamic: economic demand rebounded at a faster pace than supply, leading to shortages, bottlenecks, and inflation. The findings of this research carry significant value for the UK government and businesses, empowering them to adapt and innovate based on forecasts to navigate the challenges posed by Brexit and COVID-19. By doing so, they can promote long-term economic growth and effectively address the disruptions caused by these interrelated issues.

Citation: Gupta R, Hasan MM, Islam SZ, Yasmin T, Uddin J (2023) Evaluating the Brexit and COVID-19’s influence on the UK economy: A data analysis. PLoS ONE 18(6): e0287342. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287342

Editor: Umer Shahzad, University of Galway, Ireland / Anhui University of Finance and Economics, CHINA

Received: January 3, 2023; Accepted: June 4, 2023; Published: June 15, 2023

Copyright: © 2023 Gupta et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding: NO.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

1 Introduction

Over the past decade, the United Kingdom (UK) has undergone significant transformations that have shaped its political and economic landscape. Two major events stand out during this period: the decision to pursue Brexit and the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic. Brexit, which concluded on January 31, 2020, marked the end of the UK’s longstanding 47-year alliance with the European Union [ 1 ]. Concurrently, the UK was confronted with the first cases of COVID-19 within its borders, and by March 2020, the pandemic had swept across the globe, causing widespread fear and discontent. In response to the COVID-19 outbreak, the UK, like many other affected countries, implemented stringent measures, including social and economic restrictions such as lockdowns. While these measures aimed to curb the spread of the virus, they came at a significant cost to both society and the economy [ 2 ]. The convergence of Brexit and COVID-19 has raised concerns among experts, who predict substantial economic consequences for the UK, especially during the post-Brexit transitional phase and negotiations with the EU. The combined impact of Brexit and the COVID-19 pandemic is expected to reverberate across various regions and industries within the UK [ 3 ]. Therefore, it is crucial for the British people to have access to accurate information about the economic ramifications of these events. The prevailing uncertainty has created unease among investors, resulting in a decline in consumer confidence. Additionally, the British currency, the pound, is anticipated to face significant depreciation in the near future, further exacerbating the existing economic challenges.

In terms of long-run effects, ‘Brexiteers’ argue that leaving the EU will benefit Britain, while ‘Remain’ advocates warn of significant economic harm [ 4 ]. This is due to the fact that, by leaving the EU, the UK would, on the one hand, have completed decision-making over its future laws and policies, as well as the ability to make its own decisions, so opening up countless growth opportunities. However, when firms experience challenges dealing with the EU, such as border delays and high administrative costs which may result in more unemployment/relocation of personnel, a drop in trade/investment, and, as a result, lower profitability. This will lead to an increase in costs and prices, while competitiveness falls [ 5 ]. Further, COVID-19 seems to have the possibility to have far-reaching economic and structural consequences for the United Kingdom economy and its workforce. Recently, the indirect costs of lessening and suppressing the pandemic have risen, and with the beginning of COVID-19, existing trends have accelerated [ 6 ], for example, the shift towards online shopping to a great extent and the emergence of more employees who work from home [ 7 , 8 ]. Moreover, because of national-lockdowns and travel restrictions imposed by COVID-19; the UK’s domestic and international commerce has been negatively affected, which has further impacted numerous firms and organisations.

As a result, both Brexit and COVID-19 possibly cause a long-term re-organisation of the UK economy, with continuing ramifications, which might be felt in upcoming years. Due to these discrepancies in forecasts, a detailed examination is required to establish the absolute economic consequence of these events on the UK. Several economists have already investigated the economic impact of Brexit and the COVID-19 outbreak in the UK. The analysis demonstrates that the consequences currently have been negative since the UK’s overall growth, share prices, trade, and exchange rates have mostly deteriorated. Regional disparity is predicted to be exacerbated by the impacts of COVID-19 and Brexit on the economy. The most vulnerable places are London, the Northeast, Wales, the Southeast, and the West Midlands, as these coastal communities depend on tourism and cities are reliant on hospitality for income [ 9 ]. In addition, researchers have used sentiment and trend analysis to examine public reaction in the UK and other impacted nations [ 10 ]. The results suggest that the majority of the public is concerned about the economic consequences of both Brexit and COVID-19 in the UK. According to the existing studies, the higher government authorities should endeavour to help businesses adapt to new trading agreements and keep border costs as low as feasible. However, the impact of these events on the UK has yet to be documented. COVID-19’s economic impact is unlikely to be felt in the same areas and industries that are most vulnerable to Brexit. As a result, this research builds on previous research by evaluating the disparities in the consequences of recent events among UK regions and industries, as well as the evolution of the UK economy over the last decade (2011–2021).

This study aims to explore the changes in the UK economy in three key areas: growth, the people, and trade, as a result of the occurrences of COVID-19 and Brexit. To assess the impact of these events, various data analysis tools and techniques, including the Box-Jenkins method, neural-network modeling, Google Trend analysis, and Twitter-sentiment analysis, were employed. These methods were used to predict and forecast economic factors such as unemployment, gross domestic product (GDP), earnings, and trade in the UK.

The primary objective of this study is to compare the economic levels of the UK before and after the financial crisis. Additionally, the study analyzes and visualizes economic data by region and industry in the UK to identify differences in the impacts throughout the country. Data analytic models were developed and assessed using Python to gain insights into these variations. Furthermore, this study attempts to predict the future consequences of economic factors such as unemployment, GDP, earnings, and trade. Through social media sentiment analysis and trend analysis, the study also investigates the reactions of the British public to these situations.

This study provides valuable information on how the UK economy has changed and how individuals have responded in the context of Brexit and COVID-19. The research emphasizes the need to consider specific economic factors to control for multicollinearity and endogenous variables. Multicollinearity occurs when independent variables are highly correlated in a multiple regression equation, which can undermine the statistical significance of an independent variable. Therefore, the study focuses on economic indicators that are less influenced by external causes to ensure robust analysis. While other factors could have been included, the study chose to examine key economic indicators that are not significantly affected by external factors. However, future research could explore additional factors to generate a more comprehensive analysis.

Brexit has had a substantial impact on the UK’s trade with the EU, which was previously the country’s largest trading partner. Exiting the EU required the UK to renegotiate its trade agreements with the bloc, resulting in increased tariffs and trade barriers. As a consequence, trade volume between the UK and the EU has declined, with certain industries, such as the automotive sector, being particularly affected. Moreover, Brexit has influenced investment in the UK, leading to many companies relocating their operations to other EU countries. This has resulted in job losses and reduced economic growth within the country. However, the changing relationship with the EU has also presented opportunities for investment in sectors like technology and finance. The impact of Brexit on employment in the UK has been mixed, with some industries, like finance, experiencing job losses while others, like agriculture, have witnessed increased employment opportunities. The UK’s ability to attract foreign workers has also been affected, contributing to skills shortages in specific sectors. Overall, Brexit has had a significant negative impact on the UK’s economy, with certain sectors being hit harder than others. While there have been opportunities for growth in select industries, the overall effect of Brexit on the UK’s economy has been detrimental, resulting in reduced trade, investment, and economic growth.

The following paper is structured as follows: In section 2 highlighted the existing literature and the consequence of Brexit and COVID-19 in the UK economy. In section 3 displayed the different data analysis, models and various methods are described in theoretically for a better understanding of the data. In section 4 presents the detailed parameters of various results section that shows the data visualisation. In conclusion, there will be a brief discussion of how these findings may affect the outcome and further point to the limitations and future work.

2 Background study

The UK’s European Union (EU) membership was decided through a June 23, 2016, referendum, with 51.9% voting to leave out of 33,551,983 total votes. This outcome has caused uncertainty in the tourism sector, impacting consumers, industry players, and policymakers [ 11 ]. In the de-internationalization perspective [ 12 ], it was often perceived as a failure, discouraging firms from limiting or discontinuing exports to foreign markets. Definitions of de-internationalization were mostly limited, but some comprehensive ones acknowledge its partial or complete nature. However, they often associate it with voluntariness rather than a strategic response to changes in the global business environment. The lack of transparency in formal policies and their impact creates a growing risk for international business [ 13 ]. This risk manifests not only through partial de-internationalization, such as decoupling, but also through complete withdrawal and exit from the international market. Compliance with minimal regulatory requirements poses a significant threat, leading firms to strategically opt for de-internationalization as a means to limit their involvement in international operations.

