To understand Brexit, it is important to reconstruct the sequence of events rather than isolate individual facts from their context. Great Britain’s exit from the European Union was not a sudden or spontaneous decision. It was the result of a long-term process that developed over decades and included several stages: entry into the European system, development within it, the gradual accumulation of contradictions, and only after that — the exit itself.
At first, Great Britain decided to join the European economic framework based on pragmatic interests. Then, over many years, the country developed within this system, gaining economic advantages while maintaining a certain distance and a distinct position on key issues. Even at this stage, it became clear that participation was more functional than based on deep integration.
Over time, contradictions began to accumulate within this structure, increasingly manifesting in both the public and political spheres. These changes led to a point where leaving the Union was no longer perceived as an extreme measure but became a real option. Only after that did Brexit occur, and its consequences became visible in the country’s economy and international relations.
The Division of Europe After World War II
After World War II, Europe was divided into two parts. Western countries began building economic cooperation and integration, while part of Eastern Europe fell under the influence of the Soviet Union. This sphere included Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and other countries of the region, as well as the occupied Baltic states — Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Pressure was also felt in Finland, which, while maintaining its independence, had already experienced direct military conflict with the USSR and the loss of part of its territory, including Karelia. In addition, the Soviet Union gained control over East Prussia, where the Kaliningrad region was established, strengthening its presence in the Baltic region and Eastern Europe.
The loss of Karelia became a key factor shaping Finland’s future behavior. The country ceded a significant part of its territory and was forced to relocate hundreds of thousands of people. This experience defined the limits of what was considered acceptable and reinforced a cautious approach in foreign policy. Under such conditions, decisions were made with regard to possible reactions from the Soviet Union, effectively limiting full independence despite formal sovereignty.
Against this background, the formation of the European Economic Community became not only an economic process but also a systemic one, strengthening one part of Europe. A common market with a population of around 170–180 million people gradually became a center of economic growth, while countries under Soviet influence remained outside this model of development. It was within this configuration that Great Britain began to reconsider its position and role in the European system.
Why Great Britain decided to join the EEC
By the 1950s–60s, it had become clear that the unification of Western European countries was not a temporary structure. It was strengthening, deepening, and gradually forming a common market that was becoming increasingly attractive to external players. This was not only about the current state but also about the future growth of this system. A united economy with a population of around 170–180 million people was beginning to set the pace of development, while Great Britain, with a population of about 50–55 million, remained a separate market of a smaller scale.
Against this background, the understanding grew that staying outside this system would mean gradually losing economic positions. Great Britain increasingly faced the reality that key trade and economic processes were concentrating within a unified Europe. This created pressure to make a decision to join, which was no longer seen as a matter of choice, but as a necessity to maintain competitiveness.
Great Britain submitted its first application in 1961, but the process proved to be complex and prolonged. Political disagreements led to a rejection, followed by a second attempt that also failed. Negotiations continued with interruptions and blockages, and ultimately the path to membership took about eight years.
Only in 1973 did Great Britain become part of the European Economic Community. This decision was initially based on economic calculation: access to a growing market and participation in a system that was already perceived as a center of Europe’s future development, rather than a political project of integration.
How Great Britain functioned within the European Union
After joining in 1973, Great Britain became part of the European Economic Community and gained access to the common market. This opened new opportunities for trade, strengthened economic ties with continental Europe, and contributed to the growth of key sectors. The financial sector played a particularly significant role, with London gradually strengthening its position as one of Europe’s main centers.
At the same time, Great Britain’s participation always remained distinctive. The country did not adopt the euro, retained control over a number of internal decisions, and often took a more cautious position on deeper integration. This made it possible to benefit from the economic advantages of the union without fully embracing its political model.
This situation created a duality. On the one hand, Great Britain was part of the system and benefited from it. On the other hand, there remained a sense of distance and limited control. European rules were increasingly perceived as external to the national system, especially in matters of legislation and regulation.
