5 -
this is the first time that a European country has used the L.T.A.
to restrict knitted cotton items and because of the pressure from
the U.K. industry for restriction, II.M.G. are bound to be greatly
embarrassed by the Swedish action: in one case there has been
virtually no change in the production-import position in recent
years and in the other case the U.K. and Denmark between them have
increased their trade by as much as Hong Kong.
7.
There is one final point. Industries 1 consider that it is unrealistic to talk about a "cotton/polyester shirt industry". The
Swedes are the first country to have used the L.T.A. only to
protect the garment industry they have virtually no controls on
yarn and cloth
and from this point of view it does not make sense
to look at the problem of injury without looking at total production
of shirts. Aggrogation the "one-market concept"
G
Swedes in some cases but not in others.
would help the
8.
In pressing for strong opposition to the Swedish case,
Industries 1 Division have in mind
(a) the need for a positive policy on imports of non-
cotton textiles. They believe that the right course is
for countries in the position of Sweden, Canada and the
United States to invoke Article XIX case by case on a non-
discriminatory basis. Benchmarks would be established and
other countries, including the U.K., could then decide
whether to follow suit. The restrictions could then be
applied to E.F.T.A. countries too (which would be of
benefit to the U.K. industry);
/(b)