Together, with the rising importance of research in the economic repercussions of COVID-19 as a global concern and Brexit, the experimental investigations of the economic factors (unemployment, GDP, earnings and trade) of these incidents are limited. Campos et al. [ 14 ] examine the effect on migration and trade between the UK and the EU due to Brexit and utilised a structural gravity model. Further undertaking a quantitative analysis, the authors shows that there have been severe repercussions for the UK’s trade and migratory patterns. Kaminska et al. [ 15 ] signifies published documents on the consequences of Brexit, such as the House of Commons Treasury Committee (2018), HM Treasury (2016) (Crafts, 2016) and the Bank of England (2018). Despite each of these published papers adopting different scenarios and techniques in analysing the consequences, their findings were common and indicate undesirable effects on the UK economy. The IMF (2018) estimated that production will fall by 2%—8% as a result of Brexit. Their analysis includes a simple calculable general equilibrium model and a number of assumptions about the relative sizes of various Brexit transmission channels (International Monetary Fund, 2018). In another study, a cross-section of pre- and post-Brexit surveys were conducted to look at the industrial development (IDV) nexus in the UK economy [ 16 ]. The purpose of this research was to look at the primary drivers of industrial development in the UK before and after the implementation of a financial reform plan. Researchers employed multiple regression analysis to anticipate changes in the dependent variable (IDV) induced by independent factors (Brexit). Later, shocks were described, quantified, and explained using the impulse response function (IRF), vector auto-regression (VAR), and variance decomposition. The data demonstrated that all independent factors, trade openness, equity openness, and capital account openness were significant predictors of commercial growth in pre-Brexit polls. However, regression analysis shows that only equity openness (EO) and trade openness (TO) had a significant influence on Post-Brexit Polling Industrial Development (IDV) at the 5% level of significance. As a result, following Brexit, the authors recommended that the UK should rethink important financial policies in order to boost future industrial growth [ 16 ].

The interdependence of economic and public health has become evident during the pandemic [ 17 ]. It highlighted that a nation’s economic well-being relies on the health of its citizens, while also emphasizing the global significance of people’s well-being. The imposition of lockdown measures worldwide demonstrated the need to pause economies to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Although economic health metrics like consumer price index (CPI), gross domestic product (GDP), and unemployment rate are well-established, public health measures can be enhanced by considering contemporary indicators such as emotional well-being and mental health. These measures can have significant implications for human capital and productivity in the economy, especially during times of crisis like the pandemic.

Unlike past crises such as aviation tragedies, natural disasters, and supranational union exits [ 18 ], the COVID-19 pandemic has had an exceptional impact on the tourism and gambling sectors. Unprecedentedly, widespread lockdowns were implemented in cities and countries, an unprecedented measure. While these actions are vital for saving lives and demand global cooperation to contain infectious outbreaks like COVID-19, they also pose a substantial employment risk, particularly in tourism-dependent cities where it constitutes a primary source of income.

Researchers have examined the impact of Brexit using a variety of data analytic approaches. In order to analyse the Sterling Pound’s predictability, [ 19 ], used Google Trends data from the last five years to do a prediction analysis on the Pound’s exchange rates to Euro and Dollar. The goal of the study is to determine if the pound and Google query data are connected by examining the relationship between the pound and Google query data on ‘Pound’ keywords and subjects from the 2016 UK referendum through January 31st, 2020. The findings reveal that there are statistically significant quantile correlations between Google query data and pound exchange rates, pointing to one of the field’s most important implications: detecting whether changes in one economic measure elicit reactions in other economic measures.

Simionescu et al. [ 20 ] also look at how Brexit has affected the monthly unemployment rate since the referendum. This is one of the most important indicators of the country’s long-term development. This study stands out because it uses microdata to illustrate the political uncertainty caused by Brexit, with Google Trends serving as the data-collecting tool. Statistics for the four countries that make up the United Kingdom (Wales, Northern Ireland, England, and Scotland) are also analysed using a multilayer and panel data structure. Despite the paucity of data to back this assertion, the findings are consistent with an analysis of important macroeconomic indicators, demonstrating that uncertainty caused by Brexit lowered unemployment from June 2016 to March 2019. The study suggests that government policies should stimulate investment in order to aid the UK’s future financial expansion and growth. On the other hand, Keogh-Brown et al., [ 7 ] assess COVID-19’s economic impact in the UK by considering direct illness consequences, public health interventions, and policies. COVID-19, according to their findings, may have a £39.6 billion economic impact on the UK (1.73 percent of GDP). The data reveal that COVID-19 has the potential to wreak havoc on the UK economy, and while the government attempts to reduce mortality appear to be vital; the length of the school and corporate closures is crucial in deciding the economic impact. Finally, the study suggests that the UK government’s first economic assistance measures may need to be enhanced if the pandemic is to be adequately handled without triggering the collapse of many enterprises and the loss of many workers’ jobs. Furthermore, researchers wanted to know how people felt about the COVID-19 vaccination before it was released in the United States and the United Kingdom.

The COVID-19 pandemic led to a global quarantine in 2020, affecting economies worldwide, including Malaysia [ 21 ]. The quarantine measures aimed at controlling the public health crisis had mixed effects on economies. The agricultural sector faced significant challenges due to movement restrictions, resulting in disruptions in the farm-to-consumer supply chain. Travel limitations had a notable impact on food delivery and all stages of agricultural production. Although panic buying has diminished and logistical issues for fresh produce are being addressed, there are concerns about the country’s ability to maintain food self-sufficiency during future emergencies and potential trade disruptions.

Externalities are external events or shocks that can influence the internal operations of organizations and industries [ 22 ]. The global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic exemplifies such an externality, affecting a wide range of organizations and industries worldwide. Externalities often drive research and strategic discussions among academics, professionals, and policymakers. However, it is important to recognize the limitations of descriptive and association-oriented research in accurately predicting and prescribing causal effects, as they may lack essential factors like boundary conditions. Drawing causal conclusions from non-causal research designs is inappropriate.

According to another study by Leppeman et al. [ 10 ], between July 28 and August 28, 2020, COVID-19 vaccine-related social media posts from the US and the UK were analysed using neural linguistic programming with human validation. The sentiment analysis investigated the polarity of the comments (positive, neutral, and negative) as well as the themes that appeared in the negative ones. The US and the UK had a net sentiment profile of around 8% negative, 28% positive, and 63% neutral in 243,883 social media posts. Further data revealed that sentiments about COVID-19 vaccinations on social media in the two countries varied significantly.

There were detected variations in negative emotion themes. Negative sentiments in the US stemmed mostly from health and safety concerns, the fear of obligatory vaccination, and the role of pharmaceutical firms in vaccine distribution. In the UK, the major cause of criticism was the concern about mandating vaccination (almost doubling the amount of vaccine). In the third quarter of 2020, the UK exhibited widespread opposition to COVID-19 vaccinations. According to the authors, authorities in both nations may use the reasons for unpleasant emotions to develop evidence-based initiatives to counteract COVID-19 vaccine rejection. Knipe et al. [ 23 ] also utilised Google Trends data (from January 1, 2020, to June 9, 2020) to examine the shifting resident anxiety trend in the UK in response to the government operations, as measured by fluctuations in the search frequency for mental agony, coping, and resilience. During the outbreak, it analysed how particular themes changed in connection to significant dates, as well as the most popular phrases. COVID-19 was no longer related, either directly or indirectly, to the inquiries with the most significant rise over time.

The global COVID-19 pandemic has not only caused a public health crisis resulting in loss of life and widespread suffering but has also severely strained economies worldwide [ 24 ]. Lockdown measures were implemented across the globe, including in Malaysia, leading to a temporary halt in economic activities and subsequent reorganization. This unprecedented phenomenon is conceptualized in this chapter as the “quarantine economy.” Although the initial pause was brief, governments gradually reopened their economies while implementing new social practices such as remote work, physical distancing, and visitor records. These measures facilitated the adaptation of economic activities to the ongoing pandemic situation, resulting in a reconfiguration of how businesses operate.

In regard to the Business to Business (B2B) marketing [ 25 ], it has increased focus on marketing issues and their implications in the increasingly turbulent B2B market. It sheds light on B2B marketing strategies that are relevant during major crises, employing the marketing mix as an organizing framework and utilizing the COVID-19 pandemic as a natural context for transformative marketing.

Specifically in the transformative marketing emphasizes “competition” and “superior value,” which may contradict the goal of delivering “benefits to all stakeholders” due to potential casualties (e.g., dropouts from competition) or costs (e.g., hidden sacrifices or tradeoffs) associated with such focus. However, the lessons learned from collective efforts in combating the challenges of COVID-19 suggest that “collaboration” and “shared prosperity” are crucial for leveraging limited resources and providing agile and valuable responses. These lessons ensure that no one is left behind during times of adversity.

The digital economy and advancements in technology have made global business an ever-present force [ 26 ]. Firms now have the ability to automate processes, target customers, and access larger global markets. The COVID-19 pandemic has further emphasized the importance of global business, enabling firms not only to survive but also to thrive, contributing to the overall functioning of the economy and society.

What distinguishes the current period from past global crises is the remarkable speed at which firms have shifted from survival mode to pursuing growth and success. Industries like cleaning, delivery, and technology services have showcased exceptional adaptability. The unprecedented changes brought about by the pandemic have created a new normal, demanding the exploration of new ideas and a reassessment of existing ones. This is vital for forging a transformative path forward and attaining organizational excellence in the realm of global business.

