The campaign for Britain and the European Union has begun with the two sides already starting to use signs of ‘Project Fear’. The Leave campaign are seeking to cast the EU as some kind of organisation which purposefully exports corruption to all those who come into contact with it. Meanwhile, the Remain campaign seem to be suggesting if we leave the EU then Britain will fall into a dark economic pit (following the breakup of the UK after a second indyref gives victory to the SNP) from which it will never recover. Rhetorically speaking both these positions are hyperbole.
As such it would be wise to reboot this campaign before both sides start sending out too many half-truths. This debate is too serious to be left to such shallow political strategies. It is first important to know exactly what we are and are not having a referendum on. We are not deciding whether the Conservatives can claim victory in the re-negotiations simply to position the Party ahead of 2020. Nor are we weighing up the options of whether Nigel Farage, Douglas Carswell, and the rest of UKIP can or should be allowed to lead Britain out of the European Union. Nor is this about giving the EU a kick for its mistakes, or for allowing free movement of people to (allegedly) ‘get out of hand’. This referendum is about whether or not the UK remains part of one of the most significant economic and political blocs of the modern age. The European Union has been one of the most successful blocs in recent history, and has been successful in providing the forums for discussion needed by our European partners. The EU today has many problems, but so does the United Nations, NATO, or even the Union between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But we don’t walk away simply because of domestic political (or economic) expediency.
To help make this decision we need our political figures from both sides to act in a deliberative manner. The rhetoric we’ve had so far has been driven far too much by emotion (particularly fear). Fear of the unknown has made our electorate somewhat conservative, thus the Remain group has the advantage with this tactic. But a shift towards a deliberative, mature style should mean the arguments are presented by those who have a credible image with the majority of the electorate. This, sadly, precludes many of those who have spoken thus far because of the clear partisan nature of the participants. Succinctly, awareness of those political strategies precludes the arguments from resonating as effectively. As such, given the debates transcend politics, it may be worth looking towards those who currently stand outside of the political process more rather than simply listening to the same arguments we’ve heard for years from the Labour left/Conservative right or UKIP.
Given this debate is about the long term future of our relations with European countries, the nature of how our country will tap into the globalised world, and also about how other countries view us, we need to take a far more considered view than the one currently being presented to us by both sides. ‘Project Fear’ might have worked in Scotland, but for this referendum we need to have a mature, open, and above all else, civilised debate. This is vital because the civility of the rhetoric used will define our country after the referendum, in a similar way it has in Scotland. It is about what kind of political discourse we want. We don’t want to be dragged out of, or kept bonded to, the EU based on emotive and hyperbolic rhetoric from either side, because regardless of the outcome the quality of our democracy will depend upon how we conduct these debates. Thus far, the EU debate has been somewhat wanting in projecting a mature future for Britain, either inside or outside the European Union. Put simply, both sides need to grow up and start talking to the voters, rather than their own supporters.
Andrew Crines is Lecturer in British Politics at the University of Liverpool. He tweets @AndrewCrines.
