Editorial #54: Parting Is Such Sweet Sorrow, or: Ten Years After Brexit

Being a millennial who enjoyed the Erasmus program of the EU to its fullest in the great city of London might come with romanticising the early 2010s to an unrealistic extent. Looking back from June 2026, that period appeared to consist of endless opportunities and bright expectations for the future. The United Kingdom was one of the most frequented Erasmus destinations, the city of London a beacon to a multi-cultural world. Travelling to London today hits different for several reasons: Having left behind one’s treasured student days, not only are we now living in a post-pandemic world with several wars raging over the planet, but the global shift to the political (far) right has also changed the way international exchange, community and cooperation are understood.

It was nearly exactly ten years ago when the British Guardian headlined “Over. And out”, two days after the UK’s infamous referendum during which the participating majority voted to leave the European Union. And indeed, it did feel like that, like pure disbelief accompanied by a sickening sobriety after a bad night out in a fishy pub somewhere in South London, though it was no such occasion; it was the European idea haemorrhaging in front of everyone’s eyes. (It might sound dramatic now but felt even more so at the time.)

The Time Is Out of Joint

Nevertheless, Brexit was no sudden or spontaneous event, but a coordinated effort that was accompanied by misinformation and false – as we now know and were warned about even then – promises, all born from utter discontent and the wish to regain control. One of Brexit’s orchestrators, Nigel Farage, is more or less thriving while managing his new-old project “Reform UK” which aims to “restore Britain’s power and prosperity” – whatever this might entail, keeping in mind that the Brexit was such an enormous economic and social success. One would then later recognise it as the beginning of the era of the so-called post-truth politics, a term we are painfully familiar with by now, which shows the boiling point of the issue – that decisions are made on an unstable factual basis or total lack thereof. To recall the simple claims made by the Brexit advocates that were even displayed on buses: More money for the national health system (NHS), £350m per week to be exact, better immigration control, more sovereignty and less EU bureaucracy. Ten years later, reality has proven considerably more complicated.

Though one would think that such an experience qualifies as cautionary tale, – at least when it comes to seeking easy solutions for more than just complicated problems in an even more complicated world – the conclusions drawn from it are anything but unanimous.

In the end, one’s cautionary tale might just be someone else’s wet dream.

(©Miriam Nomanni [This photo was taken by the author during a short stay in London in June 2026; location: corner of Parliament Street and Great George Street close to House of Parliament])

When in May of last year, nine Member States of the Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights issued an open letter, more or less directly criticising the European Court of Human Rights for its jurisprudence on migration matters and its interpretation of the Convention, the political shift of the last decade had also reached human rights and with it the soul of Europe. And although the Brexit and the potential withdrawal or adaptions of the Convention are not mirror-imaged, the reliance on vague impressions of lost sovereignty instead of statistical facts does, at least, leave one with a feeling of unease. Despite the UK not being one of the nine, a 27-country joint letter has been issued in the meantime and discussions about the UK leaving the Convention are not only led by right-wing opposition parties but by the UK government itself. While the UK’s criticism of the Convention is hardly new and the discussion about replacing it was already taking place 15 years ago, the simple fact that Brexit did happen is living proof that discussions might lead to actions (one might regret later).

How Poor Are They that Have Not Patience!

The idea of leaving international instruments or treaties is not new but has become more popular recently. The United States withdrew not only once, but twice from the Paris Agreement, latest in early 2025, which took effect in the beginning of this year. Having just been through a Europe wide heat wave and still fearing to open the windows, this is indeed a lovely thought.

As if this was not enough of an international break-up, the US stepped back from the World Health Organization at the same time, despite being one of its founding members. Russia prominently left the Council of Europe in 2022 after its expulsion in the aftermath of its invasion of Ukraine, thereby ending its participation in the European Convention on Human Rights system. A few days ago, Niger pulled out of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, being the third country to do so after Philippines and Burundi. While criticising the Court and having a discourse about its colonial dimension is necessary, the latest withdrawal movements of certain countries seem to be linked to the growing isolation from the West and strengthening of ties to Russia.

Although it is in the nature of international agreements to be amended, denounced or even terminated, the recent enthusiasm for doing so reflects a broader political instinct. When confronted with increasingly complex challenges, retreat appears more attractive than the somewhat difficult work on cooperation. The promise is alluring and simple: leave the treaty, leave the court, leave the organisation, and regain control.

Yet the world stubbornly refuses to become less interconnected.

Supply chains still stretch across continents. Climate change ignores borders. Research is international by nature. Pandemics, migration and digital communication cannot be contained by border control or “do not cross” signs. Currently, millions of football fans are traveling across the North America for the FIFA World Cup (although the US goal seemed to be to make it as unattractive as humanly possible) while governments simultaneously tighten borders and revive protectionist rhetoric. Never has the world been so interconnected – and rarely have so many political projects been built on pretending otherwise.

Perhaps this is precisely why it is so very tempting to withdraw one’s support. Leaving an institution offers the appearance of a straightforward solution to problems that are anything but that. It creates a visible political act where genuine solutions require less visible patient cooperation, compromise and, above all, accepting the fact that sovereignty alone rarely solves transnational problems. In the end, it might be simply that: another symbol of political helplessness.

The Rest Is Silence

And yet, Brexit’s story does not end with departure as, fortunately, international cooperation has proven remarkably resilient. In recent years, the United Kingdom has cautiously sought closer cooperation with Europe again, not least through agreeing to rejoin the Erasmus+ program in 2027. Public debates about an eventual return to the European Union, once politically unimaginable, have become part of mainstream political discourse. Whether such a step will ever materialise is another question entirely. Aside from the unlikeness of re-scoring anything close to Margaret Thatcher’s 1984s “UK rebate”, it does not seem realistic that further opt-outs such as not being part of the Euro or Schengen could be re-negotiated. Furthermore, rebuilding legal relationships is considerably more difficult than dismantling them. Trust, unlike treaties, cannot simply be re-signed.

Perhaps that is the most valuable lesson of the past decade: International cooperation is rarely appreciated while it quietly works. We tend to notice its value only once it is gone. Any millennial is more than aware of that.

But as – of that I am sure – many of you have realised, the lovely title does not derive from the author’s own imagination but originates from the pen of no other than British playwright William Shakespeare himself. The full quote from his play Romeo and Juliet, Act 2 Scene 2, is the following:

“‘Good night, good night! Parting is such sweet sorrow,

That I shall say good night till it be morrow.”  

This might not only be a good inspiration for a title – don’t you think?