Brexit. A word that rolls of the tongue with ease is in fact a heavy, oft-sour topic. The political turmoil caused by a vote passed in 2016 is not going away anytime soon. The media framing of Brexit is polarizing. Citizen discord permeates through social media sites, news outlets, and the streets of cities. The only united front is the frustration at an ongoing struggle with no end in sight. Questions sprout from the foundation of Brexit as quickly as weeds grow. The question I am using to focus to my analysis is centered around the observation made by Irish author Fintan O’Toole, “I realized there’s a bigger question, which is how does a very successful, relatively wealthy, very settled-looking democracy start to imagine itself being intolerably oppressed” (Booth, 2). Beyond this frightening rise of alt-right conservatism in Europe, the tendrils of British politics extend further; creating socio-cultural, economic, and geopolitical implications both domestically and across an ocean. Through the rise of global populism, Brexit was birthed with the advent of President Trump and his xenophobic rhetoric poking light for the alt-right to breathe freely without fear of repercussions. The influx of migrants led to a push for a Leave vote. The economic state of the UK is a status that all three sides of the issue fret over. Vote Remain and two separate Leave campaigns: Vote Leave, and Leave EU, respectively, have framed the issues in light of their agendas.
Since the 1970s, the relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom has been less than amicable. An island nation made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the UK has been withdrawing from central EU policies for decades. Yet its full member status forces adherence to certain policies such as free movement. Free movement of EU citizens is their right to study, live and work in the European Union visa-free. However, an unprecedented, and what former Prime Minister David Cameron called “unsustainable” migration wave of over three hundred thousand people in 2015 drove the decision to hold a referendum to decide the fate of the UK and its membership. “The UK’s situation is unprecedented; no full member of the EU has ever left” (McBride). Despite seeking and gaining EU reforms, the waves of migrants, coupled with devastating terrorist attacks across Europe, was too much for the Eurosceptic United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) to handle. Eurosceptiс is exactly what it sounds like; a political doctrine that promotes disengaging from the EU. With a platform rooted firmly in anti-immigration and broad populism, similar ideologies can be found among conservative American political parties (Roth, 501). This push for strengthened borders and fears of vulnerability to terrorist attacks, Leave won on June 23, 2016, and the messy process of divorce began.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Across the Atlantic, the United States was dealing with its own unprecedented political quagmire. Donald Trump, a former reality television star, had won the 2016 US Presidency. Questions swirled around his rise and ultimate selection with no experience. A podcast discussing Trump, Brexit and the rise of populism help provide answers. Populism, in this case, is a way of doing politics framed as a battle between the people, and a corrupt, nefarious elite. The goal of populist rhetoric is to impose a single popular will. Today this language surrounding the ‘common people’ has become synonymous with hyper-conservative groups. Despite the concepts high association with conservative groups populism can be found on any side of the political spectrum: left, right, and center. On the rise for the past two decades, populism tends to flourish in countries where the people have grievances about the political establishment failing them. What is new, is populist leaders being elected in really big countries with really big populations such as the United States. Both Donald Trump (when scripted), and current Prime Minister Theresa May share populist views, delegitimizing those they disagree with and placing focus on the ‘common people’ experiencing hardship at the hands of the government (Asthana). What this ‘hardship’ is however, is not clearly defined.
Determining what the interest are of the common people is dicey. With three sides to this story, media outlets work to construct multiple frameworks to encapsulate it. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, “Brexit supporters argue that the EU threatens sovereignty and stifles growth, while opponents counter that EU membership strengthens trade, investment, and the UK’s standing in the world” (McBride, 1). Opponents of Brexit have decades of a highly integrated relationship between the UK and the EU that established the terms of migration, trade, and investment on their side. Adam Posen, president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics has little faith in the pro-Brexit economic plan. He argues that migration has been a positive influence in economic growth, while belonging to the EU has bolstered the UK’s ability to trade through the larger bloc negotiating desirable deals. The UK’s standing in the world is not only impacted with its relationship with the EU. Ties to outside countries like the United States could be impacted by Brexit. In an interesting point about sides, Former President Barack Obama was against Brexit, arguing that EU memberships aids US interest. The current president however, has praised the Brexit vote (McBride, 10). While there is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, the rise of fierce anti-immigration rhetoric among the Independence Party draws concerns about whose voices are being privileged under the guide of an ‘oppressed’ group.
