Sir Keir Starmer tells Talking Politics why Israel should stop attacking Lebanon

The Iranians say Israel's continued attacks on Lebanon are a breach. Let me be really clear about it, they're wrong. So Israel is wrong to be attacking in Lebanon now? Yes, that's my strong view. I never thought an American president would make such inflammatory remarks. They're not words I would use. Can you work with a president who will say something like a whole civilization will die tonight? Hello and welcome to Chalking Politics. I'm Robert Peston. My normal partner in crime, Tom Bradby, isn't with me. But we're not shortchanging you because with me today as a guest is the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, welcome. I thought you were going to say your new partner in crime, but no, very good to be here. You can work on becoming that. We're here in Bahrain. You're on this whirlwind tour of Gulf countries at this extraordinarily nerve-wracking time here in the Middle East. You've had meetings with arguably the two most powerful figures here in the Gulf, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, President of the United Arab Emirates. How do they assess the state of this ceasefire? How worried are they that it could disintegrate? Let me try and give you a sense of their mood, the mood, I suppose, of their countries, which is a mixture of shock that they were attacked in the way that they were attacked, a genuine shock that they were attacked. They hadn't been part of the attack on Iran, and they've taken a lot of incoming missiles and drones. So the shock, there's a relief that there is a ceasefire. I think a sense from them that it's fragile, that there's a lot of work to do on the ceasefire. And so there is a sense of relief. I think that's probably shared, or in my sense, shared across the United Kingdom, where people have been very concerned of what they've seen on their television screens, very worried about the impact it might have on them. So there's that sense of relief. It's been a chance for me to have an in-depth conversation with both of them about the work that we did collectively on self-defence because we were operating with them, had the chance whilst I was here to thank our pilots and the backup teams from the United Kingdom who've been working hard here. Their reflection on how that six or seven weeks of the conflict went, whether they were clear about their capabilities, what they might need to do for the future, what we need to do together. So there's quite a lot of reflection there on how well protected they really are and what they need to do, a clear sense of focus. Absolute clarity that the Strait of Hormuz needs to open, and by that they mean open for safe and free navigation. So they're very clear that that does not mean a toll in relation to the Strait. But there's also the final emotion, if you like, is that they were pleased to see a friend because these are long-standing allies that we have in the Gulf region. Very important at a time like this for us to be here to show that we stand with our allies. We've obviously been involved in quite intense collective self-defence with our service personnel here over the last six to seven weeks. And the expression was basically one of it's good to have a friend here that we can discuss these issues with at a time like this. Yeah, and I want to get into some of the detail of that. But just in terms of the fragility of this ceasefire, my colleague Emma Murphy has had a conversation today with the Deputy Foreign Minister of Iran. Now, he says the Strait of Hormuz is now open. Is that your understanding? Well, there are lots of things being said. They need to be tested. That is what's supposed to be happening. And there's clarity here in the region, and clarity from us as well, the United Kingdom. Our position is open means open for safe navigation. That means toll-free navigation and vessels can get through. And just over a week ago, I was in Downing Street with representatives from our shipping, finance, insurance, oil and gas, who are responsible for vessels going through the Strait of Hormuz. And they were very clear with me that what they need is real reassurance that they can get through safely. I said to them, is it a matter of insurance? They said, no, it's a matter of safe passage. So I think for them, and I think for the region, there'll be an element of wait and see. So some of the discussions in the last couple of days have been, let's see what happens in two, three, four days. That'll begin to be the test. So it's not what people say on day one or day two. And I think our, you know, back at home, because this is having such an impact on our economy, that'll be the same approach. We do need the Strait open. This is having an impact on us in the United Kingdom. And that's why it's really important to be here with allies talking through what their thinking is, how we work through this together. Because for the ceasefire to work, for the Straits to be open, the Gulf states need to be involved. And that's why it's been really important to have discussions with them. Now, the Iranians say that Israel's continued attacks on Lebanon are a breach of the understanding between America and Iran led to this cessation of its hostilities. Is it a breach? Well, it's hard to say whether it's a breach when we haven't all got access to all the details of the ceasefire. But let me be really clear about it. They're wrong. So Israel is wrong to be attacking in Lebanon now? Yes, that shouldn't be happening. That should stop. That's my strong view. And therefore the question isn't a technical one of whether it's a breach of the agreement or not. The one is actually a matter of principle as far as I'm concerned. And in a sense, my argument would be it should be included in the ceasefire. And that's an important part of the overall approach. Now, you've been absolutely unambiguously clear that the UK has not been and would not get involved in aggression