How Britain Got Here

The conventional narrative of Brexit — that immigration drove the Leave vote — breaks down immediately when you look at the geography. The areas that voted most strongly to Leave were precisely those where EU immigration had been lowest. What they shared instead was a decade of austerity that hollowed out public services and stagnated wages.

But the political events that enabled Brexit — the referendum itself, and then the hardest possible form of it — required a specific chain of electoral shocks created by Britain's First Past the Post voting system operating in a multi-party environment. Scroll down to trace the full causal chain, with evidence at each step.

The DAG above highlights the relevant node or edge as each chapter comes into view. Charts and images appear on the right as the narrative develops.

The Global Financial Crisis

The collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008 triggered the deepest global banking crisis since the 1930s. UK GDP contracted 4.2 % in 2009. Banks were recapitalised with public money. The fiscal position swung dramatically — a structural deficit that would define the next decade of British politics.

The crisis itself was concentrated in financial services and affected places like London and the South East most directly. But the political and fiscal response — the austerity that followed — would fall hardest on communities that had the least to do with the crash: post-industrial towns in the Midlands, North and Wales.

Austerity Begins

The Cameron–Clegg Coalition's October 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review announced £83 billion in cuts over four years. The frame was national necessity: "we are all in this together." The reality was geographically uneven. Local government bore a disproportionate share — and local government spending was most critical to the communities already most economically fragile.

Between 2010 and 2015, English local authorities lost an average of 26 % of their real-terms funding. But the cuts were not distributed evenly. Councils serving the most deprived populations — which had higher needs and greater dependence on grant funding — faced cuts of 40 % or more. Libraries, youth centres, Sure Start children's centres, adult social care, and bus subsidies were hollowed out.

This is captured by the austerity index used in this analysis: a measure that combines both Welfare Reform Act impacts and local authority budget cuts between 2010 and 2015, capturing how areas were hit through multiple forms of large-scale spending reductions. The highest values cluster in post-industrial towns in the Midlands, North East and Wales — the same places that would later vote most heavily to Leave.

UKIP: Austerity's Political Voice

In the 2013 local elections UKIP won 23 % of the national vote, mostly in areas with low EU-origin immigration. This is the central paradox of the UKIP surge: it was loudest where EU migration was least visible.

Nigel Farage fused anti-austerity resentment with anti-immigration messaging. Communities that had experienced real decline — closed libraries, shuttered youth centres, longer NHS waiting lists — were given an explanation (immigration) and a villain (the EU). The cognitive dissonance was politically convenient: austerity was the cause, but it was politically harder to oppose than immigration.

The chart on the right (Panel B) shows this directly. The x-axis is the austerity index; the y-axis is UKIP vote share growth 2009–14. The upward slope is clear and consistent across all geographic levels. The chart asks whether austerity does more explanatory work than immigration in the UKIP surge.

The Mediterranean Crisis

Crossings from North Africa and Turkey surged to a record 1.3 million arrivals in Europe. The "Jungle" camp outside Calais dominated UK front pages for months. Images of packed boats, fences, and tents were broadcast nightly into British living rooms.

These were almost entirely Syrian, Iraqi, and Afghan refugees — not EU accession workers under freedom of movement. Yet the political framing collapsed the distinction entirely. For millions of viewers, "immigration" became the Mediterranean crisis. EU freedom of movement — a 30-year-old policy governing movement between EU member states — was rhetorically fused with the refugee emergency unfolding on Greek and Turkish shores.

The key asymmetry: the refugee crisis was visible in a way that EU economic migration was not. Eastern European workers in a food processing plant in Lincolnshire were unremarkable to most British viewers. Boats crossing the Aegean were not.

The Mediterranean Crisis, 2015

These images — boats, fences, tents — dominated British television and front pages through summer and autumn 2015. They created the visual vocabulary for "immigration" that would define the referendum campaign.

