RESTRICTED
OFFERS FROM AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AFRICA AND NEW ZEALAND
5. The Community's line is that these three countries should apply the Swiss harmonising formula even if they have to do so in a weak "Canadian" way. Australia however has already made it abundantly clear, and South Africa and New Zealand are likely to soon, that they have no intention of doing any such thing. Australia indeed has already said that she would like requests from other countries participating in the negotiations (which she would take into account in formulating an offer of her own which we would expect to consist of no more than a number of tariff bindings together.with perhaps a few reductions in tariffs on certain products, especially those not produced in Australia). We have given the Commission our ideas.
THE AGRICULTURAL OFFERS OF OTHER COUNTRIES
6.
The US and Japanese offers covered agricultural products as well as industrial and there has been some consideration (but not much) of this apsect of their offers within the Community. We would expect that there would be some reference to this subject (but again not much) in the papers submitted to the Foreign Affairs Council on 4 April relating to the US and Japanese offers as a whole.
THE COMMUNITY INDUSTRIAL OFFER: WITHDRAWALS
7. The Commission will be circulating to member states in the course of this week for a first discussion in the Article 113 Committee (Full Members) on 10 March their own proposals. No doubt these proposals will take some account, but perhaps not as much as we would wish, of our own tentative list of exceptions and also of the suggestions made to the Commission by other member states. These will be sent to sponsoring divisions as soon as they are received and plainly a high priority will attach to an evaluation of these proposals.
8.
Over the last two or three weeks there has been a good deal of contact with the French over the question of withdrawals. The French have two lists, a priority list and a conditionallist, the latter being conditional not just on the treatment given by the US and Japan to particular products but also on the general position reached in the negotiations as a whole (the thinking being that if, for example, a satisfactory safeguard system is not available a wider range of products might be excepted than if it is). In the main the products on the French priority list are the same as those on ours and the similarity becomes the greater when we find that some of the products on theirs and not on ours are regarded by them as being of lesser importance than those that we both have on our lists. The chief differences, with in some cases comments too,
follow.
2.
D
C.
The French have microphones and loudspeakers (85.14) on their list while we do not.
The French include electronic glass envelopes (Ex70.11 and 70.21) while we do not.
The French have on their list all dolls and toys (97.02 and 97.03) while we do not. They have undertaken to consider whether they really need to include all toys since they recognise that this includes many products in which they have a buoyant export trade.
-2-