against Iran. You would not join Israel and America in aggressive acts against Iran. Now, again, this Deputy Foreign Minister has told my colleague that he has evidence. He claims that bombers, American bombers, have used British bases to launch attacks on civilians within Iran. And that is a charge he's putting at Britain, at you. Let me be really clear about this because I took two decisions in our national interest. The first decision was that the UK would not join the offensive, actually would not get dragged into this war. And that reflected my values, our values, and our principles of not getting dragged in, not being part of the offensive. And the reason for that is because I was clear that we would not commit the United Kingdom to something which didn't have a lawful basis or a clear thought-through plan. They're my guiding principles. The second decision I took was that we would take action in collective self-defence of British lives, British interests, and of course our allies here in the Gulf. That would involve two elements. Firstly, our own military, our pilots in the sky. They've been up there since two or three hours after this conflict started for the six to seven weeks of the conflict. Secondly, we would allow our bases to be used strictly for that collective self-defence. And that is a condition of the use of the bases and that's why it was important that I clarified in relation to some of the rhetoric in the last few days that our bases would not be used and are not being used for attacks on civilians. That is not collective self-defence. That is not part of the agreement for the bases. And just to be clear, therefore, when the Deputy Foreign Minister, Kat Ibzadeh, I'm going to quote him, says that one of the bombers that took off from a British base demolished four residential buildings killing dozens of Iranians. Are you saying he's wrong or that you will have to investigate? I'm saying that being really clear about the use of the bases, collective self-defence only, and we are monitoring. You are monitoring. We are monitoring. So he's wrong, is he? Well, we are monitoring that very carefully as you would expect. The principles are in place, really clear about that divide, no offensive action, not joining in the war, collective self-defence only, and that our bases will not be and are not being used for wider offensive. But if evidence was presented to you that they have been used, what would you do? Well, we are, from the get-go, we've been monitoring this situation. So I'm pretty clear on my own mind about what we've agreed and what the use of bases are. And that is a really important point of principle because we have to learn the lessons of Iraq. We need to be clear where we stand as a country. And I'm the British Prime Minister. I make decisions on what's in the British national interest. And that is my focus. And notwithstanding the noise and the pressure and the rhetoric, that has been my firm focus throughout this. And it will remain my firm focus because I want the ceasefire to hold. I want the straits to be open. But there's a lot of work to do. It is by no means certain that those two things will happen. We have to work on them, but we will do so by applying our values and our principles. Now, even though we are not directly involved in the attacks, my understanding is that you think that this war is in a sense the defining moment of your premiership. What do you mean by that? Well, what I mean by that is that the consequences of this war are going to be long felt. They're already being felt in the United Kingdom. They're going to be long felt. And we can't immunise ourselves from that. We can work on the ceasefire. We can work on getting the straits open, which is in our national interest because the impact on our economy, particularly on energy, is already clear to see. But to then take it to the next stage, the question will then be, how do we respond as a nation? I firmly believe that when we had the global shock of the 08 global financial crash, when we had the shock of COVID, the response was the wrong response. What I mean by that is there was a rush to get back to normal, to get back to the status quo, and never to change things fundamentally. And the normal and the status quo weren't working. For 20 years, they haven't worked. Living standards haven't improved. Public services have been decimated and people have felt more distant from politics. We can't aspire or want to get back to the normal. We have to change that. We need to respond with strength in a number of important fields. So let's unpick that a bit. Certainly, somebody was immersed in all of those recent crises, whether it was the financial crisis of 07-08, whether it was Brexit, which was a massive shock, whether it was COVID. I think there is an argument that says that old adage, never waste a crisis, was not implemented because, as you say, millions of British people still felt subsequent, after those shocks, their lives weren't improving. So what do you mean when you say you will now put through radical change? What does that look like for you? This has to be different. To pick up on your analysis, I think the response was to get back to a normal, which wasn't working. And that's why... So what are the big changes? Three buckets, really, with resilience tattooed across all three of them. The first is the economy, a stronger economy, where we remove all the barriers to growth and structurally look at how the economy works and whether it's fairer for people. I'm clear in my mind that that means we must be closer to the EU. And that's why, not just on defence and security, but also on trade and energy, I want us to be closer to the EU to strengthen our economy, to make it more resilient. But we need to go further than that. We need to make sure our economy works in all parts of the country. There's been a feeling for a long time that even where there's economic growth, and there hasn't been much in the last 20 