Article in Question - Why a no-deal Brexit is nothing to fear
>> 2/ The SPS and TBT agreements call for technical regulations to be evidence based, to serve a policy objective and to minimally distort trade.
>> They do NOT prevent, for example, the EU from requiring certification by an EU authority (which, absent an agreement, UKs won't be).
>> 3/ To use a contrived example, the amount of lead paint on a toy shipped to Europe won't change.
>> However, UK issued documentation stating the toys lead content will no longer be accepted because the regulations require an EU entity issued certificate.
>> 4/ The WTO cannot prevent this and it certainly cannot force the EU to accept goods bearing a certificate it no longer trusts.
>> 5/ Of the hundreds of complaints raised in the Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade or SPS Committee, only a tiny fraction go to dispute resolution, where they tend to go nowhere.
>> I don't care what your textbook says about how trade law is meant to work. This is how it does.
>> 6/ The Trade Facilitation Agreement is even more toothless. It's a largely unenforceable best endeavor agreement to encourage some lowest common denominator best practice in goods clearance.
>> I covered the TFA for Australia guys. I WISH it was some all powerful codex. It's not.
>> 7/ Even if the letter of the WTO rules were 100% on the UKs side (it's not), the very slow and uncertain pace of WTO 'enforcement' renders the whole thing a little moot.
>> Disputes take years and can't force regulatory changes, only allow tariff retaliation.
>> 8/ No one is disputing that eventually, the UK will be able to trade under WTO rules.
>> The problem with the 'No deal will be fine' rhetoric is that it may convince government and businesses not to put in place the hundreds of preparations required to manage the long transition.
>> 9/ This all also glosses over the many areas the WTO doesn't even pretend to cover.
>> Everything from certification for pilots to lisencing for truck drivers and foreign presence for banks is well beyond the WTO Agreements.
>> 10/
>> Stop saying stupid things.
>> Stop writing stupid articles.
>> You can be concerned about the practicalities of Brexit without being a Remainer.
>> The WTO won't save you. This stuff needs a fix.
[SOUR
... keep reading on reddit β‘Here is what I propose, inclusion on this list does not imply endorsement, simply that I am willing to cede some points if Scourge does.
My Proposal---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Scourge's law proposal didn't make her win, but it did empower her to eliminate everyone else, so Scourge may now write an elimination proposal eliminating everyone else."
(that comes as a package, so only if Scourge accepts the whole statement will I accept the whole statement)
I was laid off abrutly yesterday by the new incoming management team. I asked upon exit if it was for performance reasons and they stuck to boiler plate "this position is being eliminated". They are offering severance in exchange for a rather "damning" or "oppressive" separation agreement which I feel is over the top. First off, I plan to tell them as is, the severance needs to be 4x what is offered. I don't need the money from their carrot on a stick as I have a lot saved up so I would rather use this as an oppurtunity to polish my negotiation skills. Let me know if you have a story you can share of a sucessful separation renego. I'd love to hear both sides of the story of how it went. It is my understanding if I decide not to sign and take unemployment it makes the company look bad and this and future litigation could now be an issue for a company that is trying to lure more investors. Thoughts?
I generally understand the document but there is some vague language toward the end that I find hard to interpret. I am worried about a situation where, for example, someone who fixed the air conditioning could read this document and claim I owe them money.
When it comes to vagueness in contracts, are legal documents like this one interpreted as a whole or can small parts be cherry picked?
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 58%. (I'm a bot)
> MEXICO CITY - Mexico's Senate on Tuesday voted to ratify a Asia-Pacific trade agreement, making it the first of 11 signatory countries to back the arduously negotiated framework that was rejected by the United States.
> Mexico, which has been a leading proponent of free trade in Latin America, is currently in talks to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and the United States.
> "With this new generation agreement, Mexico diversifies its economic relations with the world and demonstrates its commitment to openness and free trade," Pena Nieto said on his Twitter account.
> Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, Japan, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam signed the deal and a total of six counties will need to ratify the agreement for it to take effect.
> Trump has rebuffed Tokyo's calls to rejoin the Trans-Pacific pact, instead preferring a two-way trade deal.
> Ministers from the United States, Canada and Mexico are meeting in Washington to try to narrow differences on content rules for autos in the hope of making a deal in the coming days.
Summary Source | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: MEXICO^#1 trade^#2 agreement^#3 United^#4 States^#5
Post found in /r/worldnews.
NOTICE: This thread is for discussing the submission topic. Please do not discuss the concept of the autotldr bot here.
