Indian Millennial: Brexit Impact on UK's Economic, Social and Legal systems

The sources provide a comprehensive analysis of the initial economic consensus regarding Brexit and offer a reality check, primarily using GDP and related metrics, nine years after the referendum.

The Economic Consensus on Brexit

The broad consensus among economists since the referendum announcement in 2012 was that leaving the EU would damage the economy. Economists specifically believed that flows related to trade, investment, and migration would be lower if the UK withdrew.

Based on evidence available nine years later, the sources conclude that this consensus view—that Brexit’s economic impact would be negative and large—has been borne out. The consensus was broadly correct.

GDP Forecasts: The OBR Benchmark

Central to the long-term forecast consensus was the analysis conducted by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR).

OBR Forecast: The OBR's view was that EU withdrawal would lead to a reduction in productivity, and consequently GDP, of about 4 per cent compared to a scenario where the UK remained in the EU. This figure represents an average of long-term forecasts created by reputable academic and official institutions.
Range of Estimates: The underlying long-term forecasts used methods that produced a wide range of estimated effects on productivity, spanning from a 1.8 per cent loss to a 10 per cent loss. Models that assumed trade barriers would disproportionately affect bigger, more productive companies (increasing returns to scale/dynamic productivity) tended to find larger impacts.
Nature of Forecasting: While short-run forecasts (like the Treasury’s 2016 prediction of a recession) proved incorrect, the long-run conditional forecasts are considered more reliable. These models do not predict the exact path of GDP but rather calculate the difference between two steady states (Brexit versus no Brexit), based on observed relationships, such as between openness to trade and GDP.

Reality Check: Backward-Looking Methods on GDP

Since Brexit involves isolating the UK’s economic path from a hypothetical "what-if" Remain path, researchers rely on backward-looking methods to estimate the impact on GDP. The sources compare two main approaches:

Comparison Method	Result and Conclusion
Naive Comparison (G7, France, Germany)	Comparing the UK to France, Germany, or the average of the G7 suggests no effect of Brexit on GDP whatsoever. This is due to those countries also experiencing weak growth after 2016. However, this method is insufficient because these countries are not truly identical control groups.
Synthetic Control (Doppelgänger Method)	This sophisticated method uses an algorithm to create a composite ‘doppelgänger UK’ from a basket of economies whose pre-2016 GDP growth matched Britain’s most closely. Comparing the UK to this control group showed a significant gap of 5 per cent had emerged by the middle of 2022.

The 5 per cent shortfall found using the synthetic control method is not far from the 4 per cent average determined by the long-term forecasts. This backward-looking method supports the consensus of the long-run forecasts.

Overall, the effect of Brexit on GDP is described as being "more like a slow puncture than a blow-out" because other factors like technological progress and employment growth continue to push GDP up.

Systemic and Financial Implications of Lost GDP

If the OBR’s 4 per cent loss of productivity is taken as the true figure, the resulting costs are substantial and permanent.

Household Cost: A 4 per cent hit to productivity equates to a loss of approximately £4,000 per household in the UK, based on 2024 prices.
Tax Revenue Loss: The foregone output results in lost tax revenue of about £40 billion. Crucially, the sources note that £40 billion of the approximately £100 billion in tax rises implemented during the 2019-2024 parliament were needed specifically because of EU withdrawal.

Supporting Evidence: Investment Stagnation

The stagnation of investment strongly reinforces the conclusion that Brexit had a major macroeconomic effect on productivity and GDP.

Investment Strike: Business investment stagnated between 2016 and 2022, following a strong recovery after the financial crisis. This stagnation is a key piece of evidence that "belies the notion that Brexit had a small effect on productivity and GDP".
Quantified Loss: Methods used to quantify this gap show an investment shortfall of around 10 per cent as a result of Brexit. This business investment strike alone reduced GDP by at least 1.3 per cent.
International Comparison: Unlike the UK, business investment has been growing in all other G7 countries since 2016. This flat curve in the UK is worrying for the future because investment drives the capacity for economies to grow.

