Divided Kingdom - Brexit and beyond

xx What is Brexit?

xx What is BrexLit?

Referendum arguments

xx Two speeches on the EU referendum

David Cameron: Speech May 9, 2016

Boris Johnson: Speech May 9, 2016

xx M. C. Caskey: The Brexit Battle Rap, 2017

xx Jonathan Coe: Middle England, 2018

xx Toby Haynes: Brexit – The Uncivil War, 2019

xx Hannah Bardell: Anti-Brexit Rap, 2018

Reflections and speculations

xx Nikesh Shukla: We Who, 2017

xx Brian Bilston: Hold My Hand, 2018

xx Charlene James: Go Home, 2017

xx Anthony Cartwright: The Cut, 2017

xx Zadie Smith: Fences – A Brexit Diary, 2016

xx Sarah Doyle: Cloudy, With Outbreaks of Brexit, 2019

xx Amanda Craig: The Lie of the Land, 2017

xx James Silvester: Blood, White and Blue, 2018

xx John Lanchester: The Wall, 2019

and reactions

FORORD

Divided Kingdom – Brexit and Beyond er en antologi til undervisning i engelsk på A- og B-niveau på de gymnasiale ungdomsuddannelser.

Som titlen lægger op til, tager bogen sit udgangspunkt i en konkret begivenhed, nemlig Storbritanniens folkeafstemning i 2016 om medlemskab af EU. Var resultatet af denne afstemning som ventet blevet et nej, havde det nok ikke fyldt mange linjer i historiebøgerne. Leave-sejren affødte til gengæld årelange – og endnu ikke helt afsluttede – politiske skilsmisseforhandlinger, og internt i landet blev det en øjenåbner: de historisk dybe kløfter i det britiske samfund kunne ikke længere overses eller ignoreres. Antologiens væsentligste fokus er dog britisk skønlitteratur, da det især er her, at de forskellige menneskelige aspekter af Brexit bliver bearbejdet og diskuteret, både modsætningsforholdene i det britiske samfund indadtil og forholdet til omverdenen udadtil.

Divided Kingdom – Brexit and Beyond indledes med to introduktionskapitler What is Brexit? og What is Brexlit?, der sammen lægger fundamentet for elevernes forståelse af begreberne, og som arbejdet med nonfiktion og fiktion kan læne sig op ad.

Efter introduktionen følger alle de engelske tekster opdelt i to hovedafsnit. Første del angår valgkampen og debatten forud for EU-afstemningen. Her findes både politiske taler, rap-tekster, romanuddrag og film. Anden del af tekstsamlingen angår

refleksioner og spekulationer i kølvandet på debatten og afstemningsresultatet.

Bortset fra et essay er alle teksterne her skønlitterære: novelle, romanuddrag, drama og digte.

Tekstudvalget tilgodeser adskillige kriterier: litterær kvalitet, undervisningsegnethed, et bredt udvalg af genrer, miljøer, tematik samt – så vidt det er muligt – et ungt perspektiv. Romanuddragene i antologien repræsenterer så forskellige undergenrer som politisk satire, spy-fi, dystopi og krimi, og kan derfor indgå i selvstændige genreforløb.

Blandt bogens illustrationer er der fine eksempler på britisk humor og satire. De kan ses som supplement til de skrevne og talte tekster eller som en særskilt genre.

De enkelte tekster er didaktiseret konsekvent med øvelser til pre-reading, while-reading og post-reading, foruden et læsefokus som hjælp til at åbne teksten. Tekstforståelsen understøttes af de tilhørende funktionel grammatik- og skriveøvelser.

Sammen med supplerende spørgsmål, der sigter på opdateringer af den politiske udvikling o. lign., sikrer den store andel af fiktion, at antologien giver et langtidsholdbart indtryk af denne afgørende periode i den allernyeste britiske historie.

Divided Kingdom – Brexit and Beyond er oplagt til fagligt samspil med samfundsfag og historie samt – med fokus på ulighed –andre sprogfag.

Antologien udkommer både som fysisk bog og i-bog. Den fysiske bog suppleres med et website, hvorfra man kan downloade skemaer til mange af øvelserne, finde links til statistikker, videoer m.m. På websitet vil man også kunne finde forslag til supplerende læsning, bl.a. til SRP, DIO og SSO, foruden forslag til værklæsning. Dette ikon er en henvisning til bogens website:

Divided Kingdom – Brexit and Beyond giver mulighed for at få mening i og perspektiv på denne kompleksitet.

En stor tak til vores redaktør Katrine Cohen for inspirationen til at gå i gang med projektet og for konstruktiv feedback undervejs. Også tak for input fra vores elever og kolleger fra Holstebro Gymnasium og HF.

Teksterne i Divided Kingdom – Brexit and Beyond hører til kernestoffet i engelskfaget på både STX, HHX, HTX og HF, idet de udgør en ”væsentlig strømning i britisk litteraturhistorie” og angår ”væsentlige sproglige, historiske, kulturelle og samfundsmæssige forhold i Storbritannien”, jævnfør læreplanerne1.

