Morning Call: pick of the papers

The ten must-read comment pieces from the Sunday papers.

1. This railway fiasco reveals all that's wrong with the Tories (Observer)

If you hollow out the state, expensive disasters like the West Coast franchise will become routine, says Will Hutton.

2. Those awesome Tory tough guys are itching to take on anybody (...so long as it's not a fair fight) (Mail on Sunday)

Instead of introducing welfare reform carefully and slowly, the Tories seem hellbent on using brute force, writes Viv Groskop.

3. The Man with the Plan can’t keep avoiding the Blond One (Sunday Telegraph)

There is a clear and present danger that Boris Johnson will steal the show in Birmingham, writes Matthew d'Ancona. The Cameroons must act.

4. Now, Dave, will you take Ed seriously? (Sunday Times) (£)

The prime minister needs to convince us there is more to his own plan for one nation than austerity, says Martin Ivens.

5. Boris Johnson reminds Tories of what David Cameron has lost (Observer)

Number 10 says it is relaxed about the mayor's speech at conference, writes Andrew Rawnsley. It is as relaxed as a cat on a hot tin roof.

6. Spot the clues in the battle of the veeps (Independent on Sunday)

Vice-presidential debates have a chequered history, but sometimes they can be a springboard to the top job, writes Rupert Cornwell.

7. The sheep have stampeded - and they'll sweep Ed straight into No10 (Mail on Sunday)

Miliband will be the next Prime Minister, and, in the end, our political media are power-worshippers, says Peter Hitchens.

8. Why does Jeremy Hunt want to turn the clock back on the abortion debate? (Observer)

The health secretary's intervention on abortion time limits is part of a concerted attack on women's rights, says Catherine Bennett.

9. Dave's best bet is a repeat of the 1983 show (Independent on Sunday)

It may seem harsh, but elections can be won even if a minority is suffering, writes John Rentoul.

10. Mitt Romney teaches the Tories a lesson in conviction (Sunday Telegraph)

Osborne needs some good headlines this week – and that means tax cuts, says Janet Daley.

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.