Refugees arriving at Lesbos — October 2015
Ggia / Wikimedia Commons CC BY-SA 4.0

Boat crossing Turkey→Lesbos — January 2016
Mstyslav Chernov / Wikimedia Commons CC BY-SA 4.0

The Calais "Jungle" — the image that defined the crisis in British media
Jean Revillard / Wikimedia Commons CC BY-SA 4.0

Refugees at Vienna Westbahnhof — 5 September 2015
Bwag / Wikimedia Commons CC BY-SA 4.0

Peak Salience: Immigration Tops the Polls

By September 2015 immigration had overtaken the NHS as the single most cited concern in UK opinion polling (Ipsos Issues Index) — reaching 54 %. The chart on the right shows the full time series: immigration concern rises through the UKIP surge of 2012–14, spikes dramatically in summer 2015 with the Mediterranean crisis, and remains elevated through the referendum campaign.

Crucially, the spike has nothing to do with actual EU net migration to the UK, which remained broadly stable (and actually fell slightly) in this period. The dotted line shows net migration; the solid line shows public concern. They decouple completely in 2015. This is the confounding alternative pathway on the DAG: the EU immigration path (shown in red) represents not a genuine data correlation but a media-constructed perception.

The tabloid press ran near-daily crisis coverage. David Cameron was locked into his referendum promise. The referendum narrative was now fully formed: the EU meant uncontrolled immigration, and immigration meant the crisis on the Mediterranean.

The Election That Made Brexit Possible

The May 2015 general election is the hinge on which the entire Brexit story turns — and it is almost entirely a story about Britain's First Past the Post voting system operating in a three-plus-party environment.

UKIP won 12.6 % of the popular vote — the third-largest vote share of any party. Under a proportional system, that translates to roughly 83 MPs. Under FPTP, it translated to one seat. The votes were spread too thinly across too many marginals to win anywhere.

David Cameron won a slim outright majority with 37 % of the popular vote — winning 331 seats vs. Labour's 232. He was now governing alone. He had made the referendum promise in January 2013 expecting another coalition, where a partner (the Lib Dems or Labour) would have blocked it. He was called on a promise he never expected to have to keep.

2015: The Vote Split That Changed Everything

UKIP's 12.6% national vote produced one seat. The vote split, concentrated in austerity-hit communities, fell hardest on the Liberal Democrats. Cameron won a majority he hadn't expected.

Vote Leave sign in Belper, Derbyshire — an austerity-hit community in a marginal Lib Dem seat
Wikimedia Commons

Vote Leave hoarding in Salford — a Labour heartland where UKIP had surged in 2013–14
Wikimedia Commons

2015 seats vs. votes: UKIP 12.6% → 1 seat. Lib Dems 7.9% → 8 seats (from 57). Conservatives 37% → 331 seats (majority). First Past the Post converted a three-party popular vote into a two-party outcome — and gave Cameron a majority he hadn't expected and couldn't refuse.

The Referendum Campaign

Following a renegotiation of membership terms, Cameron announced the referendum for 23 June 2016. The Leave campaign's central claim — "£350 million a week for the NHS" — directly connected EU membership to the austerity of public services. It was factually misleading (the figure ignored the UK's rebate) but politically lethal: it told communities whose hospitals, libraries, and schools had been cut that EU budget contributions were the cause.

The Mediterranean refugee crisis imagery was woven into the campaign. Nigel Farage unveiled a poster showing a long line of migrants with the caption "Breaking Point." The poster deliberately conflated Syrian refugees (not EU citizens, not using freedom of movement) with EU freedom of movement. The strategy was to activate the residual fear from 2015 and redirect it toward EU membership.

The campaign images on the right show this fusion in practice: Vote Leave posters linking immigration directly to NHS funding, ground-level canvassing in austerity-hit areas, and the Leave/Remain juxtaposition on the same street.

