Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Scope and Specificity of Economic Relations Between the EU and the United Kingdom in Brexit Case

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Brexit

  • 2552 Accesses

Abstract

The scientific research problem was formulated: how to explain controversial UK position regarding the membership in the EU? The aim of the study is to prognosticate the future of economic international relations between the EU and the UK in Brexit case. The tasks of the study are to systemise the dynamics of the EU and the United Kingdom economic relations in the perspective of history; to predict possible EU-UK relations scenarios after the Brexit; as well as to investigate the opinion of experts regarding the research object. The research methods used: literature analysis, focusing on primary sources but also including secondary sources; survey of experts using structured questionnaires with closed questions. The design of the study is formed in chronological order. It includes a historical analysis of the UK’s road to the European Communities, as well as the dynamics of the UK’s membership in the EU. The study also includes analysis of secondary sources to identify the most conceivable Brexit strategy, and then analysing the possible impacts of the most probable scenarios, which are based on that strategy. The key results address a few propositions. To begin with, although British were among the conceptualists of European integration, it took almost 20 years when the UK finally became a member of the developing EU. Those two decades had negative economic implications for British economy as it missed out opportunities provided by the common market. The eventual UK membership boosted most of the numbers concerning the British economy, however, disagreements with the EU still existed, particularly through issues of EU Budget contributions and immigration. Moreover, the “hard” Brexit is understood as the most probable Brexit strategy. In this case, the future EU-UK relation scenarios range is very limited. It includes a presumable Free Trade Agreement or bilateral trade based on World Trade Organization rules. We conclude that neither of those two solutions would ensure the UK trade with EU without tariffs or quantitative restrictions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Crafts (2016), p. 1.

  2. 2.

    Read Vitkus (2013), pp. 84–85 and Ehring (2002), p. 921.

  3. 3.

    Dedman (2006).

  4. 4.

    For details read Johnson (2015).

  5. 5.

    See Dedman (2006), p. 16.

  6. 6.

    See Dedman (2006), pp. 20–21.

  7. 7.

    For a more detailed analysis read Johnson (2015), Chapter 17 “The Wooing of America”.

  8. 8.

    See Dedman (2006), p. 25.

  9. 9.

    For details read Vitkus et al. (2008).

  10. 10.

    See Dedman (2006), p. 22.

  11. 11.

    To find more numbers about the Marshall Plan read Daugėlienė (2011), pp. 18–19.

  12. 12.

    To find more details about ECA and OEEC, read Vitkus et al. (2008), Daugėlienė (2011), Gifford (2016), Young (2015).

  13. 13.

    See Dedman (2006), p. 28.

  14. 14.

    Vitkus et al. (2008), p. 202.

  15. 15.

    Read Johnson (2015), Chapter 20 “Churchill the European”.

  16. 16.

    See Dedman (2006), p. 57.

  17. 17.

    For more details read Pukelienė (2008).

  18. 18.

    See Dockrill and Young (1989), p. 2.

  19. 19.

    Dedman (2006) and Gifford (2016).

  20. 20.

    Dockrill and Young (1989), p. 6.

  21. 21.

    See Dedman (2006), p. 106.

  22. 22.

    See Dedman (2006). pp. 107–110.

  23. 23.

    Dedman (2006), p. 110.

  24. 24.

    Vitkus et al. (2008).

  25. 25.

    See Dedman (2006), p. 111.

  26. 26.

    To read more see Dedman (2006).

  27. 27.

    For more analysis read Young (2015), pp. 1253–1275.

  28. 28.

    Vitkus (2013), p. 84.

  29. 29.

    See Dedman (2006), p. 106.

  30. 30.

    Crafts (2016), p. 1.

  31. 31.

    For a more detailed information read Dedman (2006).

  32. 32.

    See McDonald and Deardem (2005), p. 329.

  33. 33.

    McDonald and Deardem (2005), p. 334.

  34. 34.

    Crafts (2016), p. 15.

  35. 35.

    Research made by Badinger (2005), p. 53.

  36. 36.

    For a more detailed information read Crafts (2016).

  37. 37.

    Webb et al. (2016), p. 3.

  38. 38.

    Vitkus (2013), p. 85.

  39. 39.

    For a detailed analysis read Vitkus et al. (2008).

  40. 40.

    Dedman (2006).

  41. 41.

    Webb et al. (2016), p. 9.

  42. 42.

    Read Begg (2016), pp. 39–47.

  43. 43.

    See Webb et al. (2016), p. 10.

  44. 44.

    Kierzenkowski et al. (2016), p. 14.

  45. 45.

    Kierzenkowski et al. (2016), p. 25.

  46. 46.

    To get more information read Vitkus et al. (2008).

  47. 47.

    See Crafts (2016), p. 8.

  48. 48.

    For more analysis of European social policy read Vitkus et al. (2008).

  49. 49.

    See Vitkus et al. (2013), p. 274.

  50. 50.

    Dustmann and Frattini (2014).

  51. 51.

    Webb et al. (2016), p. 7.

  52. 52.

    Made my Kierzenkowski et al. (2016), p. 26.

  53. 53.

    Read the article by Piris (2016) to get a more detailed information about each relation model.

  54. 54.

    See Piris (2016), p. 10.

  55. 55.

    Alternatives to membership: possible models for the United Kingdom outside the European Union (2016).

  56. 56.

    Holmes et al. (2016).

  57. 57.

    See Kierzenkowski et al. (2016), p. 17.

  58. 58.

    See UK Policy Paper: Alternatives to membership: possible models for the United Kingdom outside the European Union (2016), p. 24.

  59. 59.

    Kierzenkowski et al. (2016), p. 17.

  60. 60.

