During the 2016 Brexit referendum, the Leave campaign frequently accused the Remain side of excessive negativity and scaremongering. Simona Dianová and Monika Brusenbauch Meislová examine what a dataset of public speeches can tell us about the realities of “Project Fear”.
The 2016 Brexit referendum stands out in British political history as a campaign fraught with emotionally charged rhetoric, with each side presenting a starkly different vision for the UK’s future. A key strategy of the Remain campaign was the use of fear-based appeals – warnings about the risks of Brexit, collectively termed “Project Fear”.
The phrase “Project Fear” originated during the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, where it described the anti-independence campaign’s tactic of emphasising the risks of separation. This approach was subsequently adopted by the Remain camp in the Brexit referendum, which warned of the drastic consequences if the UK left the EU.
The concept of “Project Fear” quickly took root in the public discourse, as Brexit supporters accused Remain of scaremongering, suggesting that the campaign was more focused on instilling fear than on promoting the benefits of EU membership. For Remain campaigners, this strategy was intended to present a precautionary case for staying in the EU by highlighting the uncertainties and potential downsides of Brexit. Yet, the strategy backfired, as many voters perceived the campaign’s messages as overly negative and sensationalist.
Unpacking Project Fear
In a new study, we examine a dataset of public addresses by nine prominent campaigners from four political parties: David Cameron, George Osborne, Philip Hammond, Theresa May and Liz Truss from the Conservative Party; Jeremy Corbyn and Alan Johnson from Labour; Nicola Sturgeon from the Scottish National Party; and Nick Clegg from the Liberal Democrats.
These campaigners’ speeches provided a cross-party view of the Remain discourse, allowing us to assess the collective and individual elements of fear-based messaging across political lines. Using a mixed-method approach that combines content analysis with the discourse-historical approach (DHA), we examined how fear appeals were constructed. Content analysis helped quantify the presence of fear appeals and their distribution across topics, while DHA offered insights into the linguistic and rhetorical choices used to mobilise fear.
Our findings reveal that, contrary to common belief, fear appeals did not overwhelmingly dominate Remain’s messaging. While the campaign’s rhetoric has often been portrayed as heavily fear-based, our analysis shows that fear constituted only 43% of the discourse, with hope-based claims actually outnumbering them.
This nuanced view challenges the assumption that the Remain campaign relied exclusively on fear. Nevertheless, economic fears featured most prominently, with 76% of the fear-based claims focusing on potential economic impacts, such as trade restrictions, job losses and foreign investment declines. This heavy emphasis on economic threats underscores the narrow focus of Project Fear on economic concerns rather than broader social or political issues.
Issues such as security, health and social rights were less frequently framed in terms of fear, though they did appear sporadically across the speeches. For example, Theresa May and Alan Johnson touched on security, while Jeremy Corbyn highlighted the potential risks to the NHS. These findings suggest that while fear appeals were present, they were concentrated within specific issue areas, with economic anxieties taking centre stage.
Discursive strategies
We identify five main discursive strategies that were frequently used by Remain campaigners to construct fear appeals. First, there is the strategy of “nomination”. Fear-based rhetoric often described Brexit in terms of “damage”, “risk”, “disaster” and “cost”, aiming to evoke a sense of danger and urgency. In tandem with this, the us-versus-them conceptual distinction was notable, though it was used only to a limited extent. Brexit was also framed as disadvantageous for everyone.
Second, there was a strategy of “predication”. Campaigners assigned negative attributes to Brexit’s consequences using explicitly negative evaluative adjectives such as “severe”, “serious”, “heavy” and “profound”, creating a grim portrayal of the future. Normative language framed these choices as “right” or “wrong”, positioning Remain’s warnings as morally sound while casting Brexit as a risky and irrational decision. This strategy lent an air of authority and moral high ground to Remain’s arguments.
Third, there was a strategy of “argumentation”. The main argumentation scheme was quite simple: Brexit would cause economic distress and therefore it was necessary to perform a preventive, self-protective action that would effectively avert the undesired loss (that is to persuade British voters – the fearers – to vote Remain).
The fourth discursive strategy was “framing”. Campaigners routinely cited independent experts to lend credibility to their warnings, presenting analyses and forecasts as objective truths. Cameron and Osborne frequently invoked these expert views, seeking to underscore the reliability and legitimacy of their claims. A key element was the manifest absence of doubt, with fear-based rhetoric employing neither hedging techniques, nor modality to tone down claims.
Finally, there was a strategy of “intensification”. Fear-based claims often employed adverbial intensifiers such as “absolutely” and “real” to heighten the perceived threat. Often, “real” was used in this context to validate the effect as actual and reliable (“real consequences for Britain”). There was also frequent usage by all actors of the word “our” (“our economy”, “our businesses”, “our economic future”) that helped create the sense of collective identity and unity through reference to shared experiences.
Lessons for political communication
The Remain campaign’s approach in the 2016 Brexit referendum demonstrates both the potential and limitations of fear-based appeals in political communication. While fear appeals can effectively capture attention and prompt action, they risk backfiring if they are perceived as exaggerated or manipulative.
In an era marked by global crises, understanding the dynamics of fear in political discourse is more relevant than ever. The Remain campaign’s experience reminds us that while fear can be a powerful tool, its overuse may have undermined the Remain message. Excessive reliance on worst-case scenarios can foster cynicism, leading audiences to question a campaign’s credibility.
For more information, see the authors’ accompanying paper in British Politics.
Note: This article gives the views of the authors, not the position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy or the London School of Economics. Featured image credit: Ink Drop / Shutterstock.com
