How did the leaflets circulated before the EU referendum talk about migrants? Alexandra Bulat (UCL SSEES) examines the LSE's collection and finds - on both sides - a distinction between 'desirable' and 'undesirable' migrants, whether from within or outside the EU. At no point were the views of the migrants themselves heard. Researchers agree that immigration, alongside economics, were the ..

Bulat, Alexandra

LSE Research Online

‘The	brightest	and	best’,	us	–	and	the	rest:	desirableand	undesirable	migration	in	EU	referendum	leafletsHow	did	the	leaflets	circulated	before	the	EU	referendum	talk	about	migrants?	AlexandraBulat	(UCL	SSEES)	examines	the	LSE’s	collection	and	finds	–	on	both	sides	–	a	distinctionbetween	‘desirable’	and	‘undesirable’	migrants,	whether	from	within	or	outside	the	EU.	At	nopoint	were	the	views	of	the	migrants	themselves	heard.Researchers	agree	that	immigration,	alongside	economics,	were	the	top	two	issues	forcampaigners	and	voters	alike	during	the	EU	referendum.	But	the	rapidly	emerging	literature	onBrexit	lacks	a	detailed	analysis	on	the	nature	of	immigration	arguments.	Apart	from	brief	references	to	campaignmaterial	and	some	discussion	around	the	official	government	EU	referendum	leaflet	(for	instance,	in	a	recentbook	by	Andrew	Glencross),	there	is	not	much	analysis	of	ephemera	as	a	form	through	which	ideas	andarguments	about	immigration	were	communicated.Yet	millions	of	leaflets	were	distributed	during	the	campaign	on	high	streets,	in	neighbourhoods,	at	events	acrossthe	country,	by	post,	and	by	other	means.	Usually,	these	leaflets	summarise	a	campaigner’s	key	arguments,	withmore	detail	presented	through	other	media,	such	as	televised	interviews,	debates,	and	campaign	websites.Image	1:	Anonymous	leafletFully	40%	of	the	177	individual	digitised	items	in	the	LSE	Brexit	collection	of	referendum	ephemera	mentionedimmigration.	The	sample	details	are	available	here.	What	types	of	people	were	mentioned,	and	what	argumentswere	made?As	you	would	expect	in	a	referendum	on	the	UK’s	continuing	EU	membership,	most	content	is	about	freedom	ofmovement	within	the	EU,	comprising	over	two-thirds	of	the	total.	The	remaining	third	is	about	non-EU	migration,including	references	to	Commonwealth	migration,	but	also	‘future	EU	migration’	(such	as	from	Turkey).	There	area	few	references	to	refugees	and	asylum	seekers	(described	as	migrants	too),	and	also	terrorists.LSE Brexit: ‘The brightest and best’, us – and the rest: desirable and undesirable migration in EU referendum leaflets Page 1 of 4		Date originally posted: 2017-09-15Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/09/15/the-brightest-and-best-us-and-the-rest-desirable-and-undesirable-migration-in-eu-referendum-leaflets/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/Figure	1:	Frequent	words	–	‘Turkey’,	as	an	official	candidate	forEU	membership,	is	amongst	the	most	popular	[own	illustration]For	freedom	of	movement	within	the	EU,	the	arguments	are	mainly	about	non-UK	EU	nationals	living	in	the	UK.However,	there	is	significant	coverage	of	how	freedom	of	movement	applies	to	UK	citizens.	A	majority	ofreferences	to	EU	migrants	are	negative,	and	found	in	Leave	materials.	EU	people	living	in	the	UK	tend	to	bedeployed	as	examples	within	utilitarian	arguments	of	labour	and	social	security,	such	as	the	pressures	migrationposes	on	the	NHS,	housing,	transport	and	other	services.	