Given the government’s opposition to anti-dumping measures, we would have had a choice: disaster or impotenceby Peter Kellner / April 1, 2016 / Leave a comment
From time to time a laser beam pierces the prevailing fog. This week has provided a clear example. Tata’s decision to pull out of steel-making in Britain—meaning 15,000 people will lose their jobs—allows us, for once, to say with some certainty what would have happened had the United Kingdom been outside the European Union.
Let’s start with the main facts. Tata’s British steel-making operation has been losing £1m a day. One major reason is that China has been dumping steel at below-cost prices, in order to keep its own steel industry going. The EU could have prevented this by raising tariffs against Chinese steel, as the world’s evolving free trade arrangements allow anti-dumping measures.
In 2013 the European Commission proposed precisely this. It wanted to lift the “lesser duty” rule that had allowed China to sell steel to Europe with ease. However, in 2014, the EU’s Council of ministers were unable to implement this proposal. Most countries backed the plan but Britain opposed it. Britain was not quite alone, but it was the ringleader in wanting China to continue to sell steel without impediment. The result: Chinese sales to Europe have been soaring, and steel plants such as Port Talbot have become hopelessly uncompetitive.
Now let’s replay that on the basis that the UK had not been a member of the EU. The “lesser duty” rule would have been lifted. Companies importing steel from China would have had to pay a tariff. European steel-making plants would have been more able to survive and prosper.