Brexit and the British Artworld: The Balance Sheet

Ten years after the Brexit referendum, the scale of its economic consequences remains contested, but the damage is clear.

Recent reporting by The Economist has highlighted estimates suggesting that Brexit has reduced UK gross domestic product by anywhere between roughly 2.5% and 8%, depending on the economist consulted. The Office for Budget Responsibility continues to project a long-term hit of around 4% to national income, while newer academic research places the figure closer to 6-8%. UK productivity is around 8% lower than it would have been without Brexit, according to estimates cited by the Centre for European Reform.

Supporters of Brexit have long argued that these economic costs are offset by greater democratic control over trade policy, taxation, regulation and lawmaking, with decisions now taken by elected governments in Westminster rather than through European Union (EU) institutions.

For the arts sector, the dominant narrative is one of loss. Artists, galleries, museums, dealers and cultural workers now face new barriers to movement, increased bureaucracy and the disappearance of funding programmes once embedded into the continental ecosystem.

Yet Brexit’s impact on the arts is more nuanced than a simple story of decline. While the losses are generally easier to identify and quantify, the benefits tend to be more diffuse. Some parts of the sector have benefited from regulatory flexibility and a strategic shift towards cultural relationships beyond Europe, some of which may reap lavish rewards.

The question is not whether Brexit has damaged parts of the UK art world. It clearly has. The more interesting question is whether those costs have been accompanied by any meaningful advantages. How does the balance sheet stack up?

Cost 1: Restricted Mobility for Artists

Perhaps the most visible consequence has been the loss of frictionless movement across Europe.

Before Brexit, British artists and performers could travel freely between EU member states. Today they face a mosaic of visa requirements, work permits, customs declarations and tax regulations. As such, touring exhibitions and artist residencies – the lifeblood of many careers – have become ever more complex and expensive.

The burden falls most heavily on emerging practitioners and smaller organisations that lack the resources of larger institutions.

Cost 2: Increased Costs for Art Trade

The movement of artworks between Britain and Europe now involves additional paperwork, customs procedures and VAT considerations.

Smaller dealers have been hit hardest, reporting increased shipping and administrative costs. Temporary exports for fairs, exhibitions and consignments require more planning and specialist expertise than before.

Cost 3: End of EU Cultural Funding

British organisations previously benefited from programmes such as Creative Europe, which supported cross-border initiatives, research projects and artistic exchanges - including the European Capital of Culture programme, which saw Liverpool hold the title in 2008.

Although some replacement schemes have emerged, equivalent opportunities for multinational collaboration on the continent have never fully materialised. Brexit has reduced the number of structured routes available to artists and organisations seeking long-term cultural partnerships across Europe.

Cost 4: Limited Access to European Talent

The UK’s museums, galleries and creative industries have long drawn curators, technicians, conservators, educators and administrators from across Europe. The prominence of figures such as Karin Hindsbo at Tate, Hartwig Fischer at the British Museum and Hans Ulrich Obrist at the Serpentine reflects the extent to which European talent has shaped Britain's cultural institutions.

Brexit has not ended European migration into the arts, but it has altered the incentives involved. Organisations large and small that recruited internationally with ease now face sponsorship obligations and visa costs. Over time, this is likely to reduce the fluidity and diversity that have long proudly characterised Britain's cultural workforce.

Cost 5: London's Weakening as a European Capital

Just look at the rise of Art Basel Paris and the anxieties surrounding Frieze London.

London remains one of the world’s most significant cultural capitals, but Brexit has coincided with increased competition from European centres - most notably Paris, but also Berlin, Milan and Brussels.

Across the art market, companies have established bases in continental Europe as they seek easier access to EU clients and easy trade. The high cost of operating in London following the 2008 financial crisis already set this shift in motion, but Brexit accelerated it considerably.

Gain 1: Greater Regulatory Flexibility

Supporters of Brexit argued that leaving the EU would allow Britain to tailor regulations more closely to national priorities. In some areas of the art market, that flexibility has come to pass.

Take for example Regulation 2019/880, the 2019 EU regulation governing the import of cultural goods, which was criticised within parts of the antiquities trade for imposing complex documentation requirements. Because Britain was no longer bound by the regulation, UK-based dealers avoided some of the administrative burdens faced by their EU counterparts, illustrating how regulatory independence can translate into tangible advantages.

Gain 2: Stronger Focus on Global Cultural Relationships

Brexit has encouraged British institutions to look beyond Europe when developing partnerships and audiences.

The British Museum’s and V&A’s collaborations with institutions in China and Qatar, Tate’s exchanges with museums in South Korea, and a growing number of partnerships across West Africa and the Gulf states illustrate this trend. While many of these relationships predate Brexit, the UK’s departure from the EU appears to have accelerated efforts to cultivate relationships with partners beyond Europe that could prove, in the fullness of time, to be hugely beneficial.

Gain 3: Renewed Attention to Domestic Cultural Infrastructure

Many northern and post-industrial communities voted strongly in favour of Brexit, and the referendum brought greater political attention to regions that had long felt economically, politically and culturally marginalised.

While results remain uneven, the referendum has arguably prompted the development of cultural policies that place greater emphasis on regional investment. Examples include the Culture Investment Fund, support for Factory International in Manchester, Arts Council England's redistribution of funding outside the capital and infrastructure investment associated with Bradford’s designation as UK City of Culture 2025.

Whether these programmes have succeeded is debatable, but they have contributed to a broader and more honest conversation about geographic inequalities within British culture.

Gain 4: Competitive Currency Effects

The depreciation of sterling following the referendum made British artworks relatively cheaper for overseas buyers.

A weaker pound is not inherently beneficial - it also increases import costs - but it has occasionally provided a competitive advantage for exporters, international collectors and tourism-related cultural businesses.

This sounds paradoxical - can a weak pound really be a gain? Yet some commercial galleries evidentially reported an increased in activity from dollar-based buyers during periods of Brexit-induced sterling weakness.

Gain 5: Greater Public Debate About Cultural Sovereignty

Brexit exposed a disconnect between many cultural institutions and parts of the electorate they claimed to represent. The debate that followed forced museums, galleries and arts organisations to confront questions about who they serve and how they reflect the country at large.

The vote also generated new research, exhibitions and public discussions around migration, empire, national identity and Britain’s place in the world.

In this sense, Brexit became not simply a political event but a subject of cultural production in its own right.