European Trade SEVEN STATES SIGN STOCKHOLM TREAT!

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 29068, 3 December 1959, Page 16

European Trade SEVEN STATES SIGN STOCKHOLM TREAT!

(By

“LYNCEUS”

' ot the "Economist")

(From the “Economist" Intelligence Unit)

London, November 24.—The Convention of the European Free Trade Association has been initialled in Stockholm between the representatives of the seven countries concerned, and only awaits ratification by the respective Parliaments, before it comes into operation. This event synchronised symbolically and significantly with the visits of Dr. Adenauer to London—a visit during which the problem of future economic relations between Britain, as a member of the Free Trade Association, and Germany, as a member of the Common Market, was given a good deal of attention. The German visit to London may have been mainly concerned with political problems, and more particularly with that of the summit meeting and that of military disengagement in Central Europe; but the talks about the Common Market and the Free Trade Association also had their unmistakable political tinge. They involved no discussion of technical commercial issues, if only because there were no such technicians in Dr. Adenauer’s entourage. Moreover, since the signing of the Treaty of Rome, which set up the European Economic Community and its Common Market, no one of its signatories has been able to negotiate the relations of the six countries concerned with the rest of Europe. It will have been impressed on Dr. Adenauer, however, that even if the frontier between the Six and the Seven appears on the face of it to be a line of economic demarcation, it cannot fail—assuming it persists—to acquire a political character.

The German delegation in London fully understood this reasoning; and one of the last comments by Dr. Adenauer before he left the British capital was: “We in the Federal Republic are convinced that the establishment of the European Economic Community and the Free Trade Association of the Seven must in no

circumstances lead to like economic warfare in Whjß Aims of E.F.T.A. The Convention of the n Trade Association signed”? Stockholm goes out of its ’ avoid the impression of ing a counter-block to lu pean Economic Community? 1 preamble emphasises that f E.F.T.A. is being establiXft” bring nearer a multilateralX* elation of all the the Organisation of KuZ? Economic Co-operation, frUwF the six members of the Economic Community, and all its policies this group oSJ countries will be guided hJI? rules laid down by an even af club than the O.E.K.C, nS the signatories of the' (? Agreement on Tariffs and'E? (G.*T.T.) W The E.F.T.A. Convention 'X that the members will be by four aims: to maintejEE employment in the memberaE to ensure fair competition 2' the members: to avoid diS in the conditions of supaß domestic raw materials mL* members; to expand worlftSgJ merce by reducing trade hetS 1 and to do so without emnhSS the element of ' against countries outside ST sociation. Under, the draft con venttat a, members agree to cut between them progressively T? an initial cut of 20 per cMm? 1960 and with subsequent aj? tions so graded that tariflraj have been removed by 197 H, Xi only exception to this FctahS is that provided for PnXw which is given until 1980 taSl plete the dismantling of iw-. tariffs, to take account of less developed industrial tion. Manufactured Goods (hh The Free Trade Association the dismantling of tariffs wfe it envisages ere intended io only to manufactured goods. Ask’ the Common Market and in U now moribund Free Trade tat project, trade in agriculture j| | be treated separately. For m> products, the E.F.T.A. makes » vision for bilateral agreeoQ such as those already between the United Kingdomaafl Denmark. It is, however, intends' to evolve some common poller tat trade in agricultural orofe and to this end the Council af E.F.T.A. is to have regular w ings and attempt thereby taieto a unanimous decision on the pm lems of this highly sensitive® tor of trade before 1962. The main, and certainly thnd difficulty that was encountered before the signature of the tion in Stockholm, involved jh question whether frozen should be included among sircultural products and thus ded from the tariff disrnsrilta or whether, as the ScandiaWa countries demanded, theySffi be regarded and treated trial products. Similar difficult were encountered during the C»tnon Market negotiations, vta the classification of such prodm as tomato puree and vermrt. under agricultural or mamb tured goods was vchemeoft argued. Difficulty in Britain This matter was and rennin one of considerable political dfficulty in Britain, where the to ing industry is powerfully sented in Parliament and has H no doubts about its opposition the freer importation of frac fish from Norway and other te eign countries. The solution wW has been found may have jive little satisfaction to the Britto fishing industry, but the far mst» important interests of the Brltft consumer have been well ftrvtd Tlie solution is that frozen fc is to be treated as a mantifMMi product on which tariffs wUI ii due course be removed, telM a quota will be placed Oft ft total imports of such fish. Such final quibbles matter Is than the fact that agreements been reached. After the eignetw in Stockholm and the talks wifl Dr. Adenauer, no time should b 1 lost in building the all-eseenfe bridge between the Seven and ft Six.