Keir Starmer Quotes
Party leader of the Labour Party
Our five-year-old son thinks I ought to work in the local bookshop, and I can see the appeal of that.
You don't win elections by telling people what you're against. We're very good at listing things we don't much like about what the Tories are doing. But you win elections by telling them what you're for, what you're going to change, what's going to be better.
If immigration is simply seen as a numbers game, nobody will ever win that debate. The question should be: what is it we want to achieve? What do we expect of those who are arriving? What is the basic deal?
So if you want a really effective criminal justice strategy, you don't build bigger prisons, you invest money in young kids - and you accept that it's going to take years to work through, but it's a more effective strategy.
Rights compliance helps effective outcomes, it does not hinder them. That should come as no surprise because the 'human rights' in the Human Rights Act are the rights adopted in the aftermath of the horrors of the second world war, and are designed to protect all of us from oppression.
Significant cuts to funding for the police, for the Crown Prosecution Service, for probation etc, have put the long-term viability of our criminal justice system in doubt.
For far too long, victims' rights have been discussed only in the context of sentencing. Sentencing is very important, but the debate obscures something much more fundamental: most victims have so little faith in our criminal justice system that they do not access it at all.
I was a human rights lawyer for 20 years, I believed those values of dignity, equality and non-discrimination were a given. believed the only question in my lifetime would be - how much further do we extend those values? I did not think in my lifetime we'd actually be having an argument about those values.
In my view, the military action taken in Iraq in 2003 was not lawful under international law because there was no U.N. resolution expressly authorising it.
Brexit is so important, it would have been neglect of duty to simply sit it out.
I think most people accept that it is necessary to have some surveillance in a democratic society. I think most people accept that it's important to have limits and clear safeguards on that.
After 43 years of membership, exiting the E.U. was never going to be easy.
It's really important we make the case that this is not the country of Nigel Farage and Tommy Robinson. That intolerance and hatred and division is not representative of our country.
The framework for everything I've done has been human rights. That is about protecting the vulnerable and giving people access to courts where they wouldn't otherwise have access to courts.
If you lose your job because there has been an influx of labour from another country, that is a legitimate cause for concern.
I am well aware of different views across my own party and across parliament on pretty well all Brexit issues.
If you really probe, people are anxious about their job, anxious about their home, their children's future. Obviously it gets translated into things like immigration, but that is nothing new.
Labour's approach is not about what is politically right, it is about what is right for the country.
For better or worse, when I was director of public prosecutions I had to deal with every challenge that came up, and come up with an answer. Being in opposition, you're not taking the decisions; you're saying what you would do if you were in power, and that's deeply frustrating.
The pursuit of an extreme Brexit cannot come at the cost of peace in Northern Ireland.
I keep an open mind.
There are potentially many offences that journalists could commit in the course of their business. It would be very unhealthy if you had a situation where a journalist felt that they needed to go to their lawyer before they pursued any lead or asked any question.
I don't subscribe to the view that people who are better off don't want to live in a more equal society.
There is very, very little chance of bespoke transitional arrangements being negotiated at the same time as the rest of Article 50.
We must stand up for the principle of parliamentary democracy and not allow the government's failure in the Brexit process to be a licence for the U.K. to crash out of the E.U. without an agreement.
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.
Labour has repeatedly emphasised that in order to avoid a cliff edge for our economy there will need to be a time-limited transitional period between our exit from the E.U. and the new lasting relationship we build with our European partners.
If the vote that is progressive is split then all that does is open up the path for the Brexit party and allow it to pretend it represents the majority view in this country.
It will be increasingly difficult to keep Scotland as a part of the U.K. I hope that doesn't happen, but everyone knows David Cameron has put that at risk.
By remaining inside a customs union and the single market in a transitional phase we would be certain that goods and services could continue to flow between the E.U. and the U.K. without tariffs, customs checks or additional red tape.
For many progressives, 2016 will go down as a year of electoral shocks and profound disappointment. In the U.S., France and many other parts of Europe, the right enters 2017 with newfound confidence while the left recoils in fear of the future, unsure how to get back on the front foot.
