How not to Surrender Act

/ / , /

Brace yourself. Prepare to be outraged. Boris Johnson is right: it’s the Surrender Act. Why? Because he’s called it that and, crucially, in a country actively bored with politics, it’s cutting through in focus groups.  

What is Johnson’s opponents’ response? They are trying to reframe the debate. They claim, with some justification, that calling it the Surrender Act raises the spectre of militarism. This, in turn, contributes to a more heated debate, which, in turn, leads to MPs being more likely to suffer violent attacks. So, they argue, we must all tone down the rhetoric. Which is laudable, desirable, totally reasonable. But unlikely to happen.  

Dominate the debate

Populists will continue to use emotionally charged language because it works. In the UK, politicians who want to leave the European Union brand Remainers ‘Remoaners’: sore, whiny losers. Leavers laud themselves as ‘Brexiteers’. With associations of musketeers, buccaneers, privateers. All very swashbuckling and romantic. And we can see how effective it has been by the prevalence of terms like ‘Brexiteer’ in mainstream media over the last three years. Not just in media with the same agenda such as the Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail or Daily Express. Even on the BBC, which is supposed to be impartial, ‘Brexiteer’ has been the default term. Subtly, but powerfully the argument tilts towards Leavers and the populists. 

Love language (don’t appreciate it)

Many on the other side of the Brexit argument (and, again, note how ‘Brexit’ has become the default term in the debate. By coining a new composite noun, Leavers turned the idea of Britain exiting the EU into ‘a thing’, something more concrete with its own identity) shy away from using language like this. There is a sense that liberal progressives SHOULDN’T ‘stoop’ to use this kind of emotive language. However, the science of how we respond to language, remember things and make decisions suggests strongly otherwise.  

Is there another way? Is it possible to use language emotionally but positively? Effectively a rebrand of the Benn/Surrender Act. And, if so, what would a successful rebrand look like? 

Positive rebranding or ‘Win the Words’

Without retreading the evidence (but Daniel Kahnemann’s Thinking Fast and Slow and Chip and Dan Heath’s Made to Stick are great starting points if you’re interested) the rebrand needs to be simple, emotional, catchy and resonate with the audience it’s aimed at. So, in the case of the Benn Act (named after one of the Act’s sponsors, Hilary Benn, rather than its more catchy real name, “The European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019”), it could become the: 

  • Lifebelt Act, 
  • Rubber Ring Act, 
  • No Deal Safety Net Act, 
  • Trip Switch Act, 
  • Belt and Braces Act (or maybe even the ‘Benn and Braces Act’ – variations on themes work really well: see ‘Education, Education, Education’ out of ‘Location,Location,Location’), 
  • Safe Hands Act, 
  • Parachute Act.  

You can probably come up with much better examples than these, but they illustrate the general idea. Reframing the debate by ‘renaming the thing’ is an essential part of influencing stakeholders. Relying on rational argument is only, at best, half the battle.