Brexit at Ten: the long decade

Photo: Clive Simpson

TEN years ago tonight I sat up late watching the results of the EU referendum come in. Like millions of others, I had expected the country to step back from the brink. Instead, on the morning of 24 June 2016, Britain woke to discover it had embarked upon the largest act of economic and political self-harm in its modern history.

A decade later, the verdict is in. Brexit has failed. That is not a partisan slogan or the bitter complaint of someone who voted Remain. It is the unavoidable conclusion reached after ten years of evidence.

The remarkable thing about the tenth anniversary is not that Brexit remains controversial. It is that anyone still feels able to argue it has been a success.

Had Brexit delivered even a fraction of what was promised, now would be a day of national celebration. There would be speeches, commemorations and triumphant headlines. Politicians would be queueing up to claim credit. Instead, most would rather avoid mentioning it at all.

That silence speaks volumes. As I wrote in the aftermath of the referendum, Brexit was never really about Europe. It became a vessel into which voters poured every frustration they felt about austerity, immigration, stagnant wages, housing shortages, failing public services and political neglect. The European Union became a convenient proxy for a host of domestic failures that had little to do with Brussels and everything to do with Westminster.

The cure turned out to be worse than the disease. The promised economic renaissance never arrived. The bonfire of red tape never happened. The NHS did not receive £350 million a week. Trade did not become easier. British exporters did not discover a golden age of global opportunity. Instead, a growing body of evidence points in precisely the opposite direction.

Recent research suggests that Brexit has reduced UK GDP per capita by between six and eight per cent compared with similar advanced economies. Business investment is estimated to be 12 to 18 per cent lower than it would otherwise have been, while employment and productivity have both suffered significant declines.

These are not abstract statistics. They represent lost opportunities, lower wages, reduced tax revenues and fewer resources for public services than would have otherwise been the case.

In 2019 I described this as Brexit's "invisible uncertainty" – the economic drag created when businesses postpone decisions, investors look elsewhere and opportunities quietly disappear. A decade on, that uncertainty is no longer invisible. It is reflected in the country's weaker growth, lower productivity and diminished prospects.

Even before the long-term consequences became clear, markets delivered an immediate verdict. When the referendum result emerged in June 2016, sterling experienced its largest single-day fall since the era of floating exchange rates began. Unlike the stock market, which eventually recovered, the pound never truly regained its former strength.

Of course, Brexit supporters have spent years arguing that the real problem was not Brexit itself but the way it was implemented. It is a familiar defence.

Communism never failed because of communism. It failed because it was implemented incorrectly. Brexit, apparently, suffers from the same convenient excuse. Yet the reality is that Brexit was always built upon contradictory promises.

Britain would enjoy all the benefits of membership without any obligations. Immigration would fall while the economy boomed. Trade would become easier despite introducing barriers with our largest trading partner. Regulation would be slashed while standards remained unchanged.

These things could never all be true at the same time and, 10 years on, the public increasingly recognises that fact.

In 2022 when I wrote ‘Breaking the Brexit Taboo’ and questioned why Brexit was still treated in some quarters as an act of disloyalty. Today the taboo has largely disappeared. The debate has moved on from whether Brexit can be criticised to whether anyone can credibly claim it has succeeded.

According to recent polling, 57 per cent of people in Great Britain now believe leaving the EU was the wrong decision, while only 30 per cent think it was right. The only surprising thing about that statistic is that 30 per cent still think it was the right decision.

The referendum itself now feels like a relic from another political age. David Cameron, who called it, resigned within hours of losing it. Theresa May was consumed by it. Boris Johnson rode it into Downing Street before being destroyed by his own conduct. Liz Truss briefly crashed the economy. Rishi Sunak inherited the wreckage. Keir Starmer attempted to manage the consequences but had only been repairing EU relations in a limited way.

By this tenth anniversary Britain has gone through seven prime ministers since the vote. Stability and prosperity were among Brexit's promises. Neither has been delivered.

And then there is immigration. One of the central arguments advanced by Leave campaigners was that Brexit would allow Britain to "take back control" of its borders.

Yet net migration reached record levels in the years following departure from the EU. Whatever one thinks about immigration itself, Brexit demonstrably failed on one of its own defining tests.

