Let Us Not Continue with Brexit
Every day we wake up in the city of London and Brexit is still there. Like a bad dream from which no one escapes. A nightmare for those who voted Remain — and an increasingly bitter reality for many who supported leaving Europe. Brexit has become immovable, transformed into a tangible, unwieldy and seemingly endless monster.
For British citizens, the sense of unease has only deepened as the original exit deadline of 29 March 2019 approached. What was once framed as a clean break has evolved into prolonged uncertainty, political paralysis and economic anxiety.
The Economic Cost of Delay and Uncertainty
The European Union took its time to respond, while the United Kingdom moved forward without a clear understanding of the true cost of separation. Even before final divorce terms were agreed, the UK economy began to absorb significant losses.
According to Mark Carney, then Governor of the Bank of England, by the end of 2017 the British economy had already suffered an output loss of nearly £40 billion. Carolyn Fairbairn, Director General of the Confederation of British Industry, put it plainly: regardless of political positioning, the UK needs access to the Single Market and the Customs Union to protect its economic interests.
Overconfidence Abroad, Disillusionment at Home
Expectations of swift and favourable trade agreements with third countries have largely failed to materialise. The uncertainty surrounding the UK’s departure from the common European framework has done little to reassure international partners.
Perhaps Prime Minister Theresa May was emboldened by the most enthusiastic Brexit supporters and overestimated the UK’s negotiating position. Early encounters with the Trump administration yielded little substance. A later visit to China produced headlines not for strategic breakthroughs, but for the trivial detail that the Prime Minister and her husband drank the same tea served by President Xi Jinping.
As journalist Gary Younge observed, Britain’s imperial fantasies played no small role in delivering Brexit.
Institutional Resistance and Legislative Disorder
Back in Westminster, the House of Lords emerged as a significant institutional counterweight. The Upper Chamber rejected the EU Withdrawal Bill approved by the House of Commons, arguing that it inadequately and hastily transposed more than forty years of EU law into domestic legislation.
Baroness Taylor, Chair of the Lords’ Constitution Committee, described the Bill as “fundamentally flawed in multiple respects.” The criticism reflected a deeper concern: that Brexit legislation was being rushed without sufficient constitutional rigour, legal clarity or democratic consensus.
A Nation Unsure of Its Own Decision
Public opinion has grown weary, and even traditionally supportive media outlets began asking uncomfortable questions. Will Brexit actually happen? Is it legitimate — or even necessary — to reconsider a referendum result in light of new realities? Can a country change its mind?
In Northern Ireland, these questions carry particular weight. Barely two decades after the Good Friday Agreement, the re-emergence of a hard border threatens to destabilise a fragile peace.
Emotion Over Strategy
Emotion played a decisive role in Brexit’s rise. Nostalgia for lost global influence, amplified by slogans such as “Make Britain Great Again,” proved electorally effective. Yet it is increasingly clear that this emotional driver was not sufficiently balanced by realistic assessments of economic, legal and geopolitical consequences.
More than a year and a half after the referendum — a period in which the UK was meant to have already completed its departure — the process remains unresolved, inefficient and deeply divisive.
Brexiteers not only overestimated the ease of securing global trade deals; they also underestimated the European Union. The EU has set firm conditions and shows little inclination to make departure painless — perhaps hoping that the UK will ultimately reconsider.
An Exhausted Public and a Lingering Question
Months pass. The House of Lords continues scrutinising the “Great Repeal Bill,” with pro-European peers — who form the majority — tabling amendment after amendment. Each one highlights how disordered and legally fragile the exit process has become.
Public fatigue is palpable. In this context, the publication of Nick Clegg’s book How to Stop Brexit (And Make Britain Great Again) feels less provocative than timely.