The Brexit effect: How the politics of grievance devoured British Prime Minister Keir Starmer
The labels Leave and Remain need little introduction to anyone with even a fleeting interest in British politics. The terms do not simply refer to someone’s position on United Kingdom-European Union. . .
The labels Leave and Remain need little introduction to anyone with even a fleeting interest in British politics. The terms do not simply refer to someone’s position on United Kingdom-European Union relations, they can also provide a shorthand for their broader beliefs and values. The terms emerged as group identities and, to the opposing sides, often as pejorative shorthand for the other camp. That these labels retain potency ten years after theBrexit referendumsuggests that identity is the default prism through which many people in the United Kingdom now view politics. My researchfocuses on continuity and change in political insults, and I try to understand if modern politics is more divided and uncivil than it was in the past. I am particularly interested in how politicians use Aristotle’skey modes of persuasion: ethos (appeals based on the character of the speaker); pathos (appeals to emotion); and logos (appeals to logic). The “Brexit effect” onthe rhetoricof British politics is one of the most damaging legacies of the referendum. It has seemingly resulted in a rhetorical culture in which ethos and pathos are of far more value, and so far more prevalent, than logos. This affects you whether you’re a Leaver or Remainer. Uncivil rhetoric was often highlighted throughout the Brexit debate. This was the case both during the referendum campaign and then the battles in parliament between 2016 and 2019 over delivering the result. Journalists at the time even questioned why the discoursefelt so toxic. Often, the debate was framed as “the elite” versus “the people”, where the two sides represented irreconcilable identities. The people versus the powerfulTheLeave victorywas widely attributed to that side telling the moreemotionally resonant storyand, in the process, owning the narrative of who the elite really were. Populism is a contested term, butresearch has founda common feature of this kind of politics is creating a divide between “elites” and “the people”. In this rhetoric, the elite – however they are defined – are always greedy, corrupt, incompetent or just plain evil. On the other hand, “the people” are virtuous, but exploited by the elite. Politics then becomes a contest between these opposing sides where for one to gain the other must lose. And, in this environment, successful politicians are those who can frame themselves as being on the side of the people rather than the elite. The 2020 bookBrexitlandargued that leaving the European Union represented the first time a major political decision was based not on rational economic self-interest but on feelings of identity. The authors explain that the referendum did not create the divides between those identifying as Leavers and those as Remainers. But, once exposed, those divides could not be unseen. The decisive issue in politics no longer appears to be “the economy, stupid”, but rather “if you’re not one of the people, you are the elite, stupid”. "New leader will be in place before Parliament returns in September, I will remain in post until the contest is complete"Keir Starmer announces he will resign as UK prime minister and leader of the Labour PartyFollow live updates and reaction:https://t. co/8HkQf7O9cDpic. twitter. com/oyZPA5C6Yc— BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking)June 22, 2026The unpopularity ofoutgoing prime minister Keir Starmerand his government might be seen as a product of this kind of politics. Much has been said about the Starmer government’s inability totell its own story, to define its ethos andconnect emotionally with the nation. The“loveless landslide”that Starmer’s Labour party won in 2024 is not just a result ofthe “politics of nothing”that it has been accused of, although this surely has not helped. The 2024 result was a symptom of Labour’s inability to reconcile (perhaps irreconcilable) identity groups, born of a misunderstanding of politics after Brexit. Dislike of Starmer and his government appears to have killed the notion that sober technocraticdeliverismis the route to political success. Now, ten years on,the popularityof Reform UK and the Green party can be explained in part by the unifying power of grievance politics. Brexit itself was also a result of this. But rather than Brexit removing the source of the people’s unhappiness, it has simply framed politics as a zero-sum battle between identity groups. Despite their vagaries, Leave and Remain still provide the most comprehensivefaultlineacross the UK in 2026. Any politician who wants to change the terms of the debate will need to have great rhetorical skills. The fact that the terms have not been replaced after ten years illustrates how rare such skills are and how challenging reconciliation remains. This article first appeared onThe Conversation.