[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Whether anyone likes it or not, Article 24 exists, and it exists for a reason.

I note that one of the reasons quoted for this not being possible to implement is that the EU won't be likely to sign up to it because we're already committed to giving them the £40bn!

What an absolute joke. The EU also want frictionless trade as they want to help their industries too, and the £40bn has been pledged as part of the withdrawal agreement, which would not have been signed off under this scenario.

These are just difficulties that have been deliberately put in the way. They are not reasons, and the legislation would not be there if the WTO and the countries signed up to GATT did not intend for it to be used.

Some people like Rees-Mogg seem to conveniently forget that this legislation requires a deal. It cannot be used in a no-deal scenario!

The UK would have to reach agreement with the EU. The UK could not do this unilaterally. So this isn’t exactly “no deal”.
That agreement would have to include a plan and timetable for achieving the final agreement. And it would have to have a sufficient amount of detail, including what the final agreement would look like, because …
… the WTO membership could demand changes, if they weren’t convinced that the plan could be achieved within about 10 years. The UK and EU would have to accept those changes or scrap the agreement. (This doesn’t apply to free trade agreements that are not interim.)
In other words, the 10-year “grace period” has been used to cite WTO rules incorrectly by people who only have a superficial understanding of the rules.

https://tradebetablog.wordpress.com/...-grace-period/