Social Europe

politics, economy and employment & labour

  • Projects
    • Corporate Taxation in a Globalised Era
    • US Election 2020
    • The Transformation of Work
    • The Coronavirus Crisis and the Welfare State
    • Just Transition
    • Artificial intelligence, work and society
    • What is inequality?
    • Europe 2025
    • The Crisis Of Globalisation
  • Audiovisual
    • Audio Podcast
    • Video Podcasts
    • Social Europe Talk Videos
  • Publications
    • Books
    • Dossiers
    • Occasional Papers
    • Research Essays
    • Brexit Paper Series
  • Shop
  • Membership
  • Ads
  • Newsletter

Here Is Why Brexiters Are Completely Wrong On Trade

by Henning Meyer on 22nd February 2016 @hmeyer78

TwitterFacebookLinkedIn
Henninground

Henning Meyer

The fight for the UK to remain a member of the European Union is now fully on. The country will have a momentous decision to make on 23rd June this year. I unfortunately won’t have a vote on my future as a German living in the UK, the country I have lived and paid my taxes in for the last 15 years. But I will take the opportunity to debunk as many dangerous myths of the Brexiters as I can and I will start today with the economic argument about trade.

You often hear that “the rest of Europe sells us more stuff than we sell them and therefore they will give us a free trade deal as they don’t want to shoot themselves in the foot”. You can easily debunk this myth in 2-3 steps.

The first thing is that this isn’t a 1:1 comparison of UK vs. The Rest. The Rest doesn’t exist as one unit as it is a group of 27 countries. So the comparison is 1:27 and 27:1 – not 1:1. With that clarified let’s take a look at the UK’s export statistics. The visualisation below also represents a weighting of the importance of export destinations. If you now assume as a thought experiment that the terms of trade were to worsen after a Brexit you can see the accumulated effect: worse trade terms with Germany (10% of exports), the Netherlands (7.9% of exports), France (6.3% of exports), and so on – you get the picture. The UK would have worse trade terms with 27 countries, many of which are key export destinations.

Graph 1

Exports1

Source: MIT Observatory of Economic Complexity

What would worsening trade terms mean vice versa? For Germany for instance? Have a look at the same visualisation for Germany.

Make your email inbox interesting again!

"Social Europe publishes thought-provoking articles on the big political and economic issues of our time analysed from a European viewpoint. Indispensable reading!"

Polly Toynbee

Columnist for The Guardian

Thank you very much for your interest! Now please check your email to confirm your subscription.

There was an error submitting your subscription. Please try again.

Powered by ConvertKit

Graph 2

Exports2

Source: MIT Observatory of Economic Complexity

In the case of worsening terms of trade Germany would have worse relations with one market: the UK representing 6.4% of total trade. The UK is undoubtedly an important market but there is no cumulative effect. This leads to the first conclusion: if there are worsening terms of trade which the EU almost certainly would have to enforce – I’ll come back to this – the UK will be much harder hit than any of the remaining 27 member states. This is a very important point that is often muddied by ‘us and The Rest’ rhetoric.

Another often heard argument is that the UK is global in its outlook and should not be somehow forced to focus on European trade. This is obvious nonsense as another look at the charts shows. Germany is a true global exporter and has a trade volume that is more than three times the UK figure ($1.38trillion vs $453bn) whilst being a member of the very same EU. If there is an issue with UK export performance you need to look at the products and services on offer. The institutional factor of the EU is certainly not holding the UK back from selling globally.

The final point is about the politics of Brexit. Some people might still argue that Germany would want to avoid any negative effect on its exports even though the UK is in a weaker position. There are two considerations here: first, there would be huge pressure on the remaining EU member states to give the UK a bad deal. The EU already has renationalisation tendencies and Brexit would set a new precedent. It would be important to show that exiting and keeping all the benefits is not an option. You cannot have your cake and eat it. Second, as you can see for instance in the case of sanctions against Russia, there can of course be political reasons that trump pure economic considerations. The fact that 3.3% of German exports go to Russia did not prevent the German government from pursuing policies that could worsen the terms of trade.

In conclusion, I think there is clear evidence that the UK is in a much more vulnerable political position regarding trade than the remaining EU member states if it comes to Brexit. Rather than being in a strong negotiationing position there is pressure on the remaining EU member states to set a deterring precedent and give the UK rather harsh treatment. And if you ever believed that the EU holds Britain back from trading with the rest of the world have a look at Germany and explain how this can possibly be the case.

Update 23rd February 2016:

There has been quite a bit of discussion about this blog in social media and it was claimed that I am missing a point by omitting that the UK would be free to negotiate its own trade deals with the rest of the world after Brexit. This is another point that will worsen the UK position.

The whole argument that a much smaller party suddenly has more power in negotiations because it is small is – to put it mildly – turning previous experience on its head. The stronger you are the more leverage you have in negotiations. If you are in a weaker position you lose leverage.

And other countries might not be interested in a deal at all. A Daily Telegraph article entitled “Major blow for Brexit campaign as US rules out UK-only trade deal” seems to suggest there might be no trade deals with the most important non-European players.

TwitterFacebookLinkedIn
Home ・ Here Is Why Brexiters Are Completely Wrong On Trade

Filed Under: Economy

About Henning Meyer

Henning Meyer is Editor-in-Chief of Social Europe and a Research Associate of the Public Policy Group at the London School of Economics and Political Science. He is also Director of the consultancy New Global Strategy Ltd. and frequently writes opinion editorials for international newspapers such as The Guardian, DIE ZEIT, The New York Times and El Pais.

