What If Brexit Never Happened?

The Actual History

On June 23, 2016, the United Kingdom held a referendum on its membership in the European Union. With a turnout of 72.2%, the British public voted to leave the EU by a margin of 51.9% to 48.1%. This narrow victory for the "Leave" campaign set in motion a complex and often contentious process that would become known as "Brexit."

The road to the referendum began much earlier. The UK had long maintained a somewhat ambivalent relationship with European integration, choosing not to join the original European Economic Community (EEC) in 1957, then applying in 1961 only to be vetoed by France's President Charles de Gaulle. Britain eventually joined in 1973 under Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath, but held a referendum in 1975 on whether to remain—which passed with 67% in favor.

By the 2010s, Euroscepticism had grown substantially, particularly within the Conservative Party and the rising UK Independence Party (UKIP) led by Nigel Farage. Facing this pressure, Prime Minister David Cameron promised in 2013 that if reelected in 2015, he would renegotiate Britain's relationship with the EU and hold an in-out referendum. After winning a surprise majority in the 2015 general election, Cameron fulfilled this pledge, but campaigned himself for the "Remain" side.

Following the unexpected victory for "Leave," Cameron resigned and was succeeded by Theresa May, who triggered Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union in March 2017, formally beginning the withdrawal process. May's attempts to negotiate a withdrawal agreement faced opposition from all sides, leading to multiple delays in the UK's departure. After failing three times to get her deal through Parliament, May resigned in 2019.

Boris Johnson then became Prime Minister with a promise to "Get Brexit Done." After calling a general election in December 2019, which his Conservative Party won with a substantial majority, Johnson succeeded in passing his withdrawal agreement. The UK formally left the EU on January 31, 2020, though a transition period maintained most arrangements until December 31, 2020, when the UK fully departed the EU's single market and customs union.

The impacts of Brexit have been far-reaching. Economically, the UK experienced a significant devaluation of the pound immediately after the referendum. Trade with the EU became more complicated with new customs procedures and regulatory divergence. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimated in 2022 that Brexit would reduce UK GDP by 4% over the long term. The financial services industry saw some operations move to EU centers like Frankfurt, Paris, and Dublin.

Politically, Brexit unleashed constitutional tensions within the UK. Scotland, which voted 62% to remain in the EU, saw renewed calls for independence. Northern Ireland's unique position required special arrangements (the Northern Ireland Protocol, later revised as the Windsor Framework) that effectively created a customs border in the Irish Sea, straining unionist sentiment.

Socially, the UK experienced increased polarization around Leave/Remain identities, which sometimes superseded traditional political divisions. Immigration from the EU decreased substantially, creating labor shortages in sectors like healthcare, agriculture, and hospitality.

On the international stage, the UK pursued a "Global Britain" strategy, seeking new trade deals and alliances while adjusting to diminished influence in European affairs. By 2025, the UK had completed trade agreements with several major economies, including Japan, Australia, and New Zealand, though a comprehensive US trade deal remained elusive.

The Point of Divergence

What if the Brexit referendum had resulted in a victory for "Remain"? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where on June 24, 2016, Britons awoke to news that 52% had voted to remain in the European Union, with 48% voting to leave—almost the exact reverse of the actual outcome.

Several plausible factors could have produced this alternate result:

First, the Remain campaign might have employed more effective messaging strategies. In our timeline, the Remain campaign was criticized for focusing excessively on economic risks (dubbed "Project Fear" by opponents) rather than making a positive case for EU membership. In this alternate reality, the campaign could have better highlighted tangible benefits of EU membership, from freedom of movement to collaborative research programs, while still communicating economic concerns.

Second, influential political figures might have made different choices. If Boris Johnson—who was reportedly undecided until late in the process—had chosen to support Remain rather than becoming a leading Leave campaigner, the referendum's outcome could have shifted significantly. His charisma and popularity might have swung enough voters to tip the balance.

Third, external events might have played out differently. The refugee crisis that peaked in 2015-2016 significantly influenced the referendum debate, with Leave campaigners linking EU membership to immigration concerns. A different EU response to this crisis, or simply different timing, might have diminished its impact on British voters.

Fourth, specific campaign tactics might have played out differently. The notorious claim that the UK sent £350 million weekly to the EU, emblazoned on the side of the Leave campaign bus, was widely criticized as misleading but proved effective. In this alternate timeline, perhaps this claim was more successfully challenged early in the campaign, or the Electoral Commission imposed stricter campaign finance enforcement leading to different messaging strategies.

