Brexit and Its Implications for the European Union and the United Kingdom explores the profound consequences of the United Kingdom’s historic decision to leave the European Union, a separation that has fundamentally reshaped political landscapes, economic relationships, and international alliances. The term “Brexit” – a portmanteau of “British” and “exit” – belies the complexity of a process that began with the referendum on June 23, 2016, culminated in formal withdrawal on January 31, 2020, and continues to unfold through ongoing adjustments in economic policies, trade relationships, and diplomatic engagement. Five years after the UK’s departure, this analysis examines the substantial evidence now available about Brexit’s concrete impacts on both the UK and EU economies, political systems, and international standing, while assessing how the ripple effects of this unprecedented separation continue to influence European integration, transatlantic relationships, and the broader architecture of global governance.

Historical Context and Referendum Background

The seeds of Brexit were planted long before the 2016 referendum, reflecting a complex history of British ambivalence toward European integration. Since joining the European Economic Community in 1973, the United Kingdom maintained a somewhat detached relationship with continental Europe, securing opt-outs from the euro currency and the Schengen border-free zone while frequently positioning itself as a brake on further integration. This tension between participation and resistance reflected deep-seated British concerns about sovereignty, distinct legal traditions, and a geopolitical outlook shaped by the UK’s imperial history and “special relationship” with the United States.

The path to the referendum accelerated during David Cameron’s premiership, as he attempted to manage growing Euroscepticism within the Conservative Party and the electoral threat posed by the UK Independence Party (UKIP). Cameron’s promise of a referendum, intended as a tactical maneuver to unify his party and neutralize UKIP, instead exposed and deepened “deep fractures within the British party system” that were “products of global political, cultural, and financial trends”4. These fractures transcended traditional left-right divisions, revealing new political fault lines based on values, identity, and attitudes toward globalization.

The referendum campaign itself was characterized by simplistic messaging about complex issues, with the Leave campaign focusing on sovereignty (“Take Back Control”) and concerns about immigration, while the Remain campaign emphasized economic risks. The narrow victory for Leave (51.9% to 48.1%) revealed a deeply divided country split along geographical, generational, educational, and cultural lines. This division would complicate the implementation of Brexit and continue to influence British politics for years to come.

The period between the referendum and actual departure was marked by extraordinary political turbulence, including the resignations of two prime ministers (David Cameron and Theresa May), multiple failed attempts to secure parliamentary approval for withdrawal agreements, and a landmark Supreme Court case on parliamentary sovereignty. The withdrawal process was finally concluded under Boris Johnson’s leadership, with the UK formally leaving the EU on January 31, 2020, followed by a transition period that ended on December 31, 2020. This complex and often chaotic implementation process reflected the fundamental difficulty of disentangling a member state from the EU’s integrated legal, economic, and political structures.

Political Machines APUSH Definition: Influence, Corruption, and Impact on U.S. History

Economic Impact on the United Kingdom

Five years after formally leaving the European Union, the economic consequences of Brexit for the United Kingdom have become increasingly clear and measurable. Brexit has “permanently diminished trade efficiency in the UK by introducing customs checks, rules of origin requirements, and regulatory divergence”1. This structural change to the UK’s trading relationships has created persistent headwinds for the British economy that cannot simply be attributed to global factors affecting all countries.

The evidence of Brexit’s economic impact is particularly visible in trade patterns. Following the end of the transition period, “the UK’s trade in goods with the EU fell in 2021 to a greater extent than trade with non-EU countries,” though some of this effect appears to have been temporary2. More concerning is that “trade in services with the EU has been more lastingly affected, especially for financial and transportation services”2. These services sectors are areas of traditional British strength, and their diminished EU market access represents a significant economic cost.

Investment patterns provide perhaps the clearest signal of Brexit’s economic effect. “Business investment in most sectors has stalled since the 2016 referendum following a period of strong growth,” with investment in Q2 2023 “more than 20% below the level that it would have reached had it maintained the momentum seen between Q1 2010 and Q2 2016”2. This chronic underinvestment has implications far beyond the immediate economic cycle, potentially undermining the UK’s long-term productivity and competitiveness. Foreign direct investment has been particularly affected, with “FDI inflows dropping by 37 per cent between 2016 and 2022 as multinational companies relocated operations to the EU to preserve access to the single market”1.

