Stephen Weatherill, Jacques Delors Professor of European Law (Emeritus), Faculty of Law and Somerville College, University of Oxford.

Introduction

Two recently released reports, both dated January 31, 2022, promise to shed light on the ramifications of the UK’s 2016 decision to exit the European Union. After over five years, it seems we can finally move beyond vague slogans like “Take back control!” and begin to assess the concrete implications of Brexit. However, a closer look reveals a more nuanced picture.

The UK government’s report, Benefits of Brexit, and the UK in a Changing Europe report, Doing Things Differently? Policy after Brexit, both aim to analyze the UK’s newfound regulatory freedom post-Brexit. Both reports highlight the limited progress made in the two years since the UK officially left the EU. Doing Things Differently? offers a measured and thorough examination of this slow pace and outlines potential future developments. Benefits of Brexit, in contrast, presents a skewed perspective on the impact of Brexit, painting an overly optimistic picture of future benefits.

Benefits of Brexit: Four Key Themes

Benefits of Brexit presents a polished, 105-page account of the UK’s reclaimed control. It enthusiastically explores various aspects of Brexit, highlighting potential opportunities arising from new regulatory freedom. However, the report lacks concrete details, cost-benefit analyses, and impact assessments. Instead, it’s replete with claims of benefits without acknowledging potential drawbacks.

Despite its rambling and repetitive style, likely a deliberate tactic to obfuscate the need for detailed analysis, four distinct themes emerge within Benefits of Brexit’s narrative. Notably, none of these themes genuinely demonstrate tangible advantages resulting from Brexit.

The first theme centers on changes the UK could have implemented as an EU member. The second highlights changes brought about by Brexit that are actually disadvantages for the UK. The third focuses on changes highly unlikely to materialize due to economic, political, and legal constraints. The final theme consists of vague, aspirational changes, lacking in concrete plans or realistic paths to implementation.

Theme One: Changes Possible Within EU Membership

Benefits of Brexit repeatedly cites supposed benefits that were either easily achievable within the EU framework or entirely unrelated to EU law. Familiar examples include the purported EU ban on imperial measurements, which never existed, and the reintroduction of blue passports, a change the UK could have made while still an EU member.

The report also overstates the significance of initiatives like the Turing student exchange scheme, suggesting it represents a departure from EU practices when, in reality, the UK could have established a similar program alongside EU initiatives. This pattern of misrepresenting pre-existing freedoms as newly acquired benefits underscores the report’s lack of rigor.

Even more concerning are claims related to areas largely outside EU jurisdiction, such as selling heritage products or regulating English football. These claims falsely imply that Brexit was a prerequisite for such changes. The inclusion of entirely unrelated events, like deploying HMS Queen Elizabeth to the Bay of Bengal, further undermines the report’s credibility.

By conflating changes possible within the EU with those supposedly enabled by Brexit, Benefits of Brexit creates a misleading narrative, obscuring the limited impact of leaving the EU on these areas.

Theme Two: Disadvantages Misrepresented as Advantages

Perhaps the most blatant example of mischaracterization is evident in Benefits of Brexit’s portrayal of efforts to mitigate border friction. While the report cites ongoing work to streamline export processes, it conveniently overlooks the fact that these frictions are a direct result of Brexit. The need to reduce trade barriers with the EU, inherently a cost associated with leaving the single market and customs union, is deceptively framed as a benefit.

The report continues this pattern by praising the creation of a domestic scheme to protect geographical indications, neglecting to mention that UK producers previously enjoyed EU-wide protection under EU law. Similarly, the return of duty-free shopping is lauded without acknowledging the loss of EU consumers’ freedom to purchase unlimited goods for personal use across member states without incurring additional taxes.

Theme Three: Changes Unlikely to Occur

Benefits of Brexit dedicates significant space to outlining seemingly promising opportunities across various economic sectors. However, it overlooks the reality that deviating from established EU models often carries significant economic and legal ramifications. The report largely ignores the influence of interest groups, economic realities, and international legal frameworks, presenting an unrealistic view of unfettered UK regulatory autonomy.

