IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdf/wpaper/2016-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Understanding UK trade agreements with the EU and other countries

Author

Listed:

Abstract

Recent work has exposed the extent of EU protectionism within the single market Customs Union. If the UK leaves the EU customs union for unilateral free trade, as a small country within the world market, it will therefore make gains according to the standard trade model. Should it do so, trade agreements with other small countries would simply divert UK trade to these markets without affecting UK trade or output overall hence while harmless they are also pointless. Trade agreements with large countries or country-blocs should be treated with care, since while they might give scope for UK industries to enjoy higher prices on all their output by diverting trade to these markets, they could come at a cost in higher prices for imports as in the case of the EU customs union. If having left the EU the UK finds a large country willing to offer a beneficial free trade agreement, it is likely to be easier to conclude with the UK outside the EU than with it as part of the EU, because of the complex and varied industrial interests of the EU as whole compared with the more limited interests of the UK. Already in services which are in general not governed by EU trade rules UK trade takes place under WTO rules and is also closely integrated with other countries markets such as the US and most Commonwealth countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Minford, Patrick, 2016. "Understanding UK trade agreements with the EU and other countries," Cardiff Economics Working Papers E2016/1, Cardiff University, Cardiff Business School, Economics Section.
    • Handle: RePEc:cdf:wpaper:2016/1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://carbsecon.com/wp/E2016_1.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Patrick Minford & Sakshi Gupta & Vo P.M. Le & Vidya Mahambare & Yongdeng Xu, 2015. "Should Britain Leave the EU?," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 16679.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. The trouble with the Brexit debate
      by chris in Stumbling and Mumbling on 2016-05-12 17:49:30

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Escaith, Hubert, 2018. "Mapping the UK domestic and global value chains from a Brexit perspective," MPRA Paper 87824, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Swati Dhingra & Stephen Machin & Henry Overman, 2017. "Local Economic Effects of Brexit," National Institute Economic Review, National Institute of Economic and Social Research, vol. 242(1), pages 24-36, November.
    3. Emmanuel Brunet-Jailly, 2021. "Introduction: How the British-exit is Impacting the European Union?," International Studies, , vol. 58(2), pages 133-149, April.
    4. Paul J.J. Welfens, 2017. "The True Cost of BREXIT for the UK: A Research Note," EIIW Discussion paper disbei234, Universitätsbibliothek Wuppertal, University Library.

    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. Vikash Ramiah & Huy N. A. Pham & Imad Moosa, 2017. "The sectoral effects of Brexit on the British economy: early evidence from the reaction of the stock market," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(26), pages 2508-2514, June.
    2. Jovanovic, Miroslav & Damnjanovic, Jelena & Njegic, Jovan, 2018. "Among the Central and Eastern European Countries of the European Union, who Gained and who Lost?," Economia Internazionale / International Economics, Camera di Commercio Industria Artigianato Agricoltura di Genova, vol. 71(3), pages 317-370.
    3. Patrick Minford & Yongdeng Xu, 2018. "Classical or Gravity? Which Trade Model Best Matches the UK Facts?," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 579-611, July.
    4. Prescott, Craig & Pilato, Manuela & Bellia, Claudio, 2020. "Geographical indications in the UK after Brexit: An uncertain future?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    5. Patrick Minford, 2008. "Why the United Kingdom Should Not Join the Eurozone," International Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 11(3), pages 283-295, December.
    6. Latorre, María C. & Olekseyuk, Zoryana & Yonezawa, Hidemichi & Robinson, Sherman, 2020. "Making sense of Brexit losses: An in-depth review of macroeconomic studies," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 72-87.
    7. Jordan van Rijn & Shuwei Zeng & Paul Hellman, 2021. "Financial institution objectives and auto loan pricing: Evidence from the survey of consumer finances," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(3), pages 995-1039, September.
    8. Iain Begg, 2017. "Making Sense of the Costs and Benefits of Brexit: Challenges for Economists," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 45(3), pages 299-315, September.
    9. Nicholas Crafts, 2019. "The Fall in Potential Output due to the Financial Crisis: A Much Bigger Estimate for the UK," Comparative Economic Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Association for Comparative Economic Studies, vol. 61(4), pages 625-635, December.
    10. Minford, Patrick, 2015. "Evaluating European trading arrangements," Cardiff Economics Working Papers E2015/17, Cardiff University, Cardiff Business School, Economics Section.
    11. Ruth Lea, 2008. "An Economically Liberal European Union Will Not Be Delivered By The Eu Reform Treaty," Economic Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(1), pages 70-73, March.
    12. Gang Chen & Xue Dong & Patrick Minford & Guanhua Qiu & Yongdeng Xu & Zequn Xu, 2022. "Computable General Equilibrium Models of Trade in the Modern Trade Policy Debate," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 33(2), pages 271-309, April.
    13. Ben Rosamond, 2020. "European Integration and the Politics of Economic Ideas: Economics, Economists and Market Contestation in the Brexit Debate," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(5), pages 1085-1106, September.
    14. Begg, Iain, 2017. "Making sense of the costs and benefits of Brexit: challenges for economists," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 83587, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. Patrick Minford, 2006. "Measuring the Economic Costs and Benefits of the EU," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 509-524, December.
    16. Minford Patrick, 2019. "How Britain Will React to a WTO-Based Brexit," The Economists' Voice, De Gruyter, vol. 16(1), pages 1-5, December.
    17. Gabriela Ortiz Valverde & Maria C. Latorre, 2020. "A computable general equilibrium analysis of Brexit: Barriers to trade and immigration restrictions," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(3), pages 705-728, March.
    18. 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.
    19. Ilhamah Qiamy & Fahim Nawaz & Syed Umair Jalal, 2018. "The United Kingdom and Brexit: Implications, Consequences and Opportunities," Global Economics Review, Humanity Only, vol. 3(2), pages 1-11, December.
    20. Jan Iša & Ivan Okáli, 2008. "Európska menová únia, optimálna menová oblasť a možné dôsledky vstupu slovenska do eurozóny [European monetary union, optimum currency area and possible effects of slovakia's joining the euro area]," Politická ekonomie, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2008(3), pages 318-344.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:cdf:wpaper:2016/1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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: Yongdeng Xu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ecscfuk.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.