Labor market dynamics have also been significantly altered. “Restrictions on the employment of EU nationals have reduced the labour supply at a time when the UK’s labour market is under great strain”2. The employment of EU workers “has levelled off since 2016 whereas it had rocketed during the years prior to the referendum,” forcing “British employers to have greater recourse to non-European labour”2. This shift has particularly affected sectors like agriculture, healthcare, and hospitality, “resulting in higher operating costs while limiting output”1.

The cumulative effect of these changes helps explain why “in 2023, the UK remained the only G7 nation that had not recovered to its pre-pandemic level of GDP”1. While the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine war affected all economies, Brexit created additional structural barriers that have made the UK’s economic recovery more challenging. This underperformance relative to peer economies provides perhaps the clearest evidence that Brexit has indeed carried significant economic costs.

The Digital Dollar Debate: Is America Ready for the Future of Money?

Brexit’s Impact on UK Businesses and Trade

For British businesses engaged in international trade, Brexit has created a substantially more complex operating environment that continues to evolve as regulatory frameworks diverge. Survey evidence indicates that “almost two thirds (60%) of firms trading with the EU say it is now more difficult to do so than it was a year ago,” while “almost half (49%) of exporters disagree the Brexit deal is helping them grow sales”6. These findings suggest that even after several years of adjustment, businesses continue to struggle with the new trading relationship.

The specific challenges firms face are numerous and varied. “Two fifths (41%) of firms exporting under the Brexit deal say they face difficulties adapting to its rules on buying and selling goods,” while “35% of firms buying and selling services faced difficulties due to the Brexit deal”6. A particular pain point for service providers is “the lack of recognition for professional qualifications,” which was affecting 27% of firms6. These difficulties help explain why many businesses have scaled back their EU operations or established EU subsidiaries to maintain market access.

A concerning trend for future UK-EU trade is the emergence of “a fresh set of challenges approaching as UK and EU regulations diverge, creating further headaches for traders on both sides of the Channel”6. This regulatory divergence threatens to create increasingly complex compliance requirements for businesses operating across the UK-EU border. Even more worrying is that “awareness of upcoming changes in trade rules and regulations being made by either the UK or the EU was alarmingly low, with 80% or more of firms knowing no details of the legislation”6. This lack of awareness suggests many businesses may face unexpected compliance challenges as regulatory frameworks continue to evolve separately.

While the UK has pursued new trade agreements to replace and enhance its trade relationships outside the EU, progress has been mixed. “As of December 2024, the United Kingdom has 39 active free trade agreements with nations and trade blocs, covering 102 countries and territories”9. Many of these agreements, however, simply replicate the terms of previous EU agreements rather than securing enhanced access for UK exporters. Ambitious new agreements with major economies like the United States have proven elusive, in part because the UK’s smaller market size provides less negotiating leverage than the EU’s combined weight.

Political Transformation in the United Kingdom

Brexit has catalyzed a profound transformation of the British political landscape, reshaping party alignments, constitutional debates, and the fundamental parameters of political discourse. The 2016 referendum “exposed deep fractures within the British party system” that have continued to reshape British politics in the years since4. Rather than resolving these divisions, Brexit has “left the U.K. party structure more skewed than ever,” with both major parties facing fundamental challenges to their traditional coalitions and ideological positions4.

The Conservative Party, which initiated the referendum under David Cameron and subsequently implemented Brexit under Boris Johnson, has experienced particular turbulence. Having defined itself as the party of Brexit, the Conservatives tied their political fortunes to the success of the project, making it difficult to acknowledge or address implementation challenges. This dynamic contributed to a pattern of overpromising and underdelivering that undermined public trust and created tensions between ideological Brexit supporters and pragmatists concerned with economic consequences.

The Labour Party faced its own Brexit-related challenges, attempting to balance between its predominantly Remain-supporting membership and significant Leave-voting constituencies in traditional Labour heartlands. This balancing act contributed to electoral setbacks and internal divisions that were only partially resolved when the party adopted a more pragmatic approach of accepting Brexit while critiquing its implementation.

Beyond the major parties, Brexit accelerated the fragmentation of the UK’s traditionally stable two-party system. New political formations emerged around Brexit identities, while regional parties in Scotland and Wales gained strength by opposing Brexit or using it to advance arguments for independence or greater autonomy. The Northern Ireland political landscape was particularly transformed, with Brexit revitalizing debates about the region’s constitutional status and complicating the delicate balance established by the Good Friday Agreement.

