What hamstrings Jeremy Corbyn is his belief that the single market defaults against state control (Tax radicals? McDonnell and Corbyn are not radical enough, 16 February). It does not, though its fudged language (“fair access to third parties”, “liberalisation”, “collaborative economy”) can make it seem that way. Interpretation is shaped by the dominant narrative of the day, which is one of monetarism and fiscal austerity. The single-market strategy insists on “market-driven” standards. Even so, following the European court of justice 2012 ruling that public procurement can include “social considerations”, the single market, since 2016, allows for “in-sourcing” without competitive tendering processes.
But, still, there is a two-pronged alternative. One is for Labour to argue to stay in the single market, but to force a change in the free-market narrative (as, of course, they are doing) and, thereby, the interpretive framework; the other is to reconceptualise nationalisation and “in-sourcing” for modern economies – possibly as a mix of municipal control (which the single market does allow) with state/private-sector partnerships shaped not by market freedoms but by a public-value ethos.
Saville Kushner
Bristol
• Apparently, as a leaver, I’m not allowed to be ideological – just misguided I guess (Fear and abuse won’t change Brexit minds, 14 February). Well, I am ideological – I oppose a neoliberal EU from a left perspective. It is also, for example, ideological of workers to understand how uncontrolled migration is used by capitalism to attack wages and conditions. I am appalled at the tacit support that remainers now have for the four freedoms – the ideological bedrock of the EU. I would suggest that many remainers have never even read the Lisbon treaty, or made the connection between the four freedoms, public spending cuts, privatisation and EU austerity policies, past and present. Remainers’ predictions about the rise of Ukip and an immediate collapse in the economy failed to come true. All the talk about “addressing grievances” means nothing without understanding the nature of the ideological attack upon us at home and by the EU. Where precisely is their plan to reform the EU and what does it consist of?
Sarah Ansell
Northampton
• Liam Fox, as usual in his praise of “free trade” agreements (Letters, 16 February), doesn’t refer to the clauses in all recent international trade deals that empower the corporations to take countries to special courts if they think government policies reduce their potential profits. He also ignores the fact that a fight between a tiger and a rabbit can never be fair. He’ll learn this soon enough, if he stays in his job, when we become a rabbit without much power.
Michael McLoughlin
Wallington, Surrey
• Could you invite trust-me-I’m-a doctor Fox to elaborate on the “wide range of stakeholders” he is continuing to consult and meet with? Up to the end of last year, an analysis of official statistics on lobby meetings with his department’s ministers revealed that 90% of all meetings were with corporate lobbyists. Civil society organisations were included in just 3% of meetings.
John Airs
Liverpool
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters
