About 2 o’clock in the morning of June 24, 2016, the announcement of the result of the vote in Sunderland has suddenly been given to understand that the Brexit was winning. The city in the north-east of England was chosen in 61 % out of the european Union, much more than predicted by the polls.
The fact that the shock came from one of the places the poorest in the United Kingdom was not a coincidence. The vote in favour of the Brexit was directly linked to the economic difficulties, even if other factors are obviously also in play. Three-quarters of the British without any degree have voted in favour of the Brexit ; 71% of those who have a manual work routine, did the same ; 58 % of those who earn less than 20,000 pounds per year (22 000 euros).
This observation has been drawn a lesson, although often regarded today as the most obvious : the left-to-account of globalization have benefited from the referendum to revolt. However, this is not quite accurate, concludes a study published in June by Thiemo Fetzer, of the university of Warwick. According to him, the cause of failover is not so much globalization, or even the financial crisis, that austerity. “During the european elections of 2004 and 2009, UKIP [the party antieuropéen] had already managed to gather 15 % of votes,” he recalls. But the support, at the time, did not come from the poorest regions. It is only after 2010 – when the policy of austerity has been applied – as this phenomenon has started. “
His study concludes that the support to the Brexit would have been 9.5 per cent lower without the shock of austerity. Enough to switch the result, won with a 3.8 % advance.
To demonstrate the validity of his theory, Mr. Fetzer highlights fascinating correlations between the budget cuts and the support for UKIP. It takes, for example, the imposition of the ” bedroom tax “, a tax on the inhabitants…