The Brexit referendum: how trade and immigration in the discourses of the official campaigns have legitimised a toxic (inter)national logic

ABSTRACT

This paper analyses the discourses produced on their websites by the two organisations that conducted the official ‘leave’ and ‘remain’ campaigns in the Brexit referendum. The analysis, which adopts the general orientation of the Discourse Historical Approach in CDS, is aimed at illuminating the main discursive strategies, argumentative schemes and key representations of Britain in/and Europe that sustained the ideological (de)legitimation of Brexit on either side. Based on this analysis, this paper argues that the specific ideological articulation of two key discursive elements – namely trade and immigration – and the argumentative schemes deployed in the campaign engendered and legitimised a new toxic (inter)national logic of Brexit: by leaving the EU, Britain ‘takes back control’ to pursue mercantile policies whose benefits ‘outsiders’ should be excluded from.

KEYWORDS:

• Brexit referendum campaign
• media framing
• institutional framing
• critical discourse analysis
• argument analysis

Notes on contributor

Franco Zappettini is a Lecturer in Communication and Media at the University of Liverpool where he leads the module on Language and Media. His research focuses on the textual/discursive analysis of different forms of political and organisational communication including mediated forms of populism, such as tabloid populism and Euroscepticism in the British press. He has published internationally in peer-reviewed journals. His latest publication is the monograph ‘European identities in Discourse: A transnational citizens’ perspective’ Bloomsbury (2019). Department of Communication and Media, School of the Arts, University of Liverpool, 19 Abercrombie Square, Oxford Street, Liverpool L69 7ZG, UK.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

ORCID

Franco Zappettini http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7049-4454

Notes

1. Designated campaigns were entitled to public grants (up to £7m), free mailing and broadcasts http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-360386721.

2. For details of endorsers see: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/elections-and-referendums/upcoming-elections-and-referendums/eu-referendum/designation-of-lead-campaigners-for-the-eu-referendum.

3. These were www.voteleavetakecontrol.org (VL) and www.strongerin.co.uk (BSE).

4. For a discussion of free trade and its association with neo liberal ideologies in the context of Brexit see Zappettini (2019).

5. The figure was highly contested since it does not take into account a substantial rebate granted to the UK https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/dominic-cummings-brexit-referendum-won/. The pledge to spend £ 350 m on the NHS was dismissed by Leavers soon after the referendum result (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-nhs-350m-a-week-eu-change-britain-gisela-stuart-referendum-bus-a7236706.html).

6. The ECHR was established prior to and independently of the EU in 1953 with the UK being one of its key promoters of its introduction. It has been adopted by a number of countries (including Turkey and Russia) which are not necessarily EU members states.

7. See for example https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1271200/more-than-100000-turks-a-year-will-flock-to-britain-after-it-joins-the-eu-pushing-net-migration-to-a-staggering-420000/.

8. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/16/nigel-farage-defends-ukip-breaking-point-poster-queue-of-migrants.