In essence, the economic consensus predicted a substantial economic drag, and the reality check—particularly when using sophisticated comparisons like the doppelgänger method—indicates that the predicted loss of GDP (around 4–5%) has materialized.

Analogy: The consensus on GDP and the subsequent reality check can be viewed like a doctor predicting that a patient (the UK economy) will lose a certain percentage of mobility over the next decade due to a chronic condition (Brexit). Simple measurement (comparing the patient to two other generally unwell people) might suggest the prediction was wrong. However, using a sophisticated control group (the doppelgänger method) representing the patient's expected healthy trajectory confirms that the predicted mobility loss (the 4-5% GDP shortfall) has indeed occurred, reinforced by clear secondary symptoms like the stagnation of investment.

The sources offer a detailed examination of the impact of Brexit on UK trade, contrasting initial forecasts (gravity models) with empirical results (backward-looking methods), and distinguishing between goods trade and services trade. The overall finding is that the long-run consensus predicting a significant negative impact on trade has been largely supported by the evidence nine years later.

1. The Consensus Forecast (Gravity Models)

The initial economic consensus, derived from long-run models, primarily relied on "gravity models" to predict the effect of leaving the EU.

Prediction: These models accounted for factors like economy size, wealth, and distance, concluding that EU countries trade much more with each other than the model would otherwise predict. Consequently, replacing EU membership with a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) was expected to lead to a loss of about 15 per cent in Britain’s worldwide goods exports and imports. The estimated effect on services trade was similar.
Rationale: Gravity models supported the idea that the EU’s Single Market is a deeper form of economic integration than a standard FTA because it removes many more barriers to trade, investment, and migration. These predicted trade impacts were the main driver of the forecasted 4 per cent loss in productivity and GDP.

2. Reality Check on Goods Trade

Empirical data on goods trade since the end of the transition period in 2021 suggests a significant negative impact, generally aligning with the consensus forecast, though methods yield varied results.

A. Synthetic Control Method (Doppelgänger Method)

Applying the synthetic control method to UK goods trade performance prior to leaving the Single Market reveals a large shortfall:

The UK’s shortfall in goods exports compared to its synthetic control was 15 per cent.
The shortfall in imports was 13 per cent.
These figures are around the same as the gravity models predicted.
The UK's goods trade slumped to near the bottom of the G7 league after leaving the Single Market and Customs Union in 2021, despite an inflationary surge in trade among other advanced economies during that period.

B. Firm-Level Analysis (LSE Research) and the Paradox

Research focusing on firm-level data offered a surprising, smaller initial estimate, leading to a paradox:

Small Effects Finding: Economists at the London School of Economics (LSE) found relatively small effects, with total exports (to both the EU and the rest of the world) 6.4 per cent lower and imports 3.1 per cent lower by the end of 2022.
Small vs. Large Firms: The LSE study suggested that smaller businesses were more affected by trade barriers, implying that bigger companies could more easily afford the red tape associated with exporting and importing from the EU.
The Paradox: It is a paradox that Britain’s goods trade performance has been so markedly worse compared to other advanced economies, yet the LSE analysis found only a small shortfall between trade with the EU versus trade with the rest of the world.

C. Explaining the Discrepancy (Systemic Trade Deterioration)

Several theories attempt to explain why UK goods trade has weakened globally, not just with the EU:

Supply Chain Disruption: Interruptions to imports from the EU could affect exports to the rest of the world.
Intra-EU Trade Boom: Outside Britain, European goods trade recovered more rapidly from the pandemic than trade between European countries and those outside Europe, especially in consumer goods like cars and appliances. The UK did not participate in this trade boom in European goods, suggesting Brexit could be the cause. Intra-EU exports grew much faster than those to the rest of the world over the course of 2021 and 2022.
Worse Place for Trading Business: A broader explanation is that the UK has become a worse place to be a trading business. Multinationals may wind down production in Britain irrespective of the final market destination, due to the higher costs of trading with the EU.

