,
9 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
This “simple explainer” of Art 24/XXIV* GATT by @lawyers4britain isn’t as bad as some stuff produced by pro no dealers.
It does get some things not quite right though, as explained in this exchange.
The main point though is this. Any Art 24/XXIV agreement requires agreement by both sides - as the piece rightly makes clear. And the EU has made its position clear. Its agreement is conditional on agreement on money/citizens rights/backstop.
So Art 24/XXIV does not in any way assist in coping with no deal: it simply takes us back - in a weaker position - to where we started: needing to accept the EU’s red lines in order to have a satisfactory relationship with it in future.
That’s life for a European country outside the EU, folks. Ask Switzerland.
But there’s another🦄 prancing about in the piece. That is the idea that the EU would agree mutual recognition of standards on the basis that as of Brexit day the U.K. has fully incorporated EU standards.
This is now an elderly 🦄. But its mythical status still needs pointing out. The basic problem: how does the EU ensure U.K. remains compliant with EU rules outside the EU framework for enforcement and adjudication that underpins those rules. And, bluntly, what’s in it for the EU?
Another issue is level playing field commitments - ignored by @lawyers4britain. LPF commitments on State aid, environment and labour rights will be an EU red line for any deal of the kind they are contemplating. Best to front up to that. /ends
*PS - Use of Roman numerals is technically correct. But more characters on Twitter. And a bit awkward for those not used to Roman numerals - eg much of the world (it is the *W*TO). But to keep pedants happy ...
