What to Know about the Legacy of Brexit, Which Still Divides Britain 10 Years on

A placard is held as people walk past the Elizabeth Tower, commonly known as Big Ben, during the National Rejoin March IV organized by National Rejoin March (NRM), marking ten years since Britain voted to leave the European Union in 2016 and calling for closer cooperation between Britain and Europe, in London, Britain, June 20, 2026. (Reuters)
A placard is held as people walk past the Elizabeth Tower, commonly known as Big Ben, during the National Rejoin March IV organized by National Rejoin March (NRM), marking ten years since Britain voted to leave the European Union in 2016 and calling for closer cooperation between Britain and Europe, in London, Britain, June 20, 2026. (Reuters)
TT

What to Know about the Legacy of Brexit, Which Still Divides Britain 10 Years on

A placard is held as people walk past the Elizabeth Tower, commonly known as Big Ben, during the National Rejoin March IV organized by National Rejoin March (NRM), marking ten years since Britain voted to leave the European Union in 2016 and calling for closer cooperation between Britain and Europe, in London, Britain, June 20, 2026. (Reuters)
A placard is held as people walk past the Elizabeth Tower, commonly known as Big Ben, during the National Rejoin March IV organized by National Rejoin March (NRM), marking ten years since Britain voted to leave the European Union in 2016 and calling for closer cooperation between Britain and Europe, in London, Britain, June 20, 2026. (Reuters)

Ten years ago, the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union in a referendum that forges political identities to this day and that shattered a half-century project to get closer to the continent.

Brexit, short for British exit, became a reality on June 23, 2016, when 52% — or more than 17 million people — voted to leave the EU. Though the margin was narrow, the vote led to the most dramatic shake-up of the UK economy and society since World War II.

But like any divorce, the paperwork and process of completing the breakup was not swift: It took nearly five years.

Brexit was born out of a growing sense of frustration not only with the EU but over the global financial crisis of 2008. Supporters were able to tap into that frustration, and argued that the UK on its own, would be revitalized and able to focus just on domestic priorities.

Opponents warned that Brexit would lead to an economic disruption and that it risked the country’s standing in the world.

A decade on, here is where Brexit stands.

Brexit ushered in a harsh economic reality

Backers of Brexit — commonly known as Brexiters — held out a vision that the British economy could thrive outside the EU by harnessing the buccaneering spirit that had once made it the world’s biggest.

Though the COVID-19 pandemic and the wars in Ukraine and more recently, the US-Israeli war on Iran have not helped, it’s clear that the British economy has not been revitalized.

Merchants have complained about the hurdles that they now have to clear when trading with their European neighbors — the 27-nation EU remains by far the UK’s biggest trading partner.

And though there are no tariffs imposed on British goods entering the EU, there is a raft of non-tariff barriers, such as cumbersome customs paperwork, border certifications, and visa restrictions. Many of the trade deals that the Brexiters touted, most notably one with the United States, have not materialized.

Experts say the British economy is between 4% and 8% smaller than it would have been had the country voted to remain in the EU. That would translate to much higher living standards and billions more pumped into public services, including the cherished National Health Service, which was promised an extra 350 million pounds ($468 million) a week by Brexit campaigners. That pledge was emblazoned on their big red campaigning bus.

“Brexit has made the UK economy smaller than it otherwise would have been,” said Jonathan Portes, professor at King’s College London.

“The effect has not been a sudden collapse, but a gradual and cumulative drag on trade, investment and productivity,” he wrote in an article for The UK in a Changing Europe think tank.

Brexiters argue, however, that leaving the EU is not something that can be judged in the short-term — there was always going to be a short-term economic disruption in return for greater control over an array of policy levers, including on migration.

The uproar over immigration is escalating

Brexit put an end to free movement between the UK and EU, but securing Britain's border has had mixed outcomes. Getting a grip on immigration was a key promise of the Brexiters — their message of taking back control resonated.

Though net migration — the difference between those entering the UK and those leaving in any one year, from Europe — has plunged, it has soared from non-EU countries. That’s partly because of changes in visa rules that the previous Conservative government introduced to help out sectors that desperately needed migrant labor, such as workers to care for the elderly.

Overall though, there are signs the government is getting a grip on who can and cannot enter the country legally. Net migration has fallen sharply, from more than 900,000 in 2023 to 171,000 last year.

Though net migration is down, many are angered by migrants entering the country illegally — specifically the sight of people, often escaping war zones such as Afghanistan and Sudan, arriving on British shores in inflatable boats after making the dangerous journey across the English Channel.

The uproar over the number of small boat crossings, which peaked at 46,000 in 2022 and reached 41,000 last year, has become one of the main top political issues despite being a fraction of overall migration. Anger has focused on asylum seekers, often housed at public cost. Unruly mobs have protested outside and even tried to set fire to some hotels housing asylum seekers.

Voters have expressed remorse

In the years since Brexit, Britain's political landscape has fractured, with declining support for the two long-dominant parties, Conservatives and Labour. The Conservatives were ejected in 2024 after 14 years in power, much of it dominated by wrangling over UK-European relations.

The Labour government hasn’t impressed either and Prime Minister Keir Starmer looks like he will be announcing his resignation very soon.

Millions of voters are being tempted by Reform UK, led by Nigel Farage, who perhaps more than any other politician campaigned for Brexit. His party has led in almost every opinion poll for more than a year.

At the same, there’s a growing feeling in the country that Brexit has failed.

According to two polls from Ipsos, 52% of people in the UK would like to rejoin the EU while 33% are against it. The pollster also found that 48% think Brexit is going worse than expected against just 9% who think it’s going better. Also, Ipsos found that 48% would back another referendum today on the UK’s membership of the EU against 27% who oppose one.

A reset would be complicated

Against this backdrop, the Labour Party has walked a tightrope since being elected in 2024. Having explicitly ruled out reversing Brexit — or even rejoining the EU’s frictionless single market — it hasn’t got a huge amount of political space to maneuver.

Starmer has sought a “reset” of ties following the distrust built over the years of the Brexit negotiations, largely centered around making trading easier. He is hoping to announce further measures at a summit with the EU next month — provided he’s still the prime minister.

His most likely successor, Andy Burnham, tempered his language on the UK rejoining the EU while out on the campaign trail over the past month, ahead of his victory in a special election on Thursday that saw him beat back a challenge from Reform in a seat that overwhelmingly backed Brexit.

“I am not proposing that the UK considers rejoining the EU,” Burnham said. “I respect the decision that was made at the referendum and it is going to undermine everything I have said about strengthening democracy if we don’t respect that vote.”



‘A Moral Red Line’? World on Cusp of Autonomous Weapons Revolution

Pedestrians look on as a van, displaying a screen asking for a Treaty on AI Weapons, drives through Westminster in London, Wednesday, Nov. 11, 2026. (AP)
Pedestrians look on as a van, displaying a screen asking for a Treaty on AI Weapons, drives through Westminster in London, Wednesday, Nov. 11, 2026. (AP)
TT

‘A Moral Red Line’? World on Cusp of Autonomous Weapons Revolution

Pedestrians look on as a van, displaying a screen asking for a Treaty on AI Weapons, drives through Westminster in London, Wednesday, Nov. 11, 2026. (AP)
Pedestrians look on as a van, displaying a screen asking for a Treaty on AI Weapons, drives through Westminster in London, Wednesday, Nov. 11, 2026. (AP)

Lethal autonomous weapons powered by artificial intelligence are set to revolutionize warfare but there is no proper regulatory or legal framework governing the new technology.

A conference starting Monday at the United Nations in Geneva will discuss how to establish curbs and prohibitions on such weapons, called killer robots by some.

But some analysts doubt the discussions at the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) will keep pace with the fast-changing weapons.

AFP looks at three key questions ahead of the conference.

- What are LAWS? -

Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS) "can identify, select, and engage a target without the intervention of a human operator in the execution of these tasks," said Jean-Marc Rickli, head of global and emerging risks at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy.

Autonomous weapons have long existed. An anti-personnel mine "is an autonomous weapon in the sense that it explodes when someone steps on it," said Laure de Roucy-Rochegonde of the Centre for Geopolitics of Technology at the French Institute of International Relations (IFRI).

