:00:00. > :00:20.The question of what Britain's post-divorce relationship
:00:21. > :00:22.with the EU will look like dwarfs all else
:00:23. > :00:27.It will define Theresa May's premiership whether she likes
:00:28. > :00:35.a Conservative die-hard Brexiteer who fell out with David Cameron
:00:36. > :00:38.and is now watching Prime Minister May like a hawk.
:00:39. > :00:40.Can she please the Brexiteers without destabilising
:00:41. > :01:17.Iain Duncan Smith, welcome to HARDtalk.
:01:18. > :01:24.I think it is fair to say that the reality of Brexit is sinking in, not
:01:25. > :01:29.just in the UK but all around the world, and one of the most striking
:01:30. > :01:38.aspects of the reaction we see is the sinking value of the British
:01:39. > :01:43.pound. There is a lack of confidence from the rest of the world. Does
:01:44. > :01:47.that give you concern? Not at all. I think you need to look on a wider
:01:48. > :01:52.scale to balance really what the world is thinking. The value of the
:01:53. > :01:56.pound as a lot of the Commons believe has been too high for some
:01:57. > :02:00.time. One of the reasons British manufacturers have struggled so much
:02:01. > :02:04.to sell into Europe, and you've seen our share of oversea trade with
:02:05. > :02:10.Europe falling, it is because basically the pound has been very
:02:11. > :02:15.high value, partly because we are getting our economy back in order,
:02:16. > :02:19.but mostly the UK economy has been overrated and this flooring of the
:02:20. > :02:22.pound will be and has been beneficial to manufacturing. No
:02:23. > :02:27.doubt that's true, it has had that one beneficial effect... We see the
:02:28. > :02:32.effect of it in the stock market. But the bottomline is that what we
:02:33. > :02:36.also must appreciate is that the rest of the world looks at the UK
:02:37. > :02:41.and is now valuing the UK and its assets at something like 20% less
:02:42. > :02:45.than it was just a few short months ago and that says something
:02:46. > :02:52.significant about the future view of where Britain is going. But does it?
:02:53. > :02:56.I think if you laid too much on the idea of what happens to a currency
:02:57. > :03:00.in the short term you lose sight of what is the long-term possibility.
:03:01. > :03:08.Here I would just argue that with currency you are always in the world
:03:09. > :03:12.-- in the realms of people who are seeing if they can sell it or by
:03:13. > :03:18.Evan Bourne. So there's an element of this which is casino. -- or buy
:03:19. > :03:23.it long. Of course they will lower the level of the pound until they
:03:24. > :03:27.find out what kind of relationship we have with the EU. That was always
:03:28. > :03:31.expected. But in that period, you can talk to economists like this,
:03:32. > :03:37.they will say that in the short term that's good for the UK economy. Just
:03:38. > :03:41.today, as we sit here, there's been a very interesting survey, out which
:03:42. > :03:46.says that consumer confidence in the UK has not been higher for years and
:03:47. > :03:50.actually when they were asked, where did you think the economy is going
:03:51. > :03:54.and do you think this is positive, it is overwhelmingly positive. So
:03:55. > :03:57.interesting to note that beyond the currency there's a lot of strong
:03:58. > :04:01.signs that actually the British public is buying into the idea that
:04:02. > :04:04.now maybe they are in a position to improve their lot, rather than be
:04:05. > :04:08.worse, which is important because they buy things and our economy is
:04:09. > :04:13.more about the UK than exports. One thing about the timing of the latest
:04:14. > :04:18.round of as you call it gambling against the pound. It did happen
:04:19. > :04:22.after Theresa May made a claim that she will trigger Article 50, that
:04:23. > :04:30.is, given a two-year process of thrashing out a leading deal with
:04:31. > :04:34.the EU, she will trigger it by March of next year. Now, there are many
:04:35. > :04:38.people and indeed some at the very top of the British civil service who
:04:39. > :04:43.think that was a terrible mistake, because it has handed over one of
:04:44. > :04:47.the few cards that she had to play. Again, I don't really agree with
:04:48. > :04:52.them. We are into a new realm of politics in a sense and I think the
:04:53. > :04:55.civil service have got to catch up a little bit. The reality is that I
:04:56. > :05:00.think what the European Union wants, and I agree with them, the system
:05:01. > :05:05.help them out as much as to help us, we need to get on with this as soon
:05:06. > :05:08.as was the land we need to make the break with the EU as quickly as
:05:09. > :05:12.possible, this is what the Germans want, it is what the Commission
:05:13. > :05:16.wants, so we should be working with them to achieve this. So what we
:05:17. > :05:20.need to do is let them know that we are by a certain date going to be
:05:21. > :05:23.officially engaging, we would of course engage previously about
:05:24. > :05:26.elements to do with that, but that's important. The clock is now ticking.
