Tag: Keir Starmer

Below is the text of the speech made by Keir Starmer, the Shadow Secretary of State for Existing the European Union, in the House of Commons on 25 September 2019.

I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for an advance copy of his statement. Let us get to the detail and test what he says.

First, the right hon. Gentleman says that the negotiations have seen significant movement over recent weeks. Will he confirm that three papers were submitted to the EU last week and one was submitted today, but they are what the EU called non-papers, because they are for discussion and do not commit the member state to the policy outlined in them, and at the moment they are being kept secret from the EU27? What is the thrust or gist of those papers? If we are to assess the likelihood of success in negotiations, we need to know.

Secondly, may I challenge the right hon. Gentleman’s statement that many businesses are already well prepared for no deal? At 3 o’clock last Wednesday, I sat round a table with the leaders of pretty well all the business sectors, and the one message they wanted to get across was how concerned they were that businesses were not prepared for a no-deal Brexit. I do not believe those businesses are saying one thing to me and another thing to the Government. Will he therefore clarify what he meant?

The statement significantly and studiously avoids giving any detail of the scenario that we are told the Government’s civil contingencies secretariat has drawn up. On 9 September, just before we were shut down, an order was made that all the documents prepared within Her Majesty’s Government since 23 July relating to Operation Yellowhammer and submitted to Cabinet or a Cabinet Committee should be laid before the House by 11 o’clock on 11 September. The Government are spending a lot of money telling businesses and the country to get ready, and they want to know what they are to get ready for. They need to know what could happen so that they can prepare. On 11 September, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster wrote to the Chair of the Brexit Select Committee,

“I thought it would be helpful to publish the Operation Yellowhammer document based on assumptions drawn up by the last Government.”

I have that document in my hand; it was the only document disclosed. He went on to say,

It is…my intention…to publish revised assumptions in due course”.

Nothing else has been produced.

The document disclosed to the Chair of the Select Committee is dated 2 August. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster explain how it is a document of the last Government, not this one? As he knows, it was leaked pretty well in full to The Sunday Times. Just so that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster does not try to avoid this by saying that he will not comment on leaked documents, I understand that it also went to the Welsh Government. In response to that leak, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said on the Marr show on 1 September that the document

“predated the creation of this new government”

and that its predictions were the “worst possible eventuality.” The impression he was trying to create was that it is an old document and a worst-case scenario. [Interruption.] Thank you—that is exactly the point I want to come on to: the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster went on to say that it is “constantly updated”. Given that the document is dated 2 August, was it produced for this Government, the last Government or both? If it was for the last Government, have this Government produced any documents of their own since 23 July relating to Operation Yellowhammer? It is no good saying, “We are going to produce them.” This Government have been in place for nine weeks, and there are only five weeks and two days to go until 31 October.

If it is an old document and it was produced for the last Government, why did somebody change the title after the leak to The Sunday Times? It used to be branded the “base scenario”. Somebody got hold of an old, apparently irrelevant document and changed the title, so it is now called, “HMG Reasonable Worst Case Planning Assumptions”. Why was it changed if it is out of date and an old document? Who did it?

Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster confirm that the rebranded document has 20 substantive paragraphs, each word for word the same as those in the document leaked to The Sunday Times? If it is constantly updated, where are the constant updates? This is the only document we have. Will he confirm that, according to this document, there will be “significant and prolonged disruption” at ports; that the “worst disruption” to the channel straits will last “up to 3 months”; and that there will be “significant queues in Kent” and delays of up to two and a half days at the border for HGVs attempting to use the channel route to France? If the answer is no, what is that based on if there is not another document in existence that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has not disclosed in accordance with the order of this House? The answer is either yes or no, based on a document that has not been disclosed.

Paragraph 18 has not had the attention it should have had. It centres on the impact of no deal on Northern Ireland. I know that this is a matter that the House takes extremely seriously. It sets out the Government’s planned model. It states:

“The agri-food sector will be the hardest hit… Disruption to key sectors and job losses are likely to result in protests and direct action with road blockages. Price and other differentials are likely to lead to the growth of the illegitimate economy.”

It also mentions severe disruption at the border. The document itself concludes that the pressure will be such—[Interruption.] Northern Ireland happens to be extremely important to many people in this House.

[Interruption.]

We are here to scrutinise the Government; let us get on with it. This document indicates that the Government’s proposed model will come under such pressure that it is unlikely to survive for more than a few days or weeks. The Government’s preferred model for Northern Ireland is unlikely, according to their own assessment, to survive for more than a few days or weeks. A model that will not last more than a week is not a plan. There must be an update. Where is it?

Has the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster received any representations from the energy sector about the impact on oil and gas supplies to the UK in the event of no deal?

Anyone watching today’s proceedings and still thinking that somewhere lurks a clever and cunning plan to get through the chaos of the Government’s making needs to think again. The Government have lost six out of six votes in Parliament and the Prime Minister has lost his majority and his case in the Supreme Court. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said on the radio this morning that the Prime Minister is a born winner. I am glad that he has not lost his sense of humour. However, this is not a game, and for the Government to be five weeks away from leaving the EU without a plan is unforgiveable.

Below is the text of the speech made by Keir Starmer, the Shadow Brexit Secretary, at the Labour Party conference held in Liverpool on 25 September 2018.

Conference, it’s great to be back here in Liverpool.

A city of great energy and passion.

And we need both of those as we debate Brexit today and in the coming weeks.

