 |
| Jacob Rees Mogg adopting the Belgian bargee look which some will liken to Lenin (Image Ben Cawthra/LNP) |
I'd seen the man himself on Daily Politics (starting at about 17:30), in his cut fudge accent, assuring those of us who just don't understand that "The House of Lords has missed one very important thing. That is that if you are in a negotiation for a free trade agreement you can maintain your existing standards for ten years under WTO rules... So we have ten years from the moment in which we leave the European Union to negotiate a free trade agreement with the EU which would mean we could carry on with our zero tariffs".
Oh really, I thought, I know Big Jake always delivers his debating points pre-packaged on tablets of stone, but you'd think such a slam-dunk would be pretty useful ammunition for - ooh, to pluck a name from the air - David Davis, Laim Fox, even Theresa May on a day when she wasn't fire-fighting some Grenfell or Windrush scandal. You'd think it would be the basis of the UK negotiating position.
It isn't. They never mention it. Could it be less than a slam-dunk?
I sent a query out into the social media ether: "Can you point me at relevant parts of the WTO rule book?" and waited. "Sounds like a strange interpretation of ART XXIV GATT and interim agreements to me," Benjamin Thorn told me, so I started reading.
Some tweeters (inhabitants of my jungle of choice) seem to start from the JRM position and... just stay there. "It's remarkable that this isn't better known" said one, to which I responded "If it should be better known, find the link to the relevant WTO rule and share it". Nothing.
"JRM just keeps producing plain common sense solutions almost on a daily basis." said somebody. "No hysterics, always in control, well researched and clarity in speech. Like him or loath him he is the leader that Mrs May is not. His understanding of the complexities of Brexit is second to none." It must be useful to have a hero. Even if it's Big Jake Mogg.
I take my lead on this from Jim Cornelius - this is "about an interim arrangement of a new FTA/CU" and "It's got nothing to do with any previously existing arrangement. It's surely about a sensible limit to the delay between interim agreement becoming a firm agreement, and it's conditions applying during that period".
I look to the Professor of EU, Human Rights and World Trade Law at Essex University - "Isn't this the old ERG misunderstanding of Article XXIV GATT?" - and a reader in international law at Cambridge University who also happens to be a Senior Counsel at Linklaters, the "Global Law Firm" - "It’s amazing how this awful misinterpretation of Art XXIV GATT won’t die, no matter how many times I point this out" - and I conclude that Article 24 concerns ways of working if you are in the process of establishing an agreement, requiring you to proceed by agreement and according to conditions.
I don't see a glibly specified allowance of time during which nobody needs to worry or - apparently - do anything.
https://twitter.com/StevePeers/status/995324280270401537
https://twitter.com/Jim_Cornelius/status/995341588632096768
https://twitter.com/Jim_Cornelius/status/995341588632096768
https://twitter.com/Jim_Cornelius/status/995341588632096768https://twitter.com/Jim_Cornelius/status/995341588632096768
