Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. The world is stuck in a vicious cycle (Financial Times)

Without a full course of treatment, the economic patient risks relapse, writes Lawrence Summers.

2. Andrew Mitchell should be gone by Wednesday (Guardian)

David Cameron can't sit this one out, says Jackie Ashley. The 'pleb' row has changed how voters see his party and is turning into a calamity.

3. BAE Systems, arms traders, and how the sordid greed of some of our rulers knows no bounds (Independent)

We will never be able to challenge the hold of British arms companies until their links with the establishment are severed, says Owen Jones.

4. Go for the common ground, not the centre (Times) (£)

You can be Eurosceptic and still love the NHS, writes Tim Montgomerie. The Tories can win if they say so.

5. Occupy was right – all the church could say was 'go home' (Guardian)

When the protest began exactly one year ago, the Church of England should also have been angry about the financial crisis, writes Giles Fraser.

6. Don’t honour a Brussels office block – give the Nobel to Maggie (Daily Telegraph)

Britain’s former prime minister has done far more than the EU to foster peace in Europe, argues Boris Johnson.

7.  George Osborne is still in denial over his failing strategy (Guardian)

The IMF's downgrade of its forecast for Britain shows how reckless it is for the chancellor to press on with austerity, says Ed Balls.

8. Too many wrongs made by a Wright over Hillsborough (Sun)

Four crucial witnesses may never have spoken publicly about the deceit peddled to them by South Yorkshire Police, writes Trevor Kavanagh.

9. Mexico is forgotten story of US election (Financial Times)

Americans only think of their neighbour as a law and order problem, says Edward Luce.

10. Will Murdoch move backfire on top Tory? (Daily Mail)

It defies belief that Maria Miller has not distanced herself from the Murdoch clan, writes Andrew Pierce.

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.