:05:27. > :05:31.We know the trigger will come by March of next year, so the clock is
:05:32. > :05:36.ticking, and what is also plain... Commentators have made this obvious.
:05:37. > :05:40.There is nobody really who believes that two years is going to be long
:05:41. > :05:44.enough to thrash out the highly complex deal that will be the future
:05:45. > :05:52.relationship between the UK and the EU. Therefore, we now face a cliff
:05:53. > :05:56.edge. Two years from March 2017 we face that cliff edge and it is
:05:57. > :06:02.likely there will be no thrashed out deal and Britain will have to face
:06:03. > :06:07.nothing but the standard World Trade Organisation relationship with the
:06:08. > :06:13.EU. That will be a disaster. First of all, on both counts, there are
:06:14. > :06:17.two questions here, first of all I don't agree again with the FT's
:06:18. > :06:21.commentary on this, pretty much totally. I think they've been wrong
:06:22. > :06:26.almost every count, even though they may not admit this now. Far from
:06:27. > :06:33.admitting it, the Financial Times it now says... They got their position
:06:34. > :06:36.wrong over this and their forecast about what would happen to the
:06:37. > :06:40.British economy is fundamentally wrong as well. Let's deal with this
:06:41. > :06:44.in a sense of perspective. Look, rules around Article 50 are very
:06:45. > :06:48.specific. It is that you have to years to get yourself sorted out.
:06:49. > :06:55.There are two elements to Article 50. There is a big misunderstanding.
:06:56. > :06:59.There are two parallel elements. The first is to leave there are lots of
:07:00. > :07:03.functional bits and pieces you need to tidy up as you leave. What are
:07:04. > :07:07.our commitments in financial aspects over a longer period of time, what
:07:08. > :07:10.is our share of things, may be there are pension issues, do we want to
:07:11. > :07:16.stay in things like the arrest warrant and things like that. Basic
:07:17. > :07:19.structural stuff. That is the key to Article 50. The second bid is the
:07:20. > :07:24.parallel position about what you want that relationship to look like
:07:25. > :07:28.after you leave? In the future. That's the point I was making. The
:07:29. > :07:32.first element needs to be complete within the first two years. The
:07:33. > :07:36.second element is open to how simple you make this and how quickly you
:07:37. > :07:42.can get it done. If you go out there with a very complicated ask that you
:07:43. > :07:46.know will not be met, then you will not reach that endpoint. But if, as
:07:47. > :07:50.they argued and I wrote a paper about this, if you keep the ask as
:07:51. > :07:55.simple as possible to them, recognising what they can't possibly
:07:56. > :08:00.give you, that is access... Not access, but membership of what we
:08:01. > :08:04.call the single market... What you mean is that there will be no
:08:05. > :08:08.preferential access at all? Not at all. What I am saying is there is a
:08:09. > :08:12.big difference between membership of the single market and access to the
:08:13. > :08:16.internal market. But the keyword you are using is preferential. Everyone
:08:17. > :08:22.can have access to the single market. North Korea can have access.
