Sir Keir Starmer attacked Nigel Farage in his speech to Labour’s conference today. The Prime Minister outlined his plan for “national renewal” as he claimed the Reform UK leader “doesn’t believe in Britain”.
He told the gathering in Liverpool: “There is another path, we can call it the path of decline, but in truth it leads to ruin, to chaos, to Britain being poorer in every sense. It’s a tempting path because if asks nothing of people, makes no demands, suggests no difficulties.
“All you need to do is listen to politicians who tell you there’s a quick fix, a miracle cure, tax cuts that magically pay for themselves, a wealth tax that somehow solves every problem, the Brexit lies in the side of that bus, click here for your new country.
“We can all see these snake oil merchants on the right, on the left, but be in no doubt, none of them have any interest in national renewal because decline is good for their business.
“Think about it, when was the last time you heard Nigel Farage say anything positive about Britain’s future?
“He can’t, he doesn’t like Britain, he doesn’t believe in Britain. He wants you to doubt it just as much as he does.”
Keir Starmer attacks Brexit ‘lies’ and Nigel Farage in Labour conference speech
Keir Starmer launched one of his strongest attacks yet on Brexit and Nigel Farage during Labour’s annual conference, using a major speech to argue that Britain had been promised benefits from leaving the European Union that did not materialise.
The prime minister placed Brexit at the centre of a broader argument about Britain’s economic and political future, while presenting Labour as the party that could rebuild the country’s relationship with Europe without seeking to reverse the UK’s departure from the EU.
His intervention also marked a more direct confrontation with Reform UK and its leader. Starmer questioned Farage’s record on Brexit and argued that the Reform leader had failed to take responsibility for the consequences of the decision he had campaigned for.
The speech represented an important change in emphasis for Starmer. Labour had generally sought to avoid reopening the most divisive arguments surrounding Brexit since taking office, particularly because the party won support in 2024 from voters with very different views about Britain’s relationship with Europe.
But at the conference, Starmer made clear that he was prepared to challenge Farage directly on the legacy of Brexit.
Starmer’s attack on the Brexit campaign
In his conference speech, Starmer argued that voters had been presented with promises during the Brexit campaign that had not been fulfilled.
He referred to claims associated with the Leave campaign about economic growth, migration and Britain’s future relationship with Europe, describing them collectively as “Brexit lies”.
He also used the image of the famous £350 million-a-week claim relating to NHS funding, which appeared on the side of the Vote Leave campaign bus during the 2016 referendum campaign.
Starmer’s wider argument was that Brexit had not delivered the outcomes promised by its supporters.
The Labour leader then turned his attention directly to Farage.
He asked when voters had last heard Farage say something positive about Britain’s future and accused him of focusing on grievance rather than national renewal. Starmer said Farage “doesn’t like Britain” and “doesn’t believe in Britain”, framing the argument around competing definitions of patriotism.
Those statements were political characterisations rather than independently measurable facts. Farage has repeatedly described himself as patriotic and has built much of his political career around arguments about British sovereignty, immigration and national independence.
The significance of Starmer’s comments was therefore less about establishing Farage’s personal feelings and more about the prime minister deliberately challenging Reform’s claim to represent patriotic politics.
A new phase in Labour’s Brexit strategy
Starmer’s approach represented a departure from the cautious position Labour had adopted during the 2024 general election.
During that campaign, Labour promised to make Brexit work rather than seek to reverse it. The party ruled out rejoining the single market or customs union and sought instead to improve Britain’s relationship with the EU through practical agreements.
Starmer’s conference speech did not abandon those red lines.
Instead, he argued that Britain could rebuild its relationship with Europe while remaining outside the European Union.
That distinction remains central to Labour’s position.
The government has pursued what it calls a reset with the EU, seeking improvements in areas including trade, food exports, security and defence. Starmer has also supported negotiations over a youth experience scheme designed to provide younger people with opportunities to work and study in Europe.
The Institute for Government has noted that Starmer became increasingly willing in 2026 to highlight what he regarded as the failures of Brexit, particularly on the economy, migration and security. It also observed that his criticism of Farage had become more direct.
Farage’s role in the argument
For Farage, the Brexit question remains central to his political identity.
He was one of the most prominent campaigners for leaving the EU and played a major role in UKIP’s political rise before helping establish the Brexit Party.
Reform UK subsequently inherited much of that political space.
Starmer’s decision to attack Farage over Brexit therefore allows Labour to challenge Reform on an issue closely associated with its leader.
The prime minister has argued that Farage should be held accountable for the promises made during the Brexit campaign.
In February 2026, Starmer made a similar argument while travelling to Japan. He said Farage had been wrong about several key Brexit claims, including promises relating to NHS funding, trade regulation and migration. He argued that the UK’s subsequent experience had not matched those expectations.
Farage has rejected this interpretation of Brexit and continues to argue that Britain benefited from leaving the EU by regaining control over laws, borders and trade policy.
The disagreement is therefore not simply historical.
It is part of a continuing argument over what Brexit was intended to achieve and how its consequences should be assessed.
The economic argument
One of Starmer’s central claims concerned Britain’s economic performance after Brexit.
