This piece is brought to you in collaboration with Aidoni, a journalistic publication focused on people-centered stories that inspire action. Be sure to follow their socials here, with credits to the author Nesreen Yousfi, editor Zahra Salah Uddin, and photo credits to Alex J White.
What began as a successful campaign strategy by former Prime Minister David Cameron, who vowed to reform the UK’s relationship to the EU, soon turned into one of the most dramatic turnarounds in British and European history. The EU-UK break-up, formalised on 31 January 2020, was overseen by three prime ministers in just four years and has all but crippled the value of the Pound, but did not curtail immigration to the UK, much to the dismay of its supporters.
In fact, Brexit has left a bitter taste in the mouths of many Britons, including some who originally voted to leave. While 51.9% of voters supported Brexit in the 23 June 2016 referendum, a 2025 YouGov poll shows that 55% of respondents now believe it was a mistake. This number jumps to 75% for 18-24 year-olds, who were too young to vote in 2016.
Youth opposition to Brexit is unsurprising. Losing freedom of movement blocks young Britons from participating in exchange programs and mobility schemes that can boost their careers. Although the new EU deal announced on 19 May 2025 includes plans to reinstate Erasmus and e-gates for British passport holders, no deal can compensate for losing EU citizenship benefits, such as lower tuition, exclusive scholarships, and visa-free study and work across the bloc.
EU migration has decreased, but overall net migration continues to rise. Meanwhile, trade barriers cast a larger shadow over the UK-EU border. High tariffs and tedious EU regulations have led to a 21% drop in UK goods exports. Although the EU still accounts for 41% of UK exports, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) warns that these hurdles could reduce national income by 4% in the long term.
The 2025 deal aims to ease strains by easing agrifood trade restrictions and cutting export emissions taxes. However, it grants the EU access to UK fisheries for 12 more years, a move condemned by the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations for undermining Brexit’s promised independence.
And so, the pendulum swings back towards Brussels.
Could public disappointment have been avoided? The same YouGov poll shows that 27% blame the poor Conservative leadership rather than the idea itself, but 63% say the outcome was inevitable, no matter who was in charge.
This raises deeper questions: Why did the British public vote to leave in the first place? What guided their decisions? Were they adequately informed? Did they fully grasp the potential consequences?
How did the media report on Brexit?
Whilst the British media isn’t solely to blame for the referendum, its influence is undeniable. Journalism’s core role is to inform the public impartially, separating facts from claims so that citizens can make their own decisions free from the influence of agenda, ideology, and political alliances (at least in theory). Naturally, the public relies on the press to stay informed beyond their own circles.
Unfortunately for the UK electorate, the British press is notorious for its brazen partisanship, a bias that was most clearly exposed in the months leading up to the referendum. In the 2016 book All Out War, journalist Tim Shipman recounts how pro-Leave and pro-Remain campaigners alike vied for media influence. Albeit, only the Leave side saw favourable results in shaping the narrative.
According to the Reuters Institute’s report UK Press Coverage of the EU Referendum, British newspapers displayed a “pro Brexit bias” throughout the campaign. This stance was particularly evident in the British Tabloid Press (BTP), most notably in the Daily Express, Daily Mail, and The Sun, the latter two of which are among the UK’s most widely read newspapers.
Dr. Mike Berry, Reader in Media and Communication at Cardiff University, observed that “before the campaign even began, large parts of the public had been primed by the media to be Euro-sceptic… In this way, the media played a powerful long and short-term role in influencing the result of the referendum”. With the odds already stacked against them, the Remain camp had little room to shift public opinion meaningfully.
Public interest in leaving the EU gained significant traction in the 2010s when the far-right UK Independence Party (UKIP) launched a targeted media campaign, linking an independent UK to curbing immigration. The campaign proved successful, and UKIP went on to win the most seats in the 2014 European Parliament elections.
Although Brexit discourse initially focused on questions of economics and national sovereignty, the agenda shifted increasingly towards immigration, particularly in the final four weeks leading up to the vote. Reuters found that 20% of all Leave-related media coverage focused on immigration, compared to just 10% of Remain coverage. The Remain campaign, by contrast, concentrated more on the economic risks of leaving the EU, which made up more than half (54%) of its arguments covered in the media, compared to 36% for Leave.
Conservative and pro-Leave politicians dominated coverage, sidelining experts—even in broadsheets like The Guardian and Financial Times. The Reuters Institute calls this a “narrow range of voices” in a “highly politicised” media.
