Nigel Farage warned that Brexit has been “squandered” as he gave a major speech setting out Reform UK‘s economic plans.
Speaking at the press conference in London, the Reform leader said: “One of my own great frustrations is that Brexit has been squandered.
“The opportunity to sensibly deregulate, the opportunity to become competitive globally, all of that has been squandered.
“And the worst thing is that regulations and the way regulators behave with British business is now worse than it was at the time of the Brexit referendum vote.”
Nigel Farage Warns Brexit Has Been ‘Squandered’ as He Gives Major Speech
Nigel Farage has warned that Brexit has been “squandered”, arguing that Britain failed to take full advantage of the opportunities created by leaving the European Union. In a major speech, the Reform UK leader returned to one of the defining issues of his political career and claimed that the country had not used Brexit to deliver the scale of economic and regulatory change that he had expected.
Farage’s intervention comes as the future direction of Britain’s post-Brexit economy remains an important political issue. Ten years after the 2016 referendum, disagreements continue over what Brexit has achieved, what it has failed to achieve and what governments should do next.
For Farage, the argument is straightforward. He has long maintained that leaving the European Union was intended to give Britain greater freedom over regulation, taxation, trade and economic policy. In his speech, he argued that those freedoms had not been used effectively.
“One of my own great frustrations is that Brexit has been squandered,” Farage said, according to reporting of the speech. He specifically pointed to deregulation and Britain’s competitiveness, arguing that opportunities to make the country more attractive to businesses had not been fully exploited.
The statement reflects a criticism Farage has made repeatedly since the referendum.
Brexit was never simply about leaving the European Union. For its supporters, it was also about changing how Britain was governed after departure. The argument was that the UK could establish its own rules, negotiate its own trade agreements and develop policies suited specifically to its domestic economy.
However, leaving the EU did not automatically produce those changes.
Governments still had to decide which regulations to retain, which to amend and which to remove. They also had to negotiate new arrangements with European countries while attempting to establish relationships with trading partners around the world.
That process has produced a much more complicated reality than the slogans used during the referendum campaign.
Farage’s criticism is therefore directed not at Brexit as an idea, but at what he considers to have happened after the vote.
He argues that successive governments failed to make sufficient use of the freedoms created by Brexit. In particular, he has highlighted regulation as an area where he believes Britain could have moved much further.
This is an important part of Reform UK’s wider political message.
The party has increasingly attempted to present itself not simply as a party of Brexit but as a movement seeking a broader restructuring of Britain’s economy and government.
Farage has linked this agenda to concerns about taxation, business regulation, government spending, immigration and economic growth.
The underlying argument is that Britain needs a more radical change in direction rather than incremental adjustments to existing policies.
But the debate over Brexit’s economic legacy remains contested.
Supporters of Brexit can point to the UK’s ability to establish an independent trade policy and make regulatory decisions outside the EU framework. The government has also pursued agreements with countries outside Europe and introduced policy changes that would not have been possible while Britain remained an EU member.
Critics, however, argue that Brexit has introduced additional barriers to trade with Britain’s largest nearby market and that some businesses have faced increased administrative costs and complexity.
These competing interpretations mean that the question of whether Brexit has been successful cannot be answered simply by looking at one measure.
It depends on what is being measured.
Supporters may emphasize sovereignty, immigration control and the ability to make independent laws. Critics may focus on trade costs, economic growth or the practical difficulties experienced by businesses.
Farage’s speech places greater emphasis on the first set of questions while arguing that the economic opportunities have not been sufficiently exploited.
His comments also reflect his long-standing criticism of what he describes as the political establishment.
From his perspective, Brexit represented a rejection of the political consensus that had dominated Westminster for decades. He has argued that voters did not simply vote to leave the EU; they voted for a different relationship between citizens, government and international institutions.
In a 2026 essay marking ten years since the referendum, Farage argued that the Brexit vote fundamentally changed British politics and accused the political establishment of failing to implement the result in the way voters had intended.
That interpretation is central to his political identity.
Farage was one of the most prominent campaigners for Brexit and has spent years arguing that leaving the EU was necessary for Britain to regain control over its laws and borders.
Yet the political landscape today is very different from that of 2016.
Britain has experienced multiple changes of government, significant economic pressures and a major shift in the electoral landscape. Reform UK has also developed from a Brexit-focused movement into a broader political party competing directly with established parties.
That creates a new question for Farage.
If Brexit was supposed to provide the framework for a different Britain, what should that Britain now look like?
His answer increasingly involves economic reform.
The argument is that Britain should use its ability to set its own rules to reduce unnecessary regulation, encourage investment and make the country more competitive internationally.
The challenge is determining exactly which regulations should be changed and what consequences those changes would have.
Regulation can impose costs on businesses, but it can also establish standards for workers, consumers, financial markets and the environment. Removing a rule can therefore create benefits in one area while producing costs elsewhere.
This is why the economic debate surrounding Brexit is unlikely to be resolved through political speeches alone.
It requires detailed analysis of individual policies and their effects.
Farage’s criticism also comes at a time when economic growth remains one of the central concerns of British politics. Governments are under pressure to improve productivity, attract investment and raise living standards while managing public finances.
For Reform UK, these challenges provide an opportunity to argue that the established parties have been too cautious.
For Labour and the Conservatives, however, the argument is that economic policy must balance growth with fiscal responsibility and the need to maintain public services.
The disagreement is therefore about more than Brexit itself.
It is about what kind of economy Britain should build after Brexit.
Should the country pursue aggressive deregulation and lower taxes? Should it prioritize closer economic cooperation with European markets? Should it seek new global trade opportunities? How should the government balance business competitiveness with social and environmental protections?
These questions will continue to shape British politics.
Farage’s speech puts one particular answer at the centre of the debate: Brexit created opportunities, but governments failed to use them.
That claim will be welcomed by voters who believe the country has not received the changes they expected after the referendum. Others will reject the argument and point to the economic and political difficulties associated with Brexit itself.
The disagreement is unlikely to disappear.
Indeed, the continued strength of the Brexit debate demonstrates how deeply the 2016 referendum changed British politics.
For Farage, the issue is also personal. Brexit has been one of the defining causes of his political career. His return to the subject allows him to remind supporters of the original promise while presenting Reform UK as the party prepared to pursue the changes he believes previous governments avoided.
The major question is whether voters share that interpretation.
Some may regard Brexit as an unfinished project. Others may believe that the country has already moved beyond the referendum and should focus on domestic priorities such as living costs, housing, healthcare and economic growth.
There is also a generational dimension to the debate. Younger voters who were children or teenagers during the referendum may approach Brexit differently from those who actively participated in the 2016 campaign.
As political priorities change, the meaning of Brexit itself may evolve.
Farage’s speech nevertheless demonstrates that the subject remains politically significant.
His warning that Brexit has been “squandered” is ultimately a criticism of implementation rather than simply a criticism of the decision to leave the EU. He believes Britain had greater opportunities than it has used and that a future government should make much more aggressive use of the freedoms created by Brexit.
Whether that approach would deliver the economic results he expects is a matter for debate.
What is beyond dispute is that Brexit remains one of the defining political questions of modern Britain.
The argument has moved from whether Britain should leave the European Union to what Britain should actually do with the powers it now possesses.
For Farage, the answer is clear: use those powers more decisively.
His speech therefore represents another attempt to reopen the Brexit argument, not by revisiting the referendum itself, but by asking what happened after the vote.
The central message is that leaving the EU was only the beginning.
The political battle now concerns what Britain chooses to do with the freedom Brexit created.