But with the proliferation of AI-enhanced drones, such weapons are now "capable of selecting and engaging a target that was not predetermined, adapting to their environment without human intervention," said Rickli.

So the critical issue for potential regulators lies in determining the level of human control over the decision to employ such a weapon.

The United States refers to an "appropriate levels of human judgement" in the use of autonomous weapons.

France maintains that a human must remain in the decision-making loop and bans "lethal autonomous weapons systems" (LAWS) but permits "partially autonomous" systems known as PLAWS.

"The human role is always ensured through what is termed 'appropriate control' by a military commander -- a concept that varies in scope depending on the system's criticality and the operational context," said Rear Admiral Vincent Sebastien, deputy director of the French defense ministry's Agency for Defense Artificial Intelligence (AMIAD).

- The ethical issues?

"We are now dangerously close to crossing a moral red line: the autonomous targeting of humans by machines," UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, and International Committee of the Red Cross president Mirjana Spoljaric warned in a joint statement in August.

But analysts said the Geneva discussions, while important, will touch only part of the issue.

Today, the diminishing role of humans is being driven by the growing use of AI in analysis and targeting.

Rickli said the scope of the agenda in Geneva is "very narrow".

"It fails to encompass the full range of issues surrounding AI on the battlefield" -- an area where its use is expanding, particularly in target generation.

He said this was seen in the US-Israeli war against Iran this year "where the Americans engaged as many as 1,000 targets per day" inside Iran.

"There are a host of problems and unacceptable risks associated with targeting and decision-support systems," added de Roucy-Rochegonde. "Part of this debate concerns systems that are already widely deployed on the battlefield."

"What kind of human supervision is required to ensure that the operator is genuinely exercising their own judgement rather than simply providing a rubber stamp for the machine's recommendations?" she asked.

- How quickly is the situation changing?

The autonomous weapons to be discussed in Geneva are not yet in widespread use, although analysts have noted that they have been deployed by Russia in its invasion of Ukraine, as well as US attacks in Iran.

But the spread is inevitable.

"Autonomy will very quickly become a reality on the battlefield," warned rear admiral Sebastien.

"Autonomous weapon systems are not part of a distant future -- a race towards greater autonomy in weapons systems is already well underway," Guterres and Spoljaric said in their statement.

Yet significant doubts and dangers remain, Dario Amodei, head of the AI giant Anthropic, warned this year: "Today, frontier AI systems are simply not reliable enough to power fully autonomous weapons."

But ultimately, the incentive for major powers is too strong.

Swarms of autonomous drones -- which "aim to neutralize an adversary through saturation" -- would be highly effective, and some states view them as a crucial strategic advantage, said Rickli.

In January, the Chinese defense ministry described swarms of autonomous drones as the "new face of warfare."

"In an era of sharp military competition, the first state to normalize fully autonomous lethal strikes will reset expectations for everyone else," said Gerald Mako, a research affiliate of Cambridge University in the Small Wars Journal.


In Taiwan, Jensen Huang’s ‘Flawless’ Image Damaged by Affairs

Photos of Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang during a previous visit are displayed at a local snack shop in Taipei on November 13, 2026. (AFP)
Photos of Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang during a previous visit are displayed at a local snack shop in Taipei on November 13, 2026. (AFP)
TT

In Taiwan, Jensen Huang’s ‘Flawless’ Image Damaged by Affairs

Photos of Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang during a previous visit are displayed at a local snack shop in Taipei on November 13, 2026. (AFP)
Photos of Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang during a previous visit are displayed at a local snack shop in Taipei on November 13, 2026. (AFP)

Taiwan-born Jensen Huang, the former boss of Nvidia, was feted like a rock star on visits to his birthplace, posing for selfies with fans and being mobbed by journalists.

His spectacular downfall might change that.

Huang's once "flawless" image in Taiwan has been shattered by revelations of two extramarital affairs -- including one with a woman accused of being a Chinese spy -- that forced him to resign from the company he founded.

"I thought he had the persona of a devoted husband, and it turns out he's kind of a scumbag," Ivan Liang, 28, told AFP during his lunch break on Friday.

