The UK is already a member of the WTO, a founder member no less (as are at least all EU15 member states). An WTO member’s tariff schedules are its own concern, unless another WTO can successfully challenge that those tariffs are discriminatory. The WTO tariffs published by the U.K. government are either the same as those as the EU (i.e. very high in the case of beef and dairy imports) or lower (0% for car parts, for example, but the EU rate of 10% for finished car imports).
It’s not clear exactly why a WTO member should wish to challenge the UK’s tariff schedule, not least because it is politically obvious that the UK is on a mission to reduce its tariffs via free trade deals with other WTO members. The WTO combats protectionism, not free trade.
As for your comment about the Irish border, the provisional plan laid out by the UK government is to Northern Ireland into a giant free trade port for the time being, which is something which has several precedents around the world (e.g. Shenzhen). This may well be challenged by another WTO grouping (i.e. the EU), but there are two safeguards for the UK. First of all WTO rules permit local tariff exemptions on national security grounds (and EU propaganda over the past 2 years has done its best to depict Ireland as a war zone about to erupt). Second of all, the UK is co-signatory to a bilateral international Treaty (the 1998 Good Friday Agreement), the spirit of which safeguards an invisible border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. International Treaties have the same weight as international trade laws, which means there would be 10 fruitful years of work for international lawyers to rule whether the GFA or WTO rules take precedence. By the time they rule in 2030 the Republic of Ireland will have been ejected from the EU anyway.
“The UK is already a member of the WTO”
If you read the list of countries _not_ being a member of the WTO, you’ll notice that I did _not_ list the UK. The UK is a member of the WTO but it does not have a WTO schedule.
The idea of NI as a separate WTO geographical area was floated by the EU while there was debate about a border in the Irish Sea. As you yourself mention, there is ample precedent for this solution, e.g. Hong Kong.
Whether the UK can uphold a national security claim exemption is far from certain. So far only one country has successfully argued a national security case. Ukraine vs. Russia, where the WTO sided with Russia.
The US rejected the UK proposed schedule on the same grounds as Argentina did, they wanted easier access for their beef exports. Do you think they’ll just give up the advantage of the lack of an approved schedule grants them?
As you state, it will take years for the legal wheels to turn, there can, however, be very little doubt that the ruling will not be in favor of the UK.
Is that the kind of behavior we can expect for the UK from now on? Flaunting of international laws and treaties because by the time the judges rule the ruling will be irrelevant?
God riddance, buccaneers and pirates of the worst kind.
It’s probably pointless debating with emotional and Hans Christian Anderson-like Anglophobes like you, but here goes. The UK has published its tariff schedule, and the USA and Argentina are free to dispute these at leisure. By the time their WTO lawyers report back the UK will have secured free trade deals with both those countries anyway (call free trade piracy’ if that makes you feel warm inside).
As for the Irish border, there will be a solution. The EU will enforce a surveillance regime close to Republic’s border with Northern Ireland, at ports and airports in the Republic of Ireland, and at ports of entry in the EU26 if necessary. In other words, the EU will cut the Republic of Ireland out of the EU. It’s your arrogant gamble that backfired, so enjoy,
I see you have both wet imperialistic dreams and the capability of building straw man arguments.
A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be “attacking a straw man.”
My piracy argument was based on you proposing to knowingly violate international treaties simply because the legal wheels turn slowly. The stuff about free trade is a straw man, and what is worst, you know it.
Your FTA’s with the US and Mercosur (or Argentina specifically) is pie in the sky dreams. You cannot at this stage know what is possible and what isn’t.
Even TM, BJ, JRM et. al. have conceded that as of today the technology for safekeeping a border simply isn’t there. Do you by chance have some wonder technology nobody else has heard of or is it simply you failing to realize the obvious?
As for the UK forcing Ireland to leave the EU and signing up as a vassal state of the UK. Good luck with that. The best I can describe that as the UK trying to build the Empire v2.0
The EU, not the UK, will force the Republic of Ireland out of the EU. The USA and Argentina will want free trade deals with the UK because of its huge foodstuffs market. And using WTO trade articles in order to safeguard the spirit of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement is not violating international Treaties (I’ll let the EU do that).
Shall we leave things at that? You are very boring.