For a lawyer, the constitutional and legal consequences of the referendum are the most interesting ones. The unwritten British constitution was truly shaken to its foundations. This began with the Gina Miller case, immediately following the referendum. That case concerned the necessity of allowing Parliament to formally initiate the Brexit process and notify the Union under Article 50 of the Treaty – rather than leaving that to the Government. The Supreme Court confirmed Parliament’s role. But the constitution is now evolving in the opposite direction.

Constitutionally, Brexit means even greater power for the government and a smaller role for Parliament. This manifests itself in the implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement and of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, and even in the current government’s plans. So-called Henry VIII powers are being systematically expanded. The name is ominous and it is not pretty either: successive governments pass laws that allow them to act as legislators themselves, with minimal parliamentary input or oversight.

The basic norm of the unwritten British constitution is the sovereignty of Parliament. But that Parliament is hard at work transferring its sovereignty to the government. Whether that was the intention with “taking back control” is rather unclear.

On the British side, therefore, the picture cannot be described as pretty. For the EU, on the other hand, Brexit meant enhanced legitimacy. The whole of Europe is witnessing the disappointment of the withdrawal experiment. But there are also clear disadvantages, and it will be essential to create more room for a new rapprochement that is in everyone’s interest. That will require a great deal of political, institutional – and legal – imagination on both sides.

Piet Eeckhout is Professor of Law at UCL Laws, and the Academic Director of the UCL European Institute.

Note: The views expressed in this post are those of the authors, and not of the UCL European Institute, nor of UCL.