Huang has been a source of pride and inspiration for many Taiwanese. While other tech titans kept a low profile, Huang was chatty and charming in public, readily signing autographs and posing for photos.

"I definitely think my perception of him has changed because, after all, he originally had that 'nation's dad' image," said Leo Fu, a 42-year-old import distributor.

"I feel like that image of him has probably taken a hit in the eyes of the general public in Taiwan."

Dessert shop owner Jane Hsieh, 70, still has fond memories of Huang visiting her store on multiple occasions for one of her traditional tofu puddings.

"Before this, he felt like such a flawless person," Hsieh told AFP in her shop where photos of her and her husband posing with the leather-jacketed Huang, his wife Lori, and son Spencer, are proudly displayed.

"It's just a shame because he gave everyone the impression that he was a really great guy, and he was always very polite when he came here," she said.

While her feelings about Huang have changed as a result of the affairs, Hsieh said she would not remove the photos from her shop.

"Why kick someone when they're down?" she said.

- 'Pretty outrageous' -

At the Chinese restaurant where one of Huang's lovers -- identified as suspected Chinese spy Alice Huang -- was filmed kissing him on the cheek in May 2025, a plate signed by Huang on the same night is still on display.

Staff were reluctant to talk about the infamous evening to AFP on Friday, only saying they were always focused on serving their customers.

"I think it's pretty outrageous," 38-year-old Chen Yu-ting, who works in finance, said of Huang's affair with someone believed to have spied for Beijing.

"If the other person really was trying to use him, it seems like he was just way too easily deceived," she said.

"Given his status, he really should be paying much closer attention to the people around him and who he associates with."

While Huang's affairs have tarnished his reputation, some Taiwanese are more concerned about the impact the scandal could have on Taiwan's economy and stock market.

Huang has generated huge amounts of wealth for the island at the centre of the global artificial intelligence (AI) technology boom.

Nvidia's advanced chips critical to the AI buildout are made by Taiwanese tech titan TSMC and have helped drive Taiwans' stocks to record highs and push its economy into double-digit growth.

Ivan Liang, who works in imports and exports, said he was "very worried".

"The market crashed... a few days ago, and then Nvidia's stock price just kept dropping and dropping and dropping," Liang said.

"I don't trade US stocks myself, but the US and Taiwan stock markets definitely move in tandem and affect each other," he said.

"Whatever he does is none of my business -- I only care about my money."


Can One Security Force Implement Resolution 1701 and the Framework Agreement in Southern Lebanon?

A UNIFIL military vehicle patrols the southern Lebanese town of Ibl al-Saqi (AFP)
A UNIFIL military vehicle patrols the southern Lebanese town of Ibl al-Saqi (AFP)
TT

Can One Security Force Implement Resolution 1701 and the Framework Agreement in Southern Lebanon?

A UNIFIL military vehicle patrols the southern Lebanese town of Ibl al-Saqi (AFP)
A UNIFIL military vehicle patrols the southern Lebanese town of Ibl al-Saqi (AFP)

Countries involved in Lebanon are considering a security force to replace the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) when its mandate expires at year-end.

The force would support the Lebanese army in implementing agreements and international resolutions in southern Lebanon. But can a new force enforce both UN Security Council Resolution 1701 and the US-brokered framework agreement between Lebanon and Israel?

Talks have produced broad agreement on the need for such a force, but its composition, mandate, operating procedures and participating countries remain undecided.

The uncertainty was reflected in a statement by Group of Seven foreign ministers after their Nov. 9-10 meeting in Paris. They called for a robust, credible, and long-lasting security architecture in Lebanon to support the Lebanese Armed Forces, in line with Resolution 1701 and to advance implementation of the Trilateral Framework.

No further agreements were announced.

US envoy to visit Beirut

Attention now turns to a visit to Beirut on Monday by US Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz, who is due to meet with President Joseph Aoun.

Recent media reports suggest Washington is moving to replace UNIFIL in southern Lebanon with a verification committee and substitute the framework agreement for Resolution 1701.

The resolution ended a 33-day war between Israel and Hezbollah in 2006. Its main provisions included an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon and the deployment of additional UN troops to monitor the cessation of hostilities alongside the Lebanese army.