The government must be open enough to provide robust impact assessments of leaving the single market or the customs union, including region-by-region and sector-by-sector analysis.
We have to make the argument that the only economically sound place to be is within Europe - we have to remember, it's history again, that there are reasons we bound ourselves together as a set of European nations and it all came out of the second world war.
The nature of the final Brexit deal really matters. It is, as I have said before, the battle of our times.
My background is not typical of a lawyer or a DPP. My dad was a toolmaker before he retired, so he worked in a factory all his life.
Surveillance legislation fit for the 21st century, which strikes the right balance between privacy, security and democracy is a prize worth fighting for, and Labour will work constructively with the government to achieve it.
Ensuring we have the best possible Brexit deal will take time, effort and huge diplomatic skill.
Labour's priorities are clear: jobs and the economy must come first; not party interests or ideological fantasies.
As we exit the E.U., there must be a new approach to immigration that has the consent of the British people and is managed in their interests.
There is a world of difference between not disclosing fine detail and relying on broad and generalised assertions. The first may be understandable; the second is not acceptable.
Britain outside the E.U. would be less able to respond with the speed and strength we need to tackle complex and growing cross-border threats to all our communities.
My parents didn't have the opportunities they would have liked, but they didn't complain about that because they thought they were part of a society where the next generation would have those opportunities.
In a democracy there will always be a tension between security and privacy.
In the absence of a written constitution, we still rely far too heavily in the U.K. on unwritten and unenforceable 'constitutional conventions.'
Britain needs a good Brexit deal to safeguard jobs, security and trade and to build a new partnership with the E.U. Achieving this will be fiendishly difficult.
Brexit can be stopped.
We need to remind ourselves that Europe will be our biggest trading partner for the next several decades and probably beyond, so getting the deal with Europe right should be our primary focus.
You can't meet Labour's tests by failing to provide answers.
Any talk of no deal is completely unacceptable. No deal means we can't reach any agreement about the border in Ireland and that is not a place we want to be.
In the absence of honesty from the Conservative party leadership, it is Labour's duty to spell out the very real consequences of a no-deal Brexit. It is also our duty to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent it.
For some people, work is the only safe haven from abuse. So all employers in businesses big and small, whether in the public or private sector, should be encouraged to create safe spaces at work where staff suffering domestic abuse can talk to an appropriately qualified person who can provide advice and offer support.
The Chilcot report is damning. It exposes a litany of failures over a long period, including reliance on flawed intelligence assessments, lack of planning and insufficient foresight of obvious consequences. But the report also exposes a chilling lack of rigour and a political culture of deference.
I campaigned to stay in the E.U. I voted to stay in the E.U. and I was very disappointed by the outcome. And if there was another vote I would vote to remain in.
I would reject wholeheartedly any notion of a Labour Party that is not committed to returning to power at the first opportunity. Of course that needs to be principled power. But standing on the sidelines looking for the purest ideology is a dereliction of the duty for any Labour member.
As we leave the E.U., freedom of movement falls away, because it's an E.U. rule... What we then have to say is, 'What then is on the blank piece of paper that is an immigration policy?'
Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt have not been responsible. Instead they have vied in an arms race towards a more and more extreme form of Brexit. Deeper red lines, even more ludicrous promises, but absolutely no coherent or workable plan for the country.
I wouldn't characterise myself as a bleeding heart liberal, whatever that is.
I spent five years prosecuting some of the most dangerous terrorists in this country, so it would be quite difficult for people to pin the charge of being soft on terrorism on me.
Part of the reason I moved from law to politics was an increasingly profound belief that how we rebuild after the 2008 crash is going to define us for a generation.
I always say, it's better to be asked why you're leaving, rather than when you're leaving.
I'm absolutely fine with the rough and tumble of politics.
We need a transitional Brexit deal that provides maximum certainty and stability. Labour will deliver it.
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.
We cannot allow Brexit to be driven by narrow and divisive Tory ideology.
