G7shambles continues

G7 <strike>attempts</strike> <strike>desperately scrambles</strike> utterly fails to find unity.

Yesterday's G7-shambles was only the beginning.

First, there was the statement co-signed, apparently, by all G7 nations, which appeared to support Japan's efforts to depress the Yen. Accordingly, the Yen fell slightly against the dollar.

Then, headlines on Bloomberg — attributed to "G7 OFFICAL" — suggested that that interpretation was exactly backwards. The statement was supposed to be a condemnation of Japan's alleged currency manipulation. And when that happened, the Yen soared:

Then a third official — British, this time, because it was us who put together the joint statement and the Bank of England which published it — said that no, it wasn't meant to be interpreted as "about an individual country or currency", and could we all just stop fretting please? Needless to say, that didn't go down brilliantly either.

The whole thing led to one of the most telling updates to a news headline I've ever seen, as the FT's "G7 attempts to defuse currency tensions" became "G7 fails to defuse currency tensions".

The whole move was an attempt to take a lead as the G7 governments arrive in Moscow for the G20 meeting this weekend, as Mark Carney, the next governor of the Bank of England, explained to the Canadian House of Commons yesterday:

We signed a statement, the minister of finance and I, ... which reaffirmed the commitment of the G7 to ensure that monetary policy is focused on domestic objectives, not on targeting exchange rates. And we hold the members of the G7 to that long-standing position. It is extremely important.

It's important that we as a G7 go in united and forcefully to the G20 to enlarge that commitment as quickly as possible amongst the major emerging economies in the G20, some of whom entirely ascribe to flexible exchange rates and are supportive, others who have a lot of work to do.

That seems less and less likely to be the case now. The goal for the G7 has receded from presenting a united face in order to convince developing economies of the benefits of free exchange rates, to just trying to get its own house in order.

*facepalm*. Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

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.