During his conference speech, he argued that claims Brexit would make Britain richer had not been fulfilled. In a later speech in 2026, he similarly said that Brexit had caused economic damage.
There is substantial economic literature examining the consequences of Brexit, but measuring its precise impact is complicated because the UK’s economy has also been affected by the Covid-19 pandemic, the energy crisis, international inflation, geopolitical developments and other domestic policy decisions.
That means claims about Brexit’s economic consequences require careful comparison with an appropriate counterfactual: what Britain’s economy would have looked like had the UK remained in the EU.
The political argument is considerably simpler than the economic one.
Starmer uses economic outcomes to argue that some promises made during the Brexit campaign were unrealistic. Farage and Brexit supporters argue that the decision should instead be judged by sovereignty and long-term political independence as well as short-term economic indicators.
Migration becomes another dividing line
Migration is another area where Starmer has challenged the Brexit record.
During his 2026 criticism of Farage, the prime minister pointed to the rise in regular migration following Britain’s departure from the EU and argued that Brexit had not produced the reduction in migration that some voters expected.
However, the migration picture is complicated.
Brexit fundamentally changed the UK’s immigration system by ending free movement between Britain and the EU. At the same time, migration from outside the EU increased substantially, and changes in student, health and care-worker visas played an important role in the overall figures.
The distinction between EU and non-EU migration is therefore essential when discussing whether Brexit reduced or increased migration.
Starmer’s political argument focuses on the gap between expectations and outcomes. Reform’s argument focuses more heavily on the government’s subsequent immigration policies and the continuing arrival of migrants through different routes.
Both sides consequently interpret the same period through different political lenses.
Starmer’s European reset
The conference attack on Brexit was also connected to Labour’s attempt to strengthen ties with Europe.
Starmer has repeatedly said that Britain will not rejoin the EU under his government. Instead, Labour has pursued closer practical cooperation.
The 2025 UK-EU reset included agreements covering areas such as food and agricultural trade, fisheries, security and defence, and discussions about youth mobility.
The government argues that closer cooperation can reduce some of the practical barriers created by Brexit without reopening the fundamental question of EU membership.
The Institute for Government, however, criticised the lack of detailed proposals in Starmer’s May 2026 European speech. It argued that warm language about rebuilding relations was not enough and that the government needed to offer clearer proposals for the future relationship.
That criticism illustrates the challenge facing Labour.
It wants to demonstrate that Brexit can be made to work more effectively while avoiding the political argument over whether Britain should rejoin the EU.
A direct challenge to Reform
The attack on Farage was also part of a wider Labour strategy.
After his conference speech, Starmer told ITV News that ignoring Reform would be a mistake. He described the political contest with Reform as “the fight of our times” and said the next election would not be a traditional Labour-Conservative contest.
That statement shows how important Reform has become in Labour’s political calculations.
By challenging Farage over Brexit, Starmer is attempting to move the argument away from Reform’s preferred issues and towards a record that Labour believes can be criticised.
But there is a potential complication.
The more Starmer focuses on Farage, the more central Reform becomes to the national political conversation. Supporters of the government may see this as necessary confrontation, while critics can argue that Labour risks allowing its opponent to dominate political coverage.
The conference therefore demonstrated both sides of the strategy.
Patriotism and the politics of Brexit
Starmer also sought to challenge Reform on patriotism.
He argued that Labour could be patriotic while supporting a closer relationship with European countries. He presented patriotism as pride in Britain’s communities, institutions and achievements rather than as opposition to international cooperation.
That was a deliberate response to Reform’s political language.
Farage has long associated Brexit with national sovereignty and the idea that Britain should determine its own laws and borders without EU involvement.
Starmer’s counterargument is that cooperation with European neighbours does not necessarily conflict with national sovereignty.
The disagreement reflects two different conceptions of what Britain’s place in Europe should be.
One prioritises independence from EU institutions. The other places greater emphasis on cooperation while maintaining formal independence from the European Union.
What the speech means for Brexit politics
Starmer’s conference speech demonstrated that Brexit is once again becoming a more visible issue in British politics.
For several years, mainstream parties generally attempted to avoid reopening the referendum argument. Labour’s strategy after the 2024 election was initially focused on making the existing settlement work better rather than debating whether Brexit should be reversed.
Starmer’s increasingly direct criticism suggests that this approach is changing.
He is not calling for Britain to rejoin the EU. Instead, he is arguing that voters should judge Brexit according to what was promised and what subsequently happened.
Farage, meanwhile, continues to defend the principle of Brexit and challenge the government’s interpretation of its consequences.
The result is a renewed political argument over an issue that once dominated British politics but had become less prominent after the 2019 election.
Starmer’s speech therefore matters not simply because he criticised Farage.
It signals a broader attempt by Labour to reclaim the language of patriotism, challenge Reform’s interpretation of Brexit and present closer cooperation with Europe as compatible with Britain’s independence.
Whether voters accept that argument is ultimately a matter for them.
What is clear is that Brexit is no longer being treated by Starmer as a settled historical question. Instead, its economic, political and social consequences are once again being used by the prime minister as part of the debate over Britain’s future — and Nigel Farage remains one of the central figures in that argument.