What a fascinating detail that the keen eye of @RaoulRuparel has dug up. But a caveat applies (yeah, lawyers): as the provision stands it is an interesting precedent, but arguably not enough to resolve the situation. Why?
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1351579639567835137
From a glance at the treaty provisions the cumulation rules seem similar. So what does the guidance refer to? Footnote 3 of Annex 2. Which reads ""Canada/EU" means products qualifying as originating under the rules of origin of the" CETA. (leaving out sentence 2)
So the legal rule here seems to merely relate to putting "Canada/EU" into the form. What then does the guidance do?
The guidance cannot depart from the treaty. So the "exceptionally" is important there. Which would be a problem for the distribution hubs.
So in defense of the UK negotiation team: I don't think they failed to get an important precedent here (but they did not manage to build on it).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
