Let’s clarify what Keir Starmer said in his interview with Gareth Gordon last Thursday and then explain why he said what he said.
First, he didn’t, as some reports suggest, “rule out” a border poll. Nor, as the Daily Torygraph claimed, did he rule one out if he were to be prime minister because he can’t and he knows that.
Starmer is perfectly well aware that provision for a referendum on Irish reunification is written into the Good Friday Agreement and the 1998 Northern Ireland Act. It will happen. No one seriously doubts that.
Astonishing as it may appear to unionists here, Starmer wasn’t speaking to them, or indeed anyone else here in his BBC interview. There are certain priorities, and the reaction of unionists to his remarks isn’t one of them. His remarks were directed at his Conservative opponents.
Read more:
Clarity needed from Keir Starmer on poll plan
Tom Collins: Keir Starmer's leadership fails the 'granny test'
Mary Kelly: If politics is a quagmire here, across the water it's surreal
The explanation for why he said what he did lies in the silly nonsense our proconsul came out with at the Conservative conference the previous weekend.
He said that if Starmer were elected prime minister he would “take a sledgehammer to the union”. Complete rubbish of course, designed for his small audience of Conservative boneheads.
Nevertheless, Starmer can’t let an accusation like that go unanswered. He cannot be seen to be soft on the union and supply any ammunition to the Conservatives. That’s why the Labour conference was dripping with union jacks.
Here’s the thing though: when English politicians talk about ‘the union’ they’re talking about the union with Scotland which established the state of Great Britain, not this place, the appendage ‘& NI’ sometimes added, sometimes not, as in ‘Team GB’. For them a referendum means one on Scottish independence.
Starmer is in the perilous position of leading by 17-20 points in opinion polls. Pundits in Britain predict a monster Labour majority around the 200 mark. The late Roy Jenkins, Labour cabinet minister, said that keeping a large lead in the polls is like carrying a precious Ming vase across a highly polished floor. Starmer is determined not to drop his vase, so he’ll give no opportunities to trip him up. There’ll be no unguarded remarks.
Go back to what Starmer did say to Gareth Gordon and you’ll find he was actually talking sense some of the time.
On a border poll he said: “I don’t think we’re anywhere near that kind of question.” He added: “It’s absolutely hypothetical. It’s not even on the horizon.”
The fact is that’s true. Even the most ardent advocates of a referendum see 2030 as a likely date, probably two general elections away in Britain and the Republic.
Secondly, referendum supporters demand the Irish and British governments begin planning because at present there are no agreed processes for a referendum, what question or questions would be posed, or what form reunification will take. In other words it is hypothetical.
Wouldn’t Starmer be daft to start pontificating off the top of his head about the timing, rules, regulations and outcome for a referendum? How could he imagine doing that without consulting the Irish government?
The fact is that he has other priorities, like the NHS and housing and servicing the national debt, now over 100% of GDP since the Conservatives wrecked the economy. You could see from his answers that he hasn’t thought for a second about the north: it’s not on his ‘to do’ list.
For example, his responses on the protocol varied between wishful thinking and ignorance. He’s not joining the single market or customs union, he’s not going to be “a rule taker”. Yet he talks about “making progress on things like the Windsor Framework”, impossible outside the single market. He just doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
He also seems to think he can renegotiate a better deal in 2026 than Johnson’s disastrous one. Again wishful thinking. The EU has no intention of restarting substantive negotiations and anyway they would take years.
Perhaps most telling of all about his ignorance of the north was his reference to working with the Policing Board. Big deal: as if that qualifies him to talk about “the role of the British government here”.
The fact is that in his interview he had nothing substantive to say about anything except that the British government needs to act as an “honest broker”. That’ll be the day.
Unfortunately, because he was so anxious not to give any hostages to fortune in the run-up to the general election he didn’t dare mention the Irish government or the need to cooperate with Dublin to get the Good Friday Agreement institutions up and running.
Of course it may be that he’s unaware of the obligation to consult Dublin and the Irish government’s right to put forward ‘views and proposals’ about the north.
Overall he certainly didn’t give the impression that he has any plans or policies for the north.
On the other hand, even people in his own party complain he has no detailed policies on anything.