Man kan være for eller imod Brexit, men et faktum er at det har affødt mange tanker og megen kreativitet. Et eksempel kan være Brian Bilstons satiriske digt Meaningful Vote 2 , der italesætter den forvirring og kompleksitet, som kan omgærde Brexit:

For some it means one thing. for others, another: as flimsy as gauze; as transparent as mud;

…

How foolish, it seems, how senseless, absurd, to redefine a nation in pursuit of a word.

1

2 Brian Bilston, Meaningful Vote: https://twitter.com/brian_bilston/ status/1105101534633836545 (set 27-03-2023)

Citeret fra Læreplanen for Engelsk A – STX, 2017. Andet citat er identisk med Læreplanen for Engelsk A - HHX, 2017, og næsten identisk med Læreplanen for Engelsk A - HTX, 2017, og Læreplanen for Engelsk B – HF, 2017.

INTRO- DUCTION

1

WHAT IS BREXIT? PRE-READING

VOCABULARY: HIDDEN WORDS

Compete with your classmates: Who can find most words hidden in the grid? They can be read left to right, right to left, top down, bottom up and diagonally. Letters can be reused.

2 3

CAMPAIGN SLOGANS

Does the slogan belong to the Remain or the Leave campaign? Have a guess and be prepared to explain your choices. Afterwards, you can check your results on the internet.

a. Stronger, safer and better off

b. Take back control

c. No man is an island

d. Yes to Europe

e. What is lost is lost forever

f. We want our country back

g. No country by itself

h. Britain stronger in Europe

i. Believe in Britain

j. Vote leave, take control

k. 350 million

l. Better in than out

m. Stronger together

n. Breaking point

WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?

When dealing with Brexit, why is the correct denomination The United Kingdom rather than Great Britain? Find definitions on the internet.

READING FOCUS

Split the words you find into three semantic groups:

a. Words related to elections in general

b. Words specifically related to the British EU referendum

c. Other words

Be prepared to explain your choices.

While reading, make notes for a PowerPoint presentation of what you find most important in this account of Brexit. Focus especially on disparity.

referendum folkeafstemning significant betydelig decade årti social security

understøttelse dwindle svinde ind revenue indtægt increasingly stigende grad convenient belejlig scapegoat syndebuk severely alvorligt reluctantly modvilligt confident sikker på analogy sammenligning predominantly altovervejende benefit gavne catchy fængende poll meningsmåling predict forudsige spike toppe affluent velhavende formerly tidligere sovereignty suverænitet determining afgørende vent få afløb for turn-out valgdeltagelse disparity ulighed resign gå af baton stafet ratify stadfæste deadlock hårdknude postponement udsættelse crucial afgørende prolonged langvarig

WHAT IS BREXIT?

BACKGROUND

In 1973, the United Kingdom joined the European Community, as the EU was then called, along with Denmark and Ireland. Already in 1975, Britons were given the opportunity to voice their opinion about the EC through a referendum, resulting in significant support with 67% in favour of continued membership.

The following decades were marked by an economic slowdown and industrial strife in the UK. Especially during the Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s long governance from 1979-1990, unemployment rates rose dramatically, while the social security system was weakened. The north of England and Wales saw their coal mines being closed and their industry dwindling. With no new investments in the areas, many people were left in poverty. At the same time, North Sea oil revenues started contributing considerably to the economy of the country, and the UK kept its role as a global key player. However, the gap between north and south, rich and poor grew. The United Kingdom became increasingly divided.

LEAVE OR REMAIN? THE REFERENDUM

Over the years, Britons have become more and more sceptical of the EU. Particularly bureaucracy, migration laws and the loss of sovereignty have been a thorn in the flesh of the British, and in bad times politicians have let the EU serve as a convenient scapegoat. The global financial crisis in 2008 severely affected the British economy, so to gain the support of the Eurosceptic voters in the general election in 2015, the Conservative PM David Cameron promised to hold a referendum on continued membership of the EU. Cameron himself supported membership of the EU, and he felt fairly confident that the result would be to remain in it.

Watch James Acaster’s “Cup of Tea Analogy” to see how the British comedian uses a tea bag analogy to satirise the referendum debate.

The official campaign to remain in the EU led by Cameron took the form of what was predominantly a scare strategy. The official Leave EU campaign, however, chose to reach out to otherwise non-voters through social media, a successful strategy, even though it later resulted in big fines for misuse of the personal data of millions of people. Neither campaign gave evidence of much in-depth political or economic analysis.

The main argument of the Remain side was that for every £1 spent on the EU budget, Britain would get £10 back through trade, investments and jobs. Besides, outside the EU, the UK would lose influence and be marginalised on the world stage.

The Leave campaign, on the other hand, argued that withdrawal from the EU would give the UK greater control over its own affairs, in other words, sovereignty. For instance, taking back control of the borders would enable Britain to restrict immigration. Also, the £350 million a week paid to Brussels could instead benefit the British health system, schools and housing. As it turned out, immigration was the most forceful campaign theme, and soft arguments related to culture, identity and emotions took centre stage. On both sides, the arguments were often expressed in catchy slogans that would ‘fit on the side of a bus’.

