IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ces/ifosdt/v73y2020i12p03-27.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Brexit-Finale: Das letzte Ringen um einen Deal

Author

Listed:
  • Rolf J. Langhammer
  • Lisandra Flach
  • Feodora Teti
  • Lena Wiest
  • Margherita Atzei
  • Lisa Scheckenhofer
  • Joachim Wuermeling
  • Carsten Hefeker
  • Friedemann Kainer
  • Philipp Harms
  • Michael Kaeding

Abstract

Rolf J. Langhammer, Institut für Weltwirtschaft, Kiel, sieht als Ziel ein auf Güter und ihre mit ihnen verbundenen Dienstleistungen beschränktes Abkommen. Die EU sollte den Briten etwas entgegenkommen, denn jedes Abkommen sei besser als der No-Deal. Nach den Berechnungen von Lisandra Flach, Feodora Teti, Lena Wiest, Margherita Atzei und Lisa Scheckenhofer, ifo Institut, trifft der Brexit den Handel des Vereinigten Königreichs härter als den der EU. Der Anteil der EU am Handel des VK ist größer als umgekehrt, auch bei Produkten, bei denen es nur wenige Lieferanten gibt. Trotzdem liege ein Handelsabkommen ab 1. Januar 2021 im beiderseitigen Interesse. Joachim Wuermeling, Deutsche Bundesbank, erwartet für den Finanzsektor ein „No-deal“-Szenario. Denn mit Blick auf einen möglichen Vertrag über die künftigen Beziehungen zwischen der EU und dem Vereinigtem Königreich galt ein detailliertes „financial chapter“ von Anfang an als sehr unwahrscheinlich. Insgesamt seien die Finanzmarktakteure gut auf das Ende der Übergangsperiode vorbereitet. Carsten Hefeker, Universität Siegen, befürchtet, dass als außenwirtschaftliche Konsequenz des Brexit das Vereinigte Königreich handelspolitisch isoliert und vielleicht nicht einmal mehr vereinigt sei. Das könne nicht im Interesse der EU sein; es sei zu hoffen, dass sie versuchen wird, dem VK im Rahmen der Möglichkeiten entgegenzukommen. Friedemann Kainer, Universität Mannheim, betrachtet die unterschiedlichen Perspektiven auf den Brexit-Prozess als Haupthindernis für einen positiven Verhandlungsabschluss. Die europäische Seite habe eine stringente und politisch sowie ökonomisch rationale Verhandlungsposition eingenommen, während das Vereinigte Königreich unklare, politisch teils sehr divergente Ziele verfolge. Im Lager der „Brexiters“ spielten ökonomische Gesichtspunkte keine bedeutende Rolle. Philipp Harms, Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, sieht in den „Leave-Votes“ den Ausdruck eines allgemeinen Unbehagens gegenüber der Globalisierung und befürchtet, dass rein ökonomische Erwägungen bei der Bestimmung individueller Einstellungen eine eher untergeordnete Rolle spielen, so dass Maßnahmen und Argumente, die an materielle Interessen appellieren, weniger Wirkung entfalten als erhofft. Für die Aussichten auf einen geordneten EU-Austritt des Vereinigten Königreichs verheiße dies nichts Gutes. Nach Ansicht von Michael Kaeding, Universität Duisburg-Essen, hat das Vereinigte Königreich nie richtig verstanden, was die EU ist und warum es sie gibt. Mit der Unterzeichnung der Europäischen Verträge brachten die Mitgliedstaaten ihren Wunsch zum Ausdruck, am Prozess der europäischen integrativen Solidarität teilzunehmen. Die Brexit-Verhandlungen zeigen, dass es ein grundlegender Fehler der britischen Brexiter war, sich vorzustellen, sie könnten die EU mit ihrer eigenen Ablehnung der europäischen Solidarität anstecken.

