Katie Burrell / 11627360
Supervisor: Dr. Krisztina Lajosi-Moore Second reader: Dr. S. Rajagopalan.
How did banal nationalism and Euroscepticism contribute to the outcome
of the Brexit referendum?
Abstract
This thesis offers an analysis of the discourse that contributed to the British public voting to Leave the European Union. Brexit is frequently associated with the Right and common rhetoric blames racism or bigotry. I suggest that Leave was successful because of a combination of two concepts. The first is banal nationalism, a term coined by Michael Billing defined as the omnipresence of routinely familiar habits or everyday
representations of the nation that continually act as a reminder of nationhood. The second is Euroscepticism: the criticism of the European Union. My thesis attempts to argue that Brexit is not just a right-wing grievance and the support for leaving the EU was far more nuanced than is understood in Brexit narratives. Euroscepticism has also
characterised traditionally left-wing British politics. I argue that the combination of banal nationalism and Euroscepticism portrayed in the British mainstream media impelled Britons to vote to leave the European Union. There were many arguments to Leave but these resonated with voters because of the unique combination of media coverage of the EU in Britain and the traditional ideologies dominating the British public sphere.
Contents
Methodology ... 4
Introduction ... 7
1. Banal Nationalism ... 8
1.1 My day survey ... 13
1.2 Euroscepticism part of British culture? ... 17
2. THE RIGHT REBELS ... 20
2.1 Scapegoating migrants ... 24
2.2 The rise of UKIP ... 26
3. Brexit was not always right. ... 37
3.1 Labour’s battle begins ... 43
4. BeLeave the media. ... 47
4.1 The media create their image of the EU ... 50
5. It will be alright on the night. ... 55
5.1 Picking sides and spreading lies ... 56
5.2 The church of the NHS ... 59
Conclusion ... 67
Methodology
Critical discourse analysis (CDA) of the mainstream media can be used to analyse the ways in which Banal nationalism and Euroscepticism contributed to the outcome of the Brexit referendum. I will analyse politician’s speeches as well as their social media platforms. CDA does not characterise a subdiscipline or a certain field of discourse analysis but rather an explicitly critical approach, position or stance. It is typically multidisciplinary and especially focuses on the relations between discourse and society.1 In 1993, Teun van Dijk focused on
the role of discourse in the (re)production and challenge of dominance. Defining dominance as the exercise of social power by elites, institutions or groups that result in social
inequality.2 Analysing the variety of methods of discourse in Britain reveals a parallelism
between discourse access and social power. A few individuals own the British media, in 2013 52.2% of online and print national news was controlled by just two individuals – Rupert Murdoch and Lord Rothermere.3 This power involves control that may pertain to
action and cognition: the powerful group may limit the freedom of action of others, but also influence their mind.4 This thesis will be analysing these power structures that give authority
to discourse. Politicians and the media have the authority and ability to create a discussion or to suppress it, potentially having a pervasive effect on public opinion.
Banal nationalism is the routinely familiar habits or everyday representations of the nation that continually act as a reminder of nationhood. Nations are reproduced as ‘the’ world5
and is seen by its citizens as a natural and legitimate ‘community.’ One of the most effective tools to keep the nation in existence is through the media. Politicians are in a privileged position as they have access to parliamentary debates and indirect access to the media. Due to large online and print readership of the media, it can mould public opinion. Due to the dominance of the British media and the power of the few men who control this form of discourse, they are able to manipulate their audience to believe the ‘preferred’ social
1 Teun A. van Dijk, ‘Aims of Critical Discourse Analysis,’ Japanese Discourse, Vol. I (1995) p.17. 2 Teun A. van Dijk, ‘Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis, Discourse & Society,’ 4:2 (1993) p.250. 3 Ryan Curran, ‘British people think their media is the most biased and right-wing in Europe – and
they’re probably right,’ The Independent, 8th February 2016 4 Van Dijk: ‘Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis,’ p.254.
cognitions that are in the interest of the dominant group.6 Because the media has so much
power in shaping public attitudes I believe analysis of it will be an extremely valuable way to study the way in which banal nationalism and Euroscepticism contributed to the outcome of Brexit. Most British citizens get their information on the EU from their national press or their politicians; if the few powers that control the context of the press choose to represent the EU in a negative light and alternative voices are lacking then this discourse has a profound effect.
Attacks, marginalisation and discrediting are some examples of properties of discourse of the dominant group. This is usually done to the powerless groups but at times it can be the elite attempting to discredit the elite. In times of populism, the “elite” can be powerless too. One example is The Daily Mail attempting to discredit Conservative MP, Dominic Grieve for meeting with Remainers. Because Grieve is a member of the powerful group he was able to ‘defend’ himself. On BBC Question Time on 14th June he responded to The Daily Mail’s
accusations that he was “supping with the devil when he was meeting with Remainers”7
claimed Paul Dacre’s (previous editor of The Daily Mail) use of personal attacks creates “a level of debate which makes rational discussion impossible, and it’s deliberately designed to do it…he does it for the deliberate intention of trying to prevent people engaging in rational debate.”8 Powerful men that control the media are able to not only manipulate opinion but
also exclude voices they do not approve of. Typical attacks are discrediting powerless groups, for example the alleged threat of immigrants to the dominant group. This is more successful as minorities do not have the same access as MPs.
The motivation behind my thesis was to look at Brexit from a different perspective, most books or articles focus on UKIP or the Conservative’s role and do not acknowledge the left-wing view and role in the Leave campaign. Another common attitude is to simplify analysis and lay the blame on one or two things, rather than acknowledge the multifaceted nature of Brexit. I want to look at both sides of the political spectrum’s view, as well as the differences between their arguments for Leave. I admit I will be coming from a biased position because
6 Van Dijk, ‘Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis,’ p.280.
7 Jack Doyle, ‘Tory rebel Dominic Grieve insists he’s not out to destroy Brexit. So, what was he doing
addressing a secretive meeting in the EU’s London HQ of those plotting to reverse it?,’ The Daily
Mail, 13th June 2018
the result has affected me personally and I am not in favour of the outcome, but I believe acknowledging this will allow me to be as objective as possible. Concurring with van Dijk, “critical scholars cannot be aloof, let alone in a ‘neutral’ position and they should not worry about the interests or perspectives of those in power.”9 I will not be taking a neutral
position, but will be one that is critical of the pro-Brexit press.
I began collecting sources by reading books on the subject. I started by reading ‘Brexit’ by Denis Macshane and ‘Revolt on the Right’ by Matthew Goodwin and Robert Ford.
