As Brexit negotiations approach their initial deadline, U.K.'s plans to renegotiate a quick trade deal with WTO members once it leaves the EU bloc has been met with disdain by some of their trading partners.
In the aims and principles of the global trade body, words like 'reciprocal', 'non-discriminating', 'stable', or 'fair' qualify trade relations multiple times, while the word 'free' is either non-existent or has been replaced by the euphemism 'more open'.
This has worked well from a bureaucratic point of view because the parties involved in these negotiations do not actually want free trade.
Unilateral liberalization is not only most beneficial, but also the only way to ensure lasting and genuine free trade, and not just managed trade masquerading as liberalization.
There's no better gauge for a government's true commitment to free trade than their willingness to 'go alone', to reduce their trade tariffs and customs without expecting reciprocal concessions from other countries.
Trading partners may thus be more likely to reciprocate if they see genuine free trade commitment rather than when they know protectionism is preferred.
We came to the conclusion that the less we attempted to persuade foreigners to adopt our trade principles, the better; for we discovered so much suspicion of the motives of England, that it was lending an argument to the protectionists abroad to incite the popular feeling against free traders, by enabling them to say, "See what these men are wanting to do; they are partisans of England and they are seeking to prostitute our industries at the feet of that perfidious nation" To take away this pretense, we avowed our total indifference whether other nations became free traders or not; but we should abolish Protection for our own selves, and leave other countries to take whatever course they liked best.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-02/recent-brexit-trade-drama-shows-europe-doesnt-really-want-free-trade
In the aims and principles of the global trade body, words like 'reciprocal', 'non-discriminating', 'stable', or 'fair' qualify trade relations multiple times, while the word 'free' is either non-existent or has been replaced by the euphemism 'more open'.
This has worked well from a bureaucratic point of view because the parties involved in these negotiations do not actually want free trade.
Unilateral liberalization is not only most beneficial, but also the only way to ensure lasting and genuine free trade, and not just managed trade masquerading as liberalization.
There's no better gauge for a government's true commitment to free trade than their willingness to 'go alone', to reduce their trade tariffs and customs without expecting reciprocal concessions from other countries.
Trading partners may thus be more likely to reciprocate if they see genuine free trade commitment rather than when they know protectionism is preferred.
We came to the conclusion that the less we attempted to persuade foreigners to adopt our trade principles, the better; for we discovered so much suspicion of the motives of England, that it was lending an argument to the protectionists abroad to incite the popular feeling against free traders, by enabling them to say, "See what these men are wanting to do; they are partisans of England and they are seeking to prostitute our industries at the feet of that perfidious nation" To take away this pretense, we avowed our total indifference whether other nations became free traders or not; but we should abolish Protection for our own selves, and leave other countries to take whatever course they liked best.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-02/recent-brexit-trade-drama-shows-europe-doesnt-really-want-free-trade
No comments:
Post a Comment