Jeremy Corbyn is on a journey and he is going in the right direction. But he hasn’t yet arrived at the right destination and it’s still not clear that he will.
The Labour leader told the BBC’s Andrew Marr today that: “We would want a form of customs union.” [Watch from 12’30” onwards.] This is the clearest statement he has so far made on the the customs union, one of the pillars on which our prosperity rests. If we pull out of it, as the Tories are planning to, our manufacturers’ supply chains – which criss-cross Europe – will gum up.
Corbyn didn’t just back a customs union with the EU. He added a vital rider: “We would need to be sure that any agreement with the EU gives us the chance to influence the situation we are in and the trading relationships we want.” If not, we would become a rule-taker – or what Tory Brexiters such as Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg rightly call a “vassal state”.
We would lose our current status as an influential rule-maker if we merely agreed a customs union with the EU. We would then be bound by whatever future trade deals it did even if those were not in our interests – even if, say, the NHS was exposed to competition from American companies in a pact the EU did with Donald Trump.
Corbyn said that in future EU trade deals he would like to see “conditions of environmental protection, conditions of human rights, conditions of workers’ ability to represent and negotiate themselves.”
This is a nice goal. But will we really be able to keep as much influence over the EU’s trade deals with other countries if we quit the club?
The Labour leader made a similar point about the importance of influence when discussing the future trade relationship he would want to cut with the EU itself. He said he was happy for our rules to be aligned with Europe’s but that it was important that “above all [we were] able to influence those regulations.”
This was also why he didn’t want to copy Norway. As he put it: “Norway accepts all the rules of the single market, [but] doesn’t have any ability to influence them whatsoever.”
Again Corbyn is right. But how realistic is it to hang onto as much influence on the rules of the single market if we quit the EU?
Staying in EU is best policy
The logical conclusion of the Labour leader’s position is that we should keep our membership. That way, we will have full access to the single market, which is essential for our world-beating services industries, and full membership of the customs union, which is vital for our manufacturers – while keeping our place as one of the club’s most influential members.
Want more InFacts?
Click here to get the newsletter
What’s more, given that Theresa May wants to pull us out of the single market and the customs union as well as the EU, the Labour leader should also be saying that the people must get the final say on Brexit. Unfortunately, when Marr quizzed him on this, he sidestepped the question.
That said, the new positions Corbyn articulated today are a step in the right direction. Maybe he will take further steps at a Brexit summit he has called to discuss Labour policy next month. And maybe, he will eventually conclude that he needs to fight a Tory Brexit tooth and nail, since it will be particularly bad for working people and the young, two groups he claims to care for. But he’s not there yet.
Edited by Rachel Franklin
But why aren’t Corbin, politicians of both parties and the likes of the CBI being asked to explain how we can be members of the Customs Union, or ‘a form of Customs Union’, without being members of the Single Market or, like Norway, having comprehensive access to the Single Market, and thus accepting the conditions that go with that. A Customs Union is only about tariffs – a common external tariff and tariff free trade which can only take place within a unified internal market. Such fundamental questions (cf the Irish Border) should have been faced up to honestly long before now.
How can we know what to think or who to support with accusations flying fast and loose from all directions at any handy target? If somebody is trying to destabilise our country they are doing a fine job of it.
I’ll admit I needed some clarity on the meaning of the terms “customs union” and a “single market”. In their simplest form, I believe they are as follows:
Customs union: This a type of trade bloc (i.e. a country trade alliance), which has a free trade area for physical goods, with common external tariffs. For example, countries can set up together a common external trade policy, but may have diffferent import quotos. The customs union would benefit if there is also an agreement on a common competition policy, to avoid conflict of competition.
Single market: This is a type of trade bloc which is much wider than a customs union. This is because it includes not only agreement on trade for physical goods, but also on product regulation, freedom of movement on capital, labour and services.
So we can now understand what Jeremy likes at the moment.
I am happy to stand corrected on the above. I’d rename these as “a simple market union” and “a comprehensive market union”.
Just a wry point: If the Brexiters wish to break away from the EU but then (re) negotiate trade deals with everyone, including the EU and all other countries, all willing to reach a concensus on trade, what happened to the idea of regaining sovereignty? Or have I missed a point here? Can InFacts explain “sovereignty” please?
I’ve just had a brainwave. Why not share and agree on doing lots of things together with the EU? Just an idea?
It all seems to be becoming clearer but probably not to the real Brexiteers. Every time a country enters into an international agreement it probably, depending on the agreement, surrenders a little bit of sovereignty. The motivation again presumably is to achieve a gain which would not be achievable to the country concerned if not. These agreements, and there are many of them around, also tend to diminish a little bit the idea of national frontiers. The Brexiteers are fighting a losing battle against this process which might explain their reluctance to lose this heaven sent opportunity which they never really expected of the Referendum result.
A vassal state says Mr Rees-Mogg ? But how can one expect to participate in a Single Market but apply different rules and arbitration procedures to the other participants?