But first let me start by saying thank you to my fantastic shadow Brexit team:

Jenny Chapman. Paul Blomfield. Matt Pennycook. Dianne Hayter. Emma Hardy and Jess Morden.

Thanks also to a special group of colleagues. Our Labour MEPs.

These past two years have been especially difficult for you. But you’ve served our Party and our country with distinction.

_____________________

Conference, the last two years have not been easy.

Like many of you, I was devastated by the referendum result.

Like many of you, I’d campaigned passionately to stay in the EU.

Not for the technical benefits – important though they are.

But because I’m an internationalist.

Because I believe that nations achieve more together than they do alone.

I believe that the greatest challenges facing our nation – armed conflict, terrorism, climate change or unchecked globalisation – can best be met together with our EU partners.

And the greatest opportunities – medical research, scientific advancement, art and culture – can only be realised together with our EU partners.

Those values did not die on 23 June 2016.

And those values must guide our every step as we move forward.

We cannot allow Brexit to be driven by narrow and divisive Tory ideology.

That’s why we have not ducked the challenge of Brexit.

We could have wished away the result.

But instead we stepped up. We stuck together and fought the government tooth and nail.

That was the right thing to do.

We were right to say that jobs and the economy should come first.

We were right to say that EU citizens aren’t bargaining chips.

We were right to argue for a transitional period to prevent a cliff-edge.

We were right to argue for a customs union with the EU and a strong single market deal.

And we were right to insist that Parliament should have a meaningful vote on the final deal.

____________________________________

Over the coming weeks and months, we will be tested again.

Hugely important decisions will have to be made on Brexit.

Decisions that will affect each and every one of us.

The Prime Minister says that we should “trust her” to deliver Brexit but how can we trust a Prime Minister whose first choice for Foreign Secretary was Boris Johnson?

And whose second choice was the man who spent the last few years running down our NHS?

How can we trust the person responsible for the hostile environment. And for appointing a Northern Ireland Secretary who doesn’t even understand the basics about Northern Ireland, let alone the complexities.

Conference, this Prime Minister doesn’t deserve our trust.

Just when we need a strong government, what do we see?

Division. Chaos. And failure.

No credible plan for Brexit, no solution to prevent a hard border in Ireland and no majority in Parliament for the Chequers proposals.

A Tory civil war that has gone on for years, now threatens our prosperity.

The party that once promised that it would fix the roof while the sun was shining is now intent on burning the whole house down.

So I’ve got a message for the Prime Minister.

‘If your party wants to tear itself apart, that’s fine… but you’re not taking our country with you.’

_________________________________________

That’s why I set out six tests for the final Brexit deal.

Not just technical tests, but tests that spell out what kind of country we want to live in.

Where the well-being of all our communities matters.

Those tests were not plucked from thin air. They were based on the promises the Tories made about the Brexit deal they would deliver. They are tests Theresa May said she was “determined to meet”.

Well she may have lowered her expectations, but I haven’t lowered mine.

Conference, I know that you want clarity on where we stand on the deal now.

Because some have said Labour could vote for any deal the Tories reach.

Some have said we may abstain.

Some have said we may support a vague deal – a ‘blind Brexit’ – that gives no detail about the terms of our future relationship. So, let me be very clear – right here, right now:

If Theresa May brings back a deal that fails our tests – and that looks increasingly likely – Labour will vote against it.

No ifs, no buts.

And if the Prime Minister thinks we’ll wave through a vague deal asking us to jump blindfold into the unknown she can think again.

You can’t meet Labour’s tests by failing to provide answers.

We will vote down a blind Brexit.

This isn’t about frustrating the process.

It’s about stopping a destructive Tory Brexit. It’s about fighting for our values and about fighting for our country.

________________________________________

And when it comes to the vote in Parliament we do not accept that the choice is between whatever deal Theresa May cobbles together or no deal.

That’s not a meaningful choice.

No deal would be a catastrophe and no government has the right to plunge this country into chaos because of its own failure.

So, if Parliament votes down the Prime Minister’s deal or she can’t reach a deal that’s not the end of the debate.

Labour must influence what happens next.

And we must keep all options on the table.

Our preference is clear:

We want a general election that can sweep away this failed Tory Government.

And usher in a radical Labour Government that would put jobs and living standards first.

But if a General Election is not possible then other options must be kept open. That includes campaigning for a public vote.

It is right for Parliament to have the first say but if we need to break the impasse, Labour campaigning for a public vote must be an option.

That’s why I’m happy to throw our full weight behind the motion being debated this morning.

In particular I want to thank the several hundred delegates who spent their Sunday evening in a compositing room.

It was a long meeting! But we reached consensus.

And conference, fast forward a week and contrast that to what you’ll see at Tory conference.

______________________________

Conference, there’s one final point I want to make.

Whatever happens in the coming weeks, whatever deal this Prime Minister delivers or does not deliver. The terms of the Brexit deal are only part of the much wider debate we need.

Because the referendum result was about something much deeper than the technical question of EU membership. It was a vote on the state of the nation.

About the way our economy and politics work – or don’t work.

And the message from millions of people was clear.

We need to transform our economy. We need to rebuild our public services. We need to bring power back to our communities and back to people’s lives.

There can be no adequate response to the referendum unless the right deal with the EU is matched by a new deal for Britain.

That’s the other side of Brexit.

__________________

Conference, I’m under no illusion about the challenge ahead. These are uncertain times.

Brexit has divided this country.

We must remain united in the fight for our values.

The values that hold our party together.

Values that can bring our country back together.

That is our challenge.

We must rise to it.