Featured Post from Aston University

The EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement is costly, what does the UK need to do? | Aston Angle

Jul 8, 2022

4 min

Jun Du



As far as trade is concerned, the EU exit has been rather costly to the UK. At the Centre for Business Prosperity, we have been tracking the performance of UK trade in recent years. The UK’s trade dropped sharply during COVID. Like other nations, this was due to the global recession and supply chain disruptions. However, the UK failed to recover and enjoy the boom, despite the tariff-free terms of trade in goods set out in the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA). The UK now trades less with the EU, its largest trading partner, than in 2019.


During the same period, Germany and the Netherlands grew trade with the EU by nearly a quarter, and US trade with the EU has also grown considerably. Reports suggest, including those from the British Chambers of Commerce, that exporting to the EU has become much more costly and in some cases, unviable. It appears that the “certainty” provided by the TCA has not reversed the declining trend of the UK-EU trade so far.


Our new paper for the Enterprise Research Centre (ERC) has found that UK exports experienced a large, negative, statistically significant decline in 2021 at the end of the transition after the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) was put into force. We estimate that this amounts to a 22% reduction in exports to the EU and a 26% reduction in imports from the EU over the first half of 2021, relative to the counterfactual scenario of the UK remaining in the EU.


How did this happen? After all, the TCA ensures that goods moving between the UK and the EU have no tariffs or quotas, so long as the rules of origin are complied with. Rules of origin help you work out where your goods originate from and which goods are covered in trade agreements. Our research found that non-tariff measures (NTMs) were responsible for the adverse TCA effect on UK trade with the EU and that the magnitude of loss was significant. It was equivalent to a reduction of £12.4 billion in UK exports over the first six months period of 2021. This equals 16% of UK total exports in the first half of 2019 and 70% of the documented total reduction in the EU exports in the same period.


A number of factors can be attributed to the decline of UK exports to the EU. In particular, the increased trade frictions that occurred mainly due to sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) and technical barriers to trade (TBT) as a result of entering the TCA. Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measures refer to the EU controls to protect animal, plant or public health. And technical barriers to trade (TBT) refers to mandatory technical regulations and voluntary standards that define specific characteristics that a product should have, such as its size, shape, design, labelling/marking/packaging, functionality or performance.

On average, for the first six months of 2021, a 1% increase in SPS resulted in a 13–15% reduction in exports to the EU, most notably in the food and drink, wood and chemicals sectors. Furthermore, a 1% increase in TBT led to a 2–3% reduction in exports, especially in metals, equipment, machines and miscellaneous industrial products.


What next? Since the post-Brexit dysfunctions are now diagnosed, in theory we could move on. The UK can directly tackle the trade challenges, so long as other things, such as politics, do not stand in the way. Fundamentally, what needs to happen is the removal or relief of the root causes coded by the TCA – the trade barriers newly erected. This is a key task; it is challenging but not impossible.


Trade frictions due to the SPS measures are an acute problem of Brexit. Reducing some of the non-tariff measures between the EU-UK would help by exploring other mechanisms such as equivalent SPS measures or other ways to reduce businesses burden to a minimum.


The technical barriers to trade are more complicated and challenging and they could potentially cause significant damage to the UK economy. Despite its limitation, maintaining and broadening the established arrangements of the current TCA provision, through some form of mutual recognition of specific practices or international regulations for selected sectors, should be the ambition of UK government to help ease the TBT trade barriers.


Future EU-UK co-operation is critical and mutually beneficial but requires political will and strong leadership.


In the short and medium term, supporting firms should be the priority, especially small- and medium-sized firms that are productive enough to have exported to the EU in the past, but now face hurdles to continue exporting. These firms tend to be limited on resource but have the infrastructure and ambition to internationalise. Targeted support for specific challenges could be also fruitful.


The UK Department for International Trade Export Support Service, the British Chambers of Commerce and local growth hubs have the expertise and experience to help firms export. Therefore, resources should be made available to allow for customised and responsive support with exports, as well as taking advantage of technologies that can identify and reach businesses who require support. Provision should also be made to collect feedback on the quality of the support provided, to enable further improvement.


