A new report by European Movement UK highlights the difficulties faced by the UK's creative sector, ten years after the decision to leave the EU.
The report is available to read here.
Music venue owners like Mig Schallache, owner of The Louisiana, Bristol's iconic music venue, say performances by EU-based acts have reduced dramatically over the last 5 years - while UK bands now find touring and taking merchandise into the EU prohibitively difficult.
"Because of Brexit we're getting less artists from Europe. There aren't enough artists in the UK to fill diaries, so you need the influx to fill your books.
"Pre-brexit it was so much easier for bands to go to Europe and tour. Now it's just not feasible. It's just really sad not having that influence from Europe, European music coming across and seeing it live."
Watch our interview with Mig here.
UK musicians and artists have said consistently that working in the EU has become much harder since the UK left the bloc. New requirements for lists of equipment, visa issues and movement restrictions across EU borders for UK nationals have seen many lose work or stop touring the EU entirely.
The report recommends the government should:
The UK can remove domestic barriers now, reducing unnecessary bureaucracy for UK creatives and for EU cultural professionals working in the UK.
Facts and Figures
A roundtable to discuss the report and the solutions available for solving the post-Brexit problems facing the cultural and creative sectors will take place on Tuesday in Portcullis House, Westminster, hosted by Dr Al Pinkerton MP.
By Public Affairs Manager, Joe Meighan.
The European Movement, along with many others, has consistently argued that Brexit has made Britain increasingly difficult to govern. If that diagnosis is correct, the solution is unlikely to be found simply through another change of leadership. Structural problems rarely disappear because of a new personality at the dispatch box.
That is worth bearing in mind amid the increasingly feverish speculation around Labour’s future leadership following difficult local election results. Pro-Europeans have understandably become animated by encouraging remarks from senior politicians who may one day seek to inhabit Number 10. The fact that politicians now feel comfortable speaking positively about Europe is, in of itself, a significant shift and should be welcomed. Only a few years ago, meaningful discussion about Brexit and Britain’s relationship with the European Union was politically toxic. Today it has returned to mainstream political debate as a serious question of national interest.
But while bold pronouncements on Europe are welcome, we should be wary of becoming consumed by personalities alone. Jockeying for short-term political advantage is inevitable in politics. However, politicians who overdo it at the expense of a clear, credible and consistent strategic vision risk not only paying an electoral price themselves but leaving the country to pay a far heavier one in lost prosperity, reduced opportunities and continued instability.
So, the European Movement does not take sides in leadership speculation. What we do ask of all senior politicians, whether currently in government or aspiring to it, is honesty about Britain’s relationship with Europe and realism about the scale of the challenge ahead.
That means recognising three things in particular.
First, Britain is in a considerably better place with Europe than it was during the era of “Get Brexit Done and never mind how”. Relations with the EU have improved markedly. Practical cooperation has begun to return, and agreements such as the UK’s return to Horizon and Erasmus+ demonstrate that constructive engagement can deliver tangible benefits for British citizens.
Second, the government now needs to build on that progress. The commitments made around closer defence and security cooperation, a meaningful youth mobility scheme and reducing barriers that continue to drive up food prices and costs for businesses must now be pursued with greater urgency and ambition.
And third, if Britain genuinely wants to repair much of the damage caused by Brexit, this is no time for rigid red lines. Europe will not seriously engage in a deeper long-term partnership with a Britain that still appears trapped by the political psychology of the Brexit years.
The European Union itself was not built in a single electoral cycle. European peace and cooperation were constructed patiently over generations. In that sense, there is something to be said for taking a longer strategic view of Britain’s place in Europe while remaining rigorous in our short-term ambitions.
There is an old observation often made about Russian strategic thinking: that Russia thinks in centuries while Western democracies think in election cycles. Whether entirely fair or not, there is a useful lesson in it. Political movements that want lasting change need both immediate ambition and long-term discipline.
Public opinion in Britain has clearly shifted in recent years. Many of the arguments about Brexit’s economic and political consequences that once sat at the margins are now part of mainstream discussion. Those in the pro-European movement may reasonably feel a quiet sense of vindication. We have been making many of these arguments for years. But politics is not simply about being right; it is about the country being ready to hear it.
The road towards a closer relationship with Europe is more open today than it has been for some time. That is meaningful progress. But the next stage will require patience, realism and strategic consistency, not simply another round of political personality contests.
