Journal of European Integration History – Revue d'histoire de l'

24Wolfram Kaisertariff calculations from the combination with the low-tariff countries Norway, Sweden,Denmark and Switzerland, which helped significantly to portray EFTA as themore liberal trade bloc. Moreover, Britain's remaining Commonwealth preferencesand the highly protectionist national agricultural policies of most of its EFTA partnerswere just as incompatible with free trade rhetoric as was the EEC's evolvingCAP.TABLE 2: Average Weighted Tariffs on Industrial Products in Per Cent of Import Value(Dates for 1960, 1967 and 1972 Allow for Intra-EFTA and Intra-EEC Reductions)1960 1967 1972 MFN 1.1.1973EFTAAustria 18.0 13.6 8.3 11.2Denmark 5.4 2.9 1.9 3.8Finland 6.9 3.5 2.0 4.4Norway 4.1 1.9 1.2 2.6Sweden 6.6 3.9 2.4 4.2Switzerland 4.5 3.7 2.2 2.8UnitedKingdom14.8 11.4 7.0 9.3EECW. Germany 6.1 4.5 2.6 7.4France 12.6 4.9 1.9 7.4Italy 13.8 5.6 2.2 7.4Benelux 7.4 4.0 2.0 7.4Source: B.S. AAMO, “Die Resultate der EFTA. 20 Jahre Handelszusammenarbeit”, EFTA Bulletin 21/3(1980), pp.9-11 (10).Yet, EFTA's liberal rhetoric exerted considerable pressure on the Six in the early1960s to prove to the United States that it was not building an economic fortressEurope, but instead would behave cooperatively in trade matters, and thus to retainthe prestige the EEC had in American eyes chiefly for its political content. Thecompetition from EFTA was one reason why the EEC decided to combine the earlyintroduction of the common external tariff with its reduction by 20 per cent, a stepthat was greatly facilitated by the positive development of the French economyafter the devaluation and subsequent convertibility of the French franc in December1958. The primary external reason for the 20 per cent cut was without doubtincreasing American pressure on the Europeans in view of their mounting balance-