Ian Duncan Smith, the half-crazed Brexiteer and former leader of the party has an article in Conservative Home (HERE) again urging the government to plan for a no-deal exit. It is worrying that people like him, at the top of the party are so stupid. He reveals his own ignorance about the Article 50 process, the EU's negotiating guidelines and business in general, spite of a 30 year history in parliament opposing our membership of the EU.
IDS says we should call the EU's "bluff" and prepare to leave without a deal. If he doesn't realise the damage that leaving without a deal in place would cause to the UK economy then he shouldn't be in parliament. He is a danger to the people of this country, if not to himself. I assume he would continue to draw his MP's salary even if the rest of us are eating grass.
Brexiteers seem to have convinced themselves that the negotiations are like a game of poker and that we have a strong hand while the EU has a pair of threes and are trying to bluff their way to a win. Let's hope he soon returns to reality from wherever he has been for that past few months.
IDS was an army officer and it shows. He has zero understanding of business and commerce. He begins his article:
"Let’s start with the statement that there will be an implementation period of up to two years. This is apparently needed because British business wants to have time to get its systems right, and the civil service has to ensure that all the controls and checks are in place from border control to beef imports. If this is all about the practicalities of implementation, then I understand extra time may be required, (although the need for our officials to do what they are doing must be checked), but this period must be defined and kept tight".
IDS doesn't seem to know what the implementation (he can't bring himself to say transition) period is for! Business can hardly implement anything until they know what it is. And nobody in this world or the next thinks we will have a deal by March 2019, this is just delusional again. To build new facilities to cope with new customs, veterinary, sanitary and phyto-sanitary checks will take years - if we start today - and we still have to recruit and train the staff to do the work. I think we will still be discussing the deal by March 2021 and will have to ask for even more time. On the same day IDS's article appeared, Northern Irish beef farmers called for a five year transition (HERE). The problem for IDS is that the closer we get to agreeing a deal, the more difficult it will be to walk away. He goes on:
"None the less, there is a lack of clarity about what our relationship with the EU would be during this period. Now this is the most critical point.
Under the rules of Article 50, the UK leaves the EU at the very end of March 2019 with – or, just as importantly, without – settled arrangements concerning the UK’s or the EU’s future relationship. The only way to change this timetable is for all 27 EU nations (plus the UK) and the EU Parliament to agree. This means unless there is some new agreement, the UK will [be] outside the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), and also outside the Single Market and the Customs Union.
Thus any relationship during this period would be between two legally sovereign powers – the UK and the EU. However, Michel Barnier has suggested otherwise, reiterating the demand that the UK subject itself to the suzerainty of the ECJ. I note that following the Florence speech David Davis said that we will not be beholden to the rulings of the ECJ during the implementation phase. If that is so, then it is important that all ministers repeat this, otherwise they risk creating greater confusion".
IDS like some others seems to think the EU and the UK are equals but we are not. If he is confused about whether or not the ECJ will continue to have jurisdiction after March 2019 I think I can clear it up for him straightaway. They will. We need the transition and if the EU grant it, it will be based on everything, including the ECJ, continuing as it does now. Anything else would be unthinkable - for our economy. He then wants the government to name the day we jump off the cliff - ready or not:
"What worries a number of people in this context is that, at present, the EU Withdrawal Bill still has no commencement date, at which point the new laws and regulations set by Parliament will come into force. Unless it is written into the face of the legislation that this date will not be later than the last day of March 2019, many will wonder if the Government really does intend that the UK leaves the EU at the end of the Article 50 process".
It's obvious to everyone, except IDS that is, we will never be out by March 2019. This is why the date is not on the face of the bill. No doubt IDS would take us out if he was PM regardless of the resulting chaos including food shortages and a run on sterling. He seems to worry we will use the implementation period to negotiate a FTA - which is of course exactly what it will be used for, there isn't anywhere near enough time to do it in eighteen months. IDS says continues:
"Surely the only way to get a proper agreement is to insist that the EU thrashes out our future trade arrangements with us before the end of March 2019. I fully recognise that there may continue to be elements of detail to be completed, but unless there is at least a clearly-settled ‘Heads of Agreement’ between the UK and the EU agreeing the crucial framework of a deal, the two year implementation period will be used by the EU to delay departure".
It's hard to know what to make of this. On the one hand he seems to think we can actually insist on the EU giving us an agreement but then is concerned they will be able to delay our departure. Either we are back in control or we aren't. He is blind to our relative position of weakness.
"Now that the Prime Minister has made her speech indicating that the UK meet our financial obligations, the EU has to respond. Instead of making mealy-mouthed utterances and threatening statements, they need to start the negotiations on trade. To make this happen, we need to put some pressure on them. To do that, two critical factors need to be engaged.
The first is that we publicly, and through strong cabinet leadership, make it clear that we are going to throw resources at the plans for leaving the EU without an agreement. We need to up the pace dramatically on the process, giving regular public updates on progress".
It was OK for us to make threatening statements in the Article 50 letter apparently but the EU must not (they haven't). However, they have responded. They have asked for concrete proposals and clarity, something we haven't provided after six months! There will be a lot of laughter at his suggestion we throw resources at a plan to leave without a deal. It's far too late for that. We don't have the time to acquire the land, get planning permission, appoint contractors and start building all the new customs and food and plant inspection facilities. And if this started to happen international investors might get nervous. He also does not seem to realise the EU will also need to expand customs facilities and they will not rush to spend a lot of money. We would then be in the worst possible situation. Able to receive all EU imports but unable to export at the same level as we do now. Madness.
"Alongside this move, we need to say to the EU that we expect it to respond to the Florence speech with a guarantee that we will now discuss a trade agreement. We should say that the EU has to make that decision by December – or we will assume they do not intend to do so, and that we must make the necessary arrangements to leave without a deal".
An empty threat if ever there was one!
"Instead of listening to the bleating of the CBI, we should recognise that further delay is not in our favour. For instead of business holding back investment for 18 months, the risk is that, unless the implementation period starts with a clear agreement on our future trading relationship already in place, firms are unlikely to wait for up to 40 months. Business needs a clear sense of direction, and as early as possible. Better to have a clean break early than a prolonged process with a complicated and disagreeable ending. Furthermore, the Commission hopes that if it can string the UK along for long enough, it will have longer to try and make it advantageous to set up British-based businesses within the the EU".
This is the party of business talking about the leading business organisation "bleating". What have we come to? He seems to have the military way of thinking that it's better to blow up anything that might be useful - like our entire economy - rather than allow the enemy a victory. He also seems to think the certainty of leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union will encourage investment and finishes his piece with this:
"We are, I believe, poised at a critical moment. As we wait for a somewhat weakened Angela Merkel to re-enter the negotiations, we must either decide we want decisiveness and clarity and set the agenda, or bend the knee and hope for the best. Ninety per cent of the world’s growth is going to be outside the stultifying protectionism of the EU by the time the next few years pass. If we believe as I do that the UK is ready for a British renaissance, then we need to be bold, determined and clear".
So in IDS world, we must decide whether we want to commit suicide or accept our place in the world's richest trade bloc. What he means by 90% of growth coming outside the stultifying protectionism got the EU is anybody's guess. We might find it was very comfortable inside the EU in a few years after we have faced the chill wind of international competition.
