Corbyn’s prospectus a destabilising force

Jeremy Corbyn’s speech on Brexit yesterday was long on political cynicism and woefully short on consistency or economic rationale. The Labour leader purportedly wants to ensure that the UK’S departure from the EU will benefit the poorer voters his party claims to represent. Yet he has adopted a policy that will do them the greatest harm by limiting Britain’s capacity to strike trade deals that would make imports cheaper.

Mr Corbyn has until very recently resisted committing the Opposition to staying in a customs union with the EU. He has spent most of his political life inveighing against the big producer interests that will benefit most from the approach his party now espouses. So what’s changed?

In his address in Coventry, Mr Corbyn said there should be “full tariff-free” access to EU markets for British businesses after the UK leaves the European Union and “a strong relationship with the single market”.

Is this any different from what we can infer to be the Government’s position, which is to seek a bespoke agreement offering frictionless crossborder trade in goods and services? Is not Mr Corbyn also in cake-and-eat-it territory?

When she set out the Government’s policy in her Lancaster House speech a year ago, Theresa May said the UK “must reach a completely new customs agreement, become an associate member of the customs union in some way, or remain a signatory to some elements of it, I hold no preconceived position. I have an open mind on how we do it. It is not the means that matter, but the ends.”

We are led to believe that this position no longer holds after the Chequers meeting last week, though nothing is certain until Mrs May makes her own speech on Friday. Perversely, even though she has lost her Commons majority since making the Lancaster House speech, she now appears to be advocating a policy that will be even harder to get through parliament. The key difference is that, while some sort of customs union now seems to be off the table for the Government, it remains an option for Mr Corbyn, making a Commons showdown inevitable.

Yet even now, after a speech that was supposed to “clarify” Labour’s position, it remains ambiguous.

Mr Corbyn’s policy is just a wish-list that the EU is likely to reject. He still maintains that he is not advocating a full customs union, yet appears to assume that the EU will simply extend its trade agreements to a nonmember state with an economy the size of the UK’S.

That is not only unlikely but would require a fundamental revision of its treaties which the EU has shown no sign of countenancing. If Mr Corbyn is advocating a full customs union, which many in his party want, why will he just not say so?

Clarity here is crucial. As the Institute for Directors observed, even at this late stage in the process “there are still many unanswered questions from both Labour and the Conservatives about the UK’S future relationship with the EU... making it hard for businesses to plan”.

Staying in the EU customs union is not in Britain’s interests since one big opportunity offered by Brexit would be closed off – to trade more freely and independently with the rapidly growing economies in the rest of the world.

EU trade accounts for only 12 per cent of UK GDP; and the UK has an £80 billion trade deficit with the rest of the EU. Most future world trade growth will take place outside Europe.

But Labour now considers these economic considerations secondary to the prospect of defeating the Government. Mrs May lost her majority last June and even with DUP backing is vulnerable to a rebellion by just a dozen Tory MPS prepared to side with the Opposition.

They must surely see Mr Corbyn’s prospectus for what it is – one that is designed not to further Britain’s national interests but to destabilise the Government. Dressing it up as anything more noble is to show contempt for the electorate.

‘Staying in the customs union is not in Britain’s interests since one big opportunity would be closed off ’