If we vote for Brexit what happens

setmefree2

Same article

Taking the initiative
The analysis set out in part I and II of this blog post can be summarised as follows. The UK has independent rights and obligations as a WTO member, including those relating to the GATT 1994 and GATS concessions and commitments set out in the schedules that it shares with the EU and the other EU member states. It is difficult to identify the UK’s obligations in relation to EU-wide commitments that are expressed in quantified form. But ultimately this is an interpretive question which could end up in dispute settlement proceedings. It is therefore suggested that the UK take the initiative, and design new schedules that are clearly liberalising on these points. It is also suggested that the UK submit these schedules as a rectification or, to avoid unnecessary dispute, as a combination of rectification and modification, for certification by the WTO Director-General.
This is of course highly likely to involve negotiations with other WTO members. That is the nature of the WTO, and it is also desirable to reach agreement on points on which the law is unclear. But in any such negotiations the UK should have a strong hand, provided it does not propose to increase protection, not the weak hand that others seem to think it has. Certainly one can discard, as legally incorrect, the notion that the UK is somehow a WTO member without scheduled commitments, and that its position in the WTO somehow depends on the good graces of other WTO members.

Herzlos

What ratio of benefits fraud do you reckon you see then? Why is it so much higher than the governments own figures? Considering they have a team* to deal with exactly this, I'm not sure you're necessarily seeing the full picture.

I fully get that benefits fraud is a real issue, and I've known a few people who were guilty of it, but I know far more people who need it and don't get it, who get it and don't need it. I also know of a lot more cash-in-hand businesses who don't report all tax, and I also know of dozens of large companies who are avoiding 8+ digit tax bills.

Which one is going to be the biggest threat to the economy?

*100 times bigger than the team that deals with tax evasion, apparently, despite the amount of money we're talking about.

setmefree2

International and Economic Policy Blog

Abstract

It has become conventional wisdom that once the UK leaves the EU it will have to renegotiate core aspects of its WTO rights and obligations, and in particular its concessions under Article II of the GATT 1994 and Article XX of the GATS. This article argues that, on the contrary, based on WTO law, GATT 1947 practice, and the rules of state succession, the position of the UK within the WTO will not change at all. First, the UK is already a full WTO member with full multilateral WTO rights and obligations, even if its commitments are set out in the EU's schedules. What will change after Brexit is simply that the exercise of these rights, and the assumption of responsibility (ie attribution) of these obligations will revert from the EU to the WTO. What remains is to identify these rights and obligations. This is straightforward for rights and obligations that apply erga omnes partes to WTO Members. It is more difficult to identify the UK's obligations in relation to tariff rate quotas and agricultural subsidies. However, this can be done, and, it is submitted, the UK is also entitled to submit a new schedule for certification as a 'change' not amounting to a 'modification' of its schedule. Any objections will, ultimately, have to be resolved in dispute settlement proceedings, where it is likely that, with properly designed schedules, the UK will prevail. This article also argues against the relevance of the territorial application clause in the EU and EU Member State GATS schedule, in light of customary international law on state succession, and contends, finally, that the UK is entitled to succeed to the Government Procurement Agreement as concluded by the EU in respect of UK covered entities.

To summarise, on the basis of the analysis offered here, the UK possesses full WTO rights and performs obligations under the WTO multilateral trade agreements, which are currently, for the most part, exercised and performed on its behalf by the EU, and that the UK also succeeds to the rights and obligations under the Government Procurement Agreement 2014, which are currently held in respect of itself and its territory by the EU. In many respects it is not complicated to identify the UK’s rights and obligations under these agreements. Its rights (currently exercised by the EU) are easy to identify insofar as they correspond to obligations owed erga omnes partes by other WTO Members; its obligations (currently performed by the EU, and at times by the UK) are likewise easily identified insofar as they are owed by the UK (including via the EU’s schedules of concessions) on an erga omnes partes basis to all other WTO Members. The main detail on this point concerns the territorial limitation in the UK’s GATS schedule, according to which the schedule only applies to EU territory, but this can with justification be ignored in the UK’s new schedule.
Complications arise where the UK’s rights correspond to part of a right or obligation, determined on a quantified basis, that is currently set out in the EU’s schedules. This is the case for the EU’s right to subsidise agricultural production up to a set limit, and for the EU’s rights to export agricultural production to other WTO Members on a preferential basis under certain of their tariff rate quotas. It was suggested that the UK should adopt a subsidy commitment corresponding to recent receipts from the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy over the past three years, and that it has an automatic right, under Article XIII:2 of the GATT 1994, to access its share of any such tariff rate quotas.
As to the UK’s quantified obligations corresponding to the EU’s country-specific tariff rate quotas, it is likely that, in practice, quotas are likely to be established with relevant WTO Members by agreement, in accordance with Article XIII:2 of the GATT 1994. However, such an agreement should be reached against the background of the fact that the UK currently possesses obligations with respect to these tariff rate quotas; it is just difficult to know what these obligations mean in practice. It was also suggested that the UK could offer tariff rate quotas corresponding to recent imports, including from the EU-27, over a representative three year period, to forestall a potential non-violation complaint.
Finally, as to the procedure to be followed, it was contended that the suggested that the UK should submit new schedules under Article II of the GATT 1994 and Article XX of the GATS as other ‘changes’ and rectifications to the current EU schedule, in respect of itself and its territory. Importantly, any objections to such schedules would not entitle other WTO Members to require renegotiation of the UK’s entire schedule, as is sometimes thought to be the case (and certainly not under Article XXVIII of the GATT 1994, which is in any case irrelevant to this situation). At most, it will lead to dispute settlement proceedings in respect of a given measure alleged to violate the UK’s commitments or that otherwise nullifies or impairs benefits under the GATT 1994 or the GATS.