3. Impact on Key Goods Sector (Automotive)

The poor performance of high-productivity sectors supports the larger impact models (increasing returns to scale):

Automotive Decline: The UK’s automotive sector has seen the biggest drop in its share of total goods exports compared to peer economies since 2019. This aligns with a decline in investment in car production, as the UK became less attractive as a production site for all markets, not just Europe.

4. Reality Check on Services Trade

Initially, UK services exports appeared to contradict the gravity models, showing strong growth since Brexit. However, a closer look reveals underperformance in specific sectors.

Overall Growth Context: Services trade has shown robust growth across rich countries globally, and the UK, being services-dominated, benefited from this rising tide.
Underperforming Sectors: When accounting for rising global demand, two key sectors performed poorly compared to the average of other advanced economies since 2020 (when the Single Market exit took effect):
- Financial Services: Growth in this sector has been weaker in the UK than elsewhere, partly because many UK-based companies opened operations in the EU to comply with its rules on location.
- Transport Services: Exports in this category are well down on other advanced economies, likely due to the hit to Britain’s goods trade with the EU and the inability of British lorry drivers to do ‘cabotage’ (moving goods between member-states) within the EU.
Quantified Services Loss: If UK exports in financial and transport services had grown in line with the global average of advanced economies, Britain’s ** total services exports would have been 11 per cent higher**. This result is close to the 15 per cent gap forecast by the gravity models.

5. Trade Agreements Outside Europe

Leave campaigners advocated that Brexit would free the UK to sign FTAs with fast-growing non-EU countries. However, the economic benefits of these new agreements are minimal:

Small Benefits: The new FTAs signed so far (including Australia, New Zealand, and CPTPP) will only raise GDP by about 0.2 per cent in the long run, according to government forecasts.
US Deal: Even a full FTA with the US, eliminating most tariffs, would only raise GDP by a further 0.15 per cent (for a total of about 0.35 per cent).
Rationale for Small Impact: These benefits are small because the countries are far away, and FTAs are “shallower” than the Single Market, dealing mostly with tariffs rather than non-tariff barriers like regulatory differences.
Inadequacy for Loss Offset: Even signing FTAs with almost all non-EU countries would less than halve the trade losses resulting from Brexit.

The conclusion from the trade analysis is that the consensus forecast of a large, negative trade impact was borne out. The loss of the Single Market—a deeper form of integration than any standard FTA—has created bureaucracy and non-tariff barriers that curtailed trade, supporting the models that predicted substantial losses in both goods and services.

The sources highlight that the impact of Brexit on investment was both anticipated by economists and confirmed by the data nine years later, representing a key systemic failure point in the UK economy.

1. The Initial Consensus and OBR Forecast

The broad consensus among economists, even before the referendum, was that leaving the EU would lead to lower investment flows in the UK. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) view on the economic impact of EU withdrawal included a sizeable impact on investment.

2. Investment Stagnation: The Reality Check

The most striking evidence of Brexit's negative macroeconomic effect on the UK is the unambiguous stagnation in investment since 2016.

Flatlining Trend: Business investment in the UK flatlined between 2016 and the 2020 pandemic, after having recovered strongly from the financial crisis. This stagnation is highly significant, as it "belies the notion that Brexit had a small effect on productivity and GDP".
International Comparison: Unlike the UK, business investment has been growing in all other G7 countries since 2016. For a long time, business investment in the UK had been an upward curve, but since the 2016 Brexit vote, that upward curve became flat.
Worrying Implication: This flat curve is particularly worrying for the future of the UK economy because investment drives the capital and the ability for economies to grow.

3. Quantification of the Investment Shortfall

Researchers have quantified the scale of this investment shortfall using two different methods:

Synthetic Control (Doppelgänger Method): Comparing whole-economy investment (gross fixed capital formation by businesses, government, and households) to a synthetic control group (composed of countries whose pre-2016 investment growth most closely matched the UK's) reveals a gap of about 10 per cent.
Trend Comparison: Separately, research comparing business investment alone to the 1997-2016 trend found an almost identical gap that opened up by 2019 and was maintained through the pandemic period.

Both methods show a shortfall of around 10 per cent as a result of Brexit.

4. Economic Consequences of the Investment Strike

The stagnation of investment has had measurable negative consequences for the overall economy:

GDP Loss: This "business investment strike" alone reduced GDP by at least 1.3 per cent by 2022, according to estimates that use standard capital accounting techniques. This calculation excludes further losses resulting from trade barriers, weaker household and government investment, or reduced consumption growth due to higher import prices after the 2016 depreciation of sterling.
Forward-Looking Investors: The drop was immediate, confirming that investors are forward-looking. Global investors anticipated that British assets would generate lower returns in the future, which led to a 15 per cent depreciation of sterling immediately after the vote and depressed investment. Uncertainty over future trade barriers transitioned into the certainty that the UK would leave the Single Market and Customs Union, further cementing the decision to pause investment.
Impact on High-Productivity Sectors: The decline in investment is particularly evident in high-productivity sectors like automotive. Investment in car production fell after 2016, making the UK a less attractive production site for all markets.

5. Uncertainty and Devaluation

The sources identify uncertainty and currency devaluation as key mechanisms through which Brexit immediately impacted investment:

Uncertainty: The uncertainty surrounding the transition to new trade barriers depressed spending. Businesses delayed investments due to the uncertainty surrounding Brexit, which resulted in lower business confidence and reduced job creation.
Pound Devaluation: The immediate drop in the value of the pound sterling to its lowest level since 1985 against the US dollar meant the value of British assets was written down by global investors. This devaluation was expected to raise export prices, but the actual export performance remained poor.

The stagnation of investment stands as a critical piece of backward-looking evidence that strongly supports the original consensus that Brexit would cause significant economic damage.

The impact on investment is like a country deciding to stop maintaining its infrastructure and factories: while the existing economy keeps running, the ability to upgrade and expand future output is severely curtailed, leading to long-term decline relative to competitors who continue to invest.

The sources confirm that the impact of Brexit on migration and the UK labor market was a central component of the economic consensus, and the subsequent systemic effects have been complex, involving the loss of EU workers and a compensatory surge in non-EU migration.

1. The Initial Consensus and Mechanism of Impact

The broad consensus among economists was that leaving the EU would lead to lower migration flows. These flows were expected to be lower because the UK was a popular destination for European migrants, especially after Central and Eastern European countries joined the EU in 2004.

The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) specifically forecast that the end of free movement would result in a loss of GDP stemming from lower net migration. However, the OBR's 2020 forecast determined that the impact of the end of free movement on the economy would be smaller than the impact of new trade barriers upon leaving the Single Market.

The end of free movement was the largest divergence from EU rules the UK was a popular destination for European migrants, especially after Central and Eastern European countries joined the EU in 2004.

The end of free movement was the largest divergence from EU rules enacted by the UK.

2. Migration Flow Reality Check

The actual migration pattern after Brexit has been characterized by a sharp shift in source countries:

EU Migration Fell: Net migration from the EU turned negative. The number of EU nationals working in the UK has decreased by around 500,000 since the 2016 referendum.
Non-EU Migration Soared: In contrast, migration from the rest of the world (RoW) soared. Overall net migration reached a peak of 900,000 in 2023, before falling back to about half that level by the end of 2024.

The surge in RoW migration helped to offset the losses of GDP and tax revenues from the end of free movement, although the precise offset is impossible to calculate.

3. Impact on the Labor Market and Specific Sectors

The withdrawal of the UK from the EU resulted in a significant disruption to the labor market, particularly due to the shortage of EU workers.

Recruitment Crisis: The UK has faced a recruitment crisis in sectors that previously relied heavily on the free movement of EU labor. These affected areas include:
- Construction
- Hospitality
- Social care
- Agriculture (soft fruit growing)
Adjustment Period: The end of free movement is reshaping the economy. For industries like hospitality and construction, this created a painful period of adjustment because they were predicated on the availability of free movement.
Decreased Productivity: The decrease in EU nationals has led to a decrease in economic productivity, as employers incurred higher costs and time recruiting and training new workers.

4. The New Immigration Regime and Policy Outcomes

The new post-Brexit immigration system, which came into effect in 2021, applies the same rules to people from all countries.