Brexit has also accelerated constitutional questions about the UK’s territorial integrity. The decision to leave the EU despite strong Remain majorities in Scotland and Northern Ireland created new arguments for Scottish independence and Irish reunification. In Northern Ireland particularly, the implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol created a unique hybrid status that has both economic advantages (maintaining single market access) and political complications (creating a regulatory border in the Irish Sea that unionists perceive as threatening Northern Ireland’s place in the UK).

America’s Digital Privacy: Does the U.S. Need EU-Style Regulations?

The Irish Border: A Persistent Challenge

The Irish border question emerged as one of Brexit’s most intractable challenges, demonstrating how the UK’s departure from the EU created complex problems with no simple solutions. Prior to Brexit, “the 310-mile Irish border” between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland functioned as an almost invisible internal EU boundary with free movement of people and goods3. Brexit threatened to transform this into a hard external EU border, potentially requiring “things like cameras and security posts” that might “jeopardise the Good Friday Agreement” that had brought peace to Northern Ireland3.

Finding a solution to this fundamental dilemma consumed years of negotiation. The “backstop” solution included in Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement, which would have kept the entire UK in a close customs relationship with the EU until alternative arrangements could be found, proved “unacceptable to many Conservative MPs, who feared the UK would be trapped in it indefinitely”3. This opposition ultimately led to May’s resignation as prime minister.

Boris Johnson’s revised approach, which involved placing a regulatory and customs border in the Irish Sea between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, allowed Brexit to proceed but created new political and practical challenges. For Northern Irish unionists, this arrangement raised existential concerns about Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom. For businesses, it created practical difficulties with goods moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland now subject to new checks and paperwork.

The Northern Ireland Protocol and its subsequent revision through the Windsor Framework represent perhaps the clearest example of the trade-offs involved in Brexit implementation. To avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland while allowing Great Britain to diverge from EU rules, Northern Ireland effectively remained partially within the EU’s regulatory and customs orbit. This creative solution maintained peace and allowed trade to continue, but at the cost of creating internal UK trade friction and complicating Northern Ireland’s constitutional status.

The ongoing sensitivity of this arrangement underscores how Brexit continues to reverberate through the UK’s territorial politics. Any future changes to UK-EU relations will need to consider the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland and the delicate balance required to maintain both the Good Friday Agreement and functioning trade relationships.

Impact on the European Union

While Brexit’s impact on the UK has received more attention, the departure of one of the EU’s largest member states has also created significant challenges and opportunities for the remaining 27 members. The UK’s withdrawal reduced the EU’s population from 513 million to 447 million and its GDP from €15.9 trillion to €13.5 trillion, while also removing the second-largest net contributor to the EU budget. These changes created immediate practical challenges around budget reallocation and the EU’s global weight.

Beyond these tangible effects, Brexit altered the EU’s internal balance of power and policy orientation. The UK had traditionally been a champion of free market policies, liberalization, and expanding the single market, while often resisting deeper political integration. Its departure strengthened the relative influence of countries favoring more interventionist economic approaches and potentially removed an obstacle to deeper integration in areas like defense policy.

Contrary to some predictions that Brexit might trigger a “domino effect” of other departures, the difficult and often chaotic UK withdrawal process appears to have strengthened pro-EU sentiment in many member states. Polling has consistently shown increased support for EU membership across the bloc since the Brexit referendum, suggesting that the UK’s experience has served as a cautionary tale rather than an inspiration for Eurosceptic movements elsewhere.

Brexit also prompted substantial institutional reflection within the EU about its future direction and relationship with member state populations. The Conference on the Future of Europe, launched partly in response to Brexit, represented an attempt to more directly engage citizens in discussions about the EU’s priorities and governance. While this process has not led to fundamental treaty change, it reflects a recognition that the EU needed to address some of the democratic legitimacy concerns that Brexit highlighted.

In practical policy terms, the EU has demonstrated remarkable unity throughout the Brexit process, maintaining a consistent negotiating position despite predictions that member states with different economic interests might break ranks. This unity has continued into the post-Brexit relationship, with the EU adopting coordinated approaches to issues like the implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol and enforcement of level playing field provisions in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement.

Political Division in the United States: Partisan Conflict and Declining Freedoms

Migration and Mobility: A Fundamental Shift

The end of free movement between the UK and EU represents one of Brexit’s most significant and tangible consequences for ordinary citizens. Prior to Brexit, EU citizens could freely live, work, and study in the UK, while UK citizens enjoyed the same rights across the EU’s 27 member states. This freedom fundamentally shaped labor markets, educational opportunities, retirement choices, and family formations over decades of European integration.

