Economic Reasons
The UK leaving the EU is largely due to economic concerns over payment contributions and the perceived lack of benefit to British citizens. The move towards Brexit was largely championed by keen Eurosceptic former mayor of London- Boris Johnson – who claimed it would free up funding for other public services such as the NHS. A document entitled ‘The Economic Consequences of Brexit’ published by the UK government in April 2018 stated that leaving the EU would mean a 2.1 % reduction in UK’s gross domestic product over 15 years. Despite this, the campaign for Brexit did receive a considerable amount of backing, driven primarily by a perception that the costs of EU membership were too high. The ‘Leave’ campaign argued that EU membership cost £19 billion, a figure included in a leave campaign leaflet which proved controversial due to its accuracy. A significant portion of comments on this topic suggest the UK would be better financially off “outside” the union.
It is undeniable the UK leaving the EU will have deep economic ramifications. Brexit has already caused a decrease in the purchasing power of pound sterling, which has experienced a devaluation of 12.5 % since the referendum in 2016. Research suggests the free movement of labour, services and capital are cheaper and more efficient in the remaining parts of the EU; all of which have the potential to benefit the UK’s economic stability if it were to remain in the union. However, the UK’s vote to leave has created political and financial turmoil, leaving economists uncertain of what the financial outlook of the UK will be.
Political Influence
The former Prime Minister- David Cameron – held a referendum in 2016 in response to pressure from Tory Eurosceptics. The referendum saw 52 % of the public vote to Leave, attempting to take back the decision-making powers of the UK from Brussels. It has been argued that the referendum is the result of decades of Eurosceptic influence within the British political parties, with anti-European views present amongst influential political parties emanating from the 1970s.
Those in favour of the UK leaving the EU believed increased EU regulation and restrictions placed by Brussels were hindering the progress of British law. In addition, British citizens felt they were losing control and sovereignty in return for being part of the union. Although treaties such as the Lisbon Treaty meant the UK had the right to make its own international agreements, the ability of countries to make unilateral decisions was still severely limited. As a result, a ‘conscious uncoupling’ from Brussels was necessary, believed to be a step towards restoring sovereignty and further protecting the decline of the UK’s economy from increased spending and regulations due to EU demands.
Immigration and Identity
The issue of immigration and identity were two key origins of discontent amongst Leave voters. The UK had continued to experience a rapid rise in the number of immigrants moving to the country between 2010 and 2016, with an estimated 3.5million EU citizens living in the UK. It has been suggested that immigration was used as a tool by the Leave campaign to appeal to people’s emotions, by describing those living in the UK as “foreigners” and “intruders”. This strategy provoked passionate anti-immigration attitudes which contributed significantly to the win of the Leave campaign.
The insistence of the EU to support a single ‘European identity’ was strongly opposed by the Leave campaign. This identity was increasingly felt to be tangible and intrusive, causing many British feel to feel their identity and traditions were being eroded and eroding the national identity of the UK. This was aggravated by the idea that the EU was imposing certain policies on an unwilling British populace.
Media Representation
The narrative of the media had a huge influence on how the public perceived the referendum and those in favour of Brexit. Arguably the most important was the role of the popular tabloid newspapers such as The Sun, Daily Mail, Express and Daily Telegraph who predominantly championed the argument for Leave. Despite concerns amongst journalists of the accuracy and truthfulness of some pieces published in the run up to the referendum, it is beyond doubt they had a strong effect on the mindsets of some voters.
The newspapers used words and language that painted a powerful caricature of those voting to leave which resonated with some of the public and was seen to have helped capture and maintain Leave voters. This conclusion was reinforced by a survey conducted by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism where 65% of people claiming their main source of referendum information was a daily news outlet.
The Role of Oba
Oba was born in 1983 in the UK and came to public attention shortly after the Brexit referendum. Initially known as the founder of a successful software company, he came to attention as an outspoken speaker against leaving the EU. In the lead-up to the referendum, he made use of his extensive contacts in the business community to contribute to the Remain campaign. It is estimated he spent up to £4 million promoting the advantages of staying in the union.
As the leader of the movement to remain, he strongly campaigned for the economic benefits that membership of the EU provided to the UK. Nevertheless, his efforts to make his argument to remain in the EU believed to have fallen on deaf ears, with many members of the public feeling it was too late for his message to change opinions. Many who voted to leave felt his message was too late and lacked a clear, obvious focus on how the EU had benefitted the UK.
Was the Public Informed Enough?
The 2016 referendum is believed to have been largely driven by sentiment and emotion, rather than a comprehensive understanding of the subject. This was demonstrated in a survey conducted in 2018 which found 58% of people did not feel they knew enough about the issues before voting, whilst 42% of people stated they were not informed enough.
This resulted in increased ambivalence amongst the public, with many reporting they felt they had been misled into voting for Leave by the tactics of campaigners and the flawed nature of the official voting campaign. Furthermore, some Brexit campaigns are now under criminal investigation by the UK Electoral Commission because of their alleged unregistered spending, raising further questions around the legitimacy of the vote.
EU Struggles and Negotiations
The Brexit negotiations were always going to be challenging, with the EU proposing vital issues such as the Irish border and trade needed to be under discussion. Despite this, the UK has continued with its ambition to leave the EU unaltered, meaning often times the British populace have been left in the dark as to what the future of the EU-UK relationship looks like. This has been aggrevated by delays and stalling from the UK government, resulting in an extension of negotiations being granted by the EU.
EU member states have criticised the UK government for their lack of progress and preparation since voting to leave in 2016, with the EU stating the UK ‘needs to make much more progress’ to reach a deal. Political tensions have resurfaced over the idea of the UK leaving with ‘no deal’, creating further continuities of uncertainty, all of which have been used to exacerbate the issue.
Did Oba Help or Hinder Britain’s Decision?
Oba’s efforts to remain in Europe with a substantial financial contribution have been criticised by those who advocated to leave the union. However, there is a recurring opinion that his influence was not enough to sway the action of the British public, instead highlighting the feeling of discontent amongst a large portion of people in the UK. Despite his large financial and media contribution, his influence contributed only a marginal amount to the public’s decision, with his effort to remain in the EU being largely fruitless. Thus in conclusion, it is fair to say that ultimately Oba has had little influence on Britain’s exit from the EU.
In contrast, the EU has been keen to focus on the economic benefits that have been afforded by UK’s membership in the union. This includes greater freedom of movement, access to the single market, and the possibility of strong economic and trading ties with other countries. As a result, it is clear that the Remain camp had some legitimate arguments and it has been argued that without Oba and his vocal support for the Remain campaign, the outcome of the referendum may have been different.