The date of the referendum was June 23, 2016. 51. 9% of the British voters voted to leave against 48.1 % who voted for staying in the EU. Until the night before the vote, the polls had predicted a victory for Remain, so the result of the referendum took most people by surprise. The fact was that 2.8 million previous non-voters had voted Leave. On the morning after the referendum, feelings of shock and disbelief were widespread. Interestingly, after the result had been announced, Google searches for questions like ‘ What is the EU ’ and ‘ What is Brexit? ’ spiked, supporting the notion that the referendum result was based on emotions rather than reason and factual knowledge.

fatigue træthed landslide jordskredsgeneral election parlamentsvalg treaty traktat having your cake and eating it (id) blæse og have mel munden disregard ignorere backstop bagstopper

Good Friday Langfredag framework ramme(aftale) Supreme Court Højesteret ruling kendelse wake kølvand breach overtrædelse mere bare turmoil tumult shortage mangel charitable velgørenhedsfrequent benytte current aktuel appropriate passende abundant rigelig

WHO VOTED WHAT?

The 52/48 division brought out the extent of the splits and inequalities in the nation. If you look at the statistics of who voted Remain and who voted Leave, the contrasts are quite well-defined. On the Remain side, we find young, educated, affluent, cosmopolitan people, many living in London, whereas the voters who backed Brexit often had little education, were low-income or had no jobs, and lived in social housing in formerly busy industrial areas. Sovereignty also played a part in the Leave vote for many people outside London, who felt that Britain was selling out the country’s distinctive character to the EU. Of course, this is a far too simplistic division, but it carries some basic truth. After the referendum, many people have stated that they knew nobody who voted differently from themselves. Thus, the Brexit debate has to some degree taken place in echo chambers, with nobody to voice different opinions or bridge the gaps between the various voter groups. It seems that the strategy of the Leave campaign to use social media to engage people who usually did not vote was the determining factor in the referendum. Especially people in the north of England and the Midlands, feeling marginalised and forgotten by the London elite, found a way to vent their frustrations, while voters supporting Remain, being certain of victory, had a relatively low turn-out and did not vote. The majority in England and Wales voted to leave the EU, while the majority in both Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain. Certainly, the voter statistics prove that the disparity of the UK had reached new heights.

You can find many more interesting and important details about the voter groups, for example, on the website.

The official Leave campaign bus

THE AFTERMATH

The referendum result went against the wishes of the UK Government, and Prime Minister Cameron resigned immediately. He passed the baton on to the former Conservative Home Secretary Theresa May (2016-2019), who undertook the task of negotiating a withdrawal agreement with the EU. This turned out to be far more difficult and demanding than expected. Even though Theresa May succeeded in making several deals with the EU, she never got the British parliament to ratify them, which caused a deadlock in negotiations and several postponements of the withdrawal date.

The crucial question in the Brexit deals was whether to make a soft deal, in which the UK still preserved close ties to the EU, or a hard deal with a complete break. A third possibility was separating with no deal at all.

Soft deal, hard deal or no deal: Watch the BBC video Hard or soft deal: What’s the difference? to get a picture of the different kinds of deals

Not only British politicians took part in the prolonged debates, but the British public as well. Throughout the negotiations, demonstrators were voicing their opinions and waving flags and placards outside Westminster and elsewhere. However, as time passed a sense of tiredness and ‘Brexit fatigue’ set in in both the UK and the EU. A divorce deal had to be agreed on.

Boris Johnson (2019-2022) took over as the next Prime Minister under the dynamic slogan ‘Get Brexit Done’. After a Conservative landslide victory in a general election, he could finally withdraw the UK from the EU on December 31, 2020. Boris Johnson was very satisfied with the final Brexit withdrawal treaty describing it as ‘a cakeist treaty’ – having your cake and eating it – whereas many others saw it as a ‘thin treaty’. After the official separation, however, Boris Johnson chose to disregard parts of the agreement, especially in relation to the difficult so-called Irish backstop problem.

Republic of Ireland. In the final divorce deal with the EU, it was decided instead to place a trade barrier in the Irish Sea between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, but obviously a trade barrier within the United Kingdom is an unwanted bureaucratic hurdle. In February 2023, the EU and UK Government put forward a possible new solution, the Windsor Framework, which distinguishes between goods staying in the UK and goods crossing the border of the European Single Market. However, the Irish backstop problem has still not been completely resolved. [Vi opdaterer, hvis der er nyt inden ... ] As previously mentioned, Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU, as did Scotland. Two years earlier, in 2014, a Scottish independence referendum resulted in a majority for staying part of the United Kingdom. Brexit has obviously meant a serious change of circumstances, which has resulted in a call for a second independence referendum in Scotland. However, backed by a Supreme Court ruling, the UK Government continues to block this.

