Few would disagree that the Brexit process was painful and disruptive. Since June 2016, UK politics has undergone great turbulence. A new book, The Brexit Effect, 2016–2026, by Dr Anthony Seldon, the latest in his Effect series, brings together a range of authors to discuss the impact of the EU referendum. 

Professor Meg Russell, who served as Director of the UCL Constitution Unit until May 2026, has contributed a chapter on the institution that was central to the Brexit debates: parliament itself. In ‘The Debate in Parliament, 2016–19’, she says that it ‘emerged battered and bruised from the process’.

Buy the book

Buy 'The Brexit Effect, 2016–2026' directly from its publisher, Cambridge University Press.

Order from CUP

In the chapter, Professor Russell says that it was natural and right for parliament to want a say over, and serve as the forum for, contentious debates about the form of Brexit and how it was going to be triggered. But, like most of the key institutions of UK governance, it found this difficult. This, she says, reflected the divisions within the country, governing party and government itself during this period. She says that the blame put on parliament by campaigners, journalists and politicians was often unfair, but parliament did struggle in the unfamiliar circumstances of a minority, and deeply divided, government.

However, Professor Russell highlights that other factors were behind this difficult period too. In particular, she says, parliament faced ‘highly irresponsible and problematic’ prime ministers making populist claims discrediting it, and ministers more widely keen to defend their traditional royal prerogative powers in foreign affairs, ultimately culminating in the unlawful prorogation of parliament and removal of the Conservative whip from 21 MPs in 2019. 

Professor Russell also says that parliamentarians and those outside often struggled to navigate parliament’s dual representative and decision-making roles. For instance, when voting on legislation to allow the government to trigger ‘article 50’, she says that it was unusual for MPs to face such explicit dilemmas over whether to listen to their own conscience, local constituents or the nation at large. 

There were also contradictions, Professor Russell writes, in the approach towards parliament of some politicians, who would simultaneously call for the status and traditional sovereignty of parliament to be restored by Brexit, while trying to sidestep the institution itself, perhaps because they saw it as too pro-EU. In part, she blames a lack of clarity over the term ‘parliamentary sovereignty’ for this; some people interpreted the term de facto as ‘executive sovereignty’ or ‘national sovereignty’. Similarly, because a referendum was held, she notes that awkward questions arose about the relationship between ‘parliamentary sovereignty’ and ‘popular sovereignty’. 

Concluding, Professor Russell says that it is essential to UK democracy that parliament should maintain public trust. But this, she suggests, was damaged during the Brexit process and left much rebuilding that still needs to be done.

Many of the themes picked up in the chapter are explored in much more depth in Professor Russell’s 2023 book with Lisa James, The Parliamentary Battle over Brexit. This charts the full story of parliament’s role in Brexit, and reveals that it was not always what it seemed. Professor Russell recently discussed the fractious and polarised period in wider UK politics since the 2016 EU referendum at her valedictory lecture in May, which is now available to watch and listen to.

The Constitution Unit’s free, online conference is also taking place on 24 and 25 June. This will feature six panels of experts and practitioners covering UK–EU relations, public confidence in UK democracy, choosing party leaders, making policy on difficult issues, standards in public life, and elections policy. It is very easy to sign up to watch.

Key links:

The Constitution Unit.