Much of our campaign since the 2017 general election has revolved around the “Exit from Brexit”. We need to win over Remainers; by having a clear and repeated anti-Brexit position, the electorate will know what we stand for.
There are a few problems.
Firstly, we are not “anti-Brexit”, we are pro-EU. Every time we say “Brexit”, we evoke certain thought patterns within the minds of voters, particularly the so-called ReLeavers (those who voted Remain but feel we should Leave because of the referendum).
We normalise Brexit. We make it seem mainstream. In an effort to be radical outsiders, we make Liberal Democrats seem like they want to do something weird that nobody voted for. As such, we should avoid the term at all possible costs. For starters, Tom Brake should no longer be our Brexit Spokesperson but our EU Spokesperson.
Secondly, “stop Brexit” terminology forces our current campaign to be negative.
Thirdly, in many areas of the country, we are trying to win over Leave voters.
For instance, Sheffield Hallam – now a Labour seat – voted heavily to remain. Yet even here, part of Nick Clegg’s defeat can be attributed to Conservative Brexiteers who voted Conservative in 2017 having previously voted Lib Dem to keep out Labour.
Many Leave voters want to vote for us, particularly at a local level. It is easier to create space between local and national campaigns if we drop the word “Brexit” which is so fraught with emotion. By changing our wording to “Stay”, we build a positive case for EU membership.
In the context of the core vote strategy, Stay evokes many of the values that would attract those core voters. Togetherness, community, stability: all things that Conservative and Labour Remainers (or even Stayers) crave.
We’ll need a new slogan. So far, I’ve got to the distinctly average “time to stay” and “stay safe” whilst rejecting the even more awful “a final say and a chance to stay”. But this change of terminology allows us to attract a core vote without evoking a negative reaction in those voters who support the Lib Dems but voted Leave.
* Rajin Chowdhury is a junior doctor specialising in anaesthetics and critical care. He has been selected as Sheffield South East parliamentary candidate
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Calum Miller makes the case for a much closer relationship with the European Union
Aging, Development, and Living at High Altitudes (Oxygen Levels)
The Charge of the Light Brigade - A perfect analogy for the United Kingdom today
Lib Dems miss out by 4 votes in council by-election
New lunchtime concerts for 2025
A looming trade war?
Only 3 historical inaccuracies
Peter Davies
Romer WH
Tristan Ward
expats
22 Comments
I sincerely believe that we should expunge the word Brexit from both our external and internal vocabulary. Brexit is not a thing, a strategy, a philosophy; it is a brand pure and simple. Moreover it is a powerful brand with a strong emotional pull for a very large number of voters. To pursue that thought a little further, you won’t stop people putting ‘I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter’ in their trolleys by continually telling them that it’s not as good as butter.
So I agree that we need something equally emotionally compelling to promote continuing membership of the EU. What that something is, I don’t know. I’m sure though that this forum can come up with the goods.
Good points here. Stay safe is a good slogan, and “The EU protects us”. From shoddy goods, chlorinated chickens, Russian interference, and so on.
Wholeheartedly agree.
GE2017 showed us that negative campaigning works against us – people are somewhat fed up of us complaining about what the other side is doing wrong- and not saying enough about what we would do right. The same goes for Brexit – we need that “positive case for remain” everyone keeps talking about.
**edit: need to make the positive case – I’ve no doubt that being in the EU is positive – but many voters are not convinced.
I think you’re right it would be sensible to get away from the word Brexit and, stop Brexit ,as you say is negative. Want to help but think may have put some people off by using that term.
‘Stay safe’ sounds like a slogan for seatbelts.
There’s a lot of merit in this article though.
I would suggest that Brexit be rebranded as what it is – a craven abandonment of our position within the EU.
After all, we can see from the exit negotiations so, we are heading for a position where, after we leave, we will end up following most of the rules and regulations that the other EU countries will decide in our absence.
Why is it that while Ministers for countries such as Slovenia and Slovakia can go to Brussels and defend their national interests, our Conservative (& Labour) one’s are so useless they are unable and/or unwilling to do so? They can’t defend our national interests if they just run away. That’s just a “Dad’s Army” version of diplomacy.
I think we get it that the Lib Dems are opposed to Brexit or whatever other benighted phrase is used. But can we talk about something else. please – or does the party have nothing else to say ?
@David Raw – recent polling suggests most know nothing about our stance on the EU. Perhaps many do not care – but among those are many “Remain” voters looking for a home. And the fact remains that our staying in or leaving the EU has far reaching effects on every policy area you can name.
David – At least this article is a different take on it.
I do agree though, as important as the issue is, we don’t appear to have much to say on anything else, and that’s a big concern – especially as its not clear that many people are actually paying attention to what we have to say on the EU anyway.
Stay safe is a good slogan
It’s a terrible, patronising slogan dripping with condescension that makes it sound like you think the electorate are children.
and “The EU protects us”. From shoddy goods, chlorinated chickens, Russian interference, and so on
So… before we joined the EU, we had no consumer protection laws?
And while we were in the EU, the EU made sure that Russians never slipped polonium to anyone in our tea-rooms?
You’re going to have to come up with less-obviously-nonsense arguments if you want to get through to people.
(As for chlorinated chicken… how bad can it really be? I’ve been to the USA & I had chicken while I was there. Presumably it was chlorinated. It didn’t seem to do me any harm. It doesn’t seem to do most of the yanks any harm either, unless it’s what’s causing their obesity epidemic.)
I do not relate to the view that we have nothing else to say, policies on many areas,mostly good some not, but all there to see!
The leadership need to emphasise them and media give coverage.
That does not mean those of us in the party have nothing else we are interested in.
