It's quite amazing the lengths Brexiteers go to in arguing that no deal won't damage the economy. Most of them seem to think trading on WTO terms is perfectly okay. However, David Campbell-Bannerman (he wrote the 2010 UKIP manifesto) is now writing on Brexit Central HERE that under some obscure 1947 GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) article we can carry on trading with the EU without tariffs for ten years although he suggests we should do it for just two years.
This isn't the first time I've heard this point raised but I must say it's not for some time. The idea seems to have disappeared temporarily only to be resuscitated by Campbell-Bannerman. Brexiteers obviously like to fall back on 70 year old agreements signed when we still had an empire but long succeeded by better arrangements which they don't like.
DCB suggests invoking Article 24 is an absolute right for Britain and we can force the EU to carry on just as at present. His argument isn't new, I think Rees-Mogg has said something along the same lines.
DCB writes:
"This is essentially an alternate transition or interim period, but within WTO rules without having to levy tariffs or (arguably) pay membership fees to the EU, but requiring some customs forms levied on the 7% of UK businesses (400,000 out of 5.7 million UK private registered businesses) that actually trade with the EU. This is the deal with the EU used by China, the USA, India, Australia and New Zealand for example".
His conclusion is this:
"This approach would continue the pre-29th March status quo in trading arrangements and patterns without interruption, justified by an explicit provision of the WTO regime. The possible grounds on which any third country could lodge an objection to this are extremely slight (unlike for schedule changes)".
Let me be honest I don't know if DCB is right or wrong but I don't see anyone in government suggesting it. The website Politico had a piece (HERE) in March 2017 even before Article 50 had been triggered where the question of GATT Article 24 was raised. It suggested Fox's Department of Trade were looking at it but I do not see they have made any progress and probably for good reasons.
The Politico article had quotes from Shanker 'Snake Oil' Singham but they noted it isn't something we can demand and if the EU agreed to it they would almost certainly demand concessions as well as budget contributions. This was their take in March 2017:
"While a "zero-for-zero" interim tariff deal may be legally feasible according to the rule-book, it is also highly unlikely that the remaining EU 27 countries would agree to such an arrangement without significant concessions from the U.K. government on budget contributions and free movement of people. There is also no obligation under WTO rules for either side to agree to tariffs of zero".
I really can't see the EU or even the ERG agreeing to it. It just seems an attempt to get a transition period without having to reach an agreement with the EU - but we clearly will.
