“Every European country that is not a member of the EU, with the exception of Belarus, has a free trade agreement on goods with the European Union. That means no tariffs, no tariff barriers, free trade on goods”. So said Michael Howard on the Today programme this morning (01:35:50 onwards).
That is not the case. In fact, several different agreements are in place between the EU and specific European countries.
With Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, the EU has the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement. DCFTA encourages trade by gradually cutting tariffs in certain sectors, as norms and standards are harmonised.
“We have free access for goods with Switzerland but some restrictions on agricultural products”, European Commission sources told me over email. The same applies for the European Economic Area countries – Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.
With the western Balkan nations – including Albania and Serbia – the EU has stabilization and association agreements (SAA), which provide tariff-free access to some markets, in exchange for political, economic or human rights reforms.
In addition, “with countries like Belarus, Russia, Armenia, Azerbaijan which are also in Europe, we have in general no preferential access for goods”, the European Commission sources said.
As part of their deals with the EU, all of the countries mentioned above are committed to adopting the main relevant EU regulations such as Technical Barriers to Trade which cover matters like product standards. The exception is Switzerland where there is an equivalence system. So trade agreements with the EU often come with regulations attached, which is anathema to many Brexiteers.
The final trading category is that between the EU and Turkey. It is subject to a Customs Union agreement, covering industrial goods but imposing restrictions on agriculture and services.
Howard’s claim is well wide of the mark.
InFacts contacted Lord Howard but received no response.
Edited by Michael Prest
I note that inFacts contacted Lord Howard, no doubt with a view to correcting his mistakes but received no response. But should not Infacts contact the Today programme and let them know what the real situation is? Otherwise the general public who listen to that programme will continue to be misinformed about the facts, just as they were throughout the whole referendum campaign.
I listen to the R4 everyday and I am becoming increasingly concerned that the BBC is not questioning the pro brexit supporters. There appears to be either a reluctance or a paralysis within the BBC to even recognise the potential harm that a hard exit would mean. A recent discussion on the difference between soft and hard brexit was frankly poor with the pro brexit spokesperson being allowed to make statements without the presenter ensuring a fair exchange of ideas was allowed.
Seems to have become the norm with most national media to allow propaganda to flow unchallenged, ever since the tories repeatedly enthused that Labour were responsible for the crash, when it was obvious to all, apart from British recipients of the above, that it was greedy and irresponsible banking that was the cause. Now tories have allowed a referendum that should never have been- we elect a parliament to make informed decisions on such important matters, instead of which media played games with the EU decision for their own gain. Next? A world run by twitter- bit like the fall of the Romans Empire- thumbs up or down says the press!