Several years ago, in the aftermath of the Covid pandemic, I coined the phrase "long Brexit". The comparison with Long Covid seemed appropriate then and even more so today. The acute political shock may have passed but the symptoms remain stubbornly present.

Economic under performance, labour shortages, trade friction, political instability and endless arguments about Europe continued to shape British life long after the referendum itself had disappeared into history. A decade later long Brexit remains with us.

Perhaps the saddest aspect of the entire saga is the opportunity lost.

Imagine a Britain that had spent the last decade focusing on housing, productivity, energy security, climate adaptation, infrastructure, education and healthcare rather than tying itself in knots over customs arrangements, trade agreements and constitutional disputes.

Imagine a politics that had sought solutions to the country's real problems rather than inventing imaginary enemies.

Instead, an entire generation has lived through a period dominated by a project that promised national renewal and delivered national diminishment.

The irony is that Brexit was sold as a means of restoring sovereignty and confidence. Yet modern Britain feels less confident, less prosperous and less influential than it did in 2016.

Brexit was sold as an event. In reality it became a condition and history will ultimately decide where the episode sits in the long story of this country. But ten years on, one conclusion seems unavoidable. The referendum was not the beginning of Britain's revival. It was the beginning of a long decade of decline.

And, as the country prepares for yet another Prime Minister and another round of ministerial changes, we are still living with the consequences.

#         #          # 

Photo: The Sir Peter Scott lighthouse at Sutton Bridge from a photo by the author. The original picture was taken during a recce trip for the novel Flood Waters Down, a climate change and AI thriller which is available now.

Brexit election's invisible uncertainty

Space Oddity

Breaking the Brexit taboo

Post-Brexit UK faces up to EU Space Act

 

The European Commission’s long-awaited unveiling of the EU Space Act on 25 June 2025 marked a pivotal step towards harmonised space governance across the bloc.

Framed around safety, resilience and sustainability, the proposed regulation aims to streamline market access, strengthen cybersecurity and mitigate orbital debris – all while boosting the EU’s strategic autonomy in space.

Yet for those operating outside the EU’s regulatory orbit – notably post-Brexit UK – the Act presents new uncertainties.

These tensions surfaced during this week’s European Space Forum, held in Brussels on 3-4 July, where 450 delegates gathered to discuss the future of Europe’s space ambitions.

During a panel discussion on ‘Delivering Autonomy’, I asked UK government representative William Smith, how the Act might affect UK space operators, now classed as part of a “third country” under EU law.

“I think it's very early days to comment,” he replied. “The UK Government don't have a formal position yet. We acknowledge what [the Act] is trying to do and support any endeavour that is looking to make the orbital environment and space in general more secure, more resilient and safer. That is a collective good, undoubtedly.”

He went on to emphasise the UK’s own regulatory framework: “The UK's regulatory regime is an outcomes-based, agile regime, which works. It's not perfect but we get good feedback from international stakeholders.”

The EU Space Act, still in draft form, outlines the possibility of recognising third-country regulatory regimes as equivalent – but offers no detail yet on how such equivalence would be determined or negotiated.

This leaves UK-based companies potentially facing a dual compliance burden or limitations on market access unless formal agreements are reached.

Without clarity on equivalence, UK firms hoping to provide services within the EU may face fresh licensing or oversight hurdles. The EU’s detailed rules on debris mitigation, cybersecurity and environmental impact may also diverge from UK approaches.

Still, with the proposed implementation date set for 1 January 2030, a transitional window provides space – and time – for dialogue and potential alignment.

While the UK government assesses the fine print, industry voices are likely to press for early engagement to avoid regulatory friction. If managed well, the situation could still evolve into a constructive regulatory partnership that enables innovation and access on both sides.

But Smith’s response, while diplomatic, underscored a recurring theme of constructive ambiguity that characterised much of the European Space Forum.

With no formal UK stance yet, industry remains in a holding pattern, awaiting clarity on whether the country’s agile, outcomes-based regime will be deemed sufficiently compatible.

In the meantime, the EU’s move should be seen as a positive step. It signals a firm commitment to space sustainability, safety and long-term governance – and a timely reminder that access to orbit increasingly comes with strings attached.

#         # 

Links: European Space Forum & EU Space Act

An end to Brexit's tiresome rhetoric

 

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer's ‘EU reset’ deal this week is to be welcomed as a positive and long-overdue step in the right direction.

