The British people didn’t vote for a revolution. They simply voted to leave the European Union. But senior figures across the political spectrum believe that a revolution is what Britain is getting.

Contrary to what Brexiters said during last year’s referendum—and continued to insist until recently—Britain’s departure from the EU is going to be anything but easy. It is increasingly clear that Brexit was an act of violence against the existing economic order.

There is scarcely a corner of the U.K. economy that is unaffected by the decision to reverse 43 years of European integration. At last week’s conference of the ruling Conservative Party, there was growing concern at where this process is heading and how it might end.

What makes Brexit so destabilizing is that it shares two features common to revolutions. First, it has created a parallel legitimacy, pitching the supposed “will of the people” expressed in the referendum against the traditional sovereignty of Parliament, thereby constraining the ability of elected representatives to exercise their own judgment.

Second, it has created a power vacuum. Brexiters campaigned under the slogan “Take Back Control,” but they never agreed who should take control of the powers currently held by Brussels. They shook the economic order but without a coherent plan as to what to put in its place.


The result is a paralyzed political system as different groups push their own answers to the question: How should scarce resources be allocated in post-Brexit Britain?

On the one hand, there are former Remain voters, including many senior government ministers and much of the business community, who want to preserve as much of the old economic order as possible. That would require the U.K. to hand powers back to Brussels by agreeing to follow EU rules over which it would no longer have any say.

On the other hand, there are Conservative Brexiters whose priority is to ensure that post-Brexit Britain has full control over future British regulations and tariffs so that it can sign its own free trade deals with third countries, even if that means a deep rupture with the EU. They insist that the decision to quit the EU was a vote in favor of more globalization.

They in turn are opposed by the left-wing euroskeptic leadership of the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn, which in contrast sees in Brexit an opportunity to seize new powers for the British state to intervene in the economy in ways that are forbidden under EU rules.


At its own recent party conference, the Labour Party talked of British governments once again being able to subsidize struggling industries and to nationalize strategic industries with assets expropriated from private investors at prices to be determined by Parliament.

Then there are Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Scottish government wants to see many of the powers currently exercised by Brussels pass to Edinburgh rather than London. That raises the prospect of the English and Scottish economies pursuing divergent policies, undermining the U.K.’s own single market and eating away at the unity of the British state.

Similarly, nationalists in Northern Ireland want a special post-Brexit deal that would see Ulster remain inside the EU’s customs union and single market, thereby avoiding the creation of a hard border on the island.

As things stand, none of these factions is strong enough to fill the political vacuum. Meanwhile all that is preventing Brexit descending into political chaos is Theresa May. Sure, the British prime minister had a miserable party conference last week, forced to endure speculation about her position, pranksters, ill-health and a crumbling set. In private, many colleagues are openly contemptuous of her leadership.


Yet Mrs. May’s weakness is also her strength; she survives because of fear in her party of the consequences of any power struggle. Some fear it would hand power to Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, who is widely distrusted by those who want to preserve the economic order; or worse, to Mr. Corbyn who would then be free to deliver his left-wing version of Brexit.

For the moment, her ambiguous speeches and empty slogans allow all sides for now to believe that she is on their side. So far, the only clear policy around which she has sought to unite her cabinet is an uneasy compromise that would see the U.K. seek a two-year transition agreement during which everything is expected to remain the same—although even this consensus now appears to be fraying as the complexities of such a deal become clear.

Yet ultimately, the odds are stacked against those who want to preserve as much as possible of the current order. Not only are they vulnerable to the accusation that the compromises necessary to maintain close ties to the EU run contrary to the will of the people, but they must also contend with the ticking clock.

Sooner or later, hard decisions must be taken—and if the political system proves unable to take them, the U.K. will slide toward a chaotic EU exit in which regulatory and tariff barriers to trade go up, bringing an abrupt end to the old economic order.


Write to Simon Nixon at simon.nixon@wsj.com