'Brexit hasn't gone wrong': an advocate’s view of leaving the EU, 10 years on

Ten years after the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, Brexit remains one of the most contested political decisions in recent British history. While its economic and political effects continue to be debated, its legacy is increasingly shaped by diverging interpretations of sovereignty, trade and Britain’s place in the world. RFI spoke to a Brexit supporter Robert Oulds, director of the Bruges Group about what has changed.

According to its website, the Bruges Group "spearheaded the intellectual battle to win a vote to leave the European Union and, above all, against the emergence of a centralised EU state" has long been a vocal proponent of Brexit.

Robert Oulds, director of the group, reflects on what he sees as the enduring benefits of leaving the bloc, addresses criticisms of the project, and offers his perspective on how Britain has changed over the past decade.

This interview is part of a series of articles and conversations published by RFI to mark the tenth anniversary of the Brexit referendum.

RFI: Looking back over 10 years since the referendum in 2016, what do you think Brexit has most clearly changed for Britain?

Robert Oulds: Essentially, Britain is now outside of the European Union. That means it's a sovereign country and the buck stops with our own politicians. [They] are fully accountable to the people, and they can't just say, ‘this is a European Union rule, we have to just do this because a bureaucracy or a foreign court, maybe the European Court of Justice has told us to do that.’

RFI: What is the strongest case for Brexit today, if you had to make it in one minute?

RO: The enormous financial cost of the European Union. Since we've left, countries have had to pay more to the European Union. There was a cap at around 1 percent of GDP of a member state paying into the European Union's financial finances. That has now gone up. So we'd be paying more.

Thankfully, we're out the European Union now, so any problems that happen on the continent of Europe financially, we wouldn't be held liable for them,

02:07

REMARKS by Robert Oulds, director of the Pro-Brexit Bruges Group

Jan van der Made

Also, we'd be at greater risk. Many European Union economies are deeply indebted, just like Britain, but in some cases, more so. We would be having to pay into European Union schemes that were there to bail out those who had poor finances, recklessly spent and borrowed.

Brexit at 10: the promises, the costs and the search for accountability

So Britain would have to be borrowing money to underwrite the debts of the EU and other member states. That's putting the British taxpayer at enormous risk and is a financial burden. Thankfully, we're out of the European Union now. So any problems that happen on the continent of Europe financially, we wouldn't be held liable for them.

RFI: Which Brexit promise do you think has been misunderstood by critics?

RO: The promise of controlling immigration. We've had governments which were pledged to bring in Brexit that have really opened up the floodgates. There was a promise of restricting it from Europe but opening it up to the rest of the world.

And that was a promise that most certainly has been delivered to the chagrin of many people when of course we have now a situation where there's literally millions have come from around the world, something that's known as the “Boriswave,” [under the Prime Minister] Boris Johnson [who] finally took us out of the European Union very half-heartedly.

RFI: What concrete powers has Britain regained that matter most in practise?

RO: That we wouldn't be under the European Court of Justice which is absolutely vital for any country to call itself a sovereign, independent nation state, a democracy. Another key aspect is trade. Britain has made trade agreements with other countries around the world sooner than the European Union would.

We always did, we've traded far more globally than we did with the European Union historically. That's been the project that began in Elizabethan times, and in the Victorian era really took off and now we're discovering that, so we're making better trade deals than what the EU would do.

RFI: The popularity of Brexit has been sliding tremendously over the decade. from a majority ten years ago to a clear minority today. Where did it go wrong?

RO: Brexit hasn't gone wrong. We published a book, 75 Brexit Benefits, which details specific benefits that the UK has taken advantage of and has come about through leaving the European Union. That list is growing as we make more decisions ourselves. That means there's more benefits to be had.

Times have been tough for everybody since Brexit. Covid came along and there was a massive increase in the national debt, people left the workforce and in many cases haven't returned. The economy has been sluggish because of Covid and the absurd lockdowns that some people were forced to endure.

Covid-19 inquiry told Brexit hit UK's pandemic preparations

People can believe what they want about Brexit and whether it's been a success but the country wouldn't be voting to rejoin. If there was a referendum on rejoining, which there wouldn't be, people would vote no.

RFI: What is your response to claims that Brexit has increased frictions, especially for exporters?

RO: Well, Britain's exports to the rest of the world has actually increased. Our export trade has increased since exiting the European Union. Our trade has increased. It's been a win.

RFI: Critics say that Brexit is part of a larger plan to weaken the EU in the face of the US, drive by right-wing organisations such as the US-based think tank Heritage Foundation, US President Donald Trump's MAGA infrastructure and other right-wing entities.

RO: That sounds like a conspiracy theory. The European Union is perfectly capable of weakening itself. As an economic bloc, it doesn't make sense. The drive to have a single currency has been a disaster. Economic analysis showed that it wouldn't work.

The European Union countries, economically, socially, fiscally, are so divergent that putting them into one currency bloc would be a disaster, and it was, and remains so, and has impoverished Southern Europe.

The European Union has had all these ‘schemes.’ In 2000, it launched a scheme [the "Lisbon Strategy"] that by 2010, the European Union would be the leading knowledge-based economy in the world.

There are no big tech European Union companies: it's either Silicon Valley or China, and maybe Taiwan. The European Union produces all these great plans that never come to pass, never achieve anything. When was the last time Europe created a private sector job?

So much just rests on borrowing, debt financing of the European economy, the European Central Bank buying bonds to keep the financial sector on life support. It has these plans of producing a European Union, getting involved in military matters, and what's it actually achieved? Nothing. The European Union is perfectly capable of destroying itself.