Liberal Regime: The Johnson government initially chose a relatively liberal regime for non-EU immigrants, which included setting salary thresholds for work visas at a low level (around £25,000, and even lower for NHS and social care workers).
Offsetting Losses: Concerns over labor shortages following the end of free movement may have prompted the government to adopt these relatively liberal rules, which helped to offset most of the anticipated losses of GDP and tax revenues.
Increased Bureaucracy/Cost for Employers: The new system requires employers to apply for a sponsor license to recruit non-EU nationals, making it more difficult and expensive. Additionally, the minimum salary threshold, while initially low, restricts the number of non-EU workers employers can recruit.

The government's claim that cutting off the supply of "cheap European Union labour" would force companies to invest in machinery to enhance productivity and lead to a "high-skilled, high-wage economy" was considered problematic at the time and remains so.

5. Fiscal and Macroeconomic Implications

Immigration, especially from the EU, was known to be a fiscal benefit to the UK:

Fiscal Gain: EU migrants were, on average, a net fiscal gain to the Treasury over their lifetime, primarily because they had high employment rates and paid more in taxes than they received in benefits.
Wages and Productivity: While some studies suggest high rates of less-skilled worker immigration might reduce wages in some sectors, this effect is generally considered small and overwhelmed by productivity improvements. Immigration is also linked to raising productivity by bringing in knowledge, capital, and technology.
Small Overall Impact: The macroeconomic impact of the end of free movement has been smaller than the OBR initially thought, and potentially even slightly positive, due to the government's liberal approach to non-EU migration. This confirms the OBR’s original assessment that the predicted migration losses were significantly smaller than the impact of trade barriers on the economy.

In summary, while the initial consensus predicted negative economic impacts due to lower migration flows, the subsequent political choice to adopt a liberal RoW migration regime dramatically altered the outcome. This resulted in a compositional shift (away from EU to RoW migrants) and a labor market shock concentrated in specific sectors, but the overall expected negative macroeconomic effect was minimized by the compensatory surge in non-EU migration.

The impact of Brexit on migration is like draining one source of water (the EU) from a country's reservoir (the labor pool). To prevent a crisis, the government quickly built new pipes to draw water from other, more distant sources (the rest of the world). While the reservoir may still be full, the type of water changed, and industries that relied exclusively on the easily accessible EU source now face higher plumbing costs and new logistical challenges.

The sources address the two primary economic arguments advanced by Leave campaigners—the opportunity for independent free trade agreements (FTAs) outside Europe and the benefit of regulatory autonomy—and conclude that neither has substantially offset the costs of leaving the European Union's Single Market.

1. The Impact of Independent Trade Agreements

A central promise of the Leave campaign was that Brexit would free the UK to become a champion of global free trade, negotiating beneficial FTAs with fast-growing countries outside Europe.

Reality Check on New FTAs

Small Economic Benefits: According to government forecasts, the new FTAs signed by the UK so far—including those with Australia, New Zealand, and accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP)—will only raise GDP by about 0.2 per cent in the long run.
Marginal Positives: Some sources describe the economic impact of deals, such as with New Zealand or Australia, as "very, very marginally positive".
US Deal Limitations: Even if the UK were to sign a full FTA with the US, eliminating most tariffs, government forecasts suggest GDP would only rise by a further 0.15 per cent (for a total of about 0.35 per cent). A damage-limitation deal agreed in May 2025 left a 10 per cent tariff on UK exports to the US, further limiting potential gains.
Offsetting Losses: The calculated economic gain from new FTAs is extremely small compared to the estimated economic loss from Brexit. For instance, the trade deal with Australia is estimated to gain 0.08% of GDP, compared to the estimated loss of 4% of GDP because of Brexit.
Nature of FTAs: The benefits of these agreements are small primarily because the countries are geographically far away from Britain. Furthermore, FTAs are considered "shallower" than the Single Market. They primarily deal with eliminating tariffs, but not the more complex non-tariff barriers like regulatory differences, which are crucial for integration.
Inadequate Offset: One study using a sophisticated gravity model estimates that even signing FTAs with almost all non-EU countries would less than halve the trade losses resulting from Brexit.

