Keir Starmer: “There is no national interest in voting for a bad deal”
7 min read
Keir Starmer has carefully navigated Labour’s Brexit position since joining the Shadow Cabinet more than two years ago. But with the policy of constructive ambiguity reaching its expiry date, what would the party do differently on Brexit? He talks to Emilio Casalicchio.
Keir Starmer laughs off the suggestion he is a closet supporter of a so-called people’s vote – but the evidence might suggest otherwise. The Shadow Brexit Secretary says he would vote Remain at another EU referendum and cannot think of a single benefit to leaving the EU.
“It is very difficult for somebody who voted Remain to say that there are positives to come out of this,” he tells The House as night closes in over Portcullis House in Westminster. “But we voted to have a referendum; we have to confront the challenge that is in front of us and what we have been trying to do is ensure that the economy and the collaboration and cooperation we have with the EU is preserved in any future deal.”
His comments are a far cry from the latest Jeremy Corbyn take on Brexit. The Labour leader this week said quitting the EU could be “a catalyst” for radically transforming the British economy. Starmer has a gloomier assessment. “The most important thing is to safeguard the economy and that is why we proposed a close economic relationship with the EU,” he says. The QC argues that of course the UK should be doing more to invest in its local economies, but that when it comes to Brexit the key thing is to protect manufacturing and services “because otherwise there will be job losses”.
Starmer’s careful navigation of Labour’s Brexit position has been well documented. He successfully fought for Labour to commit to staying in a customs union with the EU after Brexit. He further raised eyebrows at party conference this year when he unilaterally announced that Labour would not rule out adding Remain to the ballot paper in any future referendum, after John McDonnell and Len McCluskey said otherwise. His key reason for maintaining close ties with the EU is to ensure the UK remains relevant among the grand and shifting global forces of the US, China and Russia.
“The UK by geography, by history and by values is a European nation and that is why we must aim to remain close to our EU partners in whatever configuration that is,” he explains. He refuses to say whether or not he would join the people’s vote campaign were he not in the Shadow Cabinet.
Starmer has carved a path for himself in the Labour party as a competent operator who straddles various divides. His role in pinning the disparate Labour Brexit positions together mirrors his existence on the shadow front bench in the first place. The former Director of Public Prosecutions and head of the Crown Prosecution Service is not exactly a figure from the fringes like Corbyn himself, and he backed Andy Burnham in the 2015 leadership election.
Some in the PLP see him as a mask for the euroscepticism of the leadership, while others see his workarounds and technical measures as a block on the party committing to a second referendum. “QCs have a sort of cab rank thing where they hold up a mirror to whoever they are talking to and make them think they agree with them,” one Labour MP explains.
The true Starmer school of thought is likely to become clearer in December when parliament finally votes on Theresa May’s Brexit deal. With an army of Tory MPs lining up against the withdrawal agreement she secured this month, and with the DUP point-blank refusing to sign up to the plan, a government defeat looks all-but certain. Labour has vowed to vote against the deal because it fails to meet the six tests the party set out last year – a string of items either so vague as to be meaningless or that were never going to be met.
The key question is what happens if and when the Brexit deal is defeated. A coalition of anti-Brexit MPs have argued a second referendum would be inevitable, while Labour has called for another general election. The party argues a shake-up of the parliamentary arithmetic will be necessary to break the logjam (while conveniently side-stepping the second referendum issue).
In reality, a general election is unlikely under the terms of the Fixed Term Parliament Act. Scores of Tory MPs would have to back one and even McDonnell has admitted it would be easier for Labour to simply seize power as a minority administration if Theresa May loses a confidence vote. Either way, the big question for the party is how it might go about delivering Brexit if it does get the chance.
Starmer refuses to engage with the central issue of what the party would do differently in the negotiating chamber. He instead argues that the PM should have taken a different approach from the beginning. “We would have aimed for that close economic relationship and we would have spent the time talking about how you make that work. The Prime Minister started in the wrong place and she’s ended in the wrong place, from our perspective,” he muses.
Starmer has similarly little to say about the time pressures Labour would face – with the Article 50 countdown hurtling towards March 2019. He accepts that the “timetable is very tight” – although he refuses to say whether Labour would seek to extend Article 50. He adds: “I haven’t got much patience with the argument that because the Prime Minister has run down the clock it is somehow Labour’s fault because it can’t have the opportunity to negotiate a close economic relationship.” One Labour MP quips: “But why does Keir think that if Jeremy Corbyn was Prime Minister he would still be Shadow Brexit Secretary anyway? There is no way – he would appoint Chris Williamson to do it.”
Other issues Starmer kicks into the future include whether Labour could back a Commons amendment on a second referendum, whether MPs would be whipped on such an amendment, how it might campaign in a second referendum, and whether Remain should necessarily be on the ballot paper. Those issues of course fall under the catch-all Labour conference motion that postponed the internal row on a so-called people’s vote by looking in all directions and none at once.
One certainty Starmer confirms is that Labour MPs will be whipped to vote against the deal the Prime Minister brings back to the House. He has told the Labour troops that a no-deal Brexit is impossible under parliamentary arithmetic – an argument Downing Street appears to have accepted and rejected at the same time. But for any wavering pro-EU MPs who might still be worried – or any pro-Leave MPs who want to ensure Brexit is in the bag – Starmer has a stark message: they would be doing the country no favours.
“The most important thing is that this is not a good deal, this is a bad deal,” he explains. “And it’s not in the national interest to vote for a bad deal. Even the PM isn’t really selling it as a good deal – she’s simply selling it as better than no-deal. So, she’s not even setting a high bar for herself. There is no national interest in voting for a bad deal.”
There is no doubt that Starmer has one of the most difficult jobs in politics right now. He is tasked with second-guessing the Government as it lurches through the motions of Brexit; working out ways to frustrate its efforts and ensure scrutiny without appearing to want to block the withdrawal altogether; keeping across the reams of complex detail about backstops and supply chains; and straddling the Labour divide between voters who opted to leave and members who want to remain. “This is a crucial stage of our history,” he says. “The decisions we make now are going to be important for many years to come and holding the Government to account through that process is vitally important.”
PoliticsHome Newsletters
Get the inside track on what MPs and Peers are talking about. Sign up to The House's morning email for the latest insight and reaction from Parliamentarians, policy-makers and organisations.
