Language Analysis of Leave Voters in Brexit and Personal Accountability

Qualitative Report

Topic: Discursive psychology approach to ‘Constructing Brexit’

Introduction

Aim of this research is to study personal accountability and how it is managed from the informant’s perspective using semi-structured, naturally occurring data. As accountability is often managed through talk and discussions with other people, a discursive psychological framework will be used to provide a non-cognitivist approach to analysis and look in detail at how voters themselves make sense of Brexit as a practical activity and how personal accountability is managed through a common sequence of actions within a particular cultural and historical context (Horton-Salway, 2001). In other words, we aim to answer the following question: “How personal accountability for the consequences of Brexit is being managed by ‘leave’ voters?”

Method

The material chosen for our research comes from a British radio call-in programme (LBC – Leading British Conversation), hosted by James O’Brien (referred to as J in transcriptions). Data collection was focused on a series of calls made by ‘leave’ voters (referred to as C in transcriptions) during which they were asked to provide reasons for voting in favour of Brexit. Semi-structured interview data was selected to ensure respondents’ opinions and realities are truly reflected as their own, rather than overly influenced by the interviewer’s terms (Jones, 1985). Considering the callers willingly called the radio show, it can be assumed that they have provided a form of consent, allowing their opinions to be known to the general public.

Analytical process consisted of selecting 5 different call-in discussions, with particular focus on a range of accountability claims provided by callers. All callers voted in favour of Brexit and the majority still firmly stood behind their vote on the day of the discussion. Calls took place in the period after the 2016 referendum (i.e. between October 2016 and December 2017). To collect the data, each group member analysed a 5-minute video of a different discussion. Basic verbatim transcriptions of the selected video clips were produced and read by all group members to ensure inter-rater reliability. Working with the verbatim transcriptions and the proposed research question, the group collectively selected 15-20 lines per group member to be transcribed in more detail, using the Jefferson’s notation (Jefferson, 2004; see appendix). Extracts were selected on the basis of appropriateness and re-occurring common patterns of distinct social actions which when combined, give rise to psychological concept of managing personal accountability.

Analysis

Establishing credibility

A common feature identified in all extracts is that callers’ statements preceding their main argument act to establish credibility and provide warrant for the legitimacy of subsequent claims. This is accomplished through stating area of residence, personal attributes and other relevant experiences. These statements serve as category entitlement, portraying the caller as part of a group that is qualified to talk about Brexit (Wiggins, 2016).

Extract 1: British male caller, ex-forces

1          C:         [I feel like I’m::] (.hhh) I feel like I’m:: (.) articulate  I’m well-read (0.4)

2                      but (0.2) to be:: >to be< sucked in by these lies  u::m I mean I’m ex-forces and

3                      I thought (.hhh) you know what u::m it’s almost as if it’s to be patriotic

4          J:          [Yes]

5          C:         you’ve got to vote Brexit

6          J:          Yes

7          C:         Um I love the NHS:: but you know to love the NHS you got to vote Brexit

Extract 2: British male caller, Harrow local

1          C:         I live in Harr:ow: (.)

2          J:          yeah

3          C:         >When I go down< to Harr:ow: (0.5) ↑ and this is not being racist

4                      James (.) because that term (.) is ↑ s::o:: easily :u:sed (.)

5                      > and very loosely used< (0.4) When I go down to harrow

6                      (0.4) and I’ve lived here for <thirty years> (.) and I walk into

7                      Harrow shopping centre (0.5) and > I ↑ swear to god < (.)

8                      I don’t know where I am (0.4) I:ve: got (.) Polish (.) Romanians (.) Bulgarians

9                      >sitting outside coffee houses< (.) doing ↑ sod all < ↓ all day > (.)

Extract 5: British male caller, ex-emigrant

15        C:         We:::ll (.) uh uh (h)the way I look at it is

16                    <I lived in Austalia> for a few years an [

17        J:          ^ Where

18        C:         ] it uuh (.) Australia

19                    A::nd if I wanted to go back to Australia (.) I would have to

20                    prove I speak E:nglish (.) have a certain amount in the bank (.)