Suggested Citation

  • Rolf J. Langhammer & Lisandra Flach & Feodora Teti & Lena Wiest & Margherita Atzei & Lisa Scheckenhofer & Joachim Wuermeling & Carsten Hefeker & Friedemann Kainer & Philipp Harms & Michael Kaeding, 2020. "Brexit-Finale: Das letzte Ringen um einen Deal," ifo Schnelldienst, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 73(12), pages 03-27, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:ces:ifosdt:v:73:y:2020:i:12:p:03-27
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/sd-2020-12-langhammer-etal-brexit.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Catherine Mathieu, 2020. "Brexit: what economic impacts does the literature anticipate?," Sciences Po publications info:hdl:2441/2jt9boop748, Sciences Po.
    2. Lisandra Flach & Feodora Teti & Lena Wiest & Margherita Atzei, 2020. "EU27 and the UK: Product Dependencies and the Implications of Brexit," EconPol Policy Brief 32, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    3. Hylke Vandenbussche & William Connell & Wouter Simons, 2019. "Global Value Chains, Trade Shocks and Jobs: An Application to Brexit," CESifo Working Paper Series 7473, CESifo.
    4. Sascha O Becker & Thiemo Fetzer & Dennis Novy, 2017. "Who voted for Brexit? A comprehensive district-level analysis," Economic Policy, CEPR;CES;MSH, vol. 32(92), pages 601-650.
    5. David H. Autor & David Dorn & Gordon H. Hanson, 2013. "The China Syndrome: Local Labor Market Effects of Import Competition in the United States," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(6), pages 2121-2168, October.
    6. Alabrese, Eleonora & Becker, Sascha O. & Fetzer, Thiemo & Novy, Dennis, 2019. "Who voted for Brexit? Individual and regional data combined," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 132-150.
    7. Egger, Hartmut & Fischer, Christian, 2020. "Increasing resistance to globalization: The role of trade in tasks," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    8. Steinberg, Joseph B., 2019. "Brexit and the macroeconomic impact of trade policy uncertainty," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 175-195.
    9. Swati Dhingra & Hanwei Huang & Gianmarco Ottaviano & João Paulo Pessoa & Thomas Sampson & John Van Reenen, 2017. "The costs and benefits of leaving the EU: trade effects," Economic Policy, CEPR;CES;MSH, vol. 32(92), pages 651-705.
    10. Colantone, Italo & Stanig, Piero, 2018. "Global Competition and Brexit," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 112(2), pages 201-218, May.
    11. Gabriel Felbermayr & Jasmin Katrin Gröschl & Marina Steininger & Gabriel J. Felbermayr, 2018. "Quantifying Brexit: From Ex Post to Ex Ante Using Structural Gravity," CESifo Working Paper Series 7357, CESifo.
    12. Rodrik, Dani, 2020. "Why Does Globalization Fuel Populism?," CEPR Discussion Papers 15002, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    13. Gabriel Felbermayr & Clemens Fuest & Jasmin Katrin Gröschl & Daniel Stöhlker, 2017. "Economic Effects of Brexit on the European Economy," EconPol Policy Reports 4, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    14. Alejandro G Graziano & Kyle Handley & Nuno Limão, 2021. "Brexit Uncertainty and Trade Disintegration," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 131(635), pages 1150-1185.
    15. Sampson, Thomas, 2017. "Brexit: The Economics of International Disintegration," CEPR Discussion Papers 12301, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    16. Thomas Sampson, 2017. "Brexit: The Economics of International Disintegration," CESifo Working Paper Series 6668, CESifo.
    17. Thomas Sampson, 2017. "Brexit: The Economics of International Disintegration," CEP Discussion Papers dp1499, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    18. Harms, Philipp & Schwab, Jakob, 2020. "Depression of the deprived or eroding enthusiasm of the elites: What has shifted the support for international trade?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    19. Thomas Sampson, 2017. "Brexit: The Economics of International Disintegration," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 31(4), pages 163-184, Fall.
    20. Sampson, Thomas, 2017. "Brexit: the economics of international disintegration," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 86591, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    21. Catherine Mathieu, 2020. "Brexit: What economic impacts does the literature anticipate?," Revue de l'OFCE, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 167(3), pages 43-81.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lisandra Flach & Feodora Teti & Lena Wiest & Margherita Atzei, 2020. "EU27 and the UK: Product Dependencies and the Implications of Brexit," EconPol Policy Brief 32, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    2. Tarek Alexander Hassan & Stephan Hollander & Laurence van Lent & Ahmed Tahoun, 2020. "The Global Impact of Brexit Uncertainty," Boston University - Department of Economics - The Institute for Economic Development Working Papers Series dp-332, Boston University - Department of Economics.
