CommentPlus: pick of the papers

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

1. Gove's claim to be "freeing" schools is a cloak for more control from the centre (Guardian)

This dreary abuse of local democracy was tried by Thatcher and Blair. But, says Simon Jenkins, all people want is fair access to a good school nearby.

Read the CommentPlus summary.

2. And so, Cameron's first victims are . . . (Independent)

Johann Hari argues that the Tories' cuts target the unemployed, poor kids, children in care, the elderly, the disabled and any feeble little steps we were making towards a low-carbon economy.

Read the CommentPlus summary.

3. Useless, jobless men -- the social blight of our age (Times)

Camilla Cavendish discusses the culture of dependency on benefits, arguing that the welfare system has produced an emasculated generation that can find neither work nor wife. Welfare has entrenched poverty.

Read the CommentPlus summary.

4. Spare Britain the policy hairshirt (Financial Times)

The OECD says the only big risk is a loss of fiscal and monetary "credibility". It is not, says Martin Wolf. The far greater risk is that the economy flounders for years. If that happened, eliminating the deficit would be very hard.

Read the CommentPlus summary.

5. Labour will be tempted. But this is no way to break the coalition (Guardian)

Labour will soon face a historic choice on the electoral reform vote, says Martin Kettle. The party does not have a good record of advancing its own strategic interests, but its wisest strategy will be to back the Yes campaign.

Read the CommentPlus summary.

6. Bad laws are putting prostitutes' lives in danger (Times)

Alan White argues that it is impossible to stop sex being sold on the street, so we must protect those who do it. Legalisation is not necessarily the solution to addicted street-workers, but better police practice might be.

Read the CommentPlus summary.

7. Merkel has joined Thatcher in Europe's corner shop (Financial Times)

If Germany succumbs fully to the British disease of calculating the value of European Union membership on an abacus, the whole project is doomed, warns Philip Stephens.

Read the CommentPlus summary.

8. North Korea -- the great unknown (Independent)

The world's last Stalinist regime is once again on the brink of conflict. What does North Korea hope to achieve by such posturing? We just can't know, says Rupert Cornwell.

Read the CommentPlus summary.

9. The real cost of cheap oil (Guardian)

John Vidal points out that the Gulf disaster is unusual only for having happened so near the US. Elsewhere, Big Oil rarely cleans up its mess. More than anything else, the industry dreads being made fully accountable to developing countries for the damage it has wreaked.

Read the CommentPlus summary.

10. BP shows the need for a rethink of regulation (Financial Times)

One thing is certain, writes David Scheffer: corporate self-regulation and public oversight have failed. We need to rethink how commercial firms operate in such a fragile world.

Read the CommentPlus summary.

Special offer: get 12 issues of the New Statesman for just £5.99 plus a free copy of "Liberty in the Age of Terror" by A C Grayling.

Getty
Show Hide image

What type of Brexit did we vote for? 150,000 Conservative members will decide

As Michael Gove launches his leadership bid, what Leave looks like will be decided by Conservative activists.

Why did 17 million people vote to the leave the European Union, and what did they want? That’s the question that will shape the direction of British politics and economics for the next half-century, perhaps longer.

Vote Leave triumphed in part because they fought a campaign that combined ruthless precision about what the European Union would do – the illusory £350m a week that could be clawed back with a Brexit vote, the imagined 75 million Turks who would rock up to Britain in the days after a Remain vote – with calculated ambiguity about what exit would look like.

Now that ambiguity will be clarified – by just 150,000 people.

 That’s part of why the initial Brexit losses on the stock market have been clawed back – there is still some expectation that we may end up with a more diluted version of a Leave vote than the version offered by Vote Leave. Within the Treasury, the expectation is that the initial “Brexit shock” has been pushed back until the last quarter of the year, when the election of a new Conservative leader will give markets an idea of what to expect.  

Michael Gove, who kicked off his surprise bid today, is running as the “full-fat” version offered by Vote Leave: exit from not just the European Union but from the single market, a cash bounty for Britain’s public services, more investment in science and education. Make Britain great again!

Although my reading of the Conservative parliamentary party is that Gove’s chances of getting to the top two are receding, with Andrea Leadsom the likely beneficiary. She, too, will offer something close to the unadulterated version of exit that Gove is running on. That is the version that is making officials in Whitehall and the Bank of England most nervous, as they expect it means exit on World Trade Organisation terms, followed by lengthy and severe recession.

Elsewhere, both Stephen Crabb and Theresa May, who supported a Remain vote, have kicked off their campaigns with a promise that “Brexit means Brexit” in the words of May, while Crabb has conceded that, in his view, the Leave vote means that Britain will have to take more control of its borders as part of any exit deal. May has made retaining Britain’s single market access a priority, Crabb has not.

On the Labour side, John McDonnell has set out his red lines in a Brexit negotiation, and again remaining in the single market is a red line, alongside access to the European Investment Bank, and the maintenance of “social Europe”. But he, too, has stated that Brexit means the “end of free movement”.

My reading – and indeed the reading within McDonnell’s circle – is that it is the loyalists who are likely to emerge victorious in Labour’s power struggle, although it could yet be under a different leader. (Serious figures in that camp are thinking about whether Clive Lewis might be the solution to the party’s woes.) Even if they don’t, the rebels’ alternate is likely either to be drawn from the party’s Brownite tendency or to have that faction acting as its guarantors, making an end to free movement a near-certainty on the Labour side.

Why does that matter? Well, the emerging consensus on Whitehall is that, provided you were willing to sacrifice the bulk of Britain’s financial services to Frankfurt and Paris, there is a deal to be struck in which Britain remains subject to only three of the four freedoms – free movement of goods, services, capital and people – but retains access to the single market. 

That means that what Brexit actually looks like remains a matter of conjecture, a subject of considerable consternation for British officials. For staff at the Bank of England,  who have to make a judgement call in their August inflation report as to what the impact of an out vote will be. The Office of Budget Responsibility expects that it will be heavily led by the Bank. Britain's short-term economic future will be driven not by elected politicians but by polls of the Conservative membership. A tense few months await. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. He usually writes about politics.