Partner Ads

Most Recent Posts

Thomas Piketty,capital Capital and ideology: interview with Thomas Piketty Thomas Piketty
pushbacks Border pushbacks: it’s time for impunity to end Hope Barker
gig workers Gig workers’ rights and their strategic litigation Aude Cefaliello and Nicola Countouris
European values,EU values,fundamental values European values: making reputational damage stick Michele Bellini and Francesco Saraceno
centre left,representation gap,dissatisfaction with democracy Closing the representation gap Sheri Berman

Most Popular Posts

sovereignty Brexit and the misunderstanding of sovereignty Peter Verovšek
globalisation of labour,deglobalisation The first global event in the history of humankind Branko Milanovic
centre-left, Democratic Party The Biden victory and the future of the centre-left EJ Dionne Jr
eurozone recovery, recovery package, Financial Stability Review, BEAST Light in the tunnel or oncoming train? Adam Tooze
Brexit deal, no deal Barrelling towards the ‘Brexit’ cliff edge Paul Mason

Other Social Europe Publications

Whither Social Rights in (Post-)Brexit Europe?
Year 30: Germany’s Second Chance
Artificial intelligence
Social Europe Volume Three
Social Europe – A Manifesto

Hans Böckler Stiftung Advertisement

The macroeconomic effects of the EU recovery and resilience facility

This policy brief analyses the macroeconomic effects of the EU's Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF). We present the basics of the RRF and then use the macroeconometric multi-country model NiGEM to analyse the facility's macroeconomic effects. The simulations show, first, that if the funds are in fact used to finance additional public investment (as intended), public capital stocks throughout the EU will increase markedly during the time of the RRF. Secondly, in some especially hard-hit southern European countries, the RRF would offset a significant share of the output lost during the pandemic. Thirdly, as gains in GDP due to the RRF will be much stronger in (poorer) southern and eastern European countries, the RRF has the potential to reduce economic divergence. Finally, and in direct consequence of the increased GDP, the RRF will lead to lower public debt ratios—between 2.0 and 4.4 percentage points below baseline for southern European countries in 2023.


FREE DOWNLOAD

ETUI advertisement

Benchmarking Working Europe 2020

A virus is haunting Europe. This year’s 20th anniversary issue of our flagship publication Benchmarking Working Europe brings to a growing audience of trade unionists, industrial relations specialists and policy-makers a warning: besides SARS-CoV-2, ‘austerity’ is the other nefarious agent from which workers, and Europe as a whole, need to be protected in the months and years ahead. Just as the scientific community appears on the verge of producing one or more effective and affordable vaccines that could generate widespread immunity against SARS-CoV-2, however, policy-makers, at both national and European levels, are now approaching this challenging juncture in a way that departs from the austerity-driven responses deployed a decade ago, in the aftermath of the previous crisis. It is particularly apt for the 20th anniversary issue of Benchmarking, a publication that has allowed the ETUI and the ETUC to contribute to key European debates, to set out our case for a socially responsive and ecologically sustainable road out of the Covid-19 crisis.


FREE DOWNLOAD

Eurofound advertisement

Industrial relations: developments 2015-2019

Eurofound has monitored and analysed developments in industrial relations systems at EU level and in EU member states for over 40 years. This new flagship report provides an overview of developments in industrial relations and social dialogue in the years immediately prior to the Covid-19 outbreak. Findings are placed in the context of the key developments in EU policy affecting employment, working conditions and social policy, and linked to the work done by social partners—as well as public authorities—at European and national levels.


CLICK FOR MORE INFO

Foundation for European Progressive Studies Advertisement

Read FEPS Covid Response Papers

In this moment, more than ever, policy-making requires support and ideas to design further responses that can meet the scale of the problem. FEPS contributes to this reflection with policy ideas, analysis of the different proposals and open reflections with the new FEPS Covid Response Papers series and the FEPS Covid Response Webinars. The latest FEPS Covid Response Paper by the Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, 'Recovering from the pandemic: an appraisal of lessons learned', provides an overview of the failures and successes in dealing with Covid-19 and its economic aftermath. Among the authors: Lodewijk Asscher, László Andor, Estrella Durá, Daniela Gabor, Amandine Crespy, Alberto Botta, Francesco Corti, and many more.


CLICK HERE

Social Europe Publishing book

The Brexit endgame is upon us: deal or no deal, the transition period will end on January 1st. With a pandemic raging, for those countries most affected by Brexit the end of the transition could not come at a worse time. Yet, might the UK's withdrawal be a blessing in disguise? With its biggest veto player gone, might the European Pillar of Social Rights take centre stage? This book brings together leading experts in European politics and policy to examine social citizenship rights across the European continent in the wake of Brexit. Will member states see an enhanced social Europe or a race to the bottom?

'This book correctly emphasises the need to place the future of social rights in Europe front and centre in the post-Brexit debate, to move on from the economistic bias that has obscured our vision of a progressive social Europe.' Michael D Higgins, president of Ireland


MORE INFO

About Social Europe

Our Mission

Article Submission

Legal Disclosure

Privacy Policy

Copyright

Social Europe ISSN 2628-7641

Find Social Europe Content

Search Social Europe

Project Archive

Politics Archive

Economy Archive

Society Archive

Ecology Archive

.EU Web Awards