Brexit, year 10: the earthquake’s aftershocks still crack the United Kingdom

LondonIn the late afternoon of June 24, 2016, Rhys Morgan and Polly Corrigan, neighbors of this correspondent, knocked on the door. They came laden with tea and cookies as a token of sympathy for what had happened the day before. On June 23, next Tuesday, it will be a decade since more than 17 million Britons voted to break a forty-one-year relationship with the European Union (EU). All this by a narrow margin: 51.9% against 48.1%. The bonfires of the vigil burned in Westminster much more than in Catalonia.

Read it all

Tribal politics: how Brexit divided BritainTribal politics: how Brexit divided Britain, argues, “human psychology makes it very difficult to admit mistakes: simply, we don’t like to be wrong.” As will be seen later, this would explain, in part, why only 18% of Leave voters have changed their minds.

Events unfolded rapidly that St. John’s morning. Shortly before ten o’clock, the prime minister David Cameron announced his resignation for having lost a referendum that no one had asked him for, except for the most Eurosceptic members of his party. When he announced he would call it, in January 2013, only 2% of the population considered the EU a relevant issue for their lives. Cameron shot himself, not in the foot, but in the head.

intended to join the Conservative Party. Now, however, the Tories are more divided than ever, and the defections to the far right of the main architect of Brexit, Nigel Farage and his Reform Party, continue. In the local elections on May 7, this party has been the one that has grown the most, confirming the death certificate of the traditional two-party system in Westminster.

The earthquake became a reality, although it took almost four years to formalize the exit agreement. In October of that year 2016, the successor to Cameron, Theresa May, tried to explain what Brexit was with a trivial slogan: “Brexit means Brexit” (Brexit means Brexit, tried to explain what Brexit was with a banal slogan: “of the Good Friday Peace Agreements was even put at risk.

You are not welcome

Nor was any thought given to the more than three million EU citizens who had made the United Kingdom their home and who, suddenly, without being able to say boo to a goose, had to face a very explicit message: you are not welcome. Quite the opposite of what Rhys and Polly wanted to convey with their gesture towards foreign neighbours, in general and in large part demonised during the referendum campaign by the far-right, represented by UKIP, by the ultra-nationalist Farage, and also by Boris Johnson.

A decade later, the demonization continues and has worsened. Farage is now leader of the aforementioned Reform Party, and aims to occupy 10 Downing Street after the general elections, currently scheduled for 2029. He has even threatened with large-scale deportations of undocumented immigrants, as Donald Trump does, and also with restricting the rights of legal EU residents, protected by the withdrawal agreement signed between London and Brussels.

My neighbor Polly Corrigan died a few years ago, under fifty, a victim of a cursed cancer. But Brexit is still with us. It no longer occupies the daily headlines like it did five or six years ago, but it is present among the British themselves, divided into two camps: leavers and remainers. “A very strong tribal identity that surpasses traditional identifications, such as between Labour and Conservatives,” says Sara Hobolt. The novelist Jonathan Coe already reflected this years ago (2018) in the novel Middle England.

The country, and this is no longer exceptional in the West, suffers from a “deep polarization”, assures the political scientist. “People not only see those from the other group as people with different opinions on the EU, but in open questionnaires they also use very unflattering spontaneous descriptions. Remainers describe leavers as easily manipulable, gullible, uneducated, xenophobic, racist, short-sighted, and foolish people. And the leavers describe the remainers as privileged, arrogant, idiotic, short-sighted, bad losers, and undemocratic.” Coe also records this with very similar terms.

As expected, the distrust caused by Brexit – and by defiant attitudes like those of Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who went so far as to say that he could sign the Northern Ireland Protocol, but could also break it – has widened the gap between the United Kingdom and the EU. The 33.2 kilometers that separate Dover from Calais, the closest point between the continent and the islands’ territory, have multiplied by ten or perhaps by a hundred. Brexit floats like a zombie through the waters of the English Channel.

With Rhys Morgan, we have continued to talk from time to time about Polly, about the divorce from the EU, about the chaos generated in British politics since then, about the demagoguery and lies that made it possible. Also about the mistakes of governments that prepared the ground for what was, undoubtedly, a protest vote from the north of England against Westminster to erupt. And, of course, we talk about the enormous consequences of that decision: some structural – impact on economic growth, productivity, investments, immigration – and others that are small daily hindrances.

This summer, when Rhys and his entire extended family – about twenty people, including Eluned Morgan, former First Minister of Wales – go to the house they have booked in Mallorca to see and experience the eclipse, they will have to undergo digital border controls. Since April 10, all Britons entering any of the 29 Schengen Area countries for the first time must register their biometric data and leave their fingerprints. Traveling to Europe is more expensive and slower. Hours of queues have already been reported at airports, and airlines are warning their customers that they must arrive at least three hours in advance if they do not want to risk missing their flights.

Mobile data, without the obligation of free roaming, is also more expensive. The new GHIC health card has fewer benefits than the old European one. Medical insurance has become almost indispensable for any Briton who wants to go to Lloret or Magaluf. To perform, give conferences, or provide services, many professionals need specific visas or temporary permits, which vary by country. Musicians and touring technicians have to assume additional costs and bureaucracy. The list of obstacles is long. Beyond the economic damage and xenophobia, it is not the end of the world, but the changes experienced are annoying.

Despite everything, Brexit supporters remain legion. It is true that, for approximately four years, polls have shown stable support for a closer relationship with the Union. A hypothetical rejoining would today have the support of 60% of voters. This change is not explained solely because some former Leave voters have changed their minds – the aforementioned 18% – but also by a demographic factor. Generations who could not vote in the 2016 referendum are more favorable to European integration: 51% compared to 30% who oppose it. The rest have no opinion. The evolution of the census also plays a role. It is estimated that between 2016 and 2026, five million people have died in the United Kingdom. Of these, 3.2 million voted Leave and 1.8 million, Remain.

An unnatural alliance

However, support for a possible return to the EU does not translate into consensus on what future relations with the EU should be. There is a majority in favour of closer ties, including the possibility of rejoining the single market or customs union. However, when specific measures are proposed – accepting European regulations on agri-food matters to facilitate trade – “opinions are much more divided and often depend on how the question is framed,” says Professor John Curtice of the University of Strathclyde (Glasgow), the country’s foremost demography expert, who has analysed the data for the think tank UK in an Changing Europe.

The main protagonists of Brexit continue to defend the decision made in 2016. To give an example, Boris Johnson, the most popular figure in the campaign in favour of leaving the EU. It is well known, however, that the former Mayor of London hesitated until the last moment about which position was most convenient for him to satisfy his great political ambition: reaching Downing Street.

Finally, he rejected an offer from David Cameron to join his government – as Cameron himself revealed in a BBC documentary – and opted for Brexit. Two years after the referendum, Johnson achieved the leadership of the Conservative Party and replaced Theresa May at the head of the executive. For many observers, his support for Brexit was less a response to a deep ideological conviction than to a personal political calculation.

If Johnson – in addition to Nigel Farage – was its most visible face, Matthew Elliott was one of the masterminds behind it, along with Dominic Cummings, Johnson’s former chief of staff during the first year of his mandate. Elliott, a member of the House of Lords and director of the Leave campaign, is part of the political and economic sectors that pushed for Brexit with a markedly liberalizing agenda.

summit between EU representatives and the British governmentWith very emotional rhetoric – we are regaining control of our borders, laws, and economy – that project managed to win over broad sectors of the working classes most affected by the 2008 financial crisis, not necessarily supporters of economic deregulation, as they are heirs to a post-World War II welfare state tradition.

in mutual relations.

Last Tuesday, from the Elliott continues to defend his position. In his opinion, the relative economic weight of the European Union in the world has not stopped decreasing, and this justifies the United Kingdom seeking trade opportunities beyond the continent. “When we joined the Common Market in the seventies, the GDP of the then nine member states represented 35% of world GDP. Currently, the 27 EU states represent 15% of global GDP, and it will be 10% by 2040. I much prefer a United Kingdom that has the flexibility to seize these trade opportunities in the future,” he said a few days ago in a talk at the London School of Economics.

Ten years later, the paradox is instructive. A consultation convened to end a historic debate within the Conservatives has divided and polarized society, punished the economy, and perpetuated the dilemma. On July 22, Brussels will host a second summit between representatives of the EU and the British government to carry out what Prime Minister Keir Starmer calls a reset in mutual relations.

On Tuesday, from the

G-7 meeting in France, the premier insisted that the goal is to “reposition the United Kingdom at the heart of Europe.” However, this rapprochement is still limited by the red lines that the Labour party itself imposed on its 2024 electoral program, which are the same as those implied by Brexit: no free movement of people for fear of xenophobic rhetoric, no rejoining the single market, and no entry into the customs union.

London still wants to square the circle: to be at the heart of Europe while remaining outside the EU’s main integration structures. The tremors of the earthquake continue.