Until we remedy that, the Downing Street hinges will need constant WD-40, argues Joe Meighan
When historians look back on this extraordinary era of British politics, they may conclude that the country did not simply change governments after 2016, it changed political reality. Since the referendum, Britain has chewed through prime ministers with astonishing speed. Theresa May fell trying to deliver Brexit. Boris Johnson fell after winning the election that was supposed to “get Brexit done.” Liz Truss detonated herself and much of Britain’s economic credibility in a matter of weeks. Rishi Sunak inherited decline rather than authority. And now Keir Starmer, despite entering office with the promise of stability and competence, has found himself overwhelmed by the same currents that consumed his predecessors.
The personalities differ. The mistakes differ. But the backdrop remains the same.
Brexit did not create every problem Britain faces, but it intensified nearly all of them. Weak growth, stagnant wages, collapsing public confidence, rising political anger, pressure on migration systems, poor trade performance, labour shortages, and the constant sense that the country is somehow in perma-crisis; these are not isolated symptoms appearing by coincidence. They are connected to a political and economic rupture Britain has never properly absorbed.
The great promise of Brexit was control. Instead, Britain often appears less capable of controlling events than at any point in recent modern history.
Trade friction with our largest market has damaged confidence and investment. Businesses have faced barriers that did not previously exist. Growth has remained anaemic while comparable economies have weathered and recovered more effectively from global shocks. Even migration, supposedly one of the defining motivations behind leaving the European Union, rose dramatically in the post-Brexit years, exposing how much of the debate had been built on political fantasy rather than economic reality.
Meanwhile, politics itself became permanently destabilised. Brexit created a culture of permanent ideological warfare in Westminster, where compromise became betrayal and long-term planning became almost impossible. Prime ministers are now treated less like national leaders and more like temporary occupants of the HMS Brexit wheelhouse. Britain has entered an era of prime ministerial Russian roulette.
Simply removing Keir Starmer is unlikely to solve anything fundamental, despite the mistakes his government undoubtedly made. In many ways, Starmer represented an attempt to restore seriousness to British governance. European leaders trust him. Brussels see him as an honest negotiator, someone capable of rebuilding a working relationship after years of chaos and hostility. He understands that Britain’s future prosperity depended upon closer cooperation with Europe, yet has remained constrained by self-imposed red lines that Labour viewed as politically necessary to win back former “red wall” voters. In reality, many of those voters did not return to Labour because of the nuanced position on Europe, but out of exhaustion with, and anger toward, a Conservative government that had spent fourteen years presiding over decline and instability.
Starmer governs under the looming shadow of Nigel Farage and the constant threat of populist backlash. That has made deeper engagement with Europe politically perilous, even when it was economically rational. European partners, too, could never be entirely certain that Britain would stay the course. Why make difficult concessions to a British government that might be replaced by an anti-European administration within a few years?
This is the deeper crisis Britain now faces: not merely economic decline, but the collapse of strategic confidence. Investors lack confidence. Allies lack confidence. The public lacks confidence. And governments themselves increasingly appear unable to govern with authority or durability.
Until Britain confronts the root cause, our abandonment of the European Union and the instability it unleashed, we are unlikely to remedy the symptoms. Changing leaders without addressing the underlying settlement merely repeats the cycle.
That does not necessarily mean politics can simply rewind itself to 2016. It cannot. But it does mean that all serious options may soon have to be open if Britain is to stabilise itself politically and economically. That could include a far deeper conversation about our constitutional settlement, the structure of Westminster government, the concentration of power in Downing Street, or even whether the voting system itself is still fit for purpose in a fragmented political age.
Britain is missing positivity. The main issue is not bad leadership, though there has been some of that, over many years and under several governments. The underlying weakness is that the UK has swapped the relative stability of EU membership - and the economic advantages and geopolitical influence that go with it - for a state of perpetual flux, where promise after promise to voters has been broken and yet where ever more undeliverable promises are being made and will again be broken.
This is the modern British disease - we might call it Brexit-itis - but it is not inevitable or incurable. There is indeed a route back to the heart of Europe but is not the detour into marginal tinkering that has side-tracked the government. The road will be long and hard. Returning to the EU won't solve all our problems and it will need to be accompanied by a coherent programme for domestic change. But we can and must set off on that road.
As the UK marks 10 years since the Brexit referendum, new polling from the European Movement Ireland shows that public opinion in Northern Ireland has shifted decisively towards Europe.
New polling published today by our colleagues at the European Movement Ireland (conducted by Amárach Research) reveals that 73% of people in Northern Ireland would vote to rejoin the European Union if the UK held a referendum tomorrow.