In the latest study, Sharma et al. [ 27 ] addressed both the public’s concerns and the expanding search trend as the number of COVID-19 cases increases in important nations. Statistics from eight major nations (Spain, China, the US, Italy, the UK, India, Iran, and France) were collected for their analysis. In these eight countries, the Google search Trend for “COVID-19” was analysed. The expanding Google Trend reflected the public’s sadness, anguish, and fear in response to the epidemic. From March 10th to April 10th, 2020, the trend has grown significantly. Throughout the observation period, the Google interest wave in the examined nations demonstrated a sequence of high values. The average interest amount for Google has been determined for two additional periods: (01 January to 29 February) and (01st March to 10th April). This indicates that public response has increased over time. According to the study, Google Trends may be utilised to discover which regions of the country are least and most affected. Numerous additional researchers, like Chandio and Sah [ 28 ] and del Gobbo et al. [ 29 ], have utilised Twitter sentiment analysis, whilst Garcia and Berton [ 30 ] and Georgiadou et al. [ 31 ] integrated big data analysis with sentiment analysis and event study to capture the global effect of Brexit and COVID-19.

The study has been classified into three essential areas: development, exchange, and individual (person) of the United Kingdom. It examines how the combined catastrophes affected the UK economy and how individuals responded by utilising industry and region-specific data. Numerous data analysis methods and methodologies, such as neural networks and Google Trend Analysis have been utilized for investigating the future economic variables of the United Kingdom in order to measure the effects of both Brexit and COVID.

This research obtained data extraction procedure and the methodology utilised for the analysis and to investigate the economic trajectory and public reaction in the United Kingdom before and after Brexit and COVID-19. For the study of Brexit and COVID-19, the study has collected the required information (data) for the past decade from 2011 until 2021. This study investigates the differences between Pre-Brexit, Brexit, Post-Brexit, and COVID-19. The required data has been collected from reputable web sources the Office for National Statistics (ONS), Google Trends, and Twitter. ONS is the UK Government website that provides open and transparent access to UK economic statistics. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) is dedicated to being open and transparent about the data they hold. It also shows where that data has come from and gives the main uses of that data. Various data visualisation and data analysis technologies are utilized to examine the obtained data that helps to investigate the impact of Brexit and COVID-19 among the industry sector, and its people of the United Kingdom. In addition, to validate the dataset and forecast the effects of the UK economic conditions on unemployment, GDP, earnings, and trade. The extracting data has been analysed and measured using statistical numerical software. For data forecasting validation and predictive analysis, a neural network model has been proposed using Python.

Explicit Statement : In light of the economic trend and public reaction across the United Kingdom, this study is classified into three key stages: 1) before; 2) during; and 3) after Brexit and COVID-19, throughout the years between 2011–2021. The extracted data (ONS, Google Trends, and Twitter) was then analysed using relevant statistical software tools to facilitate data conversion and measurement comparisons. Python has been employed to construct a neural network model to perform data validation, and the Box-Jenkins method was implemented for forecasting and predictive analysis. In addition, this study also evaluated Twitter sentiment using the Twitter API and the Text-Blob method in Python. The relevant studies were identified from entirely open sources that fully complied with the terms and conditions.

3.1 Data analysis

The information on the UK’s economic variables originates from the National Statistics sources (Office of National Statistics, 2020), which allows a comprehensive investigation of projected changes across different economic outcomes, regions, and businesses in the UK as a result of Brexit and COVID-19. The data obtained from ONS is a time series of quarterly data (42 quarters) over the past ten years (2011–2021) and encompasses among each the instances under analysis, Brexit and COVID-19. This study investigates three different time periods between 2011 and 2021 for comparing the UK economy prior to, during and following the situations such as “Pre-Brexit” [Q1 (January to March) 2011 to Q2 (April to June) 2016]; “Brexit” [Q3 (July to September) 2016 to Q4 (October to December) 2019] and, Post-Brexit & COVID-19 [Q1(January-March)—Q2 (April-Jun), 2021]. The data has been gathered based on the four most important economic factors: “Unemployment,” “Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index,” “Earnings,” and “Trade.” In addition, the data collection was categorized into four regions namely—England, Scotland, Wales, and North Ireland and the twelve industries including Agriculture, manufacturing, Construction, Wholesale, Transport, Accommodation, Financial, Science, Public Admin, Education, Health, and Others. In addition, to represent the impact of the British populace, gender-specific economic data is produced (men and women).

The unemployment rate varies between 3.8% to 8.4%, with an average of 5.65%, as shown in Table 1 . Additionally, the GDP has varied from 73.3% while 102.5%, average weekly earnings are £595.05, and average net trade stands at 10140.88 million pounds. The table also shows the Pre-Brexit conditions were the most adverse on average, with the largest unemployment rate, the lowest GDP growth rate, and the lowest incomes. On the other hand, during the Brexit transition phase, the economy improved, but net trade was severely impacted. In the post-Brexit and COVID-19 period, the economy initially endured severe economic catastrophe, but subsequently started to recover when GDP and profits began to climb. This demonstrates that the UK has experienced a transition over the last decade This study begins with a graphical depiction of the quantitative data using line and bar graphs for each economic consequence utilising various Microsoft Excel and Python tools.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287342.t001

3.1.1 Neural network model.

In this section, a neural network regression model has been developed. It has been used in different disciplines and the regression analysis applied to the extent of the relationship between a dependent variable and a set of independent variables [ 32 ].

The neural network (NN) is a substantial deep learning technique as it can be trained to estimate the parameters and incorporate the behaviour provided by the samples. The NN model consists of an activation functional as well as a network structure with an input layer, several hidden layers, and an output layer. Based on the significance of each neuron input, the functions determine whether or not each neuron should be triggered for predictions. The output of a neuron is the product of the input value times the weight, which is then sent to the next layer [ 33 ]. Deep learning neural network models utilize nonlinear activation functions, which are crucial for learning and modeling complicated data [ 34 ]. Deep learning neural networks may reuse characteristics gained in one hidden layer in subsequent hidden layers; hence, NN modeling was utilised for this investigation. This enables a deep neural network to measure performance and imitate a range of natural tasks with a limited number of weights and units [ 35 ]. This method facilitates the generation of improved regression results. Python is used to create the NN model using the UK economic dataset collected earlier.

3.2 Box-Jenkins method

This study examines the Box-Jenkins method, the fundamental and most widespread technique for time series analysis [ 36 , 37 ]. These univariate models aim to better interpret and predict future observations for a single time-dependent variable. Box Jenkins has been recognized as an attractive choice for data sets that are mostly consistent and have moderate volatility. The fundamental assumption of these models appears the data remain stable. The strategy for detecting outcomes relies on data point variations. Researchers must account for hysteresis and reduce any turbulence and periodicity as feasible from older data sets. This approach enables the model to identify patterns utilising three fundamentals such as autoregression, differencing, and moving average [ 38 ].

This study has estimated the Box-Jenkins model using Python. It has been used in three consequence steps, a Box-Jenkins time series model is developed. In this stage, the data and other relevant information are utilised to choose a sub-section of the model that would eventually summarise the data. The software generates the Autocorrelation Function (ACF) graph, which displays the association between lag values and an observation. In addition, a partial autocorrelation function (PACF) graph depicting correlations for observation with lag values utilising the earlier lagged data are created. There are various approaches have been used to examine the stationarity features of time series data [ 39 ].

The null hypothesis of the test is that the time series is nonstationary due to the presence of a unit root. The test’s p-value is utilized to evaluate the test result [ 40 ]. If the p-value is less than the threshold (5% or 1%), the null hypothesis is rejected and the time series is stationary. If the p-value is greater than the threshold, the null hypothesis is not rejected, and the time series has been deemed non-stationary. Kwiatkowski-Phillips Schmidt-Shin (KPSS) is a sort of Unit root test or statistical technique used to determine if a series is stationary around a deterministic trend [ 41 ]. To reject the null hypothesis, the test statistic must exceed the basic values provided. The p-value should be low if the desired critical value is genuinely exceeded. The KPSS statistic will exceed the critical threshold of 5 percent if the p-value is less than 0.05. The number of lags shown is the number of lags utilized by the model equation of the KPSS test. Typically, one must define the requisite p, d, and q variables in a basic auto regressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) model. To decrease non-stationarity, it is generated the values using statistical methods by conducting a difference. In Auto ARIMA, the model will determine the ideal p, d, and q parameters for the data set to provide more accurate forecasts. The last stage of the model evaluates the fitted model considering the available data and looks for regions where it may be improved. Two diagnostic factors to consider are overfitting and residual errors. Initially, assessed if the model is overfitting the data. This often indicates that the model appears more complex than it is and that output from the training set has been captured. This is a concern in time series forecasting because it restricts the model’s capacity to generalize, resulting in poor out-of-sample prediction and forecast performance. Both in-sample and out-of-sample performance must be considered, necessitating the development of a comprehensive model evaluation test harness. The residual forecasts are a valuable diagnostic tool and the predicted residual time series would lack temporal structure in an ideal model. Furthermore, in an ideal model, the anticipated residual time series would have no temporal structure. There is a serial correlation in the residual errors, indicating that this information may be included in the model.

