Blog Post

Fog in the Channel: Brexit through the eyes of international trade

As we approach the referendum that will decide whether the UK continues to be a member of the European Union, we review the UK’s trade position. If Brexit occurs, the UK would need to re-negotiate more than 100 trade agreements.

By: and Date: March 3, 2016 European Macroeconomics & Governance Tags & Topics

In 2014, total UK trade was about 900 bn euros, with a total trade deficit of 139.5 bn. The UK imported predominantly from the EU, with which it had a trade deficit of 93 bn euro, and exported mostly to non-EU countries, with which it also had a trade deficit of 46bn. EU countries accounted for 53% of UK imports and 48% of UK exports.

All but 2 of the top-10 trading partners of the UK belong to the European Union. The UK’s main trading partner in 2014 was Germany, which accounted for 12.3% of all UK trade in that year. In second position was the United States (9.5%), followed by the Netherlands (7.5%), China (7.3%) and France (5.9%). Together, these 10 countries accounted for 61.4% of UK trade in 2014.

The UK was a net importer from 7 of its 10 main trading partners. The biggest bilateral imbalance in 2014 was the 36.3 bn euro trade deficit recorded with Germany, followed by the 26.2 bn trade deficit with China and the 12.3 bn deficit with the Netherlands. The biggest surplus position (16.5 bn) was recorded with Switzerland, followed by a 7.5bn surplus with Ireland and a 5.1bn surplus with the US.

Trade policy for EU Member States is conducted exclusively at the EU level. In case of Brexit, all the EU trade agreements of which the UK is automatically part as an EU member state would need to be re-negotiated on a bilateral basis.

51% of UK trade is with members of the European Union.

Figure 3 shows the total value of UK trade broken down according to the different types of trade agreements in place with each partner. Only 15% of UK total trade is currently with countries that are not members of the EU and are not covered by any EU trade agreements. 51% of UK trade is with members of the European Union, 4% is with countries in the European Economic Area (EEA), 9% is covered by existing EU Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs) and 21% is with countries with whom an EU PTA is currently under negotiation or exists, but it is not yet implemented.

The EU currently has existing PTAs with 52 countries, and it is negotiating trade agreements with another 72 countries. In case of Brexit, the UK would therefore need to re-negotiate or start new bilateral negotiations on 124 trade agreements, plus 1 additional trade agreement re-defining its own trade status as a third country vis-à-vis the EU.

If we limit the focus to the top-50 trade partners of the UK, who account for 92% of all UK trade, 41 of them do have some trade agreements or ongoing negotiations with the EU. 18 of the UK’s top 50 trade partners are EU countries, 1 (Norway) is an EEA country, 1 (Turkey) has a customs union agreement with the EU, 8 countries have existing EU PTAs in place and 13 countries are currently negotiating EU trade agreements. This would translate into a minimum of 24 negotiations to be concluded.

Re-negotiating these agreements would take time: as an example, negotiations on the EU’s trade agreement with Canada started in 2009 and were only concluded with the legal review of the texts in February 2016. Meanwhile, the UK would also be excluded from the currently ongoing EU negotiations with the US, Japan and China, which would also need to be re-started on a bilateral basis. While Brexit supporters might argue that the UK would have more flexibility, when negotiating alone, it is also likely that its bargaining power would be considerably reduced compared to that of the EU, which is one of the top 3 traders in the world.

Negotiating a trade agreement between the UK and the EU might also take considerable time.

Negotiating a trade agreement between the UK and the EU might also take considerable time: the French economy minister has for example said recently that in case of Brexit “collective energy would be spent on unwinding existing links, not re-creating new ones”. During the time of negotiations the UK’s exports would probably be subject to the EU’s current Most-Favoured Nation (MFN) tariffs.

Based on data from the WTO Tariffs Database, we find that the average (weighted by 2014 exports) MFN tariff on UK exports to the EU-28 would be about 3.2%. If we were to apply an average tariff of 3.2% to the total 2014 intra-EU exports –  which amounted to 182 bn euro – the average tariff cost would be about 5.84 bn euro.

This is obviously a simplistic exercise, aimed at giving a rough idea of the cost associated with losing the current regime which the UK enjoys on intra-EU exports as a member of the EU. It should be kept in mind that the cost would be unevenly distributed across sectors. For example, the sector that accounts for the UK’s largest trade surplus with the EU (mineral fuels and related products) faces an average tariff of only 0.8%. Meanwhile, fish exports, which contributed a trade surplus of 517 mn euro in 2014, would face an average tariff of 11%.

These few data should suffice to show that the outcome of a Brexit on the UK’s trade performance would be uncertain and likely not very rosy. Businesses in the UK seem to realise this, as is shown by a survey conducted jointly in 2013 by YouGov and the Confederation of British Industry (Figure 4). 65 percent of respondents argued that if the UK were to leave the EU, this would have a negative or very negative impact on the UK’s ability to influence the policies affecting their businesses. 86 percent said Brexit would have a negative or very negative impact on the UK’s access to EU markets and 82 percent said it would negatively affect the UK’s ability to participate in EU supply chains. Importantly, 42-43 percent of respondents said that Brexit would also negatively affect the UK’s access to non-EU markets and non-EU supply chains.

