I spent this evening at a seminar organised by the National
Institute of Economic and Social Economic Research (NIESR) at which they outlined their
latest economic view and some of the associated research topics. One of the
presentations, by Monique Ebell, looked at NIESR's ongoing research into Free
Trade Agreements and how the UK is likely to fare post-Brexit.
The worrying conclusion was that leaving the European Single
Market (ESM) is going to impose significant costs, irrespective of whatever
deal the UK signs with other countries. This is due to the fact that the ESM is
a deep and comprehensive trade agreement which is designed to reduce non-tariff
barriers, whereas conventional FTAs do little to tackle this problem. And
because they are generally aimed at trade in goods, they do little to stimulate
services trade which is an important issue for the UK.
NIESR used conventional gravity models to estimate the
impact of post-Brexit trade flows. Such models approximate bilateral trade
flows between two countries by employing the ‘gravity equation’, derived from
Newton’s theory of gravitation. The idea is that just as planets are attracted
to each other in proportion to their sizes and proximity, so too are countries.
Relative size is determined by GDP, and economic proximity is determined by
trade costs – the more economically ‘distant’ the greater the trade costs. Gravity
models suggest that relative economic size attracts countries to trade with
each other while greater distances weaken the attractiveness.
The empirical results suggest that if the UK were to leave
the ESM and impose WTO rules, as Theresa May has threatened, this would lead to a
long-term reduction of around 60% in UK trade with the EU compared to what
would otherwise take place. Swapping ESM rules for an FTA used by the EU in
trade with third party countries would produce a smaller, but still significant,
reduction of 45% in UK-EU trade. There would be a modest offset if the UK could
replace WTO rules with some form of FTA with the BRICS or Anglophone countries,
but it would in no way be enough to fully compensate for the losses.
As it currently stands, leaving the ESM will make the UK
significantly less well off. Indeed, NIESR's calculations indicate that
swapping the current EU trading arrangements for WTO rules will cut GDP by
around 2.3% over the longer term (5-10 years). This is rather smaller than the
numbers suggested by the Treasury prior to the referendum, but it is likely
there would be significant second round effects which I reckon could produce a
long-term decline somewhere in the region of 5%.
We should, of course, be careful of the spurious precision
attached to such estimates. But they support the view that leaving the safety
of the ESM, which is one of the most integrated international trading markets
in the world, will leave the UK poorer than it needs to be. And it is for this
reason I continue to believe that the gamble taken by David Cameron in holding
the referendum in the first place, and the comments made by Theresa May in her
speech two weeks ago, represent steps which are not in the UK's national
interest.
If conventional FTAs suggest that the gains from trade with
third countries will be outweighed by the losses resulting from a loss of
access to the ESM, might it be possible to devise ways to narrow the losses?
Obviously, one way would be to replicate the features of the ESM which make it
so successful, by reducing non-tariff barriers. But this would involve efforts
to improve economic integration in any new trade deals, which in turn would
require greater regulatory harmonisation, though this is precisely one of the
things which the electorate (narrowly) rejected last June.
Ironically, on a day when the proportion of MPs voting in
favour of the Article 50 bill (81.4%) was greater than the proportion of the
electorate voting for Brexit (51.9%), the government has still given us no indication
that it understands the risks which it is taking with the UK's economic future.
Moreover, the fact that the EU is expected to present the UK with a significant
exit bill, likely to be in the region of £40-60 bn, suggests that it will take
at least five years to recover from the initial financial hit (so much for
saving money by leaving, eh Nigel?). Thus, even if Brexit does not cause the
damage that is feared, in order to come out ahead the new arrangements would require
the UK to get a bigger growth boost than the current arrangements can deliver.
Let's just say I am not hopeful.
No comments:
Post a Comment