1932 Ottawa Agreement - Clube Nutella
Exclusivo para empresas e transformadores do mercado de Food Service

1932 Ottawa Agreement

The main impact of the Ottawa agreements for Argentina was that 33.2% of British imports were now subject to tariffs, up from 17.3% just before the conference. (There was no object until 1930.) There were also severe reductions in Argentine exports, which allowed the dominions to export more to the United Kingdom. To counter these cuts, the controversial Roca Runciman Pact between London and Buenos Aires was negotiated in 1933. Since the end of the Ottawa Conference, there has been a sharp drop in prices, as was agreed here the other day. As a result, the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently suggested elsewhere that the government was considering reducing quotas; that is, increasing restrictions by reducing quotas for the food we import here in this country. I believe the Minister of Agriculture has also announced elsewhere that the government has been negotiating with representatives of other governments to voluntarily restrict food imported into this country. The purpose of these two things, whether voluntary agreements or quotas, is to reduce the amount of food brought here. I am afraid of informal private negotiations. I would much prefer these cuts to be made through Parliament. I think there is a risk to that, but I understand that these are only temporary proposals. What issues were discussed at the Ottawa conference? These are: the United Kingdom Government has proposed to examine certain methods of increasing imperial trade, namely quotas, import committees, direct trade in goods, the promotion of 1146 agreements between industries, important mechanisms for Commonwealth consultation on economic issues.

This was the rebuke that the Labour government, if it had remained in power, would have conveyed to the Ottawa conference. The other day, the Prime Minister said that we know very well that we have to start where we left off in Ottawa, and he concluded that this means that we should start discussing the issue of tariffs. That had been ruled out, as I said to your Lordships, and those were the issues that were to be raised at the adjourned conference in Ottawa. The Prime Minister had no reason to say that the Labour government had given the Dominion delegations any face or encouragement that at the Ottawa Conference we would make a change to the position we had definitively expressed about hostility to food tariffs. The Prime Minister said it was in our minds. If that were the case, if he knew that the British government would have to accept tariffs at the postponed conference if it was to be successful, why did he not say so in the election, instead of telling the country, and in particular the Seaham voters to whom he was addressing, that he would not participate in the proposals or plans, which included an increase in the cost of community food. People? I apologize to your Lordships for dealing with this matter in such detail, but I think it was necessary to do so because the issue was raised by the noble Viscount. I also felt that a response to the Prime Minister`s statement was necessary. Let me invite your Lordships for a few moments to briefly address one or two considerations regarding each of these arguments. Let`s take the first argument – the argument that negotiating is bad and harmful to imperial solidarity. I guess that means something to those who use this argument, but I confess that everything is completely wild and swirling because you are starting from the agreed objective of trying to reach an agreement that would increase the volume of interim trade. There is no dispute about that.

It is an agreed goal. And to achieve that goal, convene the conference in Ottawa. Again, there is no dispute about the Ottawa conference. I did not understand that one of the purists – one of Mr Cobden`s constituents and the faithful of the sanctuary of economic and constitutional decency – whom I could call `united idolaters` in Mr Kipling`s 861 words opposes it. I do not think they objected to us going to Ottawa; and in fact they could not, because it was not the national government that accepted the invitation to go to Ottawa, it was the Labour government. If there were any objections to us going to Ottawa, the time was, in the case of Sir Herbert Samuel and Sir Archibald Sinclair, before the delegation left those shores. But they were very careful to explain, almost in one-syllable words, that the reason they didn`t resign at the time was because they thought ottawa might lead nowhere, and they would have resigned for no good reason, and the bad guys would have laughed at them. If so, given the objective of reaching an agreement on the promotion of intra-imperial trade and the opportunity of the Ottawa Conference, I ask anyone with common sense how this objective should be achieved and how this opportunity should be seized, except through the negotiation process.

Sometimes there are two ways to refine copper; which is called fire-refined copper and so-called electrolytic copper. In the case of fire-refined copper, there are no difficulties, but in the case of electrolytic copper, there is currently no refinery in the British Empire sufficient to meet the demand for electrolytic copper, and therefore Rhodesian copper must go very widely to the United States to be refined if it wants to go through the electrolytic process. Subsection (5) provides that copper produced in the British Empire and refined outside the British Empire will continue to be treated as British copper for the next three years; that is, it will still be duty-free for the next three years, providing an opportunity to create a refining industry commensurate with the requirements of the Empire within the borders of the British Empire. In Canada, there is already a large 1129 electrolyte plant, and it is hoped that under the appeal of this clause, it will be possible to fully meet the demand for electrolytic copper by refined copper after three years in the country. The Ministry of Finance and the Chamber of Commerce have the power to extend this period under certain conditions; And it is satisfactory to be able to inform your Lordships that in recent days, copper consumers and copper producers have reached an agreement on the supply and production of copper that will satisfy both parties, one that copper will be available, the other that it will be delivered at world market prices and that the conditions of the agreements will be fulfilled free of charge. copper users in that country. My Lords, I have listened with extraordinary interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Marley. His main objection to the Ottawa agreements appears to be that the Russian agreement has been terminated, and he goes on to say that these Ottawa agreements are also responsible for the riots in the streets. I am not sure he is not right. Is it to be understood that the Communists are forced into these riots by the termination of the Russian agreement? Is that what he means? My noble friend Lord Elibank pointed out to him that the Russian 848 agreements were financed from export credits.

The noble gentleman would not give an answer to this, but the fact is that all goods sold from this country to Russia are currently paid almost entirely from these export credits. I do not believe that the noble Lord can elevate us to very great opposition or hostility to the Ottawa Accords because of the termination of the Russian trade agreement. Lobell, Steven E. “Second Image Reversed Politics: Britain`s Choice of Freer Trade or Imperial Preferences, 1903-1906, 1917-1923, 1930-1932.” International Studies Quarterly 43 (1999): 671-694. I would like to see, with the permission of your Lordships, some facts about these quotas. Firstly, we agreed the other day that there had been an unprecedented drop in all meat prices – beef, bacon and mutton prices – and that it was desirable to help British agriculture try to raise prices. Everyone agreed on that. I will not dwell on whether in 1160 we should aim to go back to the figures of 1929 or a given year. There is general agreement on this point. Another point raised by the Minister of Agriculture is that we need to maintain price parity; whereas there is parity between the prices of beef, bacon and mutton; and that there is parity between the prices of domestic meat and that of imported meat. That is, you cannot increase the price of meat produced in Britain in this country if you do not also increase the price of imported meat; So if we want to aim to increase the price of locally grown meat by several million pounds, as will be the case, then the total cost of imported meat must also be increased by several million. I would be prepared if it were necessary to propose a figure of £10,000,000 or more; But I would prefer to dwell solely on the principle, which is that if we pursue a policy of increasing the prices of locally grown meat, we must at the same time and necessarily also increase the total price of imported meat by x million pounds.