Project Fear is all over the press again, so let’s think about
- Brexit preparation
- an ongoing civil war
- why propaganda harms Britain tremendously
Let’s start with this IDS column. He writes about the WTO. Hey. I teach WTO law.
(Thread)
- Brexit preparation
- an ongoing civil war
- why propaganda harms Britain tremendously
Let’s start with this IDS column. He writes about the WTO. Hey. I teach WTO law.
(Thread)
What IDS writes shows WTO law ain’t his thing. Let’s start with the basics. He writes that after Brexit the UK would become a full voting member. Great. The WTO doesn’t really do voting though. As a rule, it decides by consensus. Art. IX:1 WTO Agreement. Votes: extreme exception
He writes it’s nonsense that the EU forces the UK to put up borders. The WTO is about reducing trade barriers. Engineering deliberate delays is outlawed. OK. Let’s take this one.
It’s true: the WTO tries to reduce trade barriers. Delay for delay sake: that is a problem under WTO law. But IDS rightly writes that the WTO forbids discrimination. What’s the consequence of that?
Currently the EU treats the UK better than, say, China. That’s justified because there’s an FTA. Art. XXIV GATT (also GATS, I’ll spare you the details). After no-deal Brexit, it is legally prohibited from doing that. Figure out the consequences for yourself.
But criticizing politicians on getting WTO law wrong is not the most helpful activity. WHY am I so bothered by this? Because we are back to talking about project fear again.
The legal consequences of no-deal Brexit are not difficult to figure out. You look at the current law. How are third state actors treated? Yeah, that’s it. No rocket science. The EU has written preparedness notices based on that.
This is a description of what the law actually IS. That’s not speculative. You can speculate whether we’ll land there. But the current law for third state actors is what it is.
Pointing this out will brand you a proponent of “project fear”. Clearly an enemy of Brexit. Of the UK. Of the world. Sorry my friends. It is not. I cannot tell you whether we’ll land there, I can tell you that if nothing happens, we will. And these are the consequences.
Ignoring this is not “pro-UK” it is dangerous, foolish, neglect of duty. Need an example: Here’s Chris Grayling Secretary of Transport, deciding to just close his eyes
Read this thread! How is it remotely possible that the Secretary of Transport decides not to read the relevant documents? His cover: project fear. Why should he? It’s all project fear anyway, isn’t it?
This is not about pro or against Brexit. Wanting to leave the EU does not mean you need to pretend there won’t be problems. Identify the problem, work on solving it.
Pretending that the EU did not do anything, which we will lose without any issue means you think for 40 years UK governments were incompetent, too. As were UK civil servants.
Am I saying all trade stops, all hell will break loose? No I am not. Am I saying we will land at no deal? No I am not. Am I predicting disaster and the end of the world? Well, eventually the world will end, that’s just science. But not because of Brexit, I assure you...
Am I attacking Brexit? No I am not. Am I saying the UK shouldn’t decide in favour of Brexit? No I am not. Am I saying you can’t trade on WTO terms? No I am not. So what the hell am I saying?
I am saying that there will be problems, they need to be identified and either solved or taken account of in companies’ planning. Nothing more or less.
Oh and that “growth is outside the EU” thing? Yes, that’s true. Growth is outside Europe (and outside the UK),because that’s where development is.But if you choose to abandon your 6-figure salary for a salary with 10% growth, you’re an idiot if you don’t inquire about the amount.
