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 Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance

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

Opinion

Why this round of U.S. protectionism is different

Although it is not the first time that the world has been caught in the China-U.S. crossfire, this round of U.S. protectionist moves against China is very different, and more worrisome than past ones. They involve a much larger number of products and in that they also target the global competition for U.S. companies and not only the U.S. market. It is in no way just a poker game launched by the U.S. to reduce its bilateral trade deficit with China, but the herald of an era of China-U.S. strategical competition.

By: Alicia García-Herrero and Jianwei Xu Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: April 24, 2018
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

What European trade policy in face of an emerging global trade war

On 25 April Bruegel is pleased to host Bernd Lange, Chair of the European Parliament's committee on International Trade.

Speakers: André Sapir, Bernd Lange and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Global Economics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: April 24, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Trade Wars: what are they good for?

Following the US announcements in early March of their intent to impose steel and aluminum tariffs, and the subsequent threats from China to retaliate with their own tariffs, the global trade picture remains uncertain. The IMF and the World Bank Spring Meetings set off amid US-Japan bilateral negotiations and Trump’s hot-and-cold approach to the TPP. This week we review blogs’ views on tensions over international trade and how they can impact world economic growth.

By: Inês Goncalves Raposo Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: April 23, 2018
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

The current state and future of the world trading system

This event will discuss the current state of the multilateral trading system and how it might evolve in the future.

Speakers: Iana Dreyer, Marc Vanheukelen, Everton Vargas, André Sapir and Xia Xiang Topic: Global Economics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: April 19, 2018
Read article More by this author

Podcast

Podcast

Director's Cut: EU risks US tariff pain in standing by the WTO

As global trade war continues to unfold, Bruegel director Guntram Wolff is joined for this Director's Cut of 'The Sound of Economics' podcast by Bernd Lange MEP, chair of the Committee on International Trade (INTA), to discuss Europe's options.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Global Economics & Governance Date: April 18, 2018
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

Free trade in Africa: An important goal but not easy to achieve

The signing of the African Continental Free Trade Agreement and the Kigali Declaration may signal a new push towards economic integration on the African continent. However, it remains to be seen how many more countries sign up, how successfully 'phase two' is implemented later this year, and whether the agreement can be built upon to more comprehensively promote trade in services and a reduction of non-tariff barriers.

By: Marek Dabrowski and Yana Myachenkova Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: April 13, 2018
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Time for a reset

It is only in the last decade that the EU has had an active policy to reintegrate workers who lost their jobs as a result of globalisation, through the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF). In this blog, the authors assess the performance of the Fund and make three recommendations to improve its effectiveness. To be more successful, the Fund should improve its monitoring and widen the scope of its usage.

By: Grégory Claeys and André Sapir Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: April 11, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

US Tariffs Aim to Contain China’s Technological Rise

While tension increases with each of the imports listed under the new tariffs, it now seems clear that the US are trying to slow down China's technological advances. Though such a protectionist attitude represents an obstacle, China should consider it an opportunity to strengthen relations with its Asian neighbours and the EU.

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: April 10, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

What Are the Targets in the US–China Trade War?

Following the US announcement of new, high tariffs on imports, China is answering the Trump administration by applying its own series of tariffs. In this article, the author identifies the list of products that each country will be targeting, going beyond purely trade issues as each attempts to weaken the other.

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: April 10, 2018
Read article More by this author

Opinion

How Should the EU Position Itself in a Global Trade War?

It is high time for the EU to work on more than just wishful thinking in response to the US challenge to global trade. With the first cracks appearing in the multilateral system, it will be difficult for the EU to maintain a middle course between the US and China.

By: Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Global Economics & Governance Date: April 5, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Podcast

Podcast

Director’s Cut: A global trade triumvirate?

In this week’s Director’s Cut of ‘The Sound of Economics’ podcast, Bruegel director Guntram Wolff hosts a discussion with Bruegel fellows Alicia García-Herrero and André Sapir on where Europe will position itself between the two major trading powers of China and the United States if relations continue to cool.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: March 27, 2018
Read article More on this topic

External Publication

Europe in a new world order

The EU is a relatively open economy and has benefited from the multilateral system. We argue that the EU should defend its strategic interests. The Singapore ruling has offered a useful clarification on trade policy. Addressing internal imbalances would also increase external credibility. Finally, strengthening Europe's social model would provide a counter-model to protectionist temptations.

By: Maria Demertzis, Guntram B. Wolff and André Sapir Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: March 26, 2018
Load more posts