In praise of ambivalence- another Brexit story

References

• Ansell, B., and D. Adler. 2019. “Brexit and the Politics of Housing in Britain.” The Political Quarterly 90 (S2): 105–116.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Azmanova, A. 2020. Capitalism on Edge: How Fighting Precarity Can Achieve Radical Change without Crisis or Utopia. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bradford, A.. 2012. “The brussels effect.” Nw. UL Rev. 107: 1.
   Google Scholar
• Barnard, C., and S. F. Butlin. 2018. “Free Movement Vs. Fair Movement: Brexit and Managed Migration.” Common Market Law Review 55 (2): 203–226.
   Google Scholar
• Barnett, A. 2017. The Lure of Greatness: England’s Brexit and America’s Trump. London: Unbound Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Bejan, T. M. 2017. Mere Civility. Boston: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Benner, E. 2017. Be like the Fox: Machiavelli in His World. WW Norton & Company.
   Google Scholar
• Carrieri, L. 2019. “The Limited Politicization of European Integration in Italy: Lacking Issue Clarity and Weak Voter Responses.” In Italian Political Science Review/Rivista Italiana Di Scienza Politica, 1–18.
   Google Scholar
• Cautres, B., T. Chopin, and E. Riviere. 2020. “Les Francais Et l’Europe: Entre Defiance Et Ambivalence, L’indispensable ‘Retour De l’Europe En France’”, Notre Europe and CEVIPOF, Rapport n119, Mai
   Google Scholar
• Chalmers, D., M. Jachtenfuchs, and C. Joerges, eds. 2016. The End of the Eurocrats’ Dream. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chowdhry, G. 2007. “Edward Said and Contrapuntal Reading: Implications for Critical Interventionsin International Relations.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 36 (1, December 24): 101–116.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Sio,Lorenzo and Davide Angelucci, Italiani ancora europeisti, ma ormai critici e sfiduciati: il super-sondaggio CISE con 19 domande sull’Europa, CISE, LUISS, 9 maggio 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, J. K., D. T. Wegener, and L. R. Fabrigar. 2008. “Attitudinal Ambivalence and Message-based Persuasion: Motivated Processing of Proattitudinal Information and Avoidance of Counter-attitudinal Information.” Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 34 (4): 565–577.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke, J. 2019. Critical Dialogues: Thinking Together in Turbulent Times. Bristol: Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clements, et al. 2013. “The Low Salience of European Integration for the British Voters Means that UKIP Will Have to Expand Their Platform to Gain Support.” LSE blog, March
   Google Scholar
• Conner, M., and C. J. Armitage. 2008. “Attitudinal Ambivalence.” In Attitudes and Attitude Change, edited by W. D. Crano and R. Prislin, 261–286. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Converse, P. E. 2006 [1964]. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics” (1964).” Critical Review 18 (1–3): 1–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooler, C., and C. Pagel. 2019. “Everything You Think You Know about Leavers and Remainers Is Wrong.” The New Statesman, June
   Google Scholar
• Crouch, C. 2018. The Globalization Backlash. John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Curtice, and I. Montagu. 2019. “The EU Debate.” British Social Attitudes 36, 174–214.
   Google Scholar
• Curtice, J. 2019. “Searching in Vain? The Hunt for a Brexit Compromise?” What UK thinks, January
   Google Scholar
• Curtice, J. 2020. “Do Voters Want a ‘Hard’ or a ‘Soft’ Brexit?” UK in a Changing Europe, March
   Google Scholar
• De Beauvoir, S. c1948 [1947]. The Ethics of Ambiguity. NJ: Citadel Press.