But in its wake, the usual chorus of Brexit hardliners – Nigel Farage, Richard Tice, Kemi Badenoch and Boris Johnson – have emerged from the shadows, decrying it as a betrayal of British sovereignty.

As usual, their criticisms ring hollow and lack substance when juxtaposed with the tangible benefits and potential the deal offers compared to the stark realities and damage of Brexit's aftermath.

It’s a pragmatic step forward, marking a significant stride in mending the UK's fractured relationship with the European Union.

Key components include:

• Defence cooperation – renewed collaboration on security and defence initiatives enhances the UK's role in European stability and strengthens joint responses to global threats.
• Economic boost – the agreement is projected to add £9 billion to the UK economy by 2040, primarily through streamlined trade in agrifoods and electricity.
• Reintegration into Erasmus – British students will once again have access to the Erasmus programme, fostering educational and cultural exchange.
• Eased travel – UK travellers will benefit from faster e-gate access in EU countries, reducing airport delays.
• Energy cooperation – rejoining the EU's internal energy market could save UK consumers £37 billion annually.

Hardliners have lambasted the deal, labelling it as "rule-taking" and a “surrender of sovereignty”, desperately clinging to their failed narrative and arguments of the past.

Take fishing rights, for example. While the deal extends EU fishing access to UK waters for 12 years, it does not increase quotas or change what was previously agreed. The concession does, however, facilitate broader economic gains, including the resumption of UK shellfish exports.

And on regulatory alignment. Aligning with EU food standards reduces red tape, benefiting UK exporters and consumers alike. This is a pragmatic choice, not a capitulation, and has been widely welcomed by British businesses already.

The original Brexit vision pledged control, prosperity and a so-called return to ‘sovereignty’. But nearly a decade on the evidence tells a very different story.

Economic self-harm – since Brexit, the UK economy has haemorrhaged an estimated £100 billion a year in lost output. Business investment stalled and labour markets have been squeezed.

Export chaos – once-proud British industries, such as fishing and agriculture, were hit hardest. UK seafood exports to Europe slumped by over 25 percent, with shellfish sellers facing insurmountable trade barriers. This, despite being one of the sectors Brexit was supposedly meant to “liberate”.

Immigration irony – and those claims about controlling immigration? Reality bites hard. Net migration hit a record 728,000 in the year to June 2024 – not from the EU, but from countries further afield. The end of free movement didn’t mean fewer arrivals, just a more chaotic and costly system to manage them.

As many predicted – including this writer – the so-called 'Brexit dividend' quickly turned out to be a mirage of false promises.

And yet, the likes of Farage in his reinvented Reform party and his fellow hardliners continue to peddle the same tired slogans – blind to the economic wreckage, indifferent to the lived experience of working people and unwilling to engage with reality.

That’s why Keir Starmer’s reset deal deserves more than a cautious welcome – it deserves recognition as a long-overdue, grown-up intervention.

Refreshingly, it sets aside chest-thumping ideology in favour of cooperation, stability and mutual benefit. It restores damaged channels of trade, mobility and trust – and offers a way back towards international relevance.

Predictably, the billionaire-owned right-wing press have gone into full outrage mode. But beyond the headlines and faux fury, a quieter truth is emerging – much of the country is ready to move on.

Businesses are relieved. Students are hopeful. Travellers and exporters see a future with fewer pointless obstacles.

This deal isn’t about reversing Brexit – it’s about repairing what was broken. And if Farage and friends find that uncomfortable, it’s only because they no longer have a credible argument to make.

Their Brexit dream has failed. The rest of us are ready to refocus and look to the future.

UK voters suffer Brexit 'bregret'

A NEW poll to mark the third anniversary at the end of January 2023 of the UK leaving the EU has suggested most voters think voting for Brexit in the 2016 referendum was now a mistake. The term coined by observers to describe the change of heart is 'Bregret'.

The survey by Unherd and Focaldata asked voters across England, Scotland and Wales whether ‘Britain was wrong to leave the EU’ and in all but three of 632 constituencies, more people now agree than disagree.

As it happens, the three constituencies that are still in favour of having left – Boston & Skegness, South Holland & the Deepings, and Louth & Horncastle – are all in Lincolnshire, England’s second largest county which sprawls around the Wash.

