Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. From Washington this looks like Syria's 'Benghazi moment'. But not from here (Independent)

Robert Fisk discusses the situation in Syria: Look east and what does Bashar see? Iran standing with him and Iraq refusing to impose sanctions.

2. Syria between two massacres: Hama's memory endures (Guardian)

As Syrians find their voice to mark the 1982 massacre, says Wadah Khanfar, their resolve to overthrow this brutal regime is clear.

3. Great expectations? No. Hard times? Yes. Enter Miliband Snr (Daily Telegraph)

The former foreign secretary's blueprint to help a lost generation must be taken seriously, says Mary Riddell.

4. Is Lansley the exception to the no-sacking policy? (Times) (£)

The botched NHS reforms could destroy the Tories at the next election. What they need is a new health secretary, says Rachel Sylvester.

5. The way to cut bonuses: scrap public subsidies for banks (Financial Times)

The public interest in bankers' bonuses lies in the fact that taxpayers underwrite them, says Philip Stephens.

6. The right's stupidity spreads, enabled by a too-polite left (Guardian)

Conservativism may be the refuge of the dim, says George Monbiot. But the room for rightwing ideas is made by those too timid to properly object.

7. All is revealed in Gingrich's fantasy fiction (Times) (£)

The Republican contender is a novelist -- who knew? But, Ben Macintyre explains, his stories are less 'what if' history than 'so what' history.

8. The ice is cracking under Putin (Financial Times)

While nobody is talking of a Moscow spring, there is a definite thaw, says Gideon Rachman.

9. If India doesn't want it, why are we still giving them money? (Independent)

David Cameron's decision to maintain our overseas aid budget was intensely political, says Dominic Lawson.

10. Derailing Bonuses (Times) (£)

Network Rail executives have bowed to public pressure over bonuses. This highlights the need to sort out its status, says this leading article.

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.