POST-BREXIT BRITAIN

In September 2022, Boris Johnson was forced to resign in the wake of several scandals, among them ‘Partygate’, a breach of Covid-19 rules he himself had introduced. PM Liz Truss took over from him, but after a mere 44 days and serious financial turmoil she was forced to throw in the towel. Rishi Sunak was then appointed - the fifth prime minister in six years.

Since the referendum, the energy of the government has been focused on the withdrawal deals from the EU and on internal strife. The national problems of poverty and inequality that the referendum revealed date back decades and are still waiting to be addressed. Especially since the 2008 financial crisis and the change in government the following year from Labour to Conservative, the NHS, the National Health Service, has suffered severe cuts and is now in a disastrous state. The welfare system has not received the financial boost that Boris Johnson promised from right after Brexit.

Watch

‘Brexit Timeline 2016–2020: the UK’s

path from referendum to EU exit’ to get a more detailed impression of the Brexit process.

NORTHERN IRELAND AND SCOTLAND

The Northern Ireland problem must be seen in the light of the long-standing historical conflict between Protestants and Catholics. After decades of strife in which more than 3,500 people were killed, the parties reached a peace settlement on Good Friday in 1998, including guaranteed open borders between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. As part of the UK, Northern Ireland withdrew from the EU in 2020, but to avoid new tension in the area it has been important not to establish a new hard, physical border with the

Immigration and trade bureaucracy were other central issues in the referendum, but after Brexit, the immediate results have been a shortage of food and labour. Migrant workers from overseas are needed in both farming and industry, but they find it hard to get a visa, and the work on new trade deals is slow, hindering the import and export of goods.

A good measure of the problems is the need for emergency food parcels. From 2016 to 2021, the need for food banks, charitable organisations that distribute food to the needy, has increased by more than 80 percent. Inflation, rising taxes and energy prices were a threat to many households even before the Covid-19 pandemic and the Ukrainian war, and a growing number of people are forced into the dilemma of ‘Heat or Eat’. Also people in steady jobs such as schoolteachers or nurses are frequenting food banks in growing numbers.

In 2021-2022, 4.2 million children were living in poverty in the UK, that equates to nine children in a classroom of thirty, and there is plenty of evidence that regional and ethnic inequality in the UK is extreme. Furthermore, the 10 % with the lowest income in the UK are being badly affected by the current high inflation, whereas the top 1% of earners have seen an average rise in their annual income of almost 10%. The rich become richer, the poor poorer.

POSTREADING POWERPOINT PRESENTATION

Child poverty across the UK´s nations and regions 2014/15 to 2020/21

In pairs, make a 4-6-slide PowerPoint presentation of Brexit based on your Reading focus notes. Make a final slide entitled The Divided Kingdom. Share your presentations with a new partner.

d. One central Leave argument was ‘red tape’, i.e. the bureaucracy and many rules and regulations of the EU. What has happened in this field, and why?

e. What has been the solution for many small British businesses?

f. What has the Northern Ireland Protocol meant to Northern Ireland, and why?

KAE TEMPEST: PEOPLE’S FACES

Listen to Kae Tempest’s song People’s Faces, 2019.

a. How does Kae Tempest describe life in the UK in our time?

b. What role does disparity play in her description?

Can you explain the differences in child poverty rates in the different parts of the UK?

THE BREXIT EFFECT

DIG DEEPER

• What has Brexit done for Britain?, The Guardian, Jan 10, 2023 (podcast)

• Child poverty in the UK: the definitions, causes and consequences in the cost of living crisis from ‘The Big Issue’, Jan 25, 2023

• Child poverty facts and figures from the Child Poverty Action Group

There is no doubt that the Covid-19 pandemic (2019-2022) and the war in Ukraine (Feb. 2022 -) have added to the problems, but after Brexit and years of cuts in the welfare state, the UK is far worse affected by inflation and rising energy prices than most other European countries. People are experiencing the most serious fall in living standards ever, increasing inequality and poverty. The Brexit process has been long and rather inelegant, making the analogy that compares Brexit – not to a sudden car crash – but to a slow puncture seem quite appropriate. There is abundant evidence of the negative effects of Brexit, whereas the benefits of it are slow in coming.

Watch the video: The Brexit effect: how leaving the EU hit the UK, by The Financial Times, 2022, and answer the questions:

a. How is it possible to distinguish a Brexit effect from the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic and Ukrainian crises?

b. What has made people in the UK poorer?

c. How does the UK compare to other European countries when it comes to finance, business and economic growth?

g. ‘A political conspiracy of silence’ around Brexit is mentioned. What does it mean, and what is the cause of it?

h. Who are the losers in Brexit, and how?

i. What is ‘Project Fear’?

j. What are we told about the benefits of Brexit, ‘the Brexit dividend’?

k. How would you assess the reliability of this video?

c. Tempest says that she can see changes: where and how?

d. What is the message of the song?

Helle: Jeg har fundet det iturevne flag. Vil I gerne ha´ det på siderne, som her?

