The Brexit A Critical Examination Of An Article

Introduction

Article analyses are often written by a reader as a demonstration that they have read and understood what the writer is trying to communicate in the article. It also demonstrates the reader’s ability to think critically and derive useful information from a particular article. Therefore, the main aim of this paper is to perform an analysis of an article that is written about the Brexit process and its current situation. In doing so, the paper will summarize the article’s main point, evaluate the evidence used by the author to support their main argument, and reflect on the significance of the articles, and how it relates to other concepts. The paper will first give a summary of the article, then, later on, there will be an analysis of what effective or important argument the author is trying to make. Similarly, there will be an evaluation of the key limitations of the article before comparing the article to other articles on the same topic.

A Summary of the Text

The author’s main argument is that the whole idea of Brexit is a shame to the UK because three years have passed since the Brexit vote and Britain has still not managed to depart from EU. The author’s supports the statement of ‘Brexit as a shame’ by arguing that the UK wanted to leave EU without knowing the process of achieving the cessation.

In supporting this argument, the author claims that the Brexit negotiations are not going as expected and have seemingly been going “horribly wrong” ever since they started. This leads the author into thinking that whereas Brexit supporters thought it could solve the problems that Britain was facing; this thought was delusional and misleading.

The article also claims that Brexit does not offer any solution to UK’s problems, and this is so for several reasons. First, the author thinks that Brexit would derail all the efforts that have been made by EU to protect workers as well as those that have been directed towards environmental protection. Secondly, the author thinks that Britain could still achieve the leftists’ and the idealists’ dreams without leaving EU; but now, with Brexit, these dreams seem unachievable because Brexit has caused rivalry between progressive groups within the UK.

The author goes ahead to criticize the UK’s prime minister (Teresa May) for the many mistakes she has made she has made in regards to the Brexit negotiations. In doing so, the author claims that Teresa May came up with anti-immigrant policies that seek to curtail freedom of movement within EU, implying that traveling within EU will be restricted. According to the author, presenting such a policy reveals that Teresa May does not care about the people because instead of empowering people’s goals, it restricts them (both Britons and non-Britons) from traveling freely to achieve their goals.

To express further displeasure with Teresa May, the author compares her with the former Prime Minister David Cameron who, in the opinions of the author, could have solved the same problems that Brexit seeks to solve through a different approach (i.e. by capping austerity) rather than engaging in a process (Brexit) which the author terms as “the most plebiscite in the world.”

The author also expresses displeasure against other political parties in the UK that supported Brexit. For instance, a complaint is raised against the Tories for not having British at heart because, during a conference in Liverpool, members of the party refused to support a second referendum that could have presented Britons with an opportunity to oppose Brexit. As a result, the author considers the two parties as ‘strictly-English’ and not British because they failed to consider the views of non-English Britons (e.g. Scottish and Irish) against Brexit.

The author concludes the article with an argument that by supporting Brexit, all the political leaders in the right and left showed their disregard for British fundamental political values such as sensibility, political pragmatism and meritocracy; and wonders whether these values were just created out of imagination or were meant to be upheld by future leaders.

An Analysis of the Text

A deeper analysis of this article reveals an important aspect of Brexit: that not all Britons supported it and that the challenges met so far in the Brexit negotiations might just be confirming the concerns raised by those who opposed the whole idea. Similarly, the author’s argument from the perspective that Brexit would not solve all the problems faced by Britain reveals the inherent negatives that Brexit continues to hold in the face of some Britons.

However, a major limitation on the article is its failure to support some of the arguments with real evidence. For instance, the author claims that Brexit negotiations have been all wrong from the start, without acknowledging any positive achievement that Teresa May and her team of negotiators has made. It would have been better if the author acknowledged these achievements and further put an argument of why they are insignificant or not useful to the Britons.

Similarly, the author criticizes Teresa May for developing policies that “ends freedom of movement once and for all” and that the policy do not empower people’s goals, neither do they allow people to move freely within EU. However, the author fails to give deep thoughts on the issue of free movement, so much so that any reader can weigh the merits and demerits of the policy.

Finally, there is a limitation in the author’s language and tone while expressing the views against Brexit. For instance, the author uses phrases such as ‘horribly wrong’, ‘How delusional’ and ‘what an undeserved gift’ which are extreme and judgmental against Brexit. Whereas these words assist in expressing displeasure against Brexit (which is the main aim of the article), it is questionable whether the author considers the level bias presented by the article’s tone (especially without offering deeper arguments and evidence to support the choice of words).

All in all, arguments presented in this article connect to other articles that have been written by other authors such as Allison (2018) who argues that Brexit goes against the values of the Tory Party and that the Tory Party should have opposed Brexit based on their values. Ultimately through, the author succeeds in convincing the audience about the article’s main argument that Brexit was a bad idea and all the failures it has encountered during the negotiations indicate so.

Looking for further insights on The Apparent Saving of Cost By A Reduction? Click here.

Reference

• Allison S. (2018) Leaving the EU goes against everything the Tory Party stands for – they should be the ones opposing Brexit, The Independent, 21st OCT, 2018