A gentler Europe in a ‘no deal’ scenarioDespite Europe’s history as an active user of antidumping policy against high-income trading partners, some might argue that antidumping duties against the UK are unlikely. If the EU commits to refraining from using antidumping duties on UK exports, then the ‘no deal’ scenario is slightly less gloomy. Figures 3 and 4 repeat the tariff-risk analysis in Figures 1 and 2, but omit antidumping duty risk. This is an alternative, extreme assumption. Under this assumption, the share of UK trade to the EU at risk of high or extreme trade policy barriers falls to 15% (from 27%) and the value of exports falls to £25.4 billion (from £47 billion). Thus, this is the lower bound of how bad things would get under a ‘no deal’ outcome in which the EU never used antidumping policy against the UK.
The preceding analyses have omitted other important sources of trade policy risk facing the UK. With the UK’s exit from the EU comes the danger that the UK will not be able to roll over the FTAS it subscribes to as a member of the EU. This could result in higher baseline tariffs as well as the loss of quota rights in these non-EU markets. The UK also faces considerable uncertainty over access to different sectors of the US market arising from the protectionist agenda of the Trump administration. These additional risks in markets outside the European Union underscore the difficulties that lie ahead.
Figure 3 The exposure of UK exports to EU tariffs and quotas under ‘no deal’, by product classifications
![](https://pic.jg.com.cn/img/pinggu/93ce475b5f687474703a2f2f766f7865752e6f72672f73697465732f64656661756c742f66696c65732f696d6167652f46726f6d4d6179323031342f63726f776c6579666967332e706e67ac520c45b5.jpg)
Notes: ANIM: Animal products, live animals; VEGE: Vegetable products; FOOD: Prepared foodstuffs, beverages, spirits, tobacco, edible oils; MINE: Mineral products; FUEL: Mineral fuels; CHEM: Chemicals; PLAS: Plastics and rubber; HIDE: Hides, skins, leather, etc; WOOD: Wood and articles of wood, pulp, and paper; TEXT: Textiles, fibers, apparel, etc.; FOOT: Footwear, headgear, umbrellas, etc.; STON: Stone, cement, plaster, ceramics, glassware, etc.; META: Base metals and articles of base meta; MACH: Machinery, mechanical appliances, electrical equipment; TRAN: Transportation: vehicles, aircraft, vessels; MISC: Miscellaneous.
Figure 4 The exposure of UK exports to EU tariffs and quotas under ‘no deal’, by UKSIC industries
![](https://pic.jg.com.cn/img/pinggu/3829170bd9687474703a2f2f766f7865752e6f72672f73697465732f64656661756c742f66696c65732f696d6167652f46726f6d4d6179323031342f63726f776c6579666967342e706e6717c7d4dc20.jpg)
ConclusionsOn 6 December, the UK’s Parliamentary Select Committee on Brexit held a hearing on the impact of Brexit, emphasising the need for sound quantitative analysis at the sectoral level. In this column, we have offered a detailed assessment for manufacturing exports.
In summary, if the UK leaves the EU with no trade deal, firms in the UK will face significant policy barriers to export to the EU across a wide range of products. Under a ‘no deal’ scenario, £47 billion in UK exports to the EU would face high or extreme tariffs, quotas, or antidumping duties.
If the UK chooses to leave the Customs Union and attempts to negotiate a bespoke trade deal with the EU, then these products should be the priority in the trade negotiations.
Authors’ note: This research has been generously funded by the ESRC UK in a Changing Europe programme of Brexit Priority Grants.
ReferencesBloom, N, P Bunn, P Mizen, P Smietanka, G Thwaites and G Young (2017) “Tracking the views of British businesses: evidence from the Decision Maker Panel” Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin, 2017Q2.
Breinlich, H, E Leromain, D Novy and T Sampson (2017a), “The Brexit Vote, Inflation and UK Living Standards”, Centre for Economic Performance Brexit Analysis No. 11, London School of Economics.
Bown, Chad P. and Meredith A. Crowley (2016) “The Empirical Landscape of Trade Policy,” in Kyle Bagwell and Robert W. Staiger (eds.), The Handbook of Commercial Policy, Netherlands: Elsevier, forthcoming (chapter 1). Available as CEPR Discussion Paper No. 11216.
Dhingra, S., H. Huang, G. Ottaviano, J. Pessoa, T. Sampson and J. Van Reenen (forthcoming) “The Costs and Benefits of Leaving the EU: Trade Effects,” Economic Policy.
HM Treasury (2016), The Long-term Economic Impact of EU Membership and the Alternatives, HMSO.