From today, Google searches will start looking very different in America and Europe

Google and European Commission wrap up antitrust investigation.

Today, Google has come to an agreement with the European Commission over an antitrust investigation that started two years ago: for the first time it will make changes to the way searches are done.

The investigation had four concerns:

1. Google automatically put results from its own company - like Google News or Google Plus Local - ahead of those from rival firms.

2. Google had been scraping content from rivals.

3. Google had made deals with various websites that affected the order of links in a search.

4. Google had made it difficult for advertisers to transfer campaigns to other search engines.

..and has now addressed them in the following way:

1. Google will have to clearly label search results from its own company -  and to run them alongside links from rival companies.

2. Competitors will be able to opt out of Google’s specialist services, without being penalised via search priority.

3. These deals will go.

4. Transferring campaigns will be made easier.

The changes will come in gradually over the next month, leaving time for rivals to state any further problems they have, and will be legally binding for five years. Interestingly though, the changes are to be far more stringent than those made by US regulators, who closed an antitrust investigation back in January after finding Google had not violated any anti-trust statutes. One fall-out of the changes then will be that Google search will look different depending on which side of the Atlantic you are on. Soon, American searchers will be operating in a more Google-centric world than the rest of us.

 

Photograph: Getty Images
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.