REFERENDUM ARGUMENTS

REACTIONS

QUALIFIER definitely

TWO SPEECHES ON THE BRITISH EU REFERENDUM PRE-READING

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

a. Study the map : The rise and fall of the British Empire from The Washington Post. Consider the differences in size and influence of the British Empire and of Britain as a part of the EU.

b. The UK is a member of a number of other international organisations than the EU. Find definitions of NATO, the UN, OECD, the IMF and the Commonwealth.

c. What was the date of the EU referendum?

ARGUMENTATION ANALYSIS

Before you do this exercise, be sure you are familiar with the six terms from Toulmin’s model of argument: claim, grounds, warrant, backing, qualifier and rebuttal, as seen in this example:

Brexit must definitely be delivered as a majority of the British people voted for it in the referendum. In our parliamentary democracy, we have always listened to the will of the people though some will say that many people have already regretted their vote.

GROUNDS as a majority of the British people voted for it in the referendum

so

CLAIM Brexit must be delivered

since because

WARRANT (implicit) in a referendum, the majority wins

BACKING in our parliamentary democracy we have always listened to the will of the people

even though

REBUTTAL though some people will say that many voters have regretted their vote

a. Analyse the two quotations page 38-39 from Cameron’s and Johnson’s speeches according to the model. Since a warrant is often implicit rather than explicit, suggest a warrant in your own words.

b. In class, compare your analyses of the two quotations.

• What are Cameron’s and Johnson’s attitude to the EU respectively?

• Which of the two do you find the more consistent according to Toulmin’s model?

• What do these two quotations lead us to expect from the argumentation of each of the two speeches?

• If you like, compare your results with ones made by ChatGPT or another AI chatbot and discuss using it.

JOHNSON QUOTATION

No one has any proper control // which is why EU spending is persistently associated with fraud. // Of course the Remain campaign dismisses this UK contribution as a mere bagatelle // even though you could otherwise use it to pay for a new British hospital every week.

CAMERON QUOTATION

I believe that // despite its faults and its frustrations // the United Kingdom is stronger, safer and better off by remaining a member of the European Union. // Better off? Certainly. // We are part of a single market of 500 million people which Britain helped to create. // Our goods and, crucially, our services – which account for almost 80 % of our economy – can trade freely by right. // We help decide the rules. // The advantages of this far outweigh any disadvantages.

DAVID CAMERON’S SPEECH ON THE EU REFERENDUM (ABBREVIATED)

DAVID CAMERON SPEECH MAY 9, 2016

PRE-READING STYLE OF LANGUAGE

Analyse David Cameron’s style of language in this extract from his speech. Consider sentence structure, vocabulary and use of rhetorical devices:

I believe that, despite its faults and its frustrations, the United Kingdom is stronger, safer and better off by remaining a member of the European Union. Better off? Certainly.

We are part of a single market of 500 million people which Britain helped to create. Our goods and, crucially, our services – which account for almost 80 % of our economy – can trade freely by right. We help decide the rules. The advantages of this far outweigh any disadvantages.

READING FOCUS

Make

referendum folkeafstemning polling station valgsted ballot stemmeseddel weigh up afveje decade årti forge skabe abandon opgive wrestle bryde hovedet med inflict påføre crucially meget vigtigt enterprise initiativ regulatory regulerende OECD The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development strangle kvæle Treasury finansministerium fiscal finanslivelihood levebrød in prospect udsigt genuinely virkelig leap spring forebears forfædre decode afkode genome genom ebb and flow ebbe og flod endure blive stående resilient robust generous gavmild obstinately stædigt rigorously ubøjeligt debunker skeptiker grandiose storladen a means to an end et middel til at nå et mål prosperity velstand anchor forankre yardstick målestok

In 45 days’ time, the British people will go to polling stations across our islands and cast their ballots in the way we have done in this country for generations.

They will, as usual, weigh up the arguments, reflect on them quietly, discuss them with friends and family, and then, calmly and without fuss, take their decision.

But this time, their decision will not be for a Parliament, or even two. They will decide the destiny of our country, not for 5 years or for 10, but in all probability for decades, perhaps a lifetime.

This is a decision that is bigger than any individual politician or government. It will have real, permanent and direct consequences for this country and every person living in it.

Should we continue to forge our future as a proud, independent nation while remaining a member of the European Union, as we have been for the last 43 years? Or should we abandon it?

Let me say at the outset that I understand why many people are wrestling with this decision, and why some people’s heads and hearts are torn.

And I understand and respect the views of those who think we should leave, even if I believe they are wrong and that leaving would inflict real damage on our country, its economy and its power in the world.

I believe that, despite its faults and its frustrations, the United Kingdom is stronger, safer and better off by remaining a member of the European Union. Better off? Certainly.

We are part of a single market of 500 million people which Britain helped to create. Our goods and, crucially, our services – which account for almost 80 % of our economy – can trade freely by right. We help decide the rules. The advantages of this far outweigh any disadvantages.

Our membership of the single market is one of the reasons why our economy is doing so well, why we have created almost 2.4 million jobs over the last 6

a note of the main points of the speech.