Macshane’s book offered me a general picture of the history of the UK membership of the EU and Goodwin/Ford’s book led me to other sources regarding UKIP but, as I said, they only offered a right-wing point of view. This was helpful, but only for part of my thesis. For news articles I used a search engine and used key words, ‘Brexit’ and the names of MPs like ‘Farage’ or ‘Boris’ and then filtered by date. This was the best option when researching Labour support for Brexit as books regarding Brexit do not focus on this and even though Labour MPs like Gisela Stuart and Kate Hoey were mentioned in ‘All out war’ by Tim Shipman, the only relevant sources I could find were online, either on Labour Leave’s website, YouTube channel and interviews/articles in newspapers. Harold Clarke’s book ‘Brexit: why Britain voted to Leave the EU’ gave a valuable insight into the effects on the perceptions of the British public and Mair et al’s ‘Brexit, Trump and the media’ offered its own analysis of the effect of the media during the Brexit campaign and also numerous newspaper articles were sourced. The Economist also directed me to a list created by the EU Commission to debunk the many myths of the EU created by the British press over the years. When I searched for articles I would filter by year but focus on the ‘bigger’ names as they had more of an impact of public perception. The Economist was useful but only regarding fact checking, their combined print and online UK sales in the first six months of 2017 totalled 248,197,10 so it is not having much effect on public perceptions.11
9 Van Dijk, ‘Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis’ p.280
10 ‘The Economist worldwide brand report January – June 2017,’ The Economist, accessed 15th June
2018
11 The Economist does have a strong online presence but access to their articles require a
Introduction
On the 23rd June 2016 Britain voted to leave the European Union. There were many reasons
British citizens felt they needed to vote Leave but one of the most common was the perceived threat to the British national identity. David Cameron, the British Prime Minister from 2010 to 2016 created a video about his thoughts on the European Union in 2009 in the run up to the 2010 General election. He said, “The EU constitution, now called the Lisbon treaty, includes a massive transfer of power from the nation states of Europe to Brussels…I think we need powers to come back from Brussels to the nation states.”12 The video
portrays the European Union in a very negative light and having watched that, it is surprising David Cameron campaigned to Remain. The British national identity has become a powerful part of one’s identity and this was utilised in the Brexit referendum to consolidate support for both the Leave and Remain campaign. It is not always obvious, but nationalism has a vital effect on ‘our’ daily lives and could be why, with the right language, the British citizens were so easily motivated to make a stand for their national identity.
This thesis intends to illustrate how ubiquitous banal nationalism juxtaposed with
Euroscepticism was in the years leading up to the ephemeral Brexit campaign and analyse the way it was utilised by both sides, across the political spectrum. I will focus on both sides, Left and Right, along with the divisions within the Left and Right. My aim is to illustrate the more nuanced reality of Brexit instead of the typical portrayal of Brexit as a right-wing issue. By looking at the ubiquity of banal nationalist discourse, I will be able to show how effective banal nationalism was for Brexit and how its utilisation meant that perceptions were, at times, more important than facts. As newspaper readership in Britain is high I will analyse the role of the printed press, as well as MP’s speeches (which will be reported in these papers) and social media. I will evince the long history of Euroscepticism in Britain and, at times, recount a historical narrative but my focus will primarily be from 2014 as that was the year UKIP won the most votes in the European elections and Euroscepticism became a legitimate voice.
1. Banal Nationalism
In both popular and academic writing nationalism is associated with those who struggle to create news states or with extreme right-wing politics. What is misleading about this accepted use of the word is that it seems to put nationalism on the periphery of Europe. Nationalism is seen to be the property of others, but not of ‘us.’13 This assumption implies
that nationalism is only visible when there is a crisis but disappears once the crisis has ended. It is between times of crises that nationalism is reproduced in everyday life so that when a crisis does occur the citizens are willing to risk their lives ‘in the name of the nation’ Daily, nations are reproduced as nations and its citizens as nationals. For such daily
reproductions to occur, one might hypothesize that a whole complex of beliefs,
assumptions, habits, representations and practices must also be reproduced. Moreover, this complex must be reproduced in a banally mundane way, for the world of nations is the everyday world.14
The term ‘banal nationalism’ is introduced to cover these ideological habits which enable the established nations of the West to be reproduced.15Banal does not mean benign,
nations create armies, some nations possess nuclear weapons that a large proportion of the citizens support the maintenance, conveniently labelling it a deterrent.16 Assumptions need
to be created on ordinary days, they can be seen bobbing about, brought home daily on the familiar tides of banal nationalism….the continual ‘flagging’ or reminding of nationhood.17
This continual reminding is so familiar, so continual, that it is not consciously registered as reminding, this allows ‘our’ nationalism to go unnoticed and lead ‘us’ to think that ‘others’ but not ‘ourselves’ are nationalists.18 In recent years there has been a decline in its support
but there is still a large number of British citizens that believe the UK need nuclear weapons as a form of defence of their nation. Even if one does not support nuclear weapons there is
13 Billig: Banal Nationalism, p.5. 14 Billig: Banal Nationalism, p.6. 15 Billig: Banal Nationalism, p.6.
16Emily Allen and Ben Farmer, ‘What is Trident? Britain’s nuclear deterrent explained,’ The Telegraph, 23rd January 2017
17 Billig: Banal Nationalism, p.7. 18 Billig: Banal Nationalism, p.7.
a great proportion of the population that will support a national army and to maintain that the nation needs to be reproduced.
An article in The Guardian from 2017 “Catalan referendum: preliminary results show 90% in favour of independence” is reporting on a referendum that could lead Catalan gaining independence from Spain. This story had a lot of coverage because the Spanish government’s violent response to, what they considered, the illegal referendum of
Catalonian independence. Carles Puigdemont, a Catalan nationalist politician, it is reported, advised the referendum to go ahead despite opposition from the Spanish state and claims the “police brutality will shame the Spanish state for ever.”19 This rhetoric portrays actions
of the police as the actions of the Spanish nation, and not individuals. This type of rhetoric is ubiquitous when reporting on the actions of politicians or the action of influential members of certain nations. The article is also written in a certain way that it expects the reader to understand national aspirations as there is no explanation of why the people of Catalan want to break away from Spain. This is treated as a ‘common sense’ and is found in academic writings as much as newspapers.20
It is seen to be ‘natural’ for one to want to fight for one’s sovereignty and it is evident in the article and many more that reported on the subject that there is sympathy for the Catalans as the reader is expected to understand these national aspirations. A local woman in Catalonia was interviewed and told the reporter “I’m here to fight for our rights and our language and for our right to live better and to have a future,”21Evidently this woman
believes it is her right to be independent of Spain. What one also notices when looking at reports on the matter is full support for the people of Catalonia, the people that want their independence. It is ‘natural’ that these citizens want their sovereignty and in a world of nations, the nation on the outside obviously support and understand their claim to sovereignty.