The concept of populism, oppression, and the demographic that makes up the majority of supporters for Brexit draws interesting comparisons to the United States political state. According to Silke Roth in his article, ‘Contemporary Counter-Movements in the Age of Brexit and Trump’, the similarities are too close for comfort, “Second, a closer look at the supporters of the ‘Leave’ campaign and Donald Trump’s candidacy reveals that demographic includes middle-aged and older middle-class, college-educated men and women” (Roth, 502) These supporters of Brexit emphasized that predispositions toward Leave were brought about by socially conservative views, values, and a strong sense of English identity. The accompanying vague slogan to “take back control” dispensed by supporters is MAGA with a cup of tea.
Since Leave won, there has been push from both citizens, and the media outlets to reclaim any semblance of a narrative in this perpetual time of Brexit issue. Mikaela Hellman points out the split in narratives in in her article ‘What’s in a Frame? Media Framing in the 2016 ‘Brexit’ Referendum’. Brexit’s public debate is firmly entrenched between two camps, each with their own arguments: pro-EU supporters pushing an economic agenda while more Eurosceptic citizens focus on arguments related to national identity (Hellman). Ironically, both sides point to the economic risks as the most imperative issue. There is a sense of the truth being pulled from all sides, stretched until it fits the canvas framed in ‘fact’. Americans can sympathize with this divisive split in politics that feels both personal and infinitely larger than ourselves.
These camps spill over into the British papers as each struggle to represent what they believe to be the most salient issue. The politics of the image of Brexit is a bold question asking whose politics are being represented in the first place, via the image itself. Freedan makes a salient point through his analysis of British newspapers through the lens of populism. “Reporting on the High Court judgement regarding Article 50, the pro-Brexit press emphatically evoked a stark populist dichotomy: ‘The judges vs. the people’ was the front headline of the normally austere The Daily Telegraph; while the Daily Mail went one further with ‘Enemies of the People’ under the front-page photograph of the three High Court judges” (Freedan, 6). The Daily Mail is a tabloid paper. The Daily Telegraph is a broadsheet but both are conservative leaning publications. Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty was the trigger Theresa May pulled in order to begin leaving the EU, before the process could begin however, the government would need Parliament’s consent in order to begin, which for conservatives filled them with that same old anger at government overreach. The story, typical of hyperbolic tabloid papers was full of misconstrusions and base insinuations about one of the High Court judges sexuality. Flipped over to The Guardian, a recent headline from the left-leaning broadsheet said, “Brexit teens: coming of age during political chaos”. This is who suffers.
The suffering is not limited to the young adults and migrants caught in limbo of Brexit. With the rise of populism, coupled with the schism between news outlets, it is no wonder that real fears of political violence lurk. In the wake of another six month push back to the apt date of October 31, tensions have risen to a breaking point. According to the United States based news outlet The Intercept highlights the indelible fear as ‘Specter of Far-Right Violence Haunts Crisis Talks Over Brexit’. Robert MacKey published the story in early April of this year, revealing nationalists in the streets dragging an efigie of Theresa May through the streets. Parliament members fear for their lives as Members of the House are threatened for their contrary views on Brexit. Congress members in the States can also relate to these fears as the President has stoked xenophobic rhetoric among his nationalist demographic. In a fearful twist, this group utilizes new media logics to spread their hate filled messages. According to MacKey, British soldiers used a photograph of opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn for target practice and posted it on Snapchat. The video was then shared on Twitter by current and former members of the British armed forces. The spark that ignited this anger was Corbyn emerging from talks with Prime Minister Theresa May, aimed at finding a way to allow the stalled British exit from the European Union to proceed (MacKey). In effect the Brexit conversations are stuck in a ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’.