Following the study of economic data analysis, this study has undertaken a sentiment and trend analysis of social media to obtain a better understanding of how the British public reacted to the consequences of Brexit and COVID-19. According to previous studies, several approaches and procedures, such as Google Trend and Twitter sentiment analysis, are utilised to determine how individuals reacted to the Brexit and COVID-19 events.

4.1 Unemployment rate

This study describes the process here on the key findings of the various analysis conducted to determine the impact of Brexit and COVID-19 on the UK. Initially, the four economic parameters Unemployment, Earnings, GDP, and Trade are examined in relation to the events based on the timeframe from 2011 to 2021 in a particular region, industry, and gender areas. The neural network regression model is evaluated. The Box-Jenkins Method is utilised to analyse the time series data and then anticipate the subsequent years. All the data analysis, exploratory, visualisation were extracted from ons.gov.uk. Finally, social media analysis is used to assess the public’s reaction.

The graph in Fig 1 depicts the overall unemployment rate (%) in the UK from 2011 Q1 to 2021 (ONS, 2021). The pattern of the line graphs indicates that the unemployment rate was greater at the beginning of the decade before it began to decline in 2014. (Pre Brexit). The rates decreased steadily until 2019(Brexit) when they suddenly increased in 2020 Q1 (Post- Brexit & COVID-19). By the end of 2020, the UK has taken control of the rate and it began to drop.

Source: ONS.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287342.g001

Fig 2 is a summary of regional unemployment in the UK. The effects of the two catastrophes varied throughout all regions. During the past decade, England and Scotland had lower unemployment rates than Wales and Northern Ireland. So, between 2016 and 2020 (Brexit), the unemployment rates varied, in the post-Brexit and COVID-19 period, all regions have seen an increase while with England having the highest and Northern Ireland the lowest (2020). By the beginning of 2021, the regions began to exercise control over their labour markets.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287342.g002

Fig 3 illustrates the average regional unemployment rate across gender in the UK during the three periods analyzed in this study. It is notable that the unemployment rate has consistently been higher for men compared to women across all periods in the UK. Moreover, when examining the regions, Wales and Northern Ireland display higher unemployment rates than England and Scotland. However, the impact of Brexit and COVID-19 has had a more significant effect on unemployment in England and Scotland compared to Wales and Northern Ireland.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287342.g003

Fig 4 depicts the average unemployment rate in the UK’s major industries Pre-Brexit, Brexit, COVID-19, and post-Brexit. The industries with the highest unemployment rates were ‘Accommodation’, ‘Transport’, ‘Construction’, ‘Wholesale’, and ‘Other’. During the Brexit period (2016–2020), it is evident that the unemployment rate decreased, but these industries remained at the top. Furthermore, COVID-19 and Post-Brexit had the greatest impact on these and all other industries. Even throughout COVID-19 and the post-Brexit period, industries like Public Administration and the health sector had low unemployment rates.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287342.g004

4.2 Earnings (average weekly)

This study further examines the effect of the two events on the UK’s earning analysis.

Fig 5 aggregates the total and regional incomes (mean average pound per week) of the UK between 2011 and 2021. The data indicate that England had the greatest incomes, followed by Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Considering the period, all regions’ revenue has increased throughout the Brexit phase. In COVID-19 and post-Brexit periods, incomes for all areas decreased for two quarters before increasing again in 2021, except for England, where wages increased continuously.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287342.g005

Fig 6 provides an overview of the average regional earnings for the Pre-Brexit, Brexit, COVID-19, and Post-Brexit periods. England and Scotland have had more relative wage increases than Wales and Northern Ireland.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287342.g006

Fig 7 indicates the average percentage change in weekly wages across industries in the UK throughout the pre-Brexit, Brexit, COVID-19, and post-Brexit periods. During the Brexit, COVID-19, and post-Brexit periods, the average incomes across all industries increased. ‘Science,’ ‘Financial,’ ‘Public Administration,’ and ‘Health’ are the industries with the greatest rise in profits. On the other hand, the incomes for businesses such as “Accommodation,” “Education,” and “Agriculture” were comparatively lower.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287342.g007

4.3 Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) serves as a standard measure to assess the value generated through the production of goods and services within a country over a specific period. It reflects the revenue generated by this production and the total expenditure on final products and services, excluding imports. However, GDP alone does not consider the impact of inflation or rising prices, regardless of whether GDP increases or decreases. To address this limitation, the GDP price deflator, also known as the GDP index, comes into play. It evaluates the influence of price changes on GDP by selecting a base year and comparing current prices to those of the reference period. The GDP price deflator effectively measures the extent to which price fluctuations impact changes in GDP [ 42 ]. It tracks the prices paid by businesses, the government, and consumers, providing insights into the variations in price levels or inflation within the economy. By utilizing the GDP price deflator, economists can compare the real volume of economic activity across different years. This comparison is crucial because evaluating the GDP of two years with distinct price levels can lead to misleading conclusions [ 42 ]. Therefore, the GDP price deflator enables a more accurate analysis of economic activity by considering the impact of changing price levels over time.

Fig 8 depicts the UK’s GDP price deflator index from 2011 to 2021. It may be interpreted that the GDP increased modestly until 2020, then declined for two quarters during COVID-19 and post-Brexit before beginning to rise again in 2021.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287342.g008

Fig 9 displays the average GDP index of the various UK industries throughout the pre-Brexit, Brexit, and post-Brexit periods. It is proven that the contribution of the industries grew during the Pre-Brexit, Brexit period and decreased during the COVID-19 and Post-Brexit and Brexit periods. During the Post-Brexit and COVID-19 period, the accommodation, construction, education, and agriculture industries experienced the most from COVID-19, while the science, financial, public administration, and health industries contributed the most to the UK’s GDP.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287342.g009

Since the UK has been a worldwide trading force, it is essential to evaluate the effects of Brexit and COVID-19 on UK trade.

The commerce, imports, and exports of the UK from 2011 to 2021 are depicted in Fig 10 . Prior to 2019, it is evident that the UK had a negative overall trade value with imports exceeding exports. The trade situation improved in 2019–2020 as total exports rose and total imports dropped, putting the overall trade value near zero/positive. Beginning in 2021 in COVID-19 and post-Brexit period, the total imports increased while total exports dropped, resulting in a trade imbalance.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287342.g010

In Fig 11 provides a summary of the UK’s trade relations with European Union (EU) nations and non-EU countries, individually. In comparison to the UK’s trade with EU nations, the Non-EU trade has increased and has been greater during the past decade. In addition, with Brexit and COVID-19, non-EU trade has increased relative to EU trade, but overall, the trade has dropped due to COVID-19.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287342.g011

Fig 12 depicts the average volume of trade in various regions of the UK throughout the pre-Brexit, Brexit, and post-Brexit and COVID-19 periods. England is the only country having the largest trade imbalance. Other regions, like Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, have positive trade that is close to zero. During Brexit, trade levels increased in Scotland and Northern Ireland, but still, the trade imbalance widened in England, and trade levels declined but remained positive in Wales. During the Post-Brexit and COVID-19, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland had a decline in trade, but England’s trade deficit was reduced.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287342.g012

4.5 Neural-network model

Furthermore, utilizing the UK’s economic statistics, this study developed a neural network regression model and evaluated the appropriate findings. To improve the regression model, hyperparameter tuning is recommended to use a batch size of 20, a number of epochs of 200, and an optimizer input of RMSProp. Using the aforementioned parameters in the regression model, the training and validation loss was computed. Originally, the difference between the two losses was rather significant as shown in Fig 13 , where the discrepancy steadily decreased to zero. The model’s final loss calculation was 0.437, indicating that even after running the model making a perfect prediction because the loss is nearly zero. It has calculated the mean absolute error, which becomes 0.448, indicating that the gap between actual and predicted values is negligible. This demonstrates that the error rate of the training and validation models is quite low.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287342.g013

4.6 Box-Jenkins method

The Box-Jenkins approach expands on the time series data acquired for the study and forecasts the economic aspects of the UK. Initially, the data is examined using the decomposition method.

Fig 14 displays the time series data illustrating the decomposition of unemployment in the UK. The data reveals a consistent downward trend in the unemployment rate over time. Notably, there are no discernible repeating patterns within a one-year period, and the residuals are minimal, indicating the absence of seasonality. However, the declining trend suggests that the data is non-stationary.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287342.g014

To further analyze the data, exponential moving averages, specifically the rolling mean and rolling standard deviation, are computed. The calculation of moving averages necessitates certain assumptions about the data. In this case, it is assumed that the time series is devoid of both seasonal and trend components. This assumption implies that the time series is stationary, with no evident long-term increasing or decreasing trends, and lacks consistent periodic patterns of seasonality [ 43 ].