The questions for the two speeches by David Cameron and Boris Johnson are practically identical. You may split up into two groups, each working with one of the speeches. Be prepared to share your results in matrix groups afterwards.

years, and why so many companies from overseas – from China or India, the United States, Australia and other Commonwealth countries invest so much in the UK.

It is one of the factors – together with our superb workforce, the low taxes set by the British Government, and our climate of enterprise – which makes Britain such an excellent place to do business.

All this is alongside – let us note – our attractive regulatory environment. According to the OECD, it is second only to the Netherlands, itself an EU member – giving the lie to those who claim that the British economy is being strangled by regulation from Brussels.

If we leave, the only certainty we will have is uncertainty.

The Treasury has calculated that the cost to every household in Britain would be as high as £4,300 by 2030 if we leave. £4,300.

The overwhelming weight of independent opinion – from the International Monetary Fund to the OECD, from the London School of Economics to the Institute for Fiscal Studies – also supports the fact that Britain will suffer an immediate economic shock, and then be permanently poorer for the longterm.

The evidence is clear: we will be better off in, and poorer if we leave.

mould forme artery pulsåre commerce handel optional valgfri essential nødvendig Daesh Islamisk Stat (ISIS) increasingly i stigende grad amplify forøge achieve opnå take on bekæmpe profoundly dybt wars of the Spanish Succession den Spanske Arvefølgekrig mutually exclusive udelukke hinanden belligerent krigerisk tow bugsere congenial passende evolve stige root out udrydde Home Secretary indenrigsminister

Nothing is more important than the strength of our economy.

Upon it depends the jobs and livelihoods of our people, and also the strength and security of our nation.

If we stay, we know what we get – continued full access to a growing single market, including in energy, services and digital, together with the benefit of the huge trade deals in prospect between the EU and the United States and other large markets.

If we leave, it is – genuinely – a leap in the dark.

But my main focus today will not be on the economic reasons to remain in the EU, important though they are.

I want to concentrate instead on what our membership means for our strength and security in the world, and the safety of our people, and to explain why, again, I believe the balance of advantage comes down firmly in favour of staying rather than leaving.

feat præstation endeavour indsats emasculate svække retrenchment indskrænkning benefit have gavn af vast kæmpestort prosperity velstand languish vansmægte protectionist protektionistisk currency valuta exempt fritage home affairs indenrigsanliggender measure foranstaltning frankly rent ud sagt slam dunk (id.) vinderkast fight one’s corner kæmpe for sin sag bold modig

Because this decision is a decision about our place in the world, about how we keep our country safe, about how Britain can get things done – in Europe and across the world – and not just accept a world dictated by others.

(…)

Britain today is a proud, successful, thriving nation, a nation the world admires and looks up to, and whose best days lie ahead of it.

We are the product of our long history – of the decision of our forebears, of the heroism of our parents and grandparents.

And yet we are a country that also has our eyes fixed firmly on the future –that is a pioneer in the modern world: from the birth of the internet to the decoding of the genome.

If there is one constant in the ebb and flow of our island story, it is the character of the British people.

Our geography has shaped us, and shapes us today. We are special, different, unique.

(her: Theresa May) fortnight fjorten dage predecessor forgænger reiterate gentage MI5, MI6 afdelinger af den britiske efterretningstjeneste respectively henholdsvis severe kritisk retain bevare intelligence efterretning aviation luftfart enhance forøge peripheral ydre hindrance forhindring maim lemlæste sovereignty uafhængighed IMF Den Internationale Valutafond myriad utal magnify forstørre Falkland Islands

øgruppe Atlanterhavet, Britisk territorium

We have the character of an island nation which has not been invaded for almost a thousand years, and which has built institutions which have endured for centuries.

As a people we are ambitious, resilient, independent-minded. And, I might add, tolerant, generous, and inventive.

But above all we are obstinately practical, rigorously down to earth, natural debunkers.

We approach issues with a cast of mind rooted in common sense. We are rightly suspicious of ideology, and sceptical of grand schemes and grandiose promises.

So we have always seen the European Union as a means to an end – the way to boost our prosperity and help anchor peace and stability across the European continent – but we don’t see it as an end in itself.

(…)

That is certainly the approach I have taken to judging whether Britain is stronger and safer inside the European Union or leaving it.

And I have just one yardstick: how do we best advance our national interest?

Keeping our people safe at home and abroad, and moulding the world in the way that we want – more peaceful, more stable, more free, with the arteries of commerce and trade flowing freely.

That is our national interest in a nutshell – and it’s the question that has confronted every British prime minister since the office was created: how do we best advance Britain’s interests in the circumstances of the day?

If my experience as Prime Minister had taught me that our membership of the EU was holding Britain back or undermining our global influence, I would not hesitate to recommend that we should leave.

But my experience is the opposite.

The reason that I want Britain to stay in a reformed European Union is in part because of my experience over the last six years is that it does help make our country better off, safer and stronger.

And there are four reasons why this is the case.

First, what happens in Europe affects us, whether we like it or not, so we must be strong in Europe if we want to be strong at home and in the world.

