Brexit and the Burden of Bureaucracy: How Red Tape Continues to Challenge Independent Musicians
This correspondence From November 2021 centres on the practical consequences of Brexit-related regulation and administrative burdens facing musicians and sole traders in the creative industries. In a letter to Jacob Rees-Mogg, The author responded to an invitation for examples of unnecessary bureaucracy and provided two case studies which, in his view, demonstrated how Brexit-era arrangements were creating new barriers for working musicians.[1]
The first example concerned advertising on Spotify. While promoting a tour, the author discovered that Spotify’s advertising platform required advertisers in his market to possess a valid VAT number. As a sole trader operating below the VAT registration threshold, he argued that the requirement effectively excluded many independent musicians and small enterprises from accessing a major marketing platform. He viewed the policy as discriminatory towards sole traders and symptomatic of regulatory arrangements which favoured larger organisations. Spotify confirmed that a valid VAT number was required due to tax regulations in the market and that non-VAT registered advertisers were not currently eligible to use the service.
The second example related to changes in Arts Council funding applications. The author highlighted the introduction of subsidy control questions requiring applicants to consider complex legal requirements derived from the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement and the UK’s post-Brexit subsidy control regime. He argued that these requirements imposed an additional administrative burden on musicians and sole traders seeking public funding, forcing applicants to navigate technical regulatory concepts which had not appeared in earlier application processes. He stressed that this criticism was directed at the regulatory framework rather than the Arts Council itself, which was merely implementing the requirements.
Following the correspondence, the Cabinet Office replied through a correspondence officer, thanking him for outlining opportunities arising from Brexit and noting that his contribution had been recorded. Dissatisfied with what he regarded as a generic response, The author replied that he had not been proposing opportunities but highlighting problems. He requested a concrete explanation of what action the Government intended to take to address the issues he had identified rather than simply acknowledging receipt of his concerns.
Conclusion
The correspondence illustrates a recurring theme in the post-Brexit experience of the creative sector: the gap between high-level political narratives about regulatory freedom and the day-to-day realities faced by individual artists and sole traders. Rather than identifying opportunities created by Brexit, Chris Hodgkins presented evidence of new administrative barriers affecting marketing, funding applications and business operations for independent musicians.
A central argument running through the exchange is that regulatory complexity tends to fall most heavily on small organisations and self-employed practitioners with limited administrative resources. Requirements such as VAT registration for advertising services and detailed subsidy control assessments may be manageable for larger organisations but can become significant obstacles for sole traders.
The Government’s response, while acknowledging the correspondence, did not directly address the substance of the concerns raised or outline any specific remedial action. As a result, the exchange ends with a broader policy question unresolved: whether Brexit has genuinely reduced bureaucracy for the UK’s creative sector or whether, in certain areas, it has merely replaced one set of rules with another, often transferring the compliance burden to individual musicians, artists and cultural entrepreneurs.
Correspondence can be seen here:
Correspondence with Simon Case at the Cabinet Office