The statistical impact of this change has been dramatic. “In the period between the EU referendum and Brexit itself, long-term net migration from the EU into the UK declined by more than 80%”8. This substantial reduction reflects both changing incentives for EU migrants and the UK’s implementation of a new immigration regime that ended preferential treatment for EU citizens.

The UK’s post-Brexit immigration system represents a significant policy shift. The previous “two-tier immigration system for work” that “provided preferential treatment to EU citizens who could come to the UK under freedom of movement” has been replaced with “a level playing field”8. Under this new system, “free movement into the UK for EU workers was ended,” but “for those coming to work in the UK from outside the EU, the rules were relaxed”8. This included removing “the cap on numbers and the Resident Labour Market Test requirement” and reducing “the required minimum skill and salary level for overseas workers”8.

These changes have created a fundamentally different migration pattern. Countries with “unique, deep, and longstanding connections” to the UK, particularly “India, Nigeria and Pakistan,” have become more significant sources of migration8. The scale difference is substantial – “India’s population is nearly 40 times larger than Poland’s, the EU country that had provided the largest flow of workers to the UK under freedom of movement”8. Consequently, “overall, immigration numbers to the UK grew post-Brexit”8, though with a very different composition.

For EU citizens already resident in the UK, the EU Settlement Scheme provided a path to maintain their rights, with “an estimated 5.8 million EEA nationals” having “so far taken advantage” of this opportunity for “permanent settlement in the UK”8. However, new arrivals face substantially higher barriers, including visa requirements, health surcharges, and minimum income thresholds that particularly affect lower-paid sectors.

For UK citizens, the loss of free movement rights across the EU represents a significant reduction in opportunities, particularly for younger generations. Student exchanges, casual work in Europe, retirement migration, and cross-border professional services have all become more complicated, requiring visas, work permits, or professional qualification recognition that varies by EU member state.

Currency Fluctuations and Economic Confidence

The value of the pound sterling has served as a barometer for market confidence in the UK economy throughout the Brexit process. The initial referendum result in June 2016 triggered an immediate and substantial depreciation, with sterling falling to three-decade lows against the dollar. This reflected market concerns about the UK’s economic prospects outside the EU and uncertainty about the future trading relationship.

In the years since, sterling has experienced significant volatility tied to Brexit developments, with sharp movements often coinciding with key political announcements or perceived changes in the likelihood of different Brexit outcomes. This currency volatility has created both winners and losers in the UK economy. Exporters benefited from increased competitiveness with a weaker pound, while importers faced higher costs that often translated into consumer price increases.

More recent currency movements suggest a mixed picture of market confidence in the post-Brexit UK economy. “The pound was one of the best performing currencies in 2024, although fresh concerns about the health of the UK economy stifled Sterling’s progress towards the end of the year”7. This relative strength may reflect relief at avoiding worst-case Brexit scenarios rather than optimism about the UK’s economic trajectory.

The early months of 2025 have shown continued volatility, with “GBP exchange rates plummeting as panic gripped the UK bond market” before “Sterling managed to claw back some losses”7. Analysts project divergent paths against different currencies, with expectations that “GBP/EUR will rise overall this year, but GBP/USD may weaken as Donald Trump’s policies support the US dollar”7.

This currency outlook reflects broader economic uncertainties. While the UK has avoided the most pessimistic Brexit scenarios, challenges remain with “fears of stagflation” starting “to resurface” amid concerns that “the UK could find itself with high interest rates and high prices but sluggish growth, as last year’s recovery has fizzled out”7. These persistent economic challenges suggest that Brexit continues to influence market perceptions of the UK’s economic prospects, even as other factors like global monetary policy and political developments also shape currency movements.

Transatlantic Relations After Brexit

Brexit has significantly reshaped the triangular relationship between the United Kingdom, European Union, and United States, with implications for economic, security, and diplomatic cooperation across the Atlantic. The traditional “special relationship” between the UK and US has faced particular adjustment, as “Brexit represents a potentially significant change to the way transatlantic relations have been organized since WWII”5.