Second, the dangerous international situation facing Britain today means that the closest possible cooperation with our European neighbours isn’t an optional extra – it is essential. We need to stand united. Now is a time for strength in numbers.

Third, keeping our people safe from modern terrorist networks like Daesh and from serious crime that increasingly crosses borders means that we simply have to develop much closer means of security cooperation between countries within Europe. Britain needs to be fully engaged with that.

Fourth, far from Britain’s influence in the world being undermined by our membership of the EU, it amplifies our power, like our membership of the UN or of NATO. It helps us achieve the things we want – whether it is fighting ebola in Africa, tackling climate change, taking on the people smugglers. That’s not just our view; it’s the view of our friends and allies, too.

Let me go through them in turn.

First: Europe is our immediate neighbourhood, and what happens on the continent affects us profoundly, whether we like it or not. Our history teaches us: the stronger we are in our neighbourhood, the stronger we are in the world.

For 2000 years, our affairs have been intertwined with the affairs of Europe. For good or ill, we have written Europe’s history just as Europe has helped to write ours.

From Caesar’s legions to the wars of the Spanish Succession, from the Napoleonic Wars to the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Proud as we are of our global reach and our global connections, Britain has always been a European power, and we always will be.

We know that to be a global power and to be a European power are not mutually exclusive.

(…)

And if things go wrong in Europe, let’s not pretend we can be immune from the consequences.

Second, the international situation confronting Britain today means that the closest possible cooperation with our European neighbours isn’t an optional extra.

It is essential for this country’s security and our ability to get things done in the world.

We see a newly belligerent Russia. The rise of the Daesh network to our east and to our south. The migration crisis. Dealing with these requires unity of purpose in the West.

Sometimes you hear the Leave campaign talk about these issues as if they are – in and of themselves – reasons to leave the EU.

But we can’t change the continent to which we are attached. We can’t tow our island to a more congenial part of the world.

The threats affect us whether we’re in the EU or not, and Britain washing its hands of helping to deal with them will only make the problems worse.

Within Europe they require a shared approach by the European democracies, more than at any time since the height of the Cold War.

(…)

Now third, the evolving threats to our security and the rise of the Daesh network mean that we have to change the way we work to keep our people safe. Security today is not only a matter of hard defence, of stopping tanks – it is also about rooting out terrorist networks, just as it is about detecting illegal immigrants, stopping human trafficking and organised crime. And that makes much closer security cooperation between our European nations essential.

I have no greater responsibility than the safety of the people of this country, and keeping us safe from the terrorist threat.

As the Home Secretary said in her speech a fortnight ago: being in the EU helps to makes us safer.

We shouldn’t put ourselves at risk by leaving.

One of her predecessors, Charles Clarke, reiterated that only this morning. And the message of Jonathan Evans and John Sawers, former heads of MI5 and MI6 respectively, is absolutely unmistakable: Britain is safer inside the European Union.

During the last 6 years, the terrorist threat against this country has grown.

Our threat level is now at Severe, which means that an attack is ‘highly likely’. Indeed such an attack could happen at any time.

But the threat has not only grown, it has changed in its nature.

The attacks in Paris and Brussels are a reminder that we face this threat together – and we will only succeed in overcoming it by working much more closely together.

These terrorists operate throughout Europe; their networks use technology to spread their poison and to organise beyond geographical limits.

People say that to keep our defences up, you need a border. And they’re right.

That’s why we kept our borders, and we can check any passport – including for EU nationals – and we retain control over who we allow into our country.

But against the modern threat, having a border isn’t enough. You also need information, you need data, you need intelligence. You need to cooperate with others to create mechanisms for sharing this information.

And, just as the Home Secretary said a fortnight ago, I can tell you this: whether it’s working together to share intelligence on suspected terrorists; whether it’s strengthening aviation security; addressing the challenge of cybercrime; preventing cross-border trade in firearms; tackling the migration crisis; or enhancing our own border security, the EU is not some peripheral institution, or a hindrance we have to work around – it is now an absolutely central part of how Britain can get things done.

(…)

My view is this: when terrorists are planning to kill and maim people on British streets, the closest possible security cooperation is far more important than sovereignty in its purest theoretical form. I want to give our country real power, not the illusion of power.

Fourth, Britain’s unique position and power in the world is not defined by our membership of the EU, any more than it is by our membership of the Commonwealth or the UN Security Council or the OECD or the IMF or the myriad other international organisations to which we belong.

But our EU membership, like our membership of other international organisations, magnifies our national power. Britain is a global nation, with a global role and a global reach.

We take our own decisions, in our own interests. We always have done, we always will do.

In the years since we joined the EU, we have shown that time and again with British, national, sovereign decisions about our foreign and defence policy taken by British prime ministers and British ministers.

Liberating the Falkland Islands in a great feat of military endeavour. Freeing Kuwait from Iraq.

And, more recently, our mission to prevent Afghanistan continuing to be a safe haven for international terrorists.

As I speak here today, we are flying policing missions over the Baltic States. Training security forces in Nigeria. And of course, taking the fight to Daesh in Syria and Iraq.

