Ten Years After Brexit: Sovereignty, Identity and the Unfinished British Question

The Referendum That Never Ended

By Arthur Mwenkanya Katabalwa.

There are political moments that conclude when the votes are counted and governments are formed. Then there are political moments that become permanent features of national life.

Brexit belongs firmly in the second category.

Nearly ten years after the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union in the referendum of 23 June 2016, the event continues to shape British politics, economics, identity and foreign policy in ways few anticipated. Prime ministers have risen and fallen under its shadow. Political coalitions have fractured and reassembled. Old assumptions about Britain’s place in the world have been challenged.

The recent resignation of Sir Keir Starmer as Prime Minister has reopened deeper questions about the post-Brexit settlement and whether Britain has yet found a stable political and economic identity outside the European Union.

What is striking is that Brexit remains resistant to simple conclusions.

To some, it was an act of democratic renewal and national self-determination — a reclaiming of parliamentary sovereignty and political accountability. To others, it represented strategic self-limitation: a voluntary retreat from the world’s largest integrated market and one of the most ambitious experiments in regional cooperation in modern history.

Ten years on, Britain remains suspended between these interpretations.

This is no longer a debate about whether Brexit happened. It is about understanding what Brexit has revealed about Britain itself.

Brexit as the Expression of a Long British Ambivalence

The referendum result did not emerge suddenly.

Britain’s relationship with European integration had always been uneasy.

Historian David Reynolds has argued that Britain historically viewed itself not merely as a European power but as a global power whose interests extended across oceans and continents (Reynolds, Island Stories, 2000).

Unlike founding members of the European Economic Community, British political identity evolved around parliamentary sovereignty, maritime commerce and a strategic tradition of maintaining balance on the European continent rather than integration within it.

Britain joined the European Economic Community only in 1973 under Edward Heath.

Even then, membership was presented more as economic pragmatism than ideological commitment.

Political scientist Stephen George famously described Britain’s European posture as that of an “awkward partner” (George, An Awkward Partner, 1998).

This tension persisted for decades.

Opt-outs from the euro.

Opt-outs from Schengen.

Periodic battles over regulatory authority.

Recurring tabloid campaigns portraying Brussels as intrusive.

Successive governments attempted to reconcile two competing instincts:

Britain wanted access to Europe without surrendering the authority to govern itself.

The referendum transformed that long-running tension into a binary decision.

Sovereignty: The Central Argument of Brexit

If one concept defined Brexit, it was sovereignty.

For Leave campaigners, the issue was not simply economics.

It was constitutional.

Their argument drew on a tradition associated with parliamentary supremacy — the principle that ultimate authority should rest with elected representatives in Westminster rather than supranational institutions.

Political theorist Vernon Bogdanor argued that Brexit represented a constitutional revolution because it restored legal supremacy to Parliament after decades of European legal integration (Bogdanor, Beyond Brexit, 2019). The slogan “Take Back Control” condensed this argument into a powerful political message.

Control over laws.

Control over borders.

Control over regulation.

Control over democratic accountability.

Yet sovereignty in the modern era is not absolute.

Scholars of global governance such as Joseph Nye have argued that states increasingly operate through networks of interdependence where influence often depends upon voluntarily shared authority rather than complete autonomy (Nye, The Future of Power, 2011).

This exposed one of Brexit’s central tensions. Leaving European institutions increased formal independence. But economic geography and global interdependence continued to constrain national choices. Britain could leave European governance. It could not leave European reality.

The Economic Debate: Between Forecast and Outcome

No aspect of Brexit generated more disagreement than economics. Before the referendum, institutions including the Bank of England, HM Treasury and numerous academic economists warned of slower growth, reduced investment and increased trade friction.

Leave supporters countered that such predictions underestimated Britain’s flexibility and entrepreneurial capacity.

The immediate economic collapse forecast by some critics did not occur. Yet neither did the dramatic post-EU acceleration predicted by many supporters.

The picture that emerged was more nuanced.

According to long-term analysis from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), Brexit introduced persistent trade frictions that reduced productivity growth relative to previous expectations.

Studies from the London School of Economics similarly suggested measurable effects on investment patterns and trade volumes.

