dc.contributor.author | NICOLAÏDIS, Kalypso | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-02-16T14:32:47Z | |
dc.date.available | 2021-02-16T14:32:47Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2020 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Journal of European integration, 2020, Vol. 42, No. 4, pp. 465-488 | en |
dc.identifier.issn | 0703-6337 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 1477-2280 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/1814/69954 | |
dc.description | First published online: 29 May 2020 | en |
dc.description.abstract | The paper offers a defence of ambivalence as a response to the political polarisation of our era using multiple languages to present its case from psychology to sociology, political science, philosophy and critical theory. It suggests that the Brexit story can be told in a different key, whereby the politics that have led to entrenching ‘leave’ and ‘remain’ identities overlay a harder to assess ambivalence about the EU both in the UK and in the EU, a dynamic referred to as the ‘Machiavelli Trap.’ Accordingly, we ought to ground the future relationship in the recognition of the ‘Brexit paradox’ (you can leave and therefore you shouldn't), and its implications for the core principles that have shaped the Brexit debate and negotiations. In the end, the paper offers a plea for a politics that allows citizens to tune into their constructive ambivalence about the fundamental tension between control and cooperation which pervades both Brexit, EU and global politics at large. | en |
dc.language.iso | en | en |
dc.publisher | Taylor & Francis | en |
dc.relation.ispartof | Journal of European integration | en |
dc.title | In praise of ambivalence : another Brexit story | en |
dc.type | Article | en |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1080/07036337.2020.1766456 | |
dc.identifier.volume | 42 | en |
dc.identifier.startpage | 465 | en |
dc.identifier.endpage | 488 | en |
dc.identifier.issue | 4 | en |