Abstract
The book concludes by examining the alternative trading models that have been advanced for Brexit. These range from close forms of relationship with the EU, such as membership of the European Economic Area (EEA) or customs union, or more independent options, such as concluding a free trade agreement (FTA) with the EU or alternatively trading according to World Trade Organisation rules. Additional trade options are considered, such as membership of the European Free Trade Association, increasing trade with the Commonwealth, North American Free Trade Agreement and ‘Anglosphere’ countries, or joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). There is a fundamental choice facing policy makers—whether to seek to minimise short-term trade costs through the adoption of a close economic relationship with the EU, but at the cost of inhibited policy autonomy, or to utilise policy flexibility to pursue national economic objectives, but at the cost of short-term reduction in UK-EU trade. Rodrik’s trilemma model is used to illustrate this choice, between adopting a ‘golden straightjacket’ and opting for the benefits of greater national sovereignty and policy space. The chapter explains and evaluates the Chequers (May) and Johnson variants of the withdrawal agreement, before noting how game theory might suggest a mutually beneficial bargaining solution between the UK and the EU—based around a basic form of FTA.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
Supplemental to the EEA agreement, Iceland has negotiated tariff-free access to EU markets for its fishery exports by allowing limited access for EU fishing vessels in Icelandic territorial waters.
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/norway-or-common-market-2-0-the-problems-are-not-where-they-seem-to-be/. The backstop is discussed, in more detail, later in this chapter.
- 7.
- 8.
- 9.
- 10.
Peterson Institute for International Economics, 2016. https://piie.com/blogs/trade-investment-policy-watch/how-long-does-it-take-conclude-trade-agreement-us
- 11.
- 12.
- 13.
- 14.
- 15.
Perhaps this should be more accurately 53 member nations, since Fiji is currently suspended.
- 16.
- 17.
- 18.
- 19.
- 20.
- 21.
- 22.
- 23.
- 24.
- 25.
- 26.
- 27.
- 28.
- 29.
- 30.
- 31.
- 32.
- 33.
- 34.
- 35.
- 36.
- 37.
- 38.
- 39.
- 40.
- 41.
- 42.
- 43.
References
Abreu, M. D. (2013). Preferential Rules of Origin in Regional Trade Agreements, World Trade Organisation Staff Working Paper No ERSD-2013-05. https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/ersd201305_e.pdf.
Algan, Y., & Cahus, P. (2010). Inherited Trust and Growth. Amerssican Economic Review, 100(5), 2060–2092.
Backer, L. C. (2014). The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Japan, China, the U.S., and the Emerging Shape of a New World Trade Regulatory Order. Washington University Global Studies Law Review, 13(49), 49–81.
Bennett, J. C. (2004). The Anglosphere Challenge: Why the English-speaking Nations Will Lead the Way in the 21st Century. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
Booth, S., Howarth, C., Persson, M., Ruparel, R., & Swidlicki, P. (2015). What If…?: The Consequences, Challenges and Opportunities Facing Britain Outside EU. Open Europe Report 03/2015, London. http://openeurope.org.uk/intelligence/britain-and-the-eu/what-if-there-were-a-brexit/.
Brenton, P. (2010). Preferential Rules of Origin. In J. P. Chauffour & J. C. Maur (Eds.), Preferential Trade Agreement Policies for Development: A Handbook (pp. 161–178). Washington DC: World Bank.
Burkitt, B., Baimbridge, M., & Whyman, P. B. (1996). There is an Alternative: Britain and Its Relationship with the EU. Oxford: CIB/Nelson and Pollard.
Business for Britain. (2015). Change or Go: How Britain Would Gain Influence and Prosper Outside an Unreformed EU. London: Business for Britain. https://forbritain.org/cogwholebook.pdf.
Cadot, O., Carrère, C., de Melo, J., & Tumurchudur, B. (2006). Product- Specific Rules of Origin in EU and US Preferential Trading Arrangements: An Assessment. World Trade Review, 5(2), 199–224.
Capital Economics. (2016). The Economics Impact of ‘Brexit’: A Paper Discussing the United Kingdom’ Relationship with Europe and the Impact of ‘Brexit’ on the British Economy. Oxford: Woodford Investment Management LLP. https://woodfordfunds.com/economic-impact-brexit-report/.
CBI [Confederation of British Industry]. (2013). Our Global Future: The Business Vision for a Reformed EU. London: CBI. http://www.cbi.org.uk/media/2451423/our_global_future.pdf#page=1&zoom=auto,-119,842.
