Why did the UK vote to leave the EU?

Financial concerns were the biggest factor behind Brexit. The Leave campaign employed a coherent narrative that resonated with disaffected Brits.

The UK’s decision to leave the European Union in 2016 was influenced by the financial concerns of the electorate. An effective campaign team, employing a coherent and overarching narrative, harnessed these grievances and presented Brexit as the solution. The EU had eroded the government’s ability to protect its citizens from market forces and the effects of immigration. After years of Cameron’s negotiations, which amounted to nothing, the public concluded that the only way to ‘take back control’ was by leaving the European Union.

Economy

The Economy was the biggest factor influencing the result in June 2016, as finances are always people’s most immediate concern. The issues of sovereignty and immigration were inextricably associated with economic insecurity. The referendum followed decades of economic volatility, with Thatcher’s shift away from government intervention meaning society experienced less state support and greater competition for jobs, exacerbated by austerity and the financial crash. These grievances were articulated by populism and increasing support for Brexit in ‘left behind’ areas, most affected by deindustrialisation, welfare cuts and immigration. The EU removed Westminster’s control of immigration, and its ability to protect people from market forces, slowly weakening financial security.

The Leave campaign effectively constructed a perception that the EU extracted and exploited the British people. Dominic Cummings’ ‘take back control’ slogan incentivised reclaiming sovereignty from the elites who had crashed the economy. Their rhetoric manifested a sense of crisis, blaming the establishment for the financial crash and welfare cuts, with Michael Gove saying that people were tired of experts. Crisis was emphasised by the infamous red bus, claiming that membership of the EU cost the UK ￡350 million per week. Their campaign portrayed the EU as responsible for financial hardships, utilising a coherent and overarching narrative that resonated with the British people.

The Remain campaign was centred around a negative and incoherent message, focusing on losing access to the single market, which would lessen trade. As Cummings comically pointed out, the single market is complex, and he doubted that most politicians, let alone the average citizen, could explain it. British people were unconvinced by ambiguous remarks about the single market’s infinite benefits. Little was said about how the economy would be strengthened by remaining, which was an ineffective counter argument to ‘take back control’.

Long-term disaffection was harnessed by Vote Leave, who reiterated an anti-EU sentiment that was already present. Remain was less successful at resonating with voters who wanted fundamental change after decades of financial hardship.

Sovereignty and Control

In the decades prior to Brexit, governments transferred powers to the supranational level, and thus were incapable of intervening to protect their societies from market forces. For instance, control of monetary policy within the EU rests with the unaccountable European Central Bank, which imposes limits to budget deficits and debt. Moreover, a 2012 Treaty allowed the European Commission, an unelected body, to issue sanctions against nations with macro-economic imbalances. These bureaucrats command substantial influence and can make decisions without fear of being deposed. The public saw that unelected EU bureaucrats were making decisions for them, rendering their elected politicians powerless against this technocratic supranational juggernaut.

The Leave campaign was centred around the notion of sovereignty and how the EU undermined the interests of ordinary people. They called the EU a ‘regulatory state’ and said the public were tired of ‘organisations with acronyms’, referencing the bureaucrats deciding monetary policy. Michael Gove pointed out that the European Union is ‘run by people … who none of us ever elected … who none of us can sack’. Gove was correct and captured public grievances around sovereignty perfectly. Vote Leave understood the discontent towards supranationalism and blamed the EU for all of the grievances of the British people. The masterful slogan of ‘take back control’ incentivised voting against the establishment and regaining control of their country.

After 2015, Cameron managed to get limited concessions from the EU, but the package was not the ‘full on treaty change’ he had promised. These negotiations were a political failure, evidenced by the Daily Mail’s ‘Call that a deal, Dave?’ headline, and it appeared obvious that the UK could not reclaim sovereignty within EU constraints. In 2014, Cameron was delivering a speech arguing for EU treaty change, and accepted concerns over immigration, saying ‘It boils down to one word: control’. This admission shows that Cameron was aware of public antagonism towards the EU. Cameron’s campaign worked against itself, and his failure to achieve concessions legitimised the cause for leaving. The Leave campaign won the debate over sovereignty, and successfully incentivised a public protest vote against these elites, who had taken away control, and inflicted economic misery.

Immigration

Immigration threatened to worsen the economic hardships of recent decades, putting pressure on wages, and increasing unemployment. These fears were compounded by right-wing media, who portrayed an intolerable strain on public services, and associated this with the failure of the EU project.

Vote Leave argued that EU freedom of movement provisions meant the UK had no control over immigration, linking to their narrative of taking back control. ONS data showed that support for Leave was highest in areas where the non-British population had increased by the greatest percentage. This shows the fear that multiculturalism threatened historical cultures and communities. Public hostility towards immigration and anxiety over its effects were major predictors of Euroscepticism. Farage, particularly with his ‘Breaking Point’ poster, convinced the public that leaving the EU would bring down immigration and linked it to wider issues of economic insecurity.

In May 2016, yearly net-migration hit 330,000 people, which, after Cameron promised to reduce it to the ‘tens of thousands’, was highly damaging for his campaign. Cameron’s failed negotiations, along with these figures, told the public that leaving the EU was the only way to control our borders. Immigration became the Achilles heal of the Remain campaign, as they were unable to counter Leave’s arguments. Director of Stronger In, Will Shaw, said they had a strategy around immigration, which highlighted the benefits of migrants who work hard. However, the politicians never used it, only arguing that leaving would threaten intelligence collaboration with Europe, contributing to a rise in terrorism. This fearmongering reflected their consistent failure to provide a positive message for staying in the EU.

Immigration was tied to economic and cultural concerns, which enjoyed widespread and bipartisan support. The Remain campaign’s rhetoric was unconvincing and haphazard, whilst their rivals linked it to their wider narrative of taking back control. The inability of Remainers to counter this message swayed many undecided voters. Public hostility towards immigration was not racism and reflected legitimate concerns over its financial impacts.

Conclusions

To conclude, economic concerns were the biggest factor influencing the electorate’s decision to vote Leave in the 2016 referendum. The EU was seen as an elitist and unaccountable body that had taken away the UK’s sovereignty and allowed immigration to spiral out of control. Both of these concerns were felt most acutely on the financial front, as people experienced pressure on public services and on their jobs. The seventeen million who voted Leave were not racists who despised immigrants, and were instead concerned with their own financial security, which they blamed on the EU. David Cameron failed to reclaim sovereignty, and thus the public were prepared to do it themselves. ?

The ‘take back control’ slogan encapsulated all three main grievances of the British public. It was taking back control of our borders, our politics, and our economy, and clearly resonated with a substantial proportion of voters. Its coherent and overarching narrative, contrasted to the unconvincing Remain campaign, which relied on negative and fearmongering messaging. Brexit gave the public a golden opportunity to get one back at the establishment that had subjected them to economic hardship for decades. The entire debate reinforced the idea that financial issues could not be solved within EU constraints, and hence the only option was voting leave.