On June 23, 2026, a conference co-organized by Łukasiewicz – ITECH and the Department of European Studies at the Institute of Political Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences titled “10 Years After the Brexit Referendum: Lessons for Poland and the European Union,” took place in the Staszic Palace in Warsaw.
The event provided an opportunity for a deep discussion on the political, economic, and social consequences of Brexit, as well as on what lessons Poland and the European Union can draw from the British experience. The discussion covered both a review of the decade since the referendum and the challenges of communication about the EU in the context of rising euroscepticism, populism, and disinformation.
The conference was opened by: Prof. Piotr Osęka , Director of the Institute of Political Studies at the Polish Academy of Sciences, Dr. Paweł Marczewski from Łukasiewicz – ITECH, and Prof. Karolina Borońska-Hryniewiecka from the Institute of Social Sciences (ISP) of the Polish Academy of Sciences (PAN). The opening remarks emphasized the need for a reliable, fact-based analysis of disintegration processes and the importance of a responsible public debate on the future of European integration.
The first panel, titled “The Causes, Promises and Outcomes of Brexit: Who Benefited from Leaving the EU?”, focused on assessing the impact of the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union. The discussion was moderated by Dr. Paweł Marczewski, Director of the Department of Strategy and Analysis at Łukasiewicz – ITECH. The panelists included: Witold Sobków, former Polish Ambassador to the United Kingdom from 2012 to 2016, Dr. Małgorzata Kaczorowska of the University of Warsaw, Dr. Przemysław Biskup of the Polish Institute of International Affairs, and Marta Prochwicz-Jazowska of the European Council on Foreign Relations.
Participants in the first discussion analyzed the political and legal origins of the Brexit referendum. They pointed out that Brexit was not a one-time political act, but rather the result of a prolonged process of mounting tensions between London and Brussels, as well as an attempt to manage an internal crisis in British politics. The experts also discussed the gap between the promises of the Brexit campaign and the economic, administrative, and social realities of the modern United Kingdom.
A key topic was the current situation in the United Kingdom and the question of whether it could rejoin the European Union. The panelists pointed out that although the topic of pragmatic cooperation with the EU is increasingly being raised in the British debate, this does not imply a realistic prospect of a quick return to full membership. Attention was drawn to the political and institutional costs of such a scenario, as well as to the fact that any rebuilding of relations with the EU would have to take place under new terms.
The panel also addressed the economic consequences of Brexit, the United Kingdom’s technological ambitions, and tensions related to the climate transition and the need to ensure affordable energy for the economy. The issue of migration, which was one of the key topics of the referendum campaign, received special attention. Experts noted that slogans about regaining control over borders played an important role in mobilizing supporters of leaving the EU. After several years, however, the debate on migration has become much more complex—it now encompasses social tensions, labor market needs, and the conditions for closer cooperation with European countries.
The discussion also touched on the social and identity-related consequences of Brexit. The panelists pointed to the deepening of internal divisions within the United Kingdom, growing regional disparities, and the referendum’s implications for the Scottish debate on the country’s future in Europe. Brexit was presented as an experience that did not put an end to disputes over Britain’s place in Europe, but rather raised new questions about social cohesion, sovereignty, and the state’s resilience to processes of disintegration.
The second panel, “Communication About the EU in an Era of Rising Euroscepticism and Disinformation,” focused on how to talk about the European Union in a world of growing political, informational, and social tensions. The discussion was moderated by Karolina Zbytniewska from FocusEurope and Team Europe Direct. Panelists included: Konrad Szymański, Minister for European Affairs from 2015 to 2022, currently affiliated with the PISM Council; Prof. Agnieszka Legucka from the Department of Strategy at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Prof. Karolina Borońska-Hryniewiecka from the Institute of Political Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences (ISP PAN) and Team Europe Direct; and Paweł Musiałek from the Jagiellonian Club.
Participants in the second panel discussed the crisis in European communication and the limitations of the technocratic language often used by public institutions. It was emphasized that the contemporary debate on the European Union cannot be based solely on macroeconomic arguments, data, and indicators. To effectively counter eurosceptic narratives, communication about the EU must draw on citizens’ everyday experiences, their sense of security, their sense of agency, and their trust in institutions.
The educational context was also an important element of the discussion. The panelists emphasized that education about the European Union should not be limited to simple information campaigns or one-time promotional activities. What is needed is the development of civic competencies: an understanding of European processes, the ability to critically evaluate information, and the skill to distinguish constructive criticism from manipulation and disinformation. Such education should present the EU not as an abstract structure, but as a system that affects specific areas of everyday life—from consumer rights and digital security to the quality of public services.
Another key topic was the discussion on sovereignty and the division of powers between member states and EU institutions. The panelists discussed how to talk about European integration without ignoring real tensions and political disputes, but at the same time without reinforcing simplistic narratives about “Brussels” as an external actor imposing solutions on member states. It was noted that the European Union can be understood not as a mechanism that restricts member states, but as a tool that strengthens their agency in a world of global crises, technological transformation, and geopolitical rivalry.
The second part of the conference also resonated strongly in the context of disinformation and external attempts to undermine European cohesion. It was pointed out that Russian information campaigns and hybrid operations are a permanent feature of the security environment, and their goal is to deepen divisions within the European Union. The panelists emphasized that an effective response to disinformation requires not only correcting false information, but above all rebuilding trust in institutions and fostering communication based on facts, transparency, and accountability.
The discussion also highlighted that European integration should not be presented as a project immune to criticism. On the contrary—a substantive discussion about the Union’s weaknesses, the limits of its authority, and the real costs of specific policies is necessary to effectively distinguish constructive criticism from destructive populism. Panel participants emphasized that one of the greatest threats to public debate is the logic of a sharp division between “us” and “them.”
The conference was summarized by Prof. Monika Sus of the Institute of Social Sciences (ISP) of the Polish Academy of Sciences (PAN) and Team Europe Direct, as well as Dr. Michał Matlak, Director of Łukasiewicz – ITECH. In their summary, they highlighted the problem of unintended consequences in politics—a situation in which the escalation of radical rhetoric and the instrumental exploitation of Euroskeptic sentiments can set in motion processes that their initiators lose control over. In this context, Brexit was presented as an important lesson for European countries: one need not actively seek disintegration to create, through irresponsible rhetoric and political calculation, the conditions that will make it possible.
The concluding remarks also emphasized the importance of the European Union as a mechanism that strengthens the capabilities of member states in the face of contemporary challenges—ranging from technological and energy transitions, through cybersecurity, to global competition. The debate showed that the discussion about the future of Europe does not have to be based on uncritical enthusiasm, but should be honest, responsible, and grounded in facts.
The event’s partners were: the Polish Society for European Studies, Team Europe Direct, and Radio TOK FM
