歐加貿易模式將害慘英國

The language of Brexit matters. “Transition” sounds soothing, which is why Remainers like it. “Implementation” suggests something short and sharp, which is why Theresa May, UK prime minister, likes it. “Triggering Article 50” sounds technical and unstoppable. And “soft Brexit” has a less painful ring than “hard Brexit”, which sounds faintly indecent.

英國退歐的措辭很重要。“過渡”聽上去讓人寬心，這是支持留歐人士喜歡它的原因。“實施”暗示着短暫和急劇，因此英國首相特里薩?梅(Theresa May)喜歡它。“觸發第50條”聽上去具有技術性，且不可阻擋。與聽上去隱約有些不雅的“硬退歐”相比，“軟退歐”給人的感覺不那麼痛苦。

Soon, another Brexit phrase will trip off every tongue: “A Canada-style free trade agreement”. This is the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or Ceta — a model which David Davis, the Brexit secretary, declared last year to be “a perfectly good starting point” for discussions with the European Commission about future UK-EU trade relations. Last month, Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator, reciprocated by explaining that he knew from the moment the UK said it wanted out of the single market and the customs union, “we will have to work on a model that is closer to the agreement signed with Canada”.

很快，另一個英國退歐短語將掛在所有人嘴邊：“加拿大風格的自由貿易協定”。這是指歐盟與加拿大之間的《全面經濟貿易協定》(EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement，簡稱：Ceta)。英國退歐事務部大臣戴維?戴維斯(David Davis)去年宣稱，這種模式將是與歐盟委員會(European Commission)討論未來英國與歐盟貿易關係的“非常良好的起點”。上月，歐盟首席談判代表米歇爾?巴尼耶(Michel Barnier)在迴應時解釋道，從英國表示希望退出單一市場和關稅同盟的那一刻起，他就知道，“我們將不得不拿出一個與我們與加拿大簽訂的協議更爲接近的模式”。

Whitehall is abuzz with talk of a “Canada Plus” agreement. To the untrained ear, what’s not to like? “Free trade” has a stout, 19th-century ring to it, redolent of Britain in its imperial heyday. Better still, Canada is a place where they speak English, love the Queen and their current premier is dashing and dynamic. So a “Canada-style” deal does the trick, restoring our fraught relationship with the EU to safer shores: the Anglosphere and our glorious past.

白廳正充斥着有關“加拿大+”協議的談論。對於外行來說，這有什麼不好的呢？“自由貿易”帶有濃厚的19世紀韻味，讓人聯想起帝國鼎盛時期的英國。更好的是，加拿大人說英語、喜歡英國女王，同時該國現在的總理風度翩翩且活力十足。因此“加拿大風格”的協議讓英國人動心，它將讓我們與歐盟之間麻煩不斷的關係回到更安全的岸邊：盎格魯經濟圈和我們的輝煌昔日。

But such linguistic appeal is dangerously deceptive. Compared to the unfettered trade the UK now has with the EU, the Canada model — a much narrower trading arrangement — would mean erecting new barriers to business. In the words of one well-placed trade analyst this would be “the largest programme of re-regulation and re-protection” of trade since the disastrous introduction of the Smoot-Hawley tariffs in 1930. Far from being a free-trade agreement, it would be a trade restriction agreement — an act of protectionism by the UK.

但這種語言上的吸引力具有危險的欺騙性。相比英國與歐盟現在不受限制的貿易，加拿大模式（範圍狹窄得多的貿易安排）將意味着設置新的商業壁壘。用一位消息靈通的貿易分析人士的話來說，這將是自1930年美國災難性地出臺《斯姆特-霍利關稅法》(Smoot-Hawley Act)以來“最大的貿易再監管和再保護計劃”。它遠非一項自由貿易協定，而是一項貿易限制協議，是英國做出的保護主義舉措。

If they press ahead with the Canada-style deal, the Conservatives would forfeit their claim to be a party of open markets and free trade. Their one-eyed obsession with the Anglosphere would finally bury what little remains of a commitment to liberal economics.

如果他們堅持要達成加拿大風格的協議，英國保守黨人將喪失有關他們支持公開市場和自由貿易的招牌。他們對於盎格魯經濟圈的狹隘執迷，將最終葬送他們對自由主義經濟學僅存的一點點承諾。

To explain why, compare the main features of Ceta with Britain’s current membership of the EU. For a start, Ceta largely focuses on goods, not services. Yet services are the lifeblood of the UK economy, accounting for 80 per cent of gross domestic product and a larger share of our trade than any developed economy. Even if the Brexit deal were to include stronger services provisions, it would be bound to include new restrictions damaging to the significant surplus — ￡17bn in 2014 — which the UK runs in its trade in services with the EU.

要解釋其中的原因，我們可以把Ceta的主要特點與英國目前在歐盟的成員國地位進行比較。首先，Ceta基本上側重商品，而非服務。然而，服務業是英國經濟的命脈，佔國內生產總值(GDP)的80%，在貿易中所佔比例高於其他任何發達經濟體。即便英國退歐協議納入更爲強有力的服務業條款，它也必將包括新的限制，從而損害英國在服務貿易中與歐盟的可觀順差（2014年爲170億英鎊）。

In the trade in goods, Ceta is not as adventurous as it seems. By the time the deal was done, tariffs had already been removed in areas where there is little mutual competition — pearls, precious metals and mineral products are Canada’s largest exports to the EU. By contrast “peak” tariffs on many agricultural products remain, and there are no provisions covering food safety and labelling requirements. There is no agreement on common or mutual recognition of standards — the key impediments to trade — just a vague commitment to greater regulatory co-operation.

在商品貿易領域，Ceta不像看上去那麼具有冒險精神。等到協議達成時，彼此間幾乎沒有競爭的領域的關稅已被免除：珍珠、貴金屬和礦產是加拿大對歐盟的最大出口。相比之下，針對很多農產品的“峯值”關稅仍然存在，而在食品安全和貼標要求方面沒有任何規定。雙方沒有就共同標準或標準的相互承認（這是限制貿易的關鍵要素）達成協議，只是含糊承諾擴大監管合作。

UK trade with the EU is eight times larger than Canada’s. Fewer than 30 Canadian companies dominate trade with the EU, while the UK’s interdependence with the European single market involves thousands of companies, many enmeshed in complex continental supply chains. Britain is part of the warp and weft of Europe’s economic fabric. Canada is 6,000km away.

英國與歐盟的貿易規模是歐盟與加拿大貿易規模的8倍。不到30家加拿大公司主宰着該國與歐盟的貿易，而英國與歐洲單一市場的互相依賴涉及數千家公司，其中很多嵌入複雜的大陸供應鏈。英國是歐洲經濟網絡的一部分。加拿大遠在6000公里以外。

In her Florence speech, Mrs May drew attention to the deficiencies of Ceta. Yet it remains the template for Messrs Davis and Barnier. There is only a limited amount of embellishment the EU will tolerate. “Cherry picking” will not be accepted. A Canada-style agreement might sound seductive, but it would be an act of reckless protectionism that must be resisted at all costs.

英國首相梅在佛羅倫薩發表演講時，曾提醒人們注意到Ceta的不足。然而，該協定仍是戴維斯和巴尼耶的模板。歐盟容許的點綴有限。“挑挑揀揀”不會被接受。加拿大風格的協議可能聽上去吸引人，但它將是一種不計後果的保護主義做法，必須不惜代價予以抵制。