In an interview reflecting on Brexit’s long-term consequences, Professor Mark Corner (Emeritus Professor at the University of Leuven) frames Brexit as both a political and constitutional crisis for Britain and a challenge for the European project. Rather than treating Brexit as a simple break with the EU, he argues it reshaped how sovereignty and parliamentary authority are understood in the UK, and how political promises align (or fail to align) with real-world outcomes.

Corner highlights what he sees as a central irony of the Brexit narrative: a campaign centered on “taking back control” did not restore the kind of parliamentary sovereignty voters expected. Instead, he describes the referendum as asserting “popular sovereignty over parliamentary sovereignty,” given that most MPs preferred remaining in the EU.

He also disputes the idea that leaving the EU delivered economic freedom in practice. The “Singapore-on-Thames” vision, in his view, has largely faded, replaced by a quieter recognition that a very large share of the UK’s trade is still conducted with Europe. He argues that this enduring geographic and economic interdependence undermines the claim that Brexit could meaningfully decouple the UK from EU-linked outcomes.

On the political side, Corner describes how populist and radical-right actors shifted Brexit-era conflict away from questions of economic performance toward sovereignty, borders, and cultural identity. As a result, he says British political divisions became increasingly defined by social and cultural factors alongside economic ones.

Finally, Corner argues that the most destabilizing effects of Brexit may end up being more domestic than international. Even though other potential exits from the EU did not occur, he warns that pressures within the UK—especially around Scotland and Northern Ireland—may prove more troubling over the long run than the difficulties faced by the EU.