    See Kierzenkowski et al. (2016), p. 19.

  61. 61.

    Piris (2016).

  62. 62.

    UK Policy Paper: Alternatives to membership: possible models for the United Kingdom outside the European Union (2016), p. 33.

  63. 63.

    UK Policy Paper: Alternatives to membership: possible models for the United Kingdom outside the European Union (2016), p. 33.

  64. 64.

    “The EU’s financial services ‘passport’ means that financial services firms authorised in the UK can provide their services across the EU, without the need for further authorisations.” (Alternatives to membership: possible models for the United Kingdom outside the European Union. 2016).

  65. 65.

    See Kierzenkowski et al. (2016).

  66. 66.

    Piris (2016), p. 10.

  67. 67.

    For a more detailed analysis read Van Marrewijk et al. (2012).

  68. 68.

    See Van Marrewijk et al. (2012), p. 243.

  69. 69.

    Lea (2017), p. 3.

  70. 70.

    Piris (2016), p. 11.

  71. 71.

    See Piris (2016), p. 10.

  72. 72.

    UK Policy Paper: Alternatives to membership: possible models for the United Kingdom outside the European Union (2016), p. 16.

  73. 73.

    See UK Policy Paper: Alternatives to membership: possible models for the United Kingdom outside the European Union (2016), pp. 35–38.

  74. 74.

    UK Policy Paper: Alternatives to membership: possible models for the United Kingdom outside the European Union (2016), p. 38.

  75. 75.

    UK Policy Paper: Alternatives to membership: possible models for the United Kingdom outside the European Union (2016), p. 35.

  76. 76.

    See Trade and Investment Balance of Competence Review (2013), p. 55.

References

  • Alternatives to membership: possible models for the United Kingdom outside the European Union (2016) 9781474129442. HM Government, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Badinger H (2005) Growth effects of economic integration: evidence from the EU member states. Rev World Econ 141(1):50–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Begg I (2016) The EU budget and UK contribution. Natl Inst Econ Rev 236(1):39–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crafts N (2016) The growth effects of EU membership for the UK: a review of the evidence

    Google Scholar 

  • Daugėlienė R (2011) ES ekonominė integracija: priežastys, raida, perspektyvos. Technologija, Kaunas

    Google Scholar 

  • Dedman M (2006) The origins and development of the European Union 1945–1995: a history of European integration. Routledge, Abingdon

    Google Scholar 

  • Dockrill ML, Young JW (1989) British Foreign Policy, 1945–1956. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dumčiuvienė D (2010) Europos ekonominė integracija. Technologija, Kaunas

    Google Scholar 

  • Dustmann C, Frattini T (2014) The fiscal effects of immigration to the UK. Econ J 124(580):F593–F643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehring L (2002) De Facto discrimination in world trade law. J World Trade 36:921

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gifford C (2016) The United Kingdom’s Eurosceptic political economy. Br J Polit Int Relat 18(4):779–794

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes P, Rollo J, Winters LA (2016) Negotiating the UK’s post-Brexit trade arrangements. Natl Inst Econ Rev 238(1):R22–R30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson B (2015) Churchilio veiksnys. Kaip vienas žmogus lėmė istoriją. Tyto alba, Vilnius

    Google Scholar 

  • Kierzenkowski R, Pain N, Rusticelli E, Zwart S (2016) The economic consequences of Brexit: a taxing decision. OECD Economic Policy Papers, (16)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lea R (2017) Brexit update: and trade can thrive under WTO rules

    Google Scholar 

  • Mcdonald F, Dearden S (2005) European economic integration, 4th edn. Pearson Education, Harlow

    Google Scholar 

  • Piris J (2016) If the UK votes to leave. The seven alternatives to EU membership. Centre for European Reform, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Pukelienė V (2008) Ekonominė integracija: teorija, ES politika ir procesai. Kaunas, VDU

    Google Scholar 

  • Trade and Investment Balance of Competence Review (2013) London: Centre for Economic Policy Research Europos Sąjungos teisė (2007), 5th edn. Eugrimas, Vilnius

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Marrewijk C, Ottens D, Schueller S (2012) International economics, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Vitkus G (2013) Jungtinė Karalystė ir Europos integracija. Europos mozaika. 28 Europos Sąjungos valstybės. Eugrimas, Vilnius, pp 84–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Vitkus G, Grikienis R, Maniokas K, Martikonis R, Sinkevičius E, Vilpišauskas R (2008) Europos Sąjunga. Enciklopedinis žinynas, 3rd edn. Eugrimas, Vilnius

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb D, Keep M, Wilton M (2016) In brief: UK-EU economic relations. House of Commons Library Briefing Paper, 6091

    Google Scholar 

  • Young AR (2015) Liberalizing trade, not exporting rules: the limits to regulatory co-ordination in the EU’s ‘new generation’preferential trade agreements. J Eur Public Policy 22(9):1253–1275

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities, Kaunas University of Technology, Kaunas, Lithuania

    Rasa Daugėlienė & Paulius Puskunigis

Authors
  1. Rasa Daugėlienė
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paulius Puskunigis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rasa Daugėlienė .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Tallinn Law School, Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, Estonia

    David Ramiro Troitiño

  2. Tallinn Law School, Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, Estonia

    Tanel Kerikmäe

  3. Tallinn Law School, Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, Estonia

    Archil Chochia

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Daugėlienė, R., Puskunigis, P. (2018). The Scope and Specificity of Economic Relations Between the EU and the United Kingdom in Brexit Case. In: Ramiro Troitiño, D., Kerikmäe, T., Chochia, A. (eds) Brexit. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73414-9_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73414-9_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-73413-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-73414-9

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation