| Scoobes said: Can you point to the exact part of article 21 that you're referring to? The way I see it, the UK can apply but there is no guarantee the WTO will accept. Also, the contraband idea is ridiculous. In the no deal situation it is in both the EU and Ireland's interests to apply customs checks to protect local industries and the integrity of the single market. Who do you think would be willing to risk trying smuggling goods into Ireland in that situation? The few economists that support the idea of going tariff-free after brexit have all said it would destroy the UK agricultural and manufacturing sectors and that they support the economic "re-calibration". @bolded1 You realise we already import tariff-free with the world's poorest countries via the EU under the 'Everything but Arms' initiative? Striking trade deals with these countries would only bring us back to the current status-quo. @bolded2 Do you have anything to support the claim that these costs will be higher then the cost of transport. Also, how exactly do you expect us to get cheap, fresh and perishable produce from outside the EU? @bolded3 UK have had ample opportunities to apply immigration restrictions from the EU after Blair. No government has bothered as it brings in a over 10-fold more tax revenue than it costs. You also realise we've barely scratched the surface of the 759 international treaties we get via the EU and would lose and have to re-negotiate in the event of no deal. These cover a lot more than just trade. https://www.ft.com/content/f1435a8e-372b-11e7-bce4-9023f8c0fd2e |
With Article 21, section (b) it states that "Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to prevent any contracting party from taking any action which it considers necessary for the protection of its essential security interests." so this means that the UK and Ireland can make an exception with their border based on security interests to prevent a series of incidents from ever happening again like "The Troubles". They'd be able to present a very strong case for the WTO to continue to uphold the Good Friday Agreement ...
As for 'accepting', that's the WTO's problem to raise a dispute with the proposed case but since it takes a long time to settle a dispute and that there is no true international governing body so I'd say it's a relatively toothless organization ...
Of course it's in the EU's interest to protect their "single market" but one of their member has an issue with it which is diametrically opposed to their own interests in upholding the Good Friday Agreement so that's why there's a conundrum between the backstop and the Irish border. The UK would be very interested in trying to smuggle if Ireland decided to not put up a hard border and the EU just somehow tolerated it but that's not going to happen so you know where this is going ... 
Ireland is either going to have to choose between 'solidarity' (EU customs/single market) or 'reunification' (breaking GFA in the process thus giving up all claims to NI) in a no deal scenario ... 
1. "Tariff-free imports with the world's poorest countries" is lame for the most part since a much of these countries are in a conflict so it's no wonder why EU is only willing to pick the lowest hanging fruits. We need more of the "tariff free imports from the more productive countries for their value" instead cause the EU's dictated monopolies in the single market just offer bad value since there's not much demand to buy Greek, Spanish or Italian goods/services in the global market. If I'm being frank quite a few European members have over inflated economies because of the EU's protectionist policies and they'd have their incomes 'normalized' a lot quicker with less developed countries like Brazil or China without those policies in place. It's kinda sad how the EU has left the project with quite a bit of near junk level bonds from some of it's members ... (if the EU is to survive then it needs to have a competitive advantage for the global markets like a cheap oil/natural gas well or leadership in technology because a big market is absolutely not a strategic advantage when we take a look at many smaller entities like South Korea, Japan or Saudi Arabia which are able to thrive perfectly in global markets so you and everyone else need to realize that trading is a two way relationship thus political unions can't serve as an effective bullying tactic when smaller sellers have genuine monopolies)
2. Well for starters a kilogram of beef costs 22 quids on average in the UK while it costs around 12 quids on average in the US and shipping a 40 ft container from New York to London costs only about 4x as much as it does from Dublin to London so even shipping livestock to be then slaughtered would mean European cattle producers would be out of a job immediately when overhead like shipping (less than $2000) pales in comparison to the potential savings itself. European meat producers would very quickly find themselves uncompetitive in general compared to the global market so they need these non-tariff barriers to protect their their businesses and similarly other high value produce. We'll be able to import the vast majority of the essentials from either China or North/South America at cheap rates but if you want to cherry pick then yeah fresh and perishable produce like berries can't be easily had then ... (doing tariff free produce imports with everyone else seems to make more sense than tariff free produce with Europe but if you're that concerned about domestic production then you should lobby to align in policy with Americans rather than Europeans)
3. Except they really didn't when Blair resigned in favour of Gordon Brown so there was no backlash to be faced yet from party policy and then David Cameron was in a coalition with the Lib Dems for the next term. It wasn't until the next election after that where Cameron won a clear majority by promising to hold a referendum so that concerns could be truly measured but little did he knew that the electorate wasn't going to let him slimeball his way out of a promise with a coalition being his excuse. Had Blair not goofed up and other issues didn't crop up with the EU, the UK would probably be still be inside the EU but if a referendum is the only way they'd be able to reflect on the mistakes they've made for the past few years then so be it. The "10-fold more tax revenue" is nothing more than a hyperbole since just about any studies will make some certain assumptions in their models so we can't be sure of the figures either way ...
