It's funny that just as Boris Johnson goes around saying that once outside the EU, England will trade according to the WTO rules, and at the same time his great friend Trump is making sure that the WTO rules are unusable.
Having the rules is not enough. We also need what is called "enforcement", that is some kind of recognized authority that has the task of verifying that (or if) someone has violated the rules, and then decides how to react to the violation.
So far the WTO had (it still has, to be honest) a kind of court. When it was thought that a certain nation had gone against the rules of the WTO, it went before this court, which listened to the parties and finally decided whether the "damaged" by the incorrect practice had the right or not to impose taxes on the customs to compensate for the violation.
The problem is that the members of this court must be renewed, and they must be at least three. And here comes the US, which has decided to veto the renewal of judges to better apply the "America First" policy. This means that the WTO loses the resolver organ. The rules apparently remain in force, but when the guy is the victim of a violation and would like to apply penalties / taxes to the customs of the corresponding size, he happens that he has no court to give him the "right" to do so.
I said that Trump is very active in this decision to paralyze the WTO, but in reality the US has always been against the idea of being judged by any court. Being an essentially Nazi nation, exactly as Himmler said, it places itself above all judgment, historical, moral or legal. The nation to which everything is allowed, of which Himmler often spoke, in short.
The problem is not for those big nations or for the EU that can decide to react on its own. So far, in fact, the reaction (penalties or taxes at the border) came before the FINAL decision of the WTO court, and was then validated.
The problem is for the British. Ok, the story that the English WTO rules to the WTO is a huge ball. The rules of the WTO are by no means that little bit of mercantilist liberalism that everyone has sold: for agricultural products there are customs tariffs up to 90%, for one thing.
But even if the WTO rules were valid, there is nothing left for enforcement of the rules themselves. So, telling the British that "Once we follow the rules of the WTO outside" is like saying "the Ten Commandments protect us": of course, these are rules that everyone more or less accepts as relatively fair, but this does not mean that if you violate them, the police will arrive. If you don't believe it, try to crave someone's wife, and you will notice an embarrassing lack of law enforcement at your home.
The British press has obviously given little emphasis to this thing, because it strongly presses for Brexit (Murdoch first: the tribe of which it is a part hates Europe, for known historical reasons), but the fact remains that leaving the EU without a deal the British will lose the possibility of using the ~ 750 commercial treaties that the EU has established with almost all the countries of the world, will have to rebuild them (and it will take years and years) and until then it will be in the hands of the WTO , which in fact has the same strength as the Ten Commandments, or proverbs.
How the upcoming UK elections will end up is hard to predict. The problem is a certain Corbyn, a kind of mix between Bertinotti and d'Alema. He has an incredible ability to lose, so strong that he would come second in the competition for the most loser.
And there's a reason for this.
Like any left in the Western world, today's left has a problem: old age. We are going to face a century where all our "certainties" will fall or falter strongly, and they have no proposal, no idea, except things we have been hearing for 50 years now.
And the most incredible thing is that to react to the effects of this lack of new proposals for a new world, they are saying "let's go back to the origins", or "let's move further to the left".
The trouble with moving to the left is that it is a synonym of "let's say the things we said 40 years ago". Of course, but 40 years ago those things were progressive, while today those same things are conservative, and as if that were not enough, they are also obsolete and senseless in today's context.
In practice, they are behaving like someone about to die of exposure: in the grip of an illusory heat, they take off their clothes. The English left (like all the European left, German SPD in the lead, but also PD in Italy) is deciding that to regain the consensus due to the old age of their ideas, it must propose even older (but "radical") ideas.
A mixture of fundamentalism and orthodoxy that could work if they led to clear ideas, but since the ideas of 40 years ago are not applicable to the modern context, then Corbyn's party (as well as all the left parties) find themselves applying ideas in a context where only a few work.
Corbyn must appear to be brexiters in poor areas of England, because he promised that the new Soviet United Kingdom (because in fact he believes Corbyn) will devote all the resources he has to invest "in our villages", for the sole benefit " of our people ”. But then there are the cities and there is London, to which he must propose an open, modern and barrier-free country.
Since this idea of political positioning that comes from history is no longer relevant, clearly Corbyn finds himself in a contradictory situation, for which he must propose both A and the opposite of A.
Plus, Corbyn has a problem with anti-Semitism. Let me be clear: we are all anti-Semites. The license for anti-Semitism has been given with such ease that practically no one can say they are not. It is like "male chauvinism": the judging subject is so furiously intent on a purity contest within his own group that he continues to invent new (often non-existent) ways of proving that the group itself is a victim.
As a result, we are all male-dominated, we are all homophobic, we are all anti-Semitic, and even if the driving license has not yet arrived, you will not get carried away, because as Nenni used to say there is always the purest pure that purges you.
But Corbyn is one of those who got fucked like a chicken. I mean, for a politician it should be easy to remain silent on a topic. Just do not talk about it EVER, and use some dialectical device if someone asks questions, ("you know me well, so you know what to think of these accusations") and you are fine.
But Corbyn (like d'Alema and Bertinotti) is a mediocre overvalued, for which he has accumulated, in the past, a whole series of stories in which Murdoch is wallowing to lose it.
The other remainer parties are the SNP of the Sturgeon, which however is a strongly localist party, and a party made by Liberal Socialists, whatever this label means. (in my opinion it is one of those Hegelian bullshit of synthesis between thesis and antithesis, so it really doesn't start very well) These two parties can cause problems, yes, but they can't overcome the Brexit trio, that is English nobility, the press English and Tory.
At least that's what I believe.
So, if the Tories win as I think, and come out without a deal, the English will find themselves having
friar proverbs I guess the WTO rules as the only defense in a world of sharks.