CEPR. (2013). Trade and Investment Balance of Competence Review. London: Department for Business Innovation and Skills. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/271784/bis-14-512-trade-and-investment-balance-of-competence-review-project-report.pdf.
Chisik, R. (2003). Export Industry Policy and Reputational Comparative Advantage. Journal of International Economics, 59(2), 423–451.
Chopin, T. (2013). Two Europe’s. In S. Nevin & R. Thillaye (Eds.), Europe in Search of a New Settlement: EU-UK Relations and the Politics of Integration (pp. 9–10). London: Policy Network. http://www.policy-network.net/publications_download.aspx?ID=8274.
Chopin, T. (2016). After the UK’s EU Referendum: Redefining Relations Between the “Two Europe’s”. European Issues, No. 399, Robert Schuman Foundation. http://www.robert-schuman.eu/en/doc/questions-d-europe/qe-399-en.pdf.
Ciuriak, D., Xiao, J., Ciuriak, N., Dadkhah, A., Lysenko, D., & Narayanan, G. B. (2015). The Trade-related Impact of a UK Exit from the EU Single Market. April, Ciuriak Consulting, Ottawa: Research Report. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2620718.
De Sousa, J., Mayer, T., & Zignago, S. (2012). Market Access in Global and Regional Trade. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 42(6), 1037–1052. http://econ.sciences-po.fr/sites/default/files/file/tmayer/MA_revisionRSUE_jul2012.pdf.
De Zayas, A-M. (2015). Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order, United Nations General Assembly Seventeenth Session, Item 73(b), A/70/285. Retrieved February 2, 2020, from https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/70/285.
Dinnie, K. (2004). Country of Origin 1965–2004: A Literature Review. Journal of Customer Behaviour, 3(2), 165–213.
Dinnie, K. (2008). Nation Branding: Concepts, Issues, Practice. Abingdon: Routledge.
Ebell, M. (2017). Will New Trade Deals Soften the Blow of Hard Brexit?. NIESR Blog, 27 January 2017. Available via: https://www.niesr.ac.uk/blog/will-newtrade-deals-soften-blow-hard-brexit.
Economists for Brexit. (2016). A Vote for Brexit: What Are the Policies to Follow and What Are the Economic Prospects? London: Economists for Brexit. Available via. http://www.economistsforbrexit.co.uk/a-vote-for-brexit.
Emmerson, C., Johnson, P., Mitchell, I., & Phillips, D. (2016). Brexit and the UK’s Public Finances (IFS Report 116). Institute for Fiscal Studies, London. Available via: http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/comms/r116.pdf.
Fawcett, J. (2015). Origin Marking Research—full report phases 1 and 2, Department for Business Innovation and Skills, London. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/408476/bis-15-94-compulsory-origin-marking-research-phase-1-and-2.pdf.
Friedman, T. L. (1999). The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giro.
Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2009). Cultural Biases in Economic Exchange? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(3), 1095–1131.
Hantzsche, A., Kara, A., & Young, G. (2018). The Economic Effects of the Government’s Proposed Brexit Deal. London: NIESR. Available via: https://www.niesr.ac.uk/sites/default/files/publications/NIESR%20Report%20Brexit%20-%202018-11-26.pdf
Harries, O. (2001). The Anglosphere Illusion. Spring: The National Interest. http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/anglosphereillusions.
Herin, J. (1986). Rules of Origin and Differences between Tariff Levels in EFTA and in the EC, EFTA Occasional Paper No. 13, EFTA Secretariat, Geneva.
HMG. (2018a). Statement from HM Government. Retrieved February 3, 2020, from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/723460/CHEQUERS_STATEMENT_-_FINAL.PDF.
HMG. (2018b). The Future Relationship Between the United Kingdom and the European Union (White Paper), CM 9593. London: HMSO. Retrieved February 3, 2020, from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/725288/The_future_relationship_between_the_United_Kingdom_and_the_European_Union.pdf.
HMG. (2018c). Future Customs Arrangements: A Future Partnership Paper. London: HMSO. Retrieved February 6, 2020, from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/637748/Future_customs_arrangements_-_a_future_partnership_paper.pdf.
