Naturally the EU referendum campaigns differ greatly in how they target voters. However, the campaign leaflets all seem to be claiming that the “alternatives are worse”. Daniel Belling shows this with a sample analysis consisting of leaflets produced by eight campaigns supporting remain and leave, as well as the disputed leaflet by the UK Government

Belling, Daniel

LSE Research Online

09/06/2016‘The alternatives are worse’ – the message that unites EUreferendum campaignersblogs.lse.ac.uk /brexit/2016/06/09/alternatives-are-worse-the-message-that-unites-the-eu-referendum-campaigns/Naturally the EU referendum campaigns differ greatly in how they target voters.  However, the campaignleaflets all seem to be claiming that the “alternatives are worse”. Daniel Belling shows thiswith a sample analysis consisting of leaflets produced by eight campaigns supporting remainand leave, as well as the disputed leaflet by the UK Government.Differences can be best described in terms of political framing as it is increasingly applied in theanalysis of political documents. Political framing is a general strategy of selecting andhighlighting specific aspects of the political reality. An intended selection of political aspectsdoes not mean to base arguments on false facts or bluntly constructed narratives about politicalcauses and consequences. Yet it is to stress those aspects that might resonate most in the target constituency andto bring these specific issues in the spotlight of public attention.Emphasis frames by campaigners are used to increase issue salience by highlighting one issue while putting lessattention to others. From an expert point of view, the consequences of remaining or leaving on issues such asconsumer protection, financial regulation or security might be far more worrisome. Yet the salience of issues in theBritish population is more dominated by their perceived reality – which is often drawn from day-to-day experience,underestimating indirect (positive and negative) effects of EU membership. In consequence, issues of immigrationand the economic outlook are the most salient issues. But is this divide between salient issues also reflected in thecampaigns?Table 1 Frame selection by campaign (% of text coverage in leaflet)In order to appeal to the electorate, the remain-side supposedly tries to shape opinions by focussing on economicaspects while the leave-side aims to convince by promoting the immigration issue. This pattern is confirmed in theanalysed campaign leaflets (Table 1). References to prices, jobs and most importantly trade & investment can be1/4found more frequently in the leaflets of the four remain campaigns and the government leaflet. Conversely, leavecampaigns focus on aspects of immigration, public finance (specifically the EU membership contribution) andsovereignty. Interestingly, only the controversial government leaflet tries to appeal to all major issues, while theINtogether campaign is most selective in their choice of issues.www.aboutmyvote.co.ukEquivalence framing focuses on the way that information is presented yet without changing the information content.Much attention in the EU referendum debate was drawn to the costs and benefits of EU membership and theconsequences for Britain if it leaves the European Union. In this debate the campaigns apply a risk frame (a strategydubbed as ‘project fear’) that highlights negative aspects of either leaving or staying, for example:“It is most likely that we would risk jobs, trade and investment in exchange for less control over our own economicaffairs.” (StrongerIN)“If we vote to ‘remain’, it is a vote for the permanent payment to Brussels of all this money. It will get worse.”(VoteLeave)They however also frame issues in a positive way, pointing out the opportunities of continuing or quitting EUmembership:“If we want Britain to be a leader in the world, we need to be in Europe helping to take the big decisions.”(StrongerIN)“We use our stronger international influence to work for closer international cooperation.”  (VoteLeave)The analysis shows that the risk frame is employed more generously by leave campaigns while remain campaignsoverwhelmingly use the opportunity frame highlighting the benefits of a EU membership to convince voters.However, by doing so, differences are observable between pointing out British interests in the European Union(most clearly shown by the government leaflet and the StrongerIN campaign) and the benefits of being in acommunity of nations to take joint action toward European and global challenges (GreenerIN).2/4Figure 1 Equivalence framing in campaigns (% text coverage in leaflet, neutral text passages excluded)Note that the important assumption that the information content is identical for both frames is unlikely to be met.Both sides cherry-pick those reports and studies that support their argument the most. Yet for the purpose of thisshort analysis this is negligible since the dichotomy itself is still valid.The emergence and proliferation of a populist party on the right as a new political force can be explained by astrategy of constantly providing a causal narrative. UKIP successfully appealed to the ‘left-behind’ voters byconnecting their destiny to the social changes induced by British membership in the European Union. With its clearcausal story – the assignment of responsibilities to Brussels (for ‘doing-wrong’) and the UK government (for ‘not-doing-enough’) – UKIP provides a simple answer, thus making the story accessible to a broader (latent Eurosceptic)population.This causal story is however presented differently across the campaigns (Table 2). All of them accuse the EUinstitutions for tying the hands of British politics and for damaging legislation coming from Brussels. Yet they vary intheir emphasis on critical issues. The UKIP-based Believe in Britain campaign highlights the loss of national controlover legislation and the costliness of British membership. By contrast, LabourLEAVE directs its attention to theconsequences of EU legislation for worker’s rights and the British industry – something that seems to resonate wellamong blue-collar workers. The official leave campaign VoteLeave brings in a lack of capacity and inefficiency of theEU institutions, which seems to be more directed toward business managers and entrepreneurs.Table 2 Perception of the European Union (absolute number of mentions per leaflet)3/4All in all, although the ultimate objective of the campaigns is clear – persuading voters for voting remain or leave –they do so by using very different strategies. On the remain side the economic frame is emphasised just as theopportunities of EU membership. The leave side naturally focuses on the costs of membership and the loss ofsovereignty by heavily applying a risk frame. Yet compared to the UKIP-based Believe in Britain-campaign, theofficial campaign VoteLeave has a more nuanced and broader pattern of EU criticism.The analysis has shown that most campaigns (even cross-partisan groups) appeal to the core values and thepolitical identity of their electorate. Since turnout among various sections of the electorate is likely to be decisive  thequestion remains whether campaigns are able to reach out to undecided voters without clear political affiliation. Inthis respect campaigns fail to address the probably most important part of the electorate – young voters.Daniel Belling is PhD candidate in Comparative Politics at the University of Kent, investigating the influence ofpolicy experts on political agenda-setting and policy framing. He is also member of the Global Europe Centre andComparative Politics Workshop at Kent. @DanielBelling Copyright © 2015 London School of Economics4/4

‘The alternatives are worse’ – the message that unites EU referendum campaigners

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online