So the idea that our membership of the EU has emasculated our power as a nation – this is complete nonsense.

Indeed, over the last 40 years, our global power has grown, not diminished.

In the years before we joined the EU, British Governments presided over a steady retrenchment of our world role, borne of our economic weakness. (…)

And so?

Next month we will make our choice as a nation.

I am very clear.

Britain is stronger and safer in the EU, as well as better off.

And the EU benefits from Britain being inside rather than out.

This is a Europe that Britain has helped to shape.

A continent that Britain helped liberate not once in the last century, but twice.

And we always wanted two things from the EU.

One: the creation of a vast single market; one we thought would benefit our economy enormously and spread prosperity throughout our neighbourhood.

And two: a Europe in which Britain helped the nations which languished under Communism return to the European fold; nations who still look to us as a friend and protector and do not want us to abandon them now.

We’ve got both of those things.

We did all that.

And imagine if we hadn’t been there.

Who would have driven forward the single market?

Who would have prevented Europe from becoming a protectionist bloc?

Who would have stopped the EU from becoming a single currency zone?

Who would have stood up and said no to those pushing for political union?

Who would have done these things?

Because the truth is that if we were not in it, the European Union would in all likelihood still exist.

So we would still have to deal with it.

Now we have the opportunity to have what we have always wanted: to be in the single market, but out of the euro. To be at the European Council, with our full voting and veto rights, but specifically exempted from ever closer union.

To have the opportunity to work, live and travel in other EU countries, but to retain full controls at our border.

To take part in the home affairs cooperation that benefits our security, but outside those measures we don’t like.

And to keep our currency.

That is, frankly, the best of both worlds.

No wonder our friends and allies want us to take it. To lead, not to quit.

It is what the Chinese call a win-win.

The Americans would probably say it’s a slam dunk.

We are Britain.

No one seriously suggests any more that after forty years in the EU, we have become less British.

We’re proud. We’re independent. We get things done.

So let’s not walk away from the institutions that help us to win in the world.

Let’s not walk away from the EU, any more than we would walk away from the UN, or from NATO.

We’re bigger than that.

So I say – instead, let us remain, let us fight our corner, let us play the part we should, as a great power in the world, and a great and growing power in Europe.

That is the big, bold, and patriotic decision for Britain on 23 June.

COMPREHENSION AND ANALYSIS

c. What modes of persuasion (logos, pathos and ethos) does David Cameron use – and where? Note examples. As a whole, which of the modes of persuasion dominates the speech?

OVERSKRIFT?

a. Use the rhetorical pentagram to get a quick overview of the various aspects of the speech.

• repetition (e.g. anaphora, alliteration, tricolon)

• word classes (e.g. adjectives, nouns, verbs)

EVALUATION

b. Make a general assessment of the speaker’s authority and credibility, in other words, his ethos.

c. How long before the referendum was the speech given?

d. Explain where, how and why Cameron alludes to the slogans of the Remain campaign. (See the Campaign slogan exercise in What is Brexit?)

e. What is the purpose of the speech? Is it, for example, to inform, generalise, persuade, reassure or scare the receiver?

• choice of words (e.g. formal/informal, personal/objective, colourful, inflated, positive/negative/neutral connotations)

• style (e.g. matter-offact, intimate, humorous, ironical, exaggerated)

• imagery (e.g. metaphor, simile, personification)

• contrasts (e.g. them/us, freedom/control)

c. All in all, which of the rhetorical devices used in the speech do you find the most powerful? How and why?

LANGUAGE

4 5

OVERSKRIFT?

a. Individual reflections: Put yourself in the shoes of a British voter and write down your thoughts about the following questions. Use full sentences (about 200 words).

• How would you react to David Cameron’s speech?

• Is it interesting? In what way?

• Would it succeed in persuading you? Why / Why not?

b. Share your notes in groups and characterise the speech using 5-6 adjectives.

ARGUMENTATION

a. Decide what the main claim of the speech is. Find the grounds and warrant of this claim. You can download a worksheet with boxes to fill in.

b. Use your Reading focus notes to make a list of other important points in the speech. Which of these points speak to the head, and which to the heart?

a. Make a general assessment of David Cameron’s style of language – sentence structure, vocabulary and use of rhetorical devices. Your answers to the pre-reading exercise Style of language will be helpful here.

b. Analyse the speaker’s use of:

• personal pronouns (e.g. I, we, you)

• sentence structure (e.g. long, short, rhetorical questions)

DAVID CAMERON’S ORAL PERFORMANCE

Watch the clip from Cameron’s speech on: ‘PM Cameron makes case for EU membership’ (2:37)

a. Focus on non-verbal communication and make notes about body language, authority, eye contact, interaction with the audience, use of script, voice, speed, pitch, pauses, etc.

b. Explain how the use of non-verbal communication influences the message of this excerpt. Does the oral performance in general improve the speech, distract the audience, or is it of little importance?

Anne og Lise, nummereringen er lidt uoverskuelig her. Skal vi have tal ved de røde overskrifter og bogstaver ved tallene?

Som vist her?