Northern Ireland voted 56% to Remain in the 2016 referendum. And ten years on, the polling makes clear that their view has not changed. If anything, it has strengthened.
This is cross-community support
It would be easy to dismiss a pro-EU figure from Northern Ireland as simply reflecting nationalist sentiment. But 73% cannot be explained by one community alone. That level of support has to come from all sides, Nationalist and Unionist, Catholic and Protestant.
This is genuinely cross-community, cross-party support for closer ties with Europe. That matters, and it should not be overlooked.
The cost of living is a driving force
This is not just about identity or history. The poll found that cost of living is now the top concern for people in Northern Ireland, cited by 45% of respondents. Brexit has made those pressures worse, through higher trade costs, disrupted supply chains, and the ongoing friction created by the Irish Sea border.
People in Northern Ireland have lived with the practical consequences of Brexit in a way that is immediate and visible. The polling reflects that lived experience.
There is also a striking finding on trust. Just 8% of respondents in Northern Ireland said they trust the UK Government, compared with 28% who said they trust the European Union. That gap is not a minor detail. It points to a deep and growing disconnect between the government that took the UK out of the EU and the people of Northern Ireland who never wanted to leave.
What the numbers tell us
For more on the economic impact of Brexit on Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland, you can read our recent news piece here.
The case for a closer relationship between the UK and the EU has never been stronger. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has already said he wants to go further in aligning with Europe. Public opinion across the UK is shifting. And now, from the part of the UK that has felt the impact of Brexit the most, comes the clearest possible signal that the direction of travel needs to change.
73% is not a fringe opinion. It is a majority, across a divided society, pointing in one direction.
You can read the full polling from our colleagues at the European Movement Ireland here.
A new report released today by European Movement UK highlights how small-and-medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the UK have struggled since the UK left the EU.
The report, Freedom to Prosper, which interviewed dozens of SMEs across the UK, can be downloaded here.
Key takeaways from the report:
For the report, businesses across the UK shared their post-Brexit experience with us.
Alison Lea-Wilson MBE, of Anglesey Sea Salt Co. Ltd, in Anglesey, Wales said:
"Since Brexit, trading with our largest export markets - Italy and Spain - has become so much harder. Before Brexit, it used to take under a week to export one pallet of our products from Anglesey to Bologna, but now it takes up to three months.
“The delays are largely due to excessive paperwork. Rather than following the EU rules across all European countries, we now must liaise with each country individually. As a result of Brexit and the difficulties we face trading with the EU, the company lost four major EU distributers, sadly this translates to a loss of customers."
Mike Donovan of Apparel Studio, Stockport, also said:
"As soon as the referendum vote happened in 2016 our earnings were cut in half almost overnight. The 12% tariffs on all imports and exports drastically decreased our profits which meant we had to change our business model and move our manufacturing to countries like Turkey.
"Simply put, we need access to the customs union and the single market so that our business can thrive again."
Tina Makin of Pie Events, based in Surrey, shared her businesses’ experience:
"We design and deliver bespoke UK and European cycle rides for UK charities. The biggest challenge for us is the increased costs and admin associated with using Carnets [temporary and tax-free export/import of goods]. As part of our service, we arrange the transport of all the bicycles and equipment which before Brexit, was as simple as loading up a van and setting off.
“Now, this entails a series of long-winded forms for both my business and the customer. For example, each individual participating in a bike ride is required to fill out a form detailing the exact make, model and colour of the bicycle, as well as where it was manufactured and its value. The carnet is a substantial cost to the business as we pay for the pleasure of using a Carnet as well as paying a fee per bicycle, a percentage of the bicycle’s value."
"What this report demonstrates clearly," remarked Sir Nick Harvey, CEO of European Movement UK, "is that many of the barriers facing British businesses today stem from the loss of frictionless access to the European single market. While some tariff-free trade remains in place under the current arrangements, companies are now navigating customs paperwork, regulatory duplication and restrictions on labour mobility that simply did not exist before 2020. For many firms, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, these additional frictions translate directly into higher costs, reduced competitiveness and lost opportunities.
"Perhaps the most powerful aspect of this report is that it allows businesses themselves to speak. From manufacturers and exporters to educators, freelancers and cultural organisations, the case studies presented here illustrate how changes to the UK-EU relationship are affecting real people running real businesses. These are not abstract statistics repeated by both sides of the argument; they are the real experiences of entrepreneurs who have had to restructure supply chains, absorb new administrative costs or reduce their presence in European markets simply to continue operating.
