There are NO tariffs on sugar from ACP and LDC countries.
This graph shows ACP & LDC exports of sugar into the EU over the last few years.
@DCBMEP And this is the same graph but showing where their cane sugar ends up.
Tate & Lyle, the American owned sugar refining corporation, who have a single sugar-refining facility in Silvertown reduced their imports of sugar from the ACP countries, but look where that sugar goes now.
@DCBMEP The American-owned Tate & Lyle have a rival in the UK. It's the British-owned company British Sugar. Their parent company is Associated British Foods (ABF).
Can you see all the 0% for FTA partners and developing countries? I've highlighted a few of the more interesting ones.
There a many more not in the screenshot. I've also highlighted the tariff rate quotas (TRQ) for New Zealand and Uruguay.
@DCBMEP Here are the tariff rate quotas for New Zealand for this year. Only the top three (09013, 092109, 09211) need concern us as 092202 is for beef. You may have noticed the number 092109 on the previous screenshot.
Country X protects a, b, & c and country Y will protect d, e &f. You can't necessarily do a direct comparison on individual items.
@hereburgher@panmisthropist@OwenPaterson When a country is a member of the WTO the have to present their tariffs schedule to WTO. There are two sorts of tariffs that relate to WTO membership. There's the bound tariff and the MFN applied tariff. We'll come to preferential later.
@hereburgher@panmisthropist@OwenPaterson The bound tariff is the the upper limit that a country has legally commuted itself to not exceed. The MFN tariff is the rate actually applied under the GATT Most Favoured Nation rule.
Th MFN rule is the cornerstone of GATT/WTO. It's actually the core part of Article I.
Like me Pavel has eaten Argentinian beef in the UK, so like me was a bit surprised to see Daniel stating that it was banned.
It isn't banned.
@pswidlicki and I had both eaten Argentinian beef in an Argentinian beef restaurant. Coincidentally in the very same restaurant. This one in Battersea where they claim to fly the beef in from Argentina. I'm pretty sure its not the only one though.
@PaulConnew@MrHarryCole Good. Right so under normal WTO/GATT rules a member country can't just say ... oh Bangladesh is poor, so we'll let them off the hook, because its against the rules.
So that's why GSP was suggested by UNCTAD. It allowed a general exception for developing countries ...
@PaulConnew@MrHarryCole By general it means that the favours shown to a developing country must apply fairly to other developing countries in the same development bracket. However each developed nation is allowed some flexibility in how the GSP is designed.
Now the next bit is VERY important.
@PaulConnew@MrHarryCole So now we have to go back to the beginning, and the founding of the EEC and the Treaty of Rome in 1957.
In the original Treatythe colonies of the founding 6 nations were granted associated membership of the EEC with tariff, free quota free access EU markets.
This is a completely specious argument. The EU codes (CN) are based on the WCO's Harmonised System (HS). If something isn't specifically listed it falls under an "Other" category. Carving out a new code for a particular item is often done to specifically exclude it from duty
And here is an example of exactly that happening, which Dan Lewis, author of this BrexitCentral article got complete wrong in this other BrexitCentral article. He wrongly assumed a duty was being put on something when it was being taken off.
I want to deal with some specific claims in this BrexitCentral article by Kevin Dowd from Sep 2017, but I also wanted to make a more general point, so I decided to make a general thread and wrap it around a standalone thread on the article.
Otherwise, carry on reading, here where I make a more general point, and then and I'll link back to the BrexitCentral rebuttal again it at the bottom.
Bar a few minor exceptions, all countries have tariffs on imports:
Pointing to tariffs to criticise the EU and saying we should be like Singapore is as ridiculous as criticising the UK because we have excise duty, or saying we should be like Monaco with no income tax.
In Aug 2017 Kevin Dowd published a report for the IEA called "A Trade Policy for Brexit Britain". It included some inaccurate commentary about EU tariffs. The BrexitCentral article sought to defend his claims, stating that his source was "leading authority" Dan Lewis.
Unfortunately all he demonstrated was that his chosen expert has no more understanding of the subject that he has. Dowd points to another BrexitCentral article from Lewis published in November 2016 and repeats Lewis's fundamentally flawed analysis.
The first thing he picks on is a 17.6% tariff on coconut water, enacted from 1 July 2016. Unfortunately Dan demonstrates here that he has little understanding of the subject he is proclaimed as being an expert in.
Later that evening I was made aware of Chloe's claim by @TampS44 posting a thread that investigated the source of the 17% food price reduction claim. I was flattered to get a mention. Here's the thread.