A decade has passed since Britain voted to leave the European Union. That is long enough to move beyond campaign slogans and begin judging Brexit by its outcomes.
Every major political decision has unintended consequences. The real test of leadership is not whether mistakes are avoided entirely, but whether governments are willing to acknowledge them and adapt. Brexit offers a useful example of a broader problem in politics: the reluctance to confront the unintended consequences of policy decisions. When political narratives become more important than honestly confronting those consequences, reality has a habit of being overlooked.
No matter how many headlines appear warning of shortages of food, medicines or essential goods, much of the political rhetoric remains remarkably familiar. Britain "got Brexit done," and many of the politicians who argued for the hardest possible departure from the European Union continue to defend it with the same confidence they displayed before it happened.
The latest headline in The Independent is simply another reminder. Millions of patients who rely on a commonly prescribed blood pressure medication have been told supplies will be restricted, with prescriptions limited to one month's treatment until the end of October. It joins a growing catalogue of stories over recent years concerning medicines, food imports, labour shortages and supply chain pressures.
It would be intellectually dishonest to suggest that every shortage stems from Brexit. The Covid-19 pandemic disrupted global manufacturing. Wars affected energy markets and transport. Inflation reshaped international trade. Pharmaceutical supply chains are global, and medicine shortages have become more common across many countries.
But it would be equally dishonest to pretend Brexit has played no part.
Leaving the European Union's Single Market and Customs Union introduced additional customs procedures, regulatory divergence and new barriers to trade. Businesses, economists and parliamentary committees have consistently pointed to these changes as adding friction to supply chains already under considerable strain.
As is so often the case, the truth sits somewhere between the competing political narratives. Brexit did not create every challenge Britain now faces, but neither can it be separated entirely from them.
What is perhaps more striking than the shortages themselves is the political response. One might expect repeated reports of disruption to encourage a degree of reflection, or at least a more open conversation about unintended consequences. Instead, the language remains much the same. Sovereignty, taking back control and getting Brexit done continue to dominate much of the debate, while the day-to-day experiences of businesses, hospitals and consumers often feel like an afterthought.
Politics has always relied on stories. Once those stories become intertwined with identity, they are remarkably difficult to revisit. That is not unique to Brexit. It happens across the political spectrum and in democracies around the world. People naturally defend the values they believe they voted for, even when the evidence proves more nuanced than the slogans that first persuaded them.
That is why headlines like this still matter. Not because they conclusively prove one side right or the other wrong, but because they remind us that governments are ultimately judged by outcomes rather than campaign slogans.
Brexit is no longer the question. It happened.
The more important question is whether Britain's political leaders are prepared to examine both its successes and its shortcomings with equal honesty.
If our politics is to change, it has to move beyond endlessly defending decisions already made and instead concentrate on solving the problems people are facing today. Patients waiting for medicines, families coping with rising costs and businesses navigating unnecessary bureaucracy deserve more than familiar reassurances.
History is unlikely to judge Brexit by the passion with which it was argued. It will judge it by the country it helped shape, and by how willing those in power were to confront both its benefits and its costs with honesty.
We all deserve honesty about what's working, what's not, and what needs to change. We need to be more discerning about who we trust, and more willing to judge political promises by their outcomes than by their slogans.
