Morning Call: pick of the paper

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

1. In Theresa May's surreal world, feelings trump facts (Observer)

The home secretary's claims about health tourists are both wrong and an insult to voters, says Nick Cohen.

2. We need the spirit of the eighties (Sunday Times)

The Times dons its leader cap to applaud the sale of Royal Mail and hope for further sell-offs.

3. The BBC foists on us a skewed version of reality (Telegraph on Sunday)

The news media are engaged in a political argument about whether the purpose of journalism is to report the world as it is or to purvey an idealised view, writes Janet Daley.

4. Like Assad, Churchill liked to stockpile poison gas (Independent on Sunday)

World View: The prime minister meant to spray German troops if they landed on British beaches.

5. Malala: remember the young girl behind the public persona (Observer)

With her huge intelligence and courage it's easy to forget that she is still a teenager. Let's give her space to grow, says Catherine Bennett.

6. Scalpel slowly replaces chequebook in the Westminster weaponry (Sunday Times)

The Royal Mail flotation is a neat reminder that capitalism can work for the little guy, writes Camilla Cavendish.

7. There's a patriotic case for renationalising our railways (Telegraph on Sunday)

They're 'private', but massively subsidised, and you need to be a maths genius to work out the fare system.

8. Ed Miliband's preparing to serve two terms. In opposition (Independent on Sunday)

The Shadow Cabinet reshuffle wasn't just a cull of the Blairites, it was the suppression of the Ballsites too, says John Rentoul.

9. The age of insomnia with the internet and 24-hour news will be the death of us (Telegraph on Sunday)

The world makes no distinction between day and night, but we need sleep to stay sane, writes Jenny McCartney.

10. Should France follow our lead on Sunday trading? (Observer)

France is considering a relaxation of Sunday trading laws, as the UK did 20 years ago. Was it a change for the better?

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.