Keir Starmer
I have prosecuted very serious criminals who are now serving very long jail sentences.
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.
A no deal Brexit would be a complete failure by the government to negotiate for Britain.
I'm well aware of different views across my own party and across Parliament on pretty well all Brexit issues.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
The pursuit of an extreme Brexit cannot come at the cost of peace in Northern Ireland.
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.
Theresa May's decision to call an unnecessary general election after Article 50 was triggered was deeply irresponsible.
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.
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.
There is nothing quite like working on a counter-terrorism case in real time.
I believe Britain's response to Brexit must be based on core progressive values: internationalism, cooperation, social justice and the rule of law.
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.
We must ensure strong, fair and robust workplace rights remain in our country's DNA.
The final Brexit deal must ensure there is no diminution in Britain's national security or ability to tackle cross-border crime.
Leaving the E.U. without a preferential trade arrangement in place would make the U.K. significantly poorer.
Full access to the single market is what businesses and trade unions want.
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.
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 nature of the final Brexit deal really matters. It is, as I have said before, the battle of our times.
Ensuring we have the best possible Brexit deal will take time, effort and huge diplomatic skill.
After 43 years of membership, exiting the E.U. was never going to be easy.
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.
In the absence of a written constitution, we still rely far too heavily in the U.K. on unwritten and unenforceable 'constitutional conventions.'
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.
Everyone remembers where they were on 7 July 2005 when four deadly bombs ripped through the heart of London.
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.
No border controls anywhere in the world are able to prevent determined criminals from crossing borders.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In my view, airstrikes without an effective ground force are unlikely to make any meaningful contribution to defeating Isis.
In a democracy there will always be a tension between security and privacy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 want to send a message that we value our Muslim communities.Collection: Community