scholarly journals A Comparative Analysis of the Two Different Framing Strategies of Brexit: Exemplified by the Speeches of David Cameron and Theresa May

2018 ◽  
Vol 08 (04) ◽  
pp. 71-86
Author(s):  
Kaiye Yang
Author(s):  
A. G. Antonchik ◽  
U. A. Fedotova

The article presents a comparative analysis of American and British political texts, aimed to reveal the content of speech tactics and strategies, and to comment on their functional purpose. Special attention is paid to the issues of using the means of speech expressiveness, among which key words and metaphors are highlighted. This study is based on the texts of the inaugural speeches of American presidents (George W. Bush, Barak H. Obama, Donald J. Trump, Joe R. Biden) and British prime ministers (Tony Blair, David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson), published on the official websites of the US and UK administrations.


Author(s):  
Nicholas Allen

This chapter charts the story of the Conservatives in government between 2015 and 2017. It examines why David Cameron called a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union, why Theresa May succeeded him as prime minister, and why May decided to call a snap election in the spring of 2017. It locates these decisions against deep and bitter divisions within the Conservative party over the issue of EU membership, and further examines the broader record of the Conservatives in government. Above all, it seeks to explain how both prime ministers both came to gamble their fortunes on the electorate – and lose.


2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 307
Author(s):  
Zhaodong Zeng

This paper, on the basis of the interpersonal function of systemic functional grammar, aims to analyze interpersonal meanings construction in the inaugural speeches of Theresa May and David Cameron in terms of personal pronoun, mood and modality. It is identified that similarities and differences are reflected in the construction of interpersonal meanings. In light of similarities, both of them take the advantage of first person as a way that conveys their wills and builds up their authorities, seek to shorten interpersonal distance with the use of modal verbs of median and low degree, and employ the indicative mood to express their views and win supporters. On the other hand, they show different tendencies towards the use of modal verbs of high degree of modality and choices of second person verbs with regard to their distinct inaugural backgrounds. A comparative study of different inaugural speeches from the perspective of systemic functional grammar will help to gain an in-depth understanding of the organization and informational purposes of political speeches.


2021 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
pp. 85-110
Author(s):  
Olha Lapka

The aim of this article is to study the scope of conceptual metaphors as a persuasive tool inherent to political discourse in English. In particular, it dwells upon the use of four conceptual metaphors such as NATION IS A FAMILY, STATE IS A BODY, POLITICS IS A WAR, and POLITICS IS A GAME. For this purpose, the transcripts of twenty-eight public speeches delivered by David Cameron, Hillary Clinton, Theresa May, and Donald Trump were analysed. The results revealed numerous functions of these metaphors in the process of persuasion. Apart from that, the analysis showed that the majority of the analysed politicians resort to the source domain of WAR to conceptualise their political activities, while the source domain of GAME is the least frequently used. 


Author(s):  
David Denver ◽  
Mark Garnett

The years immediately after the 2015 general election were dominated by another vote, held in 2016. In 2013, the electoral challenge from UKIP had forced David Cameron to promise an in–out referendum on the EU should his party win the next general election. Cameron fulfilled his promise, after negotiations with the EU which only partially addressed the grievances of Eurosceptics in UKIP and within his own party. The chapter discusses the narrow victory for ‘Leave’ in the 2016 referendum, arising from divisions within the UK which cut across previous party allegiances and introduced a new element of volatility in an electorate which was already barely recognizable from that of 1964. The situation was complicated further by the election of the radical left-wing MP Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader after his party’s 2015 defeat. By contrast, when David Cameron resigned as Conservative leader and Prime Minister after the referendum he was succeeded by Theresa May, who was regarded as a pragmatic centre-right politician who could negotiate a compromise ‘Brexit’ deal with the EU. The chapter examines May’s failure to carry out this promise, marked in particular by her inept attempt to secure a convincing parliamentary majority in the 2017 general election. When May was forced from office in 2019 she was succeeded by Boris Johnson, a far more controversial and divisive character who nevertheless was able to lead the Conservatives to a comfortable electoral victory, not least because their pro-European opponents were hopelessly divided. However, the victorious Conservatives had no reason to feel complacent; even if Johnson’s government could deliver the favourable Brexit deal which it had promised, over the years since 1964 the British electorate had become far more fickle and parties were increasingly vulnerable to events outside their control. Within a few months of the 2019 election, party competition in Britain, which had seemed so stable back in 1964, was exposed to a new and deadly source of disturbance—the outbreak in China of the Covid-19 virus—which presented the most serious challenge faced by any UK government since 1945.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorenzo Cladi

Abstract The royal prerogative is one of the most significant elements of the UK’s government and constitution. During the premiership of Gordon Brown and the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition led by David Cameron, there was momentum for a reform of the royal prerogative. During the Conservative premiership of Theresa May, the impetus for reform of the royal prerogative has seemingly diminished. This article analyses how the UK Government has made use of the royal prerogative in terms of deploying the armed forces, making and unmaking international treaties and proroguing Parliament. It asserts that while such powers have not been compromised, the ability of Prime Ministers to use them without parliamentary consent has been subject to greater contestation. This has appeared to rein in the discretion of Prime Ministers. However, this article argues that Prime Ministers’ discretion has in fact become more meaningful as their political capital is invested in decisions concerning prerogative powers.


Author(s):  
Pauline Rodet

This article offers a corpus-based inquiry into the use of metaphor in the Brexit debate. This study aims to stress the link between manipulation and the metaphors that are used to talk about Brexit. It mainly focuses on the cognitive dimension of metaphor, following the Conceptual Metaphor Theory developed by Lakoff and Johnson. The methodology is largely inspired by Charteris-Black’s analysis in three steps: identification, interpretation and explanation. The corpus includes political speeches from various British politicians who strongly got involved in the debate, such as Boris Johnson, Theresa May and David Cameron. In addition, two cases of multimodal metaphors are closely analysed. The article suggests looking at the links between the conceptual domains at the roots of the metaphors encountered in the corpus and the act of manipulating.


Author(s):  
Benjamin Martill

Brexit has occasioned a rightward shift in British politics as successive leaders have grappled with the difficulties of negotiating with the European Union and the vicissitudes of politics in the governing Conservative party. Explanations for the hardening of Eurosceptic preferences focus on the demands of ‘taking back control’ and the polarisation of post-referendum politics as key drivers. But they have not explored the ways in which negotiation strategies shaped – rather than reflected – domestic political developments. Drawing on two-level games accounts of ‘synergistic’ bargaining, this article argues both David Cameron and Theresa May sought to leverage Eurosceptic sentiment in their respective negotiations to make it more credible the United Kingdom would walk away if its demands were rejected. While both leaders failed to convey their resolve, they inadvertently strengthened Eurosceptic constituencies back home, contributing to the paucity – and the rejection – of their negotiated agreements.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Strong

ABSTRACT This article asks whether Prime Minister Theresa May’s decision to bypass the House of Commons and order military action in Syria in 2018 killed the UK’s nascent War Powers Convention, established most visibly when MPs vetoed an essentially similar operation under Prime Minister David Cameron in 2013. It finds that the War Powers Convention survives, but in a weakened state, subject to new caveats that significantly narrow its scope. What happens next depends on the dynamic, unpredictable interaction between what future prime ministers believe, what strategic questions arise and what MPs will accept.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document