Finally, voter turnout patterns might have diverged. Rainy weather in London and the Southeast on referendum day was thought to have suppressed Remain turnout in these pro-EU regions. In our alternate timeline, perhaps better weather conditions or more effective get-out-the-vote operations mobilized enough additional Remain voters to change the outcome.

The combination of these factors—better messaging, different political alignments, altered external circumstances, varied campaign tactics, and shifted turnout patterns—creates a plausible path to a narrow Remain victory in June 2016, setting the United Kingdom on a markedly different trajectory.

Immediate Aftermath

Political Fallout in the UK

In the immediate aftermath of the surprise Remain victory, British politics would have experienced significant turbulence, though of a different nature than what occurred in our timeline:

Conservative Party Tensions: Prime Minister David Cameron would have emerged strengthened by the referendum result, having staked his leadership on a Remain victory. However, the narrow margin would have left deep divisions within his party. Rather than resigning as he did in our timeline, Cameron would likely have attempted to heal these rifts through cabinet appointments and policy concessions to the Eurosceptic wing.

UKIP's Trajectory: Rather than declaring "mission accomplished" as Nigel Farage initially did after the actual Leave victory, UKIP would have faced an existential crisis. Without the implementation of Brexit to critique, the party would have needed to reinvent itself. Farage might have positioned UKIP as the guardian against "EU overreach," arguing that only electoral vigilance could protect British sovereignty.

Labour Party Dynamics: The Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn would have avoided the Brexit-related divisions that plagued it in our timeline. Corbyn, known for his historical Euroscepticism despite campaigning for Remain, would have faced less internal pressure but might have struggled to articulate a distinctive post-referendum vision for Britain in Europe.

Parliamentary Politics: The government would have returned to normal business without the all-consuming Brexit legislation that dominated parliamentary time from 2016-2020. However, Eurosceptic MPs would have closely scrutinized every EU-related decision, ensuring that European issues remained prominent in British politics.

European Union Response

The EU's reaction to Britain's decision to remain would have been complex:

Relief and Reevaluation: European leaders would have expressed relief at avoiding the unprecedented challenge of a member state departure. However, the close result would have signaled the depth of Euroscepticism in one of the EU's largest members, potentially prompting reflection on the bloc's direction.

Reform Momentum: The narrow escape might have accelerated discussions about EU reform. Leaders like Emmanuel Macron of France (elected in 2017) might have found a more receptive audience for proposals to reshape aspects of EU governance, with the UK's concerns serving as a warning about citizen disenchantment.

Migration and Security Policies: The EU might have accelerated reforms to migration policies that had fueled Euroscepticism across the continent. The UK, having preserved its influence within EU institutions, could have played a significant role in shaping more restrictive approaches to external migration while maintaining freedom of movement within the bloc.

Differentiated Integration: The EU might have moved more explicitly toward a "multi-speed Europe" model, allowing different levels of integration for member states based on their preferences and circumstances. This could have provided the UK with a more comfortable position within the European framework.

Economic Consequences

The immediate economic impact of the Remain victory would have been notable:

Market Reaction: Financial markets would have rallied, with the pound strengthening against major currencies. UK-focused stocks would have outperformed as uncertainty diminished. Bond yields would have stabilized, reflecting investor confidence.

Business Investment: Companies that had delayed investment decisions pending the referendum outcome would have proceeded with UK-based projects. The financial services industry in particular would have continued developing London operations without the contingency planning that occurred in our timeline.

Trade Patterns: Trade with EU partners would have continued under existing arrangements, avoiding the disruption and additional costs that Brexit imposed. Supply chains spanning the UK and EU would have remained intact.

Economic Forecasts: Economic forecasts would have been revised upward, with the UK avoiding the estimated 4-6% GDP reduction that economists attribute to Brexit in our timeline. However, the UK would still have faced productivity challenges and regional inequalities that predated the Brexit debate.

Social Impact

The referendum's aftermath would have had significant social dimensions:

Political Identities: Without the hardening of Leave/Remain identities that occurred after the actual referendum, British society might have experienced less of the polarization that characterized post-2016 politics. However, the underlying divisions exposed by the campaign would have remained.

Immigration Patterns: EU migration to the UK would have continued, though possibly at reduced levels due to economic factors and potential policy adjustments. The UK would have avoided the sharp reduction in EU workers that created labor shortages in sectors like healthcare, agriculture, and hospitality in our timeline.

