Brexit Mega Thread 16 – Who's Next?

[LouiseCollins28]

We are approaching the 6th anniversary of Brexit, or I suppose the 5th, if you count the period of transition as "in."

Since then, the world has endured Covid-19, seen war in Ukraine and many other things. Brexit has had reduced salience in the minds of many people recently.

When digesting the latest setbacks to befall the elite who govern our islands, a phrase I keep returning to, is “OK, so now do you get it?”

Brexit is undoubtedly the biggest “OK, so now do you get it?” moment directed at our leaders in my life. It’s surely the largest since 1979, since the Labour victory of 1945? or even since the advent of universal suffrage?

The U.K. local elections in 2026, and subsequent national ones, could see a big increase in support for the Green Party and Reform U.K. Two parties with more different attitudes to European integration could scarcely be found, so Brexit’s salience in the U.K. may rise again soon
.
There are many electoral contests in progress or coming across Europe too (the Netherlands and France, for example) which will be worth paying attention to. Maybe the next questions we will face are less about "what next?" and more about "who's next?"

Relations between mainland Europe and the UK remain a worthy topic for discussion, whoever leads the nations of Europe, or leads the E.U. itself.

Actually, we are beyond the 9th anniversary. The impact started immediately, as many of the investment banks controlled the risk by moving thousands of employees to Madrid, Frankfurt etc as they didn't know what the outcome would be.

I know this as I was one of the casualties and was made redundant in December 2016 as a direct result.

Please don't think that the damage only started when a deal was signed.

@HappiestSleeping

I recall that you agreed the opportunity to revoke Brexit was presented in 2019 by voting for the Liberal Democrat’s, but was not taken.

If there was evidence of immediate damage after the 2016 referendum, then the following facts need to be explained:

2017

On 29 March 2017 498 MPs voted to leave the EU. Why did they do that if damage was evident?

2019 General Election

The LibDems manifesto was to revoke Article 50 if elected. They were not elected and received fewer votes than in 2017. If there was evidence of damage, why did they not win?

Labours position on Brexit was to have a second referendum with the options to:

take May’s deal (which was pay to remain in my view)

or

remain

They received their worst result for 84 years.

Again, if there was evidence of damage, why did Labour not win?

2024 General election

Labour’s Brexit position was a complete reversal compared to 2019 and was not to rejoin either the CU or SM. The won over 400 seats even though they received fewer votes than in 2019.

Did they win because they became pro, as opposed to anti, Brexit? Or did the 4 million votes for Reform gift the result to Labour due to the FPTP system?

Conservatives flopped as by their own admission they had failed miserably regards border controls.

Farage won 4.1 million votes. Almost a sixfold increase over his 2017 result.

The current parliament has 538 MPs from pro Brexit parties. An increase of 40 compared to the 498 who voted to leave in 2017.

Losing your job is horrible, regardless of the cause. So, I would say your view on Brexit is subjective as opposed to objective, but at the same time understandable based upon your individual circumstances.

I do admire the way your tenacity. I think to take your points one at a time:

On 29 March 2017 498 MPs voted to leave the EU. Why did they do that if damage was evident?
I think my initial response is that MP's are not necessarily competent. Many threads on MN would support this view. Being less provocative, I think the actual reason is that they have bought into the whole "it's the will of the people" and could not reasonably vote against on the basis of their desire to be re-elected and the fear that going against the perceived grain would lose them more voters than they gained.

The LibDems manifesto was to revoke Article 50 if elected. They were not elected and received fewer votes than in 2017. If there was evidence of damage, why did they not win?
Problem here is that a general election cannot be won on a single policy, the Lib Dems were unelectable for other reasons. Also, the electorate could potentially be viewed as being stupid (believing what was written on the sides of buses etc), which is potentially how we ended up with Brexshit in the first place.

Again, if there was evidence of damage, why did Labour not win?
Because the electorate are potentially stupid (see above). Also, this is slightly different to the point about evidence influencing MP's who would have seen the effects more readily than the electorate who would have been at that time not necessarily aware of the damage already being done. The OP in this post still does not realise that the negative effect of Brexshit was occurring long before the deal was signed.

