07/05/2016
Displaying an almost complete lack of self-awareness, Gerard Lyons in
The Times is telling us to "steer clear of the group-think that often dominates economics". Yet, in almost the same breath, he declares:
What everyone needs to appreciate is that we do not need a trade deal to trade. We trade across the globe with countries we do not have a trade deal with. Go into any shop, pick up an item and it will probably say, "Made in China", a country with whom we do not have a trade deal. Likewise with the US.
It irony of this is absolute. Here speaks a man from the depths of his own profound ignorance, repeating falsehoods shared by his little
claque of like-minded "free trade" zealots.
Doubtless, Lyons has not the least idea that what he claims is so demonstrably false. For people like him, truth is an irrelevance. Research and knowledge has been replaced by a belief system, with "prestige" taking over from veracity.
What matters, it seems, is precisely what he dismisses: "group-think". Only what we are supposed to believe is
his group-think, rather than the words of any rival gang.
In responses, one could make the same observations which I offered to
Charles Moore when he made the same claim about the absence of trade agreements.
I suggested that before writing such an unequivocal statement, a more cautious person have consulted the Europa website to check its veracity. In fact, there is a better place to go. Every trade deal is actually a formal treaty, and the standard repository for all treaties in the United Nations.
Go thus to the
online version of the United Nations Treaty Series (UNTS) and do a participants' search. All manner of goodies turn up, many to confound the Lyons thesis â one which he so generously shares.
Between the United States and the European Union, there are actually 228 treaties recorded. The search facility does not appear to allow further discrimination some one is back to the
EU Treaty Database if you want the detail.
Between China and the EU, we still see 65 treaties recorded, including
this one, formally entitled the: "EEC-China Trade and Economic Cooperation Agreement", agreed by the EEC on
16 September 1985.
Interestingly,
we are told, this replaced "the trade agreement concluded between the European Economic Community (EEC) and the People's Republic of China on 3 April 1978", which means that we have had formal trade agreements in force with China for nearly 40 years.
This, however, is the least of it. According to the
EEAS website, in 2001, the EU-China Comprehensive Partnership was launched and upgraded to a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership in 2003.
And since 2010, around a dozen dialogues and cooperation mechanisms were established or re-activated, covering issues such as foreign policy, security and defence, cyber, the digital economy & ICT sector, innovation, migration and mobility, tourism, energy, environment, development, disaster risk management, people-to-people exchanges.
Currently, the EU and China have over 60 high-level and senior-level dialogues, working groups and steering committees reflecting the wide-ranging scope of our exchanges. In 2013, three new EU-China dialogues were launched: on innovation, international development and sustainable tourism. A Connectivity Platform was established in 2015 to discuss issues related to that area while a new legal affairs dialogue starts this year.
The relationships
have brought trade in goods was worth â¬467 billion in 2014, with trade in services reaching â¬54 billion.
So extensive is the cooperation that the EU and China are also working towards standards convergence. Currently, some 100 European standards form the basis for Chinese standards, while the Europe-China Standardisation Information Platform provides companies with easily-accessible, clear and free-of-charge information on standards and market access for products regulated by EU and Chinese legislation.
Since 2006, China has been part of the European Rapid Alert System Information on dangerous non-food products, which has allowed the Chinese authorities to investigate over 3000 cases and to stop the export of those products which were confirmed dangerous.
The EU and China are also committed to developing customs cooperation and enhancing connectivity in this area, in order to facilitate and accelerate trade and combat illicit flows of goods. Mutual recognition of Authorised Economic Operators, on which a joint statement was signed on the occasion of the 2015 EU-China Summit, is an important part of this.
Where this matters so very much in respect of the ignorance of Lyons is that he tells us that, after Brexit, "we would be able to trade freely with the EU, as we do now with China, the US and much of the globe, under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules".
Neither the United States nor China relies on WTO rules, both countries having developed complex relationships with the EU. Yet here we have this man blithely misinforming us, to a most extraordinary extent.
His is a world in which only tariffs seem to matter, and where non-tariff barriers barely get a mention. It is a world in which the UK, once it had left the EU, would only need to make trade deals "if we want to", which we could call "WTO Plus".
From such people, therefore â and from the newspapers in which their work appears â the only thing we can rely on is their ignorance. It is an ignorance shared by
Vote Leave, which sees the world only in terms of free trade deals and tariff barriers.
It is no wonder such people do not see the need for an exit plan. In their simplistic little world, everything is so easy: we just drop out of the EU and pick up where we left off, relying on these wondrous "WTO rules", the nature of which they don't have the first idea.
Sadly, this is a level of ignorance with which there can be no dialogue. As I have remarked before, to have a sensible discussion with such people about trade is rather like trying to have a conversation with a two-year-old about quantum physics.
To address this in the 47 days left of the campaign is impossible. Scaling Everest would be an easier task.