The Referendum Campaign: NHS, Sovereignty, Immigration

The Vote Leave campaign linked EU membership directly to NHS underfunding — the £350m/week claim. It fused two grievances that austerity had created: underfunded public services and visible social change.

Vote Leave poster prominently featuring the NHS claim — the strategy of linking EU budget contributions to NHS underfunding
Wikimedia Commons

Vote Leave campaign group in Warwick, May 2016 — ground-level mobilisation in a market town with high austerity exposure
Wikimedia Commons

Leave and Remain campaign posters side by side, Pimlico, London — June 2016
Wikimedia Commons

Vote Leave poster in Omagh, Northern Ireland — the campaign reached every corner of the UK
Wikimedia Commons

Boston in the Media: The Exception Became the Rule

After the referendum result, Boston became the most-cited symbol of the Leave vote in national media coverage. BBC News, Sky News, and Channel 4 all ran features in the town in the days after the result. Interviews with Boston Leave voters were broadcast nationally and interpreted as representative of why Britain voted Leave.

The problem: Boston was the exception, not the rule. Its combination of high EU immigration and high Leave vote was unique precisely because its EU immigration was so visible. The majority of high-Leave areas had very little EU immigration. The immigration narrative — compelling and vivid in Boston — was being generalised to explain a phenomenon that, everywhere else, had almost nothing to do with immigration.

This media amplification locked in the incorrect causal narrative: "people voted Leave because of immigration." It crowded out the more accurate and more troubling story: "people voted Leave because a decade of austerity had left them with a legitimate grievance, and the campaign gave them immigration as the explanation."

But even the word "austerity" can mislead, if it conjures only Treasury spreadsheets and GDP charts. The actual experience of the grievance was granular and daily. Middle England cities and towns were asking — not rhetorically, but in the ordinary course of life — why their local bus route had been cancelled. Why the swimming pool had been sold off, rebranded, and now cost twice as much to enter. Why the planning portal crashed every time you submitted an application. Why it took forty-five minutes on hold to speak to the council about a missed bin collection. Why Transport for London — with its Oyster card, its real-time apps, its frequent and comprehensible network — felt like a piece of infrastructure from a different country, available only to the people who happened to live where the money was.

This was not abstract. These were the touchpoints through which the state made itself legible — or stopped doing so. The decade after 2010 was the decade in which local government quietly stopped being something people encountered as a functioning service and became something they encountered as an absence: a closed library, a defunded youth centre, a website that told you to call a number that put you on hold. The grievance that Brexit crystallised was partly about trade exposure and public spending aggregates, but it was also about this: the daily experience of a state that had retreated, and left nothing in its place.

The Leave Vote in Rural and Small-Town England

Boston's story — high immigration, high austerity, highest Leave vote — became the face of Brexit in national media. But most Vote Leave communities looked like this: small towns with visible decline and very little EU immigration.

Vote Leave sign in Belper, Derbyshire. Belper is in an area with average EU immigration but high austerity exposure — more representative than Boston of the typical Leave community.
Wikimedia Commons

"Will Brexit ever mean Brexit?" — a question painted on a coastal wall in Northumberland, a region with high austerity and low EU immigration
Wikimedia Commons

The Election That Hardened Brexit

Theresa May called a snap election in April 2017, expecting to convert her slim inherited majority into a commanding mandate for Brexit negotiations. The UKIP coalition that had reshaped British politics in 2013–15 had now served its purpose — the referendum had been won — and its voters were looking for a new home.

The UKIP vote collapsed from 12.6 % in 2015 to 1.8 % in 2017. Where did those votes go? The redistribution was uneven and — for May — fatal. In Leave-voting Labour heartlands, a substantial portion went to Labour under Jeremy Corbyn, who ran a genuinely radical domestic programme that addressed the economic anxiety underlying the UKIP vote. In more Conservative-leaning areas, UKIP votes went to the Conservatives. But the net seat effect was devastating.