Defining of the public interest is always very, very difficult.
If you go into a police station and report a burglary the first question is not: 'Are you telling the truth?' If you are the victim of a sexual offence, very often in the past that has been the first question.
The Human Rights Act is a really important constitutional document, it isn't just a villain's charter.
I have prosecuted very serious criminals who are now serving very long jail sentences.
We have to call out terrorism for what it is, and I have always done that, and the Labour Party has always done that.
If you find yourself in a position you would rather was not there, you have to make it work.
We were right to make the case for the U.K. to negotiate a comprehensive customs union with the E.U. And we are right to argue for a strong single market deal, based on common standards, protections and regulations: the right balance of rights and obligation.
We were right to say from the outset that E.U. citizens should not be treated as bargaining chips but should have their rights guaranteed immediately. We were right to call on the government to publish a plan for Brexit.
I'm well aware of different views across my own party and across Parliament on pretty well all Brexit issues.
There is nothing quite like working on a counter-terrorism case in real time.
A no deal Brexit would be a complete failure by the government to negotiate for Britain.
From my experience both as DPP and previously as a human rights lawyer, I know that human rights and effective protection from terrorism are not incompatible. On the contrary, they go hand in hand.
I believe Britain's response to Brexit must be based on core progressive values: internationalism, cooperation, social justice and the rule of law.
When I was director of public prosecutions, from 2008 to 2013, I had a first-rate counter-terrorism team, who worked closely with the police and the security and intelligence services to defeat and disrupt terrorism.
Theresa May's decision to call an unnecessary general election after Article 50 was triggered was deeply irresponsible.
We must ensure strong, fair and robust workplace rights remain in our country's DNA.
Strip away the factual misinformation repeatedly peddled about the Human Rights Act and almost everyone acknowledges that it works well in practice. Police up and down the country have found the Human Rights Act a much clearer and firmer basis for practical policing than the common law ever was.
Full access to the single market is what businesses and trade unions want.
To draft a bill of rights that simply replicates the European convention on human rights gives the game away; namely that the Human Rights Act does, in fact, offer appropriate protection to all of our citizens according to universally accepted standards.
When I was the director of public prosecutions between 2008 and 2013, I had staff working at the Eurojust HQ in The Hague 24/7.
The final Brexit deal must ensure there is no diminution in Britain's national security or ability to tackle cross-border crime.
No border controls anywhere in the world are able to prevent determined criminals from crossing borders.
Everyone remembers where they were on 7 July 2005 when four deadly bombs ripped through the heart of London.
The E.U. has data systems that enable police and border guards to work together in real time to intercept wanted persons; and the European arrest warrant ensures their speedy return.
The key to understanding the impact of the Human Rights Act in the U.K. is to appreciate that civil liberties and human rights are not two sides of the same coin.
Leaving the E.U. without a preferential trade arrangement in place would make the U.K. significantly poorer.
The Max Clifford case shows that when the police and prosecutors quietly hold their nerve they can succeed, whatever the public profile or popularity of the accused.
In the U.K., we have always had international ambitions and international responsibilities. These obviously predate the E.U.; we have been trading and doing business in Europe for centuries.
Access to our civil courts has been severely restricted by the combination of: the removal of legal aid from some cases based on their type, not their merit; a high financial threshold for the receipt of legal aid in other cases; and a failure to deliver a safety net for vulnerable individuals by the exceptional funding arrangements.
In the aftermath of the second world war, nations came together to say 'never again.' They established the United Nations and agreed a simple set of universal standards of decency for mankind to cling to: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
From a victim's point of view, our justice system is hardly fit for purpose. No doubt individual failings by police and prosecutors provide part of the explanation.
I am not a pacifist and I would back a lawful, coherent and compelling case for the use of military force by the U.K. against Isis.
Human rights only have meaning if they are universal.
In my view, airstrikes without an effective ground force are unlikely to make any meaningful contribution to defeating Isis.
To state that lethal force should not be used without a proper legal justification is to state the obvious.