At the same time, Brexit’s impact became difficult to isolate. Britain experienced departure from the EU alongside several extraordinary events:

The COVID-19 pandemic.

Global inflation.

Energy price shocks.

Supply chain disruptions.

War in Ukraine.

Structural changes in international trade.

Economist Dani Rodrik has long argued that modern economies must constantly negotiate trade-offs between national sovereignty, democratic responsiveness and global economic integration (Rodrik, The Globalization Paradox, 2011).

Britain after Brexit became a real-world case study of that tension. The UK retained major structural strengths. London remained globally significant in finance. Universities continued attracting international talent and professional services remained internationally competitive. Yet new barriers emerged for exporters, manufacturers and firms operating across European supply chains.

Brexit did not end economic opportunity. It altered the terms under which opportunity is pursued.

Immigration and the Limits of Political Expectations

Immigration occupied a unique emotional and symbolic position during the referendum. European freedom of movement became, for many voters, a visible representation of diminished national control.The expectation among supporters of Brexit was often straightforward:

Leaving would allow Britain to reduce immigration. In legal terms, Brexit delivered this outcome. Freedom of movement ended. A points-based immigration framework replaced EU mobility arrangements. Yet actual migration outcomes complicated the political narrative.

Net migration remained substantial during parts of the post-Brexit period. What changed was composition rather than disappearance. Fewer arrivals came through intra-European mobility.More entered through global migration channels including work, education and healthcare.

Migration scholars such as Bridget Anderson have noted that immigration policy frequently reflects labour market needs as much as political preference. This created a revealing contradiction. Brexit increased Britain’s ability to decide immigration policy. But control did not eliminate economic dependence on migration.

Identity and the Geography of British Exceptionalism

Brexit’s deepest legacy may ultimately be cultural rather than economic.

Political scientist Benedict Anderson described nations as “imagined communities” — identities created through shared stories rather than geography alone. Brexit forced Britain to reconsider its own story.

Is Britain primarily European?

Anglophone?

Global?

Atlantic?

Post-imperial?

These questions had long existed beneath the surface. The referendum brought them into the open. Generational differences became particularly visible. Younger voters tended to display stronger European identification. Older cohorts more frequently emphasised sovereignty and national continuity.

Regional differences emerged too.

Scotland and Northern Ireland voted differently from England and Wales. The referendum exposed not one British identity but several overlapping identities existing simultaneously. In that sense, Brexit was not simply about Europe. It became a national conversation about belonging.

Britain and Europe After Separation

Brexit altered institutions. It did not alter geography. Britain remains physically, economically and strategically tied to Europe. Security cooperation continues. Trade remains substantial. Research partnerships endure. Climate and energy policy remain interconnected.

Political theorist Ivan Krastev has argued that Europe increasingly operates through layered forms of cooperation rather than rigid categories of membership.

Britain may represent a new model of European engagement: outside formal integration while maintaining deep practical interdependence. This shift has gradually changed political language.

Public debate has moved from abstract arguments about sovereignty toward practical questions:

How much regulatory divergence is worthwhile?

What level of market access is desirable?

How should defence cooperation evolve?

What forms of mobility should exist?

These are no longer existential questions.

They are questions of governance.

The Historical Verdict Remains Open

Historians tend to resist immediate conclusions. Major national decisions rarely reveal their full consequences within a decade. The historian A.J.P. Taylor once observed that history is not a succession of inevitable outcomes but a record of choices made under uncertainty.

Brexit fits this description precisely. Its supporters promised renewed democratic accountability while Its critics warned of diminished influence. Both identified real possibilities. Both underestimated complexity.

Britain today is neither isolated nor transformed beyond recognition. It remains prosperous by global standards. Yet it continues adjusting to altered economic relationships. Its politics remain shaped by debates Brexit intensified but did not create; Questions about inequality, Regional imbalance, Immigration, National identity, Political trust, Constitutional authority. Brexit exposed these issues rather than inventing them. Britain’s Future Is No Longer About Leaving.

A decade after the referendum, the most revealing observation may be that Britain has stopped arguing primarily about departure. The conversation is increasingly about purpose; What should sovereignty achieve? What kind of economy should Britain build? How should the country relate to Europe? What responsibilities accompany independence?