Thread by @CoppetainPU

Perhaps it’s time for programmes like @bbcr4today (and @bbcpm) to do a short item on GATT Art.24 (and GATS Art.5, too).

It keeps being wrongly cited as here👇🏾, or by Richard Tice/Nigel Farage/the Brexit Party, or in the “Malthouse compromise”

https://twitter.com/BBCr4today/status/1128565485270896640

1/7

This would get rid—once and for all—of the idea that GATT Art24 is a solution to “no deal”. No! It requires a deal.

It would also stop the senseless practice of citing a technicality no one will check in order to *appear* scholarly & authoritative.

2/7

tradebetablog.wordpress.com/2019/04/06/war…

This 👇🏾 is totally wrong.

GATT Art 24 means there’s a deal.

A deal the EU and UK both agree on.

There already is one (sort of). It’s called the Withdrawal Agreement.

3/7

tradebetablog.wordpress.com/2019/04/06/war…

To repeat: there has to be a deal

The Withdrawal Agreement and Backstop come under GATT Art24 too, as does the EU Single Market.

4/7

tradebetablog.wordpress.com/2019/04/06/war…

GATT Art24 is the rule that governs free trade agreements. Just as traffic regulations govern driving.

We don’t say “I’m invoking Highway Code Rule 160”. We don’t say “I’m going to drive on the left”. We say “I’m driving to the shopping centre”.

5/7

gov.uk/guidance/the-h…

Similarly, just because GATT Art24 governs free trade agreements, we don’t need to cite it. We understand WTO members have to comply with it.

We don’t say “we’re going to invoke GATT Art24”. We say “we’re going to negotiate a free trade agreement.”

6/7

tradebetablog.wordpress.com/2019/02/16/one…

So if someone says “We’re going to use GATT Art24”, the response is:

“Interesting. What will it cover?”
“Will the EU agree?”
“Will the EU agree without a Withdrawal Agreement?”
“How long will it take?”
"While we have no deal, what happens?"

7/7

https://twitter.com/anandMenon1/status/1128559260969897985