Crisis, Fear, and Immigration: Securitization Discourse in the pre-Brexit UK
Author
Miller, Amos Roman
Term
4. term
Publication year
2018
Submitted on
2018-05-31
Pages
98
Abstract
Denne afhandling undersøger, hvordan der blev talt om immigration i Storbritannien op til folkeafstemningen om EU-medlemskabet. Undersøgelsen bygger på en diskursanalyse med udgangspunkt i sekuritization fra Københavnerskolen (Barry Buzan og Ole Wæver). Sekuritization betyder, at et emne fremstilles som et sikkerhedsproblem, der kræver ekstraordinære tiltag uden for normal politik, ved at beskrive det som en eksistentiel trussel mod noget, man ønsker at beskytte (et referent object, fx grænser eller sundhedsvæsenet). Analysen dækker perioden 1. juni 2015 til 23. juni 2016 og omfatter 4 partiprogrammer fra parlamentsvalget i 2015, 22 parlamentsdebatter, 30 udtalelser fra det britiske indenrigsministerium (Home Office) og 240 artikler fra Daily Mail/MailOnline/The Mail on Sunday. Resultaterne viser gennemgående sekuritiserende temaer på tværs af kilderne: EU blev fremstillet som en trussel mod britisk kontrol med grænser og immigration; der var frygt for østeuropæiske, især lavtuddannede, immigranter; frygt for kollaps i NHS og andre velfærdsydelser; frygt for befolkningsvækst og indvandrings betydning for prognoser; frygt for, at asylansøgere var økonomiske migranter eller potentielle terrorister; frygt for immigrantkriminalitet; og endda frygt for, at EU selv var truet af flygtninge- og migranttilstrømningen. Disse temaer gik igen i alle kilder, men sproget var mest markant i Daily Mail-gruppens artikler. De konservatives og UKIP’s partiprogrammer foreslog tiltag, der ville bryde internationale normer og traktater samt britisk lov, hvilket tyder på, at en vis sekuritization allerede havde fundet sted. Nogle af disse ændringer blev senere drøftet og vedtaget i parlamentet. Home Office undgik sekuritiserende sprog, men gav samtidig vejledning, der var med til at normalisere tiltag uden for den sædvanlige politiske proces. Overordnet viser analysen, hvordan frygt bruges i politisk sprog: En udbredt samfundsmæssig frygt kan bane vej for love, der ellers ikke ville være mulige i et mere roligt klima. Afhandlingen finder også, at sekuritization af immigration blev brugt til at påvirke offentligheden til at stemme ‘leave’ ved Brexit-folkeafstemningen.
This thesis examines how immigration was discussed in the UK in the run-up to the EU membership referendum. It uses a discourse analysis informed by securitization theory from the Copenhagen School (Barry Buzan and Ole Wæver). Securitization means presenting an issue as a security problem that requires extraordinary measures beyond normal politics, by framing it as an existential threat to something valued and worth protecting (a referent object, such as borders or the health service). The analysis covers 1 June 2015 to 23 June 2016 and draws on 4 party manifestos from the 2015 general election, 22 parliamentary debates, 30 statements from the Home Office, and 240 articles from the Daily Mail/MailOnline/The Mail on Sunday. The findings show recurring securitizing themes across sources: the EU was portrayed as a threat to UK border and immigration control; fear of eastern European immigrants, especially those with low skills; fear of a collapsing NHS and other welfare services; fear of population growth and the impact of immigrants on projections; fear that asylum seekers were economic migrants or potential terrorists; fear of immigrant criminality; and even fear that the EU itself was threatened by the influx of refugees and migrants. These themes appeared across all sources but were most pronounced in the language of the Daily Mail group. The Conservative and UKIP manifestos proposed actions that would break international norms and treaties as well as domestic law, suggesting that securitization was already under way; some of these changes were later discussed and adopted in Parliament. The Home Office avoided securitizing language but provided guidance that helped normalize measures outside usual political practice. More broadly, the analysis shows how fear is used in political discourse: a general climate of societal fear can enable laws that would not be possible in calmer times. It also finds that the securitization of immigration was weaponized to encourage a ‘leave’ vote in the Brexit referendum.
[This abstract was generated with the help of AI]
Keywords
Documents