Morning Call: pick of the papers

The ten must-read comment pieces from this morning's papers.

1.  We're rewriting the nation's future. Here's how it looks... (The Independent)

Big projects, stamped with a Union Jack, were ecstatically embraced by public opinion, writes Mary Dejevsky.

2. The grades are down – well done to you all! (The Telegraph)

After decades of exam inflation, yesterday’s GCSE results herald a return to credibility, writes Anthony Seldon.

3.Celebrate Paralympians, but remember they needed state help to get there (Guardian)

As we celebrate these super-fit athletes, benefits for disabled people are being cut and views against them are hardening, writes Polly Toynbe.

4.The Lib Dems don't need a new leader. They need a point (The Independent)

Searching for cheap populist policies and silent on issues long held sacred, what do they stand for now? writes Ian Birrell.

5. How an extraordinary day spent with Tony Nicklinson changed my views on right-to-die (The Telegraph)

Visiting the severely disabled man with locked-in syndrome revealed the depth of his suffering, the seriousness of his intent and the extent to which he had explored every other avenue, writes Peter Stanford.

6. Time to put a stop to speculating on hunger (The Independent)

Even the slightest increase in prices may mean that people go hungry, writes The Independent.

7. Orwell should have his statue at the BBC (The Telegraph)

Far from considering him 'Left-wing’, we conservatives rather admire the writer, writes Daniel Hannan.

8. To Republicans, women are simply the sum of their parts (Guardian)

The GOP's adoption of an anti-abortion platform is further indication of a party that has no clue about reproductive life, writes Ana Marie Cox.

9. How food insecurity keeps the workforce cowed (Guardian)

The development of food banks in the UK marks a shift from welfare to the punitive management of poverty, writes Richard Seymour.

10. The real worry is how have we fallen so far behind the rest of the world (The Independent)

Our system is at best in the middle of the global pack and at worst it is slipping down it, writes Hamish McRae.

 

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.