http://worldtradelaw.typepad.com/ielpblog/2016/09/the-uks-status-in-the-wto-after-brexit.html

Crashy_Time

ukcarper wrote: »

No and until we know what brexit means we have no idea what effect it will have but according to you prices should already be falling after all sentiment is everything.

Sentiment is massively important and there are big problems in the EZ banking sector again, pretending that isn`t happening is not really sensible IMO, especially for the highly leveraged.

CLAPTON

Herzlos wrote: »

What ratio of benefits fraud do you reckon you see then? Why is it so much higher than the governments own figures? Considering they have a team* to deal with exactly this, I'm not sure you're necessarily seeing the full picture.

I fully get that benefits fraud is a real issue, and I've known a few people who were guilty of it, but I know far more people who need it and don't get it, who get it and don't need it. I also know of a lot more cash-in-hand businesses who don't report all tax, and I also know of dozens of large companies who are avoiding 8+ digit tax bills.

Which one is going to be the biggest threat to the economy?

*100 times bigger than the team that deals with tax evasion, apparently, despite the amount of money we're talking about.

one could consider which contributes more to both the UK economy and the benefit to society

-the company that produces goods and service that people want and employs people bringing in income tax / NI contributions, pays VAT and maybe exporting : but however lets says it avoids all corporation tax

-and the benefits cheats that never work, never produce anything spend their time in petty theft, violence and lager swilling and teach their children there is no purpose in studying as you don't need a job to get free money.

ukcarper

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Sentiment is massively important and there are big problems in the EZ banking sector again, pretending that isn`t happening is not really sensible IMO, especially for the highly leveraged.

Whose pretending it's not happening.

lydriver

Crashy_Time wrote: »

We haven`t had Brexit yet, just the referendum.

after the referendum it was 'oh it'll take a good few weeks to see the true impact'
now it's years

really?

lisyloo

and the benefits cheats that never work, never produce anything spend their time in petty theft, violence and lager swilling and teach their children there is no purpose in studying as you don't need a job to get free money.

I don't condone this, but I don't believe it's a massive problem (low crime rates would back this up).
It's use by the likes of the daily mail to stir people up.
There are far more genuine job seekers and disabled people who are stuggling to make ends meet.

and teach their children there is no purpose in studying as you don't need a job to get free money

If they are able bodied then they'll be living on the bread line.


Absolutely benefits cheats and those who won't work should be stopped (difficult problem) but I don't believe there are massive numbers. We have very low unemployment for starters.


Have you also considered that apart from the diabled and job seekers, that some at the bottom of society may be literally unemployable.

Herzlos

The thing is that these benefits cheats still spend the money in the local economy somewhere, eventually. They buy food, clothes, services, furniture and so on. They pay tax on all of that too.

The corporate tax cheats store it away in offshore funds paying no tax to anyone. The money is taken out of the economy.

How many people scamming an extra £100 a month will it take to cancel out Starbucks, Vodafones or Apples missing tax?

CLAPTON

Herzlos wrote: »

The thing is that these benefits cheats still spend the money in the local economy somewhere, eventually. They buy food, clothes, services, furniture and so on. They pay tax on all of that too.

The corporate tax cheats store it away in offshore funds paying no tax to anyone. The money is taken out of the economy.

How many people scamming an extra £100 a month will it take to cancel out Starbucks, Vodafones or Apples missing tax?

companies who make profits usually pay the profits out to shareholders (their owners); sometimes these are rich fat cats and sometimes boring old pension funds, saving schemes etc