Although it is seen as natural for citizens to want their sovereignty, the Scottish referendum did not see as much international support as Catalonia would see three years later. An
19 Sam Jones, Stephen Bergen and agencies, ‘Catalan referendum: preliminary results show 90% in
favour of independence,’ The Guardian, 2nd October 2017
20 Billig: Banal Nationalism, p.13.
Economist article from September 2014, ‘Britain survives’ with the subheading ‘It was far too close for comfort. But Scots vote to stay in the United Kingdom’22 was reporting on the
result of the 2014 Scottish referendum that could have led to Scottish independence from Britain. Once the votes were counted and it was announced Scotland would not be leaving, the media (in England especially), were in full support for the UK staying whole. There is very little sympathy for Scotland’s want for independence. The article begins with the ‘patriotic’ statement “The Union flag will fly” and “they ensured the continuation of the nation state that shaped the modern world.” The reader is meant to understand national aspirations, just as long as it was for the United Kingdom and not the four nations within it. Although there was international support for Scottish independence, the typical position was not in support for Scotland leaving. The night of the referendum President Obama tweeted “The UK is an extraordinary partner for America and a force for good in an unstable world. I hope it remains strong, robust and united.”23 Even The Daily Mail did not support
Scotland’s independence, asking on the day of the referendum ‘Is this the day Britain dies?’24 The same paper that called the judges in the High Court ‘Enemies of the people’
after they voted that the MPs (not the PM) must have a say on triggering Article 50 to start Britain’s exit for the European Union.25
Where did this ‘common sense’ attitude come from? Ernest Gellner argues that nationalism emerges only when the existence of the state “is already very much taken for granted.”26It
is argued that the rise of capitalism is connected to the rise of the nation state together with the introduction of printing where the replacement of Latin with vernacular languages and the spread of discursive literacy, necessary for capitalist development.27 Whatever the
reason it is indisputable that nationhood has been established as the universal form of sovereignty and banal nationalism is what preserves it. The invention of traditions and past
22 Anonymous, ‘Britain survives,’ The Economist, 19th September 2014
23 Barack Obama’s tweet: ‘The UK is an extraordinary partner for America and a force for good in an unstable world. I hope it remains strong, robust and united.’ - bo” (@ObamaWhiteHouse, 17 September 2014)
24 James Chapman, ‘Is this the day Britain dies? Millions head to voting booths across Scotland as
170,000 Don’t Knows hold key to separation,’ The Daily Mail, 17th September 2014
25 Claire Phipps, ‘Brexit newspapers react to judges’ Brexit ruling: ‘Enemies of the people’,’ The Guardian, 4th November 2016
26 Billig: Banal Nationalism, p.19. 27 Billig: Banal Nationalism, p.22.
conflicts assisted these creations. It is very rare that the creation of a nation-state was amicable. After each major European war, the map changed, and violence was seldom far from the surface.28
The question asked, why do ‘we’ not forget ‘our’ national identity and it is because through banal nationalism we are constantly reminded of it. We are reminded of it in such a
“natural” way that people forget that their world has been historically constructed. The remembering, nevertheless, involves a forgetting, or rather there is a complex dialectic of remembering and forgetting.29
This remembering and forgetting can be found in everyday banal reminders of nationhood, in the U.S it is normal to see their flag decorating their daily life. The flag is a symbol of the nation and these symbols can also be seen on coins and bank notes. This banal nationalism can always turn into ‘hot’ nationalism, this is the nationalism that most people associate with the term nationalism. Every nation has their national day where sentiments of patriotic emotion, which the rest of the year have to be kept far from the business of ordinary life, can surge forth.30 What is convenient is this is labelled as patriotism, where ‘our’ loyalties to
‘our’ nation-state can be defended, even praised31 and that kind of rhetoric was evident on
the Remain, but especially the Leave side for the Brexit referendum. Patriotism is seen as a defence of the nation and this kind of hyperbole was prevalent in the Leave campaign. Michael Gove (one of the key MPs backing Leave) was interviewed in Bournemouth during the campaign and claimed “I get the impression there are some people who believe we should leave the European Union but theirs is a quiet and polite patriotism” and he continues to dismiss claims that these voters should feel guilty for “that is quite wrong – these people believe in their country, they believe in what it is capable of if it has the freedom that it needs to thrive.”32 This idea that leaving the EU was a way to regain ‘our’
sovereignty was portrayed as patriotism because banal nationalism meant the citizens believed ‘their’ nation-state was worth protecting from any threat and Euroscepticism
28 Billig: Banal Nationalism, p.28. 29 Billig: Banal Nationalism, p.37. 30 Billig: Banal Nationalism, p.45. 31 Billig: Banal Nationalism, p.55.
32 Steve Hawkes, Lynn Davidson and Harry Cole, ‘BOJO’S RALLYING CRY Boris Johnson urges Sun
throughout the years meant, to many British citizens, that the EU was synonymous to that threat.
Ways of talking do not develop in social vacuums, but they are related to forms of life. The saluted and unsaluted flags are not stimuli that evoke ‘identity-relations’; they belong to the forms of life which constitute what could be called national identities.33Michael Billig’s
thesis of banal nationalism suggests that nationhood is near the surface of contemporary life and routinely familiar habits of language will be continually acting as reminders of nationhood.34 The crucial words of banal nationalism are often the smallest: ‘we’, ‘this’ and
‘here’, which are the words of linguistic ‘deixis.’35 This deixis is not just found in politicians’
speeches but in mass media which, in Britain especially, has a significant reach. From October 2016 until September 2017 more Britons consumed news brands across print and digital than the population of Australia: 47.5 million people and only 23 million people in Australia.36 British brands will never miss an opportunity to celebrate occasions that are
considered special to the British public, in 2016 Twining’s introduced a limited-edition tea to celebrate ‘the’ Queen’s 90th birthday37 as the Royal family are considered, to many, very
important to the British public. One would also find food produce in the supermarket with a greater extent of promotion for British brands. The local pub regularly advertises ‘the Great British roast’ or the local café with its ‘all day English fry up.’ The homeland is constantly in your face but in such a banal way it is not surprising every citizen does not even realise it. The deixis of the homeland invokes the national ‘we’ and places ‘us’ within ‘our’
homeland.38 In 1993 Michael Billig conducted a day survey on the 28th June to demonstrate
the ‘flagging’ on ordinary days. At the time Britain had the second highest newspaper readership in the world and on this day, he studied ten major daily, national newspapers: Daily Star, Daily Mirror, The Sun (aimed at the working class) The Daily Mail, Daily Express and Today and the rest aimed towards the middle class, The Times, The Guardian, Daily
33 Billig: Banal Nationalism, p.60. 34 Billig: Banal Nationalism, p.93. 35 Billig: Banal Nationalism, p.94.
36 ‘Newsbrands,’ NRS, October 2016 – September 2017, accessed 16th Feb 2018
37‘HAPPY BIRTHDAY, MA’AM!,’ Twinings latest news and articles, As of 14th June 2018, Twinings’ webpage
listed
Telegraph and Independent.39 Newspaper readership has declined since but has been
subsidised by online sources as online sources are much easier to access and easily updated throughout the day. Most politicians have Twitter, as well as journalists and other social media platforms, such as Facebook, allows data to reach even further at a much greater rate.
1.1 My day survey
In 1993 Billig found banal nationalism in every paper, whether left or right, in the national, international, weather and sporting pages. If one were to study the same papers but their online articles today it would be reasonable to believe this ‘flagging’ of the nation is just as ubiquitous. Total unique visitors of online news sources from July 2016 until June 2017 were much higher than print readership in 1993. The Sun sold over three and a half million copies per day for the first six months of 1993 and was the nation’s best-selling newspaper40 and
its computer reach in July 2016 for a year also reached more than three and a half million unique visitors, but The Guardian boasted 7,060,000 unique visitors, The Daily Telegraph 6,722,000 and The Daily Mail 6,244,00041 which meant The Sun was Britain’s fourth highest
online news source.