years, it's only in some places for some people, not across the country for all people. And that basic question of, does our economy work fairly? Do people feel they're getting their fair share? Are they being protected? Some of the measures we've put in place on the minimum wage and better workers, rights, et cetera, important on this. But how do you... Sorry, but I've got to challenge you on that, because how do you make this choice? Because often it is a choice between growth and fairness. Quite a lot of what you did in the first 15 months, you could argue, rightly many people would say, helped the fairness question. So for example, your employment reforms, but let's just stick with those employment reforms. When I talk to employers, they say, okay, not against them in principle, but they have meant that we were investing less in the short term. We were going to be hiring less in the short term. They fought against growth. So how will you now determine, as it were, how you make that choice? Because many people would argue those first 15 months were not good for growth. They were antithetical to growth. I don't think they're in conflict, and I think it's really important. In terms of getting rid of the barriers to growth, we have to go with the absolute clarity of intention. Things like planning, infrastructure, they're just too slow. We need to go quicker. Getting energy costs down, which is holding businesses back, we now have to go further and faster on that. On the EU, we need to be really clear about getting close to the EU. On the question then of fairness to those that are working, we've got to get away from this argument that if you treat your workforce well, if you respect them and give them decent conditions, somehow that inhibits your growth. I've never believed that. I've always believed, and I think good businesses believe, that if you treat your workforce well, your growth goes up because you get better productivity, there's clear evidence of that, and of course, people with more money in their pocket spend more in their local economy. But it does lead me to the second bucket, which is... The counterargument is not that those reforms were the wrong reforms. The argument is, when you've got a stagnating economy, you've got to get the economy motoring first before you make those sorts of reforms. And some people would say you put the cart before the horse in doing those structural reforms, which, whether you like it or not, definitely had an impact on short- to medium-term growth. I'm afraid for 20 years, working people have been told, if you get the economy going, it'll be jammed for you tomorrow. And it hasn't worked. They're fed up with it. They're disaffected with it. Their living standards haven't improved for 20 years. But nobody's saying don't do the employment reforms. They're just saying wait three years rather than do them as your first priority. I don't think the two are in conflict. But I do think there are bigger things we need to do with the economy. The barriers that we need to just knock out of the way, the time it takes for legislation to get through to actually make change for planning and infrastructure is too long. The energy costs are too long. And that's the second bucket. We have to have energy independence. I'm fed up with the fact that families across the country see their bills go up and down on energy. Businesses' bills go up and down on energy because of the actions of Putin or Trump across the world. And saying to families across the country, saying to businesses across the country, we've just got to be, we've got to push up with being on the international market. We need energy independence. And the only way to get energy independence is to go even more quickly to renewables because we're not going to get it on the international market. But the worry that people have is not that we wouldn't be better off, as you say, being self-sufficient in energy, which, as you say, whether it's nuclear, whether it's renewables, would give us over time. It is that the front-loading costs are, again, suppressing growth. Well, let's be clear. For most people, if you ask them, what are you most worried about as a result of this conflict, they will probably say in their first instinctive reply, and I believe this to be true, I don't like seeing what I'm seeing on my television screen, this infrastructure damage, countries being drawn in, countries in this region where we have connections being attacked. They don't like to see that. But then there is a very strong, I think, sense of this is going to impact on me and my family because I can see what's happening with energy prices. That means come this Christmas, come this winter, I'm going to be paying for what's going on in this war, and we have to get people off that rollercoaster. That will be their number one anxiety. And it's on the one hand, of course, there's a climate element of this, but there's a much more basic element, which is take back control of our energy bills. And the only way to do that is energy independence. But that is jammed tomorrow. No, it's not, because if you look even between the Ukraine and beginning of the Ukraine war, 22, and now the percentage of energy that is renewables is much greater now, which means the impact has been mitigated to a greater extent this time around. So we just need to push harder on it. I'm not saying oil and gas isn't part of the next few years to come. It clearly is part of the next four years to come. So on that, the economics are not that it will suddenly reduce the price of oil and gas, whether or not you approve Jack Dorr and Rosebank, the gas and oil fields where approvals are required. But there is absolutely no question if you were to approve them, they would create jobs, they would generate very useful tax revenue for you. And actually their impact on climate change would be absolutely marginal. So why not just approve those projects? Well, on oil and gas, I agree that the predominant