Labour’s Brexit position was a complete reversal compared to 2019 and was not to rejoin either the CU or SM. The won over 400 seats even though they received fewer votes than in 2019.
See above point about the electorate being stupid. Also see Labour's change of heart about the customs union. I also do not correlate the fact that Labour won the additional seats due to Brexshit stance. I think the Conservative party lost that election as opposed to Labour winning. People were fed up and wanted change. I think this explains some of the rise of Reform too.

Farage won 4.1 million votes. Almost a sixfold increase over his 2017 result.
See earlier regarding the competence of the electorate

Losing your job is horrible, regardless of the cause. So, I would say your view on Brexit is subjective as opposed to objective, but at the same time understandable based upon your individual circumstances.
Me and 4000+ other people, and similar for the other investment banks. To be fair also, my opinion of Brexshit isn't based entirely on my personal experience. My opinion is really that, at no point, before or since the referendum, has anyone made a substantive argument as to why leaving was a good thing. Additionally, I have yet to see a single tangible benefit supported by any economic evidence. I know we have had a pandemic, which has clouded things considerably, however there still hasn't been a single positive thing. The laughable part is that the increase in irregular migration that has everyone in a flap, has been largely caused by Brexshit and the incompetent government at that time.

Your analysis and conclusions are flawed in my humble opinion.

@LouiseCollins28 I agree, Brexit is less as a single event and somewhat an issue of trust. The vote message wasn’t only “leave,” it was “listen.” It’s interesting to observe how little the political class seems to have absorbed and how they show total unwillingness to listen to the message, even after the shock of Brexit.

Since 2016, governments have managed the fallout technically, but not in the spirit of democracy. You can feel it in the quiet anger at Westminster, in the collapse of turnout and in the rise of movements filling the vacuum.

The “who’s next” is especially poignant. Across Europe, voters are still looking for a politics that feels real and not orchestrated. Well worth paying attention to.

It does make you wonder how long the old centrist order can hold.

@HappiestSleeping

Immigration

There is no conclusive proof that Brexit is the cause of increased migration. As more people cross the Mediterranean Sea (Approx 250K per) and flood into Eastern Europe due to:

Syria crisis that commenced in 2015

Russian invasion of Ukraine, caused by EU expansion eastwards, in 2022

Israel and Gaza conflict in 2024.

In 2020 approximately 2 million migrants entered the EU. By 2022 that had increased to 5 million.

So, the more people enter the EU, the more that will find their way to Calais and cross the channel as opposed to back of lorry’s which has been tightened up since Brexit.

Is the EUs failure to control their borders in the Mediterranean Sea the fault of the UK? No, isn’t.

Were the conflicts in the Middle East attributable to Brexit? No, they aren’t. Middle East has been a trouble zone long before Brexit.

UK ranks fifth in terms of immigration behind, in order: Germany, France, Spain and Italy.

Unemployment in the UK

• 2015: ~5.30%
• 2016: ~4.81%
• 2017: ~4.33%
• 2018: ~4.00%
• 2019: ~3.74%
• 2020: ~4.47%
• 2021: ~4.83%
• 2022: ~3.73%
• 2023: ~4.06%
• 2024: ~6.1% (Q4 2024)
• 2025: ~4.8% (June to August 2025)

Unemployment was declining from 2016 to 2023. Whilst the conservatives were in power. However, since Labour took over, unemployment has increased due to higher taxes applied to employers.

Based on the above, I would say there is no proof that Brexit has increased unemployment.

Measureable Benefits.

As per Labour, the UK is the fastest growing economy in the G7.

In 2019, UK services export were £339 billion and 72% of GDP. As of August 2025, it was £542 billion and 81% of GDP and 83 % of employment. This huge increase is due to the TCA agreement with the EU which states services are not subject to the same regulation as goods. Essentially the services sector is free from EU control. Hence it had flourished since Brexit.

The trade deal UK has with the US is superior to that the EU has with the US. Tariffs applied to the EU are 20% compared to the 10% applied to the UK. UK exports to the US represents almost a quarter of all UK exports.

Your use of the word Brexshit does not advance your argument, but reinforces that it’s subjective as opposed to objective.

@MNLurker1345

I agree with your point about not being listened to.

498 MPs vote to leave the EU on 29 March 2017. So, as per article 50, the UK should have left the EU in 29 March 2019 with or without a withdrawal agreement.

However, from the 2017 general election to the 2019 general election, MPs spent two years trying to overturn the vote cast by 498 MPs. Extensions and the Benn Act both had one purpose - to ignore a democratic vote.

