On September 22, Theresa May's speech in Florence ostensibly outlined a way forward on Brexit. Is the £20bn on offer too much, too little or too late? Are promises to protect the rights of EU citizens in the UK real or merely rhetorical? What will happen next - renewed dialogue with Brussels or a bust-up with Boris and other Brexiteers? ..

Jackson-Preece, Jennifer

LSE Research Online

Britain	risks	securitising	its	future	relationship	withthe	EUOn	September	22,	Theresa	May’s	speech	in	Florence	ostensibly	outlined	a	way	forward	on	Brexit.Is	the	£20bn	on	offer	too	much,	too	little	or	too	late?	Are	promises	to	protect	the	rights	of	EUcitizens	in	the	UK	real	or	merely	rhetorical?	What	will	happen	next	–	renewed	dialogue	withBrussels	or	a	bust-up	with	Boris	and	other	Brexiteers?	Yet	in	all	this	hubbub,	an	importantdimension	of	May’s	new	discourse	has	been	overlooked:	security	as	a	core	policy	objective,writes	Jennifer	Jackson-Preece	(LSE).The	resurgence	of	security	over	and	above	trade	is	not	what	one	would	expect	in	a	speech	purporting	to	set	outthe	UK’s	position	on	how	to	move	Brexit	talks	forward.	It	also	stands	in	stark	contrast	to	the	earlier	LancasterHouse	speech.	In	February	2017,	the	word	security	was	never	spoken	at	Lancaster	House.	In	September	2017,security	was	repeated	34	times	in	Florence,	making	it	the	eleventh	most	frequently	used	word	in	May’s	speech.	Incontrast,	whereas	trade	was	flagged	39	times	in	the	Lancaster	speech	–	making	it	the	fifth	most	frequently	usedword	–	in	the	Florence	speech,	trade	got	only	24	mentions,	dropping	to	fifteenth	place	in	overall	word	frequency.What	explains	the	appearance	of	a	security	discourse?	That	the	UK	has	experienced	five	terrorist	attacks	sinceFebruary	is	undoubtedly	an	important	factor.	This	is	also	a	policy	area	and	discursive	style	in	which	May	iscomfortable	and	confident.	The	linking	of	‘migration	and	terrorism’,	the	identification	of	each	as	‘challenges	whichrespect	no	borders’,	the	promise	to	‘crack	down	on	the	evil	traffickers’	and	the	clarion	call	to	‘fight	againstterrorism’	–	all	used	in	the	Florence	speech	–	are	rhetorical	devices	May	frequently	employed	in	her	long	tenureas	Home	Secretary.	This	is,	of	course,	also	the	rhetoric	favoured	by	the	Leave	campaign	in	the	Brexitreferendum.	Thus	it	is	hardly	surprising	that	the	Leave	language	of	‘control’	features	as	the	inevitable	corollary	of‘threat’:	each	appears	fourteen	times	in	the	Florence	speech.	Neither	was	mentioned	in	the	Lancaster	Housespeech.LSE Brexit: Britain risks securitising its future relationship with the EU Page 1 of 3		Date originally posted: 2017-10-03Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/10/03/brexit-risks-securitising-the-future-relationship-with-the-eu/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/Florence	speech	bubbleWhat	then	are	we	to	make	of	May’s	vision	for	the	future?	Is	the	new	UK-EU	partnership	to	be	based	on	a	deepmutual	fear	–	of	migration,	terrorism	trafficking,	climate	change,	nuclear	proliferation,	territorial	aggression,instability,	civil	war	–	all	are	purposefully	invoked	in	the	Florence	speech.	Clearly	UK	–	EU	security	cooperation	isa	common	interest	and	should	be	maintained	post-Brexit.	But	surely	a	future	partnership,	particularly	oneintended	to	embrace	‘new	thinking	and	new	possibilities’	to	‘forge	a	better,	brighter	future	for	all	our	peoples’should	be	built	on	more	than	fear	and	desire	for	greater	domestic	control?Lancaster	House	speech	bubbleLSE Brexit: Britain risks securitising its future relationship with the EU Page 2 of 3		Date originally posted: 2017-10-03Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/10/03/brexit-risks-securitising-the-future-relationship-with-the-eu/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/More	fundamentally,	by	reinforcing	the	language	of	(in)security,	May	risks	securitising	the	future	relationship	withthe	EU	itself.	Europe	has	long	been	imagined	in	the	U.K.	as	the	bogeyman	of	Britain	–	a	continent	of	war,despotism,	democratic	deficit,	mass	migration,	human	traffickers,	and	terrorists.	Eurosceptics	who	draw	upon	thissecuritised	discourse	do	so	to	construct	Europe	and	the	European	Union	as	an	existential	threat	to	Britishsovereignty	and	society.	Britain’s	decision	to	leave	the	European	Union	was	in	no	small	part	a	consequence	ofthe	securitisation	of	Europe	in	British	public	discourse.	Return	to	the	discourse	of	security	now	is	unlikely	toproduce	a	constructive	dialogue.	If	it	fans	the	flames	of	a	renewed	Euroscepticism	in	the	Conservative	Party	andthe	popular	press,	May	could	find	herself	back	on	the	cliff	edge.May	risks	securitising	the	future	relationship	with	the	EUNow,	more	than	ever,	we	need	a	discourse	of	constructive	engagement.	This	makes	projects	like	GenerationBrexit	particularly	timely	and	important.	Generation	Brexit	is	a	pan-European,	multilingual	youth	consultation	onThe	future	of	UK-EU	relations.	If	you	are	under	35,	and	want	a	future	UK	–	EU	relationship	built	on	somethingother	than	mutual	fear,	go	to	www.generationbrexit.org.This	blog	represents	the	views	of	the	author	and	not	those	of	LSE	Brexit	blog,	nor	the	LSE.Dr	Jennifer	Jackson-Preece	is	Deputy	Head	of	the	European	Institute	and	Associate	Professor	of	Nationalism,with	a	joint	appointment	in	both	the	European	Institute	and	the	Department	of	International	Relations,	LSE.LSE Brexit: Britain risks securitising its future relationship with the EU Page 3 of 3		Date originally posted: 2017-10-03Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/10/03/brexit-risks-securitising-the-future-relationship-with-the-eu/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/

Britain risks securitising its future relationship with the EU

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online