Michael Billig discovered these papers were littered with headlines that flagged Britishness and there is no longer a need for a celebration to be national.42 On the 5th March 2018 it
would not be surprising for one to find similar celebrations of Britishness across news headlines. I will not look at every news source but two from the left (The Guardian and Independent) and two from the right (The Daily Mail and The Sun) and compare to the BBC as it is impartial. Today every news source is reporting on the Oscars, an American award ceremony. The Daily Mail and The Sun have focused on the British winner Rachel Shenton with their top story on her sign language Oscar speech.43 The nation is already flagged in the
title where the journalist mentions Rachel was a former Hollyoaks actress (a British soap),
39 Billig: Banal Nationalism, p.110. 40 Billig: Banal Nationalism, p.110.
41 ‘NRS PADD July 2016 – June 2017, NRS,’ accessed 16th Feb 2018 42 Billig: Banal Nationalism, p.113.
43 Marlene Lenthang, Amie Gordon and Keiligh Baker, ‘Viewers praise former Hollyoaks actress
Rachel Shenton for delivering her Oscars victory speech in sign language after she made a promise to her deaf six-year-old British co-star in The Silent Child,’ The Daily Mail, 5th March 2018
and she made a promise to her ‘British co-star.’ Upon opening the article, it is mentioned Rachel is British three times and that she delivered her speech in ‘British’ sign language that led to a lot of online praise. The article also includes screenshots of Tweets praising the actress for her inclusivity. Rachel accepted an award for best short film44 but in the British
press, because she is a British actress, accepting an award for the British short film this is ‘top story’ news and the article is littered with celebrations of Britishness. The Guardian, BBC and The Independent is far more impartial but even they can be seen celebrating the nation. The Independent early mention of the British director, Christopher Nolan’s win with the ‘war epic’ Dunkirk and British actor Gary Oldman’s portrayal of ex British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill in the Darkest Hour. The first words of their article are of British actress ‘Helen Mirren’45 BBC make sure they mention Gary Oldman’s win even though the article
mainly focuses on Frances Mcdormand’s win.46 The Guardian is far more neutral but again,
Gary Oldman’s win is ‘top story’ news.
What is interesting about national news sources is how it promotes the nation but at the same time portrays the outside world in a negative light, to create an ‘us’ and ‘them’. Bad things may happen in Britain, but journalists will make sure to depict Britain in a positive light while international news stories will more often than not be negative, to make ‘us’ happy ‘we’ are safe in ‘our’ homeland. The Sun’s world news include stories such as a savage attack on a 1 year old baby in Australia, the story of a man in Germany streaming on
Facebook live covered in blood after killing his wife and villagers cutting open a crocodile to find a man’s arms and legs inside in Borneo.47 The Daily Mail also covers the German
Facebook Live murder but lead with a headline on whether Italy will leave the EU (typical anti-EU reporting) and (also mentioned in The Sun) a man masturbating on a plane that took off from Malaysia.48 The Guardian also leads with the story on Italy potentially leaving EU
and includes a story on an Aid convoy entering ‘besieged Syrian enclave’49 This may be seen
44 Jim Donnelly, ‘Oscar Winners 2018: see the full list,’ The Oscars, 5th March 2018
45 Christopher Hooton, ‘Oscars 2018: The Shape of water charms Academy at politically charged
awards,’ The Independent, 5th March 2018
46 Anonymous, ‘Oscars 2018: The Shape of Water and Frances McDormand rule,’ BBC, 5th March
2018
47 Front page of The Sun’s world news page 48 Front page of The Daily Mail’s world news
49 Kareem Shaheen and Peter Beaumont, ‘Dozens killed in single day in Syrian enclave of eastern
as positive because the civilians are receiving aid but not one citizen reading this will wish they were in Syria over Britain. BBC and The Independent lead with similarly negative stories from around the world. Every national news source gives off the impression that the
homeland is homely while, in contrast, the outside world is not. This constant pattern of reporting unsurprisingly encourages loyalty to the nation.
At the time of reporting the storm known as ‘Emma’ was affecting much of Europe but the national press was focusing on its effects only on Britain, with a plethora of articles on its aftermath. The Independent’s leading story in February ‘Coldest week of winter to bring snow to most of the country’50 This is a perfect example of the deixis of the nation. The title
uses ‘the country’ as the journalist assumes the reader will know the country is Britain, there is no need to say the location as the ‘common-sense’ assumptions mean that ‘we’ know the country is ‘our’ country. The pages for all news sources are littered with stories about the storm’s effects on Britain. This may be a negative portrayal of the country as supermarket shelves are empty and there are now risks of flooding, but the journalists will attempt to ‘flag’ the homeland with more positive twists. The Guardian went with a story on the ‘heroes’ of the storm that were ‘handing out cakes on the A1’ and ‘housing the
homeless’51 There may have been a terrible storm, but the citizens of Britain proved
themselves heroes when there were people in need of help. What is certain is that all weather reporting will focus on the weather the nation is experiencing and it is very rare to hear what the weather is like around the globe, unless it is of significance. On this particular day, The Netherland’s experiences with the storm was in British news as the locals in
Amsterdam and other locations in the Netherlands were able to skate on the canals due to the freezing temperatures and another article (from one of those skaters in Oostzaan) was on a kingfisher frozen in the ice.52 There will be some space allocated to other nation’s
weather but the bulk of it will be taken up by what the nation is experiencing. A typical news report will include a map of Britain, which is not actually labelled as Britain: the national
50 Ryan Butcher, ‘UK weather: ‘Coldest week of winter’ to bring snow to most of country as
temperatures hit -7C,’ The Independent, 4th February 2018
51 Kevin Rawlinson, ‘’He made my day better’: everyday heroes emerge from snow chaos,’ The Guardian, 2nd March 2018
52 Jane Dalton, ‘Kingfisher freezes solid as ice take to frigid Amsterdam canals,’ The Independent, 3rd
geography is presumed to be recognizable53 and if the map includes surrounding countries
Britain will always be central.