The initial, moving average, and standard deviation of unemployment are shown in Fig 15 . There is a declining trend in the rolling mean, and the standard deviation is also growing. It demonstrates that the coefficients are independent of time. The ACF and PACF graphs are generated to confirm that the dataset is a non-stationary time series. The graph illustrates the effect of previous values on time series values. If the time series is stationary, the ACF/PACF plots will reveal a quick termination after a small number of delays.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287342.g015

Figs 16 and 17 depict the ACF and PACF graphs of the UK’s unemployment rates. It is feasible to conclude that the time series is randomized since the autocorrelation reduces as the number of delays are increasing. This indicates that the data are not time-dependent and are consequently non-stationary. In addition, the ADF statistical test may be used to examine the stationary properties of time series data and to calculate the number of delays required to make the data stable. Since the time series has a unit root, the null hypothesis of the test is non-stationary. If the p-value is above the threshold, the null hypothesis is not rejected, and the time series is nonstationary [ 43 ].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287342.g016

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287342.g017

Fig 18 depicts the residuals and data density to determine the model’s validity. The chart demonstrates that residuals are between (-1,1) and there was a positive spike beyond the year 2020, indicating that unemployment grew during COVID-19 and the post-Brexit era. In addition, the density graph reveals that residuals are regularly distributed but random about 0 value. This indicates that the data can be utilised to forecast the future.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287342.g018

The graph in Fig 19 compares the actual and expected unemployment rates. It may be observed that anticipated values mostly overlap actual values; hence, forecasting is feasible. The only exception is the year 2020, for which the predicted numbers did not match with actual values due to the unforeseeable pandemic.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287342.g019

It is then projected for the following five years as shown in Fig 20 . Undoubtedly, unemployment rates are projected to decline, but fluctuations may arise if the economy experiences significant disruptions such as COVID-19.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287342.g020

Figs 21 – 23 show the forecasts of income, gross domestic product (GDP), and trade, respectively. It may be inferred that the GDP (prices) and Earnings are likely to rise in value during the next five years, while UK trade is expected to decline. This implies that even if the economy of the UK as a whole strengthens, the trade imbalance may increase and negatively affect growth in the long run.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287342.g021

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287342.g022

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287342.g023

4.7 Public reaction

4.7.1 google trends..

To analyse the public’s reaction to Brexit and COVID-19, the total number of web searches conducted into various categories is depicted below. Fig 24 shows the all categories of search volume for Brexit and COVID-19. It is obvious that searches for COVID-19 exceeded those for Brexit in the UK. People were most engaged in Brexit in 2016 and 2020, when the Brexit announcement was made and the transitional phase ended, respectively. By the end of 2021, there are no Brexit-related searches and in contrast, COVID-19 searches began in 2020 and accelerated in 2021.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287342.g024

The regional searches for Brexit and COVID-19 across all categories are displayed in Table 2 . This explains the popularity of Brexit and COVID-19 in various parts of the UK. England (21%) has the most Brexit-related searches, followed by Northern Ireland (19%), while Scotland (84%) has the most COVID-19-related searches, followed by Wales (82%).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287342.t002

Fig 25 shows the search trends for Brexit and COVID-19 in the business and industry category providing insights into the level of concern among individuals. The results indicate that during the COVID-19 period, there was an increased focus on the impact of the pandemic on the UK’s businesses and industries, surpassing the levels seen in previous years. Table 3 further highlights that individuals in England expressed greater apprehension towards Brexit compared to those in other regions. Moreover, throughout the COVID-19 period, people in Scotland and Wales conducted a higher volume of searches related to UK businesses and sectors when compared to individuals in other areas.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287342.g025

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287342.t003

Fig 26 displays the Brexit and COVID-19 searches under the Finance category. According to the data, Brexit had a high number of searches in the financial category in 2016 and continued until 2021. In contrast, inquiries for COVID-19 increased in 2020 and surpassed Brexit in popularity in 2016.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287342.g026

The geographical searches for Brexit and COVID-19 in the finance category are displayed in Table 4 . The statistics indicate that people in England conducted more searches concerning Brexit, while those in Wales conducted more searches on COVID-19.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287342.t004

Fig 27 depicts the Brexit and COVID-19 web search under the Jobs and Education category in the UK. Brexit searches were far lower than COVID19 searches beginning in 2020.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287342.g027

Table 5 displays the regional prevalence of this category. Northern Ireland had the most Brexit-related searches compared to other areas. In contrast, England and Wales had the highest number of COVID-19 searches.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287342.t005

4.7.2 Twitter sentiment analysis.

In performing a Google Trend analysis, this study investigated the public’s sentiment toward Brexit and COVID-19 using Twitter sentiment analysis.

Fig 28 shows the polarity of the sentiments from the tweets on Brexit. The maximum polarity appears between -0.25 and 0.25. This indicates that the majority of Brexit-related tweets were neutral. Some tweets had both negative and positive feelings, although the proportion of positive tweets was greater than negative tweets. This indicates that fewer people were entirely pleased or entirely depressed because of the incident. In addition, it can be proven that most individuals in the UK were uncertain about the consequences or impact of Brexit.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287342.g028

Fig 29 illustrates the sensitivity of Brexit-related tweets. The majority of tweets were unrelated to Brexit, with barely a few focusing on the event. This indicates that fewer individuals tweeted about Brexit.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287342.g029

Fig 30 depicts the polarity of the sentiment expressed in COVID-19 tweets. The graph demonstrates that most tweets were neutral. Some of the remaining tweets were entirely positive, and the majority of them were negative. This demonstrates that individuals were depressed and had a detrimental effect on the attitudes of the British population.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287342.g030

Fig 31 illustrates the subjectivity of COVID-19 tweets. It is apparent that the majority of tweets are related to the epidemic since they are highly subjective. This indicates that individuals tweeted often about COVID-19 and the epidemic as a whole. The aforementioned findings demonstrate that individuals in the UK were more engaged in social media during COVID-19 than during Brexit. Also, people had considerably greater feelings about COVID-19 than they did over Brexit; as a result, the subjectivity of tweets about COVID-19 were higher than that of tweets about Brexit.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287342.g031

5 Discussion and conclusion

Understanding the economic consequences of Brexit and the COVID-19 pandemic on the United Kingdom (UK) is a complex undertaking due to their close temporal proximity, making it challenging to discern their individual impacts on the UK economy. Nonetheless, both events have undeniably instigated significant changes and will continue to shape the long-term economic landscape of the UK. This study aims to examine the UK economy during three distinct periods: Pre-Brexit (2011–2016), Brexit (2016–2020), and COVID-19 & Post-Brexit (2020–2021), utilizing diverse data analysis methodologies. The primary focus is to analyze key economic indicators such as the unemployment rate, GDP index, earnings, and trade across different regions and industries of the UK, providing a comprehensive understanding of the effects of Brexit and COVID-19. The findings shed light on compelling insights into the performance of the UK economy over the past decade. Visual representations of the data unveil several trends. The unemployment rate demonstrated a downward trajectory until 2020 but experienced a spike for a six-month period in 2021. Average weekly earnings exhibited a gradual increase over time, while the GDP index displayed an upward trend until 2020, followed by a decline during the COVID-19 period. Trade experienced the most significant decline post-Brexit and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, the impact of these events varied among the four regions and twelve industries. Wales and Northern Ireland emerged as the most affected regions by both Brexit and COVID-19, whereas industries such as Accommodation, Construction, Wholesale, and Others experienced the most substantial impact on earnings and employment levels. Conversely, industries such as finance, science, and health witnessed an increased contribution to the UK’s total GDP following Brexit and COVID-19. Gender-wise, the impact was more pronounced on men than women. Among all the economic factors analyzed, trade stood out as the most affected variable in the UK. In early 2021, the macroeconomic situation in the UK revealed a discernible pattern: economic demand outpaced supply, resulting in shortages, bottlenecks, and inflation. Various industries reported a scarcity of labor, partly attributable to the global consequences of the pandemic. The findings of the neural network model indicated minimal loss between the training and validation models, indicating the model’s effectiveness in predicting values with minimal error. The Box-Jenkins analysis identified the dataset as non-stationary but with a discernible trend that could be utilized to forecast coefficients. The results of the ARIMA model projected a gradual decline in unemployment over the next five years, with the GDP index and earnings expected to continue ascending. However, trade was anticipated to decline, and net trade was forecasted to remain negative in the coming years. Finally, the results of the social media analysis confirmed that people displayed greater concern and engagement during the COVID-19 period (starting in 2020) compared to the Brexit period (starting in 2016). Individuals expressed neutrality towards Brexit and posted fewer tweets on the subject, whereas during COVID-19, people expressed unhappiness and extensively tweeted about the pandemic. It is crucial to acknowledge that these results are based on the analysis of recent data, capturing the immediate and overall impact of Brexit and COVID-19 on the UK economy. As ongoing economic fluctuations remain unpredictable, forecast predictions derived from the analysis may differ from actual outcomes. Moreover, this research relies on time-series data, which imposes limitations on the scope and accuracy of the analysis. The graphical representation of the time-series data is confined to line and bar graphs for analytical purposes. The existing literature on this topic is insufficient to validate the analysis results and support the research framework. Therefore, further work is needed to enhance the assessment of the impact of Brexit and COVID-19 on the UK economy. Continuously.