Replication of EU Deals

The UK government replicated the EU trade agreements it had as a member-state with other countries before leaving the Single Market and Customs Union, which was noted as a "significant achievement" but does not count as a "Brexit win".

2. The Impact of Regulatory Autonomy

The other core economic justification for leaving the EU was the benefit of regulatory autonomy—the freedom to regulate British industries as the government saw fit, potentially leading to more productivity-enhancing or bespoke rules.

Challenges in Quantifying Gains

Difficulty of Assessment: Quantifying the beneficial effects of sovereign regulation is "fraught with difficulty". It is hard to assess whether a new rule is good or bad for the economy, and impossible to accurately estimate the effects of hundreds of new rules made each year.
Uncertain Gains: While the UK may choose rules that are more productivity-enhancing than the EU (e.g., fewer restrictions on personal data use for AI development, or potentially allowing more genetically modified organisms in agriculture), the benefits are currently impossible to forecast accurately.
Controversial Choices: Public support is not guaranteed for a completely laissez-faire approach, particularly concerning standards in areas like animal husbandry (e.g., using hormones and antibiotics).

The Costs of Regulatory Divergence

The potential gains from autonomy must be set against the costs of divergence from EU rules and standards.

Trade Barriers and Dual Production: Divergence means that British companies selling into the EU market often have to supply two sets of products—one meeting UK standards and one meeting EU standards—which adds to their production costs. The EU also maintains the power to curb market access if the UK slashes environmental or other red tape.
Sector-Specific Costs: The chemical industry provides a clear example: it spent £500 million registering chemicals in the EU (gaining access to 28 markets) but is now estimated to spend £2 billion to re-register those chemicals for a separate UK register, creating extra costs and bureaucracy.
Slower Approvals: Being smaller than the US and EU, the UK market is less attractive for multinational pharmaceutical companies, leading the UK to be slower to approve new drugs since Brexit.
The Tug of EU Gravity: The central principle of the Single Market—common EU regulation to expand trade—means that the UK faces the "tug of EU gravity" in regulation as much as in trade.

Alignment Over Autonomy

Post-Brexit, the UK has demonstrated a systemic trend toward alignment rather than major divergence:

Slowing Divergence: The rate of UK divergence from EU rules has slowed down.
Government Choices: Both the previous Conservative government and the new Labour government have chosen to continue to align with EU regulation in many areas. The current government has chosen to align with new EU rules in two cases and delay new regulations that would create divergence.
Future Reintegration: Keir Starmer’s new government is pursuing a deeper Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the EU, involving potential dynamic alignment with new EU rules in areas like agriculture, food, and energy. This would entail the UK sacrificing regulatory autonomy for lower trade barriers.

In conclusion, the sources indicate that the promise of economic benefits derived from signing new FTAs and gaining regulatory autonomy has failed to materialize on a scale large enough to offset the predicted and observed economic damage caused by losing access to the deep integration of the EU Single Market.

The sources detail the profound legal transformation and significant geopolitical shifts experienced by the UK following Brexit, analyzing these systemic impacts within the broader context of economic disruption.

Legal and Constitutional Effects

The withdrawal from the EU fundamentally altered the UK's legal system, primarily through the end of the supremacy of EU law and the establishment of new national regulatory frameworks.

1. End of EU Law Jurisdiction and Supremacy

The most immediate legal impact of Brexit was the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972, which had served as the primary legal basis for the UK’s EU membership.

Sovereignty Regained: The UK is no longer bound by EU laws or subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), which previously held the power to overrule domestic UK laws. The UK Supreme Court is now the highest court in the land, resolving legal disputes according to UK law only.
Legal Uncertainty: This shift has caused a significant increase in legal uncertainty, as the UK no longer has access to the expertise and guidance of the ECJ.
Grandfathering: The UK government introduced the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2020 to ensure a smooth transition, which provided for the 'grandfathering' of existing EU law into UK law. This means existing EU law remains in place until the UK government decides to repeal or amend it.