An apocryphal British newspaper headline allegedly once proclaimed “Fog in the Channel. Continent cut off.” This sentiment has since become a symbol of the UK’s perception of its relationship with Europe: that the UK can function very well alone and it is instead the “continental Europeans” who most need the British. However, in terms of international trade, it seems that the UK would struggle to act in splendid isolation. The consequences of Brexit in this domain could be unpleasant, and re-establishing the UK’s trade agreements and networks would be a long a complex process.

 


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

View comments
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

Uuriintuya Batsaikhan
Pia Hüttl

The benefits and drawbacks of TTIP

What’s at stake: Since the recent leak of documents on TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) negotiations, there has been renewed interest in the trade deal. This blog review looks at studies on the estimated impacts of TTIP on growth, labour markets and social conditions. We also summarise its impact on countries outside the deal, and look at the debates surrounding its counterpart, the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership).

By: Uuriintuya Batsaikhan and Pia Hüttl Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: May 23, 2016
Read about event More on this topic

Upcoming Event

Jun
27
08:30

Britain and the EU after the referendum

No matter the result, the UK's referendum on EU membership will be an important moment for Britain and Europe. The days after the result will offer an opportunity to reflect on what has happened, and what has changed.

Speakers: Sylvie Goulard, André Sapir, Philipp Steinberg and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

Pia Hüttl
jaume

Northern Ireland and EU funds

EU funding for the UK has risen considerably since 2000, but funding predominantly goes to rural and less developed areas, meaning that Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales receive more funding relative to their GDP than England.

By: Pia Hüttl and Jaume Martí Romero Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: May 3, 2016
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

Will China's slowdown bring headwinds or opportunities for Europe and Central Asia?

After years of rapid growth, China's GDP is expanding more slowly. There are fears about the global impact, but could there also be opportunities for Europe and Central Asia?

Speakers: Maurizio Bussolo, André Sapir and Jianwei Xu Topic: Global Economics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: April 29, 2016
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Jérémie Cohen-Setton

Understanding HM Treasury’s Brexit analysis

What’s at stake: The UK will hold a referendum on its membership of the EU on June 23rd 2016. Her Majesty’s Treasury released an assessment of the impact of Brexit finding that the economy would be between 3 and 7% smaller in 2030 if the UK left the EU than it would be if it stayed in.

By: Jérémie Cohen-Setton Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: April 25, 2016
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

CANCELLED: The Search for Europe

This event has been cancelled because of an unforeseen change in the calendar of the main speaker.

Speakers: Francisco González, Sylvie Goulard, Veronica Nilsson, John Peet, Javier Solana and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: April 19, 2016
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Jérémie Cohen-Setton

Trade deficits and jobs at the ZLB

What’s at stake: In the populist narrative against globalization, trade deficits are seen as costing jobs. While this mercantilist view of the world is hard to square in normal times, a number of authors have suggested that the intellectual basis for that view is stronger in a liquidity trap.

By: Jérémie Cohen-Setton Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: April 4, 2016
Read article More on this topic

Opinion

André Sapir
Guntram B. Wolff

The UK’s sovereignty myth

Those who argue that Brexit would let the UK “take back sovereignty” overlook the impact of trade on domestic law-making.

By: André Sapir and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: March 17, 2016
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Marek Dabrowski

EU Association Agreement could help Ukraine to reform

Ukraine’s closer ties with the EU have been controversial. The Association Agreement is now facing a referendum in the Netherlands. But what exactly is in the agreement, and what could it mean in practice?

By: Marek Dabrowski Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: March 16, 2016
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

Pia Hüttl
Silvia Merler

Brexit endangers London’s status as a financial hub

The UK’s competitive edge in financial services is substantial and would be difficult to dislodge. But Brexit could damage London’s attractiveness as the centre of European banking, as an entry point to the EU and as a global financial hub. FDI is also at risk.

By: Pia Hüttl and Silvia Merler Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Date: March 10, 2016
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Marek Dabrowski

Brexit and the EU-UK deal: consequences for the EU

The debate on Brexit focuses on the economic and political consequences for the United Kingdom, but ignores the impact of the new EU-UK agreement on the EU. Regardless of the referendum result, the agreement will have serious consequences and will negatively affect prospects for European integration.

By: Marek Dabrowski Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: March 9, 2016
Read article Download PDF

Policy Contribution

The United States dominates global investment banking: does it matter for Europe?

The United States dominates global investment banking: does it matter for Europe?

Europe’s banks are in retreat from playing a global investment banking role, and this trend is likely to continue in the future. What will be the consequences and what should be the policy response?

By: Charles Goodhart and Dirk Schoenmaker Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation, Global Economics & Governance Date: March 7, 2016
Load more posts