IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Canada-U.K. Free Trade: Balancing Progressive Trade Policies And Economic Benefits


  • Eugene Beaulieu

    (University of Calgary)

  • Kamala Dawar

    (Sussex University)

  • Lindsey Garner-Knapp

    (University of Edinburgh)


One of the major factors that motivated a majority of Britons to vote in favour of leaving the EU was their disenchantment with Europe’s current approach to trade. There is solid evidence of a link between the vote for Brexit and the feelings of dissatisfied voters who see themselves being left behind in the current economy. However, the economic cost that Britain faces in departing the EU will be significant, and one key way to mitigate it will be by quickly replacing the loss of access to the EU’s common market and all of the EU’s trade agreements with new U.K. trade agreements. Canada appears to be one of the most eager to sign an early deal with the U.K. However, if it is to be a successful free trade agreement, it should aim to address and alleviate the same concerns about trade that led so many British voters to turn against their deal with the EU. Otherwise, it could result in stoking the same anger and dissatisfaction that has fuelled recent political trouble in Britain. This appears to be an ideal opportunity for the Canadian government to advance the “progressive†trade agenda it has advocated for in recent agreements it has signed with the U.S., Europe and members of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Suggested Citation

  • Eugene Beaulieu & Kamala Dawar & Lindsey Garner-Knapp, 2019. "Canada-U.K. Free Trade: Balancing Progressive Trade Policies And Economic Benefits," SPP Briefing Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 12(43), December.
  • Handle: RePEc:clh:briefi:v:12:y:2019:i:43

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. 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.
    2. Andrew K. Rose, 2004. "Do We Really Know That the WTO Increases Trade?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(1), pages 98-114, March.
    3. Sascha Becker & Thiemo Fetzer & Dennis Novy & Sascha O. Becker, 2017. "Who Voted for Brexit?," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 15(04), pages 03-05, December.
    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. Steinberg, Joseph B., 2019. "Brexit and the macroeconomic impact of trade policy uncertainty," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 175-195.
    6. Crowley, M. A. & Exton, O. & Han, L., 2018. "Renegotiation of Trade Agreements and Firm Exporting Decisions: Evidence from the Impact of Brexit on UK Exports," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1839, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    7. Davies, Ronald B. & Studnicka, Zuzanna, 2018. "The heterogeneous impact of Brexit: Early indications from the FTSE," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 1-17.
    8. Kyle Handley & Nuno Limão, 2018. "Trade and Investment under Policy Uncertainty: Theory and Firm Evidence," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Policy Externalities and International Trade Agreements, chapter 4, pages 89-122, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    9. Arnorsson, Agust & Zoega, Gylfi, 2018. "On the causes of Brexit," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 301-323.
    10. Eichengreen, Barry & Mari, Rebecca & Thwaites, Gregory, 2018. "Will Brexit Age Well? Cohorts, Seasoning and the Age-Leave Gradient, Past, Present and Future," CEPR Discussion Papers 13288, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    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. Swati Dhingra & Thomas Sampson, 2022. "Expecting Brexit," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 14(1), pages 495-519, August.
    2. Fidrmuc, Jan & Hulényi, Martin & Tunalı, Çiğdem Börke, 2019. "Can money buy EU love?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    3. Andreas Dür & Christoph Moser & Gabriele Spilker, 2020. "The political economy of the European Union," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 561-572, July.
    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. Pawel Dlotko & Lucy Minford & Simon Rudkin & Wanling Qiu, 2019. "An Economic Topology of the Brexit vote," Papers 1909.03490,, revised Dec 2021.
    6. Toke Aidt & Felix Grey & Alexandru Savu, 2021. "The Meaningful Votes: Voting on Brexit in the British House of Commons," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 186(3), pages 587-617, March.
    7. Maria Abreu & Özge Öner, 2020. "Disentangling the Brexit vote: The role of economic, social and cultural contexts in explaining the UK’s EU referendum vote," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 52(7), pages 1434-1456, October.
    8. Broadbent, Ben & Di Pace, Federico & Drechsel, Thomas & Harrison, Richard & Tenreyro, Silvana, 2019. "The Brexit vote, productivity growth and macroeconomic adjustments in the United Kingdom," Discussion Papers 51, Monetary Policy Committee Unit, Bank of England.
    9. 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.
    10. Blackaby, David H. & Drinkwater, Stephen & Robinson, Catherine, 2020. "Regional Variations in the Brexit Vote: Causes and Potential Consequences," IZA Discussion Papers 13579, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    11. Liberini, Federica & Oswald, Andrew J. & Proto, Eugenio & Redoano, Michela, 2019. "Was Brexit triggered by the old and unhappy? Or by financial feelings?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 287-302.
    12. Wang, Shizhuo, 2020. "Measuring the Regional Economic Cost of Brexit: Evidence up to 2019," CEPR Discussion Papers 15051, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    13. Eleonora Alabrese & Thiemo René Fetzer, 2018. "Who is NOT Voting for Brexit Anymore?," CESifo Working Paper Series 7389, CESifo.
    14. Martin Guzi & Martin Kahanec & Magdalena M. Ulceluse, 2021. "Europe's migration experience and its effects on economic inequality," MUNI ECON Working Papers 2021-05, Masaryk University, revised Feb 2023.
    15. Toke Aidt & Felix Grey & Alexandru Savu, 2019. "The Three Meaningful Votes: Voting on Brexit in the British House of Commons," CESifo Working Paper Series 7819, CESifo.
    16. Stephen Drinkwater & Colin Jennings, 2022. "The Brexit referendum and three types of regret," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 193(3), pages 275-291, December.
    17. Crescenzi, Riccardo & Di Cataldo, Marco & Giua, Mara, 2020. "It’s not about the money. EU funds, local opportunities, and Euroscepticism," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    18. Diana Gutiérrez‐Posada & María Plotnikova & Fernando Rubiera‐Morollón, 2021. "“The grass is greener on the other side”: The relationship between the Brexit referendum results and spatial inequalities at the local level," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 100(6), pages 1481-1500, December.
    19. Mustapha Douch & Terence Huw Edwards, 2022. "The bilateral trade effects of announcement shocks: Brexit as a natural field experiment," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(2), pages 305-329, March.
    20. Andrés Rodríguez-Pose & Neil Lee & Cornelius Lipp, 2021. "Golfing with Trump. Social capital, decline, inequality, and the rise of populism in the US," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 14(3), pages 457-481.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    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:clh:briefi:v:12:y:2019:i:43. 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: .

    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: Bev Dahlby (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.