2. Regulatory Autonomy and Divergence

The policy question of Brexit was whether policy autonomy could make up for the loss of the single market established by EU laws. The legal freedom to diverge from EU rules came with economic costs, leading to a trend toward alignment:

Costs of Divergence: Regulatory divergence means that British companies selling into the EU market must often supply two sets of products to meet both UK and EU standards, adding to their production costs. The chemical industry, for example, is estimated to spend £2 billion to re-register chemicals for a separate UK register, duplicating the previous EU regime.
Constraints on Autonomy: The EU maintains the power to curb market access if the UK drastically reduces environmental or other red tape. The UK-EU Free Trade Agreement (FTA) also prevents Britain from going too far in that direction.
Alignment Trend: The rate of UK divergence from EU rules has slowed down. Both the previous Conservative government and the new Labour government have chosen to continue to align with EU regulation in many areas.
Future Reintegration: Efforts to deepen the FTA with the EU, such as pursuing dynamic alignment with new EU rules in areas like agriculture, food, and energy, would require the UK to sacrifice regulatory autonomy for lower trade barriers.

3. Sectoral Legal Changes

New laws have been enacted to replace EU-based systems:

Migration Law: The Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 replaces existing EU law on free movement with a new UK immigration system. Employers now face new restrictions and costs when hiring EU citizens, and must apply for a sponsor license to recruit non-EU nationals, making the process more difficult and expensive.
Trade Laws: As the UK is no longer part of the single market, UK businesses may face increased tariffs and other trade barriers when trading with EU countries.

Geopolitical and International Effects

Brexit significantly reshaped the UK's global standing, security relationships, and international reputation, creating new geopolitical challenges.

1. Strained Relationship with the EU

The immediate and most visible impact on international relations was the strained relationship with the EU.

Renegotiation Complexity: Leaving the union necessitated a complicated and drawn-out renegotiation of the relationship with the 27 member countries to secure a trade deal, leading to increased tensions.
EU Perspective: EU officials expressed a range of opinions, including regret (French President Francois Hollande, German Chancellor Angela Merkel) and the hope that the EU would remain determined and united (European Council President Donald Tusk). Some viewed it as an opportunity to "re-energize" the EU project (European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker).

2. Trade Negotiation Power and Global Standing

The UK’s ability to act independently in trade was highlighted as both a benefit and a challenge:

Trade Deal Competition: The UK has had to negotiate its own trade deals. This has been difficult because the UK has had to compete with the larger, more powerful EU to secure favorable terms, sometimes requiring the UK to compromise on certain issues.
Minimal Economic Gains: While the UK has signed new FTAs (Australia, New Zealand, CPTPP), the economic gains are forecast to be tiny, only offsetting the 4 per cent Brexit loss by about 0.2 per cent. This confirms the limits of Britain's newfound trade autonomy.
Tarnished Reputation: The UK’s decision to leave the EU has met with criticism from other countries and international organizations, leading to some questioning the UK’s commitment to international cooperation. This has tarnished the UK’s reputation as a reliable partner, resulting in a decrease in its influence and status on the world stage.

3. Security and Defense

Brexit also required the UK to find alternative methods for ensuring its security and defense.

Strengthened Alliances: The UK has strengthened its ties with other countries, such as the United States and NATO, and increased cooperation with non-EU countries, such as Turkey and Japan.

4. Internal Political Divisions

Geopolitically, Brexit exacerbated internal divisions within the UK:

Four Nations Divide: The decision caused tensions between the UK’s four nations, as England and Wales primarily voted to leave, while Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain.

The sources conclude that while Brexit fulfilled its core constitutional goal of ending the jurisdiction of EU law and regaining sovereign control over law-making (legal system) and trade policy (geopolitical system), these freedoms have not yielded significant economic gains. Instead, they introduced new costs, bureaucracy, and complexities in the pursuit of external trade deals and regulatory divergence.