There are nine EU members who have applied to make modifications to the ECHR. So, changes are needed.

Ah, "Who's next?" - the plaintive cry of the, increasingly, lesser-spotted Brexiteer...

@MaybeNotBob, who’s next? I think MaybeBob! Sorry couldn’t resist it, Bob!

Er, is that supposed to be funny?

Oh well, don't give up the day job...

@MaybeNotBob

That’s an old cartoon produced on 8 May 2017. The UK has had three general elections since then.

And it's still as true today as it was then.

Your point?

Given the outcome of the Dutch general election, I think listing them as a possible 'who's next' is - saying it politely - inappropriate.

And even the PVV rowed back hard from the idea of Nexit while in government.

@pointythings

The net takers will never want to leave. Free money that never has to be returned is a dream come true.

So, that leaves the net contributors.

Germany.

Unlikely as the EU is their project called the fourth Reich. Also, some economists view is that Germany is slowing bleeding the EU. Single currency is being used for artificial low exchange rates to make German exports cheaper than countries who do not use the Euro. Trade surplus cash flow is used by Germany for investment outside the EU in the US and China as opposed to being recirculated within the EU.

However, as they have the highest rate of immigration in the EU, they may come to the conclusion that open borders are not so great. Also, they are ranked as the second most anti migrant country in the World.

France

Unlikely as they will not want to be seen copying the UK.

However, they are not happy with the 90/180 Schengen limits imposed upon UK persons who bought second homes in France.

Also, they have the second highest immigration in the EU and are ranked as the fourth most anti migrant country in the World

Netherlands.

I have spent considerable time in the Netherlands since 2020 and would list them as a possible leaver. They are ranked as the third most anti migrant country in the world.

Spain.

Unlikely as although Spain joined the EU in 1986, it was not until 2023 their contributions to the EU exceeded what they received from the EU. So, on a cumulative basis they have received a lot more from the EU than they have returned.

However, they are not happy with the 90/180 Schengen limits imposed upon UK persons who bought second homes in Spain and are actively trying to overturn the 90/180.

They have the third highest rate of immigration in the EU. Although they have not yet approached the ECHR for changes on migration control, they may in the future.

Italy/Denmark

Possible leavers. These are the two countries who took the lead to approach the ECHR for changes to migration control.

I hope your wishful thinking keeps you warm at night...

I mean, I AM Dutch. I follow their politics closely, have always voted in General Elections even from here, am in close touch with my many friends and family over there.

And of course the election last week tells its own story. When even the far right has backed away from considering Nexit, that should really tell you what you need to know.

I thought D66 had won the latest Dutch election? I meant "who's next...to lead the nations of Europe?" not "Who's next to leave the European Union?" Probably didn't make that as clear as I could have.

I see, no worries - yes, I did misunderstand that.

Globe seems to think the Dutch are still keen on Nexit though.

I think you could say that...

https://observer.co.uk/news/business/article/the-chancellor-has-finally-got-the-brexit-message-but-still-only-part-of-it

The only current EU Member state I could see leaving in any sort of even medium-term timscale would be Hungary. If Greece didn't leave in the aftermath of 2008/09 I can't see them doing it any time soon even if there is another crisis.

I don't think Hungary would be much missed.

Hungary has links with Russia. As does Bulgaria. However, both are net takers from the EU. So, I would say it would be a long time before they considered leaving the EU.

If Hungary left,
as a massive net benefactor of EU money
and very reliant on remittances from workers in western Europe using free movement
nobody would be upset

Who's next to lead the nations of Europe?

Do you mean who will succeed Ursula von der Leyen?

Although she is is president of the EU, not the nations of Europe

Can you explain what you mean with 'nations of Europe' @LouiseCollins28 ?

@Talkinpeace

I agree, net takers are no great loss if they decide to leave the EU. However, because they are net takers they won’t leave.

I would not have voted to leave if the UK was a net taker.

As per usual, you are only looking at a single bottom line. It's blinkered thinking at it's most pathetic.

So what makes you think the Netherlands might leave? It should be incredibly obvious that as a tiny country whose economy is heavily intertwined with the major economies of the EU (even more so than the UK was) it would be economic suicide to leave. Even Geert Wilders' hair is smart enough to recognise that.