benefits are in terms of revenue and in terms of jobs. And that's why I'm saying they will be part of the mix for many, many years to come. In terms of the approvals, they go through a particular process, which they are going through at the moment. They were, of course, approved. Licences were granted and then they were overturned by the courts. We have to go through that process again. But I'm not... What's your instinct? Would you like to see them approved? I'm not fighting the principle. I want oil and gas to be part of the mix for many years to come. So just to be absolutely clear, you would not be opposed to them being approved? I think oil and gas should be part of the mix for many years to come. But I don't... What I don't want to lose sight of is this. Oil and gas, yes, good for revenue, good for jobs. But will it stop the rollercoaster where people watching this, anxious about this autumn and their bills, will it get them off the rollercoaster where when somebody else in the world moves, their bill goes up? No, it won't. So we have to get that resilience. The third bucket where we have to respond differently on defence and security because Europe's have not done enough on defence and security for too many years. We need a stronger Europe. We need a NATO with a stronger European element. There's two related issues which we do need to get into. One is on defence. There are two criticisms made of your government. And of course, I know that you inherited what many people would say is a massively under-resourced military. But you are the government now. One criticism is you're not moving fast enough to increase spending. So will you accelerate it? But secondly, I mean, one of the things just coming here that one hears from everybody in the region is how much the nature of war has changed. The way that drones have just fundamentally changed the nature of threats. And we are not, as a nation, yet massively into drone manufacture. We're not massively into the kind of systems that protect us from drones. What thought are you giving not only to increasing spending, but changing the whole nature of our defence? We have to change the nature. And that's been part of the discussions in the last couple of days here. Because of course, what we learned from Ukraine is that the way conflict is waged has changed massively. I mean, they're basically saying to you, give us drone defence systems. Well, obviously, we've been working very closely with the Ukrainians. And part of the discussions we've been having here is, how can we use some of that knowledge, that experience? And part of what's going on in here in the discussions that I'm having is a reflection on the last few weeks to say, was this conflict played out in the way we really expected? Do we need to do more in terms of our capability? That's a discussion that we're in the heart of. Because if we're going to spend more on defence, we need to spend more on defence that is actually going to be of use of capability in the conflict we're really going to face. When will we hear the detail of that? Well, we're finalising the investment plan. I would gently point out, we have, of course, increased defence spending to 2.5%. No, no, sure. But the world is now exponentially more dangerous. And, you know. We need to go further. We need to go faster. And that costs money. And you've talked about the opportunities to generate growth from getting closer to the European Union. Now, your Chancellor has been using this figure of 8% of our national income, our GDP, that Brexit cost us, right? It's a massive hit to the British economy. The kind of plans you've currently got, you know, for example, trying... I mean, many people think this is simply not practical. The EU won't play ball, but trying to get better single market access for individual sectors. But even if you've got, for example, better access for the chemicals industry, which is the example that she cites, it's going to get us back a sort of fraction of that lost, you know, income. Why won't you be more ambitious? Talk about proper single market membership. Talk about proper customs union membership. Those are the initiatives which pretty much, you know, all serious economists say would generate the kind of income you want for the country. Well, we need to be closer to the EU and that includes on the economy. We do have red lines we set out in our manifesto. We need to keep those red lines. But I think we've made real progress already with the EU. We can make further progress. There's another point that I don't want to lose. There is the question of what's the percentage that all European countries need to spend on defence. And I think there's a general acceptance that more needs to be spent on defence. But if we all just spend more in our individual countries, we won't learn the lesson of the last 20 years. If I've learned one lesson from Ukraine in terms of our collective response across Europe, it's been that when we tried to respond together to support Ukraine, we found that our capability didn't work very well with one another because we hadn't coordinated, we hadn't cooperated. And so there's got to be a wider discussion about European defence that goes beyond simply saying how much are you spending? If we're going to have frigates, if we're going to have aircraft, if we're going to have capabilities, we need to agree strategically what they're going to be. So that's why when I did a deal with Norway on frigates, yes, that was an important billion pound deal for the shipyards up in the Clyde. When I did a deal on typhoons, which have been very important for war and for those that put together the plane, but mostly and strategically of real importance to me and to Norway and Turkey in those two examples is the fact that the kit is interoperable. Partnership, plainly partnership with other countries is incredibly important. The frigates that are going to be used in the High North will be the same frigates. The Norwegians can