A look at the EPA and The Bahamas

There seems to be considerable fear among the local intelligentsia regarding the possibility that signing on to the European Partnership Agreement (EPA) is the thin end of the wedge that will ultimately force us to sign on to the Caribbean Single Market and Economy (CSME).

I'm satisfied with a cursory review of the EPA and the comments being circulated that they might be right.

Brian Moree, a noted attorney recently told the press that:

"In my view, it is very difficult to see how the Bahamas can sign up to this EPA, with its strong and unequivocal commitment to regional economic integration, while at the same time maintaining we are not pursuing that policy within the context of CSME."

He continued:

"I remain strongly of the view that given the way this agreement has been negotiated, and the language it embodies, it would seem difficult to me for the Bahamas to sign this agreement (EPA) and say it's not committed to regional economic integration (CSME)."

Larry Smith, of notes in a recent column about the EPA that:

"Now we are faced with a number of initiatives that threaten to demolish our cozy and old-fashioned business arrangements. Free trade proponents say we must become part of the global rules-based trading system because the alternative is a system based on power - in which we surely can't compete." [More...]

I'm not sure I share the same fears that we can't compete, but I do find it peculiar that The Bahamas government would protect fishermen for example from an increased import duty on crawfish into Europe, while they readily admit that they cannot subsidise Bahamians or their businesses that face similar odds every day.

For example. I work in the automotive industry and with fluctuations of world currencies we recently faced dramatic increases on vehicles imported form Japan, caused by the way the duty on vehicles is structured. Is the government going to subsidise our potential losses as they are prepared to subsidise the potential loss of the fishermen?

Of course they won't, and the auto industry should not ask for the government to take tax money from other Bahamians to support their businesses.

On a wider note, the EPA and CSME etc should not be referred to as Free Trade.

Unilaterally drop the barriers to trade

Professor Donald Boudreaux over at Cafe Hayek notes in a recent post that:

"I am ignoring any bureaucratic complications that occur in a real-world trade agreement. I wish we would just eliminate our tariffs and quotas rather than do all the bureaucratic and legal compliance wrangling involved in NAFTA." [More...]

Many of the well meaning intellectuals point to the importance of 'rules based trade' as the way go rather than simply dropping barriers. That's a circular argument though. Rules defined by whom? Why do I have to force certain requirements on other countries to trade with me in the first place? Seems business people want to buy product and producers want to sell. All this gobbledy gook of these trade agreements from politicians is not free trade.

Let's go back to lobsters being imported by European countries momentarily. Simply put, The EU says we can sell lobster to their fellow countrymen without charging import duty, but only if they can open businesses here in The Bahamas for example. In effect, the European Governments are attempting to protect their countrymen at the expense of ours.

What's free or fair about that? And why do the politicians have to be involved in the process in the first place, other than if one trader steals from another?

Sovereignty is important

The other important aspect is our sovereignty and immigration and some people believe that free immigration is forced integration.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe notes:

The current situation in the United States and in Western Europe has nothing whatsoever to do with "free" immigration. It is forced integration, plain and simple, and forced integration is the predictable outcome of democratic – one-man-one-vote – rule. Abolishing forced integration requires a de-democratization of society, and ultimately the abolition of democracy. More specifically, the authority to admit or exclude should be stripped from the hands of the central government and re-assigned to the states, provinces, cities, towns, villages, residential districts, and ultimately to private property owners and their voluntary associations. The means to achieve this goal are decentralization and secession (both inherently un-democratic, and un-majoritarian). One would be well on the way toward a restoration of the freedom of association and exclusion as it is implied in the idea and institution of private property, and much of the social strife currently caused by forced integration would disappear... [More...]

So these 'free trade' agreements lead us to think about many important issues that will affect the entire population. Free Trade on the other hand leads to more wealth for the poorest among us. How we get there is the million dollar question.

I believe that Capitalism and free trade is the answer, not centrally managed 'rules based' trade.

What do you think?