Awaiting EU deal implementation

This text has two main arguments and one “parti pris” which is that the unilateral implementation of the Interim Trade Agreement would be benefic to Serbia. Let’s examine the two:
1) The agricultural side, Taxes of 21.2 percent today protects the domestic agriculture from EU in six years' time this protection will be dropped to 3.2 percent. Domestic agriculture today is one of the main assets of Serbia since national industrial production is hardly non-existent and with ongoing privatization of state owned assets will not be national anymore as it already is the case with US-Steal. Domestic agriculture provides most of the alimentary needs of Serbian population. Furthermore, cheaper imports contribute to misbalance an already misbalanced trade balance and it is not sure at all that a more favorable tax regime would be benefic to Serbian consumers. If this would not be the case because distributors prefer to beef up their marges: “when asked what the state intends to do if retailers refuse to drop the prices and use lower customs to increase their own profits, Milosavljević repeated that the state does not interfere in the forming of the prices and that it is up to competition to regulate this area.”
So is it really in the interest of Serbian citizens that agricultural taxes would be dropped? I think that it is not!

2) We’re told the the loss of income would be counter balanced by the fact that the prices of raw materials would go down and that this favorable condition could create lots of jobs.
Sorry, but let’s have a look on the situation: If for your production you need copper, you by this copper at the enterprise X. Does enterprise X, because of the unilateral implementation of the Interim Trade Agreement sell it’s copper for less money? The response is: NO. The only difference is that Serbian State earns less customs money which makes the price of this copper cheaper. So, if the fact that lowering taxes on raw materials could create so much new jobs why don’t Serbian state only implements this part without the agricultural part of the deal?

On the other side we’re told that the loss of custom money would be counterbalanced by higher excises on petrol products (heating, cars…), cigarettes, beer, …
So once again, the Serbian consumer is the looser in this game of big money and with lowering the agricultural protections risks to end up as a slave of European welfare! But with the US due economic crisis there is less and less money left for welfare…
So, your opinion? Should Serbia unilaterally implement this Interim Trade Agreement?
Perhaps B92 could do a poll on this if ever they dare…

This text has two main arguments and one “parti pris” which is that the unilateral implementation of the Interim Trade Agreement would be benefic to Serbia. Let’s examine the two:
1) The agricultural side, Taxes of 21.2 percent today protects the domestic agriculture from EU in six years' time this protection will be dropped to 3.2 percent. Domestic agriculture today is one of the main assets of Serbia since national industrial production is hardly non-existent and with ongoing privatization of state owned assets will not be national anymore as it already is the case with US-Steal. Domestic agriculture provides most of the alimentary needs of Serbian population. Furthermore, cheaper imports contribute to misbalance an already misbalanced trade balance and it is not sure at all that a more favorable tax regime would be benefic to Serbian consumers. If this would not be the case because distributors prefer to beef up their marges: “when asked what the state intends to do if retailers refuse to drop the prices and use lower customs to increase their own profits, Milosavljević repeated that the state does not interfere in the forming of the prices and that it is up to competition to regulate this area.”
So is it really in the interest of Serbian citizens that agricultural taxes would be dropped? I think that it is not!

2) We’re told the the loss of income would be counter balanced by the fact that the prices of raw materials would go down and that this favorable condition could create lots of jobs.
Sorry, but let’s have a look on the situation: If for your production you need copper, you by this copper at the enterprise X. Does enterprise X, because of the unilateral implementation of the Interim Trade Agreement sell it’s copper for less money? The response is: NO. The only difference is that Serbian State earns less customs money which makes the price of this copper cheaper. So, if the fact that lowering taxes on raw materials could create so much new jobs why don’t Serbian state only implements this part without the agricultural part of the deal?

On the other side we’re told that the loss of custom money would be counterbalanced by higher excises on petrol products (heating, cars…), cigarettes, beer, …
So once again, the Serbian consumer is the looser in this game of big money and with lowering the agricultural protections risks to end up as a slave of European welfare! But with the US due economic crisis there is less and less money left for welfare…
So, your opinion? Should Serbia unilaterally implement this Interim Trade Agreement?
Perhaps B92 could do a poll on this if ever they dare…