Tuesday, June 23, 2026

Ten Years After Brexit, Britain Is Better Off

By John Gustavsson

Tuesday, June 23, 2026

 

On June 23, 2016, the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. A shell-shocked David Cameron announced his resignation as prime minister the following morning. Today, ten years later, the mood in Britain is pessimistic, and more and more policymakers now voice support for rejoining. Even with the current political turmoil over Keir Starmer’s exit, on this anniversary, I would like to make two bold claims: Brexit has paid off — and Britain will never rejoin the EU.

 

At its core, Brexit gave Britain back sovereignty that it had ceded to Brussels. But ten years on, what neither supporters nor opponents of Brexit care to admit is how little Brexit has really changed. Britain has not become the “Singapore-On-Thames,”  and the sunlit uplands promised by Brexit proponents turned out to be cloudy.

 

At the same time, trade with both the EU and the rest of the world is tugging along just fine, very much contrary to predictions at the time. Britain was never forced to go to the “back of the queue” as Barack Obama famously threatened; trade deals were instead rolled over smoothly with all but three countries with which the EU had previous agreements. There have also been new trade deals, but the overall makeup of destination countries of British exports and imports have barely budged. British growth is slow, but no slower than other major European economies.

 

But while there are a great number of examples of how Britain could and should have made better use of its new sovereignty, this should not deflect from the very real gains.

 

The first such gain took place during the Covid pandemic. Britain’s vaccine rollout was the envy of the world, with Brits getting shots while the EU was still bickering internally on how to distribute the limited supply of vaccines fairly between the member states. Even EU-friendly voices conceded that Brexit had given Britain a degree of flexibility no member state had. Had Britain been part of the EU, thousands more Brits would have surely died.

 

While London remains enthralled by environmentalism to much the same degree as Brussels, Brexit enabled reform of agricultural subsidies. Whereas the Common Agricultural Policy of the EU pays farmers based not chiefly on outcomes but on land ownership, Britain’s replacement has a stronger emphasis on outcomes, and it also has the state take on a greater share of the costs of the climate transition.

 

One of the greatest Brexit benefits is only now beginning to be realized: Thanks to Brexit, Britain is free to pursue its own AI strategy. While Britain shares the EU’s tendency to indulge in overregulation of AI, London has wisely refused to follow Brussels’s lead. While EU leaders are bragging about implementing the first AI regulatory framework, Britain is moving more cautiously, rejecting the EU’s top-down, preemptive regulation approach for a more business-friendly direction with real input from the private sector and legislation on a case-by-case basis.

 

Britain is also taking an explicitly pro-development position on data centers, which have been designated as critical national infrastructure. Criticism of data centers, so prevalent both in the U.S. and the EU, has been effectively shut down in Britain. While high energy prices will stifle AI’s potential in Britain, its relatively lighter regulatory touch at least gives the industry a fighting chance.

 

This is not limited to AI, but also true for the service sector more broadly: While trade in goods has fallen since Brexit, this has been compensated for by a boom in services. This is particularly true in the realm of financial services; despite warnings to the contrary, London remains the undisputed seat of European banking and finance post-Brexit.

 

Yet overall, Brexit has most certainly fallen short of voters’ expectations (not least on immigration). But does that mean Britain is destined to rejoin? Not at all. Britain is staying out.

 

This is not mainly because doing so would mean losing the above-mentioned Brexit benefits. Rather, it is because on Brexit, there is truly no going back: As an EU member, Britain enjoyed exceptionally favorable membership terms, including a substantial rebate on its annual membership fee courtesy of Margaret Thatcher. Britain also had opt-outs on matters including the border checkpoint–free Schengen area and the euro.

 

Polling has for years indicated that at least a strong plurality of British voters would like to rejoin. A poll from earlier this month showed 55 percent support for rejoining. Yet when asked whether they would support rejoining the EU if it meant accepting the same membership terms as other countries, that same poll indicated only 35 percent of Brits would rejoin.

 

Is there then no chance that the EU could offer the same terms, to once again enjoy the pleasure of Britain’s company? Definitely not. It is an open secret in Brussels that Britain is not exactly missed. Brexit created a power vacuum that was quickly filled by the other major European countries, and while they would not stop Britain from rejoining on equal terms, they would not bend over backward since British reentry would mean them losing political influence. This is also the view held by the public across the largest EU countries — France, Germany, Italy, and Spain — where a poll last year indicated only a third of voters would support letting Britain back in with the opt-outs it enjoyed (and the poll didn’t even ask about the rebate!).

 

During its almost half a century as a member, Britain was a persistent thorn in the side of Eurofederalists, frequently joining with smaller countries like the Nordics to block or slow political centralization. With the British gone, the French and Germans are able to run the show in a way they never could before.

 

The final reason why rejoining is a nonstarter is practical: Brexit was a messy process that took down two prime ministers. Rejoining would be at least as messy. Whoever would be prime minister at the time would not be asked about anything else, and no matter what he or she wanted to talk about, journalists would bring the discussion back to the reentry process: How are negotiations going? Are we getting any opt-outs? How are we going to convince this or that country to let us back in (like NATO, the EU requires unanimity to admit new members)?

 

Theresa May, who succeeded David Cameron, is today only remembered for her ultimately unsuccessful negotiations concerning Britain’s withdrawal from the EU after the Brexit vote. She accomplished little else as PM due to Brexit occupying everyone’s attention and the situation demanding her to spend all her political capital on passing an exit deal (in vain, as it would turn out — a revised deal was finally agreed to under her successor, Boris Johnson). Even pro-European British policymakers will look at what she went through and shudder at the thought of the same thing happening to them.

 

On the ten-year anniversary of the Brexit vote, many Brits may be tempted to look back at Brussels with the wistful glance of Lot’s wife. Yet, a decade after taking back control, Brits should also remember what they’ve gained: Unlike ten years ago, the buck now stops only at 10 Downing Street. While Britain has a lot of work to do, it has no reason to regret reclaiming its independence.

No comments: