EU articulated in the Brexit Debate
Author
Rasmussen, Marie Hogreffe Amlund
Term
4. term
Publication year
2019
Submitted on
2019-01-02
Abstract
Den 23. juni 2016 stemte Storbritannien for at forlade Den Europæiske Union (51,9 % Leave, 48,1 % Remain). Dette speciale undersøger, hvordan EU blev omtalt i forhold til Storbritannien under folkeafstemningskampagnen, både direkte og indirekte, med fokus på national identitet, ved at analysere mediedebatten og parlamentsdebatterne frem til afstemningen. Forskningsspørgsmålene er: Hvordan blev forskellige 'vi/os'-kategorier defineret? Hvilke fortællinger knyttede sig til disse kategorier? I hvilket omfang spillede suverænitet en rolle? Det teoretiske grundlag trækker på forskning i national identitet og framing (bl.a. Wæver, Guibernau, Smith, Anderson, Giddens og Entman). Hovedmetoden er kvalitativ indholdsanalyse, en systematisk gennemlæsning af tekster, guidet af framing-teori, som ser på, hvordan emner vinkes for at forme forståelse. Analysen identificerede tre hovedtemaer: økonomi; migration og fri bevægelighed; samt suverænitet. Hovedresultaterne er, at Remain ønskede at blive i EU for at bevare adgang til det indre marked, som blev fremstillet som den ideelle relation. Et reformeret EU og det indre marked blev set som hjørnesten i Storbritanniens fremtidige velstand. I den dominerende økonomiske ramme relaterede Storbritannien sig til EU primært gennem konkrete økonomiske interesser, især adgang til europæiske forbrugere. Et bredere fælles 'vi/os', der omfattede både UK og EU, blev ikke fremtrædende ud over en handelsrelation; 'vi/os' forblev 'os, Storbritannien', ofte med en udtalt skotsk og/eller irsk dimension. Økonomiske gevinster blev hele tiden vejet op imod tab af suverænitet. Set fra Remain var EU's demokratiske underskud især et spørgsmål om manglende gennemsigtighed, og Storbritannien burde gå forrest og reformere EU ved at lede gennem eksempel. EU blev anset som vitalt for job og udenlandske investeringer. Leave fremstillede EU's bureaukrati som udemokratisk og spild af penge. Leave ønskede også fortsat adgang til det indre marked, men foretrak et forhold begrænset til en handelsaftale.
On 23 June 2016, the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union (51.9% Leave, 48.1% Remain). This thesis examines how the EU was portrayed in relation to the UK during the referendum campaign, both explicitly and implicitly, with a focus on national identity, by analyzing media debates and parliamentary debates leading up to the vote. The research questions are: How were different 'we/us' categories defined? What narratives were attached to these categories? To what extent did sovereignty matter? The theoretical framework draws on scholarship on national identity and framing (including Wæver, Guibernau, Smith, Anderson, Giddens, and Entman). The main method is Qualitative Content Analysis, a systematic reading of texts, guided by framing theory, which looks at how issues are presented to shape understanding. The analysis identified three main themes: Economy; Migration and free movement; and Sovereignty. The key findings are that the Remain side argued for staying in the EU to keep access to the Single Market, presented as the ideal relationship. A reformed EU and the Single Market were framed as cornerstones of the UK's future prosperity. Within the dominant economic frame, the UK related to the EU mainly through concrete economic interests, especially access to European consumers. A broader collective 'we/us' including both the UK and the EU did not become salient beyond a trade relationship; the 'we/us' remained 'us, Britain', often with a distinct Scottish and/or Irish presence. Economic gains were continually weighed against loss of sovereignty. From the Remain perspective, the EU's democratic deficit was largely about lack of transparency, and the UK should lead by example to reform the EU. The EU was seen as vital for jobs and foreign investment. The Leave side portrayed EU bureaucracy as undemocratic and a waste of money. Leave also wanted continued access to the Single Market but preferred a relationship limited to a trade agreement.
[This abstract was generated with the help of AI]
Documents