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
Powered by

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from Aston University

Major trial shows increasing bone density fails to cut fracture risk in brittle bone disease featured image

3 min

Major trial shows increasing bone density fails to cut fracture risk in brittle bone disease

An international clinical trial involving Aston University researchers has challenged long held assumptions about how brittle bone disease is treated in adults, after finding that substantially increasing bone density did not reduce the risk of fractures. The study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), examined whether a two stage treatment using the bone building drug teriparatide followed by the bone preserving drug zoledronic acid could reduce fractures in adults with osteogenesis imperfecta, often referred to as brittle bone disease, a rare genetic condition that causes bones to break easily throughout life. Researchers followed 349 adults treated at 27 specialist centres across the UK and Europe. While the treatment led to clear increases in bone density in the spine and hip, fracture rates were no lower than among patients receiving standard care, suggesting that bone quality may matter more than bone density alone in preventing fractures in people with the condition. The findings underline a key distinction between brittle bone disease and more common bone conditions such as osteoporosis, where increasing bone density is known to reduce fracture risk. In osteogenesis imperfecta, the study suggests that bones can become denser without becoming less likely to break, indicating that the underlying quality and structure of bone tissue may play a greater role in fracture risk than density alone. Dr Zaki Hassan Smith, an endocrinologist at Aston Medical School who contributed to the research, said: “This study shows that in osteogenesis imperfecta, simply increasing bone density doesn’t necessarily translate into fewer fractures. That’s important, because it tells us that the disease is more complex than what we see on a scan. The findings help shift the focus towards understanding bone quality and how bones behave in real life, which is essential if we are to develop more effective treatments that genuinely reduce harm for patients.” Osteogenesis imperfecta is a genetic condition that affects collagen, leaving bones fragile and prone to fracture throughout life. There is currently no licensed treatment specifically approved to prevent fractures in adults with the condition, and patients often experience repeated fractures, chronic pain and long term disability. The trial tested a sequential treatment strategy commonly used in osteoporosis, where a bone building drug is followed by a treatment designed to preserve gains in bone strength. Although this approach successfully increased bone density in people with osteogenesis imperfecta, it did not reduce fracture rates, suggesting that treatment strategies effective in osteoporosis may not directly translate to rare bone diseases. Researchers did observe improvements in some quality of life measures among participants receiving the treatment, including reduced pain interference and improved mobility. However, fracture prevention remained unchanged, reinforcing the need for new approaches that target the fundamental properties of bone in osteogenesis imperfecta rather than density alone. The study was led by the University of Edinburgh and funded by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Aston University contributed clinical and academic expertise through Aston Medical School as part of the large international collaboration, which involved specialist centres across the UK and Europe. The study was led by the University of Edinburgh, with Aston University contributing clinical and academic expertise as part of a wider international collaboration involving multiple specialist centres across the UK and Europe. The research was funded by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Researchers say the findings provide important guidance for future research, helping to steer efforts towards treatments that focus on bone quality, strength and resilience in everyday life. They also highlight the value of large scale clinical trials in rare diseases, where learning what does not reduce harm is an essential step towards better care. The paper, Teriparatide Plus Zoledronic Acid for Osteogenesis Imperfecta, is published in JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2026.6889

