Press

Sam Lowe, senior research fellow at the Centre for European Reform think-tank, described the UK-EEA deal as “necessary” and a “good thing” but said its success depended on the baseline of measurement. “If you are comparing it to normal free trade agreements, then it is certainly true that the deal has raised the bar in some areas, for example mutual recognition of professional qualifications,” he said. 

“Behind the scenes the effect [from leaving the EU] is clearly showing up in the data,” said John Springford, deputy director of the Centre for European Reform think-tank, citing his own research and figures from the Office for National Statistics, the London School of Economics and the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change. He said the data showed the UK’s trade with the EU had fallen by a fifth because of Brexit. “Brexit has already made Britain poorer compared to a branch of history in which Britain remained in the EU — or indeed in the single market,” he added.

A more justifiable fear for British farmers, suggests Sam Lowe of the Centre for European Reform, a think-tank, is that the deal becomes a model for bigger future ones with Latin America and the United States.

As Sam Lowe, an even-handed trade expert at the Centre for European Reform, recently wrote: “An Australian deal probably means the UK is going to offer the same to New Zealand. But beyond that – it is not so clear. Lots of countries will want to retain tariffs to shield their own food producers, and it is unlikely that the UK will offer them full tariff free access in the absence of reciprocity.”

Sam Lowe, a trade expert at the Centre for European Reform, said the impact of the proposed trade deal on the British market would be minimal as it was unlikely to lead to a huge increase in meat imports from Australia.
The “bigger question,” he said, was whether it was a sign of how the government would approach trade negotiations with bigger economies like the US and Brazil, which will also want greater access to the UK’s agricultural markets.

Jetzt sind die Briten raus – und nach Schätzungen des Center for European Reform (CER) hat das allein in den ersten drei Jahren nach dem Votum zu rund drei Prozent Verlust an Wirtschaftsleistung geführt. Da wären weniger Austerität und mehr Schulden am Anfang womöglich billiger gekommen.