From an American perspective, the UK’s departure from the EU has complicated longstanding diplomatic approaches. The United States had historically relied on Britain as “its political and economic entry point into Europe”5, leveraging cultural affinities and aligned perspectives to influence EU decision-making through its closest European ally. With the UK no longer at the EU table, this channel of influence has been closed, requiring Washington to develop stronger direct relationships with other EU capitals.

This shift has strategic implications across multiple domains. In economic and trade matters, “Germany has already begun to assume leadership for transatlantic economic and trade issues, having re-emerged as the dominant economic power and key decision-maker in the EU under Chancellor Merkel”5. Meanwhile, in security affairs, “France has become the US ally of choice for military cooperation,” reflecting its position as “the only major military force in the EU, a nuclear power possessing a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, with an experienced army that has intervened in crisis points around the world”5.

The UK has emphasized that “Brexit will not change its strong commitment to European security as a key NATO ally”5. However, practical challenges have emerged in maintaining influence over European security decisions, as “after it leaves the EU, Britain will no longer have a seat in the European Council or the Council of Ministers where member states coordinate their national foreign and defense policies”5. This exclusion from EU decision-making forums represents a tangible loss of influence that NATO membership alone cannot fully compensate for.

While the bilateral UK-US relationship remains close, particularly in intelligence sharing and defense cooperation, Brexit has introduced new complications. The UK’s reduced economic weight as a standalone market rather than an EU member has diminished its attractiveness as a trade agreement partner, limiting progress on a comprehensive UK-US free trade agreement. Simultaneously, shifting US priorities toward the Indo-Pacific region have raised questions about the continued centrality of European relationships, including with the UK, in American strategic thinking.

Technology, Innovation and Regulatory Divergence

One of Brexit’s most consequential long-term implications may be in the realm of technology regulation and innovation policy, where the UK and EU are pursuing increasingly distinct approaches. Prior to Brexit, the UK was subject to the EU’s comprehensive regulatory frameworks covering data protection, digital markets, artificial intelligence, and other emerging technologies. As a large member state with significant technical expertise, the UK substantially influenced these regulations’ development.

Post-Brexit, the UK has attempted to position itself as offering a more innovation-friendly regulatory environment while maintaining high standards. This approach aims to attract investment and talent by reducing perceived regulatory burdens while preserving public confidence in appropriate safeguards. However, implementing this balanced approach has proven challenging in practice, with the UK often caught between maintaining alignment with EU rules to preserve market access and developing distinctive approaches to gain competitive advantage.

The divergence in data protection regulation illustrates these tensions. The UK initially maintained full alignment with the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) but has subsequently explored modifications to create what it characterizes as a more proportionate and flexible regime. These changes must be carefully calibrated, as too much divergence could jeopardize the EU’s data adequacy decision that allows free flow of personal data between the UK and EU – a crucial enabler for digital trade worth billions of pounds annually.

Similar tensions exist across other technology domains. In artificial intelligence regulation, digital markets oversight, platform responsibility, and cybersecurity, the UK is developing approaches that differ in emphasis and detail from EU frameworks. This regulatory divergence creates challenges for businesses operating across both jurisdictions, potentially requiring different compliance approaches and increasing costs.

For multinational technology companies, the emergence of distinct UK and EU regulatory regimes adds complexity to their European operations. Many have responded by maintaining compliance with the stricter of the two regimes (typically the EU’s) across all operations, effectively limiting the practical impact of UK regulatory flexibility. Others have established separate compliance structures, increasing operational costs but allowing tailored approaches to each market.

The long-term implications of this regulatory divergence for innovation and competitiveness remain uncertain. The UK’s more flexible approach may enable faster adaptation to technological changes and reduce compliance burdens, potentially attracting investment and entrepreneurial activity. However, the smaller size of the UK market relative to the EU means companies may prioritize compliance with EU regulations, potentially limiting the practical impact of UK regulatory innovation.

Future UK-EU Relations: Evolving Partnership or Permanent Tension?

As the UK and EU adjust to their post-Brexit relationship, fundamental questions emerge about whether the current arrangements represent a stable equilibrium or merely a transitional phase in an evolving partnership. The Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) that currently governs UK-EU relations leaves significant issues unresolved or subject to ongoing negotiation, creating both friction points and opportunities for future cooperation.

The evidence from business surveys suggests substantial dissatisfaction with current arrangements. “Almost two thirds (60%) of firms trading with the EU say it is now more difficult to do so than it was a year ago,” while “almost half (49%) of exporters disagree the Brexit deal is helping them grow sales”6. These frustrations create political pressure for improvements to the trading relationship, potentially leading to incremental enhancements over time.