Michael Billig noticed “a swirling flurry of flags was waving for ‘us’, ‘our victories’ and ‘our heroes.’54 The parallel between sports and warfare is not only evident in sports but was
clearly evident on both sides of the Brexit campaign. Two of the films that won Oscars this year were celebrating British achievements of the Second World War, Dunkirk and The Darkest Hour. Dunkirk is the story about ordinary British citizens crossing the channel in their boats to rescue 300,000 stranded British army personnel. An event seen as a British victory that was exploited by the national press led to the coining of the term ‘Dunkirk spirit’ that is defined as “an attitude of being strong in a difficult situation and refusing to accept defeat”55 and is still used in Britain to this day. Darkest hour is set in the same time but from
the point of view of Winston Churchill and his refusal to negotiate with Hitler. The film ends with the famous ‘we shall fight on the beaches’56 speech that has culminated in the idea
that the British can succeed at anything, even if they stand alone. This British history is well known in Britain and is a common theme in British films and television shows. This has led to the design of the most recent five-pound note including a 1941 portrait of Churchill, with the quote “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat” undoubtedly its intention to evoke strong feelings about the great history of ‘our’ past. The German ambassador felt this Second World War image of Britain fed Euroscepticism, that some Brexiters were motivated by a sense of national identity built around UK standing alone.57 It is strange that
both sides of the campaign used Churchill’s image to claim he would have fought for their cause. The Mirror published an article with “proof” that Churchill opposed membership of the EU58 and BBC wrote an article with Churchill’s grandson, Sir Nicholas Soames MP
claiming the opposite.59 Churchill died over half a century ago, he is a significant British
53 Billig: Banal Nationalism, p.116-7. 54 Billig: Banal Nationalism, p.120.
55 Rachel Lewis, ‘Why the British Still Talk About the ‘Dunkirk Spirit’,’ Time, 20th July 2017 56 ‘We Shall Fight on the Beaches,’ Winston Churchill speech of 1940, accessed 14th June 2018 57 Patrick Wintour, (Interview) ‘German ambassador: second world war image of Britain has fed
Euroscepticism,’ The Guardian, 29th January 2018
58 David Maddox, ‘’We are with them, but not of them!’ Even Sir Winston Churchill opposed
membership of EU,’ The Express, 2nd June 2016
historical figure and his image is easily exploited to encourage the citizens to feel proud of ‘their’ nation.
1.2 Euroscepticism part of British culture?
After the Brexit referendum result it is no surprise to learn that the term ‘Eurosceptic’ can be traced back to the United Kingdom. In the mid-1980s it began to be used by journalists and politicians to refer to Members of Parliament within the Conservative party who had reservations about the path of European integration.60 The Maastricht Treaty was signed in
1992 by then British Prime Minister, John Major and took European integration several significant steps forward, one of the most important decisions was to begin the process to create a completely new currency: the Euro.61 The Maastricht Treaty was viewed as a major
encroachment on UK sovereignty on the basis that it strengthened the power of EU
institutions, set the clock ticking towards monetary union and created European citizenship and was a key turning point for opposition to the European Union.62 Ex-Prime Minister,
Margaret Thatcher believed it was “a recipe for national suicide.”63 Paul Taggart, a political
professor, defines party based Euroscepticism as a term expressing the ‘idea of contingent or qualified opposition, as well as incorporating outright and unqualified opposition to the process of European integration.’64 In the mid-1980s the term ‘Eurosceptic’ was conceived:
in 1993 the party that fought for the Leave campaign, the United Kingdom Independence Party was created, only winning 1% of the vote in the 1994 European elections to a second place finish in the 2009 European elections65 and in 2016 a successful result in the Brexit
referendum. The range of Euroscepticism has evolved significantly over time and is very hard to define as a result, but a universal Eurosceptic grievance is the EU’s threat to national sovereignty. Banal nationalism has created an identity within the nation and any outside threat to that part of one’s identity must be stopped. Grievances with the EU did not
60 Leruth, Benjamin, Nicholas Startin and Simon Usherwood, The Routledge Handbook of Euroscepticism, (New York: Routledge, 2018), p.4.
61 Denis Macshane, Brexit How Britain will leave Europe (London: I.B.Tauris & Co. Ltd, 2015), p.81. 62 Leruth et al: The Routledge Handbook of Euroscepticism, p.101.
63 Macshane: Brexit, p.56.
64 Leruth et al: The Routledge Handbook of Euroscepticism, p.6.
65 Robert Ford and Matthew Goodwin, Revolt on the Right: Explaining support for the radical right in Britain, (Oxen, New York: Routledge, 2014), p.76.
suddenly appear in 2016 when the Conservative party called a referendum on British membership. The decade before saw Euroscepticism leave the fringes and enter the mainstream, made possible with many citizens feeling their nation was threatened, a perception created and maintained by banal nationalism.
Euroscepticism did not appear in Britain when Britain entered the EEC though. Menno Spiering suggests that Britain has had a long cultural history of Euroscepticism, something visible a lot longer than the European Union, let alone the year Britain entered, as it was known then, the European Economic Community. Looking at the general perceptions of identity and how they are formed by the means of oppositional thinking, by contrasting the Self and the Other. The British are not the French, the French are not German.66 In this case,
Britain and Europe and like banal nationalism, borrowing from Friedrich Nietzsche, this oppositional thinking is so prevalent in British society that it is practically invisible.67 This
relationship is determined by strong cultural notions of difference. One event that has a big role in more recent Euroscepticism is the Second World War. There is a grand national narrative that saw Britain standing alone against the fascist dictators of Europe, a Nazi invasion thwarted in the ‘Battle of Britain,’ the ‘Blitz’ bombing raids in ‘our’ cities, a country united in defiance and the eventual defeat of the Nazis and victory.68 The war only
confirmed and deepened an existing and deep-rooted British perspective of Europe and the other.69 It also deepened the British exceptionalism discourse and since the 1960s, every
major Prime Ministerial speech on Britain and Europe contain a passage on the war and Britain’s special role withstanding Germany.70 A dangerous result of this is the general
conflation that saw ‘the Nazis’ and ‘the Germans’ with ‘the Europeans.’ A month before the referendum, Conservative MP Boris Johnson made similar comparison when he said, ‘The EU’s disastrous failures have fuelled tensions between member states and allowed Germany to grow in power, “take over” the Italian economy and “destroy” Greece.’71 It is common
66 Menno Spiering, A Cultural history of British Euroscepticism, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan,
2015), p.20.
67 Spiering: A Cultural history of British Euroscepticism, p.22. 68 Spiering: A Cultural history of British Euroscepticism, p.9. 69 Spiering: A Cultural history of British Euroscepticism, p.8. 70 Spiering: A Cultural history of British Euroscepticism, p.10.
71 Tim Ross, ‘Boris Johnson: The EU wants a superstate, just as Hitler did,’ The Telegraph, 15th May
Eurosceptic rhetoric to compare EU bureaucrats to Hitler or the Union to the Third Reich. On the 15th May 2016 Boris Johnson was interviewed by the Sunday Telegraph in which he
compared the European Commission’s quest for a more united Europe to Hitler’s Third Reich.72 Consequently, UKIP MP Gerard Batten asserted “Nazi’s created ‘basic plan’ for the
European Union.”73
Reminiscing British involvement in the Second World War is not the only evocation visible when fighting against the European Union. The question of national sovereignty has long been justified with a phrase coined by Hugh Gaitskell in 1962 where he claimed British participation would see “the end of a thousand years of history.”74 This phrase is still used to
this day and centres on a series of seminal events, each building on the former and leading to the next. Starting with the Magna Carta in 1215 was followed by the English Reformation in 1534, then the Bill of Rights in 1689, followed by various democratizing Reform Acts of 1832-1867 followed by a host of victories over foreign dictators to culminate in Victory Europe Day on 8th May 1945.75 After the Brexit referendum the Conservative MP, Jacob
Rees Mogg utilised this rhetoric and called on British history to mobilise support for Brexit. He insisted Brexit is “so important in the history of ‘our’ country. This is Magna Carta, it’s the Burgesse coming at Parliament, it’s the great reform bill, it’s the Bill of rights, it’s Waterloo, it’s Agincourt, it’s Crecy. We win all of these things.”76 Three days before the
referendum, Suella Fernandes began an article advocating for Brexit which read “On 15 June 1215 King John put his seal upon Magna Carta.”77 This way of presenting British history
portrays ‘our’ history as what is right, what is good and what is superior. It is ‘our’ identity and the (perceived) European threat to ‘our’ 1000 years of history must be thwarted.