Public Services: Public services would have continued to benefit from EU workers and funding programs, but would still have faced pressure from austerity policies and demographic changes.

European Identity: Without the clean break of Brexit, British citizens might have gradually developed stronger European identification alongside national identity, particularly among younger generations who overwhelmingly supported Remain.

International Relations

Britain's global position would have evolved differently:

Transatlantic Relations: The UK would have maintained its traditional role as a bridge between the US and Europe, particularly valuable during the Trump administration's strained relations with the EU.

Global Influence: Britain would have preserved its amplified international voice as a major EU member, maintaining influence over EU trade, foreign policy, and defense initiatives rather than operating alone on the global stage.

Commonwealth Relations: While "Global Britain" would not have become a post-Brexit rallying cry, the UK would likely still have sought to strengthen Commonwealth ties, albeit while balancing these relationships with EU priorities.

Long-term Impact

Britain's Evolving Relationship with the EU

As the 2020s progressed, Britain's relationship with the European Union would have evolved in significant ways:

Continued Opt-Outs: The UK would have maintained its special status within the EU, preserving its opt-outs from the Eurozone and Schengen Area. These exceptions would have remained crucial for political acceptability domestically, given the narrow referendum margin.

Reform Influence: Britain would have positioned itself as a leading voice for EU reform, potentially forming alliances with other member states skeptical of deeper integration. The UK might have championed a "wider but shallower" EU that emphasized trade and cooperation over political integration.

Eurozone Dynamics: Remaining outside the Eurozone while staying in the EU would have given the UK a complex position as the bloc addressed economic challenges. The UK would have influenced but not directly participated in reforms to strengthen the currency union following the lessons of the sovereign debt crisis.

Democratic Accountability: The UK might have spearheaded initiatives to address the "democratic deficit" in EU institutions, potentially leading to reforms in the European Commission's structure or enhanced powers for national parliaments in EU decision-making.

Economic Trajectories

The UK economy would have followed a markedly different path:

Financial Services Dominance: London would have reinforced its position as Europe's financial capital, potentially extending its lead over Frankfurt, Paris, and Amsterdam. The financial services passport would have remained fully intact, allowing seamless cross-border operations.

Regulatory Frameworks: The UK would have retained significant influence over EU regulations, pushing for more market-friendly approaches in areas like technology, financial services, and environmental standards. British industries would have shaped rather than merely adapted to European rules.

Trade Relationships: As part of the EU, Britain would have participated in trade agreements with Japan, Canada, Australia, and other nations as a bloc member, gaining market access without needing to negotiate separate agreements. The EU-UK trading relationship would have maintained zero tariffs and minimal non-tariff barriers.

Regional Development: EU structural funds would have continued flowing to disadvantaged regions in the UK, potentially reducing the regional inequalities that contributed to Brexit sentiment. Areas like Wales, Cornwall, and northern England would have remained eligible for significant European investment.

Labor Market Evolution: With freedom of movement preserved, the UK labor market would have maintained access to EU workers across sectors. However, the government might have implemented more aggressive domestic training programs to address Eurosceptic concerns about over-reliance on foreign labor.

Constitutional Implications for the United Kingdom

Remaining in the EU would have significantly impacted the UK's internal constitutional tensions:

Scottish Independence: Without Brexit removing Scotland from the EU against its will, the case for a second independence referendum would have been substantially weakened. The Scottish National Party would have continued to advocate for independence but would have struggled to generate the same urgency and international sympathy their cause received in our timeline.

Northern Ireland: The complex border arrangements necessitated by Brexit in our timeline (the Northern Ireland Protocol and Windsor Framework) would never have been needed. The Good Friday Agreement would have continued functioning within its original context, with both the UK and Ireland as EU members maintaining an invisible border.

English Regional Politics: Without Brexit as an outlet for regional discontent, pressure for English devolution might have increased. The "leveling up" agenda might have emerged earlier and potentially with more EU funding support, addressing the economic disparities that fueled Brexit support.

British Identity: The gradual evolution of British identity would have continued without the sharp "British vs. European" division that Brexit intensified. Younger generations especially might have increasingly adopted complementary British and European identities.

European Union Development

The EU itself would have evolved differently with the UK as a member:

Integration Pace: The UK's continued presence would likely have slowed certain aspects of EU integration, particularly in areas like defense, fiscal union, and social policy. Britain would have served as a counterweight to federalist ambitions championed by countries like France.