:08:23. > :08:26.The key issue is preferential access. You have an arrangement
:08:27. > :08:30.which is about free trade and free access, for goods and services, it
:08:31. > :08:35.is ultimately in the interest of the European Union as much as it is for
:08:36. > :08:40.the UK. Also this idea... That's not true. Can I stop you? I didn't mean
:08:41. > :08:45.to interrupted rudely, but you and many others who are, as I said, the
:08:46. > :08:50.diehard Brexiteers always insist, look, it is as much in their
:08:51. > :08:57.interest, the EU ID seven, as much as in owls to do a deal that works
:08:58. > :09:00.for us both. -- as ours. That's patently not true. If you look at
:09:01. > :09:06.the words of Angela Merkel... Why are you laughing? Because these two
:09:07. > :09:10.people, Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande, are facing election. You
:09:11. > :09:15.wouldn't expect them to say anything publicly other than seeing where
:09:16. > :09:20.they -- a will stay where they are. If I was in a position I would do
:09:21. > :09:24.the same! It is not about short-term politics, it is about long-term
:09:25. > :09:29.politics! It is about the future of the European Union! If you are
:09:30. > :09:33.Francois Hollande Ray Nagin have a very anti-EU party snapping at your
:09:34. > :09:36.heels and you are in a terrible shambles at home, your domestic
:09:37. > :09:41.ratings are shocking. Your worry right now is that actually that
:09:42. > :09:45.party, in this case the national front in France, is going to make
:09:46. > :09:49.major gains on the basis on how that you will say, well, we will be very
:09:50. > :09:52.decent of the British. He won't say anything of the sort until they get
:09:53. > :09:56.through the election. The real point is that. Right now at this level
:09:57. > :09:59.what we should be doing and are doing is talking to lots of
:10:00. > :10:02.different organisations in the European Union, business
:10:03. > :10:06.organisations, organisations in financial services, to speak to them
:10:07. > :10:12.and get the sense from them, and I've had discussions with people
:10:13. > :10:17.from German business and so on, that once this is done and dusted what is
:10:18. > :10:20.in interests of the EU is that we are able to access the British
:10:21. > :10:26.market and vice-versa. That makes sense. To do so without any concept
:10:27. > :10:30.of a massive tariff. That is your beginning. With respect, I think
:10:31. > :10:34.many people in Germany and around Europe will see it as perhaps
:10:35. > :10:38.arrogant and complacent for you to believe that people like Angela
:10:39. > :10:42.Merkel, when she says, if we don't say that full access to the internal
:10:43. > :10:49.market is connected to complete acceptance of the four Brexit is
:10:50. > :10:53.principles, including free movement, where anyone can do what they want,
:10:54. > :11:00.when you say to ignore that because Shias elections coming up, it is
:11:01. > :11:04.nothing more than complacency. What she's talking about his of the
:11:05. > :11:08.single market. In the bout it. She is also talking about preferential
:11:09. > :11:12.access to the single market. She says if you walk away... I would say
:11:13. > :11:16.the Angela Merkel clearly at this point, is the only reason that
:11:17. > :11:20.people are members of the EU, there is little or no point in having a
:11:21. > :11:23.European Union. If the only purpose is this issue around having control
:11:24. > :11:27.of your borders or not having control of your borders, if that's
:11:28. > :11:31.the only issue than what is the point of the European Union? She
:11:32. > :11:34.knows there is a bigger point to the EU, which we don't want to be part
:11:35. > :11:37.of, which is the whole political drive to a closer association in
:11:38. > :11:45.Europe, maybe even call interstate. The point is she knows that. She
:11:46. > :11:51.knows that the real reason. The UK reliance on exports into the EU is
:11:52. > :11:55.three times the EU's reliance on exports into the UK. So when you
:11:56. > :12:00.say, though, they need us just as much as we need them, it is just not
:12:01. > :12:06.true. In the most basic terms. Why would EU spend the past 26 years
:12:07. > :12:10.attempting to get free trade deals with countries that do even less
:12:11. > :12:13.trade with them than we do? Why would they see to get something done
:12:14. > :12:18.with places like South Korea, it is the only one of the major economies,
:12:19. > :12:22.even Canada, and on, this is important, why would you waste your
:12:23. > :12:25.time failing at that, by the way for the most part, where actual fact you
:12:26. > :12:29.have one of your biggest trading partners that is not going to be
:12:30. > :12:33.inside the European Union, but actually you have a really good
:12:34. > :12:37.balance of trade with them right now. A country that complies with
:12:38. > :12:41.every single level of regulation and agreement, that has been inside the
