Can't think of a better way of wasting 6 hours of my life than searching/downloading/reading sections of the above. I will never get these hours back and I have just realised that this task was not even on my bucket list.
I intend (maybe) to make this gargantuan effort part of a thread on the WTO and why the UK is better off going alone under the WTO rules. It will take a while but seeing as none of the members who enjoy running each other down on the Boris threads have anything better to do...here goes.
Part 1.
I am not a blood sucking lawyer but do consider myself sufficiently educated to understand most legal texts. Enter stage right the GATT documents and WTO rules.
Normally I can find my way around the Net quite well including places not normally accessible but after several hours of trying to just get past the index and access to the WTO rules (over 60 downloadable documents from the Uruguay Final Round), it became pretty obvious that the WTO is no better than any other giant bureaucracy when it comes to explaining things in plain language. The conclusion I arrived at is probably the same as most of you. Bureaucrats deliberately complicate texts and make access to them nigh on impossible for the average Joe. Little wonder that all of the Government/Civil Service/EU lawyers have different opinions. It keeps them in work living the sort of life most people can only dream about.
I challenge anyone to read and understand the general agreement. There are 6 further documents that instruct member states on how to understand some but not all of the interpretations of sections of this document. Bloody hard when some languages do not translate easily into English or vice versa.
https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/gatt47.pdf
Did you know that many of the important documents regarding trade and finance applicable to the WTO rules have not even been digitized and are only available at Government level in print and on application as they missed out being included in the GATT? Well, you do now.
In a nutshell, the GATT was wound up as best as could be done leaving gaping holes for lawyers and bureaucrats to line their pockets.
If ever there was a reason to get out of a giant bureaucracy (EU) and offer a free trade agreement to all and sundry (similar to Singapore) this has to be it.
GATT and the WTO Rules
- TheGrimReaper
- I have Cheap Mobile Internet
- Reactions: 3
- Posts: 375
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:30 pm
-
- I live above an internet cafe
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2019 8:13 am
It would take a large team of experts about ten years to get through that lot! You've set yourself a mammoth task.
Although, I completely sympathize with your wanting to read the source documents, can i suggest you start with Wikipedia?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General ... _and_Trade
The Chicken War makes an interesting read.
https://www.nytimes.com/1964/01/10/arch ... guide.html
Although, I completely sympathize with your wanting to read the source documents, can i suggest you start with Wikipedia?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General ... _and_Trade
The Chicken War makes an interesting read.
https://www.nytimes.com/1964/01/10/arch ... guide.html
- TheGrimReaper
- I have Cheap Mobile Internet
- Reactions: 3
- Posts: 375
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:30 pm
Thanks for the support. I do intend to read what is there. I expect it will be similar to reading War and Peace but I will give it a go.
As for Wiki...I never look to Wiki for any reference as it is renown for errors. Several top universities have banned the use of Wiki due to it's inaccuracies as a reference in their students thesis.
As for Wiki...I never look to Wiki for any reference as it is renown for errors. Several top universities have banned the use of Wiki due to it's inaccuracies as a reference in their students thesis.
Sleep, those little slices of death — how I loathe them.
- Miguelito
- Ordinary Schmo
- Reactions: 219
- Posts: 7053
- Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 11:19 pm
- Location: Penh's Hill
I'm not sure what you're main point is - I take it you are anti EU and anti trade. Is the WTO perfect? Of course not.
But consider that Ralph Ossa empirically looked at the benefits of the WTO preventing trade wars, and the cost associated with not having ideal trade talks. “Converted into monetary values using manufacturing and agricultural value added in 2007, the estimates imply that the failure of the WTO to promote trade talks costs up to $26 billion per year, and the success of the WTO at preventing trade wars is worth up to $340 billion per year. To put these numbers (which refer to 2005 US dollars) in context, a move to autarky would cost the world $1.461 trillion per year, according to my analysis, so a trade war would eliminate about 23 percent of the gains from trade.”*
*Ralph Ossa, ‘Is the WTO a failure or a success?’ [23 Nov 2016] (Sorry can't find the link)
But consider that Ralph Ossa empirically looked at the benefits of the WTO preventing trade wars, and the cost associated with not having ideal trade talks. “Converted into monetary values using manufacturing and agricultural value added in 2007, the estimates imply that the failure of the WTO to promote trade talks costs up to $26 billion per year, and the success of the WTO at preventing trade wars is worth up to $340 billion per year. To put these numbers (which refer to 2005 US dollars) in context, a move to autarky would cost the world $1.461 trillion per year, according to my analysis, so a trade war would eliminate about 23 percent of the gains from trade.”*
*Ralph Ossa, ‘Is the WTO a failure or a success?’ [23 Nov 2016] (Sorry can't find the link)
- TheGrimReaper
- I have Cheap Mobile Internet
- Reactions: 3
- Posts: 375
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:30 pm
My main point is that the WTO rules are so confusing as to be a hindrance. I actually agree with you. In principle they are a wonderful idea but they were hastily finished to meet a deadline and much was left out and made up later and not available in digital form.