Budget Priorities: As a major net contributor to the EU budget, Britain would have maintained influence over spending priorities, likely pushing for greater emphasis on research, innovation, and competitiveness rather than agricultural subsidies and cohesion funds.

Enlargement Politics: The UK had historically supported EU enlargement, seeing a wider union as preferable to a deeper one. With Britain's continued influence, the EU might have pursued a more ambitious enlargement agenda in the Western Balkans and perhaps even maintained a more open stance toward Turkey.

Security and Defense: PESCO (Permanent Structured Cooperation) and other EU defense initiatives would have developed along different lines with British participation. The UK would have likely advocated for EU defense structures complementary to NATO rather than potentially competing with it.

Global Geopolitical Implications

By 2025, the global implications of Britain's continued EU membership would have become apparent:

EU-US Relations: The EU, with British diplomatic expertise still in the mix, might have navigated the Trump presidency more effectively. Subsequently, the Biden administration would have engaged with a more unified transatlantic partnership rather than dealing separately with the UK and EU.

Russia Policy: British intelligence capabilities and traditionally hawkish stance toward Russia would have strengthened the EU's collective response to issues like the Ukraine conflict, potentially leading to more coordinated and assertive policies.

China Approach: The EU's approach to China might have balanced economic engagement with greater security consciousness, influenced by UK perspectives. A more coherent EU-wide investment screening mechanism might have emerged earlier with British input.

Climate Leadership: The UK and EU together would have presented a more unified front in global climate negotiations, potentially accelerating international climate action while navigating internal tensions between environmental ambition and economic concerns.

Migration Management: EU migration policies might have evolved toward a more balanced approach, incorporating elements of the UK's points-based system while maintaining humanitarian commitments and addressing Mediterranean migration challenges more comprehensively.

Technological and Regulatory Innovation

The 2020s have been a critical period for technological regulation, and a UK-in-EU scenario would have altered these developments:

Digital Markets Regulation: The UK would have helped shape the EU's landmark Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act, potentially introducing more competition-focused elements while tempering the most interventionist aspects.

Data Protection Evolution: Rather than developing a post-Brexit UK GDPR, Britain would have influenced the evolution of the original GDPR, potentially advocating for more innovation-friendly interpretations while maintaining strong privacy protections.

Research Collaboration: British universities would have remained fully integrated in European research networks and funding programs like Horizon Europe, maintaining leadership positions in collaborative projects rather than negotiating associate status.

Green Transition: The UK would have participated fully in the European Green Deal, potentially accelerating certain aspects while moderating others. British expertise in offshore wind and financial instruments for climate investment would have been fully leveraged within EU frameworks.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Sophia Richardson, Professor of European Politics at LSE, offers this perspective: "A Remain victory in 2016 would have preserved Britain's unique and influential position within the European project. The UK has always been the champion of a certain vision of Europe—market-oriented, outward-looking, and respectful of national sovereignty. Without Brexit, I believe we would have seen a more economically dynamic EU that might have been slower to federalize but potentially more successful at addressing its democratic legitimacy challenges. The irony is that many of the reforms Brexiteers wanted might have been more achievable from inside the tent, especially with the wake-up call that the close referendum result would have provided to EU leadership."

Professor James Harrington, Director of the Global Economy Institute, notes: "The economic counterfactual of a non-Brexit UK by 2025 is striking. Our models suggest the UK economy would be approximately 4-5% larger than in our current timeline—a significant difference equivalent to about £100 billion annually. But perhaps more important than the raw numbers would be the qualitative differences: continued regulatory alignment would have preserved frictionless supply chains, while the City of London would have enhanced rather than merely defended its global position. The UK would have avoided the investment uncertainty of 2016-2020 that meaningfully reduced its productive capacity. That said, the fundamental challenges of Britain's regional inequalities and productivity puzzle would have remained, though potentially with different policy tools available to address them."

Dr. Maria Costa, Visiting Fellow at the Center for European Reform, provides a continental perspective: "From Brussels, a British decision to remain would have been received with relief but also wariness. The close result would have signaled that the UK's ambivalent relationship with European integration remained unresolved. I suspect EU leaders would have moved more cautiously on integration projects, anticipating British objections, while also working to address legitimate concerns about democratic accountability and subsidiarity. The migration crisis and rule of law challenges in Poland and Hungary would still have tested EU cohesion. The fundamental question—whether the EU functions better as a more tightly integrated core or a more flexible, multi-speed construction—would have remained, with Britain's continued membership strengthening the latter vision."