If you read Richard's excellent blog more often, you would know, as he is always telling us, that the European Parliament has absolutely no say in this. Democracy simply doesn't come into it.

It's an administrative decision, over which voters have no leverage at all.

Out now!

Now you've reminded me, I realise that I did know that but had forgotten it.

I still reckon this is one where the electorates could have an influence. The Commission's ultimate goal is unification, and this — if it were to get enough publicity — is nasty enough to make people vote "No". The same people who support the EU tend to take a dim view of fucking the Third World, and the Commission needs their support.

If I were a newspaper editor, this would have been on the front page. It's got human interest, government corruption, cruelty, death and taxes, and it reminds the readers that they're the good guys. Even for a purely cynical editor who doesn't give a fuck about the Thais, this is still solid gold. Why isn't it bigger news?

1) Outside of a few high-profile resorts full of Westerners, the tsunami has left Thailand largely unscathed. Since the media don't give a monkey's about non-Westerners, it's understandable that that isn't more widely known.

2) The free-market-loving Yanks impose a 97% tariff on Thai fish, compared to the 12% EU tariff that is being abolished in exchange for the Airbus sales.

3) A 12% tariff is 12% higher than would be good, but isn't going to do a great deal of harm to the Thai fishing industry if production costs are really 1/2 of European costs.

Non-story.

The tariffs didn't concern me as much as the cost of the planes.

I never said I supported the American tax.

And you're bizarrely assuming that front-page newspaper stories have to be backed up by logic and economics. You really think that readers wouldn't be interested when faced with the news that the EU are effectively demanding all the money back that they gave in aid?

I'm confused. If the EU just gave them six free A380s and no aid, wouldn't that amount to the same thing ? I don't understand what you are proposing, that we give away the A380s as well as the aid money or we don't trade at all ? At the end of the day the charitable donations have resulted in free aircraft for the national airline.

> If the EU just gave them six free A380s and no aid, wouldn't that amount to the same thing ?

No, that would be far better, since the cost of the planes is far, far higher than the amount of aid.


> At the end of the day the charitable donations have resulted in free aircraft for the national airline.

The charitable donations don't even begin to cover the cost of the planes, so no they haven't. Even if they had, your average EU citizen, having been told by their governments that aid was being given to help people whose lives have been devastated, would be pissed off to discover it was actually being spent on luxury aircraft at the EU's insistence. And, finally, you've misjudged the character of the deal. If the Thais were trying to buy six A380s in the first place, you'd have a point. But they weren't. It's the EU who are trying to dictate to them what they must spend their money on.

A quick google shows Thai Airways is not only a long standing customer of Airbus, but was interested in buying, or even had pre-ordered, the A380s before the tsunami happened.

Yes, and?

Before the Tsunami happened, they had ordered six A380s in response to the EU's blackmail. The EU were intending to announce the deal done in January. What seems to have happened since the Tsunami is that the Thais have realised that, if they can get the word out, European public opinion will be on their side, so they have now revealed that the order was a result of EU demands, not Thai needs. What hasn't happened since the Tsunami is that the EU haven't lifted all trade tariffs against all affected countries, even if only temporarily, which would have been the humane and reasonable thing to do. They did add a new, extremely punitive tariff on December the 31st, though.

Meanwhile, a quick Google search shows that the US tariff turns out to have been imposed in response to the Thais' breaking of US trade laws. (According to that article, the US tariff is 6.03%, not 97%. That's an insane discrepancy in reporting. I wonder which figure is more accurate.)

The Airwise article you link to above says that Thai Airways wanted to by Airbuses anyway, but that the government realised that delaying the deal would be a good way of getting the tariff lifted: "[PM] Thaksin ordered Thai Airways last month to delay finalizing its Airbus order until the EU lifted restrictions on some Thai food products"

& the US "dumping" laws are made-up nonsense, not legitimate rules. Although I'm also rather surprised by the reporting discrepancy...

Ach, I don't know why I'm even arguing about this. You and I are reading it differently, but all these talks take place behind very closed doors and all that gets out to the press is what one party or the other wants to get out, so let's face it: neither of us has a clue what really went on in the negotiations. The two most likely scenarios, I reckon, are: (a) the EU initially demanded that the Thais buy the planes in exchange for various tax concessions, including this one; and (b) the Thais were going to buy them anyway but realised that the worldwide sympathy after the Tsunami was the perfect opportunity to try and get some tax concessions. Thing is, I'm on the Thais' side either way. I support any action to remove any protectionist tariffs of the EU or anyone else. Buying planes is fair enough. Taxing the Third World to keep them in poverty is disgusting behaviour that I sincerely hope is soon to die out.

I don't know much about the US's anti-dumping laws, but I believe they can be and sometimes are used against American companies.