In his recent book ‘Edge of England’ on this enigmatic area, author Derek Turner dubbed Lincolnshire ‘England’s forgotten county’. It was perhaps something of a prophetic insight and, having reviewed it for Central Bylines, it seems to me there are undoubtedly some answers lurking within its pages as to why this should be so.

Despite holding on to the number one anti-Europe spot though, the number of people in Boston & Skegness follows the survey’s national trend. Those expressing faith in Brexit have fallen from 75 percent at the time of the referendum in 2016 to 41 percent now, just four percentage points above those agreeing Britain was wrong to leave the EU.

In the past, one could say that by and large the UK was properly governed and MPs in the main were public servants. Indeed, leaving the EU was hardly in the minds of the British general public until it was elevated to the top of the political agenda by Prime Minister of the day, David Cameron at the beginning of 2016, for party political reasons.

In one way, it was a politically-naive way to silence a small but increasingly vocal anti-Europe brigade on the fringes of the Conservative party and in UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party).

But it was also a handy smokescreen for those with vested interests who felt threatened by a soon-to-be-introduced EU Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive to control offshore tax havens, including questionable tax dealings by either those holding power or those wealthy enough to influence it. 

That would certainly would help explain a lot of things because at present many MPs, though not all, particularly those serving in the current cabinet and government, look like they are there to best their own personal influence and financial self-reward.

As the UK marks the third anniversary of having left the EU, it is not Brexit per se that has done the real damage but the incompetence and ignorance of politician after jingoistic politician who have proclaimed much but delivered nothing.

Figures released today (31 January) reveal the UK is the only leading economy likely to fall into recession this year, and this even behind Russia! The IMF forecasts that the UK economy will shrink 0.6 percent in 2023 as it is weighed down by the disadvantages of having left the European single market, combined with a toxic mix of sky high energy prices, rising mortgages and higher taxes.

It all adds up to a very bleak forecast for a vacuous government without a long term plan that pinned its hopes on ‘recovery’ and it leaves Rishi Sunak, the country’s third Tory prime minister in a year, mired in the sleaze and the false rhetoric of his predecessors, particularly Boris Johnson.

In the real world away from the Palace of Westminster, one business person after another describes Brexit and the form it has taken as an unmitigated disaster for the country.

One of them, entrepreneur and business leader Deborah Meaden, who regularly features on the TV programme ‘Dragon’s Den’, says: “Brexit is definitely a factor in 99 percent of businesses that I talk to. They are suffering, they’re bewildered.”

In the 2016 vote, Brexiteers got what they wanted. But despite the extensive promises, it hasn’t heralded a new dawn or a new age of prosperity for the country. Instead Brexit is costing the UK economy a million pounds per hour; it means the UK has around £20 billion a year less available for public spending; and it has lost around 330,000 workers from the UK economy.

After more than a dozen years of Conservative-controlled majority government, the country and its economy is in very poor shape. Promises are never going to be delivered, and the lies about the benefits of Brexit told during the referendum campaign and repeated ad nauseam since, only add to the image of deceitfulness at the very heart of this hard Brexit government.

Meanwhile, the government is preparing later this year to delete thousands of laws that largely benefit the ordinary people of this country, including the right to compensation for delayed trains or flights, the right to paid annual leave, equal pay and bank holidays, parental leave and pay and pension protection when a company goes bust.

These things won’t affect the super-wealthy but they will affect everyone else. Is it really what people voted for back in 2016? Probably not, given the results of the poll discussed at the beginning of this piece.

As the latest figures show, decline for the UK is now very real and continued Brexit denial will no longer cut it. Perhaps a corner is being turned at last as people finally realise what has been foisted on them?

Brexit doesn’t necessarily need to be undone wholesale but the country does need to rejoin the single market and customs union as soon as possible.

Such a dramatic reset to the country’s political direction and agenda might only be delivered in one of two ways – a General Strike that brings down the current government, or an unscheduled General Election after a vote of no confidence in which enough MPs decide to put the country and its future first for once. 

What is certain, however, is that the UK urgently, urgently needs mature, proper politicians who will put the interests of the people they represent first and, in doing so, pave the way for the country to rebuild and prosper.

 *          *          *

Editor's note: this article is an amended version of an opinion piece written for and published by Central Bylines.