Anyway, taking a break from War and Peace but it is interesting in the way it is written. I detect that France had the major input into this document. It is so grammatically correct and more attention has been paid to syntax rather than context.
When I was working in Paris back in the 90s, we were negotiating a very large contract with Nortel Matra. These contracts are pretty much boiler plate having been refined over the years but once the French lawyers started, the whole shebang was ripped up. They were totally focused on making sure the contract was written in such as way that if it ever went to court, they (the lawyers) would look good in the eyes of the Judge rather than have a clearly defined document. They insisted that it was their reputation on the line and that who was right or wrong was secondary.
The GATT document is written in a very similar way. As much legalise as possible, emphasis on grammar rather than plain language that can easily be understood. I pity anyone who has to make a judgement based on this document as no two people will ever read it the same way. I suppose that is the whole idea. Jobs for the lawyers and courts while trade and industry just kicks it's heels.
One interesting part of it is that any member has to treat other members in exactly the same way unless there is a free trade agreement in place or it is a developing country. In effect this means that the EU would have to trade with the UK either under WTO rules or under the same agreement they have with another WTO member such as Egypt or Turkey who have a "Rule of Origin" deal.
This effectively means that the UK could pick the trade deal that suits them best from the list of WTO countries that have deals with the EU and by law, the EU would have to allow this. Of course, the GATT document is so worded that it could be argued this is not the case and a long and lengthy court case will ensue.
I am on record as stating that I voted to remain but believe in democracy to the point that as the referendum was out without a deal, then that is what we must do. I never thought I would ever be in agreement with Caroline Flint so maybe I am wrong. Anyway, we won't come out so it's all academic and it will be a sad day for democracy and a massive cluster fuck at the elections that will follow as the country punishes the politicians and vote in a mish mash of parties of who the biggest will be the Brexit Party.
I must check the betting odds on Nigel Farage as next PM. I won £450 (15 to 1 against) when Corbyn was made leader so this must be worth a punt.
Anyway, taking a break from War and Peace but it is interesting in the way it is written. I detect that France had the major input into this document. It is so grammatically correct and more attention has been paid to syntax rather than context.
When I was working in Paris back in the 90s, we were negotiating a very large contract with Nortel Matra. These contracts are pretty much boiler plate having been refined over the years but once the French lawyers started, the whole shebang was ripped up. They were totally focused on making sure the contract was written in such as way that if it ever went to court, they (the lawyers) would look good in the eyes of the Judge rather than have a clearly defined document. They insisted that it was their reputation on the line and that who was right or wrong was secondary.
The GATT document is written in a very similar way. As much legalise as possible, emphasis on grammar rather than plain language that can easily be understood. I pity anyone who has to make a judgement based on this document as no two people will ever read it the same way. I suppose that is the whole idea. Jobs for the lawyers and courts while trade and industry just kicks it's heels.
One interesting part of it is that any member has to treat other members in exactly the same way unless there is a free trade agreement in place or it is a developing country. In effect this means that the EU would have to trade with the UK either under WTO rules or under the same agreement they have with another WTO member such as Egypt or Turkey who have a "Rule of Origin" deal.
This effectively means that the UK could pick the trade deal that suits them best from the list of WTO countries that have deals with the EU and by law, the EU would have to allow this. Of course, the GATT document is so worded that it could be argued this is not the case and a long and lengthy court case will ensue.
I am on record as stating that I voted to remain but believe in democracy to the point that as the referendum was out without a deal, then that is what we must do. I never thought I would ever be in agreement with Caroline Flint so maybe I am wrong. Anyway, we won't come out so it's all academic and it will be a sad day for democracy and a massive cluster fuck at the elections that will follow as the country punishes the politicians and vote in a mish mash of parties of who the biggest will be the Brexit Party.
I must check the betting odds on Nigel Farage as next PM. I won £450 (15 to 1 against) when Corbyn was made leader so this must be worth a punt.
Sleep, those little slices of death — how I loathe them.
- Miguelito
- Ordinary Schmo
- Reactions: 219
- Posts: 7053
- Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 11:19 pm
- Location: Penh's Hill
You must not have looked very hard.TheGrimReaper wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:28 pm
Normally I can find my way around the Net quite well including places not normally accessible but after several hours of trying to just get past the index and access to the WTO rules (over 60 downloadable documents from the Uruguay Final Round), it became pretty obvious that the WTO is no better than any other giant bureaucracy when it comes to explaining things in plain language. The conclusion I arrived at is probably the same as most of you. Bureaucrats deliberately complicate texts and make access to them nigh on impossible for the average Joe. Little wonder that all of the Government/Civil Service/EU lawyers have different opinions. It keeps them in work living the sort of life most people can only dream about.