21                    I’d have to have medical tests (.)

22                    hhhh i’d have to have a skill (.) >what was on a list (.) that

23                    they ne::ed< (.) um

24                    And why can’t we apply them things ^ here

In extract 1, caller establishes his credibility as a local resident by stating “I live in Harrow:” (2:1) and “I’ve lived here for thirty years” (2:6). This provides him with a credible stance to comment on the effects of UK’s EU membership on his town, which is further supported with the second statement, emphasising the duration of residency. Similarly, in extract 2, caller establishes his identity by stating his personal traits: “…I’m articulate, I’m well-read” (1:1), previous occupation: “I’m ex-forces” (1:2), and patriotic preferences: “I love the NHS” (1:7). Through expressing favourable personal traits, he constructs his identity as being knowledgeable and adds credit to his subsequent claims. Further, expressed occupation and (typically) British preference portraits him as credible patriot with love and respect for his country, increasing credibility and legitimacy of his voting decision. Likewise, in extract 5, caller establishes credibility to comment on immigration as one of the issues related to UK’s EU membership by categorising himself as a past immigrant: “I lived in Australia (5:16)”. Revealing his personal experiences of living in a foreign country provides him with a credible stance to subsequently compare the immigration policies abroad and in the UK and proposing the lack of organisation regarding the latter as contributing to his voting decision.

Defending with disclaimers

Extract 1: British male caller, ex-forces

22        C:       [and now] (.) I don’t I’m not I mean I’m not a racist my-my partner

23                   she’s mixed race u:m my extended family on her side are

24                   all sorts all different nationalities you know Canada to Malaysia

Extract 2: Extract 2: British male caller, Harrow local

3          C:         >When I go down< to Harr:ow: (0.5) ↑ and this is not being racist

4                      James (.) because that term (.) is ↑ s::o:: easily :u:sed (.)

5                      > and very loosely used< (0.4) When I go down to harrow

Extract 4: British male caller, talking about EU laws

16        C:         Well I-I believe th-the argument is that there’s multiple arguments =

17        J:          [go on then]

18        C:         = there’s <immigration> there’s you got controlled immigration >but again<

19                    it’s not about it’s not about you know I’m not a <xenophobic> aight you

20                    know I’m not totally multi-cultural but I got family who lives in America (.)

21                       in Bermuda (.) in-in Spain and =

A commonly observed feature is the use of disclaimers to defend against potential accusations of racism (Potter & Wetherell, 2010), which are either constructed using first- or third-person pronouns; “I’m not a racist” (1:22), “I’m not a xenophobic” (4:19) and “this is not being racist” (2:3). Notably, the use of third-person pronoun “this” rather than “I”, further distances the caller from any potential racial attitudes. Following the initial disclaimer, callers provide additional evidence to emphasize affiliation with foreign people, which serves further to mitigate racist accusations. Additional disclaimers do not relate to characteristics of callers but rather those closely related to them and nevertheless serve to deny racial bias: “my partner she’s mixed race” (1:22&23) and “I got family who lives in America in Bermuda in-in Spain” (4:20&21). The use of three-part list here conveys generality, further emphasising the point and increasing factuality (Wiggins, 2016). Combined use of a disclaimer and additional evidence hence defends against accusations of racial bias.

Assigning blame with negative assessments

Extract 2: British male caller, Harrow resident

6                      (0.4) and I’ve lived here for <thirty years> (.) and I walk into

7                      Harrow shopping centre (0.5) and > I ↑ swear to god < (.)

8                      I don’t know where I am (0.4) I:ve: got (.) Polish (.) Romanians (.) Bulgarians

9                      >sitting outside coffee houses< (.) doing ↑ sod all < ↓ all day > (.)

Extract 4: British male caller, talking about EU laws

33         J:          so just in terms of actually in Pinner and the damage that uncontrolled mass   

34                      immigration has done to your life (.) just give

35                      me the headlines

36        C:         Um::  walking-walking through the the city centre and seeing and

37                    seeing mobs of um (1) of >immigrants< not willing to integrate not willing to =

Personal accountability is often reduced through assigning blame through negative assessments, which act to hold others accountable for their own casted vote. For example, callers negatively label immigrants and political campaigners, contrasting the negative “other” from the positive “self”. Immigrants are typically characterised as lazy, anti-social and redundant: “sitting outside coffee houses doing sod all all day” (2:9) and “mobs of um immigrants not willing to integrate” (4:37). The use of script form portrays the actions of immigrants as re-occurring and generalizable to the entire group (Wetherell & Potter, 1992), constructing a negative label which provides a justifiable reason for their voting decision.  

