Thread by @CoppetainPU

I rebutted @DCBMEP's original thread. He deleted most of it and retweeted it here👇🏽

So here's my original rebuttal thread on why he's wrong, slightly elaborated

1/8

https://twitter.com/DCBMEP/status/1096441943922561024

Dear @DCBMEP

I fear you still don't understand GATT Art.24.

It's not "a simple basic Free Trade Agreement". It applies to all free trade agreements in goods, whether simple and basic, or complex and sophisticated

https://twitter.com/CoppetainPU/status/1096433198488260609

2/8

In your tweets 4&5, you refer to @Lorand_Bartels' 1-page FTA.

Yes, even that would have to comply with GATT Art.24. So would CETA+++++.

So does the single market.

3/8

Note that @Lorand_Bartels' single page is not an interim agreement but a permanent one, so no 10-year period. It also excludes a lot

He also said this👇🏽

https://twitter.com/Lorand_Bartels/status/1091278270644006912

4/8

And note that whether interim or permanent, 1 page or 1000 pages, the EU would have to agree. Would it agree without a backstop on the Irish border?

5/8

Note that the EU has already agreed with the UK one GATT Art.24 deal.

It's the Withdrawal Agreement.

So there's nothing special about invoking GATT Art.24. What matters is what kind of FTA the UK agrees with the EU, not whether Art.24 is invoked (it must be anyway)

6/8

Free trade agreements don't "trigger" GATT Art.24.

They have to comply with Art.24.

The UK triggered Art.24 when it signed GATT in 1947

7/8

You complain about "anonymous experts" even though some are mentioned in the linked Commons Library briefing note. If you want to know who more of them are, they are cited in this:

tradebetablog.wordpress.com/2018/12/27/myt… …

8/8

P.S.