operate our frigates, we can operate their frigates. Same with the typhoons with Turkey. We've got to get in this mindset of a proper sense of European defence. Exactly. And when you're talking about pooled sovereignty, why are you, therefore, still running scared of being more ambitious when it comes to economic cooperation with the EU? Why is, for you, it just impossible to think about something that looks a bit like single market membership or customs union membership? Well, on the single market, obviously, we've taken a step down that road with the agreement we've already got in place for food and agriculture. And I've been very clear that I want to go further. So you think there are, when you talk to Chancellor Mertz or you talk to President Macron, you think they are open to what they used to call cherry picking? Well, it's not a question of how you describe it. It's a question of what's in all of our shared interests. We made real progress last time on a whole bunch of fronts, including energy and emissions. I would say on customs union, we have now done deals with other countries around the world. We're not starting from where we were when we entered the EU. No, but the economic benefit of those are a fraction. I mean, the economics are absolutely clear that the economic benefits of those are an absolute fraction of the benefits of much closer integration with the EU. When it comes to our car manufacturing, the deal that we've been able to strike with the Americans is really important. And I went to JLR before that deal was struck and I could see just how concerned the workers were about the implications for them if we didn't get a deal, how relieved they were when we got the deal. I don't want to rip that up. On pharmaceuticals, we've got a very good deal with the US that is in our interest. So we have to do this in a way that works for us and the EU. I think what's changed is two things. One, I think neither we nor the EU are looking backwards now at the referendum for Brexit. We're looking forward. So you think Defence Partnership could bring us into a whole different set of relations with the EU commercial as well? Yeah, I think it's time for all of us to move forward clear-eyed about the need for a stronger Europe. That, I've always believed, is in our interest. I think it's particularly in our interest when you look at the conflict over the last six, seven weeks. We have to have a stronger Europe. And there is one other aspect of this which I've just got to put to you. I know we're almost out of time. You constantly say that you will not choose between the relationship with America and the relationship with our European partners, or indeed with Japan and Canada for that matter. But nonetheless, you are somebody who has a record of standing up human rights, decency. When you read the American president saying things on his truth social page, like open the f*** straight. Some would say blaspheming for Muslims when he says praise be to Allah when he's putting pressure on Iran. And then that other extraordinary statement where he said a whole civilisation would die tonight if Iran didn't capitulate. These are absolutely... I mean, I'll be honest, somebody who has been immersed for decades in following politics, I never thought an American president would make such inflammatory and appalling remarks, truthfully. So I just wondered, how did you feel about that? And how do you sustain a relationship with an American president who can say those things? Well, let me be really clear and blunt about this. They're not words I would use because I come at this with our British values and principles of the foremost and uppermost in my mind. So they're not language I would use. Can you work with a president who will say something like a whole civilisation will die tonight? The distinguished historian Tim Snyder says this is basically saying he would commit genocide. Well, that's why I say I would never use those words and language like that myself. Very important that I'm clear we have our principles, we have our values, we will be guided by them in everything that we do. That's why I've said, and obviously it's caused a degree of criticism and pressure in the last few weeks. I've been saying we are not going to be dragged into this war because I say there must be a lawful basis. That matters. If you're going to commit our service personnel to risk their lives, they need to know they're doing so on a lawful basis. It's not a question of remote international law. These are real people who take risks of their lives on our behalf. They need to know that what they're doing is lawful. I owe them that and I will never give up on that. Secondly, there must be a viable thought through plan and absent those two things, then we, it is not in our national interest to get involved and we won't. And I've been really clear in relation to that. Yes, it's drawn criticism. Yes, it's drawn pressure, but I'm not yielding to that because my principles, my principles, my values, my values and they're the British principles and values. They're the base on which we've always acted as a country. We'll always act as a country. I'm very proud of what we do. I'm proud of our service personnel as well. As I said, I've had the chance to thank some of them, but they've been up in the sky since two hours after this conflict started, taking down missiles. They're real professionals and we owe it to them and the whole country to always follow our principles and our values. They will guide us. They will guide me to the right decisions and I'm not going to waver or yield to any pressure from anyone in that regard. Prime Minister Sadler, we are out of time. I don't think I can offer you Tom Bradbury's job permanently, but you're welcome to come back whenever you have to. Well, it's been really good to do this. So thank you very much for having me on. Thanks very much for joining us today. And that's it for this edition of Talking Politics. See you next week.