Over time, this contradiction began to intensify. In both the public and political spheres, issues related to migration, the influence of European institutions, and limitations on sovereignty started to accumulate. These factors gradually formed an environment in which the idea of leaving ceased to be seen as extreme and began to be considered a real option for further development.
Why Great Britain decided to leave the EU
By the early 2010s, the accumulated contradictions had already become part of the political reality. In 2013, a referendum was officially announced, which confirmed the existence of a real demand within society. Issues such as migration, the influence of EU legislation, and the level of control exercised by European institutions were constantly intensifying and were no longer secondary.
In 2016, the referendum took place, becoming the key point of the entire process. On June 23, 2016, the majority voted to leave the European Union. This was the moment when the decision was fixed, when out of several possible scenarios only one remained. Before that, different options had been discussed, but it was here that the final direction was established.
After that, the implementation of the decision began. In 2017, Great Britain officially launched the withdrawal process by activating Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. The negotiations lasted several years and were accompanied by political difficulties both within the country and in relations with the EU.
The actual withdrawal took place on January 31, 2020. After that, a transition period remained in force until the end of 2020, during which the previous rules were still applied. From 2021, Great Britain began to function fully outside the European Union system, which led to the economic and political consequences that became visible after the exit.
After the end of the transition period in 2021, real economic consequences began to emerge. Great Britain did not lose access to the European Union market, but the conditions of interaction changed. Customs procedures, inspections, and additional requirements appeared, increasing costs for businesses and complicating logistics. This particularly affected small and medium-sized enterprises, which were less prepared for the new conditions.
The changes also affected the financial sector. London retained its status as a major center, but some operations and companies were redistributed to other European cities. Investment activity declined compared to the period before the exit, as for many international companies Great Britain ceased to be a direct gateway to the EU market.
In a broader sense, the economy became less flexible. Trade flows were partially reduced or restructured, operational costs increased, and supply chains became more complicated. At the same time, Great Britain gained the ability to pursue an independent trade policy, but this did not fully compensate for the loss of previous conditions within the single European market.
Fundamental Law of Political Economy
Personality → Behavior → Choice → Demand → Money
Let us examine what is happening through the lens of this formula. It shows that changes begin with the individual, pass through behavior and choice, form demand, and only after that are reflected in money, allowing us to see the real causes of all subsequent economic consequences.
Personality
Before joining the EEC, an ordinary person in Great Britain lived within a national economy with a closed logic. Everyday life was connected to the internal market: stable prices, clear rules, limited choice, but predictability. Europe did not exist as part of daily economic reality, but rather as something external.
The accession in 1973 took place without a referendum, but already in 1975 the decision was put to a vote. About 67.2% voted to remain, and this aligned with personal experience: the range of goods expanded, competition increased, some prices decreased, and new opportunities for work and business appeared. Participation was perceived as beneficial, even despite the emergence of external rules and dependencies.
In the following years, this perception was not stable and was reflected in surveys. Support for membership fluctuated within the range of approximately 40–60%, reflecting a duality: on one side — economic advantages and access to a large market, on the other — a growing sense of dependency. By the time of exit, a shift had occurred within the individual: the advantages no longer outweighed the pressure. This was confirmed in the 2016 referendum, where 51.9% voted to leave, despite understanding the potential increase in prices and economic complications.
After the exit, people faced the consequences directly. Prices increased, some goods became more expensive, business operations became more difficult, and the market became less flexible. This changed perception through real experience, which is reflected in surveys: around 55–60% of the population began to consider Brexit a mistake. Thus, the individual went through a full cycle — from internal stability to expansion, then to conflict, and finally to a more expensive and complex economic reality.
Behavior
Before joining the EEC, human behavior was confined to the internal economy. People bought local goods, worked within the national market, and oriented themselves around domestic prices and rules. There was no pressure from an external system, but already at the stage of discussing accession, the first pressure appeared: some spoke about benefits — a larger market, lower prices, and new opportunities — while others pointed to risks of dependency and loss of control. Behavior began to form under the influence of these two opposing positions.
