@DavidHenigUK is right about this @BrexitCentral article (thread).
Adding some of my thoughts with a real example: ractopamine.
Thread: 1/9
Adding some of my thoughts with a real example: ractopamine.
Thread: 1/9
This is about what happens “on Brexit day”. Assumes (1) no UE-UK alignment/recognition; (2) nothing has changed in the UK on that day.
Eventually the UK wants to be free to set its own standards, so there definitely would be checks in the future.
2/9
Eventually the UK wants to be free to set its own standards, so there definitely would be checks in the future.
2/9
These 👇🏾are over-simplification. It’s about burden of proof. Nothing in WTO prevents inspections.
On Brexit day & after, it will be up to the UK to show the EU that it is applying EU standards. The EU would be fully within its rights to demand paperwork and inspections.
3/9
On Brexit day & after, it will be up to the UK to show the EU that it is applying EU standards. The EU would be fully within its rights to demand paperwork and inspections.
3/9
Meeting WTO requirements post-Brexit is not the same as having identical standards, regulations & inspections as the EU pre-Brexit.
Take one example, ractopamine, a feed additive to promote leanness in animals raised for their meat. Banned in the EU
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ractopami…
4/9
Take one example, ractopamine, a feed additive to promote leanness in animals raised for their meat. Banned in the EU
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ractopami…
4/9
Codex Alimentarius, recognised in WTO as an international standard-setting body, has a standard for ractopamine, adopted in 2012, unusually, by vote not consensus.
Countries applying the standard are complying with WTO rules on food safety (in SPS)
fao.org/news/story/en/…
5/9
Countries applying the standard are complying with WTO rules on food safety (in SPS)
fao.org/news/story/en/…
5/9
US etc do apply the Codex standard for ractopamine. They comply with WTO SPS rules.
EU etc don’t. They ban meat produced with the additive, including imports from the US. They say they also comply with WTO rules. There has been no legal challenge. spsims.wto.org/en/SpecificTra…
6/9
EU etc don’t. They ban meat produced with the additive, including imports from the US. They say they also comply with WTO rules. There has been no legal challenge. spsims.wto.org/en/SpecificTra…
6/9
If the UK accepted ractopamine (eg in a deal with the US), the EU would not be under any obligation to import UK meat without inspection and to ban UK meat that used ractopamine.
Both the US and EU positions are WTO-legal (unless there's a legal ruling to the contrary)
7/9
Both the US and EU positions are WTO-legal (unless there's a legal ruling to the contrary)
7/9
That applies to all other standards.
In other words, just because WTO agreements have common criteria for countries to use when adopting standards and encourage recognition and harmonisation, doesn’t mean the standards are the same or inspections are eliminated.
8/9
In other words, just because WTO agreements have common criteria for countries to use when adopting standards and encourage recognition and harmonisation, doesn’t mean the standards are the same or inspections are eliminated.
8/9
This 👇🏾 seriously exaggerates the conditions for inspections. All it needs is a difference of opinion between the UK and EU — both of them compatible with the WTO SPS and TBT Agreements — over what constitutes consumer safety.
9/9
9/9
As someone said: "I am a bit sick of the argument: 'nothing changes‘ combined with the shout‚ 'hooray, everything is now different‘".
(I'll leave to them to identify themselves if they want to.)
(I'll leave to them to identify themselves if they want to.)
Typo: "If the UK accepted ractopamine (eg in a deal with the US), the EU would not be under any obligation to import UK meat without inspection and NOT to ban UK meat that used ractopamine."
