Ten years on from the Brexit referendum, and the art world still finds itself tangled in a web of regulatory red tape that feels more like a bureaucratic maze than a clear path forward. What makes this particularly fascinating is how the UK’s departure from the EU has neither liberated nor streamlined the art market—instead, it’s left us with a patchwork of retained, repealed, and half-implemented rules. It’s as if Brexit, rather than burning down the house of EU regulations, simply rearranged the furniture in a way that’s both confusing and, at times, downright ironic.
The Regulatory Hangover: What Stays and What Goes
One thing that immediately stands out is the UK’s decision to retain some of the most burdensome EU regulations, like the anti-money laundering (AML) rules. From my perspective, this is a classic case of overregulation without clear justification. While no one disputes the need to combat illicit financial flows, the evidence of money laundering in the art market was thin at best. Yet, the bureaucratic machinery marched on, imposing disproportionate costs on smaller players in the market. What this really suggests is that Brexit hasn’t freed the UK from regulatory excess—it’s just shifted the blame from Brussels to Westminster.
On the flip side, the UK has jettisoned regulations like the Directive on Orphan Works and the Export of Cultural Goods, which were largely redundant. What many people don’t realize is that these repeals haven’t created a vacuum; the UK already had its own systems in place. The real irony? The spirit of these rules lives on in agreements like the Trade and Cooperation Agreement. If you take a step back and think about it, Brexit hasn’t so much eliminated EU influence as it has created a parallel universe of overlapping and sometimes contradictory rules.
The Northern Ireland Paradox
A detail that I find especially interesting is the UK’s half-hearted rejection of the EU Regulation on the Introduction and Import of Cultural Goods. Thanks to the Windsor Framework, it still applies to Northern Ireland, creating a bizarre situation where Arts Council England—a British body—enforces EU rules for goods moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This raises a deeper question: Was this the price of peace, or just another example of Brexit’s unintended consequences? Personally, I think it’s a symptom of a larger issue—the lack of a coherent post-Brexit vision for the UK’s cultural sector.
The Royalties and Rights That Stuck Around
The Artist Resale Right, which gives artists a cut of secondary market sales, is one EU rule that’s been widely accepted. What makes this particularly fascinating is how it’s been managed in the UK—with a royalty cap that keeps costs manageable. It’s a rare example of an EU regulation that’s worked well, and the UK’s decision to keep it feels less like a concession and more like common sense.
Similarly, the extension of copyright protection from 50 to 70 years after an artist’s death has kept works by the likes of Picasso and Hepworth out of the public domain. In my opinion, this is a double-edged sword. While it protects artists’ legacies, it also limits public access to cultural heritage. What this really suggests is that copyright law is still struggling to balance the interests of creators and the public in the digital age.
The AI and Digital Divide
One area where the UK has fallen behind is in regulating emerging technologies like AI. The EU’s AI Act, while not perfect, is a bold attempt to address the challenges posed by AI to copyright and creativity. What many people don’t realize is that the UK’s approach has been marked by hesitation and indecision. If you take a step back and think about it, this isn’t just about keeping up with Brussels—it’s about the UK’s ability to lead in a rapidly changing cultural landscape.
The Missing Vision
To me, the biggest takeaway from Brexit’s impact on the art market isn’t the specific rules that stayed or went—it’s the absence of a larger policy vision. What this really suggests is that Brexit was more about breaking free from the EU than building something new. The art sector, like so many others, has been left to navigate a regulatory limbo without a clear sense of direction.
From my perspective, the UK needs to move beyond the Brexit mindset of chopping or retaining EU rules and start thinking about what it wants its cultural sector to look like in the 21st century. Personally, I think this is an opportunity—not just to streamline regulations, but to reimagine the role of art and culture in British society.
As we reflect on a decade of Brexit, the art market’s regulatory mess serves as a reminder that leaving the EU was just the beginning. The real work—defining a post-Brexit identity for the UK’s cultural sector—is still very much unfinished.
