LAUSR

On 23 June 2016 the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. The unfolding drama of this exit, or ‘Brexit’, has stupefied and captivated audiences in the United Kingdom, Europe and beyond ever since. As this issue of Contemporary European History goes to press, the United Kingdom and the European Union have not yet finalised the withdrawal agreement on the details of their divorce, nor have they agreed the shape of their future relations. The possibility of an acrimonious ‘no-deal’ exit cannot be ruled out at this stage, either because of a failure by the two sides to reach an agreement, or because one or both are unable to deliver the terms of it. It is widely assumed that the UK will legally leave the European Union on 29 March 2019, just over a month after the print copies of this journal issue will have hit the library shelves. Historians of the twentieth century are often conflicted about the idea of writing ‘current’ or newsworthy history. On the one hand, many agree that their fields of research can be made particularly relevant and potent by questions of current concern. If pressed, many will also admit that knowledge of recent and not-so-recent developments can improve our ability to diagnose ongoing problems. But on the other hand, few would want to claim that past examples provide any easy fixes or solutions for current crises, or that, in fact, it is at all feasible to trace direct, straight lines connecting any given past moment with the present. We don’t think it is. And yet, there are moments when historical perspectives can provide insights that public discourse cannot otherwise grasp. Brexit is one such moment. As Anne Deighton puts it in her contribution to this roundtable, ‘at crucial moments, historians can see the past through a new lens – and Brexit is just such a lens’. Considering Brexit in the broad sweep of contemporary European history, we believe, has much to offer for both historians of Europe and practitioners of Brexit. The roundtable format has proven to be a useful one for exploring matters of historiographical controversy. As a journal, Contemporary European History seeks to provide critical reflection on contemporary developments in the field. The essays in this issue examine Brexit as a historicallyrooted phenomenon that, regardless of when and how it ultimately happens, will have consequences for the way in which European history is being, and will be, written. The aim of this collection is emphatically not to re-enact the debates of the 2016 referendum or the rights and wrongs of each campaign, nor is it to replicate existing conversations between specialists in European integration. Instead, this roundtable provides an opportunity for a range of historians of Europe working within very different national and historiographical traditions to reflect on the historical significance and contexts that gave rise to Brexit and within which it should be understood. Even in the event that Brexit is delayed or even cancelled, the last two years have brought to light deep cleavages between historical developments and perceptions in the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe which historians of the twentieth century will find difficult to forget. We asked nineteen European historians (by professional specialism rather than nationality, even if they are also Europeans) about their thoughts on Brexit. On some level, the prospect of Brexit is strikingly anti-historical, in that it defies everything we thought we knew about the history of internationalisation and globalisation in general, and European integration in particular, as a more or less one-directional process. The history of the reverse, of any significant and