In a final blow to journalistic impartiality, nearly every major paper took sides in the referendum’s final week. The right-leaning press, predictably, backed Leave, solidifying a media landscape in which impartiality had become little more than a formality.
Media’s responsibility: inform, don’t sway
According to Kathryn Simpson and Nicholas Startin’s research paper Tabloid Tales: How the British Tabloid Press Shaped the Brexit Vote, “the case for EU membership has never been clearly communicated to the mass public”. This should have been the media’s responsibility. However, between relentless anti-EU sentiment and a failure to prioritise public understanding over agenda, it didn’t live up to this essential role.
Although a Eurosceptic, Cameron didn’t want the UK to leave, but rather to strengthen its exceptional position within the EU. His 2015 referendum promise, made in exchange for a political victory, was a high-stakes gamble. Realising too late that this strategy had backfired, the Cameron government attempted to shift public opinion with its April 2016 leaflet, titled ‘Why the government believes that voting to remain in the EU is the best decision for the UK’, distributed to every UK household. Yet this wasn’t enough to drown out the noise of anti-immigrant rhetoric and nationalist appeals, led by UKIP and the right-leaning press.
How might the public have voted if the British media had set aside partisanship and offered a balanced, clear-eyed view of Brexit, informing, not swaying, the electorate?
Several journalistic formats are emerging that aim to counter the dangers of a partisan press. These models prioritise public service and facts over political bias and fear-mongering.
Explainer Journalism: accessible, straightforward and fact-based
Explainer journalism simplifies complex issues for the general public, combining depth with clarity. These long-form articles are typically divided into sections that answer common questions, making them easy to follow. Since the Brexit referendum, this format has gained popularity and is now a staple in major outlets such as The Guardian, Al Jazeera, and The New York Times.
In contrast, short-form breaking news stories are generally limited to covering a single event, offering only brief background or context for the reader. While their immediacy serves an important purpose in keeping the public informed, this format often falls short of conveying the broader significance or long-term consequences of an event.
This is where explainer journalism fills the gap, offering deeper context and answering the ‘why’ and ‘how’ behind headlines. With a Q&A format, it turns complex issues like climate change or economics into clear, accessible insights that boost understanding and reader confidence.
For example, during the Brexit campaign, an effective explainer article might have addressed questions such as why the UK joined the EU, what privileges membership offers, and what the potential costs and advantages of leaving would be.
In an age of misinformation and rising geopolitical tensions, explainers play a vital role. They’re fact-based, clear, and educational, free from sensationalism or political spin, and rely on insights from experts like economists, historians, and political scientists.
Solutions Journalism: empowering the audience with knowledge
According to the Solutions Journalism Network, “Journalism that fails to cover responses to social problems provides an inaccurate and biased view of reality—one that can actually harm society. By focusing on issues and ignoring solutions, journalists can create the false impression that no one is trying to fix things, fueling a bleak, disempowering news cycle and reinforcing the sense of societal decline or stagnation.
Solutions journalism offers an antidote to problem-focused reporting by highlighting how communities and institutions are tackling and responding to seemingly insolvable problems such as air pollution, textile waste, or educational inequality, and critically evaluating their effectiveness.
These are more than just ‘feel-good’ stories. Solutions reporting answers the ‘why’ by placing issues in context and evaluating responses with data and first-hand accounts. It acknowledges that solutions have limitations, making it essential to examine their shortcomings for a more comprehensive picture.
In that sense, solutions journalism also shouldn’t be confused with advocacy. It does not promote a specific cause or policy. Instead, it maintains journalistic standards by interviewing a wide range of stakeholders, especially those who are not directly invested in the solution’s success. This critical lens prevents glorification and ensures credibility.
Solutions stories offer wide-ranging benefits. They expand policymakers’ thinking, inspire public hope, and show how communities address major sociopolitical, economic and environmental challenges. Even failed attempts are newsworthy, offering valuable lessons.
In today’s post-Brexit era, a solutions-oriented article might examine one of the referendum’s key promises, such as reduced immigration or regained sovereignty, and assess how the new deal delivers on these promises. It could also spotlight how UK businesses, individuals, or organisations are adapting, offering real-world responses to post-Brexit challenges.
Ultimately, solutions journalism aims to inform the public more comprehensively, empowering people with knowledge not only of what is wrong but also of what is being done to address it. In doing so, it equips readers with the tools to think critically about the policies put forth by their leadership and imagine alternatives.