Some anniversaries are merely observed. Ten years after the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union (EU), on June 23, 2016, and as it prepares for yet another change of Prime Minister, it is clear that whatever the benefits or drawbacks of Britain’s divorce from the EU, Brexit has left it bitterly divided. ‘Take Back Control’ the Leave campaign had urged. Instead, Britain is floundering in a morass of indecision, low economic growth and a crisis of politics and governability that will likely produce a seventh Prime Minister in the decade since it voted by the narrowest of margins (52 to 48%) to separate itself from its continent and largest trading partner.

Also Read | U.K. wants closer EU defence ties with potential bid to join new SAFE fund

An imperial illusion

Brexit was always a trade-off in a quest by some to acquire more control over trade, regulation and immigration, tinged undoubtedly by nostalgia for Britain’s imperial past. The idea that Britain could successfully swap access to the €18 trillion European economy for trade deals based on the ties of Empire — and thrive — was always for the birds, but nostalgia is powerful and illogical. Brexit began as a civil war within the Conservative Party amongst those resisting the EU’s project of ‘ever closer union’ and railing against a perceived overbearing and over-reaching Commission that set rules for others to follow. The rules, however, were the conditions under which Britain gained access to the trading partner that, even after Brexit, accounts for 41% of its exports and 50% of its imports.

When David Cameron offered the U.K. an ‘in/out referendum’ to settle the war within his party, Brexit morphed into a protest vote. It stopped being about Britain’s relationship with Europe and transformed into Westminster’s relationship with the rest of the country, especially those parts that felt left behind. Brexit unearthed a raft of problems that had little to do with the EU’s rules (which London helped shape as a member state), or the free movement of people (a precondition of the single market), even if the 2004 expansion brought a surge of Eastern Europeans settling in Britain for work. Britain’s problems were structural. After the 2008 financial crisis, the standard of living for the vast majority stagnated or declined, hit by the years of austerity subsequently imposed on the country to balance its books. While the bankers and banks who precipitated the crisis came through unscathed, life became tougher for ordinary people left to contend with the increasingly underfunded public services they relied on — health care, education and local government.

The resentment this bred provided fertile ground for populism to thrive, and Brexit’s focus on immigration provided just that. Immigrants, the siren song went, were taking their jobs, occupying their schools, clogging up their National Health Service (NHS) and pushing them to the margins in their own country: once Britain controlled its borders, life would improve.

Also Read | UK proposes ‘tech pact’ with EU to boost AI, innovation

Economic reality bites

Things have not improved. While estimates of Brexit’s economic costs vary, most economists agree that the loss of unfettered access to Britain’s largest trading partner and the end of free movement have acted as a drag on trade and investment, curtailed productivity, and significantly diminished the market for financial and other services. The beneficiaries of Brexit are largely those who facilitate the now voluminous customs paperwork and the additional civil service hires managing Brexit’s complexity. And, ironically, those immigrating to Britain are from outside the EU.

For all the rhetoric about controlling immigration, this decade has seen a sharp rise in immigration, largely from outside the EU. Though the number of EU nationals residing in Britain declined gradually from 2016, the number of non-EU immigrants rose sharply from just under 100,000 to peak in 2022-23 at over a million before falling to about 400,000 now. After COVID 19, the NHS, unable to find qualified workers at home, recruited aggressively from abroad. With Europeans feeling unwelcome, doctors and nurses from India, Nigeria, Egypt, Pakistan and the Philippines came instead. Before Brexit, there were 10,000 nurses from India. Today, there are 40,000. Ironically, visibly non-white people were flocking to Britain and the immigration statistics continued to rise while the cost of living was battered by Brexit, COVID-19 and geopolitics.

An uneasy nation

The topic of immigration has become toxic. Hijacked by the far Right, it now represents all the broken promises of the social contract. Because Brexit split the country down the middle into solidifying tribal loyalties of Leavers and Remainers, no matter the unfulfilled promises of leaving, politicians across the spectrum remain afraid of honestly evaluating Brexit. Worse, electorally threatened by the populists (not known for their honesty) mainstream politicians across the political spectrum have focused on the bogeyman of immigration in search of populist votes. A former Home Secretary (of Indian extraction) spoke of the ‘invasion of our southern shores’ while in office. Out of office, her colleague publicly counted white faces in a Birmingham neighbourhood. And the current Prime Minister voiced concern about Britain becoming an ‘island of strangers’. These are not words to unite a multicultural country, forge a middle ground and seek honest answers for Britain’s economic problems. Ten years on, Britain is deeply divided about who it is and what it stands for. The centre ground lies vacant as politicians chase populist extremes, making politics a game of survival. The statistics speak for themselves: since Brexit, the U.K. has seen 10 Home Secretaries, nine Foreign Secretaries, eight Chancellors of the Exchequer and six Prime Ministers, with a seventh likely incoming. This is not a country at ease with itself or its place in the world.

Priyanjali Malik writes on security and politics