Supporting information

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287342.s001

S1 Dataset.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287342.s002

Acknowledgments

The author would like to acknowledge the support of work from Cardiff Metropolitan University.

• 1. Durrant T, Pope T, Lilly A, Guerin B, Shepheard M, Nickson S, et al. Whitehall Monitor 2021. Institute for Government. 2021.
• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar
• 3. Thomas R, Routledge D, Jenkins J. Cardiff School of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences research abstracts–2021.
• 4. Busch B, Matthes J. Brexit: the economic impact–a survey. InCESifo Forum 2016 (Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 37-44). München: ifo Institut-Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung an der Universität München.
• 5. De Lyon J, Dhingra S. The impacts of Covid-19 and Brexit on the UK economy: early evidence in 2021. London: Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics and Political Science; 2021 May 6.
• 9. Elsayed A, Abdelrhim M. The Impact of Brexit on the United Kingdom Stock Market Sectors in Under of the COVID-19 Crisis. Available at SSRN 3825230. 2021 Apr 12.
• 14. Campos RG, Timini J. An estimation of the effects of Brexit on trade and migration. Banco de Espana Occasional Paper. 2019 May 31 (1912).
• 15. Kaminska I, Walker M. Submission to the House of Commons Treasury Committee-Digital Currencies Inquiry. Available at SSRN 3412228. 2018 Apr 12.
• 24. Lim WM, Kaur S, Cheong HF, editors. COVID-19, Business, and economy in Malaysia: retrospective and prospective perspectives. Routledge; 2021 Sep 6.
• 28. Chandio MM, Sah M. Brexit twitter sentiment analysis: Changing opinions about brexit and uk politicians. InInternational Conference on Information, Communication and Computing Technology 2019 Oct 30 (pp. 1-11). Springer, Cham.
• 32. Massaron L, Boschetti A. Regression analysis with Python. Packt Publishing Ltd; 2016 Feb 29.
• 34. Shridhar K, Lee J, Hayashi H, Mehta P, Iwana BK, Kang S, et al. Probact: A probabilistic activation function for deep neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.10761. 2019 May 26.

• Why Choose Us
• Vision and Mission
• Hire Writers
• How it Works

A Comprehensive List of 35+ Trending Brexit Dissertation Topics

Table of Content

Top 10 dissertation topics on brexit, 10 trending dissertation topics in brexit, 10 most popular brexit dissertation topics, 10 best dissertation topics about brexit, a title page, acknowledgement, introduction, literature review, methodology, conclusions.

The departure of the UK from the European Union is known as Brexit around the world. It is the abbreviation of ‘Britain' and ‘Exit'. Many geopolitical issues are the talk of the world right now. This is the reason it became necessary for students to be updated about the Brexit dissertation topics. One of the discussions over ‘Brexit' is those. A vote was held on June 23, 2016, in the United Kingdom. The idea of Brexit came out of it as Britain wanted to leave the European Union. Also, this vote decided several other matters. It discussed the reshaping of the countries. Therefore, it also discusses international relationships and economic policies among countries. Thus, this matter has become an essential part of the study of politics. Students must write papers on the research topic on Brexit.

A Brief Overview of Brexit

Brexit is the short form of ‘Britain' and ‘Exit'. It denotes the decision to separate the United Kingdom from the European Union. It was decided through a vote held on June 23, 2016. Around 51.9% of voters decided to leave the EU. Several essential issues behind this decision were the questions of sovereignty, economic freedom, immigration, etc. These are divided into several dissertation ideas for Brexit.

Personalities like the former Prime Minister, Theresa May and the later Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, tried their best to make certain deals. They also worked hard to get their approval from the parliament. However, the deadlines were only extended as the leaders couldn't conclude specific issues, like borders, trade, and citizen's rights. Finally, the UK left the EU on January 31, 2020. So, this whole issue was widely discussed, so students are asked to write on dissertation topic about Brexit often.

However, they have a transition period until December 31, 2020, to understand the uncertainties. Also, this separation didn't end questions about things like trade and rules in Northern Ireland. So, politics dissertation topics like Brexit impact not only the economic and political condition of the UK but also world politics and made people think about the future of Europe. So, students prefer to go through Brexit dissertation topics to get advanced knowledge on the subject.

Need Personalised Assistance from Our Experts?

Share Your Requirements via Whatsapp!

The postgraduate students must study the impact of Brexit on world politics. Also, they may need to write a dissertation on it. So, they can thoroughly research the best Brexit dissertation topics to get one for writing a dissertation.

List of 35+ Trending Brexit Dissertation Topics

Brexit dissertation topics have become one of the most common topics in the study of world politics. Therefore, students with post-graduation degrees must know it well. So, this blog will help you to do your dissertation. Here, you will find several dissertation topics about Brexit. Have a look:

1. Brexit- Reasons and Possible Consequences

2. Brexit and Trump's Election in Online News Media

3. Macroeconomic Impact of Brexit on the United Kingdom

4. Effect of Brexit on Tourism and Hospitality in the UK

5. Economic Condition of EU after Brexit

6. Challenges and Opportunities the UK Is Facing Post-Brexit

7. Brexit and the Aviation Industry in the UK and Europe

8. Brexit and the Politics of the UK

9. Impact of Brexit on Business of the UK

10. What Is the Impact of Brexit on the Construction Industry?

11. Are There Any Disadvantages of Brexit on Trade in the UK?

12. Impact of Brexit on the Labor Market of the UK

13. Brexit and Covid-19- How Did the UK Cope up?

14. The Economics of Brexit during Covid-19

15. The Border Check Plans of Brexit and Its Impact on the UK during Covid-19

16. Financial Services of the UK after Brexit

17. What Will the Future of Brexit be?

18. The Immigration Issue of the UK after Brexit

19. Impact of Brexit on the High Price of Flights

20. UK-EU Economic Overtone after Brexit

Struggling to Find Best Dissertation Topic?

Get a Unique Title & Dissertation Proposal Outline for FREE!

21. Impact of Brexit on Maintaining Data Privacy in Britain

22. Role and Reaction of EU to Brexit

23. Impact of Brexit on the Leadership and Culture of the UK

24. What Are the Additional Arguments Against Brexit?

25. Analysing the Impact of Brexit on Germany

26. Effects of Brexit on China-UK Trade

27. The Impact of Brexit on the Automotive Industry of the UK

28. Costs, Causes, and Benefits of Brexit

29. The Impact of Brexit on the Internal Stability of the European Union

30. How Brexit Affect the Value of Sterling?

31. The Implications of Brexit for the UK and EU Regional Competitiveness

32. Does Brexit Announce the End of the Dutch Fishing Industry

33. Effect of Brexit on International Employment

34. The Impact of Brexit on the Agrifood Sector

35. The Consequences of Brexit for the UK Trade and Living Standards

36. The Effects of Brexit on the Geopolitical Dynamics of the UK

37. Will Brexit Affect the Immigration to the UK?

38. Planning of Brexit for the Asset Managers

39. The Impact of Brexit on the Cross-Border Collaboration of Ireland

40. The Impact of Brexit on Asset Management

Students with a Master's degree or PhD must write a dissertation on Brexit. Therefore, they must look for the best Brexit dissertation topics. Hopefully, these topics will help you score high. If you find writing confusing, you can seek the help of UK dissertation writing services .

Need Help with Dissertation?

Get a 100% Original Dissertation Written by EXPERTS

How to Structure Your Brexit Dissertation

It may become difficult for you to construct a thesis for such dissertation topics. This is a really sensitive matter, and people have their histories and experiences attached to it. Therefore, it is best to seek online dissertation help from experts who have experience in writing documents on such papers. However, if you want to continue writing it yourself, it is best to go through the below points to learn how to structure your Brexit dissertation.

A title page must be interesting enough at first look. So, you must design it with the following components-

• The title of your dissertation
• The name of the student
• Type of the document
• Degree program
• Date of submission
• Supervisor's name
• Registration number of the student
• Logo of the University
• Year of the graduation

The next page is the acknowledgement. You must finish it within one page. Here, you must acknowledge your supervisor. Also, you can thank your family and friends. Acknowledge every single person who helped you to write your dissertation. It is necessary to be thankful or address the name of the people who have helped you in completing your dissertation. In case of difficulty in writing this section, you can as us, as we can do this as well for you.