   Google Scholar
• De Vries, C. E. 2018. Euroscepticism and the Future of European Integration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Downs, A. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
   Google Scholar
• Duchesne, S., E. Frazer, F. Haegel, and V. Van Ingelgom, eds. 2013. Citizens’ Reactions to European Integration Compared: Overlooking Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Eeckhout, P. 2020. “Brexit: Can Regulatory Autonomy and Level Playing Field Be Reconciled?” UCL blog, February
   Google Scholar
• Egan, M., and K. Nicolaidis. 2001. “Transnational Market Governance and Regional Policy Externality: Why Recognize Foreign Standards?.” Journal of European Public Policy 8 (3): 454–473.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enwezor, O. 2010. “Modernity and Postcolonial Ambivalence.” South Atlantic Quarterly 109 (3): 595–620.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, G., and A. Menon. 2017. Brexit and British Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fabbrini, F., ed. 2017. The Law & Politics of Brexit. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Festinger, L. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ford, R. 2019 “Immigration: Is Public Opinion Changing? ”. In Brexit and Public Opinion, - London: UK in a Changing Europe.
   Google Scholar
• Freud, S. 1918. “Totem and Taboo, Trans.” James Strachey (New York, 1950) 95.
   Google Scholar
• Piccolino, G., Angelucci, D and, D. A., and P. Isernia, 2019. “What Brexit Has Taught Italy about Its Own Prospects of Leaving the EU”, LES blog, June
   Google Scholar
• Girard, R. 1982. Le bouc Emissaire. Paris: Grasset.
   Google Scholar
• Haddock, G. 2003. “Making a Party Leader Less of a Party Member: The Impact of Ambivalence on Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Political Party Attitudes.” Political Psychology 24 (4): 769–780.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halikiopoulou, D., and T. Vlandas. 2016. “Risks, Costs and Labour Markets: Explaining Cross‐national Patterns of Far Right Party Success in European Parliament Elections.” JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 54 (3): 636–655.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hay, C., and C. Benoît. 2020. “Brexit, Positional Populism, and the Declining Appeal of Valence Politics.” Critical Review, forthcoming.
   Google Scholar
• Hetherington, M. J., and T. J. Rudolph. 2015. Why Washington Won’t Work: Polarization, Political Trust, and the Governing Crisis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hirschman, A. O. 1970. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Cambridge:: Harvard university press.
   Google Scholar
• Hobolt, S., T. J. Leeper, and J. Tilley. 2020. “Divided by the Vote: Affective Polarization in the Wake of the Brexit Referendum.” British Journal of Political Science, forthcoming
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hobolt, S. B. 2016. “The Brexit Vote: A Divided Nation, a Divided Continent.” Journal of European Public Policy 23 (9): 1259–1277.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inglehart, R. 2018. Cultural Evolution: People’s Motivations are Changing, and Reshaping the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Innerarity, D. 2018. Democracy in Europe: A Political Philosophy of the EU. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Jabri, V. 2012. The Postcolonial Subject: Claiming Politics/governing Others in Late Modernity, 48–56. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Katwala, S. 2019. “Immigration: A Polarised Debate? ”. In Brexit and Public Opinion, London: UK in a Changing Europe.
   Google Scholar
• Kauffmann, S. and Ricard, 2020. “Europe’s British Question: How Will the EU’s Big Powers Play the Next Phase?” The Guardian, 5 February
   Google Scholar
• Lacroix, J., and K. Nicolaidis. 2010. European Stories: Intellectual Debates on European Integration in National Contexts. Oxford: Oxford University Press
   Google Scholar
• Lee, E. S. 2016. “Postcolonial Ambivalence and Phenomenological Ambiguity: Towards Recognizing Asian American Women’s Agency.” Critical Philosophy of Race 4 (1): 56–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macaj, G. 2020. “The Logic of Consistency.” PhD Thesis, Oxford University
   Google Scholar
• MacKuen, M., J. Wolak, L. Keele, and G. E. Marcus. 2010. “Civic Engagements: Resolute Partisanship or Reflective Deliberation.” American Journal of Political Science 54 (2): 440-458. doi:10.1111/ajps.2010.54.issue-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maio, G. R., G. Haddock, and B. Verplanken. 2018. The Psychology of Attitudes and Attitude Change. CA: Sage Publications Limited.