Chaos perpetuating this process is dominantly absent from the broader European media landscape. According to a Reuters Institute Report by Alexandra Borchardt, titled ‘Interested but not Engaged: How Europe’s Media Cover Brexit’, the coverage outside of the UK was predominantly fact based. “The biggest share of the reporting is dedicated to the progress of the negotiations and political questions surrounding them. Economic questions dominate the issue-related coverage of Brexit, and the rights and future of EU citizens living in the UK or vice versa play a minor role” (Borchardt, 43). Meanwhile, the citizens in the UK currently living through Brexit are framed in a medical term, that demotivate citizens political motivations and actions, with the idea that they have no political control. According to Degerman, “To paraphrase the political theorist Hannah Arendt, in politics, where we are always dealing with a plurality of ever-changing relationships between people, sovereign control is an illusion” (Degerman). This makes the interactions between media logics and political mobilization even more important for the citizenry if they want a voice in the Brexit proceedings. The Prime Minister has lost control of her power, her government, and her citizens. Already pledging to relinquish her position, the new Prime Minister could change the trajectory of the country within days. Nothing is for certain. Young people can use this as motivation for political engagement in order to ensure that the next Prime Minister represents what they want to change in the current system.
While Americans voiced their discontent with Trump’s presidency through street protests, and a poorly attended inauguration event, the subsequent protests following Brexit were digitally based. According to Roth new media logics play out with increasing importance through social media, “In contrast to the broad-based mobilization against Trump, the protest against Brexit appears so far to play out primarily on social media, for example, on Twitter and Facebook, where one can find and follow groups such as @ScientistsforEU and @The3Million, whereas street protest events appear rarer” (Roth). Populism comes in waves, and both the UK and the Unites States find themselves in the midst of a wave right now. The Guardian’s Paul Lewis speaks on the quantification of populism and how it spreads. He believes that the issue is not only wrapped up in technology but brings awareness to the permanence of technology through all the changes it creates within its internal structure, and the structure of society that social media permeates in a new and dangerous way. “I wonder whether the types of discourse that are being encentived and encouraged by the platforms which are completely dominate Facebook, and Twitter, and Youtube and the like; the sensationalism, the simplification reductionism, the division is becoming part and parcel of the way we do politics now” (Asthana). The use of sensationalism by the British Army reflects the issues that come with the integration of social media and political discourse. There is fear that this wave could turn into an ocean, bringing along the repercussions of populist rhetoric: reduced press freedoms, and extended reach in political offices.
A wave of historical nostalgia is a part of the overflowing Brexit tide. Audiences who are pro-Leave revel in a deep nostalgia for empire. The strength of this empire is highlighted through pop-culture which sanitize violence pasts and rewards nationalist ideologies. Films like ‘Dunkirk’ reinforce the notion that the UK is historically stronger when they stand alone, erasing decades of transnational collaboration between nations in lieu of reclaiming a deeply seeded racism in order to ‘take back control’ of their country. This rhetoric is wholeheartedly embraced by the white elite who pushed for the Leave vote in the UK and elected Donald Trump to his presidency.
What will the UK look like in the wake of Brexit? The question will continue to reveal itself as the October 31 deadline draws ever closer. Until them, citizens of the UK will continue to utilize media, both old and new, to disseminate information about the process of Brexit and the implications of its outcome. The marginalized are recognized. While the elite may have called for this vote, what the course of Brexit has revealed is that the will of some is not the will of all. For now, we can only do what we have done for the past three years. Wait patiently, and actively voice discontent when those that spread ill-will and xenophobia rise into power. The wave of populism may be here for a while, but we can learn how to swim, and help others stay afloat.
Stuck on your essay?