Helping businesses continue to access EU markets, while enabling the economy to take advantage of welfare-enhancing benefits from trade, remains imperative.


Given the economic benefits of the roll-out, the new free trade agreements are expected to be limited and effective only in the long term. UK domestic policies should be the focus to improve the competitiveness of exporters and their ecosystem.


By Professor Jun Du

Director of the Centre for Business Prosperity

Professor of Economics, Finance and Entrepreneurship, Aston Business School

Lecturer in Politics and International Relations

School of Social Science and Humanities


Dr Oleksandr Shepotylo

Senior Lecturer, Economics, Finance and Entrepreneurship, Aston Business School


Connect with:
Jun Du

Jun Du

Professor of Economics

Professor Du's main research interest is to understand the driving forces and impediments of productivity enhancement and economic growth.

EconomicsTrade

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from Aston University

2 min

Aston University’s Professor Gina Rippon wins British Psychological Society book award for The Lost Girls of Autism

Gina Rippon, professor emeritus of cognitive neuroimaging at Aston University, has won an award for her book, The Lost Girls of Autism The book won the 2025 British Psychological Society Popular Science Award It explores the emerging science of female autism, and examines why it has been systematically ignored and misunderstood for so long. The Lost Girls of Autism, the latest book from Gina Rippon, professor emeritus of cognitive neuroimaging at Aston University Institute of Health and Neurodevelopment (IHN), has won the 2025 British Psychological Society (BPS) Popular Science Award. The annual BPS Book Awards recognise exceptional published works in the field of psychology. There are four categories – popular science, textbook, academic monograph and practitioner text. With the subtitle ‘How Science Failed Autistic Women and the New Research that’s Changing the Story’, The Lost Girls of Autism explores the emerging science of female autism, and examines why it has been systematically ignored and misunderstood for so long. Historically, clinicians believed that autism was a male condition, and simply did not look for it in girls and women. This has meant that autistic girls visiting a doctor have been misdiagnosed with anxiety, depression or personality disorders, or are missed altogether. Many women only discover they have the condition when they are much older. Professor Rippon said: “It's such a pleasure and an honour to receive this award from the BPS. It’s obviously flattering to join the great company of previous winners, but I’m also extremely grateful for the attention drawn to the issues raised in the book. “Over many decades, due to autism’s ‘male spotlight’ problem, autistic girls and women have been overlooked, deprived of the help they needed, and even denied access to the very research studies that could widen our understanding of autism. This book tells the stories of these girls and women, and I’m thrilled to accept this prize on their behalf.”

3 min

New book from Aston University academic shows that Christmas tasks mostly fall on women

New book by Dr Emily Christopher shows differences in how household tasks are divided by men and women Book highlights that women tend to buy the Christmas presents and send cards Men often see women as being more thoughtful or having better knowledge of what people would like. A new book from Aston University’s Dr Emily Christopher reveals that when it comes to sending Christmas cards and buying Christmas presents, women are still mostly doing the work as they are perceived to have better knowledge of what people would like. Dr Emily Christopher, a lecturer in sociology and policy at Aston School of Law and Social Sciences, has recently published her book Couples at Work: Negotiating Paid Employment, Housework and Childcare, which look at how household tasks are divided by men and women and the reasons behind these divisions. The data for the book has been collated over an eight-year period with couples being interviewed twice to provide a robust set of results. It looks at how different sex parent couples combined paid work, housework and childcare. The research revealed how gender norms continue to shape how certain daily household jobs are divided. Women were more likely than men to clean the house, especially bathrooms, wash clothes and put clothes away. Men still tend to do tasks like mowing the lawn and DIY but now are also more likely to do the cooking and the grocery shopping. The research shows that the key to understanding how household tasks are divided lies in the meaning they hold for partners. With the festive season upon us, the book reveals that woman are largely responsible for the Christmas present buying and sending cards with 100% of those taking part in the research saying that women mostly carried out these tasks. This also included buying for the male partner's relatives. In instances where men had a 'helping' role in these tasks, this included being involved in the discussion or consulting on choice of presents, especially for children, with only a small minority buying presents for their own family. The data revealed that where women didn't choose and buy presents for their partners family, they were still involved in reminding their partners that this needed to be done or advising on choice of gifts, showing that women were still taking on the mental load of planning for the festive season. The book reveals that when men were questioned about why they didn't get involved in present buying, they drew on gender norms. Women were often described, by the men, as being more thoughtful or having better knowledge of what people would like. Men often described how family members wouldn’t receive presents at all if it relied on them. Although much of the gift giving and organising represented love and affection for the women, which many found enjoyable, many still saw it as work and expressed that they would like their partners' to be more involved. Dr Christopher said: “This book takes an in-depth look at the way in which everyday roles around the household are divided between men and women. “The research shows that over a period of eight years fathers increased their role in childcare tasks but this did not always extend to housework. “The pandemic was an opportunity to change how couples share housework but women were still more likely to carry out tasks like cleaning, washing clothes and putting clothes away and overwhelmingly remained responsible for the mental orchestration of family work.”

