Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. The NHS at 65: chaos, queues and mounting costs (Guardian)

What national healthcare in Britain looks like in 10 years' time depends more on the future of politics than on economics, writes Polly Toynbee.

2. How Carney can succeed in his mission (Financial Times)

Even if he can perform no miracles, the new BoE governor may prove a lucky one, says Martin Wolf.

3. Miliband must defeat Labour’s union barons (Times)

Could it look any worse for Ed – losing control of his party to a public sector union that demands an end to cuts, asks Philip Collins.

4. Coup in Cairo is a rude awakening (Financial Times)

The help the region needs is not of the type the west has been giving, writes Philip Stephens.

5. Tory union-bashing may come at a price (Daily Telegraph)

Attacks on Unite could alienate those workers who are also natural Conservative voters, says Isabel Hardman.

6. Forcing down Evo Morales's plane was an act of air piracy (Guardian)

Denying the Bolivian president air space was a metaphor for the gangsterism that now rules the world, says John Pilger.

7. Paying for Pensions (Times)

The over-60s have been least affected by austerity, notes a Times editorial. But the triple lock on pensions is no longer affordable.

8. It is capitalism, not democracy, that the Arab world needs most (Daily Telegraph)

Property rights for aid: this could be the most effective anti-poverty strategy in history, says Fraser Nelson.

9. How the unions got Red Ed in a headlock (Daily Mail)

Any Labour candidate for either council or parliamentary elections must now be a member of a trade union, writes Andrew Pierce. 

10. When is a military coup not a military coup? When it happens in Egypt, apparently (Independent)

Those Western leaders who are telling us Egypt is still on the path to “democracy” have to remember that Morsi was indeed elected in a real, Western-approved election, writes Robert Fisk.

Follow The Staggers on Twitter: @TheStaggers

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.