I do think there is too much emphasis on this topic. It alienates me as it is not my greatest concern.
Although I do think it is important, we must persuade the public we are mainstream and sensible, this is what is needed.
Yet again. I agree with David Raw. How many more angles can you work on the subject? OK, the Lib Dems are the party of Remain (although I remember that subtle Cleggian phrase from the Farage debates, something about “we are the party of IN, UKIP is the party of PutIN”). Let the Lib Dems campaign in the local elections on REMAIN. Have they really become a ‘one trick pony’? And… if the breakthrough fails to materialise, will it be time to change the script?
I agree fully with Rajin.
Rajin makes some good points about getting across a positivbe message about the EU. For those who are bored with discussion about EU membership, what you need to accept is that many of us think leaving the EU is a disastrous mistake, and as there is only a year left, it is rather relevant at the moment.
For Dav, who asks for guidance about chlorinated chicken, the problem is not whether you will survive eating it. In the EU we have fought to raise standards of animal welfare, and this costs the farmers money. It follows that you need an enforced level playing field, or else bad practice will drive out good, because the customer will buy the cheaper product. In the USA, people don’t care about animal welfare, hence their cheap beef, pork and chicken. With beef the problem is concrete mega-farms, hormones and antibiotics, and with chicken they crowd the birds in unhealthy conditions, and then wash them in chlorine when they are dead, to protect the customers from tummy upsets. If we do a trade deal with the USA they will want to sell us their unethical meat, including the cheap chlorinated chicken. How much harm can that do? Not much, if you have no conscience.
This is a strange article. It seems to be saying we invented the term “Brexit” and if only we stopped using it, nobody would use it. If my memory is correct it was Vince who came up with “Exit from Brexit”, which should be catchy enough to lodge in the public’s mind. I don’t recall Tim using “Exit from Brexit” or us using it during the 2017 general election.
It also appears that Rajin Chowdhury does not know the official title of the government position David Davis holds. It is not the “Brexit Secretary” it is the “Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union”. And Tom Brake’s official job title is “Liberal Democrat Spokesperson for Exiting the European Union”.
I can’t see any benefits from not saying “Exit from Brexit” and instead saying “we are the party of staying in the EU”.
Also I don’t think we should present ourselves as the pro-EU party. The EU has lots of problems and we need to be the party which is calling for reforming of the EU to make it more popular in the UK. I also don’t think we should be the party of stability; it sounds too much like our failed 2015 general election campaign; we should be a party calling for change and not a party which just wants to keep what is existing – that is the Conservative Party.
Dav: How do you know if the chlorine is causing the US obesity problem. It might be – there has to be a cause unless they all eat huge amounts of food.
I agree with many points here.
We have well thought through policies in the main but presentation and the modern required strap line is not well thought through.
To convert voters and surely to move ourselves to a party in government we need to demonstrate our policies have a positive answer even for your ardent Brexiteer.
Exit from Brexit
– British values to Stay. Lead. Change EU
#LibDemGiveMeHope
I agree that we Libdems should make a positive case. Thanks for this article.
Jane Reed Activist in York
Spelling out policies is right and proper for political activists and commentators. Voters don’t register policy detail but cast their votes on the basis of emotional attitudes to the choices available – sound bites, if you like. ‘Exit from Brexit’ is a sound bite, but in my opinion, a poor sound bite which speaks only to the converted, whereas we need to convert the undecided who still largely think in two party terms when it’s time to vote. Our current slogan unintentionally endorses ‘Brexit’ by thrusting the ‘brand’ into prominence. BA positions itself as ‘The world’s favourite airline’, though it probably isn’t; it doesn’t insist, ‘We’re not Quantas’.
I am not sure how food production got into the thread, but I think that it is one of the keys to the debate. The truth is that we need strict regulations for a number of reasons. One is that everything in the food – including pesticides, artificial hormones or whatever, ends up in us. Our bodies can get rid of it, but there are limits. We build up poisons. This results in chronic illness. Increasingly food – including that from animals – is produced by limiting the range of nutrients used. The body needs a very wide range of nutrients which it won’t get if they are not in the food. This leads to chronic illness. We must work with our European partners to prevent an ever increasing spread of poor quality food.
By the way I entirely agree with the piece by Rajin. However we are always too defensive.
However difficult it seems, we must keep arguing for the right to end this process by a vote on the deal with the right to throw it out when we can see what is on offer.
If we keep reminding people how difficult and damaging it will be for jobs and tax revenues and the colossal sums this is costing ( £200m a week), then eventually a combination of this and events might turn the tables.
It would mean less rights and opportunities for us to retire, work, study, buy property access hospitals etc. Queues at airports would have us in the slow lane. Roads around ports and airports will become car parks and will need years of roadworks to make delays from all the bureaucracy. Five times the number of Customs staff, 25,000 more Whitehall civil servants, hundreds of lawyers needed for a decade or more on £3k a day each and billions in new infrastructure with compulsory purchase around ports. That and a new £15bn Customs IT system will take years longer than the timescale on offer.
Public opinion changed over Iraq, but a better analogy might be Patrick Minford’s previous attempt to destroy UK jobs and manufacturing via 80’s Monetarism. This created a deep home grown recession and 5 million unemployed (massaged) with the loss of thousands of viable firms resulting in 20% of industry going for good. He said the machinery would be passed on to more efficient firms, but he was wrong on that too and it was shipped to China.
Now Minford is back to finish the job and he admits that his policy of unilateral opening of trade barriers would destroy manufacturing and much agriculture in favour of a boost in services. That would finish off the north, midlands, S.Wales, Central belt Scotland and many rural areas, while favouring London and the south and further expanding Britain’s unique levels of extreme inequality in Europe.