Most of the world trades with the EU on WTO terms.
Correct. Of 135 non-EU members of the World Trade Organisation, 58 currently trade with the EU under negotiated trade terms. The rest (77) trade under WTO terms.
Israel, Singapore, India, Hong Kong and the U.S. trade with the EU under WTO terms.
Incorrect. Israel has a trade agreement with the EU. Also, while Singapore currently trades with the EU under WTO terms, it has reached a trade agreement with the EU that now needs approval by the European Parliament and Council.
Claim 1 of 2
“Most of the world trades with the EU on WTO terms. Do Israel, Singapore, India, Hong Kong and the U.S. really look like they are suffering as a result?”
James Delingpole, 3 January 2019
It’s correct that most World Trade Organisation (WTO) member countries trade with the EU on WTO terms. “WTO terms” means a non-EU country doesn’t have a trade agreement with the EU, so trades under ‘default’ rules laid down by the WTO.
But it’s not correct to say that Israel is in this group. Israel has a free trade agreement with the EU. Also, Singapore has negotiated an agreement which now has to be agreed by the European Council and European Parliament.
In addition Syria’s trade agreement with the EU is suspended, and trade agreements with Japan and Singapore are ratified or close to being ratified but have not yet taken effect. The EU is also negotiating free trade agreements with various other countries.
The EU also has “preferential trade agreements” with various developing countries. This is where one country or body like the EU grants preferential tariffs on imports from developing countries. As these arrangements are unilateral (they’re one way and so don’t require a two-way trade deal), we’ve not included these countries in our calculations.
Comparing the trade arrangements of the UK and other countries doesn’t tell us much
There's a more fundamental problem with comparing how the UK could trade with the EU post-Brexit with how other countries currently trade with the EU.
That’s because the EU is not a local market for the countries mentioned in the claim.
A more appropriate comparison would be to look at what trading arrangements different countries have with their neighbours.
For example, while the USA doesn’t have a trade agreement with the EU, it does have trade arrangements with nearby Canada and Central America.
Similarly Singapore has a trade arrangement with most of its Asian neighbours as well as countries in the Americas and the Middle East.
So while you could argue that these countries are not “suffering” despite trading with the EU under WTO terms, these countries also avoid WTO terms when trading with many other countries.
Update 9 January 2019
We contacted Breitbart, who have since removed the reference to Israel.
Correction 10 January 2019
Originally we said Kenya did not have a free trade agreement with the EU. The EU subsequently told us that while the Kenya-EU agreement has not come into force formally, it has started to be provisionally applied. Therefore we have adjusted our figures to reflect the fact that Kenya trades with the EU under a trade agreement, and not just WTO terms.
The integrity of our elections is in danger, and we need your help
You’re probably here looking for facts. Thank you for that trust. But with the EU parliament elections on the way and more elections a possibility, we need to act now to make sure our elections are protected, before it’s too late.
Could you help protect our elections by becoming a Full Fact donor?
Misinformation isn’t new, but advancements in technology mean it can spread at an unprecedented scale. Our dangerously outdated election laws have not kept up with the digital age, putting our next elections at risk of abuse.
Currently, it’s possible for a candidate to run a thousand different political ads to win the same seat, promising something different to each group it targets. At the same time, there’s no law requiring those who publish online campaigns to disclose who they are or how they are funded. The opportunity for bad actors to manipulate election results is left wide open.
You may already know about our work to make public debate online more honest and transparent. Every day, we call out the most harmful misinformation on social media platforms when and where we see it. But right now, we’re urging the government to overhaul our election laws to make sure political campaigning is held to the same level of scrutiny online as it is offline.
This work all depends on the generosity of hundreds of people who all believe that for democracy to work, we need transparency. Our monthly donors help strengthen our voice, and show our politicians that this really matters. Would you consider joining them?
Become a donor today to make sure our elections are protected.