CYIL vol. 8 (2017)

KRISTÝNA URBANOVÁ CYIL 8 ȍ2017Ȏ While it is true that the identification and separation of the UK’s country specific schedules from the EU bundle schedules shall not be an easy task, and the proper formula has not been identified so far, from a law point of view it is a task which can be achieved. But the most important step for the UK government is to persuade WTO members that the process of schedule separations does not account for “modification” of its current schedules, but that the identification and separation of its rights from the EU bundle is a mere “rectification” of schedules. There is not that much to lose for the UK government, because those WTO members who would disagree with the process of rectification would have to resort to dispute settlement, and in case of their success they would be entitled to just a mutually satisfactory adjustment, which may include compensation or rearrangement of the UK’s TRQs with respect to them. 67 Therefore, not only is the method of rectification considered here as the correct one according to law, but from the UK policy perspective, the benefit of rectification is clear; the process of rectification could be completed within three months, as opposed to several years of protracted and complex negotiations, and the potential lost dispute with other WTO member still may lead to reasonable losses. 68

67 BARTELS, Lorand, The UK Status after Brexit, supra note 13. 68 The Select Committee on the European Union Internal Market Sub-Committee & External Affairs Sub- Committee Corrected oral evidence: Brexit: future trade between the UK and the EU , 13 October 2016. Available at: http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/eu-external-affairs- subcommittee/brexit-future-trade-between-the-uk-and-the-eu/oral/41317.html.

506