Interestingly,	when	they	are	more	specific	than	simplyreferring	to	‘EU	migrants’,	the	leaflets	allude	to	more	recent	movements	of	EU	citizens,	who	are	described	ascoming	from	‘poor	European	countries’,	‘Eastern	Europe’,	and	other	similar	phrases	(Image	2).Image	2:	Extract	from	‘Vote	to	Leave’,	‘The	EU	referendumcampaign’LSE Brexit: ‘The brightest and best’, us – and the rest: desirable and undesirable migration in EU referendum leaflets Page 2 of 4		Date originally posted: 2017-09-15Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/09/15/the-brightest-and-best-us-and-the-rest-desirable-and-undesirable-migration-in-eu-referendum-leaflets/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/However,	there	are	also	mentions	of	EU	students	and	researchers,	NHS	professionals,	framed	in	what	JürgenHabermas	identifies	as	a	different	type	of	utilitarian	frame	–	namely	economic	prosperity.	Those	argumentsemphasise	the	contributions	made	by	migrants	and	the	need	for	migrant	workers.	EU	students	and	researchersare	also	mentioned	within	the	context	of	multiculturalism,	with	Remain	campaigners	supporting	‘an	international,outward	looking	culture’	(a	leaflet	by	Universities	for	Europe),	as	opposed	to	a	nationalistic	stance	discouragingthis	diversity.	‘The	brightest	and	the	best’	migrants,	as	one	of	the	leaflet’s	headlines	reads,	were	praised	byRemain	campaigners,	but	‘the	rest’	were	left	to	be	criticised	in	their	adversaries’	campaign	materials.Meanwhile,	in	the	same	debate	about	freedom	of	movement,	references	to	British	people	were	almost	entirelypositive.	Remain	campaigners	stressed	the	benefits	of	free	movement	for	UK	citizens	who	wish	to	‘travel,	work,study,	and	retire	in	the	EU,	without	visas’	(a	leaflet	by	Wales	Stronger	In	Europe).	The	official	national	Remaincampaign	insisted	that	freedom	of	movement	was	‘great	for	pensioners’,	‘great	for	young	people’	and	‘great	forholidaymakers’	(Image	3).	It	perhaps	failed	to	recognise	that	those	groups	(British	retirees	living	abroad,	studentsand	younger	people,	and	those	who	travel	frequently)	did	not	necessarily	represent	key	voters	who	needed	muchpersuasion	to	vote	Remain.	Image	3:	Extract	from	‘100	days	to	secure	our	future’,	Britain	Stronger	In	EuropeMoreover,	some	Leave	campaigners	insisted	that	the	rights	of	British	citizens	living	in	other	EU	states	will	notchange	after	Brexit.	‘If	we	left	the	EU	would	we	still	be	able	to	travel,	take	holidays,	work,	study	and	own	propertyin	Europe?’,	asks	a	detailed	FAQ-style	leaflet	from	the	UK	Independence	Party.	‘Britons	were	able	to	do	all	thesethings	long	before	we	joined	the	EU,	and	we	will	be	able	to	do	them	after	we	leave’,	the	answer	reads.	Theseassurances	are	of	little	use	now	to	British	people	abroad	(and	also	EU	citizens	in	the	UK)	who	feel	a	great	deal	ofuncertainty	about	the	outcome	of	the	Brexit	negotiations	on	their	future	rights.Apart	from	freedom	of	movement,	the	leaflets	spoke	about	non-EU	migration	and	refugees.	There	are	twocontrasting	portrayals.	One	is	the	image	of	migrants	within	a	security	frame.	Taking	for	granted	that	the	EU	wouldexpand	–	including	frequent	mentions	of	Turkey	joining	the	EU	(e.g.	Image	4)	–	this	depiction	plays	into	securityfears	of	another	wave	of	mass	migration,	but	also	the	increased	risk	of	terrorism	in	the	UK.	