Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Immigration line weakens Cameron story (Financial Times)

The UK government’s policy is economic and political folly, says Janan Ganesh.

2. In or out? It’s a question for Europhiles too (Daily Telegraph)

A referendum would give pro-Europeans the chance to win the case for democratic reform, writes Will Straw.

3. Labour's 2015 fears are puny compared to the Tories' terror (Guardian)

On the economy, Europe, tax and the NHS, the trajectory is all in favour of Ed Miliband, says Polly Toynbee. Now his party can start to dare.

4. Netanyahu: tactical genius, strategic idiot (Financial Times)

The Israeli prime minister may be returned to office in triumph next week, writes Gideon Rachman. But he risks leading Israel to disaster.

5. No one wants to be mistaken for the pub bore (Times) (£)

A tough line on Europe and shirkers may be popular, but the Prime Minister has to play the measured statesman, writes Rachel Sylvester.

6. Nothing to fear from a new deal with EU (Financial Times)

The UK should change the relationship and realign its trade relations, says Douglas Carswell.

7. Mali's Islamists are too dangerous to be ignored (Independent)

For all the difficulties of intervention in Mali, the alternatives are worse, argues an Independent editorial.

8. To understand the deepening mess we are in now, it's worth looking to the words of a Polish economist in 1944 (Guardian)

This assault on an entire social contract is what Michał Kalecki warned about, writes Aditya Chakrabortty.

9. Let’s see the top civil servants on television (Independent)

Jeremy Heywood is now with his third successive PM, writes Steve Richards. He and other officials should be held to account.

10. Benjamin Disraeli can help Cameron to a clear win in 2015 (Daily Telegraph)

It is the 'aspirers’ who deliver Tory majorities – so the PM must put himself on their side, says

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.