The European Union referendum in Britain officially starts tomorrow, following confirmation from the Electoral Commission that Vote Leave will be campaigning for Leave and Britain Stronger in Europe campaigning for Remain. Both enter an electoral process with much to fight for. The Leave side, however is currently the most disparate, with Leave.EU and Grassroots Out also campaigning to leave the EU. Nigel Farage has since called for unity behind the official campaign, however hurt feelings will make that problematic over the coming weeks. Indeed, the divisions within UKIP have been increasingly open for all to see, however such divisions tend to be a constant feature of the party.
Having said that, fundamentally the rhetoric used by both sides will be important in determining which side emerges as victorious. This is because the language and the arguments used represent their respective cases and, in so doing, the logical basis for their support. Both sides have been equally accused of Project Fear, whilst both also claim to have the positive argument on their side. It has been an early attempt to construct the character of their opponents as deceitful whilst showing themselves to be genuine. The electorate is left in the middle, still mostly disconnected from the whole thing. In part this is because the ongoing debates over Britain and Europe have been a feature of British politics for many years, and to some extent the voter remains ambivalent about those debates. As a consequence it has been very much a ‘bubble issue’ ever since Nigel Lawson and Geoffrey Howe resigned under Margaret Thatcher’s leadership of the Conservative Party.
Those who are engaged, however are the rhetorical foot soldiers who will fight for their side to win. So, what rhetoric would be most effective in securing victory for either side? Put simply, it is a matter of character and credibility. Rhetorically this is ethos, which represents one of Aristotle’s most significant modes of persuasion. In order to connect with the voter, the arguments need to be relevant to the daily lives of the voter, not rooted in abstractions about parliamentary sovereignty or the idea of a possible future outside of the EU. The arguments need to show how remaining or leaving will affect them as individuals, rather than talking about parliamentary process or the dream of a better tomorrow.
This favours the Remain camp because they can argue that the Leave side are offering a disconnected vision that has little or no relevance to reality. Remain can argue that jobs, housing, and security will be protected within the EU because we are already members. It is the status quo, with investment in deprived areas already improving the quality of life for the poorest members of society.
In contrast, Leave has the much harder task of explaining how their abstraction relates to social and domestic realities across the country. Indeed, the Leave side need to explain how changing the stable status quo benefits those who will be personally affected by leaving. Thus far the preference of Vote Leave has been to talk about Parliament and attack the European Union for existing. This has little to do with the bread and butter issues of daily life. Thus, why take the risk?
Over the course of the campaign, it will be interesting to see how these debates are constructed and, ultimately, conveyed to an electorate who only want to know how it affects them. At present the impression is leaving the EU will only be beneficial to a small number of politicians in Westminster who are preoccupied with their own powers.
Thus, whoever constructs their ethos to reflect the interests of voters will likely emerge victorious. For Leave to do this, they will need to show how disrupting the status quo and risking jobs and investment is a positive thing for the UK. For Remain to do this, they will need to show how the EU has their interests at heart and that is isn’t some distant entity which has little or no impact upon their daily lives.
Put simply, this is a rhetorical argument based on why the electorate should either 1): take the risk of leaving the EU or 2): remain attached to an ‘alien’ political institution. To overcome these hurdles, the two campaigns need to argue that their position reflects the interests of the British people and that they are ‘just like us’. Failure to do so will prevent their argument from resonating with the electorate. At present, it seems like it is all to play for. Whoever connects will win the day.
Andrew Crines is Lecturer in British Politics at the University of Liverpool. He tweets @AndrewCrines.
Image: Abi Begum
