Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. The Tories just aren't patrician enough (Guardian)

Self-conscious and lacking in confidence, the Conservative party has forgotten the redeeming virtues of the old aristocracy, writes Geoffrey Wheatcroft.

2. London has turned its back on the very people it needs most (Daily Telegraph)

A home-buying scheme to aid the 'squeezed middle’ is essential to protect the economy, argues Boris Johnson.

3. My 2020 vision for a Boris Johnson Cabinet (Times) (£)

David Cameron faces a tough party conference, but what does the longer-term future hold for the Conservatives, asks Tim Montgomerie.

4. Americans deserve a better choice than the one they've got (Guardian)

US electoral system funded by the wealthy will never distribute resources equitably, whether Barack Obama is in charge or not, says Gary Younge.

5. We are ending the something for nothing culture (Daily Mail)

It is possible to reduce the welfare budget by a further £10bn, say George Osborne and Iain Duncan Smith.

6. Conservatives in Birmingham: a nasty case of the blues (Guardian)

Since a brave speech by Theresa May in 2002, the momentum of the Tory reform project has slipped badly, says a Guardian editorial.

7. Relentless austerity will only deepen Greek woes (Financial Times)

In the absence of a very big change in policy, we should expect Spain to go down the same tube, writes Wolfgang Munchau.

8. We can profit from EU chaos (Sun)

Brussels needs Britain to help save the whole structure, not just the single currency, from collapsing in ruins, writes Trevor Kavanagh.

9. Cameron must modernise, not appease the reactionaries (Independent)

David Cameron needs to remind people who he is – a compassionate and modern conservative, says Ian Birrell.

10. Parallels between apartheid and Argentina (Financial Times)

Argentina is heading, and not for the first time, over an economic cliff, writes Tony Leon.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

PMQs review: Theresa May shows again that Brexit means hard Brexit

The Prime Minister's promise of "an end to free movement" is incompatible with single market membership. 

Theresa May, it is commonly said, has told us nothing about Brexit. At today's PMQs, Jeremy Corbyn ran with this line, demanding that May offer "some clarity". In response, as she has before, May stated what has become her defining aim: "an end to free movement". This vow makes a "hard Brexit" (or "chaotic Brexit" as Corbyn called it) all but inevitable. The EU regards the "four freedoms" (goods, capital, services and people) as indivisible and will not grant the UK an exemption. The risk of empowering eurosceptics elsewhere is too great. Only at the cost of leaving the single market will the UK regain control of immigration.

May sought to open up a dividing line by declaring that "the Labour Party wants to continue with free movement" (it has refused to rule out its continuation). "I want to deliver on the will of the British people, he is trying to frustrate the British people," she said. The problem is determining what the people's will is. Though polls show voters want control of free movement, they also show they want to maintain single market membership. It is not only Boris Johnson who is pro-having cake and pro-eating it. 

Corbyn later revealed that he had been "consulting the great philosophers" as to the meaning of Brexit (a possible explanation for the non-mention of Heathrow, Zac Goldsmith's resignation and May's Goldman Sachs speech). "All I can come up with is Baldrick, who says our cunning plan is to have no plan," he quipped. Without missing a beat, May replied: "I'm interested that [he] chose Baldrick, of course the actor playing Baldrick was a member of the Labour Party, as I recall." (Tony Robinson, a Corbyn critic ("crap leader"), later tweeted that he still is one). "We're going to deliver the best possible deal in goods and services and we're going to deliver an end to free movement," May continued. The problem for her is that the latter aim means that the "best possible deal" may be a long way from the best. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.