,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Not sure I agree with this, by @OwenJones84. Worth noting Dominic Grieve’s view that if Labour came out for staying in the single market, that would be a “game changer”. theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
The customs union policy is not, of course, the same: and if you want to keep jobs, no one credible thinks it’s a patch on staying in the SM. And it depends on the impossibilist demand for joint decision-making with the EU.
Since State aid rules (as well as other level playing field commitments) follow from the CU, those can’t be a rational basis for objecting to the SM.
That leaves problems with free movement - problems Owen doesn’t share, as his last paragraph makes clear - as the only rational basis that I can see for Labour’s objection to the SM while supporting a CU (and very close alignment to the SM, whatever that is supposed to mean).
It seems to me that it’s at least possible that Grieve is right that, with Labour leadership support, “Norway +” would carry the day.
And it’s interesting, in a “dog that didn’t bark” sort of way, that Owen doesn’t refer to Labour’s failure to support “Norway +” (even though it’s a policy that he, reluctantly, supports). /ends
PS - even a statement that Labour would support a political declaration dropping (or at least substantially blurring) the red line on FOM, and seeking in consequence the much better deal on services that would then be possible, would be a start.