HMG. (2019a). Declaration by Her Declaration by Her Majesty’s Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning the operation of the ‘Democratic consent in Northern Ireland’ provision of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland—Presented to Parliament pursuant to Section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act (No. 2) 2019 and Section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, HMSO, London. Retrieved February 7, 2020, from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/840658/Statement_that_political_agreement_has_been_reached_and_that_the_United_Kingdom_has_concluded_an_agreement_with_the_European_Union_under_Article_50_2__of_the_Treaty_on_European_Union.pdf.
HMG. (2019b). Political Declaration Setting Out the Framework for the Future Relationship Between the European Union and the United Kingdom. London: HMSO. Retrieved February 7, 2020, from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/840656/Political_Declaration_setting_out_the_framework_for_the_future_relationship_between_the_European_Union_and_the_United_Kingdom.pdf.
HMG. (2019c). Agreement on the Withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community—Presented to Parliament pursuant to Section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act (No. 2) 2019 and Section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 [revised October 2019], HMSO, London. Retrieved February 7, 2020, from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/840655/Agreement_on_the_withdrawal_of_the_United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Northern_Ireland_from_the_European_Union_and_the_European_Atomic_Energy_Community.pdf.
HMG [Her Majesty’s Government]. (2017). Future Customs Arrangements: A Future Partnership Paper. London: HMSO. Retrieved January 21, 2020, from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/637748/Future_customs_arrangements_-_a_future_partnership_paper.pdf.
HoC [House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee]. (2013). The Future of the European Union: UK Government Policy—First Report of Session 2013–2014, Volume 1, HC-87-1. London: The Stationery Office. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmfaff/87/87.pdf.
Hufbauer, G. C. (2016). Investor-State Dispute Settlement. In C. Cimino-Isaacs & J. J. Schott (Eds.), Trans-Pacific Partnership: An Assessment (pp. 197–212). New York: Columbia University Press.
Hui, M. K., & Zhou, L. (2002). Linking Product Evaluations and Purchase Intention for Country-of-origin Effects. Journal of Global Marketing, 15(3/4), 95–116.
ICTU [Irish Congress of Trade Unions]. (2016). No Deal: Why Unions Oppose TTIP and CETA, Irish Congress of Trade Unions, Dublin. Retrieved February 2, 2020, from https://www.ictu.ie/download/pdf/no_deal.pdf.
Karlsson, L. (2017). Smart Border 2.0: Avoiding a Hard Border on the Island of Island for Customs Control and the Free Movement of Persons, PE 596.828, Director General for Internal Policies of the Union, European Parliament, Brussels. Available via: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/596828/IPOL_STU(2017)596828_EN.pdf.
Keep, M. (2015). EU Budget 2014–2020. House of Commons Library Briefing Paper (HC 06455), The Stationery Office, London. http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06455/SN06455.pdf.
Keynes, J. M. (1933). National Self-Sufficiency. The Yale Review, 22(4), 755–769.
Kotkin, J., & Parulekar, S. (2011). The Anglosphere: We Are Not Dead Yet. In J. Kotkin (Ed.), The New World Order (pp. 28–38). London: Legatum Institute. http://www.li.com/docs/default-source/surveys-of-entrepreneurs/new-worldorder-2011_final.pdf.
Manchin, M. (2006). Preference Utilisation and Tariff Reduction in EU Imports from ACP Countries. The World Economy, 29(9), 1243–1266.
Medvedev, D. (2006). ‘Preferential Trade Agreements and their Role in World Trade’, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 4038. Washington DC: World Bank. Retrieved February 10, 2020, from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/672601468332692068/pdf/wps4038.pdf.
Mendes, A. J. M. (1986). An Alternative Approach to Customs Union Theory: A Balance of Payments Framework to Measure Integration Effects. Journal of International Economic Integration, 1(1), 43–58.
Menon, A., Bevington, M., & Wager, M. (2018). The Context. In UKCE [UK in a Changing Europe] (Eds.), The Brexit White Paper—What It Must Address, UK in a Changing Europe, London, 7-10. Retrieved February 3, 2020, from http://ukandeu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/The-Brexit-white-paper-what-it-must-address.pdf.
Miller, V., Lang, A., Smith, B., Webb, D., Harari, D., Keep, M., & Bowers, P. (2016). Exiting the EU: UK Reform Proposals, Legal Impact and Alternatives to Membership. House of Commons Library Briefing Paper No. HC 07214. http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/ CBP-7214#fullreport.
Milne, I. (2004). A Cost Too Far? An Analysis of the Net Economic Costs and Benefits for the UK of EU Membership. London: Civitas. http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cs37.pdf.