Lebanon, Israel and the United States signed the Trilateral Framework Agreement in Washington on June 26, setting out a phased process to end the conflict and restore Lebanese sovereignty over the country's entire territory.

Under the agreement, the Lebanese army would gradually assume security control of designated "pilot zones" as non-state armed groups are disarmed and their military infrastructure dismantled, paving the way for a phased Israeli withdrawal.

The agreement also calls for a US-backed military coordination group to oversee and verify implementation.

It remains unclear whether separate international forces would replace UNIFIL and oversee the framework agreement, whether the two mandates could be merged, or whether Resolution 1701 would be dropped in favor of the agreement, with a single force assigned to implement it.

'Complicated' transition

A diplomatic source described the situation as "complicated," saying the current transition differs from the circumstances surrounding Resolution 1701.

At the time, a new military and political reality had emerged that the parties sought to preserve, the source told Asharq Al-Awsat.

Today, the source said, the mandate, powers, composition and operating procedures of any force replacing UNIFIL remain unclear.

The framework agreement also presents a legal obstacle.

"It is an understanding between three parties and cannot be imposed on the international community or assumed to have its automatic endorsement," the source said.

Turning it into a Security Council resolution would be difficult, the source added, because some member states could object.

Israel's position

Israel appears reluctant to accept a new international force to replace UNIFIL, which it accuses of having allowed Hezbollah to expand toward its border.

According to details emerging from recent negotiations over the framework agreement's implementation, Israel wants direct oversight of efforts to verify that the pilot zones are free of Hezbollah weapons and military infrastructure.

It favors a mechanism giving it a continuing monitoring and operational role rather than relying on reports from an independent international body.

Fundamental differences

Military and strategic expert Brigadier General Khalil Helou said UNIFIL's departure would render Resolution 1701 meaningless, effectively allowing the framework agreement to take its place.

"Resolution 1701 contains clear provisions and has a legal dimension, unlike the US-sponsored framework agreement, which requires negotiations to implement each of its provisions," Helou told Asharq Al-Awsat.

Merging the two would therefore be difficult, he said.

The framework agreement also makes no provision for foreign forces to implement it. Instead, it outlines understandings between Lebanon and Israel, with a military annex setting out reciprocal steps, he added.

Legal obstacles

Legally, a single force could implement both Resolution 1701 and the framework agreement. But constitutional and legal expert Adel Yamin said the nature of its mandate would pose further obstacles.

"Verifying disarmament is more intrusive than providing conventional support to the army," Yamin told Asharq Al-Awsat.

Such a mission could require clearer rules of engagement, raising questions about the host state's consent, he said.

Yamin also cited reports that Israel opposed an international force including French troops and that Washington considered Resolution 1701 obsolete, favoring the framework agreement as a basis for direct communication between the Lebanese and Israeli militaries.

One option, he said, would be a UN force or mission to implement Resolution 1701 alongside a multinational mechanism to oversee the framework agreement.

But that would risk overlapping powers and conflicting reports.

UN umbrella for framework agreement

International efforts are also being discussed to bring the framework agreement under UN auspices, potentially superseding Resolution 1701.

Yamin outlined several legal routes.

One would be to register the agreement with the UN Secretariat under Article 102 of the UN Charter, provided it qualifies as a treaty.

Registration would not give the agreement effective UN backing but would allow it to be invoked before UN bodies, he said.

Another option would be for the parties to send identical letters seeking Security Council endorsement, followed by a presidential statement or resolution welcoming the agreement.

The council could also endorse the agreement and annex it to a resolution, or establish a new force or expand an existing mandate to implement it, following the model of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF).

But Yamin warned that UN backing would be a double-edged sword.

It would internationalize Israel's withdrawal obligations rather than leave them dependent solely on US guarantees. At the same time, it would place Lebanon's commitments to bring weapons under exclusive state control under tighter international scrutiny.

Yamin also cautioned against incorporating into a UN resolution any provisions that could cast doubt on Israel's obligation to withdraw immediately from Lebanon.

Such provisions should not gain international legal cover, he said, arguing that any clause undermining Lebanon's sovereignty or territorial integrity would violate both the UN Charter and the Lebanese Constitution and would be automatically void.