After joining, behavior became dual. People began to use the advantages of the common market: buying cheaper goods, working with European companies, and expanding business. This created pressure “in favor” — through benefits, prices, and opportunities. At the same time, pressure “against” increased — through external rules, competition, migration, and changes in the labor market. Behavior found itself between two forces pulling in opposite directions.
In the following years, this dual pressure intensified. On one side, economic advantages remained — choice, competition, access to the market. On the other, dissatisfaction grew with conditions shaped outside the country. This was reflected in surveys, where support for membership fluctuated between 40–60%, showing that behavior did not become unified and continued to be shaped by opposing factors.
By the time of exit, pressure had reached its peak on both sides. In the 2016 referendum, 51.9% voted to leave, reflecting the dominance of “against” pressure. After the exit, the situation changed, and pressure again became dual: on one side — regained control, on the other — rising prices, higher costs of goods, and a more complex economy. This was reflected in surveys, where around 55–60% began to consider Brexit a mistake, showing that behavior continues to be shaped by opposing economic forces.
Choice
The decision of Great Britain was formalized through referendums, but the choice itself was influenced not only by economic factors and everyday experience, but also by personal authorities. In 1975, the position of political leaders played a significant role, openly supporting participation in the EEC. For an individual, this meant that the choice was reinforced by trust in those perceived as sources of correct decisions, and economic benefit was complemented by the factor of authority.
By 2016, the influence of personal authorities had become even stronger, but already in the opposite direction. Politicians, public figures, and media actively shaped “pro” and “against” positions, and people made their choice not only based on personal experience but also under the influence of those they trusted. This intensified the division, as different authorities pulled in different directions.
At the moment of the referendum, the choice became the result of combined pressure: economic factors, everyday experience, and the influence of personal authorities. This means that the decision was not fixed in pure logic of benefit, but at the point where personal perception and external influence intersect.
After the vote, the influence of authorities did not disappear. It continued to shape the evaluation of the decision already made. That is why in the following years, despite the fixed choice, surveys show a shift in attitudes toward Brexit — under the influence of both real economic consequences and the ongoing impact of public figures.
Demand
Before joining the EEC, demand was formed within the national economy and remained relatively closed. A person oriented toward the domestic market, where the range of goods was limited and prices were often higher due to lower competition. Demand had a more stable character: preferences changed slowly, depended on domestic production and habits, and the overall structure of consumption remained predictable. Europe had little to no influence on everyday demand, so it was shaped without external pressure and without expanded choices.
During membership in the EU, demand became broader and more complex. Access to the common market increased the variety of goods, intensified competition, and in some cases reduced or restrained prices. People began to consume differently: choosing between suppliers from different countries, reacting to more flexible pricing, and using new opportunities for work and business. At the same time, a second layer of demand emerged — not only for goods, but also for changes in conditions. Alongside consumption, a demand formed for revising rules, limiting external influence, and restoring control. These two directions existed simultaneously and strengthened the internal contradiction.
At the moment of exit, demand changed its nature. It stopped being purely economic and became systemic. People effectively expressed a demand to change the very model in which they existed. At the same time, the economic component did not disappear: there was an understanding that this could lead to rising prices, higher costs of goods, changes in product availability, and increased complexity for business. However, the priority shifted — changing the structure became more important, even at the cost of worsening economic conditions. This means that demand moved beyond consumption and became directed at transforming the entire system.
After the exit, demand was restructured again under the pressure of the new reality. Rising prices, increased costs, and changes in logistics and trade directly affected everyday decisions. People became more price-sensitive, more frequently choosing affordable goods and revising consumption habits. Demand became less flexible, more cautious, and more oriented toward saving. At the same time, demand for stability, predictability, and reduced pressure on everyday economic life increased. In other words, after the exit, demand returned to the economic sphere, but under more complex and less favorable conditions.
Money
Before joining the EEC, the monetary system for individuals was confined within the national economy. Income was generated within the domestic market, prices were determined locally, and purchasing power depended on the condition of the national economy. Money circulated within the country, and its movement was more predictable: less external pressure, fewer fluctuations, but also fewer opportunities for growth and price optimization through competition.