Extract 1: British male caller, ex-forces

1          C:         [I feel like I’m::] (.hhh) I feel like I’m:: (.) articulate  I’m well-read (0.4)

2                      but (0.2) to be:: >to be< sucked in by these lies  u::m I mean I’m ex-forces and

3                      I thought (.hhh) you know what u::m it’s almost as if it’s to be patriotic

4          J:          [Yes]

5          C:         you’ve got to vote Brexit

6          J:          Yes

7          C:         Um I love the NHS:: but you know to love the NHS you got to vote Brexit

8                      ‘because we we’re gonna give all this money to them’ (0.4)

9                      but also I feel let down by the remain campaign

10        J:          Yes

11        C:         Because throughout the whole of >the-the-the< campaign remain

12                    (.hhh) o::r or leave or for Brexit all I ever saw was the Brexit

13                    campaign (0.2) Why didn’t the remain campaign step up

14        J:          (.hhh)

15        C:         and (.) try harder?

Similarly, ‘leave’ campaign is presented as misleading with the metaphor: “sucked in by these lies” (1:2) and reported speech: “we’re gonna give all this money to them”. Conversely, ‘remain’ campaign is presented as passive and insufficient with an extreme case formulation: “all I ever saw was the Brexit campaign” (1:12&13) taken even further with a rhetorical question “why didn’t the remain campaign step up and try harder?” (1:13&15). These devices serve to take the agency away from the caller (Wiggins, 2016), shifting blame and thus accountability to campaigners.

Avoiding first-person pronouns & using normative statements

In their main argument, callers often mitigate personal accountability by using passive agent-subject distinctions, avoiding first-person pronouns, turning to normative statements and portraying consensus. Avoidance of active-agent, detailed, first-person accounts reduces the likelihood of being held accountable for their voting decision and makes it harder for their views to be directly challenged. The use of normative statements and consensus building through emphasising the actions and opinions of others directly reduces personal accountability and disperses it among many (Edwards, 2003).

Extract 1: British male caller, ex-forces

3                      and I thought (.hhh) you know what u::m it’s almost as if it’s to be patriotic

4          J:          [Yes]

5          C:         you’ve got to vote Brexit

6          J:          Yes

7          C:         Um I love the NHS:: but you know to love the NHS you got to vote Brexit

8                      ‘because we we’re gonna give all this money to them’ (0.4)

Extract 4: British male caller, talking about EU laws

5          C:         = I mean (.) well y-you watch a Bruss- You watc – You go to- um (.) Brussels y::ou

6                      watch the guys talking >i-it’s °all very< (1.1) i::it’s very political and it’s very I mean

[few lines emitted]

23        C:         Yea well (.) immigrants are fine you know i-it’s there’s nothing wrong you know

24                      their the same as me and you

25                    looking for the best future for their family (.h) But

26                    it’s not about that i-it’s about the control its about our p-our ↑prime minister↓ having

27                      not having to succumb to the EU saying that he-or she

28                      can’t do anything I mean it’s the fact that we (.) you know (.hhh)

For example: “to be patriotic you’ve got to vote Brexit” (1:3&5), and “to love the NHS you got to vote Brexit” (1:7). The use of a passive second-person pronoun along with imperative voice implies that not only the caller, but all British citizens had no choice other than to vote ‘leave’. Through the use of agent-subject distinction, the caller characterises himself as a passive subject, lacking free will, further mitigating his level of accountability (Wiggins, 2016). Distancing oneself from one’s views through pronoun shifts is rather common in that callers rarely finish an argument which they start off with a first-person pronoun. For example, in extract 4, caller begins his argument with a first-person pronoun but quickly shifts to a third-person pronoun: “I-it’s very political” (4:6) and “I-it’s about the control” (4:26). Avoiding the use of first-person pronoun not only reduces personal accountability but also prevents the host from challenging the caller’s views as those are not explicitly stated.