72Tim Shipman, All Out War, (London: Harper Collins, 2017), p.283.
73 Jon Stone, ‘Nazis created ‘basic plan’ for European Union, UKIP MEP Gerard Batten says,’ The Independent, 16th May 2016
74 Spiering: A Cultural history of British Euroscepticism, p45 75 Spiering: A Cultural history of British Euroscepticism, p54
76 Jack Maidment, ‘Jacob Rees-Mogg compares Brexit to battle of Agincourt, Waterloo and Trafalgar,’ The Telegraph, 3rd October 2017
77 Suella Fernandes, ‘Britain needs Brexit so it can decide its own fate without asking permission
2. THE RIGHT REBELS
Between 1995 and 2015 the number of immigrants from other European Union countries living in the UK more than tripled from 0.9 million to 3.3 million.78 The fear of immigrants as
criminals, as a strain on public services or stealing British jobs is ubiquitous in the media, UKIP politicians and the attitude of many of the general public. The referendum was a way for many to stop the free movement of EU nationals so only the British public could benefit from British services and jobs. In May 2016 the Centre for Economic Performance (CEP) with the London School of Economics (LSE) conducted research into the impact of Brexit, one of which was the impact of immigration on the UK. The results revealed something very different. It found EU immigrants were more educated, younger and more likely to be in work and less likely to claim benefits than the UK-born. Around 44% have some form of higher education compared with only 23% of the UK-born.79 The following year The
Economist found the UK was actually benefiting the most from EU citizens than any other EU member. 78% of immigrants to Britain aged 25-49 are employed (the best in Europe), compared to 68% in Germany and 58% in France.80 The ‘lump of labour fallacy’ is the idea
that immigrants take the jobs of native workers because there is only a finite number of jobs or fixed number of hours.81 This is incorrect, because as immigrants also consume local
services and goods, this increases demand and so raises job prospects of those who produce those goods and services. Research revealed the economic rate of UK-born workers actually goes up and down with the economic cycle, so too do wages.82 This is displayed in Figure 4,
5 and 6 below. This research went even further and examined whether areas of the UK that had larger influxes of EU immigrants also had worse job and wage outcomes for the UK-born relative to other areas.83 Again, their research revealed there was no relationship (positive
78 Wadsworth, Jonathan, Swati Dhingra, Gianmarco Ottaviano and John Van Reenen, ‘Brexit and the Impact of Immigration on the UK,’ (2016), Brexit Analysis No. 5, Centre for Economic Performance,
London School of Economics and Political Science.
79 Wadsworth et al: ‘Brexit and the Impact of Immigration on the UK,’ (2016)
80 Anonymous, ‘Britain reaps outsize benefits from EU’s free movement,’ The Economist, 15th
September 2017
81Tejvan Pettinger, ‘Lump of labour fallacy – immigration,’ Economics help, 17th August 2016 82 Wadsworth et al: “Brexit and the Impact of Immigration on the UK”, (2016)
or negative) on unemployment rates of those born in the UK. Figure 8, 9 and 10 demonstrate this and the lack of effect of immigration on wages on all UK workers.
NOTE – If immigration increased unemployment or wages the red line would slope upwards
2.1 Scapegoating migrants
On 19th February 2016 David Cameron secured a deal to “limit the access of union workers newly entering its labour market to in-work benefits for a total period of up to four years from the commencement of employment” in the UK, of any other member state, can show that EU migrants are “putting an excessive pressure on the proper functioning of its public services.”84 Two months later, Michael Gove wrote an article for The Times, ‘Soviet-style
control freaks are a threat to our independence,’ claiming “public services such as the NHS will face an unquantifiable strain as millions more become EU citizens and have the right to move to the UK…this is a direct and serious threat to our public services, standard of living and ability to maintain social solidarity if we accept continued membership.”85 It would
seem that EU migrants were a burden to the British tax payer and its public services. As illustrated above immigrants had no effect on unemployment or wages for the British. For public services and welfare payments, research has found EU immigrants have not had a neutral effect but actually had a positive impact. Dustmann and Frattini found that EU immigrants paid more in taxes than they received in welfare payments and in the period 1995-2011 the fiscal cost of natives cumulated to £591 billion, EEA immigrants contributed 10% more than natives (in relative terms) and non-EEA immigrant contributions were almost 9% lower.86 Not only are they fiscally contributing more than they are taking out, but
they are also filling jobs that are propping up British public services. In 2016, The Royal College of Physicians produced the report ‘underfunded, underdoctored, overstretched: The NHS in 2016’ The self-explanatory report exposes the lack of medical staff in the NHS.
Following the Brexit result the Institute for Public Policy Research urged the government to offer those EU nationals already working for the NHS citizenship, otherwise the NHS would collapse. 55,000 EU nationals were working in the English NHS and 10% of the UK’s
registered doctors were an EU national.87 Not only are EU migrants filling jobs in an
84 Peter Foster, ‘EU deal: What David Cameron asked for… and what he actually got,’ The Telegraph,
14th June 2016
85 Michael Gove, ‘Soviet-style control freaks are a threat to our independence,’ The Times, 25th April
2016
86Dustmann, C. and T. Frattini (2014) ‘The Fiscal Effects of Immigration to the UK.’
Economic Journal 124: F593-643.
87 Hayden Smith, ‘NHS would collapse if it wasn’t for immigrants, experts say,’ The Independent, 25th
understaffed NHS but as EU nationals are younger, they are less likely to use the health services, making them less likely to be a strain on the system.88
There are often times the Eurosceptic press and politicians will bring up free movement and its threat to Britain but, just like the misconceptions towards immigration, free movement is not as free as its portrayal in the media or claims of Eurosceptic politicians. The free
movement area of the EU is formally known as the “Schengen Area.” The Schengen agreement was signed in 1990 and first implemented in 1995 to include seven EU states. Today most EU states are part of this agreement which abolishes border checks between participating countries.89 The United Kingdom never signed this agreement, so movement is
not as free as the Eurosceptics like to portray. If immigration (especially from the EU) is in fact beneficial to Britain and free movement is not exactly free movement for Britain, why is immigration seen as such a threat to so many British citizens? There is no evidence to prove immigrants are any more criminal than British national. In fact, the rise in crime rate is more often directed at them than a product of them. 31 British police forces showed 1,546 racially or religiously aggravated offences were recorded in the two weeks up to and including the day of the referendum. In the fortnight immediately after the poll, the number climbed by almost half to 2,241.90 One quote from Michael Gove has become synonymous with the
typical Brexit rhetoric and could explain why the Leave campaign was successful. On the 3rd
June 2016 Michael Gove was interviewed on Sky news and when Faisal Islam gave him a list of experts that believed Brexit would be harmful for Britain, Gove replied “I think the people of this country have had enough of experts.”91 He continued “with people with acronyms
saying they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong.”92 That interview was
riddled with ‘patriotic’ rhetoric with claims from Gove that he was acting in the interest of the UK but that initial quote became synonymous with Vote Leave.
