I agree with David

The Prime Minister is right to push for Turkey’s membership of the European Union.

Just to follow on from James Macintyre's post yesterday, I wanted to praise the brilliant and strident speech that David Cameron delivered in Ankara today. He was right to say that the British government must remain the "strongest possible advocate" of Turkey's membership of the European Union and that it is "wrong to say Turkey can guard the camp but not be allowed to sit inside the tent".

My favourite part of the speech was when the Prime Minister tackled, head on, the "prejudiced" argument of Islamophobic opponents of Turkey's entry into the EU -- or, as he put it, "those who don't differentiate between real Islam and the extremist version".

Cameron said:

They don't understand the values that Islam shares with other religions like Christianity and Judaism that these are all inherently peaceful religions. Nor do they understand that Turkey is a peaceful country, with a long history of religious tolerance.

I will always argue that the values of real Islam are not incompatible with the values of Europe. That Europe is defined not by religion, but by values. The EU is a secular organisation. And Europe welcomes people of all faiths, or none.

Hear, hear!

UPDATE: I should also add that I completely agree (surprise, surprise!) with every word of this paragraph from Dave's speech as well:

Let me be clear. The Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla was completely unacceptable. And I have told Prime Minister Netanyahu, we will expect the Israeli inquiry to be swift, transparent and rigorous. Let me also be clear that the situation in Gaza has to change. Humanitarian goods and people must flow in both directions. Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp.

I'm not quite sure why Peter Hoskin over at Coffee House objects to the PM's use of such "provocative language" on the Middle East. You don't have to be a Hamas supporter to recognise that Gaza is indeed an open-air "prison camp", cut off from the outside world, and that the prison guards are the Israelis and their Egyptian allies.

Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

What Jeremy Corbyn gets right about the single market

Technically, you can be outside the EU but inside the single market. Philosophically, you're still in the EU. 

I’ve been trying to work out what bothers me about the response to Jeremy Corbyn’s interview on the Andrew Marr programme.

What bothers me about Corbyn’s interview is obvious: the use of the phrase “wholesale importation” to describe people coming from Eastern Europe to the United Kingdom makes them sound like boxes of sugar rather than people. Adding to that, by suggesting that this “importation” had “destroy[ed] conditions”, rather than laying the blame on Britain’s under-enforced and under-regulated labour market, his words were more appropriate to a politician who believes that immigrants are objects to be scapegoated, not people to be served. (Though perhaps that is appropriate for the leader of the Labour Party if recent history is any guide.)

But I’m bothered, too, by the reaction to another part of his interview, in which the Labour leader said that Britain must leave the single market as it leaves the European Union. The response to this, which is technically correct, has been to attack Corbyn as Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are members of the single market but not the European Union.

In my view, leaving the single market will make Britain poorer in the short and long term, will immediately render much of Labour’s 2017 manifesto moot and will, in the long run, be a far bigger victory for right-wing politics than any mere election. Corbyn’s view, that the benefits of freeing a British government from the rules of the single market will outweigh the costs, doesn’t seem very likely to me. So why do I feel so uneasy about the claim that you can be a member of the single market and not the European Union?

I think it’s because the difficult truth is that these countries are, de facto, in the European Union in any meaningful sense. By any estimation, the three pillars of Britain’s “Out” vote were, firstly, control over Britain’s borders, aka the end of the free movement of people, secondly, more money for the public realm aka £350m a week for the NHS, and thirdly control over Britain’s own laws. It’s hard to see how, if the United Kingdom continues to be subject to the free movement of people, continues to pay large sums towards the European Union, and continues to have its laws set elsewhere, we have “honoured the referendum result”.

None of which changes my view that leaving the single market would be a catastrophe for the United Kingdom. But retaining Britain’s single market membership starts with making the argument for single market membership, not hiding behind rhetorical tricks about whether or not single market membership was on the ballot last June, when it quite clearly was. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.