Five years on, politicians are unwilling to talk about Brexit and its effects. The same goes for voters. Despite polls showing that many have now regretted voting to leave the EU, there is little appetite to reopen the question of Brexit. Albert Cullell Cano uses ontological security theory to explain why this is.
The economy, healthcare, and immigration—these are the top three concerns of the British public, according to the latest YouGov poll. Five years ago, the Brexit campaign promised to fix all three. Yet today, not only do these issues remain at the top of the list, but mounting evidence suggests Brexit has exacerbated them. But the Westminster Consensus says Brexit is undisputed. Starmer has ruled out rejoining the EU, and Brexit now ranks only 10th among national concerns—despite its impact on all of the top three.
So, why don’t we talk about Brexit? What if it has become so ingrained in British identity that revisiting it feels like a threat? Drawing on ontological security theory, I explain why the political class refuses to revisit—and the UK remains divided in reconsidering—a decision that has done more harm than good.
The effects of Brexit
Politically, the UK has been in a constant state of crisis since the 2016 referendum, there have been three general elections and six Prime Ministers—four of whom have taken office in just the last five years. The radical right, who mobilised Leavers in an aggressively xenophobic campaign, has now materialised as a serious political force through Nigel Farage’s new party, Reform UK, which according to a poll from December 2024 was second in voter intention, having surpassed Labour and being hot on the Conservative Party’s heels.
The UK is the only G7 economy where GDP per capita and labour market participation remain below pre-pandemic levels.
Economically, despite denialist accounts, Brexit has failed to deliver on its promises. The UK is the only G7 economy where GDP per capita and labour market participation remain below pre-pandemic levels—partly due to the absence of the EU’s safety net. Furthermore, there is an abundance of studies documenting Brexit’s impact on the economy, mainly reported by The Independent (see here for a short explainer):
- Exports have plummeted since Brexit, and GDP growth has shrunk by 4–5 per cent, equating to £100 billion lost per year. To put this into perspective, that amount could fund more than half the annual cost of the NHS.
- Immigration, which was the flagship issue of the pro-Brexit campaign, is at record highs. There has never been more immigration in the UK’s history, as the post-Brexit points-based immigration system has led to a surge in non-EU immigrants.
- At the same time, there has been a brain drain of European citizens who, due to Brexit-related changes to tuition fees and student loan eligibility, could not stay. A third of EU students left UK universities, without increasing international student numbers offsetting this uniformly. This has brought departments to struggle with the financial and academic impact. Additionally, visa restrictions and research funding challenges have contributed to the loss of EU academics, affecting the UK’s higher education sector beyond just student numbers.
Yet, despite the economic and political fallout, Brexit remains untouchable in British politics. Even with growing public regret (“Bregret“), the idea of rejoining the EU is not seriously entertained by major political parties. This apparent contradiction can be understood through the lens of ontological security theory, which explains how states, like individuals, seek a stable sense of self—even at the cost of material well-being.
Despite the economic and political fallout, Brexit remains untouchable in British politics.
What is ontological security and how does it explain Brexit?
Ontological security theory explains that individuals and states fear not just physical threats but also disruptions to their sense of identity. This coherent, unitary sense of self is secured through the repetition of practices and rituals–doing always the same thing provides a sense of security; a sense of continuity, a sense being (the same despite the passing of time): ontological security. This is true for national identity as well: we attach ourselves to familiar images, symbols, narratives, like the flag, the national history/myths, and so on.
In the political sphere, the Brexit referendum is regarded, irrespective of the outcome, as an instantiation of the democratic values linked to a more civic conception of national identity.
Scholars such as Matt Browning and Ben Rosher have discussed how Brexit created an ontological security crisis for Remainers and EU nationals in the UK by disrupting their stable sense of self and belonging. At the same time, Brexit reinforced a defensive, nostalgic national identity among Leavers, leading to deepened societal polarisation. However, five years in, Brexit actually serves as the anchoring of Britishness. In the political sphere, the Brexit referendum is regarded, irrespective of the outcome, as an instantiation of the democratic values linked to a more civic conception of national identity—an argument repeated used by Starmer, for instance, to defend his anti-revisionist stance on Brexit, bringing his discourse closer to the Conservatives and Reform. On the other hand, while polls suggest most (57 per cent) would vote for rejoin in a new referendum, this is not an overwhelming majority; and thus the country remains divided. Additionally, the discourse of Brexit as a “democratic decision” can arguably resonate with a majority of British citizens, who have lately been reported to eschew ethnic-based conceptions of Britishness in favour of a more civic, value-driven national identity.
Despite its economic failures, Brexit is now ingrained in British identity, making any challenge to it a threat to ontological security. Renowned ontological security scholar Bahar Rumelili has argued that ontological security concerns often trump physical security because states prioritize maintaining a stable self-identity over material survival, even when it leads to risky or irrational behaviour. Rumelili shows states often prioritize identity over security—even to their own detriment, as the very act of Brexit itself illustrates. So what are Starmer’s options?
Labour is accused of wanting to rejoin the EU through the back door, even though Starmer has explicitly ruled rejoining the single market or the customs union. Rejoining the single market, in a model similar to Norway or Switzerland, would mean being subject to EU trade regulations without having a say in their legislation, something Starmer wouldn’t be able to sell politically.
There is a risk of oversimplification in directly and neatly interpreting “Bregretters” wanting to rejoin the EU or just moving closer to it.
What the UK really needs, and what Starmer has been working on through “resetting” the relationship, is a trade agreement to ease the enormous trade barriers imposed by Brexit, as well as a security agreement. So far, ideas have been entertained, such as the Pan-European-Mediterranean convention. However, this may not be the solution for the UK’s economic woes either, and in any case it would receive major rejection from the opposition, as even such a small rapprochement to the EU is perceived like rejoining the custom’s union. There is a risk of oversimplification in directly and neatly interpreting “Bregretters” wanting to rejoin the EU or just moving closer to it. British society remains highly polarised, and any misstep by the Government—any sign of being less nationalist than voters expect—that threatens the UK’s ontological security that the Brexit narrative provides could mobilise former (and new?) Leavers to not only bring the right back to power but could also see Nigel Farage’s party in Downing Street in the next elections.
The Northern Ireland Problem
Additionally, Brexit has indisputably harmed the Northern Ireland peace process, creating a serious challenge for the British government. The region’s status was a major point of contention during negotiations, as both sides sought to avoid a hard border with the Republic of Ireland. The final solution—keeping Northern Ireland within the EU customs union—has effectively created a border within the UK, between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Brexit has become more than just a policy decision; it is now foundational to British national identity.
This has seriously threatened the ontological security of pro-British unionists, who in 2021 sparked violent riots on the streets of Belfast. With demographic shifts favouring reunification, Brexit deepens UK instability. Any move that even remotely resembles an attempt to return to the EU could spell serious trouble for Starmer from the (political) Unionist community, which has already strongly opposed the government concerning Brexit-related agreements.
Brexit has become more than just a policy decision; it is now foundational to British national identity. Despite its economic and political failures, questioning Brexit feels like questioning “Britishness” itself. The UK’s reluctance to revisit Brexit reflects a broader truth: identity can outweigh material well-being. In the coming years, this tension—between economic reality and ontological security—will shape British politics. But for now, Brexit remains a paradox: a failed policy too sacred to challenge.
All articles posted on this blog give the views of the author(s), and not the position of LSE British Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Image credit: svet foto in Shutterstock
Enjoyed this post? Then sign up to our newsletter and receive a weekly roundup of all our articles.
