IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/nglost/v13y2019i3p321-334n2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

1997 and 2016: Referenda, Brexit, and (Re-)bordering at the European Periphery

Author

Listed:
  • Goodwin-Hawkins Bryonny
  • Dafydd Jones Rhys

    (Aberystwyth University, AberystwythSY23 2AX, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)

Abstract

2016 is likely to be recalled – in Europe, at least – as a temporal bordering, after a majority in the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. The “Brexit” referendum result has been pinned on the rise of populist politics and the revenge of so-called “left behind” places. Regardless of reasons, the referendum left the UK with fraught politics and protracted negotiations, especially over how to re-border with a Europe that has held the dismantling of borders at the heart of its philosophical project. While Brexit has already become a byword, an earlier referendum on British borders has long slipped from international note. In 1997, a majority in Wales (one of the four constituent countries of the UK), voted for devolution from central government in Westminster. Like the Brexit referendum twenty years later, the majority in favor of devolution was slight, exposing uneasy fractures and internal cleavages as it opened fresh questions of governance and geography. By attending to a small country at the periphery of Europe, we seek to destabilize the assumption of shared markers of global bordering (1989, 2001), revealing instead the palimpsests of identity and territoriality across which re-made borders run “all over.”

Suggested Citation

  • Goodwin-Hawkins Bryonny & Dafydd Jones Rhys, 2019. "1997 and 2016: Referenda, Brexit, and (Re-)bordering at the European Periphery," New Global Studies, De Gruyter, vol. 13(3), pages 321-334, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:bpj:nglost:v:13:y:2019:i:3:p:321-334:n:2
    DOI: 10.1515/ngs-2019-0031
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/ngs-2019-0031
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/ngs-2019-0031?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:nglost:v:13:y:2019:i:3:p:321-334:n:2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.