In an article he wrote for The Telegraph, British Prime Minister David Cameron discusses the problem of Great Britain’s proposed withdrawal from the European Union, and the effect that this decision would have on the country’s future. The Prime Minister opposes the “British Exit”, which will be the topic of a referendum in 2016. In his article, Cameron tries to convince the readers that this exit will have multiple negative consequences for the. In order to support his point of view, Cameron builds a strong case against “British Exit” by showing how this measure is likely to affect the country. For this purpose, he uses a series of rhetorical strategies that are meant to enhance the credibility of his argument, and to increase support for his point of view. Cameron effectively argues against the British exit in his article by destroying the credibility of the opposing party, by making use of his political expertise to show how the exit from the European Union will impact Great Britain on the long term, and by frightening the readers regarding the consequences of the exit.
Cameron’s argument is based first and foremost upon his own credibility as a political expert. As the Prime Minister of Great Britain, David Cameron does not need to build his ethos. His name on the written piece is enough to convince the readers that his arguments are credible. For this reason, the author can firmly declare, “If you vote to remain in Europe, I can clearly describe what you’re voting for” (Cameron par. 1). His confident statement is credible because the readers are fully aware that Cameron is able to make this prediction, based on his expertise. Furthermore, based on this ethos, Cameron can play the role of an “educator”, by explaining to the readers what will happen as a result of leaving the UE. For example, in par. 13, Cameron explains in detail how the exit occurs, and how difficult and what problems this process entails. At the same time, Cameron attacks the credibility the people who oppose his view by demanding the exit from the European Union.
Thus, Cameron accuses them of being extremely vague (Cameron par. 2), because they do not exactly know how the future will look once Great Britain exists the European Union. He accuses them of offering “a leap in the dark” (Cameron par 2). This accusation already diminishes the ethos of the opposing party, while increasing the author’s own ethos, before Cameron has even started presenting his own argument. Cameron’s attack on the opposite party’s ethos increases his own credibility, because unlike them, he seems to have a clear image of what the future of the country is, depending on the decision to remain in the UE, or to leave.
After establishing his ethos and diminishing the credibility of the opposing source, Cameron also uses logos extensively throughout the article in order create a reasonable and thoughtful argument. The author organizes his article logically, with the help of the questions that he would like the opposing party to answer. After each rhetorical question, he presents his own arguments, which are numbered in order to make the article easier to follow, and organized logically. For example, after asking what kind of trading relationship would Great Britain have with the European Union after leaving, Cameron gives three ‘suggestions’, of possible answers to this question, none of which is encouraging. Logos is established by his extensive use of examples to support his views. Thus, he suggests, “Just ask Norway; they pay roughly the same per head to the EU as Britain does, and they accept twice as many EU migrants, yet they have no say at the EU Council” Norway is brought into discussion because it is a country in Europe which is not part of the EU. Consequently, its challenges are considered revealing in regards to the kind of problems Great Britain will have once it is not in the EU any longer. The author uses the example of Switzerland and Canada in a similar way when trying to answer his second rhetorical question.
Apart from ethos and logos, Cameron also uses pathos in order to connect to the audience and show that he is truly concerned about the fate of the country, as most British people are. In order to do this, Cameron uses direct address extensively. Direct address creates a connection between the writer and the reader, and allows the audience to feel involved in the issue. For example, Cameron explains that the uncertainty caused by Great Britain’s exit from the European Union is likely to have “an impact on investment and trade – and, ultimately, your job, the prices you pay and your family’s finances” (Cameron par. 8). This enumeration of the ways in which this exist will affect individuals in Great Britain is very powerful because it seems to be directed at each reader specifically. Instead of simply saying that this will affect British people’s finances, Cameron reminds readers that they will be personally hit by this decision. Apart from direct address, Cameron also uses the plural form of the first person “we” in order to create a connection between the readers and the Prime Minister, who is equally concerned about the country’s future as any British person.
Cameron also uses pathos when he tries to make readers fear for the future, by using enumeration to create an overwhelming impression of the threats that the British face as a result of the exit. Thus, he states, “think of the things that have threatened us in recent years: the prospect of a nuclear Iran; Russian aggression in Ukraine; the overwhelming impact of the migration crisis; the poison of Islamist extremism and terrorism” (Cameron par.11- 12). This enumeration has the specific purpose of making people fear for the future in order to reject the British exit plan. In order to make the impact of this statement even more powerful, Cameron wrote the enumeration in a paragraph of its own, separated from the rest of the text, to make it more visible and to appear more important.
The final paragraph of the article further uses pathos to convince the audience of the danger posed by the British exit. To emphasize this danger, the author repeats the word ‘risk’ 4 times, in similar constructions, namely “risk to our economy”, risk to our cooperation in crime”, and “risk to our reputation” (Cameron par. 18).The author ends the article with the emotional statement, “A vote to leave is the gamble of the century. And it would be our children’s futures on the table if we were to roll the dice” (Cameron par. 18) The metaphor of the gamble, where by rolling the dice refers to leaving EU, is meant to suggest the uncertainty of the decision, which is as risky as gambling. The reference to children is an appeal to the readers’ emotion because all readers feel responsible for their own children, and would like to protect them. Therefore, in connection with the gambling metaphor, the reference to children is very effective because any parent would find this association unacceptable.
As this paper shows, David Cameron skillfully uses rhetoric devices in order to build a very strong argument against the British proposed exit from the EU. He uses his ethos as Prime Minister in order to impose his own vision of what will happen if the country leaves from the EU, and at the same time, he diminishes the ethos of the opposing party by stating that they are unable to present a similar prediction. Subsequently, he creates a logical and thoughtful argument which could win the readers’ support by using examples and explaining the processes behind the exit rationally. He also becomes a teacher for the average readers who may have no idea how challenging this process is. Finally, Cameron uses pathos to connect with the audience by addressing them directly, to scare them regarding the future, and to lament about the children’s future, since they will have to live with the decision.
Works Cited
Cameron, David. “Brexit Would Be ‘Gamble of the Century’. The Telegraph. 2016.Web.
