OpenEurope

I met today with the excellent think tank OpenEurope, along with other MPs of various parties:

Open Europe is an independent think tank, with offices in London and Brussels, set up by some of the UK’s leading business people to contribute bold new thinking to the debate about the direction of the EU.

While we are committed to European co-operation, Open Europe believes that the EU has reached a critical moment in its development. ‘Ever closer union’, espoused by Jean Monnet and propelled forwards by successive generations of political and bureaucratic elites, has failed.

The EU’s over-loaded institutions, held in low regard by Europe’s citizens, are ill-equipped to adapt to the pressing challenges of weak economic growth, rising global competition, insecurity and a looming demographic crisis.

Open Europe believes that the EU must now embrace radical reform based on economic liberalisation, a looser and more flexible structure, and greater transparency and accountability if it is to overcome these challenges, and succeed in the twenty first century.

The best way forward for the EU is an urgent programme of radical change driven by a consensus between member states. In pursuit of this consensus, Open Europe will seek to involve like-minded individuals, political parties and organisations across Europe in our thinking and activities, and disseminate our ideas widely across the EU and the rest of the world.

It was all very encouraging. Through The Cobden Centre, I advocate free trade and peace in addition to our work on honest money, so naturally I am keen to promote a more open and dynamic Europe which is actually accountable to  the people, instead of trampling their democratic rights whilst issuing ever more regulations, raising nationalism to the continental level.

Apparently the EU is now ripe for radical reform. Good.

How to transform a nation in ten steps

The Georgian recipe for “an amazing transformation”:

  • Low and flat taxes
  • Legislative commitment to reducing the government’s fiscal footprint (IE spend less!)
  • Deregulation and cutting red tape
  • And thereby suppressing corruption
  • Unilateral free trade: no import tariffs or barriers of any kind
  • Very flexible labour legislation
  • No sector or industrial policy of any kind
  • No subsidies, no preferences, no exemptions – no market-distorting practices
  • No currency and capital controls
  • Sound monetary policy with hawkish anti-inflationary stance

See also: Tory conference: Georgia’s Prime Minister makes surprise appearance.

Hat tip to Dr Tim Evans

Concern as China clamps down on rare earth exports

Another good reason to promote global free trade:

Britain and other Western countries risk running out of supplies of certain highly sought-after rare metals that are vital to a host of green technologies, amid growing evidence that China, which has a monopoly on global production, is set to choke off exports of valuable compounds.

via Concern as China clamps down on rare earth exports – Asia, World – The Independent.

Razeen Sally, “Trade Policy, New Century”

This post originally appeared on cobdencentre.org.

Razeen Sally’s Trade Policy, New Century (PDF) succeeds magnificently in explaining the 21st-century case for free trade and, specifically, unilateral trade liberalisation to the interested, non-specialist reader.

From the IEA home page of the book:

The World Trade Organization (WTO) is failing to deliver the trade liberalisation desperately needed to bring prosperity to developing countries, according to a new study released today by the Institute of Economic Affairs. The WTO is hamstrung by a cumbersome negotiating model and the influence of vocal protectionist lobbies who oppose free markets. At the same time, increasingly popular regional ‘free-trade agreements’ often create as many barriers as they remove by erecting new obstacles to trade with countries outside the blocs concerned.

In the context of policy paralysis at the WTO, the author, LSE trade expert Dr Razeen Sally, argues that governments must take back the initiative from supranational institutions. The priority must be unilateral liberalisation – removing trade barriers to benefit domestic consumers rather than waiting for tortuous international negotiations to be resolved. Governments can also help maximise the benefits of free trade by liberalising their economies and strengthening key institutions.

But what is the imperative for the UK? Surely, European Union citizens enjoy free trade?

The EU is a customs union: we trade ostensibly freely within it, but, as can be seen from the EU’s TARIC database, we find ourselves behind a complex system of tariffs on, for example, wheat, notwithstanding the battle long since won by our inspiration, Richard Cobden, to repeal England’s Corn Laws in the general interest.

And this is the key point: free trade is in the general interest. We may make the political and economic arguments in detail, but the public good is our ultimate aim, and not just at home. Razeen Sally explains (pp179-180, emphasis mine):

Adam Smith fortified his presumption in favour of free trade with an explicit political argument. Protectionism is driven by ‘the clamorous importunity of partial interests’ who capture government and prevent it from having ‘an extensive view of the general good’. Free trade, in contrast, tilts the balance away from rent-seeking producer interests and towards the mass of consumers. It is part of a wider constitutional package to keep government limited, transparent and clean, enabling it to concentrate better on the public good.

As important to Smith and Hume was the moral case for free trade, centred on individual freedom. Individual choice is the engine of free trade, and of progressive commercial society more generally. It sparks what Hume called a ‘spirit of industry’; it results in much better life-chances, not just for the select few but for individuals in the broad mass of society who are able to lead more varied and interesting lives.

To sum up: free trade is of course associated with standard economic efficiency arguments. But the classical-liberal case for free trade is more rounded, taking in the moral imperative of individual freedom and linking it to prosperity. Finally, free trade contributes to, though it does not guarantee, peaceful international relations. Freedom, prosperity, security: this trinity lies at the heart of the case for free trade.

In a short article, I can scarcely do justice to this monograph’s insight in relation to the case for classic liberalism nor to its observations on emerging geopolitics: I heartily recommend the book.

Further reading

The Apostle of Free Trade: Richard Cobden

I just finished Gowing’s 1885 biography of Richard Cobden, whose doctrine was that free trade would lead to world peace through interdependence and mutual cooperation.

Cobden was a leader of the Anti-Corn-Law League — a substantial feat of political agitation — which was established to oppose protectionist measures on corn and decrease the price of basic food products. Cobden viewed the task of the League as “instructing the nation.” We learn in the biography:

Only seven years before the total repeal of the Corn Laws the men who agitated for the Repeal were looked upon, by many of the most experienced statesmen of the country, as wild and reckless theorists — as, in fact, little better than madmen!

Cobden’s life was remarkable. For example, after Repeal and losing his former seat, Rochdale returned him to Parliament without a contest and in his absence. Fortunes were twice raised by subscription to assist Cobden out of difficulties arising from the sacrifice of his own business in the national interest.

Today, we do indeed need more Cobdens in politics.


Update:

The EU announced on 17 Oct 2008 that it would restore import customs duties on cereals on 30 Jun 2009. There are quotas too.

The TARIC database allows you to query duty rates. For example:

  • Roasted coffee from Brazil: 7.50% (apparently less a “tariff preference” of 2.60%)
  • Long grain, rough rice (of a length/width ratio greater than 2 but less than 3) from Vietnam: 211.00 EUR per 1000kg with a “non-preferential tariff quota” of 15.00%

You will find the EU has made available a full-featured online system for navigating the maze of tariffs and regulations, but haven’t they missed the point? Is this free trade?