An abstract is a brief overview of your dissertation. Here, you must provide a narrative of your write-up. Also, you must present it in a way that convinces your professors or other readers instantly. It will help you highlight the main objective of your dissertation ideas on Brexit. Therefore, it is advised to write this abstract in the beginning. It will help you give a direction to your write-up.

As per our dissertation writers , a table of contents guides readers to know your points of discussion in the write-up. So, you must mention the headings in the table of contents. Thus, readers will know what they will have in your dissertation. Also, readers will have a seamless experience of going through your write-up if you include a table of contents.

The introduction is the beginning of your dissertation. Here, you must mention the key points of discussion. Also, you should give a brief of your content. Besides, you must ensure to mention the goals of your research. An introduction is the outline of your write-up. So, it guides readers to go through the content easily. You can even go through some Brexit dissertation examples to make your introduction better.

A literature review is all about your outlook towards the topic. First, you must go through different types of works on any of the chosen Brexit dissertation topics.. Then, you must mention the best parts of those. Also, you should point out the weak parts. Moreover, you must add new things to your work.

This is one of the most important part of your dissertation. methodology means the methods you use to write your dissertation. Here, you use different methods for data collection. Also, you use analysis methods to explain your points. So, you must include research design, philosophy, and limitations in this chapter. Also, you should mention the ethical considerations and code of conduct here. Incase of difficulty it is best to seek assignment help UK from experts for this matter.

Here, you must provide the summary of your write-up. Therefore, ensure to mention your judgments and opinions here on the dissertation topics in Brexit. Also, make sure you don't add anything new here. The conclusion should sum up your entire writing and leave a soothing reading experience in readers' minds.

Here, you must follow the instructions of your institution. So, you should refer to all the sources well. Thus, your write-up won't be plagiarised. Therefore, you can note down the sources when taking information. Thus, you won't miss any sources to refer to. Proper referencing increases the integrity of your writing.

Need the Best Brexit Dissertation Topics? Let Us Help You

Finding a good Brexit dissertation topics is not an easy task. Therefore, students often get confused and make mistakes. Also, they pick any random topic and make several mistakes while writing. So, a dissertation proofreading service can help. We offer such kind of service along with writing and proofreading. So, you can always contact us for better dissertation writing. We are happy to help!

Also Read-  List of 100+ Biomedical Dissertation Topics 2024

Try Before You Buy !

Get Free PDF Link Directly to your WhatsApp !

Great!! Sumsa Free PDF Template has been delivered on your WhatsApp Number.

Share Your Requirements Now for Customized Solutions.

Delivered on-time or your money back

Our Services

• Assignment Writing Service
• Essay Writing Help
• Dissertation Writing Service
• Coursework Writing Service
• Proofreading & Editing Service
• Online Exam Help
• Term paper writing service
• Ghost Writing Service
• Case Study Writing Service
• Research Paper Writing Service
• Personal Statement Writing Service
• Resume Writing Service
• Report Writing Service

To Make Your Work Original

Check your work against paraphrasing & get a free Plagiarism report!

Check your work against plagiarism & get a free Plagiarism report!

Quick and Simple Tool to Generate Dissertation Outline Instantly

Get citations & references in your document in the desired style!

Make your content free of errors in just a few clicks for free!

Generate plagiarism-free essays as per your topic’s requirement!

Generate a Compelling Thesis Statement and Impress Your Professor

FREE Features

• Topic Creation USD 3.87 FREE
• Outline USD 9.33 FREE
• Unlimited Revisions USD 20.67 FREE
• Editing/Proofreading USD 28 FREE
• Formatting USD 8 FREE
• Bibliography USD 7.33 FREE

Get all these features for

USD 80.67 FREE

RELATED BLOGS

Dissertation vs Thesis: Meaning, Difference, and Similarities

Here Are the Best 100+ Criminology Dissertation Ideas

How to Write Dissertation Acknowledgements? Steps and Example

How to Write a Dissertation Literature Review? Complete Guide

Learn about 8000 Words Dissertation Breakdown

List of 100+ Radiography Dissertation Ideas that You Must Consider

Professional assignment writers.

Choose a writer for your task among hundreds of professionals

Please rotate your device

We don't support landscape mode yet. Please go back to portrait mode for the best experience

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. Know more

Calculate the Price

Professional Academic Help at Pocket-Friendly Prices!

Estimated Price

Limited Time Offer

Exclusive Library Membership + FREE Wallet Balance

1 Month Access !

5000 Student Samples

10,000 Answers by Experts

Get $300 Now

• Latest news
• UCL in the media
• Services for media
• Student news
• Tell us your story

Opinion: Brexit - five years after the referendum, here are five things we’ve learned

24 June 2021

Dr Uta Staiger, Executive Director of the UCL European Institute, and UCL Pro-Vice-Provost (Europe), discusses what we’ve learned since the Brexit referendum of June 2016.

On June 23 2016 the UK went to the polls to decide the future of the country’s EU membership. The vote to leave the EU – decided by a slim but definite majority of 51.9% to 48.1% – ushered in major constitutional, social, economic and political upheavals, as the country sought to define exactly what Brexit would mean. Five years later, here’s what we’ve learned.

1. We know a lot more

The day after the referendum, the second most Googled question in the UK was “What is the European Union?”. The most frequent question for the search engine was: “What does it mean to leave the European Union?”.

This is not entirely surprising. Even the Brexit secretary himself, Dominic Raab, it turns out, “hadn’t quite understood” how reliant the UK’s goods trade is on crossing the English Channel. Some expectations were thus necessarily confounded. The promise on the side of a bus to use the £350 million the UK spent on the EU to fund the NHS turned out to be good advertising but bad misuse of statistics. Yet the economic apocalypse foretold by those opposing Brexit has failed to materialise, too.

What we have learned instead is a vast array of details about trade and governance we never knew we needed. From Article 50 to Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, from Henry VIII powers to GATT XXIV, from the fish we like to eat and the kind of chicken we don’t, Brexit has been a steep learning curve for us all. And not all of it in good time: underestimating Northern Ireland and the border trilemma may turn out to be one of Brexit’s biggest blind spots.

2. We are still divided

The myth of the “will of the people” has been a political linchpin of Brexit. But while the referendum result was definitive, it showed an electorate split practically down the middle. In five years, this rift between Remainers and Leavers has not dissipated. On the contrary, Brexit identities now mean more to us than party-political affiliations.

The vast majority of referendum voters have stuck to their initial vote – over four in five say they would vote the same way again. Although surveys have shown a consistent majority for Remain since 2016, this is very slight: the British public are still more or less evenly divided on the issue. This was clear even in the 2019 general election, decisively won by the Conservatives under the first past the post system, where 52% of votes were cast for (opposition) parties advocating a second referendum.

Only one issue seems to unite both sides: a general dislike of the deal that was obtained.

3. We trust a lot less

In a more complex, interconnected world, trust – in our fellow members of society, our institutions, between governments – is pivotal. Trust describes acts not yet committed but to be reckoned with: it is a vehicle for coping with the essential unpredictability of people and institutions.

If distrust in government was a major predictor of Leave voters, it also arguably fuelled discontent with parliament and the judiciary, which the Conservatives accused in their 2019 election manifesto of “thwarting the democratic decision of the British people”. Now it is Remain voters, feeling they are on the losing side, who are less satisfied with democratic standards.

Following often acrimonious negotiations, trust between the EU and the UK has also taken a hit. Both sides have told the press only this month that trust is now at an all-time low – and increasingly hinges on the good faith in the way the Brexit divorce deal, including the Northern Ireland protocol, is being implemented or challenged.

A highly complex governance structure with specialised committees, working groups, partnership councils and dispute settlement mechanisms will seek to ameliorate problems. Whether it is enough remains to be seen.

4. Brexit is far from done

Boris Johnson famously vowed to “Get Brexit Done”. While we have indeed exited the European Union, Brexit is far from over. Given the UK’s decision to leave the customs union and the single market, the trade and cooperation agreement is the thinnest of deals. It provides for duty and quota-free trade of all goods, but introduces business, industry, and Brexit observers to a rich vocabulary of non-tariff barriers, level playing field provisions, and customs red tape.

Not least due to this “disintegration shock”, there will be pressure (and incentives) to improve on the deal. Negotiations are likely to go on for years, perhaps even decades. A particular sticking point remains the Northern Ireland protocol – which Boris Johnson negotiated, signed, convinced parliament to approve and won a general election on, yet which the UK’s chief negotiator now describes as unexpectedly unworkable. The protocol is the Brexit conundrum in a nutshell: until we reach an agreement on its implementation, Brexit will not be done.

5. Brexit will have lasting effects on both sides

In the past decade, the global financial and eurozone crises exposed the weaknesses of the EU’s economic governance; the migration crisis exposed the limits of intra-European solidarity, and the rule of law crisis in Hungary and Poland exposes its very raison d’etre as fragile.

