Apparently Peter Mandelson is a free trader at heart.
But Mr Mandelson, a free trader by instinct who had to impose quotas
on Chinese textiles in last year’s "bra wars", said: "European economic
openness is vital for creating jobs and growth and for our
international competitiveness."
As well as a review of trade
defence instruments, Mr Mandelson’s five-point strategy includes a new
approach to China, due to be announced this month, to secure wider
access for European companies to invest and acquire companies. He also
wants greater protection for intellectual property rights there and in
other emerging economies and wants to open, via "gentle pressure",
overseas public procurement markets.
Opening markets? Nice bit of mercantilism there for a free trader.
But Mr Mandelson insisted the tariffs were "commensurate and
proportionate". "We had evidence of unfair trade practices and state
interventionism, resulting in price distortions and unfair competition."
He
said the duties were not protectionist and announced a review of the
EU’s "trade defence instruments", including anti-dumping measures, to
take account of increased outsourcing of production to emerging
countries and the global supply chain. But he said measures would
remain in place to promote fair trade and prevent dumping.
Dumping? The correct free trader’s attitude to allegations of dumping is to say thank you. It’s, if it is actually happening, a gift from the taxpayers of Vietnam and China to the consumers of Europe. Why reject it?
Oxfam said he was "pushing an aggressive liberalisation agenda". Celine
Charveriat, the head of the charity’s Make Trade Fair campaign, said:
"The wolf has taken off its sheep’s clothing … This is not a plan for
competitiveness but for exporting inequality and poverty."
An aggressive liberalization agenda? If only!We would start with what almost all economists agree would be the right thing to do. The abolition of all of our own tarrif and non-tarrif barriers to imports. That we don’t shows that none of those making policy are in fact free traders: perhaps they’re just too dim to know the facts?
Leave a Reply