Minford, P. (2016). The Treasury Report on Brexit: A Critique. London: Economists for Brexit. http://static1.squarespace.com/static/570a10a460b5e93378a26ac5/t/5731a5a486db439545bf2eda/1462871465520/Economists+for+Brexit+-+The+Treasury+Report+on+Brexit+A+Critique.pdf.
Minford, P., Gupta, S., Le, V. P. M., Mahambare, V., & Xu, Y. (2015). Should Britain Leave the EU? An Economic Analysis of a Troubled Relationship—Second Edition. Cheltenham: IEA and Edward Elgar.
Minford, P., Mahambare, V., & Nowell, E. (2005). Should Britain Leave the EU? An Economic Analysis of a Troubled Relationship. Cheltenham: IEA and Edward Elgar.
Nesbit, J. C. (2001). An Anglosphere Primer. http://explorersfoundation.org/archive/anglosphere_primer.pdf.
NOU [Official Norwegian Report]. (2012a). Utenfor og Innenfor: Norges avtaler med EU. [Outside and Inside: Norway’s agreement’s with the EU].
NOU [Official Norwegian Report]. (2012b). Outside and Inside: Norway’s Agreements with the European Union—Other Parties’ Views on Norway’s Agreements with the EU—Chapter 13, NOU 2012:2. Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. http://www.eu-norway.org/Global/SiteFolders/webeu/NOU2012_2_Chapter%2013.pdf.
NOU [Official Norwegian Report]. (2012c). Outside and Inside: Norway’s Agreements with the European Union—The Way Forward—Chapter, 28.
OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development]. (2019). GDP, Volume—Annual growth rates in percentage. Available via: https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=SNA_TABLE1
ONS [Office of National Statistics]. (2016). UK’s Top 10 Trading Partners. http://visual.ons.gov.uk/uk-perspectives-2016-trade-with-the-eu-andbeyond/.
Ottaviano, G., Pessoa, J. P., & Sampson, T. (2014). The Costs and Benefits of Leaving the EU. CEP mimeo. http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/pa016_tech.pdf.
Owen, D. (2016). Europe Restructured: Vote to Leave. London: Methuen. http://www.lorddavidowen.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Europe-Restructured-160301.pdf.
Owen, J., Shepheard, M., & Stojanovic, A. (2017). Implementing Brexit: Customs. London: Institute for Government. Retrieved February 6, 2020, from https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/IfG_Brexit_customs_WEB_0.pdf.
Palley, T. (2017). The Fallacy of the Globalisation Trilemma: Reframing the Political Economy of Globalisation and Implications for Democracy, Forum for Macroeconomics and Macroeconomic Policies (FMM) Working Paper 8. Hans-Bockler-Stiftung: Macroeconomic Policy Institute. Retrieved February 3, 2020, from https://www.boeckler.de/pdf/p_fmm_imk_wp_08_2017.pdf.
Phinnemore, D., & Hayward, K. (2017). UK Withdrawal (‘Brexit’) and the Good Friday Agreement, PE 596.826, Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, European Parliament, Brussels.. Retrieved January 22, 2020, from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/596826/IPOL_STU(2017)596826_EN.pdf.
Piris, J.-C. (2016). If the UK Votes to Leave: The seven alternatives to EU membership. London: Centre for European Reform. https://www.cer.org.uk/ sites/default/files/pb_piris_brexit_12jan16.pdf.
Reich, R. (2015). Robert Reich: The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a disaster in the making. Salon. Available online via: https://www.salon.com/2015/01/07/robert_reich_the_trans_pacific_partnership_is_a_disaster_in_the_making_partner/. Last accessed: 20 November 2020.
Reynolds, B., & Webber, J. (2019). The Withdrawal Agreement, State Aid and UK Industry: How To Protect UK Competitiveness. London: Politeia. Available via: http://www.politeia.co.uk/wpcontent/Politeia%20Documents/2019/05.02.19%20Reynolds%20&%20Webber/The%20Withdrawal%20Agreement,%20State%20Aid%20&%20UK%20Industry%20by%20Barnabas%20Reynolds%20&%20James%
Ries, C. P., Hafner, M., Smith, T. D., Burwell, F. G., Egel, D., Han, E., Stepanek, M., & Shatz, H. J. (2017). After Brexit: Alternative Forms of Brexit and Their Implications for the United Kingdom, the European Union and the United States, The Rand Corporation, Cambridge. Retrieved January 22, 2020, from https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2200.html.
