The Brexit disaster..... and what it shows to Communicators

When announcing the referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU in 2013, the British Prime Minister David Cameron probably didn’t believe, that an exit scenario could ever take place. He took the supposedly small risk in order to force the EU and internal political opponents to concessions. But flirting with the exit scenario got out of control: When Cameron finally recognized the danger and fought doggedly for a Remain, it had already been too late. The majority of people no longer followed the Prime Ministers advice. The result is well known.

Cameron’s political opponents in the country had spent months emotionally charging the exit scenario with all the frustration, all the uncertainty of many British with the world and today's life – by the way an emotional mix that is currently typical for many people in most industrial countries. They addressed the subtle desire of many British people to change something, so that everything should become again, as it had been before: ?better“. So the Leave campaigners promoted the EU vote but positioned a vote for or against a supposedly better life. Today, almost three years later, the current Prime Minister Theresa May suffers the fate of her predecessor: Today the Members of Parliament are no longer following her, as the Brexit deal vote in the House of Commons bitterly points out. That’s also because she relied on quite the same communication strategy as Cameron did before.

There are four main derivations for us as Communicators, intensively highlighted by the Brexit disaster: 

>>Not the better argument wins, but the better symbols!

In the end there is hardly a rational argument that speaks in favor of Brexit. But bold statements and symbols, all of which have more to do with feelings than facts, were able to overcome the rational and objective public argumentation for whether to stay in the EU. For example, the Brexit advocates linked the weekly budget for the EU membership as a hard figure with the number of new hospitals, that could be built a year instead as a soft wishful thinking. This key message caused an intensive debate, whether the figures and the comparison are correct or not. (1) However, hardly any strength from the impact was taken, the desire for a stable and efficient health care system brought an enormous public boost for this argument against the membership with the EU.

>>The opinion of authorities is no longer a role model for most people - often even the opposite is the case!

David Cameron put all his weight as Prime Minister, in order to obtain a majority in the referendum for the remain of Britain in the EU. Failed. Theresa May has been fighting in the country for months for the deal she had negotiated with the EU. Failed. You could continue this list.

Today, many people find authorities a kind of suspicious: Do they stand for an opinion not out of pure self-interest? Is it true, what these elites say and argue? Are they competent and intelligent enough for the decisions to take? Do they even know anything about "real life"? Therefore do they know and understand "our worries"? Similar prejudices and resentments sound to authorities, which weaken the communication power oft them - and nowadays often lead to the opinion, that a referendum even on a complex issue (which does not seem so complex during public discussion) is better than an expert group or elected representatives could ever decide. The dilemma is known.

>>Using the analogy of "Robin Hood against the Sheriff of Nottingham" and "David against Goliath" works!

In their campaign, the Leave campaigners strongly emphasized "we for you against those in Brussels and those up there". The approach worked well: Being against something is easier and more mobilizing than being for something. Acting against the supposedly stronger and more powerful one has a stronger effect than a substantive argument about which idea or which approach is considered to be objectively better. 

>>Social media rule

Even today, social media are often underestimated by not so few decision-makers. But social media rule - that was also true for the Brexit referendum. For example, an analysis done by Oxford University's Vyacheslav Polonski from 2016 (2) shows, that Leave campaigners were many times more active in social networks than Remain advocates - reinforcing their own position and strongly influencing the undecided ones. The impact of social media has continued to increase since the referendum. Each political election, each public debate, each opinion formation - from the infrastructure project to the law or major social event - is shaped, designed and decided to a great extent in social networks. 

The rules, which information really permeate, how target groups can be affected, when engagement is triggered, and in which environments objectivity and emotions are best placed in which combination have changed noticeably in the recent years. Accordingly, this also applies to today's effective communication strategies. The Brexit story is just one example. The 2016 US presidential election another one. But the list of examples is much longer and growing day by day...

 (1) e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/29/britain-bill-brexit-hits-500-million-pounds-a-week ; https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-johnson/uks-saving-after-brexit-even-bigger-than-350-million-pounds-johnson-says-idUSKBN1F50T3

(2) https://www.referendumanalysis.eu/eu-referendum-analysis-2016/section-7-social-media/impact-of-social-media-on-the-outcome-of-the-eu-referendum/ ; https://www.referendumanalysis.eu/