,
21 tweets,
7 min read
Read on Twitter
At the request of @JP_Biz one more (and yes, last - the debate has to move on) time: Does WTO law allow us to go without tariffs in the UK/EU relationship for 10 years to give us time to negotiate a free trade agreement? (Thread based on the legal text)
@JP_Biz Let’s start off with the premise. The premise is that under WTO law you have to treat the goods of all Members of the WTO alike. That’s called the MFN obligation. It’s Art. I of the GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which is the WTO Agreement covering goods.
What does that mean? That means that post Brexit in principle the UK has to treat EU goods like those from China. And the EU has to treat UK goods like those from China. Which includes imposing the same tariffs. I explain that basic obligation here uktradeforum.net/2017/11/30/wha…
However, there are exceptions to this obligation. The one we discuss here is the one that allows WTO Members under certain conditions to conclude Free Trade Agreements. That’s Art. XXIV. (Yes, the GATT is numbered in Roman numerals. Probably so that we can identify nerds quickly)
You have an FTA under XXIV, you can treat your FTA partner better than other WTO Members. Take the EU and Norway - the EU doesn’t impose tariffs on cars, even though it has tariffs for other WTO Members. That’s OK because they have an FTA, namely the EEA. We love acronyms.
Now Art. XXIV has a curious provision: Art. XXIV:5 states that the GATT shall not prevent the formation of a customs union, a free-trade area OR THE ADOPTION OF AN INTERIM AGREEMENT NECESSARY FOR THE FORMATION OF A CUSTOMS UNION OR OF A FREE-TRADE AREA.
If you love convoluted sentences, here’s the wording of Art. XXIV:5 of the GATT. 
It is this provision, the “interim agreement” that the 10-year myth relies on. But why 10 years you ask?
Well, Art. XXIV GATT is complemented by an “Understanding on the Interpretation of Art. XXIV”. It has something to add to Art. XXIV:5 (c) which states that the CU/FTA should be formed within a reasonable time (we’ll get to the precise wording). The Understanding adds this:
If you’ve read the wording of the GATT and have not been previously scarred for life by studying/teaching/working on the GATT: Kudos. You might think none of us speak proper English and you might be right. Two anecdotes for you to relax before we disprove the claim.
Anecdote 1: the most famous book on the GATT ever written starts with a quote by Senator Milliken: “Anyone who reads GATT is likely to have his sanity impaired”. You’ll find a book review here jstor.org/stable/1121282…
Anecdote 2: I edited the 1st ed of the GATT volume of a WTO Commentaries series. We contracted a native speaker to correct the authors. The native speaker didn’t stop there: She corrected the legal texts as well. Her comment? “That’s not really English”. brill.com/view/title/122…
Recovered? Back to the legal texts. To fall under the exception of Art. XXIV GATT and hence be liberated from the obligation under Art. I GATT to treat all other WTO Members alike, you obviously have to fulfil the requirements of Art. XXIV.
And, sticking to the language of the provision,Art. XXIV:5 requires “the adoption of an interim agreement...”, plus (Art. XXIV:5 (c)) the Members need to include a plan and schedule for the formation of such a customs union / free trade-area within a reasonble length of time.
All of this means that the parties need to agree, they need a rather concrete idea of where they are going and how to get there.
In practice, indeed, a Free Trade Agreement was long considered an agreement fully in force, whereas an agreement that was slowly implemented was still an interim agreement. @Lorand_Bartels wrote this:
@Lorand_Bartels Of course, if you want to read the full text - here it is: tradebetablog.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/bartel…
@Lorand_Bartels You will see that the notification of interim agreements - even of implementation plans under full FTAs and even though there now is a transparency mechanism (linked) are rare. Why? ptadb.wto.org/docs/pta_trans…
@Lorand_Bartels Because Art. XXIV:7 (b) of the GATT gives other Members some powers to intrude if they find the schedule / plan leaving to an FTA bad.
@Lorand_Bartels You see the problem. 1) Would the EU and the UK agree after being unable to reach an agreement? 2) What’s the plan and schedule, where do we want to got, do we know, can we agree? 3) well, we don’t get to 3, which would be XXIV:7.
@Lorand_Bartels If you arrived here, you probably also have your sanity impaired. So, let me say: WELCOME!