Rodrik, D. (2000). How Far Will International Economic Integration Go? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(1), 177–186.
Rodrik, D. (2012). The Globalization Paradox. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sejersted, F., & Sverdrup, U. (2012, October 5). Eurosceptics Be Warned—The ‘Half In, Half Out’ EU Integration Model Option Is Best Left to Norway. The Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/eurosceptics-be-warned-the-half-in-half-out-eu-integration-modeloption-is-best-left-to-norway-8199849.html.
SETUC [Syndicat European Trade Union Confederation]. (2016). ETUC Assessment on the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA)—Statement Approved at the Executive Committee, 14-15 December 2016.. Retrieved February 2, 2020, from https://www.etuc.org/sites/default/files/document/files/07-en-statement_-_etuc_assessment_on_ceta_-_final.pdf.
Singham, S., Tylecote, R., & Hewson, V. (2017). The Brexit Inflection Point: The Pathway to Prosperity. London: Legatum Institute. Retrieved January 22, 2020, from https://britainsfuture.co.uk/documentation/the_brexit_inflection_point_the_pathway_to_prosperity.pdf.
Springford, J., & Tilford, S. (2014). The Great British Trade-Off: The Impact of Leaving the EU on the UK’s Trade and Investment,. Centre for European. tableView.aspx.
Thompson, G., & Harari, D. (2013). The Economic Impact of EU Membership on the UK. House of Commons Library Briefing Paper SN/ EP/6730. http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06730#fullreport.
UK&EU [The UK in a Changing Europe]. (2019). The Economic Impact of Boris Johnson’s Brexit Proposals. London: UK in a Changing Europe. Retrieved February 7, 2020, from https://ukandeu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/The-economic-impact-of-Boris-Johnsons-Brexit-proposals.pdf.
UNCTAD [United Nations Conference on Trade and Development]. (2013). Non-Tariff Measures to Trade. Geneva: United Nations. http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/ditctab20121_en.pdf.
UNCTAD [United Nations Conference on Trade and Development]. (2020). Annual average growth rate, GDP. Available via: http://unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/TableViewer/tableView.aspx
USITC [United States International Trade Commission]. (1996). Country-of- origin Marking: Review of Laws, Regulations and Practices. Washington DC: USITC. https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub2975.pdf.
USITC [United States International Trade Commission]. (2000). The Impact on the US Economy of Including the United Kingdom in a Free Trade Agreement with the United States, Canada and Mexico. Investigation No. 332–409, USITC, Washington DC.
USTR [US Trade Representative]. (2019). United States-United Kingdom Negotiations: Summary of Specific negotiating Objectives, Office of the United States Trade. Washington DC: Representative. Retrieved January 22, 2020, from https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/Summary_of_U.S.-UK_Negotiating_Objectives.pdf.
van Hulten, M. (2011). To Get Out of This Crisis We Need to Rebuild Europe from Scratch.. European Council on Foreign Relations. http://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_to_get_out_of_this_crisis_we_need_to_rebuild_europe_from_scratch.
WCO [World Customs Organisation]. (2018). SAFE Framework of Standards—2018 edition. Brussels: World Customs Organisation. Retrieved February 6, 2020, from http://www.wcoomd.org/-/media/wco/public/global/pdf/topics/facilitation/instruments-and-tools/tools/safe-package/safe-framework-of-standards.PDF?la=en.
World Bank. (2020). MFN (Most Favourite Nation) tariff rate 1988–2014. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/TM.TAX.MRCH.WM.AR.ZS?locations=EU.
WTO [World Trade Organization]. (2011). World Trade Report 2011: The WTO and Preferential Trade Agreements—From Coexistence to Coherence. Geneva: World Trade Organisation. https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/anrep_e/world_trade_report11_e.pdf.
WTO [World Trade Organization]. (2016). Tariffs and Imports—Part, A2. http://stat.wto.org/TariffProfile/WSDBTariffPFView.aspx?Language=E&Country=E28.
Yu, P. K. (2018). Investor-State Dispute Settlement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Texas A&M University Legal Studies Research Paper Series 18-32. Retrieved February 2, 2020, from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3237541.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Whyman, P.B., Petrescu, A.I. (2020). Alternative Trading Models After Brexit. In: The Economics of Brexit. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55948-9_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55948-9_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-55947-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-55948-9
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)