:12:42. > :12:45.organisation for 40 years, which would take very little in a sense to
:12:46. > :12:49.tidy up arrangements around it and you would have a very interesting
:12:50. > :12:52.relationship with which could be done quickly? The answer to that is
:12:53. > :12:57.common sense invariably prevails in these matters. You say we are small
:12:58. > :13:01.apartment that they are to us, but hang on a second. If you are a
:13:02. > :13:08.German car maker or a French farmer or a producer of agriculture... But
:13:09. > :13:12.they won't be making the decisions. Angela Merkel and people like her,
:13:13. > :13:16.27 of them have to be unanimous. Have a look at what's going on in
:13:17. > :13:19.some of these countries. Have you ever seen so much arguing? You sound
:13:20. > :13:24.supremely confident that you know what happening in the rest of
:13:25. > :13:28.Europe, but some would doubt it but your confidence shines through. Let
:13:29. > :13:36.me ask you a very simple... Are you a gambling man? I don't gamble. You
:13:37. > :13:39.are gambling. You have boldly seen the Times newspaper, they have a
:13:40. > :13:44.leaked report that the Treasury presented to Cabinet. The treasury
:13:45. > :13:48.was Mac analysis... The one from April. Yes. They have stuck to it
:13:49. > :13:52.and the Treasury's top officials, who you seem to think aren't worth
:13:53. > :13:56.listening to, say that the likelihood is, as with disgust, that
:13:57. > :14:02.if it comes to pass that two years from March 2017 Britain is there
:14:03. > :14:05.with the trade relationship that is nothing more than the basic WTO
:14:06. > :14:12.model, the treasury says it could cost Britain more than 60 billion
:14:13. > :14:18.pounds a year. You tell me you are not a gambler? The same report that
:14:19. > :14:22.the then Chancellor got them to do, that only looked at the downsides of
:14:23. > :14:23.what could possibly happen. So you are prepared to gamble the
:14:24. > :14:33.Treasury's entire policy? I will tell you who is gambling. The
:14:34. > :14:37.Treasury when they produce a report which doesn't do an upside. Every
:14:38. > :14:41.economic report does a downside and an upside. You have to acknowledge
:14:42. > :14:46.the downside risk is there, that is the gamble. Let's have a look at the
:14:47. > :14:49.upside, the upside of what happens when the UK increases its value of
:14:50. > :14:53.trade around the world. The reason why the Treasury report on 12 April
:14:54. > :14:58.was so discredited, because it was wholly political, it was produced to
:14:59. > :15:03.support remain vote. That was their criticism at the time, it remains.
:15:04. > :15:07.And for them, if this is the case, for them to suddenly does this back
:15:08. > :15:10.off again and produced this as though it was tablets of stone
:15:11. > :15:14.written by God Almighty to tell you exactly how the world will be in a
:15:15. > :15:18.few years' time, I find it really quite visible. My point is this is
:15:19. > :15:22.not a gamble, it is gambling when all you do is load the dice to try
:15:23. > :15:26.and tell everybody how bad things will be. I am trying to the ground
:15:27. > :15:29.he will listen to. You won't listen to Angela Merkel and Francois
:15:30. > :15:32.Hollande, because you say they are politicians. You say that Treasury
:15:33. > :15:36.are stuck in a timewarp, they haven't accepted June 23. So you
:15:37. > :15:40.won't accept either. Will you accept those businesses which are voting
:15:41. > :15:43.with their feet? Russian bank in London which says it is no longer
:15:44. > :15:47.going to expand its London operations, it is going to move to
:15:48. > :15:50.Europe because of what is happening in the UK right now, today. The boss
:15:51. > :15:55.of one of the biggest cart companies in the world, who says that unless
:15:56. > :15:58.he is guaranteed that he will get compensation if indeed we go to WTO
:15:59. > :16:02.trade rules, he is not going to invest any more in the UK. Will you
:16:03. > :16:06.listen to all of the business leaders who say that, in their
:16:07. > :16:11.real-world experience, what is happening right now is going to hurt
:16:12. > :16:15.their businesses? Of course I listen to what business leaders say. I
:16:16. > :16:20.listen to all of them too, by the way. Just like JCB today walking out
:16:21. > :16:25.of the CBI, is our biggest export manufacturer in Britain, saying they
:16:26. > :16:28.don't agree at all with the CBI's position on this, they believe that
:16:29. > :16:32.leaving the European Union will be a positive for us. There is a balance
:16:33. > :16:36.of opinion out there. What tends to happen is you only get one side.
:16:37. > :16:40.Business is as divided as anybody else. Of course we want to make sure
:16:41. > :16:43.at the end of the day that research business has the opportunity to
:16:44. > :16:47.prosper and thrive, because that is jobs and that is industry and money.
