OK. I fear clear words have to be found here. This is not a minority interpretation. It is nonsense. Let me spell out explicitly what Lorand summarises in short (thread)
Let’s start with the visible subtitle: trade should not be used as a political lever. No such legal rule exists. Period. A quick glance of the trade world shows just how much trade is used as a political lever. /2
Next: MFN. Most-favoured nation status. That is a legally binding rule. I attach an article explaining it which I wrote for non-experts. Are the exceptions? /3 uktradeforum.net/2017/11/30/wha…
Yes. Absolutely. The written, binding rule has equally written exceptions. They are there. In the treaties. One possibility is also to waive rules. This is a so-called “waiver”. Also in the treaties. Noone forgot about them... /4
Here’s Art. IX of the WTO Agreement on waivers 
Indeed when the ECSC was founded, a waiver for it was granted. Because the ECSC did not comply with our old favourite Art. XXIV GATT as it was only sectoral. Unlike the EEC.
But there’s no right to a waiver. You need Members to agree. Which is not really all that easy.
Caveat: this is a response to the FT article, not the original paper. I have read the articles (obviously), not yet the paper, let’s hope the article just misunderstands the paper...