May needed to form a minority government with a confidence-and-supply deal with the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). This arrangement, combined with the paper-thin majority, meant that a bloc of 28–35 hardline Conservative Eurosceptics — the European Research Group (ERG) — now held genuine veto power.

2017: UKIP Collapses, Parliament Hangs

UKIP's vote fell from 12.6% to 1.8%. The redistribution left May without a majority. An anti-Brexit protest in Edinburgh, March 2017 — weeks before May called the snap election.

Brexit protest outside Holyrood, Edinburgh — March 2017. Scotland voted 62% Remain; opposition to Brexit was the defining political force.
Wikimedia Commons

"Leave Means Leave" campaign bus outside Parliament, December 2018 — ERG-aligned activists maintaining pressure for the hardest possible Brexit as May's deal faced its first defeat
Wikimedia Commons

2017 result vs expectation: May called the election with a 20-point poll lead. She finished with a 2-point lead, losing 13 seats, losing her majority. UKIP's 10.8pp drop redistributed partly to Labour (+9.6pp), partly to Conservatives (+5.5pp) — but the seat geography favoured neither side.

Parliamentary Deadlock: May's Trap

May was caught in an impossible trap. The DUP would not accept any arrangement that created a regulatory or customs divergence between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK — this meant the Irish backstop was politically untenable. The ERG would not accept any arrangement that kept the UK bound by EU customs or regulatory rules — this meant a Norway-style soft Brexit was equally untenable.

May's withdrawal agreement was rejected by parliament three times — by margins of 230, 149, and 58 votes — the largest legislative defeats in modern British history. Each rejection hardened the political reality: only the most maximal Brexit was politically viable for the parliamentary arithmetic.

Boris Johnson's solution — accept the Northern Ireland Protocol (a de facto customs border in the Irish Sea, separating Northern Ireland from Great Britain in regulatory terms) and call it "getting Brexit done" — was only possible after securing his own 80-seat majority in December 2019. The hard Brexit that resulted was not the inevitable consequence of the 52–48 referendum result. It was the product of two FPTP electoral accidents, a minority government, and a constitutional veto by a small parliamentary bloc.

Parliament vs. Brexit: The Constitutional Crisis

May's deal was defeated three times. The People's Vote campaign mobilised millions. Boris Johnson's December 2019 majority finally broke the deadlock.

Outside Parliament on 15 January 2019, the night May's deal was rejected by 230 votes — the largest parliamentary defeat of a government in modern British history
Wikimedia Commons

People's Vote march in Parliament Square — one of the largest political demonstrations in British history, calling for a second referendum
Wikimedia Commons

"NHS vs Brexit" — the People's Vote march reframed the debate: was Brexit worth the cost to public services?
Wikimedia Commons

Anti-Brexit campaigners at Westminster, 2018 — the parliamentary impasse created space for sustained public mobilisation
Wikimedia Commons

FPTP Round Three: The Brexit Party Gambit

Nigel Farage's answer to the parliamentary deadlock was to found yet another party. The Brexit Party — launched in February 2019 — won 29 seats in the European Parliament elections just months later, becoming the UK's largest party in Brussels. It was a national brand built almost entirely through social media, requiring no prior organisational infrastructure: the internet had solved the collective action problem that historically made single-issue parties impossible under FPTP.

When Boris Johnson called a general election for December 2019, Farage faced the classic FPTP dilemma: field candidates everywhere and split the Leave vote, handing seats to Remain-aligned parties; or deploy strategically. He chose deployment. The Brexit Party stood down in all 317 Conservative-held seats, removing any risk to incumbent Tories. But they kept candidates in Labour-held seats — specifically in Leave-voting Labour heartlands across the Midlands, the North, and Wales.

The mechanism was the same as 2013–2015, but now operating in reverse: instead of using FPTP to punish Conservatives into holding a referendum, Farage was using it to reward Conservatives who would deliver the hardest Brexit. A nationally-branded, socially-networked, single-issue candidacy — requiring no deep local organisation, just enough presence to move the marginal vote — had become the decisive instrument of British constitutional change for the third time in six years.

