Civitas - British business need have little to fear from EU tariff barriers
A new Civitas study demonstrates how UK exporters could be compensated if Britain leaves the EU without having agreed a free trade deal with its remaining members.
An £8.8 billion package of support, built around R&D credits, support for disadvantaged regions and reducing electricity costs would be WTO-compliant and offset tariff costs.
Such a scheme would form the bedrock of a post-Brexit industrial strategy and be funded entirely from tariffs levied on EU exports into Britain, estimated to be almost £13 billion.
British industries could be fully protected from the impact of potential tariff costs if the UK leaves the Single Market without striking a free trade agreement with the EU, a new Civitas study shows.
A package of measures could be provided – within World Trade Organization rules – that would provide support at least equal in value to the tariffs that would be levied on exporters by the EU.
This could be achieved at no net cost to the taxpayer given that, at the same time, the UK would begin collecting even larger sums in tariffs from EU exporters.
The analysis should give British negotiators confidence that they can walk away if the right EU trade deal is not forthcoming from the 27 remaining members.
‘Mitigating the impact of tariffs on UK-EU trade’, published today (Monday, January 9th) considers the options available to the government in the event that Britain left the EU without having secured some kind of free trade agreement.
A previous Civitas study estimated that, were present trade volumes to be conducted under EU tariff schedules, Britain would collect £12.9 billion in tariffs on EU imports but at the same time British firms would incur costs of £5.2 billion on their exports to the EU.
Any attempt to alleviate that £5.2 billion cost would have to be compliant with WTO rules, which would not permit subsidies designed as outright compensation for the loss of tariff-free access to the EU.
But, as the study shows, it is feasible to design horizontal, economy wide policies of support, supplemented by measures that comply with the terms of certain WTO agreements, that would principally benefit those industries that stand to incur the costs of EU tariffs.
Such a programme, forming the bedrock of a new post-Brexit industrial strategy, could include:
- A £2.9 billion R&D support package in the form of an expenditure credit for all businesses, but with an enhanced allowance for producers of ‘agricultural products’ which would be permitted under special WTO rules for agriculture. Of the total cost, 73 per cent would go to industries affected by tariffs.
- A £3.8 billion regional policy for places where income per capita is under 85 per cent of the national average and/or unemployment is more than 110 per cent of the national average. Of that, 68.5 per cent of the funds would reach industries impacted by tariffs.
- Abolishing the Carbon Price Support, which raises the price of electricity for all businesses and consumers, at a cost of £1.2 billion. Only 30.6 per cent of this would go to affected industries but, importantly, in addition to assisting businesses not in disadvantaged areas or who do not invest in R&D, it would provide a direct ‘Brexit bonus’ for domestic consumers.
- An £869 million Transitional Assistance Programme for making small, discretionary grants to any UK business affected by Brexit. Payments would not exceed a threshold of 1 per cent of the value of exports and the scheme would be time-limited. The programme would not need to be restricted to exporters; the study assumes that only 80 per cent of the cost would go to businesses hit by tariffs.
Taken together, these measures would benefit industries affected by tariffs to the value of £6.3 billion a year, more than compensating for the newly-imposed costs to those industries of £5.2 billion.
The total cost of the package to the Treasury, including ‘leakage’ to non-affected industries and households, would be £8.8 billion – which would be easily covered by the £12.9 billion collected in tariffs on EU imports into the UK.
The report’s author, William Norton, writes: ‘Hitherto, the political debate about the UK’s departure from the EU has focussed upon the risks of a “hard” Brexit and the need to soften this by avoiding costs for business such as tariffs being levied upon exports to the EU-27.
‘But these tariff costs can be managed. In an ideal world, British exporters would not have to suffer them, but it is possible to mitigate their impact through other measures which are justifiable in their own right.
‘It makes sense to remove a self-inflicted wound like the carbon price floor, which is damaging British competitiveness and low-income households. It makes sense to provide greater tax incentives for research and development. A case can be made for regional aid given the imbalances in economic performance and employment across the UK as a whole.
‘Hence, the real question is not “how soft a Brexit can we achieve?” but rather “how hard a negotiation do we wish to drive with the EU?”
‘The balance of negotiating strengths is far more favourable to the UK. If the EU-27 wish to impose a self-inflicted wound by levying tariffs on British exports, Britain has little to fear.’
‘Mitigating the impact of tariffs on UK-EU trade’ was published by the cross-party think tank Civitas on Monday, January 9th. It can be read in full here.
William Norton is a tax lawyer with 20 years of experience in the City of London and as a policy adviser in Westminster. He was a core member of the James Review on Taxpayer Value and the Conservative Party Policy Unit (2004-5). He worked for the victorious designated lead campaigns in the North East referendum (2004), the AV referendum (2011) and the EU referendum (2016). Among numerous articles, papers and books, William is the author of Monument and Bank: Capitalism and the Anglo-Saxon Mind (SAU, 2011).
Latest News from
Reward farmers who help fight climate and nature crisis, urges IPPR think tank13/05/2021 14:35:00
Now the UK has left the EU’s agricultural schemes, the government should seize the opportunity to transform farming to protect the environment and secure the livelihoods of farmers, according to a new IPPR report.
IEA - Nanny statists have “exploited” this pandemic, says new research13/05/2021 13:35:00
Governments are increasingly adopting higher sin taxes and more prohibitions, finds the 2021 Nanny State Index
IFS - Elective hospital admissions dropped by a third last year, while outpatient appointments and non-COVID emergency admissions each fell by a fifth13/05/2021 12:35:00
New analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, Harvard University and Imperial College London shows there were 2.9 million fewer planned admissions, 1.2 million fewer non-COVID-19 emergency inpatient admissions and 17.1 million fewer outpatient appointments between March and December 2020 compared with the same period in 2019.
Policy needs to adjust following encouraging GDP data, says IEA expert13/05/2021 11:35:00
Julian Jessop, Economics Fellow at free market think tank the Institute of Economic Affairs, commented on the latest GDP and trade data from the Office for National Statistics
Queen's speech: IPPR reaction to ‘policy gulf’ on environment, planning, health and care agenda13/05/2021 10:35:00
Think tank welcomes some targets and commitments, but says bold action and clear policy must follow
Ill-considered ‘junk food’ ad ban “has to be binned”, says IEA expert13/05/2021 09:35:00
Christopher Snowdon, Head of Lifestyle Economics at free market think tank the Institute of Economic Affairs responded to renewed government plans to ban ‘junk food’ advertising
Adam Smith Inst - "Nutty nanny statism": Government plans to ban 'junk food' advertising online and after 9.00pm11/05/2021 16:35:00
The Adam Smith Institute’s Head of Research Matthew Lesh responded to the Government maintaining plans to ban so-called ‘junk food’ from online advertising and before 9.00pm on television
“Unlikely to supercharge economic growth”: IEA experts respond to Queen’s Speech11/05/2021 15:35:00
Mark Littlewood, Director General at free market think tank the Institute of Economic Affairs, commented on the Queen’s Speech
JRF - Queen’s Speech: Where is the Employment Bill for low-paid workers?11/05/2021 14:35:00
JRF responds to today's Queen's Speech
The apprenticeship levy should be scrapped completely, says IEA expert11/05/2021 13:35:00
Professor Len Shackleton, Editorial and Research Fellow at free market think tank the Institute of Economic Affairs, responded to the news that £1bn of apprenticeship levy funds has gone unspent in the nine months since last May