I do not have the time for a full analysis - but allow me to point out some obvious shortcomings. As one of the authors can and does claim particular WTO expertise, I will not be as forgiving as I am with people who have no prior experience. (Thread)
The document claims to give us 30 truths about leaving on WTO terms. Allow me to link it again here for your convenience: globalbritain.co.uk/wp-content/upl…
Let’s start easy: the introduction suggests that the backstop can be replaced by a full FTA. Easy. Tusk is willing to do it. This is wrong. 1) we cannot negotiate a full future relationship in 3 months 2) remember the sequencing we agreed to?
The intro then goes on that we should do a free trade agreement with the EU which will be easy, because we this is how we trade at the moment. 
If you think negotiating an FTA will be easy, you must have spent the last 2 years in a galaxy far, far away. Yes. We are aligned with the EU. Noone cares. An FTA is about binding ourselves to being aligned. Do we want to? Environment? Labour? State aid? Easy? Dream on!
And then, they propose WTO+++. What does the + stand for? Nothing. They just think the WTO is cool. So this is solely and only spin. The WTO is the WTO is the WTO. There is no WTO+++. And no WTO+++++++++++++. Also no WTO square.
Let me then jump over the sunny uplands of not paying anything and the “we simply agree not to have a border” bit. I want to focus on WTO stuff.
Which brings us here:
Canada+++ without a Withdrawal Agreement is fiction. Nobody put it on the table. If you say “we think we don’t owe anything, by the way, now we want an agreement with you that we want to be like this” - yeah. Not likely.
So “we can continue to trade” on zero tariffs. Which is “permitted by Article 24 of the WTO treaty”. The Agreement referred to as the WTO Agreement only has 16 articles. You mean Art. XXIV GATT. And yes. Referred to in Roman numerals. This does not inspire confidence.
Art. XXIV:5 (c) of the GATT refers to interim agreements. After you have told the EU that it can go wistle on all it wants - how likely is an interim agreement to form an FTA?
Want to know more about the now legendary Art. XXIV:5 (c) GATT? @Lorand_Bartels has written an article about it. tradebetablog.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/bartel…
@Lorand_Bartels The authors then move on to the WTO. Which, we comfortingly learn, is a “safe haven”. Beautiful. And we learn that six out of the top 10 EU trading partners trade under WTO terms with the EU.
@Lorand_Bartels That is comforting. I have consistantly said that trade under WTO terms is possible. I continue to say that. But WTO terms are far less favourable than EU terms. Our problem is not that trade will stop. It is that trade will be more difficult.
@Lorand_Bartels So what are the great WTO terms? Three items are highlighted. Let’s take them one by one, shall we?
@Lorand_Bartels Non-discrimination is indeed a basic principle of the WTO. And the EU could, indeed, not impose punitive tariffs. The problem is: nobody ever suggested they will, that’s not the problem. The problem is that the EU would have to impose the tariffs it imposes on e.g. China.
@Lorand_Bartels How devastating is this? According to the ERG the EU is a protectionist racket. So according to them it would be terribly devastating. The truth is: the EU is rather a normal developed country when it comes to tariffs. Tariffs are not that high. Difficult in some areas, though.
@Lorand_Bartels The next claim? MFN treatment. That sounds terribly positive. It is part of non-discrimination. I have written an explainer on that here: uktradeforum.net/2017/11/30/wha…
@Lorand_Bartels Which bring us to dispute resolution. And that is true, the WTO is well-known for its dispute resolution mechanism. It is weaker than the ECJ and individuals don’t have access, but it is a good system. I explain it here
@Lorand_Bartels There is a slight problem though: the US is blocking appointments to the Appellate Body, the essential permanent standing expert body. As it currently looks, it will die. Interested in my take on that? politico.eu/article/wto-ga…
@Lorand_Bartels I did not write the article, @HankeVela did, but you’ll find my thoughts in there. So the future of WTO dispute settlement is a bit uncertain, shall we say. Which brings us to the paper’s next point.
@Lorand_Bartels @HankeVela We learn that Trump’s disregard for the WTO is more likely to be aimed at the EU than at the UK. Three points: a) first of all the disregard is aimed at the WTO. The Appellate Body dying is a WTO thing. Not good. b) In a rational world, the authors nevertheless have a point...
... namely that taking everything Trump said he regards Brexit Britain as an ally, so rationally the EU is more likely to be the target of non-WTO compliant trade measures. Sadly there’s a c) the Trump measures have not been structured that way.
The main target has supposedly always been China, but among the first targets was Canada, despite being an ally, despite having an FTA with the US.
So on to the next point, the last I’ll tackle because I have to do some other writing on free trade. This point is a statistical one.
UK exports to countries we trade with on WTO terms have grown 3 times faster than our exports to the Single Market. And indeed, growth in the last decades has been outside the EU (including the UK). In particular China has grown. India somewhat less, but might take over.
But before you rejoice, two issues: a) Would you rather have a salary that grows 3% each year or one that grows 3 times faster, so 9% each year? If you answer this question without asking “so how much will I make?” you fall into a trap. Growth alone is irrelevant.
And b) What does that really have to do with trade with the EU? Do you think the UK will become a car manufacturing hub for China the way it is for Europe? The car industry is largely organized regionally and just to remind you: we are not that close to China....
... And even if we can grow in China, why should we give up what we have in Europe?
And finally: the claim that Single Market membership is of little benefit because countries similar to the UK outside of the EU have increased their exports to the Single Market faster than the UK has.
One teeny-tiny question: which country outside of the EU is the one that is similar? The study referred to does not quite say. The reality is: some countries outside the EU have been developing very quickly. The fact that they have increased their exports is due to that.
That is not evidence that the Single Market does not work. If you think that the UK will have growth rates like China in the last decade you seem to miss an essential point: The UK is a developed country and has been for a long time. China is catching up.
And yes - I only got to point 6 so far. That does not mean that I agree with the rest. Some claims are misleading, some are wrong. Others are correct. But I have to work now...