Johnson's 80-seat majority ended three years of parliamentary paralysis. But it was not a majority built on a surge of Conservative support — the Conservative vote share rose by only 1.2 percentage points from 2017. It was a majority built on the systematic exploitation of FPTP's core vulnerability: that a nationally coordinated signal, delivered through social media at near-zero cost, can convert a modest national vote share into a decisive seat advantage by concentrating the effect in the marginals that decide governments.

Brexit Negotiations and the Shape of Departure

The UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA), concluded on 24 December 2020, was the thinnest possible deal: zero tariffs and zero quotas on goods, but no mutual recognition of services, no equivalence for financial services, no freedom of movement, and comprehensive non-tariff barriers from rules-of-origin requirements, customs declarations, and regulatory divergence.

For the UK's service-dominated economy (80 % of GDP) the deal offered almost nothing. For manufacturing supply chains deeply integrated with EU production, it imposed new frictions immediately. For regions whose economies depended on EU-linked services exports — financial services in London, professional services in Edinburgh, creative industries in Manchester — the non-tariff frictions proved more costly than the headline zero-tariff commitment suggested.

The TCA was, by design, the outcome of a process shaped by the ERG's veto power and the Johnson government's political priorities. A softer Brexit — closer to Norway's EEA relationship, with regulatory alignment and freedom of movement — would have been less economically costly but was politically impossible given the parliamentary arithmetic that FPTP had created.

Brexit Negotiations and the Shape of Departure

Johnson's "Get Brexit Done" election majority in December 2019 ended the parliamentary stalemate. The Trade and Cooperation Agreement, concluded on 24 December 2020, was the thinnest possible deal; in Northern Ireland, the constitutional friction was accompanied by substantial UK fiscal support.

Boris Johnson's "Get Brexit Done" campaign. His 80-seat majority in December 2019 ended three years of parliamentary paralysis — and locked in the hardest available Brexit.
Wikimedia Commons

HM Government "Get Ready for Brexit" campaign — October 2019. The £100m public information campaign was a measure of how unprepared businesses and individuals were for the practical consequences.
Wikimedia Commons

Union Jack flown in Sandy Lane, Norwich on Brexit Day — 31 January 2020. The UK formally left the EU. The transition period ended 31 December 2020.
Wikimedia Commons

UK MEPs leaving the European Parliament after the final plenary session, January 2020
Wikimedia Commons

The Reckoning: Leave → Cost

Synthetic control method (SCM) counterfactual estimates show substantial cumulative GVA losses, largest as a share of regional income in the most deprived areas — those that voted most heavily for Leave. The chart on the right (Panel E) shows this directly: Leave vote share on the x-axis, Brexit cost on the y.

The "levelling up" promise became a levelling down reality. The communities that were told Brexit would redirect money from Brussels to their public services have instead seen a decade of austerity compounded by a decade of post-Brexit underperformance. The cumulative gap between UK performance and the synthetic control counterfactual continues to widen.

The full causal chain is now visible and evidenced. Austerity created the anger. The Mediterranean crisis provided the imagery. FPTP in 2015 created the referendum. FPTP in 2017 hardened its outcome. The Brexit Party in 2019 locked it in. The communities that voted most emphatically for change got the least of it.

Brexit has reduced the economic pie for the country as a whole. It has reduced the fiscal space and reduced the ability to level up. In relative terms, the Brexit-voting regions may feel vindicated — but on average, the country as a whole is poorer. The end result: more disgruntlement and more instability.

This matters beyond Britain's borders. Russia's war in Europe, aggression from the US under Donald Trump, an assertive China, and the accelerating climate crisis make it all too transparent that shared challenges are best tackled as a team. The Brexit experiment has made that lesson more costly to learn.