Revisiting a Vote Leave campaign video with today’s data
- Talk2EU
- 1 day ago
- 5 min read
Written by Talk2eu contributors - February 2026
In the run-up to the 2016 EU referendum, the Vote Leave campaign released various videos outlining the case for leaving the European Union. These videos made predictions about how Brexit would improve everyday life in the UK, covering areas such as healthcare, immigration, wages, food prices, housing, economic growth, and political accountability.
In June 2026, it will be ten years since the referendum vote, and just over six years since the UK formally left the EU and implemented Brexit in law and practice. There is, therefore, sufficient real-world evidence to compare those campaign claims with subsequent outcomes. This article examines one specific Vote Leave campaign video [13], using its exact quotes, and compares those claims with publicly available data today.
The purpose of this article is not to reopen the referendum result, but to examine how the arguments presented at the time align with what has since happened. Re-examining political claims in light of new evidence is a normal part of democratic accountability.
“You’ll benefit from better care, provided by our NHS, thanks to reallocation of funds from the EU budget.”
This claim presents EU budget contributions as a source of funding that could be redirected to improve NHS care. While UK contributions to the EU budget ended after Brexit, no identifiable or sustained increase in NHS funding can be directly attributed to Brexit-related savings. Independent analysis indicates that any savings were offset by new costs and weaker economic growth, rather than producing a clear NHS funding dividend [1].
“Controlled immigration will lead to reduced waiting times for you and your loved ones.”
This statement links immigration control directly to shorter NHS waiting times. EU free movement did end after Brexit, but overall net migration increased and NHS waiting times rose sharply in the years that followed. At the same time, the NHS experienced staffing shortages, including the loss of EU workers in key roles. No evidence ending free movement led to reduced waiting times [2][3].
“The excess funding that would otherwise be sent to Brussels could also be directed to education, meaning better prospects for your children.”
In the above quote, EU contributions are described as “excess funding” that could be redirected to education. In practice, while EU payments ended, there is no evidence of sustained redirection of funds to education as a result of Brexit. Education spending continued to reflect domestic policy decisions, while some EU programmes supporting education, such as Erasmus, were lost or replaced at additional cost. Noting that the UK is due to rejoin Erasmus in 2027 [18].
“Your wages will rise, thanks to better-controlled immigration, which will lead to less competition for jobs.”
This claim presents immigration control as a means of raising wages by reducing job competition. After Brexit, EU free movement ended, but overall migration increased through other routes. The UK experienced labour shortages in many sectors, and real wages stagnated or fell for large parts of the workforce, particularly during the cost-of-living crisis [12]. Some areas of employment saw wage increases, but these were often linked to staff shortages rather than sustained productivity growth.
“Your weekly food shop will become cheaper, food prices will no longer be inflated by agricultural policies controlled by the EU.”
This statement frames EU agricultural policy as a cause of higher food prices and leaving the EU as a way to reduce household shopping costs. In reality, food prices rose significantly after Brexit. New trade barriers, customs checks, labour shortages, and currency effects increased costs across the food supply chain, outweighing any theoretical price reductions from leaving EU agricultural policy. Higher wages in logistics and haulage were also passed on to consumers, contributing to increased food prices [4][5] [17].
“You and your family will benefit from a resurgent economy, led by new and flourishing small businesses following the removal of burdensome EU regulations and red tape.”
This claim links economic resurgence to deregulation after leaving the EU. In reality, most EU regulations were retained to maintain market access, while additional red tape was introduced for businesses trading with the EU. Business investment and productivity growth underperformed compared to similar economies, and surveys consistently show small businesses citing Brexit-related trade friction and uncertainty as constraints rather than relief [6][7][1].
“With less pressure on housing, younger generations will also find it easier to get on the housing ladder.”
This statement links immigration control to improved housing affordability. While EU free movement ended, overall migration increased [8], and housing pressures remained [9][10]. House prices continued to rise, and affordability for younger people worsened, driven mostly by long-standing supply shortages, higher interest rates, and weak real wage growth rather than changes linked to Brexit.
“Politicians, both local and national, will become more accountable. Helping to strengthen your community and others. Especially those more damaged by EU policy, like farming, fishing, and industries like steel.”
This claim combines increased political accountability with renewed support for specific sectors. Democratic accountability mechanisms did not materially change after Brexit, and in some areas, decision-making became more centralised. Farming, fishing, and steel faced new challenges, including funding transitions, export barriers, and ongoing structural pressures, with no clear evidence of community renewal suggested. As anticipated benefits failed to materialise, political attention increasingly shifted to other issues, including the UK’s relationship with the ECHR [11].
“A more prosperous and safer future awaits us, outside the EU.”
This closing statement summarises the video’s overall message. Nearly a decade on, the UK economy underperformed comparable economies, and living standards faced sustained pressure [14]. The UK continues to rely on close cooperation with European partners for security, with some arrangements now more limited than before [15]. The promised benefits in prosperity and safety have not clearly materialised.
Conclusion
This Vote Leave campaign video presented a consistent set of claims about how leaving the EU would improve daily life in the UK. Nearly a decade later, sufficient evidence exists to assess those claims against observable outcomes.
This comparison does not suggest that voters acted irrationally in 2016. Rather, the evidence shows that many of the consequences now visible were uncertain or unknowable at the time. Revisiting political arguments in light of new evidence is a normal part of democratic decision-making.
If you believe national decisions should be informed by evidence as it emerges, you may wish to look at parliamentary debates on the UK’s future relationship with the European Union, consider existing Rejoin EU petitions [16], contact your MP, or discuss these issues with friends and family.
References