In this context, Brexit brought on unprecedented unity among the 27 – yet also, if perhaps not sufficiently, a soul-searching: a function of longer-term dissatisfaction with the nature of the union. Having lost a key member state, the EU will need to address not only a changed internal landscape, but also redefine its complicated and not always satisfactory relationship to neighbours and partners.

On the UK side, Brexit has heralded what some have called a “constitutional moment”. We have seen an increasingly strained relationship between parliament and the executive, antagonistic relationships with devolved governments, and an ongoing discussion over the role of the courts. How the government will use its new regulatory powers may also change the shape of the British state.

As far as the future relationship between both sides is concerned, this is still being defined. Yet geographical proximity, volume of trade, the importance of the “EU orbit” and the very entrenchment of our links means the UK will not float off into the Atlantic. We will wrangle with each other, and ourselves, for some time to come.

This article originally appeared in The Conversation on 23 June 2021.

• Original Article in The Conversation
• Dr Uta Staiger’s academic profile
• UCL European Institute
• UCL Faculty of Laws

• Write for us
• LSE Comment
• General Election 2024
• Economy and Society
• Political Theory

July 25th, 2016

A tale of two countries: brexit and the ‘left behind’ thesis.

14 comments | 9 shares

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

The referendum result is now well-known. Leave won its strongest support in the West Midlands (59 per cent), East Midlands (59 per cent) and North East (58 per cent) but attracted its weakest support in Scotland (38 per cent), London (40 per cent) and Northern Ireland (44 per cent). The Leave vote surpassed 70 per cent in 14 authorities, many of which had been previously targeted by Ukip, like Boston and Castle Point. Leave also polled strongly in Labour-held authorities in the north, winning over 65 per cent in places like Hartlepool and Stoke-on-Trent. At the constituency level it has been estimated that while three-quarters of Conservative seats voted Leave, seven in ten Labour seats also did.

Such areas contrast sharply with strongholds of support for Remain, such as including Lambeth, Hackney, Haringey, Camden and Cambridge. Of the 50 authorities where the Remain vote was strongest, 39 were in London or Scotland.

Such results point toward deeper divides, like those outlined in earlier research on the ‘left behind’ voters who propelled UKIP into the mainstream. But to what extent was the vote to Leave the EU motivated by the same currents? To explore this question, we draw on data from 380 of 382 counting regions in the UK and link this to census data from 2011 (excluding Gibraltar and Northern Ireland for which we lack comparable data on some variables). Our analysis is based on aggregate data, so we need to be cautious about drawing inferences about individuals. Nonetheless, the data still provide a useful snapshot.

The Leave vote was much higher in authorities where there are substantial numbers of people who do not hold any qualifications, but much lower in areas that have a larger number of highly educated people. Fifteen of the 20 ‘least educated’ areas voted to leave the EU while every single one of the 20 ‘most educated’ areas voted to remain. In authorities with below average levels of education, Leave received 58 per cent of the vote but in authorities with above average levels of education it received 49 per cent. There were places where the Leave vote was lower than expected based on the average levels of education, which tended to be in Scotland and London. If we exclude London and Scotland from our analysis, then the association between education and the Leave vote becomes far stronger.

There is also a clearly identifiable though slightly weaker association between age and support for Leave. Of the 20 ‘youngest’ authorities 16 voted to Remain. By contrast the Leave vote was much stronger in older areas. Of the 20 oldest local authorities 19 voted to Leave.

What about ethnic diversity and immigration? Did appeals to end free movement have particular resonance in communities where there were large numbers of EU migrants? On the face of it, the answer appears to be no. Of the 20 places with the fewest EU migrants, 15 voted to leave. By contrast, of the 20 places with the most EU migrants 18 voted to remain. In many areas that were among the most receptive to Leave there were hardly any EU migrants at all.

We can get a clearer idea of the joint impact of these factors by carrying out a multivariate regression analysis. Table 1 presents results from a series of linear regression models. The dependent variable is support for Leave. In Model 1 education and age have a significant positive effect on the Leave vote. If anything, the effect of education on the Leave vote might have been slightly stronger than the effect of age (at least at the aggregate level). But even in places that had similar levels of education, support for Leave was noticeably higher in older communities than younger ones. By contrast, the level of European migration has a significant negative effect on the Leave vote. Places with many EU migrants tended to be less likely to vote Leave. Lastly, taking into account these factors the Leave vote was noticeably lower in London and Scotland. The results for Scotland are especially striking – the Leave vote was 22 points lower than what might have been expected given the level of immigration and educational and age profile of the country.

Notes: *** denotes p<0.005; ** denotes p<0.05; * denotes p<0.10

It might be tempting to assume that immigration played no part in delivering Brexit. However, a slightly different picture emerges if we consider changes in levels of EU migration. Data on recent change is only available for England and Wales and so in Model 2 we restrict our analysis to this subset of cases.

Controlling for the effect of overall migration and the other variables in Model 1 (excluding Scotland), those places which experienced an increase in EU migration over the last 10 years tended to be somewhat more likely to vote Leave (b=0.51; p=0.007). Thus, even though areas with relatively high levels of EU migration tended to be more pro-remain; those places which had experienced a sudden influx of EU migrants over the last 10 years tended to be more pro-Leave. This finding is consistent with the view that it is sudden changes in population that are most likely to fuel concern about immigration.

The results presented so far are consistent with research on Ukip, which emphasizes the party’s appeal among older, working-class, white voters who lack qualifications and skills. Thus, to a certain extent the factors that helped to explain rise of Ukip also help to explain why the British voted for Brexit. This comes out incredibly clearly in Figure 1, which considers the association between support for Ukip at the 2014 European Parliament elections and support for Brexit at the 2016 referendum. The R-square is 0.73, indicating a very strong relationship. By and large, then, authorities that were the most likely to vote for Brexit were the same ones that had given Ukip its strongest support two years earlier.

Figure 1 : Support for Ukip in 2014 and support for Leave in 2016

However, this clearly is not the whole story. Whereas the average support for Ukip across all authorities in 2014 was 29 per cent, the average support for Leave was 53 per cent. Where did these additional votes come from? Many insurgent parties start life by appealing to a narrow section of society but then, as they grow, they try to widen their appeal into new sections of society. Is this what Ukip’s populist Eurosceptic message achieved?

The answer is both yes and no. Places with older populations are both more likely to have voted for Ukip in 2014 and more likely to have voted Leave in 2016. However, support for Leave in 2016 is slightly less polarized along age lines (r = 0.34) than support for Ukip was in 2014 (r = 0.45). One explanation for this is that the Leave campaign managed to mobilise younger people than Ukip did. By contrast public support for Brexit (r = 0.53) is more polarized along education lines than support for Ukip was (r = 0.21).

Thus, to a certain extent, the 2016 referendum result magnified class divisions within Britain that were already evident in earlier years, and which parties like Ukip had been actively cultivating. Lastly, support for Leave (r = -0.44) is slightly more polarized along immigration lines than even Ukip was in 2014 (r = -0.36). This points to the hardening of what some term a ‘ cosmopolitan vs provincial ’ divide.

Our analysis reveals how the 2016 referendum gave full expression to deeper divides in Britain that cut across generational, educational and class lines. The vote for Brexit was anchored predominantly, albeit not exclusively, in areas of the country that are filled with pensioners, low skilled and less well-educated blue-collar workers and citizens who have been pushed to the margins not only by the economic transformation of the country, but by the values that have come to dominate a more socially liberal media and political class. In this respect the vote for Brexit was delivered by the ‘left behind’- social groups that are united by a general sense of insecurity, pessimism and marginalisation, who do not feel as though elites, whether in Brussels or Westminster, share their values, represent their interests and genuinely empathise with their intense angst about rapid change.

Interestingly, our results also reveal how turnout in the heartlands of Brexit was often higher than average, indicating that it is citizens who have long felt excluded from the mainstream consensus who used the referendum to voice their distinctive views not only about EU membership but a wider array of perceived threats to their national identity, values and ways of life.

Yet clearly the ‘left behind’ thesis cannot explain the entire Brexit vote. Even if support for EU membership is more polarised along education than support for Ukip ever was, the centre of gravity has shifted. This represents a puzzle. Public support for Euroscepticism has both widened and narrowed – it is now more widespread across the country, but in a number of important respects it is also more socially distinctive. In the shadow of the 2016 referendum stands one basic assertion that few would contest: Britain is now more divided than ever.

Note: the above was originally published on LSE BrexitVote .

About the Authors

Featured image credit: mazz_5 CC BY SA

About the author

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Related Posts

The Housing and Planning Bill will determine how devolution is debated in the future

November 10th, 2015.

How the government keeps underestimating the risk of benefit sanctions to single parents

April 13th, 2017.

Pounds for Patients? The weak regulatory approach to financial incentives in UK healthcare

July 1st, 2019.

Because GDP is not enough: five headline indicators for better policymaking