:16:48. > :16:50.Well, I'm actually more thingy of the overseas businesses and business
:16:51. > :16:54.leaders who need to decide whether to invest in the UK, and are clearly
:16:55. > :16:57.saying right now we can't make that commitment. There is a big leap of
:16:58. > :17:02.faith if you go from somebody saying I need to know where the position is
:17:03. > :17:04.going to be before we can make big considerations about investment,
:17:05. > :17:07.Tsang somehow all of these businesses and everybody -- every
:17:08. > :17:11.thing else is just going to evaporate from the UK. There are a
:17:12. > :17:15.lot of reasons why businesses are in the UK. In the city for example it
:17:16. > :17:18.is hugely to do with the knowledge base that is here, the level of
:17:19. > :17:22.contract law which is much simpler, there is huge ability to be able to
:17:23. > :17:25.pull the interests and expertise that exists is, and of course the
:17:26. > :17:29.language issue. In more than that, as one German financier told me the
:17:30. > :17:34.other day, we like being in London, it is the only global city in Europe
:17:35. > :17:38.and it is a much better place to be. So yes, of course, banks will move,
:17:39. > :17:41.things will happen, they do all the time by the way. But the city of
:17:42. > :17:44.London's real competitor is not Frankfurt or Paris, otherwise by now
:17:45. > :17:47.they would have seriously big financial services businesses. It is
:17:48. > :17:50.actually New York, and it is Singapore, and these other big
:17:51. > :17:53.international centres. So the position for us is, how do you keep
:17:54. > :17:56.costs under regulation is low on these businesses, and on these
:17:57. > :18:00.centres, to allow business to actually invest? That is the key.
:18:01. > :18:04.One of your most powerful messages during the whole Brexit campaign was
:18:05. > :18:06.that he wanted to take back control for Britain, but in particular of
:18:07. > :18:10.course for British Parliamentary sovereignty. It seems deeply ironic
:18:11. > :18:14.that now here we sit having to make sense of Brexit on the one thing you
:18:15. > :18:20.don't want to do is give Parliament a right to express its opinion on
:18:21. > :18:25.what happens next. On the contrary, I do. I absolutely want to. So you
:18:26. > :18:31.disagree? In the paper that we wrote for the Centre for Social Justice,
:18:32. > :18:35.published about two weeks ago, we made it very clear that the best way
:18:36. > :18:40.that you can get this done is by bringing forward a bill to repeal
:18:41. > :18:44.the 1972 European Communities Act. Now, if you bring that forward,
:18:45. > :18:48.everything in that bill is everything that is going to be in
:18:49. > :18:51.Article 50. So that means that as that Bill progresses through its
:18:52. > :18:53.committee stages, it can be amended, you can have the opportunity to
:18:54. > :18:57.decide which could they support, they don't support, that will be
:18:58. > :19:01.debated all the way over the next two years. Well, why can't MPs
:19:02. > :19:05.debate the vote on the trigger of Article 50? They will be voting on
:19:06. > :19:09.all of that. But why can't they specifically... There is a debate
:19:10. > :19:14.tomorrow brought by the opposition, they have opposition votes if they
:19:15. > :19:17.feel very clear about that. Is a guy who was on the same side of the
:19:18. > :19:22.barricades as you, a barrister as well, Stephen Phillips, he thinks it
:19:23. > :19:25.is absolutely outrageous that Theresa May and the government won't
:19:26. > :19:30.give Parliament the right to give its assent to triggering Article 50.
:19:31. > :19:33.Well, because it doesn't have to get the ascent from Parliament directly
:19:34. > :19:38.on this, but Parliament is capable, you may not realise that. But the
:19:39. > :19:42.British people only voted on the broad idea of Brexit, they didn't
:19:43. > :19:46.have any idea what Brexit would look like, and we now have the beginnings
:19:47. > :19:50.of a fleshing out of a government position. Surely the Parliament... I
:19:51. > :19:54.say to Mr Phillips and the rest, the fact is the Parliament is quite
:19:55. > :19:58.capable of having its say on the Article 50 negotiations, again and
:19:59. > :20:03.again and again. I am talking about the triggering of it. The timing, as
:20:04. > :20:07.we have discussed in this interview, is very important. Wednesday, there
:20:08. > :20:10.is a debate, believe it or not, about the triggering of Article 50.
:20:11. > :20:13.That is already in Parliament. And Parliament would express its will.