"Companies across the country have worked hard to adjust to the new trading environment. However, resilience should not be mistaken for satisfaction. The central argument of this report is therefore straightforward. If the United Kingdom is serious about boosting productivity, supporting SMEs and expanding exports, it must consider how its relationship with Europe can better support those goals."
As the UK Government builds on its UK-EU reset, there is a clear opportunity to listen to the voices of UK business and ensure that economic growth, support for SMEs, and cutting red tape are at the heart of that relationship. Our report has three recommendations to the Government.
Read the report, Freedom to Prosper, and sign the petition calling on the Government to deliver our three recommendations.
Latest polling released today by YouGov shows that 55% of people support EU membership.
Just 33% would be opposed to the UK rejoining the EU.
It also shows that 1 in 5 people (21%) who voted to leave in 2016 have changed their minds, and would now vote to rejoin.
The latest polling is available here.
The polling also shows support for the UK rejoining the EU according to political party affiliation. By party and from highest to lowest:
Dr Mike Galsworthy, Chair of European Movement UK, said:
"Almost ten years have passed since the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, along with its membership of the Customs Union and the Single Market. In that time, the consequences for the British people have become increasingly stark.
“This latest polling not only reinforces that - it shows that more and more people see the benefits of much closer ties with the European Union - having felt the pain of Brexit.
"We have seen soaring import costs, increased workforce shortages and reams of new red tape. No wonder exports to the EU by our small businesses are down by 30%, and 20,000 small firms across the UK have stopped all exports to the EU. Meanwhile, LSE research shows a £27bn fall in goods exports to the EU - enough to fill a fiscal black hole or two.
“Politicians must now face the facts - ten years since the vote, Brexit is still an ongoing accident, and its damage is far from over."
Research released today by the Food and Drink Federation shows that UK exports of food and drink to the EU are down by almost a third compared to 2019.
The 'trade snapshot', available here, shows UK exports are down 31% on pre-Brexit levels.
It says the huge drop in EU business is due to the complexities of trading with the EU, and calls on the government to help promote British products abroad and prioritise preparing businesses for the SPS Agreement, a deal which would help cut red tape involved in exporting UK products to the EU.
Sir Nick Harvey, CEO of European Movement UK, said:
"We cannot ignore this figure. A 31% loss in our food and drink exports is hammering our growers and producers, many to the point of simply giving up. The damage done by leaving the single market is egregious.
"Anyone claiming that this is a Brexit betrayal simply doesn't understand the dire situation our food industry has faced since the UK left the EU, when it mangled its trading relationship with its best customer.
"Farmers, growers, fisheries - they've all been hammered by extra red tape, which made them so uncompetitive in terms of exports that many of them simply gave up exporting to the EU, or went out of business altogether. The announcement of this deal will help not just them, but all of us in terms of food prices, at a time when the cost-of-living looks again set to increase for all of us on our food costs and energy bills."
David Catt, a fruit and vegetable farmer based in Kent and European Movement member, said:
"This reflects what all farmers already know - that trading with the EU has become much harder in the last five years. You've got dairy farmers going out of business on a weekly basis because they can't export because of the red tape. Producers are in a domestic market which simply doesn't buy enough, so they're stuck with produce they can't sell and can't export.
"Potatoes are down, milk is down, fruit is down - we need to get rid of the extra red tape as soon as possible, and the government making a deal with the EU is the only way to breathe life back into the UK farming, growing and fishing industries. It cannot come soon enough."
Ten years on from the referendum, Ireland shows why Britain should join the EU single market again.
When the UK voted to leave the European Union in June 2016, no part of the UK had more at stake than Northern Ireland.
The frameworks that followed, from the Northern Ireland Protocol to the Windsor Framework of 2023, have provided some of the answers. But they have also created new complications, and the economic data now tells a story that should be at the heart of the UK's conversation about its relationship with Europe.
Northern Ireland's trading relationship with the Republic has grown much stronger, while its trade with Britain has declined in relative importance. That is not a coincidence. It is the direct consequence of the Irish Sea border created by Brexit.
Cross-border trade in goods was broadly flat from 2000 to 2016, but since then there has been over a threefold increase in its value, reaching €10.6 billion / £9 billion in 2024 (FactCheckNI). Much of that growth reflects Northern Ireland firms reorientating towards the Republic because of Brexit-related red-tape with Britain.
But Northern Ireland has paid a price for this reorientation. Research shows that all other things being equal, increasing trade barriers and red-tape with Britain could cause Northern Ireland's GDP to contract by up to 2.6% (Citp).
