Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1 Second-class Europe? What’s the point of it? (Times)

‘Associate’ membership solves nothing. Our trading partners will still want to meddle, europhobes will still want out, writes Matthew Parris.

2 Richard Nixon’s dark side has obscured his greatness (Telegraph)

A hundred years after his birth, it is time to reassess the legacy of the disgraced US president Richard Nixon, argues Jonathan Aitken

3 It’s the shameless doublespeak that makes politicians look like liars (Independent)

With the public already disdainful of politicians, how can so many continue with the tactics of public obfuscation and diversion, asks Damian McBride

4 It wasn't Labour who spent too much, it was the banks. How did we forget this? (Guardian)

It's only five years since the financial crisis broke, and already the truth of why it happened has been rewritten, says Deborah Orr.

5 The Europe speech Cameron should give (Financial Times)

The prime minister is to make a long-awaited address. Here is a suggested draft, from Janan Ganesh.

6 Wake up and smell the coffee (Times)

Look around a Starbucks now and it resembles a drop-in centre from 1989, writes Caitlin Moran.

7 It's time to revive the memory of Hugh Gaitskell, the best Labour PM Britain never had (Independent)

There were paradoxes in the life of Gaitskell, yet the man himself was much less complex than his place in Labour's folk memory, writes Donald MacIntyre

8 Israel's shift to the right will alienate those it needs most (Guardian)

Ahead of the Israeli elections, ultra-ultra-nationalists are surging in the polls. But diaspora Jews might recoil from their views, writes Jonathan Freedland.

9 India’s daughters come fighting out of purdah (Times)

Signs of women’s oppression are everywhere when you travel around. But this tragedy can mark a turning point, argues Rosie Millard.

10 A year for the Tories to restore their reputation (Telegraph)

The Conservative Party must do all it can to fix the economy, however radical the measures and whatever the impact on its short-term popularity, argues a Telegraph leader.

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

The promises of Brexit can't be kept. You can only decide which bits to betray

Vote Leave's great success was in presenting a menu of contradictory options as if they could all be secured. 

If Britain leaves the European Union but retains its membership of the single market and the customs union, has it really left? Barry Gardiner doesn’t think so. Labour’s shadow trade secretary, writing for the Guardian, argues that to satisfy those who voted Leave, Britain must regain control of its own borders – forcing it out of the single market in order to lose free movement rights – and its own laws, forcing it out of both the customs union and single market to avoid regulatory harmonisation.

Jeremy Corbyn has argued that single market membership and EU membership are one and the same, as has Caroline Flint. They have kept the options open on the customs union. Are they right?

As I wrote yesterday, it’s hard to explain what drove Britain’s Brexit vote without conceding that objections to the rules of the single market played a significant role. Gardiner is undoubtedly right to say that two of the biggest drivers of the vote were control over borders and laws, both of which cannot be achieved while remaining within the single market. Neither can the third biggest driver, which was more money for public services in general and the NHS in particular – that £350m a week. Because if the United Kingdom retains its single market membership, it will continue to “send money to Brussels”.

There’s a “but” coming, though, and it’s a big one. The first problem is that while the majority of people who voted to leave did so for reasons that cannot be fulfilled if we remain in the single market, those votes weren’t enough to take Britain out of the European Union. Leave only triumphed because it also secured the votes of people who thought it would take the country out of the political project but would retain a Norway-style arrangement.

The second is that those three big mandates cannot be reconciled with each other. If the United Kingdom leaves the single market and the customs union, then the promise of more money for the NHS will be difficult, perhaps impossible, to deliver, at least not in the way that people envisaged. (When people said they wanted £350m extra in the NHS, they didn’t mean “in order to pay for drugs that are more expensive, to recoup the cost of our new regulatory regime and to plug the recruitment gap left by EU citizens with high-priced locums”. They meant that the NHS would do everything it does now and more, not run to stand still.)

The great success of Vote Leave was in presenting a whole menu of contradictory options as if they could be served on one dish. But you cannot have the Extra Hot and the Lemon & Herb on the same piece of chicken. You have to choose. The big failure of the political class has been not to advocate for one of those options over the other. (Theresa May has effectively been running on a ticket of “Extra Hot, Lemon & Herb, and the French will pay for it”.)

You cannot have a Brexit that unlocks trade deals with India and the rest of the BRICS (five major emerging national economies) and reduce the uncontrolled flow of people from elsewhere around the world to the UK. You can’t have a more generously-funded public realm and pursue a Brexit that makes everyone poorer. You have to choose. 

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.