:20:14. > :20:18.They can have another debate on Thursday. And next week, you guys
:20:19. > :20:22.will get bored of it. Surely not! We also will not get bored with trying
:20:23. > :20:25.to tease out what you mean by taking that control on matters of
:20:26. > :20:29.immigration. You still haven't made it plain what immigration, when you
:20:30. > :20:32.have taken back control, is going to look like. David Cameron used
:20:33. > :20:36.figures, tens of thousands he said, net migration number. That was
:20:37. > :20:40.obviously nonsense. What is going to happen. Stephen, let me just tell
:20:41. > :20:45.you that. Again, in this paper just to make weeks ago, I am not in
:20:46. > :20:48.government, by the way. You are very important voice on the Brexit side.
:20:49. > :20:53.I and some colleagues published a paper saying this is how you leave.
:20:54. > :20:57.One of the papers was called what you do about migration, how do you
:20:58. > :21:02.control it in a way that allows you to get the best out of it not some
:21:03. > :21:05.of the worst aspects. So I brought back a proposal which I hope and
:21:06. > :21:10.believe the government may adopt which is to say that the way to do
:21:11. > :21:14.it is not to have heart borders, but to have a permit and system that
:21:15. > :21:17.what you do is you have work permits that are applied for, that at the
:21:18. > :21:19.upper end, where you have scientists, academics, you know,
:21:20. > :21:21.shortages of really skilled value-added Labour the software
:21:22. > :21:24.engineers, things like that, you have a very light touch. They
:21:25. > :21:27.basically would notice no difference, come and go as they
:21:28. > :21:31.please, pretty much, people come and work here, adding value. At the
:21:32. > :21:35.lower end, as you get down to the low skilled area, which has the most
:21:36. > :21:38.genetic effect on incomes of the poor get the poorest in society,
:21:39. > :21:41.there you have a much tougher and stronger system, getting British
:21:42. > :21:45.businesses to accept that their first port of call for Labour and
:21:46. > :21:48.for skills is in the UK. So this is where Amber Rudd's notions of
:21:49. > :21:52.getting countries, companies who have to list all the foreign workers
:21:53. > :21:57.comes in, is it? That proposal is not in our paper. You think that is
:21:58. > :22:02.the way to go, is it? No, sorry. It is not... No, I'm sorry, it is not
:22:03. > :22:06.in my paper. What I am suggesting is a simple process of work permits so
:22:07. > :22:09.that if people want to bring some in from overseas to work, at this
:22:10. > :22:12.point, Europe or elsewhere, they have to be able to demonstrate first
:22:13. > :22:16.and foremost that they have attempted to actually find that
:22:17. > :22:19.level of skill it here in the UK. I think that is reasonable. This by
:22:20. > :22:24.the way can be done very quickly. When I was at the Department of Work
:22:25. > :22:30.and Pensions we set up a new system. That will tell you all of the people
:22:31. > :22:34.who are still available. It is quite important, this point. What I am
:22:35. > :22:36.saying is you get the best of both worlds. You get control over
:22:37. > :22:40.uncontrolled migration, which has damaged, I think, people 's living
:22:41. > :22:44.standards at the bottom end of the income scale, at the same time you
:22:45. > :22:47.also have the ability to make a very flexible where there is will add
:22:48. > :22:52.value at the high skilled end. That is what we are after, not anti-
:22:53. > :22:56.migration but making sure value-added migration can continue.
:22:57. > :23:00.A final point, you have lots of other interest, social justice and
:23:01. > :23:03.other things, is it not the case that because Brexit is such a
:23:04. > :23:06.massive and complex issue is going to overshadow everything else that
:23:07. > :23:11.Theresa May's government tries to do, including things that you really
:23:12. > :23:15.care about? That is the truth. It is certainly the most enormous decision
:23:16. > :23:20.that will have been taken, certainly in my lifetime. It will suck all of
:23:21. > :23:24.the political oxygen out of the room. Well, if you don't watch it,
:23:25. > :23:28.the answer to that is yes. But I think actually it is wholly feasible
:23:29. > :23:32.to conduct good domestic government while at the same time concluding
:23:33. > :23:36.this. And I am chairman of the Centre for Social Justice, now that
:23:37. > :23:40.I have left the government, and our purpose now is not to talk about
:23:41. > :23:43.Europe to talk about how do you improve the quality of life for the
:23:44. > :23:48.bottom half of the income in society. Well, that will be for
:23:49. > :23:52.another day and indeed it will be connected to what happens to Brexit
:23:53. > :23:54.as well. But we have to ended there. Iain Duncan Smith, thank you. Thank
:23:55. > :23:59.you. Thank you very much.