88 Wadsworth et al: ‘Brexit and the Impact of Immigration on the UK,’ (2016) 89 ‘Schengen Area,’ Policies, European Commission, Last modified 14th June 2018
90 Katie Forster, ‘Hate crimes soared by 41% after Brexit vote, official figures reveal,’ The Independent, 13th October 2016
91 Harry Mance, ‘Britain has had enough of experts, says Gove,’ Financial Times, 3rd June 2016 92 Harry Mance, ‘Britain has had enough of experts, says Gove,’ Financial Times, 3rd June 2016
2.2 The rise of UKIP
Billig argues that many academics reserve the term ‘nationalism’ for outbreaks of ‘hot’ nationalist passion, which arise in times of social disruption.93 It is as if nationalism suddenly
disappears but evidentially nationalism is always there, but in its banal form. If nationalism is seen as the ideology of the right wing, then it is definitely reserved for parties like the United Kingdom Independence Party, or UKIP. UKIP was formed by professor Alan Sked in his office at the London School of Economics in 1993 but for much of its early history it barely even registered in national politics.94 In their early years UKIP were mainly seen as a
single-issue party but with the extension of their policies that had changed by 2009 and as a result their support surged in the European elections and by 2014 they had become the largest party in Britain in the European Parliament, at the expense of the three main parties, Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrats.95 This was not reflected in national politics as
they did not win a single seat in the 2010 general election and only won one seat (of 650) in the 2015 elections, which was regained by the Conservative party in the 2017 snap
election.96 The difference between British and European elections can explain this. British
elections are first past the post and European is proportional representation. With
proportional representation there is no need to vote ‘tactically’, like so many voters do in British general elections. In the European election if a party wins 20% of the vote then they will get 20% of the MEPs (Member of European Parliament) but with first past the post a party can win 20% of the vote but if it’s spread across the country then it could mean fewer than 20% of the MPs. This was illustrated in the 2015 general election when UKIP won 13% of the vote but was only rewarded with 0.2% of the seats – 1 seat.97
UKIP are famed for their strong nationalist rhetoric but even they are guilty of using banal nationalism to get their message across. Billig’s point is that it is not always intentional. Banal nationalism is so ingrained, so natural, that it is not intentional. If you looked at their original logo and its use of the Great British Pound, the symbol of British currency, one
93 Billig: Banal Nationalism, p.44.
94 Ford and Goodwin: Revolt on the Right p.2. 95 Macshane: Brexit p.160.
96 ‘Elections 2017’ Results, BBC, last modified 16th August 2017 97 Leruth et al: The Routledge Handbook of Euroscepticism, p.102.
would see evidence of banal nationalism. Even the use of United Kingdom in their name is a promotion of the nation and ‘Independence’ because national aspirations are ‘natural’ and in the interest of the nation. UKIP has recently changed its logo that ‘flags’ the nation even more. The pound has been replaced with a lion and under the acronym UKIP the words “for the nation.”98 There has been some controversy because it bears a very strong resemblance
to the logo of the English Premier league99 but the lion is a very British (or English) symbol.
The Royal coat of arms of Britain (that can be seen on the front of the British passport) portrays a lion and a unicorn, the lion representing England and the unicorn Scotland.100 The
use of a lion is obviously an intentional banal use of a British symbol but is very telling that the symbol of England was used. The carefully chosen words “for the nation” also meant to give the impression that the party is acting in the interests of the citizens of the United Kingdom.
A lot of thought is put into brands; something many people take for granted. It is not an accident that the ‘Stronger In’ group in the Brexit campaign used red, white and blue in their logo, the colours of the British flag.101 Both sides of the campaign knew (even if it was not
consciously) that there needed to be a link to the nation, banal nationalism is so effective that the logo had to represent the nation. UKIP was originally the Anti-Federalist league, but Sked believed ‘anti’ was too negative so it was replaced with a more positive name.102
UKIP is not known for its banal nationalism, in its later years anyway. Alan Sked eventually left the party and denounced it claiming it had “grown into this hideous, racist, populist, xenophobic, Islamophobic thing.”103 UKIP was originally known as a single-issue party but,
wanting to get more support, included policies that mattered to the public in its updated manifesto. Europe became a symbol of the problems in British society and perceived threats to the nation. Unresponsive and out of touch elites in Brussels and Westminster; a
breakdown in respect for authority and British traditions; and most importantly, the onset
98 ‘UKIP Logos and Other artwork,’ Logos, accessed 14th June 2018
99 Peter Walker, ‘Ukip causes Premier League clash with choice of new logo,’ The Guardian, 29th
September 2017
100 ‘Royal Coat of Arms,’ Britroyals, accessed 14th June 2018 101 ‘About StrongerIn,’ StrongerIn, accessed 14th June 2018 102 Ford and Goodwin: Revolt on the Right p.22.
of mass immigration.104 Immigrants are an easy scapegoat for society’s problems and UKIP
was not the only party to latch onto this. The EU expansion in 2004 did not help, nor the refugee crisis in 2015 that led to a huge number of Muslim migrants entering EU member states.
The Federation of Poles of Great Britain conducted a report in 2009 that found The Daily Mail had written 80 ugly headlines about the dishonest caricatures of Polish people in Britain, this in turn led to an incitement of hate and contempt towards the Poles. There was also a significant rise in violent xenophobic attacks on Poles.105 The Daily Mail is infamous
for its anti-immigrant rhetoric and the British judge, Brian Leveson, set up an inquiry in 2011 that found “There is certainly clear evidence of misreporting of European issues.”106 This
misinformation was rife in the reporting of the 2015 refugee crisis, and the EU was obviously to blame for this sudden surge of Muslim migrants. A cartoon published in The Daily Mail in November 2015, comparable to Nazi propaganda of 1939, attacked the free movement of the EU and Muslim immigrants. This cartoon evokes fear of free movement as it is allowing ominous Muslim figures to enter Britain. A woman wearing a hijab and men holding prayer mats means they are undoubtedly Muslim and the inclusion of rats gives the impression of a ‘swarm of rats.’ A visible gun implies terrorist.