The sources, which perform a "Brexit audit" nine years after the referendum, arrive at a clear and consistent overall conclusion: the initial broad consensus among economists that Brexit would have a negative and large economic impact has been borne out by the evidence.

This conclusion is founded on both the validation of long-run economic forecasts and the measurable systemic impacts observed across key economic indicators, even if some initial short-run predictions (like an immediate recession) were incorrect.

1. The Validation of the Economic Consensus

The sources affirm that the long-run conditional forecasts, particularly those averaged by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), were broadly correct.

Negative and Large Impact: The consensus view was that Brexit’s economic impact would be negative and large.
Key Drivers Confirmed: Economists believed that flows related to trade, investment, and migration would be lower if the UK left the EU. The audit confirms that GDP, trade flows, and investment have all been curtailed by barriers to trade with the EU.
Quantified Loss (GDP): The OBR’s long-term forecast predicted a 4 per cent reduction in productivity and GDP compared to a Remain scenario. Backward-looking methods, specifically the synthetic control or 'doppelgänger' method, found that a 5 per cent shortfall in GDP had emerged by mid-2022, which is not far from the average of the long-term forecasts.
Permanent Costs: The sources stress that the costs of Brexit are likely to be permanent, with the economy expected to remain 4 per cent smaller into the future.

2. Evidence from Key Systemic Impacts

The audit summary draws confidence from specific data points across different sectors that consistently point to significant, negative systemic effects:

Investment Strike: The unambiguous stagnation in investment between 2016 and 2022 "belies the notion that Brexit had a small effect on productivity and GDP". This stagnation resulted in a shortfall of around 10 per cent and reduced GDP by at least 1.3 per cent. Business investment has been growing in all other G7 countries since 2016, but not in the UK.
Trade Deterioration: The "gravity models" predicted a 15 per cent reduction in worldwide goods exports and imports. The synthetic control method confirmed an impact of a similar size on goods trade (15 per cent shortfall in exports, 13 per cent in imports). Even services exports, which grew strongly overall, showed that key sectors like financial and transport services underperformed relative to the global average, resulting in an estimated 11 per cent shortfall if they had performed in line with peers.
Trade Agreements Inadequate: The economic benefits of signing new Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) outside Europe are very small, forecast to raise GDP by only 0.2 per cent in the long run. This is because FTAs are "shallower" than the Single Market, and the UK’s geographic distance from these countries limits the trade gains. These gains are wholly insufficient to make up for the 4 per cent loss from Brexit.

3. Mitigation and Unmet Promises

The sources acknowledge two areas where the negative impact was either less severe than some predictions or difficult to quantify, but ultimately conclude these factors do not change the overall negative assessment:

Migration Offset: The end of free movement was less costly than predicted because the government initially chose a relatively liberal regime for non-EU immigration, which helped to offset most of the anticipated losses of GDP and tax revenues. However, the OBR's 2020 forecast determined that the expected losses from trade barriers were significantly smaller than the impact of trade barriers in any case.
Regulatory Autonomy Ambiguity: The benefits of regulatory autonomy—the other main economic argument of Leave campaigners—are hard to quantify and must be set against the trade losses stemming from divergence from EU rules. The need to supply two sets of products (one for the UK and one for the EU) adds to costs, and the UK government, seeking lower trade barriers, has generally chosen to continue to align with EU regulation in many areas.

4. Fiscal and Political Consequences

The economic damage is translated directly into tangible costs for the public finances and households:

Household Cost: The OBR's estimated 4 per cent hit to productivity equates to a loss of around £4,000 per household in the UK (at 2024 prices).
Tax Rises: Taking the 4 per cent loss as the true figure, approximately £40 billion of the £100 billion in tax rises implemented during the 2019–2024 parliament were necessary because of EU withdrawal.

In conclusion, the audit finds that economic models have been supported by real-world data showing substantial and permanent losses across the economy, driven by the new trade barriers resulting from exiting the Single Market and Customs Union. Future attempts by the UK to significantly offset or eliminate these permanent costs would require reintegration with the European economy.

Famous quotes

Saturday, November 15, 2025

Brexit Impact on UK's Economic, Social and Legal systems