Unless austerity ends, the UK’s poorest people face lives that are “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. That was the finding on Wednesday from Philip Alston, the UN rapporteur on extreme poverty, who warned worse could be yet to come “for the most vulnerable, who face a major adverse impact” if Brexit proceeds.
Days earlier a clip went viral of Lucy Davies, down the line on BBC 5 Live, in 2018 before she was a Brexit party candidate, declaring that the average leave voter wants Brexit “at any cost”. Pressed further by presenter Nicky Campbell, Harris admitted this could mean volunteering for “30 years” of economic downturn.
It’s as if we are watching two narratives of Brexit Britain play out simultaneously, an experience made all the more galling by the fact that one side has changed its script. While today’s European elections have seen the Brexit party embrace predicted economic shock as a romantic sacrifice for the greater good, the referendum campaign saw a land of milk and honey promised on the side of buses. Indeed, the infamous “project fear” slur was thrown at any remainer who dared to point out the risks of Brexit.
Such hypocrisy is only made worse by the fact that the key proponents of “Brexit at any cost” will be unlikely to be suffering any such cost themselves. Economic downturns, by definition, hit poor and disabled people hardest, while those with the greatest wealth enjoy the profits.
Recent research shows families have already taken a hit from Brexit – household incomes are around £1,500 a year lower today than forecasts made before the referendum vote – and this doesn’t appear to have dampened the desire of sections of the public for even the hardest exit from the EU. Moreover, polls since the referendum have consistently shown a willingness to put the country through pain in order to achieve Brexit. Back in 2017, YouGov found a hefty 61% of leave voters said they thought that “significant damage” to the British economy would be “a price worth paying for bringing Britain out of the European Union”. I remember speaking to one particular leave voter in the days after the referendum. Unemployed and cut off from state support, 62-year-old Martin had walked through the rain to cast his vote. In the London rental he shared with eight strangers, he put it bluntly: “Leaving might make my life shit, but it’s shit anyway. So how much worse can it get?”
This desperate need for change – any change – is fertile ground for those who seek to exploit it. As a nationwide study showed this week that racism in Britain is continuing to grow in the wake of the Brexit referendum, Nigel Farage is lining himself up to be the great victor when the Euro votes are counted – while Tommy Robinson’s toxic brand will linger regardless of election results.
There are no easy answers here, nor neat boxes. There are many like Martin who feel they have nothing left to lose – but there were also plenty of wealthy families in the Shires who backed leave. Similarly, age and sex are as relevant as class: in the 2017 YouGov poll, women and young people were considerably less likely to want Brexit at “significant cost” to the economy than men and older people. In contrast, half of older people said their desire to leave the EU was so strong that they were even willing to accept a member of their own family losing their job.
This mindset may be incomprehensible to staunch remainers, but it is only by understanding it that we can have any hope of changing it. Much has been said in the past two years about the factors that led to the referendum result and yet somehow it still feels as if nothing much has been learned. Voters like Martin are often characterised as “the left behind” – a term that suggests the leave sentiment arose because they could not keep up. But as the academic Dr Lisa Mckenzie recently wrote for the London School of Economics, it is more accurate to say they are voters who know they have been “left out” – of jobs, of wealth, of opportunities.
That it is practically a cliche to point out that Brexit will likely cause further harm to the very people who cling to it, does not make such damage any less painful. As Alston says, at a time of growing hardship, leaving the EU is “a tragic distraction from the social and economic policies shaping a Britain that it’s hard to believe any political parties really want”.
There is a vacuum in British politics – and in a wider sense, society – that has long needed something different. This ground must be occupied by real change: from affordable housing and a strengthened safety net, to more power in local communities. If we do not fill it, Farage and his ilk are all too ready to do so.
• Frances Ryan is a Guardian columnist
• This article was amended on 24 May 2019 to make clear that Lucy Davies made her comments on BBC 5 Live in June 2018 before she was a Brexit party candidate.
