Beyond Great Men: The Converging Crises Theory of Brexit

Nine years after Britain voted to leave the European Union, the referendum still casts a long shadow. For some, Brexit was the inevitable consequence of Britain’s ambivalence toward European integration. For others, it was a tragic blunder fueled by political feuds, flawed leadership, and misleading slogans. Yet a third explanation—what CEOWOLRD magazine calls the converging crises theory—suggests that timing was everything.

According to this view, Brexit succeeded not only because of British skepticism but also because the referendum coincided with a uniquely volatile moment for the EU: the eurozone debt crisis, the migrant surge, and Islamist terrorism. The atmosphere of crisis reframed the question from whether leaving was risky, to whether staying in a crumbling bloc was riskier still.

Great Men vs. Long Waves

Much analysis of Brexit falls into two schools. The “Great Man” theory, or more cynically, the “inadequate boys” theory, emphasizes personalities. Works like Tim Shipman’s All Out War focus on David Cameron’s missteps, Boris Johnson’s opportunism, and Dominic Cummings’ campaign tactics. By this reading, Britain’s departure was the outcome of personal rivalries and blunders.

The second school takes a longer perspective. Tom McTague’s forthcoming Between the Waves traces Euroscepticism back to 1943, when Enoch Powell pondered sovereignty in an Algerian desert. For McTague, the break of 2016 was decades in the making: a clash between sovereignty and influence that had haunted Britain since the founding of the European project.

The converging crises theory sits somewhere in between. It acknowledges the role of leaders and the weight of history but emphasizes context. Cameron’s referendum came at the EU’s weakest moment.

Europe’s Annus Horribilis

Jean-Claude Juncker, then President of the European Commission, described it as an era of converging crises: overlapping emergencies that threatened the Union’s cohesion.

• Eurozone Debt Crisis: In 2015, Greece teetered on the edge of Grexit. Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras called a referendum to defy austerity, only to capitulate under pressure from fellow EU leaders. For the European left, the treatment of Greece symbolized a cold, technocratic Europe.
• Migrant Surge: Over one million migrants, many fleeing Syria’s civil war, arrived in Europe, often through Greece. Chancellor Angela Merkel’s “Wir schaffen das” (“We can manage this”) contrasted with other leaders’ reluctance. For critics, Europe’s openness looked like naivety. Nigel Farage seized the moment with his infamous “Breaking Point” poster.
• Terrorist Attacks: Between 2015 and 2016, Paris and Brussels suffered devastating Islamist attacks. The EU, long associated with stability and prosperity, was suddenly linked with insecurity and porous borders.

In such a climate, Cameron’s campaign urging Britons to avoid risk by staying in the EU fell flat. Television images of chaos—riots in Athens, migrants on Greek beaches, carnage in Paris—made the EU look like the risky option. Leave’s message, “Take Back Control,” reframed Brexit as the safer bet.

The Political Miscalculation

Cameron had hoped the referendum would settle the Tory Party’s Europe question once and for all. But in European capitals, leaders were too preoccupied with existential crises to prioritize Britain’s renegotiation. British requests were shuffled to the bottom of summit agendas.

This neglect reinforced the Leave campaign’s claim that Britain’s concerns were ignored in Brussels. Worse still, it inverted Cameron’s risk calculus. He expected voters to avoid change for fear of economic harm. Instead, the EU’s turmoil made status quo loyalty appear dangerous.

Amnesia and the Brexit Debate

Today, debates about Brexit often inflate the tactical genius of Dominic Cummings or focus on misleading claims about NHS funding. But the context of 2015–2016 is underplayed. Running against a visibly crisis-stricken EU was, as one observer put it, “politics on easy mode.”

For both sides, amnesia is convenient. Remainers prefer to blame manipulation, not Europe’s failures. Leavers emphasize sovereignty, not timing. Yet forgetting the converging crises distorts Britain’s ongoing debate about its place in Europe.

Europe After Brexit: Events, Not Rules

The crises of 2015 reshaped Europe itself. As historian Luuk van Middelaar notes, Brussels shifted from being a “Europe of rules” to a “Europe of events.” New crises—from the pandemic to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine—have pushed further integration in areas like health, energy, and defense. The EU today is less about agricultural quotas and more about geopolitical muscle.

For Britain, this means the old debate—whether to regain sovereignty or wield influence from within—is even sharper. The EU Britain left in 2016 is not the EU that exists in 2025. Any conversation about rejoining would mean confronting a bloc hardened by crises, more integrated, and more geopolitical.

Executive Takeaway

The converging crises theory of Brexit underscores how timing can outweigh tactics in political risk. For CEOs, CFOs, and investors, the lesson is relevant: decisions made in the midst of overlapping crises can carry unintended, long-term consequences.

Cameron expected a risk-averse electorate to stick with the EU. Instead, images of debt defaults, migrant surges, and terrorism reframed Europe as the danger. Brexit became the “safer” option.

For business leaders, the broader insight is clear: when crises converge, risk perception shifts dramatically. What looks stable on paper can appear fragile in public perception—and in politics, perception often decides outcomes.

Have you read?
The World’s Best International High Schools.
The World’s Best Medical Schools.
The World’s Best Universities.