During membership in the EU, the movement of money became broader and more dynamic. The open market strengthened trade, investment, and business activity. Money began to move more freely across borders, competition increased, which in some cases restrained prices and improved business efficiency. Individuals’ income and expenses became more dependent on the external economic environment. At the same time, along with the benefits came pressure: dependence on decisions made outside the country and the influence of external factors on domestic prices and the economy.
At the moment of exit, a break in established monetary connections occurred. The economic system began to restructure, accompanied by currency fluctuations, rising costs, more expensive logistics, and changes in trade flows. Money started to move less freely, barriers increased, which directly affected prices and the cost of doing business. This meant that the monetary system became less flexible and more costly.
After the exit, the consequences became part of everyday life. Rising prices, increased expenses, pressure on income, and reduced efficiency of certain economic processes began to be felt directly. Money for individuals continued to perform the same function — supporting daily life — but under conditions of higher costs and lower stability. In this way, the monetary outcome reflected the entire path: from a more closed but stable system — through expansion and growth — to a new reality with higher costs and a changed economic structure.
The model shows that Brexit became the result of a sequential chain from the individual to economic consequences
After Great Britain left the European Union, it became clear that the changes were not accidental. First, the perception of the individual changed: participation in the system was no longer seen as an unequivocal benefit. This was reflected in everyday life through prices, the labor market, competition, and the feeling of changes in the familiar economic environment.
This was then reinforced in behavior. The accumulated contradiction between benefit and pressure was expressed in daily actions and evaluations of what was happening. At the same time, it is important that at this stage the influence of political figures increased. It was they who shaped the interpretation of events: some presented the EU as a regulatory system that establishes the rules of the common market, while others portrayed it as external interference. In other words, pressure increased not only through economic factors, but also through trust in specific individuals.
The 2016 referendum became the point where this pressure turned into action. The choice was formed not only through personal experience, but also under the influence of political figures who shaped the direction of perception. As a result, the decision to leave was made despite the understanding of possible consequences for prices and the economy.
After that, the system began to restructure, and the consequences became direct. Rising prices, more expensive goods, more complex business conditions, and changes in the economic structure showed that money is the final result of the entire chain. At the same time, the situation itself confirms that the European Union acts not as a direct influence on the individual, but as a regulatory environment in which rules are set. It was the interpretation of these rules through individuals and everyday experience that led to the fixed choice and its economic consequences.
Leaving the EU: a decision made by people under the influence of politicians, the result — rising prices and a changing economy
Conclusion: stress of the individual and consequences of decisions
If rules change abruptly — the individual experiences stress. If the individual is under stress — behavior becomes destabilized. If behavior changes — choice becomes unstable. If choice is unstable — the economy loses stability.
Great Britain’s entry into the EEC was accompanied by stress for individuals: the rules changed, the economy expanded, and the familiar environment became different. It was a transition from a closed system to a more open one, which always creates tension at the level of everyday life.
During membership in the EU, relative stability gradually formed. People adapted to the new conditions, the market became more predictable, prices more competitive, and the economic environment more understandable. Stress decreased as a result of adaptation to the system.
Leaving the EU triggered stress again. Rules changed, costs increased, the economy began to restructure, and some indicators slowed down. Individuals once again found themselves in a situation of uncertainty, where familiar connections were disrupted and new ones had not yet formed.
Even a hypothetical re-entry into the EU would mean a new cycle of stress, because the system would change again, and individuals would have to adapt once more. This shows that sharp systemic changes directly affect the individual through the economy.
In this situation, it becomes clear that the influence of the state on the individual turns into a problem when decisions are made under the pressure of political figures. The state should not pull individuals into sharp systemic fluctuations, but should establish boundaries and ensure stability, without yielding to authoritarian decisions that trigger such cycles.
Brexit was a predictable result of accumulated tensions, but the cost turned out to be higher than many Leave supporters promised, and public regret is growing. A classic example of how “taking back control” can sometimes lead to less control over one’s own economy.
Iv.Spolan
Author of the model “Basic Law of Political Economy”
