During the Brexit referendum the Leave campaign claimed that the UK would be able to regain its sovereignty and ‘take back control’. Trade policy became a particular focus of the Conservative Government’s post-Brexit vision and underpinned the arguments in favour of leaving the customs union. This article evaluates the evolution of trade policymaking in the UK, from the Brexit referendum in 2016 until the Conservative defeat in the general election of 2024, and its consequences for democracy. It utilises two key insights from the framework of new constitutionalism to reveal the democratic deficiencies of the UK’s post-Brexit trade policy. In doing so, it argues that the governance of UK trade policymaking has failed to advance both parliamentary scrutiny and the scope for meaningful input from a range of stakeholders. In addition, the content of the new trade deals signed by the Conservative Government have further eroded democratic control, by undermining the prospects for a regulatory approach that can address the socio-economic and environmental challenges faced by the UK.
This article provides a critical appraisal of the Starmer government’s first two years in power and an overview of its policy agenda and political decision-making during this period. Our analysis is underpinned by the influential statecraft framework first set out by Jim Bulpitt. We make the following arguments. First, despite entering office with a landslide electoral victory, the new Labour government was ill-prepared for office, contributing to the absence of a clear political vision and effectively narrated policy agenda. Second, the absence of a clearly understood vision for the UK’s political economy has paved the way for ad hoc decision-making that has repeatedly undermined the Starmer government’s credibility.
The paper explores the intriguing, yet seriously under-researched issue of discursive shifts in the communication of the Liberal Democrats on Brexit and the United Kingdom’s (UK) relationship with the European Union (EU) since the 2016 in/out referendum. Through a critical discourse analysis of a large dataset of public pronouncements, the study investigates the party leaders’ evolving stance, from campaigning for a second referendum and revoking Article 50 to a more tempered position of acknowledging Brexit as a reality to pledging to rejoin the single market. Theoretically, the study builds on the concept of discursive shifts but extends their conceptualisation by foregrounding the phenomenon of temporal layering in political discourse. We argue that what we observe in the Liberal Democrats’ case is an accumulation of overlapping and at times contradictory articulations that remain discursively available. Yet, while such cumulative layering can be read as an attempt to maintain strategic responsiveness in a volatile and often hostile political environment, it also carries some risks. We highlight how it risks projecting an outward impression of clutter and ambiguity that might complicate the party’s ability to project a coherent message on the party’s stance towards the EU.
