How Brexit nearly scuppered the ‘festival of Brexit’

Read More

For some, the whole project was supposed to be a celebration of Britain’s departure from the EU. Which means there is more than a little irony in the fact a main concern of the “festival of Brexit” organisers was the impact of leaving itself.

Disruption to the supply of workers and materials, as well as increased costs, emerged as one of the risks overshadowing the project, according to records.

The ?120m festival was controversial from the moment it was first announced by Theresa May in 2018, but this week was in the firing line once again after the spending watchdog said it is investigating – after a series of rebrandings – Unboxed: Creativity in the UK amid concern visitor numbers were less than 1% of early targets.

Though the festival failed to win over many who voted remain in 2016, some in the arts sector are suspicious the latest attacks have been led by Tory politicians, with some already on record as being unhappy at an apparent drift from the original idea of a post-Brexit festival that would showcase “the best of British creativity”.

Days after Julian Knight, the Tory chair of the Commons culture committee, said the project had been a “catastrophic failure”, its organisers remained guarded while there was no sign of its chief creative officer, the arts impresario Martin Green.

Among the few festival partners to speak out in defence of the festival was Liz Pugh of the outdoor arts organisation, Walk the Plank, who argued that the festival’s legacy and true value would become apparent in the longer term and would outweigh the current focus on spending.

“At the moment there is a feeling that the bean counters are not happy with how many beans there are, and that roots it very much in a financial and economic framework. Of course there needs to be accountability and value for public money, but we should allow for the other benefits as well,” said Pugh. Her company was involved in the production of 20 large-scale outdoor artworks in secret locations across outstanding landscapes.

The festival, which runs until mid November, was unprecedented in the way arts companies had come together with collaborators in science and technology, creating internships and roles for students in the midst of a pandemic, she said, adding that they wouldn’t have anything to do with it if it had been about Brexit.

“I think that in years to come there will be many exciting things happening in the arts, and beyond, that came out of conversations that started during Unboxed,” said Pugh.

Phil Batty, executive director of Unboxed, also pushed back agains Knight’s claims, adding: “The project isn’t an unmitigated disaster. It has really gone out of its way to engage people in all corners of the UK.”

Like others involved in the ?120m project, Batty believes there will be a strong success story to tell the National Audit Office (NAO) – as well as a legacy in the form of job creation and investment across the arts sector – even if its efforts were hampered by being associated with Brexit.

“From the outset, it was never designed to be a Brexit festival – that was never in a brief we were given. We were set two objectives by all the governments of the UK. The first was to bring people together. The second was to celebrate creativity,” he added. Batty reiterated final visitor numbers will be far in excess of the figure of 240,000 frequently cited this week as the number that had visited events.

Brexit appears at no point in the published minutes of meetings convened over the past two years by the festival’s board of committees and audit committee – though it makes an indirect appearance in those from a meeting in September last year, which state: “A new risk around logistics including purchasing commodities form the EU and the changing macro environment was identified including supply chain, tech and production, goods like timber, technology chips and labour market.”

Other minutes show organisers continued to monitor a range of risks to the project, though only a sliver of the discussions are recorded. Those from a meeting in April last year, referred to the festival’s branding, stating: “It was noted that there are political sensitives to be considered.”

Minutes from a meeting last January refer to “reputational risk” concerning the “geographic spread” of live events, but add: “All committee members felt the conversation to debate new locations had passed and would now be a distraction from delivery. The chair would inform the board that the focus is now on reach of current activity.”

Other records, such as a list of big ticket areas of expenditure which will be a focus of the NAO investigation, show how the project was a boon for a small group of consultants, particularly those working in branding, advertising and marketing.