IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/wirtsc/v100y2020i11d10.1007_s10273-020-2781-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Der Brexit zwischen britischem Autonomiestreben und Handelsgewinnen
[The Brexit between British Autonomy and Trade Gains]

Author

Listed:
  • Hans-Bernd Schäfer

    (Bucerius Law School Hamburg)

  • Jörn Axel Kämmerer

    (Bucerius Law School Hamburg)

Abstract

Zusammenfassung In den Verhandlungen zwischen der Europäischen Union und dem Vereinigten Königreich um ihre künftigen Rechts- und Wirtschaftsbeziehungen geht es nicht nur um ökonomische Vorteile, sondern auch um die Vereinbarkeit von Rechtskulturen. Die Brexiteers verteidigen britisches Recht und den britischen Parlamentarismus gegen eine nicht nur bei der Rechtsetzung, sondern auch bei der Rechtsprechung integrationistische überstaatliche Entwicklung. Die britische Regierung lehnt für die Zukunft jegliche Rolle des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für die Gestaltung der Beziehungen mit der EU ab. Dies begrenzt die Möglichkeiten, ökonomische Vorteile zu verwirklichen.

Suggested Citation

  • Hans-Bernd Schäfer & Jörn Axel Kämmerer, 2020. "Der Brexit zwischen britischem Autonomiestreben und Handelsgewinnen [The Brexit between British Autonomy and Trade Gains]," Wirtschaftsdienst, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 100(11), pages 856-861, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:wirtsc:v:100:y:2020:i:11:d:10.1007_s10273-020-2781-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10273-020-2781-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10273-020-2781-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10273-020-2781-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stephen Nickell & Jumana Saleheen, 2008. "The impact of immigration on occupational wages: evidence from Britain," Working Papers 08-6, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
    2. Thierry Mayer & Vincent Vicard & Soledad Zignago & Beata Javorcik, 2019. "The cost of non-Europe, revisited," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 34(98), pages 145-199.
    3. Swati Dhingra & Hanwei Huang & Gianmarco Ottaviano & João Paulo Pessoa & Thomas Sampson & John Van Reenen, 2017. "The costs and benefits of leaving the EU: trade effects," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 32(92), pages 651-705.
    4. Thomas Sampson, 2017. "Brexit: The Economics of International Disintegration," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 31(4), pages 163-184, Fall.
    5. Amtenbrink Fabian & Repasi René & De Haan Jakob, 2016. "Is there Life in the Old Dog Yet? Observations on the Political Economy and Constitutional Viability of Common Debt Issuing in the Euro Area," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 12(3), pages 605-633, November.
    6. Cooter, Robert D. & Ginsburg, Tom, 1996. "Comparative judicial discretion: An empirical test of economic models," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 295-313, September.
    7. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/6o8sdn6fuv9m1r3rt5verlv4b7 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Cooter, Robert & Drexl, Josef, 1994. "The logic of power in the emerging European constitution: Game theory and the division of powers," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 307-326, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Swati Dhingra & Rebecca Freeman & Hanwei Huang, 2023. "The Impact of Non‐tariff Barriers on Trade and Welfare," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 90(357), pages 140-177, January.
    2. Gabriel Felbermayr & Jasmin Gröschl & Marina Steininger, 2022. "Quantifying Brexit: from ex post to ex ante using structural gravity," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 158(2), pages 401-465, May.
    3. Patrick Bisciari, 2019. "A survey of the long-term impact of Brexit on the UK and the EU27 economies," Working Paper Research 366, National Bank of Belgium.
    4. Stefan Voigt, "undated". "Iudex Calculat: The ECJ's Quest for Power," German Working Papers in Law and Economics 2003-1-1066, Berkeley Electronic Press.
    5. Sergei Guriev & Elias Papaioannou, 2022. "The Political Economy of Populism," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 60(3), pages 753-832, September.
    6. Karen Jackson & Oleksandr Shepotylo, 2021. "An examination of EU trade disintegration scenarios," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(1), pages 2-20, January.
    7. Marine Charlotte André & Meixing Dai, 2019. "Le Brexit : quelles conséquences sur les économies britannique et de l’Union européenne ?," Bulletin de l'Observatoire des politiques économiques en Europe, Observatoire des Politiques Économiques en Europe (OPEE), vol. 40(1), pages 11-18, July.
    8. Holger Breinlich & Elsa Leromain & Dennis Novy & Thomas Sampson, 2019. "Exchange Rates and Consumer Prices: Evidence from Brexit," CESifo Working Paper Series 8001, CESifo.
    9. Thomas Sampson, 2017. "Brexit: The Economics of International Disintegration," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 31(4), pages 163-184, Fall.
    10. Cappariello, Rita & Franco-Bedoya, Sebastian & Gunnella, Vanessa & Ottaviano, Gianmarco I. P., 2020. "Rising protectionism and global value chains: quantifying the general equilibrium effects," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 108423, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    11. Born, Benjamin & Müller, Gernot J. & Schularick, Moritz & Sedlacek, Petr, 2017. "The economic consequences of the Brexit Vote," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 87174, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    12. Halmai, Péter, 2020. "A dezintegráció gazdaságtana. A brexit esete [The economics of disintegration. The case of Brexit]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(9), pages 837-877.
    13. Swati Dhingra & Thomas Sampson, 2022. "Expecting Brexit," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 14(1), pages 495-519, August.
    14. Campos, Nauro F., 2019. "B for Brexit: A Survey of the Economics Academic Literature," IZA Discussion Papers 12134, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    15. Agata Wierzbowska & Massimiliano Porto, 2024. "Did Brexiteers consider the business cycle of the UK trading partners?," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 4(10), pages 1-18, October.
    16. David Comerford & José V Rodríguez Mora & Beata Javorcik, 2019. "The gains from economic integration," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 34(98), pages 201-266.
    17. Harald Oberhofer & Michael Pfaffermayr, 2021. "Estimating the trade and welfare effects of Brexit: A panel data structural gravity model," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(1), pages 338-375, February.
    18. Hinz, Julian & Monastyrenko, Evgenii, 2022. "Bearing the cost of politics: Consumer prices and welfare in Russia," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    19. Ana Venâncio & João Pereira dos Santos, 2021. "The effect of Brexit on British workers living in the EU," Working Papers REM 2021/0197, ISEG - Lisbon School of Economics and Management, REM, Universidade de Lisboa.
    20. Ruiz Estrada Mario Arturo & Evangelos Koutronas & Donghyun Park, 2019. "The economic Gordian Knot of Brexit: an East and Southeast Asian perspective," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(6), pages 2797-2820, November.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • F00 - International Economics - - General - - - General
    • K00 - Law and Economics - - General - - - General (including Data Sources and Description)
    • P00 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - General - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:wirtsc:v:100:y:2020:i:11:d:10.1007_s10273-020-2781-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.