Analysis of the long-term economic impact of EU membership and the alternatives has been published by the Treasury.
Ref: ISBN 978-1-4741-3090-5, PU1908, Cm 9250 PDF, 6.19MB, 201 pages
Ref: ISBN 978-1-4741-3089-9, PU1908, Cm 9250 PDF, 8.97MB, 206 pages
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology. Request an accessible format.
If you use assistive technology (such as a screen reader) and need a version of this document in a more accessible format, please email firstname.lastname@example.org. Please tell us what format you need. It will help us if you say what assistive technology you use.
This document assesses continued UK membership of the EU against the three existing alternative models:
- membership of the European Economic Area (EEA), like Norway
- a negotiated bilateral agreement, such as that between the EU and Switzerland, Turkey or Canada
- World Trade Organisation (WTO) membership without any form of specific agreement with the EU, like Russia or Brazil
The Treasury’s analysis shows that the UK would be permanently poorer if it left the EU and adopted any of these models. Productivity and GDP per person would be lower in all these alternative scenarios, as the costs would substantially outweigh any potential benefit of leaving the EU. The analysis finds that the annual loss of GDP per household under the three alternatives after 15 years would be:
- £2,600 in the case of EEA membership
- £4,300 in the case of a negotiated bilateral agreement
- £5,200 in the case of WTO membership
The negative impact on GDP would also result in substantially weaker tax receipts, significantly outweighing any potential gain from reduced financial contributions to the EU. After 15 years, even with savings from reduced contributions to the EU, receipts would be £20 billion a year lower in the central estimate of the EEA, £36 billion a year lower for the negotiated bilateral agreement and £45 billion a year lower for the WTO alternative.