The promise of "dual market access" to both EU and UK markets has also proved harder to realise than originally hoped. The Chief Executive of Invest NI told a committee at Stormont in October 2024 that there was no evidence of increased foreign direct investment as a result of Northern Ireland's unique dual market access status (Chartered Institute of Export & International Trade). The EY Economic Eye report forecasts growth of 1.3% for Northern Ireland in 2025 and 1.2% in 2026, compared with GDP growth for the Republic of Ireland forecast at 9% in 2025 (EY).
The impact of Brexit on the Republic of Ireland has not been as profound as once feared, but that is not the same as saying Ireland came through it unscathed, or that anyone in Dublin regards it as anything other than a significant loss.
The Republic was always uniquely exposed. Approximately 15% of Irish goods and services exports are destined for the UK, and in the agri-food sector, around 40% of exports go to the UK market (Copenhagen Economics). Ireland was also, for decades, deeply integrated into British supply chains, with major retailers serving Irish outlets from distribution centres in northern England. Brexit dismantled much of that overnight.
The diplomatic damage was just as real. For years, Ireland and the UK had sat around the same table in Brussels, two close neighbours with overlapping interests and a shared stake in the peace process in Northern Ireland. Brexit did not just create a new border for goods. It removed the UK from the room where EU decisions are made, and with it, an ally Ireland had long relied upon. Relations between the two countries have been on a sustained upswing since Starmer took office, and the annual leaders' summit, inaugurated last year in Liverpool, is a symbol of that improvement (The Irish Times). But the very fact that such a summit needs to exist is a reminder of how much ground was lost in the years before because of Brexit.
That reset is continuing today. The second UK-Ireland Summit took place in Cork on Friday 13th March, with Prime Minister Starmer unveiling over £937 million in new Irish investment into the UK, alongside a new defence agreement and progress on energy interconnectors between the two countries (GOV.UK).
Where Ireland has seen some benefit, it has come largely through the hard work of Irish and EU officials, not through any particular good fortune. Ireland was allocated approximately €1 billion from the EU's Brexit Adjustment Reserve, the largest single allocation to any member state, representing 20% of the entire fund (European Commission). Without that support, and without the EU's insistence on protecting the integrity of the Single Market and the Good Friday Agreement, the situation on the island of Ireland could have been considerably worse.
There is also the matter of FDI. Brexit left Ireland as the largest of only two remaining EU countries where English is an official language, the other being Malta. That has made Dublin a more attractive destination for international businesses needing a foothold inside the EU single market. After Brexit, many UK-based firms moved their headquarters or opened subsidiary offices in Ireland to facilitate ease of business with other EU countries. In 2024, IDA Ireland recorded 234 inward investment projects, including 69 from first-time investors, set to create more than 13,000 future jobs (Silicon Republic).
But it would be wrong to frame any of this as Ireland winning from Brexit. The consensus in Dublin is rather that Ireland had a lucky escape, and that the escape was hard fought. The EU shield held. The diplomatic effort was enormous. And the relationship with the UK, which matters so deeply to Ireland economically, culturally, and in terms of the peace process, took years to begin recovering. It is only now, under this government, starting to resemble what it once was.
What the data from the island of Ireland shows, more clearly perhaps than anywhere else in the UK or Europe, is what the EU single market actually means in practice. It means supply chains that flow freely across a border. It means businesses that can plan with certainty. It means a trading relationship built on shared rules rather than bespoke workarounds.
Research published by CEPR found that firms located further from the Irish border, and therefore more exposed to the full economic consequences of Brexit, reduced their workforce by up to 15.7% relative to less exposed firms (CEPR). The border did not just divide an island. It drew a line between two economic realities.
That is why, when Prime Minister Keir Starmer speaks about aligning more closely with the EU single market, the island of Ireland is one of the most compelling arguments available to him. The economic case is not abstract. It is visible, measurable, and human. It is the farmer in County Armagh rerouting her supply chain. It is the Belfast manufacturer who finds it easier to sell to Dublin than to Birmingham. It is the Republic's pharmaceutical sector, thriving precisely because it retained the frictionless access to European markets that the UK chose to give up.
The impact of Brexit on the island of Ireland highlights what the EU single market is for. And it makes the case, more powerfully than almost any other example, for why Britain should not merely align with it, but rejoin it.
For more on European Movement UK's campaign to bring Britain back into the Single Market, read more here and sign our petition.