Source: The Daily Mail, ‘MAC ON…Europe’s open borders’
104 Ford and Goodwin: Revolt on the Right p.146. 105 Macshane: Brexit, p.169.
It is a common belief that most of UKIP’s supporters were disgruntled Conservatives. UKIP may have wooed a few voters that previously voted Conservative, but earlier general election turnout paints a different picture.
In 2001 Tony Blair’s Labour party won by a landslide but with only a 59% turnout meant millions of voters were not bothering to vote. A British Election study that same year found 26% of voters thought there was not much difference between Labour and Conservative.107
Professor Matthew Goodwin and Robert Ford studied the rise of UKIP and found the bulk of their support mostly came from what is known as the ‘left behind’ voters. These voters are a group of the British electorate that are diminishing so are no longer taken into consideration during elections. In 1964 for every voter that attended university there were 14 who left school with no qualifications, by 2010 that group was almost equal in size.108 If the
working-class and lower educated groups of voters shrink so too does their electoral significance.109
Left behind voters were older, white and poorly educated working class. They were voters of the 1950s and most grew up in economic depression and war prized ‘material’ values. They are more likely to be undercut by immigrant workers with more skills or willing to work for less. This group also have a more assertive sense of nationalism. A British Social Attitude Survey found they were more likely to believe British national identity is something acquired through ancestry, birth and cultural tradition, therefore not open to migrants and ethnic minorities.110 It is no surprise ‘traditional’ ideas of Britishness were strongly emphasised in
UKIP campaigns.111 The left behind, typically on lower incomes and more likely to have left
school at 16 struggle to see immigration as beneficial, economically and socially. They are more likely to want immigration reduced significantly and free movement of the EU makes controlling immigration impossible. The lack of education may probably explain why reports on the benefits of EU membership did very little to stop their Euroscepticism.
Euroscepticism alone was not what saw UKIP support grow; there were more than enough Eurosceptic MPs in the Conservative party, a party well established in British politics. Although it is evident the left behind voters were more likely to also be Eurosceptic, Europe
107 Ford and Goodwin: Revolt on the Right, p.130. 108 Ford and Goodwin: Revolt on the Right, p.117. 109 Ford and Goodwin: Revolt on the Right, p.116. 110 Ford and Goodwin: Revolt on the Right, p.120.
was not the only thing on their minds. The changing face of Britain saw British attitudes change and UKIP would need to acknowledge that if it wanted to see support grow. In 2001 UKIP only won 0.5% of the vote share at the British general election112 and in 2005 less than
10% of voters considered Europe as one of the most important issues facing Britain.113 The
journalist Toby Helm reported “it is difficult not to feel a little sorry for UKIP, a one-issue party whose issues has failed to surface at all.”114 Despite this, UKIP saw its support grow
when Europe was very low on voters’ list of concerns.115 Voters were more interested on
domestic policies like the NHS, education, crime, defence, the economy and pensions, policies that at the time UKIP had very little to say on.116 Immigration slowly moved up on
the voters’ agenda, rising from 11.5% in 2000, to 21% in 2002 and 31% in 2005 as one of the most important issues facing the country.117 In 2005 UKIP was not able to take advantage of
these concerns (as the Conservatives had wider appeal and were tackling the matter) but decided that year to expand its domestic appeal. Funnily enough, UKIP’s surge in support in the 2009 European elections had very little to do with immigration or other domestic policies, but the widespread abuse of the British MP expenses system. The European elections were turned into an outlet for public anger and UKIP won 13 seats with a second-place result.118 The next year was the general election but the first past the post system was
not encouraging for UKIP.
By 2010 immigration had moved up to become the second most important issue for voters, behind the economy and above all unemployment.119 UKIP was aware of this and having
expanded its appeal and its reach in the 2009 European elections it launched its campaign that put the blame on the EU. 2009 also saw the creation of the far-right hate group ‘The English Defence League’ or EDL.120 This group targeted prominent Muslim communities and
112 Toby Helm, ‘Strange case of the European dog that didn’t manage one bark,’ The Telegraph, 4th
May 2005
113 Ford and Goodwin: Revolt on the Right, p.63.
114 Toby Helm, ‘Strange case of the European dog that didn’t manage one bark,’ The Telegraph, 4th
May 2005
115 Ford and Goodwin: Revolt on the Right, p.185. 116 Ford and Goodwin: Revolt on the Right, p.63. 117 Ford and Goodwin: Revolt on the Right, p.64. 118 Ford and Goodwin: Revolt on the Right, p.75-6. 119 Ford and Goodwin: Revolt on the Right, p.78.
120 Matthew Taylor, ‘English Defence League: Inside the violent world of Britain’s new far right,’ The Guardian, 28th May 2010
epitomised the growing concern within the British public towards Muslim immigrants. These concerns were also reflected in British Survey Attitudes that revealed at the time of the 2010 general election that less than 25% of respondents held positive views about Islam,121
an attitude certainly fuelled by the media. In 2010 the most prominent symbol of Islamophobia was the hate preacher Abu Hamza al-Masri who was arrested in 2004 on terrorism charges.122 In 2010 the media coverage was extensive. It was not until 2012 that
he was extradited to the US and the media made sure to report regularly on the delay as a direct result of the EU Human Rights Bill. The Daily Mail, never one to miss an opportunity to report negatively on the EU, published an article in July 2010 filled with anti-EU rhetoric and Islamophobia. The article ‘European Human Rights court halts extradition of race-hate preacher Abu Hamza to U.S.’123 The journalist makes sure to mention the delay in the
“hate-preacher’s” extradition is because of “European judges” and the “interference by European Convention on Human Rights in the British justice system.” So far it cost “the public purse £1.1 million in legal aid” and in the meantime he “continues to live off the fat of the British taxpayer.” This article is effectively utilising the effectiveness of banal nationalism to direct the publics’ hatred towards the EU and Islam simultaneously. The British justice system is powerless to extradite the Muslim hate-preacher because of the EU and ‘its’ Human Rights. These anxieties about British Muslims had links to Britain’s first experience of suicide bombings in 2005124 and the ongoing war in Iraq or even the insignificant number of British
Muslims that “threaten” the British way of life that always had prominent coverage in the media.125 With growing concern towards Muslims, the recent expenses scandal and second
place in the European elections, UKIP began its campaign for the 2010 general election. All politicians ‘flag’ the nation but banal nationalism is prevalent in UKIP’s 2010 Party Election Broadcast on 6th May 2010. It begins with an introduction from MP, Frank Maloney.
121 Ford and Goodwin: Revolt on the Right, p.80.
122 Anonymous, ‘Abu Hamza profile,’ BBC, 9th January 2015
123 Jack Doyle, ‘European human rights court halts extradition of race-hate preacher Abu Hamza to
U.S.,’ The Daily Mail, 9th July 2010
124 Duncan Campbell and Sandra Laville, ‘British suicide bombers carried out London attacks, say
polices,’ The Guardian, 13th July 2005
125 Reports on Muslims protesting events such as armistice were always blown out of proportion in
the news and exploited by the far-right. In 2010 35 Muslims clashed with police in protest of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan chanting things like “Islam will dominate.” An obvious threat to Christian Britain