A prime example is the discussion of public procurement. Benefits of Brexit suggests that Brexit will enable the UK to leverage its £300 billion annual procurement budget to “generate social value and unleash opportunities,” without clarifying how EU rules previously hindered this or acknowledging the impact of reduced access to EU markets.

Doing Things Differently?, on the other hand, provides a more realistic assessment. It highlights the UK’s existing commitments under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement and the World Trade Organization’s Government Procurement Agreement, which largely mirror EU regulations. As a result, significant changes, such as a “Buy British” policy, are highly improbable. The report concludes that while some minor adjustments have been made, most were possible pre-Brexit.

This pattern repeats across various sectors, including tax, energy, aviation, and data protection. Doing Things Differently? consistently reveals a narrative of limited divergence from EU rules, driven by international obligations, economic factors, and geographical proximity. In contrast to the overly optimistic outlook presented in Benefits of Brexit, Doing Things Differently? offers a grounded analysis of the constraints on UK regulatory freedom.

Theme Four: Vague Promises of Future Prosperity

The overall tone of Benefits of Brexit is one of unwavering optimism. While a generous interpretation might describe it as positive and hopeful, a more critical view would deem it unrealistically uncritical. The report depicts a world where a newly liberated UK is poised for success, driven by innovative regulatory reforms.

This sentiment permeates both the discussion of regulatory strategies and the specific sectors targeted for revitalization. It underscores the core premise of a successful Brexit: demonstrating how the UK will leverage its newfound freedom to improve regulation and economic performance.

While Benefits of Brexit excels in using inspiring language, it falls short on substance. Vague pronouncements of “supercharged” sectors, “cutting-edge” technologies, and “world-leading” approaches abound, but concrete plans and realistic paths to achieving these goals are absent.

Instead, the report bombards the reader with a barrage of unverifiable claims about the UK’s current and future global dominance. This relentless positivity ultimately undermines the narrative’s credibility. The absence of any acknowledgment that the UK might face challenges or need to collaborate with others further erodes the report’s believability.

This tendency to overstate the UK’s potential is not only naive but also ignores the economic, political, and legal complexities discussed earlier. The report fails to address the potential costs of diverging from EU regulations, including increased trade barriers. This lack of acknowledgment of potential downsides further weakens the report’s credibility.

Doing Things Differently? offers a valuable counterpoint by providing a detailed, sector-specific analysis of potential Brexit opportunities and their associated challenges. It acknowledges the trade-offs inherent in diverging from EU rules, particularly the potential for increased economic friction with the UK’s largest trading partner. In contrast, Benefits of Brexit avoids this crucial discussion altogether.

Conclusion

In an ideal world, a thorough assessment of Brexit’s benefits and drawbacks would have preceded the referendum. However, the UK’s departure from the EU is a reality with significant and complex consequences.

The assertion that Brexit would restore the UK’s sovereignty is a simplistic and inaccurate interpretation of international agreements. Entering and exiting treaties are both exercises of sovereignty. The focus now should be on what the UK intends to do with its newfound freedom, a question that Benefits of Brexit fails to answer adequately.

Benefits of Brexit presents a disappointing lack of concrete plans, instead resorting to vague pronouncements of future greatness. It fails to differentiate between changes possible within the EU and those supposedly unique to Brexit, often presenting attempts to mitigate Brexit’s disadvantages as advantages.

The report’s most glaring flaw is its unwavering, and ultimately unconvincing, optimism, reminiscent of the 2016 Leave campaign. It offers little more than a declaration of the government’s intent to have a plan, rather than a well-defined roadmap for a successful post-Brexit future.

Doing Things Differently? presents a more grounded and realistic perspective. It acknowledges the intricate economic, political, and legal realities that will shape the UK’s post-Brexit journey. While Benefits of Brexit offers empty promises of a “world-leading” future, Doing Things Differently? underscores the complexities and potential obstacles that lie ahead.

The Prime Minister’s foreword to Benefits of Brexit asserts that Brexit was not an end but a means to achieve great things. However, over five years on, the vision presented remains as nebulous as ever, fixated on superficial changes and grandiose claims. The UK government’s plan for Brexit, it seems, is to simply insist that a plan exists.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 26

Photo credit: Khayri R.R. Woulfe via Wikimedia Commons