I challenge anyone to read and understand the general agreement. There are 6 further documents that instruct member states on how to understand some but not all of the interpretations of sections of this document. Bloody hard when some languages do not translate easily into English or vice versa.
https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/gatt47.pdf
The Uruguay Round of negotiations brought together the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT) and twelve other agreements as annexes to the new World Trade Organization, or WTO, which all comprise of one overarching agreement. Due to the nature of the many agreements being negotiated concurrently, and that how the final product would be comprised was not known until late into the negotiations, there was a chance for conflicts to arise amongst the agreements.
You might argue that the relationships between these text is overly complicated, and there are four possible different relationships between the agreements that could bring about confusion: conflict, express derogation, overlap, and complimentary text.
Look at the General Interpretive Note to Annex 1A which states that:
“In the event of conflict between a provision of the [GATT] and a provision of another agreement in Annex 1A to the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (referred to in the agreements in Annex 1A as the ‘WTO Agreement’), the provision of the other agreement shall prevail to the extent of the conflict.”
The Appellate Body (AB) has reinforced this, although it has taken a hardline stance on the definition of the word “conflict,” and that “provisions are in conflict where adherence to the one provision will necessarily lead to a violation of the other provision and the provisions cannot, therefore, be read as complementing each other.” If, however, a true conflict does exist, then the other agreements in Annex 1A will take precedence.
A closely related problem to conflict is that of ‘express derogation,’ or when one agreement expressly permits the breaking of a GATT obligation. In this case, as if there were a conflict, the agreement will take precedence. However, as ruled in EC - Bananas, the agreement must explicitly state the inconsistency, and not just allude to it; in fact, the AB cited several examples that did explicitly state that, and therefore did now allow one that was simply implied.
If an unresolvable conflict or an express derogation do not go against, then the clauses of both the other agreement and the GATT with accumulate. This could happen if there were overlapping statements (repetitive), or complimentary (one agreement that is more specific than the other). The panel report on EC - Sardines states that the “Appellate Body suggests that where two agreements apply simultaneously, a panel should normally consider the more specific agreement before the more general agreement.” Further cases that confirm this are EC - Bananas (which first tackled the subject), Brazil - Coconut, Korea - Dairy Product, Argentina - Footwear, as well as in Turkey - Textile in which the AB stated “as a general principle, WTO obligations are cumulative and Members must comply with all of them at all times unless there is a formal ‘conflict’ between them.”
The AB will “defer to the legislative solution advanced in an understanding to the extent that it regulates an issue left unregulated or obscure in the GATT.” The AB, in its report on Turkey - Textiles showed total deference to the Understanding on Art XXIV of the GATT, in which the report stated, in no uncertain terms that “this issue has been resolved by paragraph 2 of the Understanding on Article XXIV, which clearly states that the applied rate of duty must be used.”
For a good background you can refer to Mavroidis, P.C. (2008) ‘From GATT 1947 to GATT 1994’, Trade in Goods, Chapter 1, Oxford Scholarship Online.
Dude, these agreements are the law -- I just wrote out the above to show that of course they're going to be complicated and people are going to fight over it -- that happens with every law about any subject...ever. There will also be the stated law, and then case interpretation. Yes, it's confusing, but at least we have google now.
Decide on a specific WTO item you want to complain about and we can discuss further.
- TheGrimReaper
- I have Cheap Mobile Internet
- Reactions: 3
- Posts: 375
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:30 pm
We are not in disagreement. As you have pointed out, much of the agreement was cobbled together from others but the way in which it is worded leaves it very much open to interpretation. It was a rushed document that was fitted into a specific finishing date which meant much was left out until later. My main issue with this is that we are not privi to these later documents as they have never been digitised and are only available to "official" departments.Miguelito wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:31 pmYou must not have looked very hard.
Dude, these agreements are the law -- I just wrote out the above to show that of course they're going to be complicated and people are going to fight over it -- that happens with every law about any subject...ever. There will also be the stated law, and then case interpretation. Yes, it's confusing, but at least we have google now.
Decide on a specific WTO item you want to complain about and we can discuss further.
Basically, I am saying that simply to state "we will use WTO terms, is over simplifying the issue. The current EU attitude of punishing anyone (the UK in this case) who dares to upset the greater EU social project will probably result in a sort of scorched earth policy by the EU. They would rather loose out economically in the short term to keep in check any other country who decides that they no longer wish to be part of this scheme. If this means a long drawn out battle in the courts over the WTO wording, they would be happy with this.
I am more interested in looking at depth into the GATT and trying to understand how the UK is affected and whether or not the UK can in deed unilaterally declare a tariff free country or does this as Tusk said, go against WTO rules. I never trust Tusk as he seldom gets the facts right.
There is much chest beating and posturing about what Boris will do, What Jeremy will do or what that insipid little gnome Bercow will do. Their hands are tied by various laws but no one seems to know what these laws actually mean.
We could of course just go with the flow and que sera sera.
Sleep, those little slices of death — how I loathe them.
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
-
Outing Rules Scobienz & RickyBobby.
by OutingRules » Mon Jun 17, 2019 12:38 pm » in Cambodia Speakeasy - 52 Replies
- 11152 Views
-
Last post by YaTingPom
Sun Jun 20, 2021 3:07 pm
-