Several factors will influence the trajectory of future relations. Domestic politics in both the UK and EU will play a crucial role, with shifts in leadership potentially creating windows for new approaches. Economic pressures may also drive pragmatic cooperation, particularly if both sides face challenging growth environments where removing trade frictions could provide economic benefits without requiring difficult sovereignty concessions.

The implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol and Windsor Framework will remain a key test case for broader UK-EU cooperation. Success in this sensitive area could build trust and demonstrate that pragmatic solutions to complex problems are possible, potentially creating models for cooperation in other domains. Conversely, renewed tensions over Northern Ireland could poison the wider relationship and limit progress in other areas.

External factors will also shape UK-EU relations. Growing strategic competition with China, ongoing security challenges from Russia, climate change, and other global challenges create strong incentives for cooperation despite Brexit tensions. The UK and EU share fundamental interests and values that distinguish them from other global powers, potentially driving pragmatic collaboration even amid continued disagreements about the formal relationship.

The most likely medium-term scenario involves selective deepening of cooperation in areas of mutual interest while managing ongoing tensions in more sensitive domains. Energy security, climate change, scientific research, and external security threats represent natural areas for enhanced partnership, while questions of regulatory alignment, financial services access, and migration will likely remain more contentious. This uneven pattern would reflect the fundamental reality that the UK and EU remain deeply interconnected despite Brexit, with shared interests that transcend the formal relationship.

Conclusion: Assessing Brexit’s Balance Sheet

Five years after the United Kingdom’s formal departure from the European Union, assessing Brexit’s impacts reveals a complex picture of economic costs, political transformations, and strategic adjustments on both sides of the Channel. While definitive judgments remain premature given the relatively short timeframe and confounding factors like the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine war, enough evidence has accumulated to draw some preliminary conclusions.

Economically, Brexit has clearly imposed significant costs on the United Kingdom. The introduction of trade barriers with its largest trading partner has reduced trade volumes, particularly in services, while chronic underinvestment since the referendum has undermined productivity and growth potential. The UK’s lagging recovery compared to other G7 economies, remaining “the only G7 nation that had not recovered to its pre-pandemic level of GDP” in 20231, provides perhaps the clearest indicator that Brexit has created economic headwinds that other comparable countries have not faced.

These economic costs must be weighed against the sovereignty benefits that Brexit advocates prioritized. The UK has gained greater freedom to set its own regulations, control immigration, and pursue independent trade policies. Whether these sovereignty gains justify the economic costs represents a value judgment that different observers will answer differently based on their priorities and perspectives.

For the European Union, Brexit initially appeared as a potentially existential threat that might trigger further departures. Instead, the difficult UK experience appears to have strengthened pro-EU sentiment in many member states while demonstrating the EU’s institutional resilience and negotiating capacity. However, the loss of the UK’s budget contributions, market size, military capabilities, and diplomatic weight has undeniably diminished the EU’s global position at a time of increasing international competition.

The broader geopolitical implications of Brexit continue to unfold. The “special relationship” between the UK and US “has come under strain, since America traditionally relied on Britain as its political and economic entry point into Europe”5. Both the UK and EU must now navigate a more complex international environment where transatlantic coordination has become more complicated, potentially benefiting strategic competitors.

For businesses and citizens most directly affected by Brexit, the impacts have been tangible and often challenging. Firms trading across the UK-EU border face increased complexity and costs, with “almost two thirds (60%) of firms trading with the EU” reporting increased difficulty6. EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU have seen their rights protected but substantially changed, while new generations face more limited opportunities for cross-border education, work, and retirement.

As both the UK and EU continue to adapt to their new relationship, the path forward likely involves pragmatic cooperation in areas of mutual interest alongside continued management of tensions in more sensitive domains. The depth of historical, cultural, economic, and strategic ties between the UK and EU suggests that despite the formal separation, their futures remain deeply interconnected.

References:

• Five Years On: The Economic Impact of Brexit
• Backstop: Why is the Irish border blocking Brexit?
• Brexit At Three: Fresh Trade Challenges Growing
• Free trade agreements of the United Kingdom
• No growth and less trade: Five yeas later, Brexit is a ‘flop’ for London
• Britain weathered political turmoil
• Five key impacts of Brexit five years on
• Brexit
• Five years of Brexit: Is the United Kingdom better off?