7 min

Budget 25 – initial reactions related to personal financial wellbeing

As the director of the Aston Centre for Personal Financial Wellbeing, and a professor of taxation, I obviously take particular interest in the annual budget day as it sets a tone for much of the personal finance changes that are likely to occur in the near future. The lead up to this year’s budget had unprecedented levels of speculation with much of the press and commentators trying to get attention with ever more it seemed wilder guessing of what the chancellor might do – largely unhelpfully and worrying people and the markets unnecessarily. Almost all of this proved wide of the mark as the budget didn’t increase any of the main taxes at all, and where it might nudge National Insurance contributions (NICs) up for some, this won’t be for a few years and only in a small area (pension payments for employees) that won’t actually affect most people. Small and cautious steps to reform The reason for all this speculation of key changes needed was that everyone suspected there was a big hole in the national finances. This was shown not to be the case. In fact, predictions provided in the budget documents are we’d in fact be in budget surplus by the end of this parliament period even before the changes announced take effect. This was a surprise to many and meant the chancellor could actually focus on at least some small and cautious steps towards reforming how our tax, benefit and government spending systems work. What she proposed therefore is currently predicted will raise circa £26bn and give the government ‘head-room’ to cope with economic changes later rather than needed to fill a feared financial black hole now – good news all round! This meant what we actually got was lots of smaller changes with fewer ‘rabbit out of a hat’ big tax surprises than we have had in recent years – a welcome steadying trend I hope will continue. She also promised some short-term spending that can be paid for with a combination of extra borrowing now and with increased taxes later – again a trend of recent budgets. If these tax changes actually happen in the end, then it will be down to what happens between now and when these were proposed to commence – by no means a guarantee these will ever happen. Later budgets, or other rule changes in the future, could easily retract or counter them (all chancellors like to announce planned tax changes aren’t going to happen for obvious political gain reasons!). Income tax changes The largest share of the extra £26bn raised will come from extending the income tax thresholds for a further period – now to 2031. These have been fixed (at £12,570 for example for the point at which income tax starts to need to be paid on personal incomes) since at least 2023, some well before this. This matters, as, when wages rise due to inflation, people are not better off in reality (you get more income but things cost more), but may end up paying more tax than before as the thresholds haven’t increased with inflation to the same degree (what we call ‘fiscal drag’). As such, holding these thresholds fixed for longer will raise extra money for the government (predicted to be over £12bn a year in 2030-31 for example) – largely unnoticed as to many it doesn’t feel like the tax rise it clearly is. The threshold fixing extension announced today will mean that as many as 700,000 more people will start to pay some income tax when they wouldn’t currently, and up to 1 million more people will start to pay higher rates of tax than currently – all without being actually better off in real terms. Some call this stealth tax, but it feels very real when it starts to affect you if your total taxable incomes fall near these threshold levels. There were in total more than 70 other tax measure changes in this budget – a huge number and lots to get your head around. However, most of these will not affect most people and are relatively small in nature – targeted at making the tax system a little fairer (i.e. those on higher incomes, with more savings, dividends, receiving additional income from property they own etc – paying more taxes as a proportion of the total amount raised in tax from all sources). This is clearly welcome news (at least for those not being asked to pay this extra) in the current climate. The biggest changes for financial wellbeing As a research centre focusing on individual and family financial wellbeing, what do we think are the specifics announcements made that are most likely to affect people – several headline announcements are worth highlighting: -  1. The removal of the two-child limit on benefit eligibility is obviously a key headline – long touted as a key reason larger families are much more likely to be in poverty than smaller families. This is a key change that many Labour MPs wanted to see happen and the chancellor has delivered on it. This is very welcome news – although it won’t start to affect these families until after April 2026 to give time to bring these measures into place – but then predicted to lift 450,000 children out of poverty. 