   Google Scholar
• Mbembe, A. 2008. “What Is Post-colonial Thinking?” Eurozine, September .
   Google Scholar
• Moss, D. S. 2010. “Attitudinal Ambivalence” Psycholopedia, March 16, 2010
   Google Scholar
• Mpofu-Walsh, S. 2020. “Obedient Rebellion, Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones and Global Nuclear Order, 1967–2017.” PhD thesis, Oxford University
   Google Scholar
• Nasr, M..2020. “ The Devil Is in the Detail? Causes and Consequences of Strategic Ambiguity.” Working Paper, European University Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Nicolaidis, K., 2016a “A Letter to My British Friends: For Europe’s Sake, Please Stay,” Opendemocracy, 8 March)
   Google Scholar
• Nicolaidis, K. 2016b. “My Eutopia: Empathy in a Union of Others.” In Re: ThinkingEurope, Thoughts on Europe: Past, Present and Future, edited by M. Segers and Y. Albrecht. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nicolaidis, K. 2017a.“Mutual Recognition: Promise and Denial, from Sapiens to Brexit” Current Legal Problems, December
   Google Scholar
• Nicolaidis, K. 2017b. “The Political Mantra: Brexit, Control and the Transformation of the European Order.” In The Law and Politics of Brexit, edited by F. Fabbrini. Oxxford: Oxford University Press .
   Google Scholar
• Nicolaidis, K. 2018. “Brexit and the Compatibility Paradigm A Guide for the Mutual Recognition Perplexed,” London: The UK in a Changing Europe. March
   Google Scholar
• Nicolaidis, K. 2019. Exodus, Reckoning, Sacrifice: Three Meanings of Brexit. London: Unbound Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Nicolaidis, K. 2020. “Brexit Negotiations: Linkages Need to Be Handled with Care.” UK in a Changing Europe, March
   Google Scholar
• O’Connell, M. 2019. “BBC Sounds.” 12 August
   Google Scholar
• O’Toole, F. 2018. Heroic Failure: Brexit and the Politics of Pain. London: Head of Zeus Ltd .
   Google Scholar
• Gianluca P., D. Angelucc.i, and P. Isernia, 2019, What Brexit has taught Italy about its own prospects of leaving the EU, LSE blog, 2019
   Google Scholar
• Pizzorno, A. 2018. “Politics Unbound.” In Rethinking The Subject, 73–89. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Popper, K. 1990. A World of Propensities-Two New Views on Causality. Thoemmes.
   Google Scholar
• Renwick, A., S. Allan, W. Jennings, R. McKee, M. Russell, and G. Smith. 2017. “A Considered Public Voice on Brexit: The Report of the Citizens' Assembly on Brexit.“ London The Constitution Unit, University College London..
   Google Scholar
• Risse, T. 2015. A Community of Europeans?: Transnational Identities and Public Spheres. Ithaca, London: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Smelser, N. J. 1998. “The Rational and the Ambivalent in the Social Sciences.” American Sociological Review 63 (1): 1–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Standing, G. 2014. “The Precariat-The New Dangerous Class.” Amalgam 6 (6–7): 115–119.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, R. 2017. “Brexit, the Four Freedoms and the Indivisibility Dogma,” LSE Blog, November 27.
   Google Scholar
• Van Harreveld, F., B. T. Rutjens, M. Rotteveel, L. F. Nordgren, J. van der Pligt. 2009. “Ambivalence and Decisional Conflict as a Cause of Psychological Discomfort: Feeling Tense before Jumping off the Fence.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45 (1): 167–173. .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weatherill, S. 2018. “The Principle of Mutual Recognition: It Doesn’t Work because It Doesn’t Exist.” European Law Review.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiler, J. H. 2017. “Editorial: The case for a Kinder, Gentler Brexit.” Eur. J. Int’l L. 28: 1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young, R. J. C. 1995. Colonial Desire: Hybridity in Theory, Culture and Race. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar