Hostile Environments: The Toxic Legacy of Brexit Britain

A Brexit Anthology: Part 1

As we sit here, just over eight years since the era-defining Brexit vote, it is clear on reflection that it wasn’t merely a vote on trade deals or sovereignty. It was about so much more, and in this article, we consider it as a moment that exposed deep-rooted fractures in British society and dug itself deep into the national psyche; a kind of collective trauma that we are yet to recover from. The referendum brought long-simmering tensions to the surface, revealing a stark divide between those who felt their country had been taken from them and those who believed Britain’s future lay in embracing global diversity. For years, dissatisfaction and resentment bubbled beneath the surface, but Brexit gave these grievances a powerful platform.

Britain’s identity crisis did not begin with the Brexit vote. For decades, the country had grappled with its post-colonial role, wondering what it meant to be British in a rapidly globalising world. Decolonisation, post-war immigration, and the decline of traditional industries left many feeling economically and socially excluded. For some, Brexit was a nostalgic attempt to reclaim a vision of Britain as a sovereign, self-reliant nation. The 2016 referendum then, became a chance to reject the forces of change that had reshaped British society over the decades.

Brexit provided a political platform for this identity crisis to be voiced. In communities where factories had closed, jobs had disappeared, and austerity policies had cut deep, many saw the EU as a large part of the problem: taking away their industries and imposing rules and bureaucracy that no-one had voted for. It was also perceived as an institution that did little to alleviate their struggles. For these voters, Brexit represented a lifeline, a way to reclaim power in a system they felt had neglected them for too long. This frustration wasn’t just about economic stagnation; it was about a sense of lost identity and pride. The vote to leave the EU became a rejection not just of Brussels but of a political establishment that had failed to address the grievances of ordinary Britons.

The Brexit of Boris Johnson

Brexit itself was a significant factor in Boris Johnson’s rise to power as leader of the Conservative Party in July 2019, and his subsequent victory in the December General Election of that year. His promise to ‘Get Brexit Done’ resonated with a public tired of the endless parliamentary wrangling over what Brexit should entail. Many voters felt trapped in a political quagmire, as the government appeared uncertain about how to deliver on the referendum’s outcome. The real truth was that few in the political establishment had expected the UK to vote Leave.

Johnson’s relentless push to ‘Get Brexit Done’ led to a hastily constructed withdrawal agreement that left businesses without clear guidelines and provided little provision for Northern Ireland, further complicating an already fraught situation. The rush to fulfil his empty promise exposed the government’s lack of preparation for the practical and political realities of leaving the EU.

Brexit’s ripple effects didn’t stop with the EU. The vote reignited long-standing calls from the political right to leave the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), a body that some perceived as an obstacle to British sovereignty. For many Brexit supporters, the ECHR symbolised another layer of control by external, unelected bodies. Exiting the ECHR, they argued, would be the final step in ‘taking back control,’ allowing the UK to make its own legal decisions without interference from Strasbourg.

Leaving the ECHR would have significant consequences. The court has played a crucial role in upholding human rights across Europe and has been instrumental in protecting civil liberties in the UK. Leaving it would mean severing ties with an institution that underpins human rights law across Europe, potentially leaving Britain isolated in its approach to international law. Furthermore, such a move would strain relationships with European allies and invite scrutiny from human rights advocates at home and abroad.

Brexit as a Fracture Point for the United Kingdom

Brexit also rekindled debates about the future of the United Kingdom itself, particularly in Scotland, where they voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU. 62% of Scots voted to stay, in stark contrast to the overall UK result. This divergence intensified calls for Scottish independence, with many Scots feeling that their democratic voice was ignored by Westminster. However, at the 2024 General Election, the Scottish National Party (SNP) was nearly wiped out, leading to a significant shift in the independence conversation. Nicola Sturgeon, the former leader of the SNP, had made Scottish independence her defining cause, but the current political landscape suggests that a second independence referendum is now further away than ever.

That said, the future is still uncertain. Should Labour, now in power, fail to deliver for Scotland, the independence question could be renewed, and a resurgent SNP could regain control from Labour. Many in Scotland still feel that Brexit symbolised a loss of control over their political and economic future, dictated by a government in London that doesn’t represent their interests.

The potential breakup of the United Kingdom is one of the most profound consequences of Brexit. While a second independence vote seems distant for now, the underlying grievances that drove the initial calls for independence remain unresolved and shifts in public opinion could reignite the debate.

The Brexit Unicorn(s)

One of the key promises of the Leave campaign was that Brexit would deliver £350 million a week to the NHS, a claim that was widely discredited soon after the referendum. Instead, Brexit has had significant negative consequences for the NHS, as many EU nationals, who made up a significant portion of the workforce, have left the UK. As of 2022, NHS workforce vacancies reached over 130,000, with Brexit cited as a major factor in staffing shortages, particularly in nursing.

Brexit’s economic fallout has also hit small businesses hard. Small Medium Enterprises (SMEs), which relied heavily on frictionless trade with the EU, have faced new regulatory barriers and tariffs. In 2021 alone, UK exports to the EU fell by 14%, and imports from the EU dropped by 18% as businesses struggled to adapt to the new trading environment. Farmers, too, have been hit hard by the loss of EU subsidies, with many finding it difficult to remain competitive in a post-Brexit market.

Despite promises of economic revival, many regions that supported Brexit have yet to see the benefits. The much-touted ‘global Britain’ has been slow to materialise. In fact, a number of areas around the UK felt the pain of the loss of EU funding. Public sentiment remains divided on whether leaving the EU was the right choice. A 2023 YouGov poll showed that 57% of Britons believed Brexit had been more damaging than beneficial, while only 29% still believed it would deliver long-term advantages.

The Media Feeds on Disillusionment

The media played a central role in exacerbating divisions throughout the Brexit process. Tabloids like The Daily Mail and The Sun stoked fears of immigration and depicted the EU as a bureaucratic behemoth strangling British sovereignty. One of the most infamous moments came when The Daily Mail labeled high court judges as “Enemies of the People” for ruling that Parliament must be consulted before triggering Article 50. This narrative helped to frame any opposition to Brexit as an assault on democracy itself, further deepening the rift between Leave and Remain supporters.

Social media compounded the problem, creating echo chambers that fuelled polarisation. Platforms like Facebook and Twitter (now X) amplified the most extreme views, with algorithms designed to prioritise engagement pushing divisive content to the forefront. The Cambridge Analytica scandal further highlighted the role of data manipulation in shaping voter opinions during the Brexit campaign. Rather than fostering dialogue, social media became a breeding ground for misinformation and political manipulation.

Brexit: The Longview

Labour’s approach to Brexit has been cautious, with the party attempting to walk a tightrope between Leave and Remain supporters. Keir Starmer has said that Labour will ‘make Brexit work,’ but details on how the party plans to achieve this have been vague. Starmer has also emphatically stated that the UK will not rejoin the EU ‘in my [his] lifetime,’ a position made despite clear evidence the growing public sentiment that Brexit was a mistake. The YouGov poll showing public discontent with Brexit surely reflects a shift in sentiment, but Labour seems reluctant to propose any significant reversal or closer alignment with the EU. This position has led to criticism that Labour’s stance lacks boldness. While the party acknowledges the economic damage Brexit has caused, its messaging has focused on pragmatic tweaks to the existing deal rather than proposing a fundamental rethink of the UK’s relationship with Europe.

For Britain to even begin to heal from the deep divisions caused by Brexit, we must hold both politicians and the media to account for their role in the polarisation that has done so much to facilitate the fracture of the national psyche. Politicians and media outlets have fed on these open wounds for political capital, turning division into a tool for electoral gain. This feeding frenzy on societal fractures has only deepened the divide and delayed meaningful reconciliation. To move forward, we need leaders and journalists who promote dialogue, not division and who seek to mend the wounds rather than exploit them. Only through accountability and a commitment to unity can the UK begin to address the unresolved tensions that continue to threaten its stability.

As Britain navigates the post-Brexit landscape, the challenge is not just economic recovery but social and political reconciliation. Brexit has exposed deep-seated divisions—between young and old, urban and rural, England and Scotland. Healing these rifts will require more than policy adjustments or economic promises; to even begin to do this, it demands honest dialogue from brave politicians who are willing to have meaningful and genuine conversations about the future of the United Kingdom and its place in the world.

References

Cadwalladr, C., 2018. The Cambridge Analytica Files. The Guardian. [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/news/series/cambridge-analytica-files [Accessed 23 October 2024].

Hobolt, S.B., 2016. The Brexit vote: a divided nation, a divided continent. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(9), pp.1259-1277.

NHS Confederation, 2022. NHS workforce vacancies rise to over 130,000. [online] Available at: https://www.nhsconfed.org/news/nhs-workforce-vacancies-rise-over-130000 [Accessed 23 October 2024].

Office for National Statistics, 2021. UK trade: December 2020. [online] Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/articles/uktrade/december2020 [Accessed 23 October 2024