Extract 2: British male caller, Harrow resident

54        C:         The manager said to me (.)°‘we have to reflect (.) the local community’° (0.8)

55                    and the point I’m trying to make James <And you’re you you you’re tryna

56                      um um um

57                    To a degree defend me um um but to attack me> (.) IS THAT RIGHT

58                       JAMES

59        J:          [(inaudible) (3) Mate it it]

60        C:         >THAT IS WHY PEOPLE HAVE VOTED OUT OF EUROPE<

The effects of using third-person pronouns is further amplified with the use of consensual, normative statements which construct a factual reality involving others, rather than just the caller. For example, in extract 2, caller finishes his argument with a factual account: “THAT IS WHY PEOPLE HAVE VOTED OUT OF EUROPE” (2:60). The use of the word “people” and a third-person plural noun “have”, portraits the caller as part of a larger group of ‘leave’ voters. The statement is reported as if many people are in agreement with Brexit, providing consensus, reducing Brexit-associated stigma and adding to the factuality of his account. Since many people are in agreement, accountability is dispersed among them, directly reducing caller’s personal accountability as the provided reason for voting is held and grounded in the external rather than internal world (Edwards, 2003).

Conclusion

The analysis shows that ‘leave’ voters manage personal accountability for their voting decision through a common sequence of actions. First, identity and credibility are established through the use of category entitlements. Second, disclaimers are used to defend against potential accusations. Third, accountability is shifted away from oneself by assigning blame to other Brexit stakeholders through negative assessments. Lastly, personal accountability for one’s views is mitigated by avoiding first-person pronouns and making use of consensual, normative statements.

Potential limitations of this research could lie in the methodological approach of using radio call-in programmes for data collection. Potential issues include the rather similar demographics of the callers (i.e. male, middle-aged, British citizen, lower-to-middle class, leave voter), the caller selection process conducted by the radio station and the unequal distribution of power in a phone-in discourse. To further develop this research, naturally occurring data (e.g. face-to-face interactions) should be used, along with a more varied sample.

Bibliography

• Edwards, D. (2003). Analyzing racial discourse: The discursive psychology of mind-world relationships. In H. van den Berg, H. Houtcoup-Steenstra, & M. Wetherell (Eds.), Analyzing race talk: Multidisciplinary approaches to the interview (pp. 31-48). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Horton-Salway, M. (2001). Narrative Identities and the Management of Personal Accountability in Talk about ME: A Discursive Psychology Approach to Illness Narrative. Journal Of Health Psychology, 6(2), 247-259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/135910530100600210
• Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
• Jones, Sue (1985). Depth Interviewing. In: Walker, Robert (ed) (1985). Applied Qualitative Research. Aldershot, UK: Gower. pp 45-55
• Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (2010). Discourse and social psychology. London u.a.: Sage.
• Wetherell, M., & Potter, J. (1992). Mapping the language of racism: Discourse and the legitimation of exploitation. Hemel Hempstead, England: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
• Wiggins, S. (2017). Discursive psychology: Theory, method and applications.

Collaboration

Data extracts were gathered and transcribed in collaboration with B079415, B087293, B079800 and B085684.

Appendix

Extract 1

1          C:         [I feel like I’m::] (.hhh) I feel like I’m:: (.) articulate  I’m well-read (0.4)

2                      but (0.2) to be:: >to be< sucked in by these lies  u::m I mean I’m ex-forces

3                      and I thought (.hhh) you know what u::m it’s almost as if it’s to be patriotic

4          J:          [Yes]

5          C:         you’ve got to vote Brexit

6          J:          Yes

7          C:         Um I love the NHS:: but you know to love the NHS you got to vote Brexit

8                      ‘because we we’re gonna give all this money to them’ (0.4)

9                      but also I feel let down by the remain campaign

10        J:          Yes

11        C:         Because throughout the whole of >the-the-the< campaign remain

12                    (.hhh) o::r or leave or for Brexit all I ever saw was the Brexit

13                    campaign (0.2) Why didn’t the remain campaign step up

14        J:          (.hhh)

15        C:         and (.) try harder?

16        J:          Presumably an awful lot of people who just voted to leave and went

17                    ‘Oh hang on a minute (.) what have we done?’(0.2)

18        C:         I was one of those people James!

19                    Secretly thinking back now I wanted to be that

20                    pe:rson when we’d stayed in Europe  to sa:y >‘Well I voted out’<.