2. As part of making the tax system more progressive, a brand-new tax was announced on very expensive houses in England – to be snappily called the High Value Council Tax Surcharge (or HVCTS) – although expect it to be called the ‘mansion tax’ by everyone! The UK’s main local tax (council tax) isn’t going to be reformed as such in this change – despite being the target of much speculation that it is just too regressive to leave unreformed any longer after we haven’t revalued houses in most of the UK since 1991. This will instead be an additional tax, commencing in April 28, on those whose properties are valued (now) at £2m or more – with higher rates rising to those with properties over £5m. Clearly this will affect relatively few in most of the UK (only expected to affect 1% of properties nationally), but will affect some and will raise extra revenues (expected to raise circa £400m+ a year) to directly support provision of local services – much needed in many parts of the UK. 3. New taxes on electric cars – given fuel duty is not paid by those who drive electric cars (as they don’t buy petrol or diesel) there have been calls for new taxes to be charged to electric car drivers. While these cars may be better for the environment when driven, they continue to wear roads and contribute to congestion. The government is proposing a per mile charge from April 28 (to be called the Electric Vehicle Excise Duty or eVHD) for these vehicles which will be painful for electric car divers – not least as this cost as not known when purchase decisions were made. No-one likes a tax charged on something you have already made the decision to buy so expect this to be unpopular. It is proposed currently to cost EV drivers around £20/month – about half the rate of fuel duty on average – and expected to raise circa £2bn a year by 2030-31. I expect this tax will become more nuanced in future perhaps as technology enables perhaps different charges to be applied to use of congested city roads compared to open rural driving perhaps - we will see.  4. National Insurance deductibility for pension contributions via salary sacrifice schemes operated by many employers for their employees is to be capped at £2,000 (although only from April 29 – so no immediate effect). This now very widely used approach to making pension contributions if you are an employee that in effect avoids you having to pay NIC on this income going into your pension. For those with larger pension contributions the bit that can be made before NIC is due on the extra this will be capped in the future to £2,000 per year – again affecting those who receive higher pension contributions most and affecting those at the bottom of the income spectrum, little if at all (74% of employees are predicted not to be affected). Is this a breach of the Labour manifesto promises not to increase the main taxes? For some it certainly seems that way. What didn’t happen? There are many smaller measures to explore, or ones that are not coming into effect for the next year or more that might have been missed from the news headlines but that will almost certainly affect lots of people. To name just a few (including highlighting several things NOT going to happen – which will obvious not save people money per se, but help by not costing them more): - above inflation increases to national minimum (‘living’) wage for all age groups from April 2026 (+4.1% for those over 21)– although still not raising this to ‘real living wage’ levels. further extension of holding off on the 5p/litre fuel duty rise not increasing prescription charges (staying at £9.90 for the next year) confirming state pension rises by 4.8% from next April (worth £575/year) confirming £150 winter fuel payments again this winter to over 6 million homes freezing regulated rail fares – preventing the usual annual increases from January (the first time this has happened in 30 years) extending the government’s Help to Save scheme to more benefit recipients than previously No immediate impact for most Overall, this is therefore probably a welcome budget for many, those on lower incomes will likely get the most from these measures, if all are applied as proposed, but most won’t see much of an immediate impact immediately – and with the largest benefit likely to all on larger families in receipt of benefits from next April.

View all posts
Powered by