To understand the origins of Brexit, we need to examine the political drivers behind the origins and developments leading to Brexit, which are deeply intertwined with the rise of UKIP. UKIP’s ascendance heavily influenced the 2015 election, paving the way for the Brexit referendum.
Given UKIP’s focus on immigration, it might be expected that regions with high migration were also those where support for UKIP was highest. But interestingly, the growth of support for UKIP was not directly correlated with high migration at the regional level, but was significantly influenced by austerity measures and (social) media narratives.
UKIP’s electoral success and the successful anti-immigration narrative that accompanied it can be traced back to the period of austerity following the 2008 financial crisis. Areas hit hardest by public service cuts saw a significant rise in UKIP support, driven by fears about job scarcity, public service quality, and economic stability. The cause of these fears, we argue, was often misattributed to immigration, rather than austerity, a narrative shift facilitated by social media and potentially a lack of professional journalism.
Before discussing the nature of the anti-immigration narrative, it is worth noting that its dissemination was likely fostered by the high salience of immigration. The figure below from our recent study provides a visual representation of how the anti-immigration narrative took hold in ‘outlier’ localities where the adverse effects of austerity were strong and immigration was high. These outlier localities provided the far-right with the rhetorical means to shape national perceptions in the context of the unfolding Syrian European refugee crisis.
Relationship between (a) EU accession migrant growth and UKIP vote share growth, (b) austerity measures and UKIP vote share growth and (c) immigration and austerity
Note: The figures depict the Brexit gap in different colours, with red shades indicating costs (-40, -20); (-20, -10); (-10, -5); (-5, 0) and green shades indicating gains (0, 5); (5, 10); (10, 20); (20, 40). The y-axis represents the difference in UKIP vote share between the 2009 and 2014 European Parliamentary Elections. In Panel A, the x-axis represents the percentage growth of migrants from EU accession countries between 2001 and 2011. In Panel B, the x-axis represents the austerity index, which is a standardised principal component analysis of benefit cuts and cuts to local council expenditure. Panel C combines the two previous x-axis variables.
The top left panel shows the relationship between EU accession migrant growth (2001-2011) and UKIP vote share growth (2009-2014). This was the immigration wave that was empirically and substantively relevant at the time. Many areas with significant migration did not see a corresponding rise in UKIP votes.
On the other hand, the top right panel depicts the relationship between austerity measures and UKIP vote share growth. It highlights that areas hit by severe austerity cuts saw significant rises in UKIP support, suggesting a stronger correlation between austerity and UKIP votes than between immigration and UKIP votes.
Finally, the bottom panel compares immigration and austerity, showing no relationship between these two, suggesting that austerity was more consistent in driving UKIP support.
Boston is an interesting case study as this area experienced high immigration and severe austerity. As such, Boston was, as the figure above shows, a rather stark outlier since most regions experienced either high immigration or austerity, but typically not both.
We suggest that far-right politicians could hype these outlier cases as representative of the entire country. In a media landscape trying to compete in the attention economy, there is a high risk that such isolated cases or outliers gain disproportionate amounts of attention and end up shaping citizens’ perceptions and attitudes and, ultimately, political outcomes.
Outliers like Boston allowed the far right, we argue, to tap into great public concern about immigration and encourage citizens to blame their or their region’s economic woes on immigrants – when, in fact, austerity played a significant role in creating these economic problems. The far-right ignored the austerity link, however, to avoid diverting people from the anti-immigration focus.
And the anti-immigration rhetoric was, in fact, successful largely due to existing economic grievances that were more the result of austerity.
Social media and simplistic narratives shaped public perceptions, often blaming immigrants for the strain on public services and job scarcity. This misattribution masked the real impact of austerity, which had reduced public services and economic opportunities in many regions.
By misattributing economic struggles to immigration, the real impact of austerity was obscured, leading to a rise in support for right-wing populist parties like UKIP. And while Brexit is now a fait accompli, and UKIP itself has been marginalised, its ideological successor – Reform – is now a major factor in UK politics. If we assume that Reform’s rise has simply been driven by opposition to immigration, we may be missing the bigger picture.