Why disaster recovery in the Himalayas needs a rethink featured image

3 min

Why disaster recovery in the Himalayas needs a rethink

After five weeks of fieldwork across Nepal, Bhutan and Northwest India, Aston University researcher Dr Komal Raj Aryal is calling for a more locally grounded approach to resilience and post-disaster recovery in one of the world’s most hazard-prone regions. What happens after the headlines fade from a disaster? That question sits at the heart of new field research led by Dr Komal Raj Aryal, Lecturer in Crisis and Disaster Management at Aston Business School. After returning from a five-week research visit across Nepal, Bhutan and Northwest India, Dr Aryal says the evidence points to a troubling reality: many communities remain highly vulnerable long after major recovery programmes are supposed to have helped them rebuild. The trip brought together field visits, stakeholder consultations and community observations linked to ongoing UKRI, NERC and ISPF-supported research on earthquake risk, disaster governance, resilience and post-disaster recovery in the Himalayan region. The aim was not only to understand current conditions, but to ask why repeated losses continue despite years of international development assistance, scientific research and investment. Across the region, the research found that resilience is being undermined by a combination of persistent governance challenges, fragmented institutions, weak local preparedness systems, livelihood insecurity and mounting environmental pressures. In other words, recovery is not simply about rebuilding infrastructure; it is about whether communities are genuinely better equipped to cope with the next shock. This challenge is especially striking in places still living with the legacy of the 2015 Nepal earthquakes, where long-term vulnerabilities remain visible despite the scale of international support directed towards recovery and reconstruction. Reflecting on his findings, Dr Aryal said: “One of the most striking observations from the field is that many communities affected by the 2015 Nepal Earthquakes continue to face similar vulnerabilities today, despite significant international support allocated for recovery and reconstruction. This raises important questions about how disaster recovery is planned, implemented, and sustained over time.” The fieldwork also highlighted the growing complexity of future disaster risks in the Himalayas. Large-scale earthquakes do not exist in isolation; they interact with environmental degradation, cascading hazards, climate-related stresses and rapid urbanisation in fragile mountain settings. He added: “The Himalayan region is entering a period of growing uncertainty where environmental change, socio-economic inequality, weak governance systems, and seismic risks are becoming increasingly interconnected. There is an urgent need to rethink conventional development approaches and invest more seriously in locally grounded, community-centred resilience strategies.” For Aston University, this work reflects a broader commitment to international research on disaster risk reduction, resilience governance and humanitarian response across South Asia. Aston researchers are working with government agencies, local authorities, universities, emergency responders and humanitarian organisations to strengthen evidence-based approaches to preparedness and recovery. The findings feed into wider international debates about sustainable development, climate resilience, risk communication and the future of disaster governance in vulnerable mountain regions. They also underline the importance of moving beyond short-term recovery models towards approaches that are participatory, practical and rooted in local knowledge. Dr Aryal’s research emphasises the value of integrating community knowledge, participatory governance, youth engagement and long-term livelihood security into resilience planning. As future collaborations and policy discussions develop, these themes are likely to be central to how the region prepares for the risks ahead. The recent fieldwork is expected to inform future international research partnerships, policy dialogue and resilience-focused initiatives between the UK and South Asian partners.

Aston University economists say Prime Minister can reduce UK trade vulnerability with China visit featured image

2 min

Aston University economists say Prime Minister can reduce UK trade vulnerability with China visit

Greenland episode exposed UK’s lack of effective response to economic coercion from allies Research shows tariff retaliation would have cost the average UK household up to £324 per year Economists say China visit is “portfolio risk management” – diversification reduces vulnerability. The Prime Minister’s visit to China – the first by a British PM since 2018 – is an opportunity to reduce the UK’s vulnerability to economic coercion, according to new research from Aston University. A policy paper from Aston Business School’s Centre for Business Prosperity analyses the January 2026 Greenland tariff episode, when President Trump threatened and then withdrew tariffs on eight European countries. The researchers found that the UK had no good options: retaliation would have made Britain worse off, while absorbing the tariffs left Europe without credible deterrence. Director of the centre for business prosperity, Professor Jun Du, said: “The Greenland episode was a wake-up call. When your principal security ally threatens economic coercion, the old assumptions about who is safe and who is dangerous no longer hold. “The PM’s China visit should be framed as portfolio risk management – building diversified trading relationships that reduce the UK’s exposure to any single partner. Just as investors don’t put all their money in one stock, countries shouldn’t put all their trade into one basket. A UK with multiple strong partnerships is harder to pressure, whether the pressure comes from Washington or Beijing.” The research found that coordinated UK–EU tariff retaliation would have cost British households up to £324 per year – the worst outcome modelled. But the authors argue that Europe has untapped leverage elsewhere: the US runs a €148 billion annual services surplus with the EU, and mutual investment exceeds €5.3 trillion. Associate professor of economics and co-author, Dr Oleksandr Shepotylo, said: “Tariff retaliation fails because it hurts consumers and distorts the economy – the retaliator suffers similarly to the target. But Europe has cards it isn’t playing. Services, investment screening, and regulatory access are pressure points where Europe can respond effectively.” UK exports to China fell by 10.4% in the year to Q2 2025, with goods exports down 23.1% – the sharpest decline among major trading partners. The researchers argue that this closes off the UK’s largest alternative market at precisely the moment US reliability is in question. The paper identifies three priorities for UK policy: Recognise the permanent incentives behind US tariffs. US tariff revenue hit $264 billion in 2025. Trade negotiations alone cannot resolve revenue-driven policy. Build UK–EU coordination on non-tariff instruments. Services, investment, procurement, and regulation offer leverage that tariffs do not. Treat China engagement as portfolio risk management. Concentration in any single market creates vulnerability. Diversification is not about picking sides – it’s about resilience. Professor Du added: “The question for the Prime Minister is whether to use this breathing space to build resilience – or wait for the next Greenland.” To read the policy paper in full, click on this link:

View all posts