BlitzSpirit: How Brexit dredged up the language – and some of the fractures – of wartime resolve.
The queue snaked for hundreds of metres down the high street, not for rations or Anderson shelters, but for a Brexit rally. Flags fluttered, not Union Jacks declaring victory, but a baffling array depicting everything from St. George’s Crosses to Celtic designs. The air thrummed, not with the drone of Luftwaffe bombers, but with impassioned debate, fuelled by social media and a sense of national crisis. It was 2019, but the rhetoric… the feeling… felt unsettlingly familiar. The language of wartime Britain had unexpectedly resurfaced, deployed in the context of leaving the European Union.
A Nation Mobilised – Then and Now
During the Second World War, Britain underwent a total mobilisation. Every aspect of civilian life was geared towards ‘the war effort’. This wasn’t simply about military preparedness; it was about collective sacrifice, shared purpose and a narrative of national unity against an external foe. The government understood the power of language in shaping public perception. Slogans like “Dig for Victory” and “Keep Calm and Carry On” weren’t just instructions, they were attempts to foster resilience and a sense of communal responsibility.
Fast forward to the Brexit referendum. While the context was fundamentally different – a democratic vote, not a fight for survival – a similar impulse to frame the debate in terms of national destiny took hold. Proponents cast leaving the EU as ‘taking back control’, framing the European Union as an occupying force restricting British sovereignty. Words like ‘battle’, ‘frontline’, and ‘betrayal’ became commonplace. The Leave campaign actively tapped into a potent, often unspoken, desire to reclaim a perceived lost national identity, a nostalgia for a mythical ‘Britain alone’ mirroring the self-reliance demanded during the Blitz.
The Cracks Beneath the Surface
Crucially, however, the wartime analogy held serious limitations. The unity forged under bombardment was, to a degree, imposed. The wartime ‘home front’ papered over pre-existing inequalities – class divisions, colonial complexities, and regional disparities. When the bombs fell, the entire nation, however unequally impacted, faced a common enemy. Brexit, in contrast, revealed and exacerbated existing societal fractures.
The ‘us versus them’ narrative proved far more divisive than unifying. Remain voters felt demonised, accused of lacking patriotism. The rhetoric of ‘the people’ versus ‘the elite’ echoed earlier populist sentiments, but lacked the unifying power of a shared existential threat. Furthermore, the wartime spirit relied on a strong sense of social cohesion and government direction. Brexit was, ironically, largely about rejecting centralised authority, and mistrust in institutions fuelled the campaign’s success. The very concept of a unified ‘national interest’ was fiercely contested.
Myth, Memory, and the Weight of History
The invocation of wartime Britain wasn’t simply about political rhetoric. It’s a reflection of how the ‘Blitz Spirit’ itself has become a cultural shorthand. It’s a powerful, emotionally charged symbol of British resilience, often invoked during times of crisis. But that symbol is often selectively remembered. The hardships endured – rationing, loss, displacement, constant fear – are frequently overlooked in favour of a romanticised vision of stoicism and ‘stiff upper lip’.
Brexit undeniably drew on a longing for that perceived past – a time when Britain was seen as self-sufficient and dominant on the world stage. However, the reality of post-war Britain was one of rebuilding, dependence on American aid, and a gradual dismantling of empire. Misremembering or idealising the past, while comforting, can lead to distorted understandings of the present and misguided approaches to the future.
Why It Matters Today
The repurposing of wartime language during Brexit highlights a crucial point: the ‘Blitz Spirit’ isn’t a static quality, automatically available in times of need. It’s something that must be actively cultivated through genuine cooperation, empathy, and a willingness to address societal inequalities. In a world facing multiple crises – climate change, economic instability, political polarisation – the instinct to retreat into nationalistic rhetoric is understandable, but ultimately counterproductive. True resilience lies not in blindly invoking the past, but in learning from it, acknowledging its complexities, and building a more inclusive and collaborative future.
Today, recognising the fractures Brexit exposed – the anxieties about economic security, identity, and belonging – is vital. Finding common ground, fostering dialogue, and rebuilding trust in institutions are essential steps towards a more unified and resilient society.
Reclaiming Resilience
The language of wartime, powerful as it is, belongs to a very specific moment in history. We can learn from the sacrifices and community spirit of that era, but we must be cautious about using it as a simple solution to modern problems. Perhaps the greatest tribute we can pay to those who endured the Blitz isn’t to endlessly rehearse their struggles, but to build a society worthy of their courage – one built on compassion, understanding, and a collective commitment to a better future. It starts with listening to each other, checking in with neighbours, and understanding the anxieties that fuel division.
Sources / Further reading:
* Calder, A. (1991). The People’s War: Britain 1939-1945. Pimlico.
* McLaine, I. (1994). Ministry of Morale: Home Front in World War II. Allen & Unwin.
* Taylor, A.J.P. (1983). English History 1914-1945. Penguin Books. (For context on post-war Britain)
