2004: When eight central and eastern European countries (the ‘A8’, including Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and the Baltic states) joined the EU on 1 May 2004, the UK was one of only three existing members to open its labour market immediately. Large numbers of EU citizens, and particularly Eastern Europeans, came to live and work, exercising free movement rights. For more than a decade they built families, careers and homes without needing to register or ‘apply’ for any status.

January 2010: In a television interview, then-opposition leader David Cameron set out an aspiration to cut net migration from the ‘hundreds of thousands’ to the ‘tens of thousands rather than the hundreds of thousands.’ This hardened into an unofficial ‘net migration target’ that shaped a decade of policy. Because EU free movement legally prevented the UK from capping arrivals from member states, EU citizens were increasingly framed as part of a number that was ‘out of control’. They became politically blamed for a target that could not be met, despite contributing more in taxes than they drew in benefits. It set the tone for treating European migration as something to be reduced rather than welcomed.

2013: The Home Office, then under Theresa May, ran ‘Go Home or face arrest’ advertising vans in parts of London; this was an early signal of the hostile environment approach to immigration. The same year, newspapers ran alarmist coverage about transitional controls on Romanian and Bulgarian citizens ending, with apocalyptic headlines claiming the borders would be open to ‘30 million Romanians and Bulgarians’. Reporting leaned heavily on negative stereotypes, reframing EU migration as a threat. The groundwork for the EU referendum’s immigration narrative was being laid years in advance.

1 January 2014: Work restrictions on Romanian and Bulgarian (‘A2’) citizens were lifted, giving them full access to the UK labour market. The build-up brought intense, often hostile media coverage that bore little relation to the far small numbers who actually arrived. A ‘benefit tourism’ framing, i.e. the idea that EU citizens came chiefly to claim welfare, gained traction despite evidence to the contrary. EU residents increasingly found their presence debated as a problem rather than a settled fact of British life.

February 2016: David Cameron’s renegotiation of the UK’s EU membership focused partly on curbing EU migrants’ access to in-work benefits, including a proposed ‘emergency brake’. The framing, that EU workers’ entitlements needed restricting, positioned them as a drain to be managed rather than residents with secure rights. Though intended to bolster the case for Remain, it reinforced the idea that European citizens’ rights in the UK were negotiable. This was an early sign that Cameron’s government saw reducing EU migration, rather than protecting EU residents, as the priority. The rights were now politically conditional.

20 February 2016: Cameron announced the referendum would be held on 23 June 2016. Crucially, most resident EU citizens were not entitled to vote, even though the outcome would directly determine their future (Irish, Maltese and Cypriot citizens were the main exceptions). Millions would have decisions made about their homes, jobs and families without any say. This disenfranchisement became a defining issue and a recurring theme in how EU citizens later described the period.

Spring–June 2016: During the campaign, immigration and free movement were central, and the presence of EU citizens was frequently framed as pressure on jobs, wages, housing and public services. Campaign messaging, including widely criticised imagery about migration that was criticised for inciting racial hatred, contributed to a charged atmosphere. Many EU residents reported, for the first time, feeling that their right to be in the country was a matter of public debate. The sense of being an outsider in a place they considered home began to take hold before a single vote was counted.

23 June 2016: The UK voted to leave the EU by 51.9% to 48.1%, a result that shocked many EU citizens who had assumed Remain would win. For large numbers of European residents, the morning after felt less like a policy change than a personal rejection by a country they called home. Overnight, around three million people found their legal status, held in the reciprocal free movement right, thrown into uncertainty. The phrase that would come to define their predicament, feeling like ‘bargaining chips’, emerged almost immediately.

24 June 2016: In the immediate aftermath, distressed EU residents began organising; the campaign group the3million traces its origins to this day, with an early gathering in Bristol. Formally founded in July 2016, it took its name from the estimated number of EU citizens in the UK and adopted the rallying cry ‘I am not a bargaining chip’. The group rapidly became the principal voice for EU citizens and a key interlocutor with government and the EU. Its emergence reflected a new, defensive sense of shared EU citizen identity that had barely existed before.

Late June–August 2016: Police recorded a sharp spike in racially and religiously aggravated hate crime after the referendum: offences in July 2016 were 41% higher than in July 2015, with research estimating around 1,100 additional incidents that month, a 29% rise. Reports proliferated of EU citizens, particularly Poles and other eastern Europeans, being told to ‘go home’, abused in the street, or sent xenophobic messages. Across the year, police-recorded hate crime rose about 29%, the largest increase since records began. For many European residents, this was the moment abstract politics became a question of personal safety. The fear it generated lingered far longer than the statistical spike itself.

Late June 2016 (days after the vote): With Cameron still Prime Minister but resigning, his government declined to offer EU citizens an immediate, unilateral guarantee that they could stay. Theresa May, then Home Secretary, also stated she would not guarantee their rights. Legal commentators argued that treating residents as negotiating leverage was both morally indefensible and potentially in breach of human rights obligations. The government insisted on ‘reciprocity’, protection for EU citizens here only in exchange for protection of Britons in the EU, leaving both groups in limbo. This ‘bargaining chips’ approach defined the next several years of anxiety.

5 October 2016: In her first conference speech as Prime Minister, Theresa May declared that ‘if you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere’. Though aimed in context at a rootless global elite, the line was widely heard as a rejection of cosmopolitan and international identities. For EU citizens who had built genuinely transnational lives, it landed as a statement that people like them did not truly belong. The phrase became shorthand for a narrower, more exclusionary idea of who counted as belonging in Britain. It remains one of the most-cited moments in EU citizens’ accounts of feeling unwelcome.

October 2016: At the same conference, the Home Secretary floated requiring companies to list their numbers of foreign workers, a proposal abandoned within days after a furious backlash. Even though it was dropped, the idea that employers might have to name non-British staff deepened the sense among EU citizens of being singled out. It fed a wider climate in which Europeans felt newly visible as foreigners in their workplaces and communities. Such episodes, more than any single law, shaped the everyday emotional texture of the period.

Late 2016: As the government refused to offer unilateral guarantees ahead of triggering Article 50, EU citizens lived with acute uncertainty about whether they would be able to remain. Many began stockpiling documents, carrying passports domestically, and anxiously researching their options. A surge began in applications for permanent residence and British citizenship as people sought any available security. The mismatch between rights long held and the sudden need to prove them was disorienting and, for many, frightening.

To be added