21        J:          Yeah (.) <Ye:ah> I see

22        C:         [and now] (.) I don’t I’m not I mean I’m not a racist my-my partner

23                    she’s mixed race u:m my extended family on her side are

24                    all sorts all different nationalities you know Canada to Malaysia

Extract 2

1          C:         I live in Harr:ow: (.)

2          J:          yeah

3          C:         >When I go down< to Harr:ow: (0.5) ↑ and this is not being racist

4                      James (.) because that term (.) is ↑ s::o:: easily :u:sed (.)

5                      > and very loosely used< (0.4) When I go down to harrow

6                      (0.4) and I’ve lived here for <thirty years> (.) and I walk into

7                      Harrow shopping centre (0.5) and > I ↑ swear to god < (.)

8                      I don’t know where I am (0.4) I:ve: got (.) Polish (.) Romanians (.)Bulgarians

9                      >sitting outside coffee houses< (.) doing ↑ sod all < ↓ all day > (.)

10        J:          Right

11        C:         I’ve got (1.2) ↑ e:ver:y =

12        J:          aye =

13        C:         >nationality< under the sun (0.5) and I’ve (.) it’s lost

14                    lost its↑ identity (.h) (0.8) when I go into Northwick Park Hos:pit:al (.)

15                    and ↓ I was in there two three Sundays ago because I

16                    had to go in an emergency (.)↑ I walked into the (.) into the (.)

17                    um (.) accident and emergency as I (.) as I said to your

18                    res:ear:cher (0.4) >a hundred and twenty people in there and I was

19                    lucky if I saw< <three or four> ↑ white faces (1.0)↑it’s It’s okay if ya live =

20        J:          <Now that is racist> =

21        C:         No (.) no ↑ it’s =

22        J:          No that last bit :i:s  =

23        C:         ↑It is is <rea::li::stic>

24                    It’s not all about (0.5) It’s not all about the racist issue

25                    it’s just about the fact that the country (0.5) has lost its identity

26        J:          ↑What does that mean

27        C:         And that (.) Well wha-what does that mean it means that (0.8) what I’ve just

28                       said (.) that

29        J:          You don’t (.) you’ve just said that you don’t like seeing brown faces at the       

30                      hospital

31        C:         Okay (.) no (.) <is it is it> right then Ja::mes

32                    <let’s give another example right I might be digging myself a big hole (.)

33                       but>

34        J:          I’ll pull you out mate (.) I promise

35        C:         Right (.) right (.) but (0.5) the point I’m tryna make

36                    ↑If you if you ↓went down to my local (1.0) and I’ll give you an absolu:te

37                       point here

38                    if you went down to my local (0.5) supermarket ↑I won’t name which one it

39                       i:s (.) ↑okay

40        J:          ↓Ye:ah

41        C:         <And one of my sons tried to get a job down or two of my sons tried to get a

42                      job down

43                    there a few years when they were in between> univ:ersity (.)

44                    and goin’ into a um um um and goin’ from college to university (1.5)

45                    >↑at one point Ja:mes (.) there was twenty three tills open< (0.5)

46                    >and twenty two of them (0.8) ¬¬¬↑okay had<

47        J:          [°Yes mate°]

48        C:         >Had um Indians or Pakistani people (.) now<

49        J:          [°But we are talking about the European Union Steve°]

50        C:         ↓Yes (.) <¬¬¬↑but no but what I’m tryna say (.) James is this is where it’s all

51                       coming from>

52                    ¬¬¬(.) ↑and when I mentioned this to the manager (0.5) okay

53        J:          [°Oh (.) chri:st (hhh)°]

54        C:         The manager said to me (.)°‘we have to reflect (.) the local community’° (0.8)

55                    and the point I’m trying to make James <And you’re you you you’re tryna

56                      um um um

57                    To a degree defend me um um but to attack me> (.) IS THAT RIGHT

58                      JAMES

59        J:          [(inaudible) (3) Mate it it]

60        C:         >THAT IS WHY PEOPLE HAVE VOTED OUT OF EUROPE<

Extract 3

1          C:         I recently went self-employed a couple of years ago (1) u:m so it was a big

2                        thing voting Brexit 

3                      because I was building my business with client base etcetera (.) um but I

4                      think it’s all going  to be short term um

5          J:          Wh-wh-what business are you in if you don’t mind me asking?

6          C:         Um eh I’m a self-employed electrician um although we just and um um we’re

7                      getting bigger and bigger as the weeks go by – but you know I-I

8          J:          Wh-what’s going to be short term actually?

9          C:         Um um personal loss (.) personal financial loss

10        J:          Oh (.) but they did (.) but to be fair before the vote they did tell you that

11                    there wouldn’t be any

12        C:         (2) Uh well I think um well I (.) I wasn’t (.) I was never naive to the fact that

13                    there would be uh I mean I believe that there would be and I was willing to

14                      take that sacrifice just for the for the independence and the um just

15                    you know so that we control our own la::ws

Extract 4

1          J:          [So(.)so] you ↑voted↓ so that you wouldn’t have to obey these EU laws that

2                         you can’t name? (.)

