The sunk cost fallacy - the first stitches in the Brexit wound

The sunk cost fallacy is a well-documented psychological phenomenon where individuals are reluctant to abandon a strategy or course of action because they have already invested significant time, money, or resources into it—even when clear evidence shows that moving on would be the better choice. This mindset traps people in harmful decisions, driven not by logic or future benefit, but by a stubborn attachment to past commitments.

Look at any recent polling, and it becomes abundantly clear that a majority of those surveyed would not have voted for Brexit if given the chance again. And why is that? Because with the benefit of hindsight, the costs have become painfully obvious while the promised benefits remain elusive. It’s worth considering that in almost every other walk of life, when someone injures themselves—perhaps through an accident or a poor decision—they don’t simply sit there and refuse treatment out of pride or denial. They seek help. They try to heal. Why, then, is our political class, and some sections of our society, so unwilling to do the same when it comes to this self-inflicted wound?

Rightly or wrongly, a hastily conceived and poorly judged referendum delivered a wafer-thin decision to leave the European Union. I say poorly judged because a matter of such profound constitutional and economic consequence should never have been settled by a simple yes or no referendum. It was, in truth, an early warning sign of a Conservative Party more interested in internal appeasement of its hard-right factions than in governing responsibly for the good of the nation.

The public, having been at best misled and at worst outright lied to, are now coming to terms with the reality: the so-called benefits of Brexit—be it economic prosperity, reduced migration, or greater global influence—have either failed to materialise or were based on deliberately misleading narratives from the outset.

I was recently called “undemocratic” for applauding the government’s success in landing a deal with the EU to improve food trading arrangements. But let’s be clear—what is undemocratic about that? Wasn’t the very argument during the referendum that we would secure new and better trade deals to replace the comprehensive trade arrangements we had as part of the EU? This latest agreement is not some backdoor re-entry into the Union; it’s simply a pragmatic step to repair the damage caused by severing ties without an adequate plan. As I said earlier, if Brexit was a self-inflicted injury, this deal is merely the first stitch in a gaping wound—an acknowledgment, however small, that we cannot simply let the wound fester out of stubbornness or misplaced national pride.

The old saying goes that pride comes before a fall, and perhaps it’s time we collectively learn that lesson. There is no shame in admitting when a mistake has been made. True leadership—and indeed true maturity—comes from having the courage to change course when the evidence demands it. It is not weakness to say, “We got this wrong.” It is wisdom. And it is the first step toward healing the divisions and economic harm this country continues to endure.