Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. The sad record of fiscal austerity (Financial Times)

The ECB could have prevented the panic, says Martin Wolf. Tens of millions are now suffering unnecessarily.

2. The Lib Dems are not a serious national party (Times) (£)

Forget who said what to whom, says Daniel Finkelstein. Nick Clegg has failed to lead his MPs away from interest-group politics.

3. George Osborne hasn't just failed – this is an economic disaster (Guardian)

Coalition austerity has delivered depression and a lost decade, says Seumas Milne. Labour has to avoid locking itself into more of the same.

4. If Nick Clegg’s story won’t stand up, the Lord Rennard scandal could finish him (Daily Telegraph)

Even victory at the Eastleigh by-election will not put an end to the Liberal Democrat leader’s troubles, writes Mary Riddell.

5. Beppe Grillo's antics may yet shake the whole European system (Guardian)

From Italy to Eastleigh, the economics of self-flagellation have set off a wave of wildcat populism, with unpredictable results, writes Simon Jenkins.

6. Negative interest rates mean more pain for savers (Independent)

This suggestion by Paul Tucker, deputy governor of the Bank of England, may sound shocking, but it's a technical device, writes Hamish McRae.

7. Castro pledge is chance for change (Financial Times)

Lifting US constraints on Cuba will speed the regime’s demise, says an FT editorial.

8. Discarding Trident would not aid global nuclear disarmament; it would only imperil UK security (Independent)

It is imperative that discussions on the nuclear deterrent be driven by national security needs, not short-term political considerations, says Lord West.

9. Mr Clegg's voting system and the comedian who's exposed what a joke the euro is (Daily Mail)

Thanks to its proportional representation electoral system, the balance of power in Italy is held by a party whose leader is a stand-up comedian, writes Simon Heffer.

10. Britain's massive debt to slavery (Guardian)

Today the records that detail just how much the trade in humans benefited the UK will be made public, says Catherine Hall. 

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.