Abstract
For somebody who is steeped in the debates around Brexit and Euroscepticism in the press more widely, this book proved invaluable on a series of levels. The case is effectively made by Steve Buckledee that the use of language was a contributory factor in the European Union (EU) referendum. In a nuanced approach, he picks up on a series of important points such as the often overlooked role of Lexit (the fusion of the Left and exit), which albeit less than the blue on blue confrontation, did play a part in the equation.
Buckledee effectively steps back from the furore and notes certain linguistic traits on both sides of the argument. On one hand, Remainers often started off with a critique of the EU, followed by a BUT, and then presented their preferred option of remaining, thus diluting the resonance of their arguments. The author demonstrated clearly how the Remain side qualified its claims and was less forthright in its declarations. On the other hand, in spite of the fact that they often lacked substantiation, the Leave side often made declarations with the use of can and will, as evidenced through a series of linguistic devices. Buckledee also argued that Leave effectively used imperatives, including in headlines.
A useful insight into how the liberal classes were misreading the signs was effectively epitomised in focusing on how Suzanne Moore in the Guardian picked up on the defiant mood of ordinary men and women keen to hurt the Remain-supporting establishment. Her prophesy of the outcome proved accurate. Buckledee continues apace by showing how the use of we was employed by the pro-Brexit press, thus creating the illusion of a classless alliance, as perhaps best exemplified by Nigel Farage: ‘we have fought against the multi-nationals, we have fought against the merchant banks, we have fought against big politics’.
The harnessing of the word free to create a whole series of positive collocations for Leave such as free speech and free will and breaking free from EU control was well catalogued in a further chapter. A good example was the Sun on Sunday’s headline: ‘A vote for Brexit is all it takes to set Britain free’.
Racist language also reared its head in the analysis, with various newspapers taken to the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) press regulator, concerning immigration-related fears. A point well made was how Remain did not engage in an effective debate on the issue, instead indiscriminately accusing Leavers of racial prejudice. As the author pointed out, Vote Leave chair, Labour’s Gisela Stuart, argued that by ignoring people’s fears about immigration, her party was turning itself into ‘the biggest recruiting agent for UKIP I can think of’.
The aptly named chapter ‘Leave’s appointment with history and Remain’s another day at the office’ used good examples to demonstrate how Leave harnessed the historical narrative, effectively using patriotism, as exemplified in Boris Johnson’s poignant appeal to Sun readers on the eve of the vote: ‘It is time to take the chains off the giant, unshackle Britannia and let the Lion roar again!’
Buckledee then reminded us how the press backed EU membership in the 1975 referendum and reverted to an analysis of the attacks on European Commission president Jacques Delors. He also drew parallels with onslaughts against current incumbent Jean-Claude Juncker, finishing with an analysis of the Sun’s claim that the Queen backed Brexit. Buckledee refers to how this and various other articles mentioned resulted in complaints being lodged with IPSO. This book effectively raised and analysed a series of linguistic devices utilised by Leave and far less so by Remain and deserves to be taken seriously by scholars of these issues and indeed the wider audience. On a stylistic front, examples illustrating the linguistic devices used at the outset, and relating directly to Brexit, would have been more effective than the often long preambles and expositions of language, leading up to these examples. Drawing clearer distinctions between press, public and politicians’ discourses would have offered even more insights and would have made for a more structured approach.
The chapter comparing with the 1975 referendum omitted to mention the role of Anglo-Europe and how Thatcher introduced the notion of a free market economy in mainland Europe, the residue of which is still felt today, for good or ill.
While the book did not demonstrate the rigour of some research, quantifying often common discursive constructions, despite only isolated examples at times, they often rang true with other studies and in many ways presented a more accessible analysis, negating in many ways, this critique.
Overall, Buckledee’s book makes an important contribution to the debates surrounding the language of Brexit and deserves attention.