The	security	framecomes	with	the	‘solution’:	the	UK	needs	to	control	its	borders	by	voting	to	Leave.LSE Brexit: ‘The brightest and best’, us – and the rest: desirable and undesirable migration in EU referendum leaflets Page 3 of 4		Date originally posted: 2017-09-15Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/09/15/the-brightest-and-best-us-and-the-rest-desirable-and-undesirable-migration-in-eu-referendum-leaflets/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/Image	4:	Extract	from	‘The	European	Union	and	your	family:	the	facts’,Vote	LeaveThe	positive	case	for	non-EU	migration	is	about	the	Commonwealth.	Leave	campaigners	criticise	an	unfairimmigration	system	giving	preference	to	‘low-skilled’	EU	migrants	over	highly	qualified	‘Commonwealth	friends’.Overall,	two	observations	apply	to	all	migration-related	leaflets:	the	obsession	with	the	scale	of	migration	and	thelack	of	migrants	as	sources.	Despite	the	fact	that	the	UK’s	EU	migration	figures	are	based	on	estimates	(usuallypassenger	survey	data)	and	they	are	not	exact	numbers	of	people	coming	to	and	leaving	the	UK,	leaflets	on	bothsides	claim	precise	numbers	of	different	types	of	migrants.	This	leads	to	various	figures	being	communicated	bydifferent	campaigners	when	describing	the	same	type	of	migration.	Leave	campaigners	use	different	time	frames(e.g.	migration	since	2004)	to	speak	about	EU	migration	as	‘equivalent	to	a	city	the	size	of’	(e.g.	Manchester,Newcastle,	York),	depending	on	where	the	leaflet	is	distributed.	Lastly,	on	sources,	although	quotes	from	expertsand	members	of	the	public	are	employed	in	some	leaflets,	both	sides	failed	to	include	opinions	from	EU	migrantorganisations	or	the	non-UK	EU	residents	themselves.	This	suggests	‘EU	migrants’	were	spoken	for	and,	inaddition	to	not	having	a	say	at	the	ballot	box,	did	not	have	their	own	voice	in	the	campaign	leaflets	which	madeclaims	about	them.Cherrypicking	different	types	of	migrants	to	suit	pre-existing	arguments	created	a	selective	debate,	which	wasunfair	for	the	migrant	population	as	a	whole.	Three	main	categories	emerge	from	the	leaflets.	First,	there	is	‘us’,British-born	people,	some	of	whom	are	believed	to	benefit	from	free	movement.	Second,	there	are	‘desirable’migrations,	such	as	the	free	movement	of	‘the	brightest	and	the	best’	EU	students	and	NHS	workers	contributingto	the	economy,	from	a	Remain	perspective,	and	high-skilled	Commonwealth	migration,	from	a	Leavestandpoint.		Third,	there	is	‘the	rest’,	those	‘undesirable’	flows	of	people,	such	as	‘low-skilled	Eastern	Europeans’,for	instance,	or	refugees	(who	are	portrayed	in	an	even	more	negative	light).	Who	is	included	in	the	latter	twocategories	very	much	depends	on	the	agenda	of	the	organisation	publishing	the	leaflets.This	post	represents	the	views	of	the	author	and	not	those	of	the	Brexit	blog,	nor	the	LSE.Alexandra	Bulat	is	an	ESRC-funded	research	student	at	the	School	of	Slavonic	and	East	European	Studies(SSEES),	University	College	London	(UCL).	Her	doctoral	research	focuses	on	attitudes	towards	EU	migration	inStratford	(London)	and	Clacton-on-Sea.	Alexandra	tweets	@alexandrabulat.LSE Brexit: ‘The brightest and best’, us – and the rest: desirable and undesirable migration in EU referendum leaflets Page 4 of 4		Date originally posted: 2017-09-15Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/09/15/the-brightest-and-best-us-and-the-rest-desirable-and-undesirable-migration-in-eu-referendum-leaflets/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/

'The brightest and best', us - and the rest: desirable and undesirable migration in EU referendum leaflets

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online