    3. Hassan, Tarek Alexander & Hollander, Stephan & Tahoun, Ahmed & van Lent, Laurence, 2019. "The Global Impact of Brexit Uncertainty," CEPR Discussion Papers 14253, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    4. Bloom, Nicholas & Bunn, Philip & Chen, Scarlet & Mizen, Paul & Smietanka, Pawel & Thwaites, Gregory, 2019. "The impact of Brexit on UK firms," Bank of England working papers 818, Bank of England.
    5. Campos, Nauro F., 2019. "B for Brexit: A Survey of the Economics Academic Literature," IZA Discussion Papers 12134, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Fidrmuc, Jan & Hulényi, Martin & Tunalı, Çiğdem Börke, 2019. "Can money buy EU love?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    7. Drinkwater, Stephen & Jennings, Colin, 2021. "The Brexit Referendum and Three Types of Regret," IZA Discussion Papers 14589, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    8. Catherine Mathieu, 2020. "Brexit: what economic impacts does the literature anticipate?," Post-Print hal-03403036, HAL.
    9. Patrick Bisciari, 2019. "A survey of the long-term impact of Brexit on the UK and the EU27 economies," Working Paper Research 366, National Bank of Belgium.
    10. Polyzos, Stathis & Samitas, Aristeidis & Katsaiti, Marina-Selini, 2020. "Who is unhappy for Brexit? A machine-learning, agent-based study on financial instability," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    11. Pawel Dlotko & Lucy Minford & Simon Rudkin & Wanling Qiu, 2019. "An Economic Topology of the Brexit vote," Papers 1909.03490, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2021.
    12. Swati Dhingra & Rebecca Freeman & Hanwei Huang, 2021. "The impact of non-tariff barriers on trade and welfare," CEP Discussion Papers dp1742, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    13. Alabrese, Eleonora & Becker, Sascha O. & Fetzer, Thiemo & Novy, Dennis, 2019. "Who voted for Brexit? Individual and regional data combined," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 132-150.
    14. Born, Benjamin & M�ller, Gernot & Schularick, Moritz & Sedlacek, Petr, 2017. "The Economic Consequences of the Brexit Vote," CEPR Discussion Papers 12454, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    15. Halmai, Péter, 2020. "A dezintegráció gazdaságtana. A brexit esete [The economics of disintegration. The case of Brexit]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(9), pages 837-877.
    16. Catherine Mathieu, 2020. "Brexit: what economic impacts does the literature anticipate?," Sciences Po publications info:hdl:2441/2jt9boop748, Sciences Po.
    17. Renato Faccini & Edoardo Palombo, 2019. "News Uncertainty in Brexit U.K," Discussion Papers 1921, Centre for Macroeconomics (CFM).
    18. Fernanda L. Lopez de Leon & Markus Bindemann, 2019. "Social Effects of the Vote of the Majority: A Field-Experiment on the Brexit-Vote," Studies in Economics 1905, School of Economics, University of Kent.
    19. Holger Breinlich & Elsa Leromain & Dennis Novy & Thomas Sampson, 2019. "Exchange Rates and Consumer Prices: Evidence from Brexit," CESifo Working Paper Series 8001, CESifo.
    20. Harald Oberhofer & Michael Pfaffermayr, 2021. "Estimating the trade and welfare effects of Brexit: A panel data structural gravity model," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(1), pages 338-375, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Europäische Integration; Außenhandel; Außenwirtschaftspolitik; Außenpolitik; Handelshemmnisse; Wettbewerbspolitik; Mitgliedsstaaten; EU-Binnenmarkt; Großbritannien; Europäische Union; Brexit;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
    • F15 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Economic Integration
    • F59 - International Economics - - International Relations, National Security, and International Political Economy - - - Other

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ces:ifosdt:v:73:y:2020:i:12:p:03-27. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifooode.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Klaus Wohlrabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifooode.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.