3          C:         ↑No no↓ it’s-it’s-it’s more than that it’s-it’s=

4          J:          Well go on then

5          C:         = I mean (.) well y-you watch a Bruss- You watc – You go to- um (.) Brussels

6                      y::ou watch the guys talking >i-it’s °all very< (1.1) i::it’s very political and

7                      it’s very I mean they have-they have thrown out Tories out the pram because

8                      we you know the British people chose to leave um and you know it’s ↑it’s

9                         like baking a cake taking it into work and someone say that they

10                    don’t want a ↓slice and you get ↑all upset about it I mean it’s (.) it’s(.)

11        J:          Wh-wh-what ↑a-at what point↓ th::is mirror that I am holding up that you are

12                       looking at =

13        C:         [yea]

14        J:          = ↑at what point↓ are you going to recognise what you are seeing in the

15                    reflection you’re seeing a man who hasn’t got an argument↓ (1)

16        C:         Well I-I believe th-the argument is that there’s multiple arguments =

17        J:          [go on then]

18        C:         = there’s <immigration> there’s you got controlled immigration >but again<

19                    it’s not about it’s not about you know I’m not a <xenophobic> aight you

20                    know I’m not totally multi-cultural but I got family who lives in America (.)

21                      in Bermuda (.) in-in Spain and =

22        J:          And all immigrants? (1.1)

23        C:         Yea well (.) immigrants are fine you know i-it’s there’s nothing wrong you

24                    know their the same as me and you looking for the best future for their family

25                    (.h) But it’s not about that i-it’s about the control its about our p-our ↑prime

26                    minister↓ having not having to succumb to the EU saying that he- or she

27                    can’t do anything I mean it’s the fact that we (.) you know (.hhh)

28        J:          H::OW has immigration damaged your life  would you say? In its current           

29                      form↓

30        C:         Well obviously being a, being in trade, immigration is-has pulled prices

31        J:          [No not-not-not-not-not] for electricians (.) a-all skilled labours actually are

32                    in shortage at the moment (.) that’s one of the reasons we can’t build as many

33                       houses as we need to (.) so just in terms of actually in Pinner and the

34                    damage that uncontrolled mass immigration has done to your life (.) just give

35                      me the headlines

36        C:         Um::  walking-walking through the the city centre and seeing and

37                    seeing mobs of um (1) of >immigrants< not willing to integrate not willing to

38        J:          ↑Well you don’t↓ like the mobs in the middle of town do you↑

Extract 5

1          C:         I believe it’s not bout economics (.) arr arr

2                      It’s soley about migration (.) um an if um hhhhh

3                      ^ if there is a slight down turn (.) then it’s a small price to

4                      pay for controlling your own borders and having your own laws

5          J:          And when (.) when you (.) have it explained to you

6                      Under (.) European union law that it’s (.) perfectly per-

7                      Permissible to deport people from other European countries if they

8                      fail to find work here after three months

9                      Or if they can’t prove (.) hhhh that they’ve got sufficient

10                    capital to sustain their lifestyle here

11                    So when when (.) >when it’s explained to you< factually

12                    That the whole controlling our border argument was ^ utterly bogus

13                    Just go to Belgium(.) set yourself up over there (0.2) as a brit

14                    Hhhh then what happens

15        C:         We:::ll (.) uh uh (h)the way I look at it is

16                    <i lived in Austalia> for a few years an [

17        J:          ^ Where

18        C:         ] it uuh (.) Australia

19                    A::nd if i wanted to go back to Australia (.) i would have to

20                    prove i speak E:nglish (.) have a certain amount in the bank (.)

21                    i’d have to have medical tests (.)

22                    hhhh i’d have to have a skill (.) >what was on a list (.) that

23                    they ne::ed< (.) um

24                    And why can’t we apply them things ^ here

25        J:          Yiis well ub ub you must have misunderstood my ^ question

26                    I’ve just told you we ^ can (0.2)

27                    <that they do in Belgium (.) they do in Germany>