The attorney general has said he regrets "clumsy" remarks in which he compared calls for the UK to depart from international law and arguments made in 1930s Germany. In a speech on Thursday, Lord Hermer criticised politicians who argue the UK should abandon "the constraints of international law in favour of raw power". He said similar claims had been made by legal theorists in Germany in the years before the Nazis came to power. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch accused him of "calling people who disagree with him Nazis," and urged the prime minister to sack him. A spokesperson for Lord Hermer said he rejected "the characterisation of his speech by the Conservatives". But they added the Labour peer "acknowledges though that his choice of words was clumsy and regrets having used this reference". They added that the speech was aimed at "defending international law which underpins our security, protects against threats from aggressive states like Russia and helps tackle organised immigration crime". In a speech at the Royal United Services Institute think tank, Lord Hermer said the Labour government wanted to combine a "pragmatic approach to the UK's national interests with a principled commitment to a rules-based international order". He said the approach was "a rejection of the siren song that can sadly now be heard in the Palace of Westminster, and in some spectrums of the media, that Britain abandons the constraints of international law in favour of raw power". Lord Hermer added: "This is not a new song. "The claim that international law is fine as far as it goes, but can be put aside when conditions change, is a claim that was made in the early 1930s by 'realist' jurists in Germany, most notably Carl Schmitt, whose central thesis was in essence the claim that state power is all that counts, not law. "Because of the experience of what followed in 1933, far-sighted individuals rebuilt and transformed the institutions of international law, as well as internal constitutional law." Adolf Hitler became German chancellor in 1933. Carl Schmitt, a German legal scholar, was a supporter of the Nazi Party who sought to justify Hitler's policies in his writings on legal and political theory. The Conservatives and Reform UK have been critical of some elements of international law and the courts that enforce it. For example, some politicians from these parties have called for the UK to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), an international treaty which sets out the rights and freedoms people are entitled to in signatory countries, including the UK. Critics of the ECHR say it hampers the UK's ability to deal with migration issues, including deporting people who cross the English Channel on small boats. Badenoch, who has previously suggested the UK would have to leave the ECHR if it stops the country from doing "what is right", said Lord Hermer had shown "appalling judgement" in his speech. "Now he's calling people who disagree with him Nazis," she added. "This isn't just embarrassing, it's dangerous. Hermer doesn't understand government. "If Keir Starmer had any backbone, he'd sack him." Reform UK's deputy leader Richard Tice said Lord Hermer should apologise. "If anyone on the right of politics used his language, there would be outrage," Tice posted on social media. "He has shown himself as unfit to be attorney general."
Attorney general regrets 'clumsy' reference to Nazi Germany
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"Attorney General Lord Hermer Regrets Controversial Remarks Comparing UK Law Debates to Nazi Germany"
Bbc News
7.3
TruthLens AI Summary
The UK Attorney General, Lord Hermer, has publicly expressed regret over his recent remarks that drew a controversial comparison between calls for the UK to distance itself from international law and the arguments put forth in Nazi Germany during the 1930s. In a speech delivered at the Royal United Services Institute, Lord Hermer criticized politicians advocating for the abandonment of international legal constraints, likening their rhetoric to that of German legal theorists who paved the way for the Nazi regime. His comments sparked backlash, particularly from Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch, who accused him of equating dissenters with Nazis and called for his dismissal. A spokesperson for Lord Hermer clarified that while he rejected the characterization of his speech by Conservative figures, he acknowledged that his choice of words was indeed clumsy and regrettable. Lord Hermer's intention was to defend the principles of international law, emphasizing their importance in countering threats from aggressive states, such as Russia, and in addressing issues like organized immigration crime.
In his address, Lord Hermer articulated a vision for the Labour government that balances pragmatic national interests with a principled commitment to maintaining a rules-based international order. He warned against the growing sentiment within parts of Westminster and the media that suggests the UK should forsake international law for sheer power. He referenced the historical context of the early 1930s, particularly the ideas of Carl Schmitt, a legal scholar who justified the rise of state power over law, which ultimately contributed to the establishment of the Nazi regime. The speech has ignited a debate on international law's role in UK politics, with criticism from various quarters suggesting that the Attorney General's remarks were not only ill-judged but also potentially dangerous. Critics, including members from the Conservative Party and Reform UK, have called for accountability and have underscored the need for a more careful discourse regarding the implications of international treaties, particularly in light of ongoing debates about the European Convention on Human Rights and its impact on immigration policy.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The article presents a controversial statement made by the UK Attorney General, Lord Hermer, who compared current political discourse advocating for a departure from international law to arguments made in Nazi Germany. This comparison has sparked significant backlash, leading to accusations that he labeled dissenters as Nazis. The subsequent apology for his "clumsy" remarks indicates a desire to mitigate political fallout and clarify his intent.
Political Repercussions
The remarks have ignited a political firestorm, especially among Conservative Party members. Kemi Badenoch's demands for Lord Hermer's resignation illustrate the divisions within UK politics, particularly regarding the approach to international law. This incident could signal a deepening rift within the Conservative Party as they grapple with the implications of Brexit and the UK's role in global governance.
Public Perception and Trust
By using incendiary historical references, the Attorney General risks eroding public trust in political figures and legal institutions. The backlash suggests that many may view such comparisons as hyperbolic or unfounded, leading to a potential alienation of voters who prioritize a principled approach to international relations. The use of "clumsy" language may also reflect an awareness of the sensitivity surrounding discussions of the Nazi era, further complicating public sentiment.
Underlying Issues
The focus on international law and its constraints in the face of power dynamics raises questions about the UK's future diplomatic strategy. While the speech aims to defend international law as a safeguard against threats such as Russian aggression, it also highlights the tension between national interests and global responsibilities. Lord Hermer's reference to historical legal theorists like Carl Schmitt suggests a deeper philosophical debate about the nature of law and state power, which may not resonate positively with all segments of society.
Media Influence
This incident may also reflect broader media narratives surrounding the UK's political landscape. The framing of Lord Hermer's remarks and the subsequent critique from various political figures could shape public discourse in ways that either reinforce or challenge existing beliefs about national identity and governance.
Potential Consequences
In light of the political and social backlash, potential outcomes could include increased scrutiny of government officials and their rhetoric, calls for greater accountability, and a push for more transparent discussions regarding the UK's legal commitments. The incident could also catalyze movements advocating for a return to more principled leadership that respects international norms.
Community Reactions
The controversy may resonate more strongly with communities that value a rules-based international order, as opposed to those who prioritize national sovereignty and unilateral decision-making. This division could inform future political strategies and alignments as parties adjust their messaging to appeal to their respective bases.
Market Impact
While the immediate impact on the stock market may be limited, the underlying themes of governance and international relations could influence investor confidence. Political instability or shifts in policy regarding international law might affect sectors dependent on global trade and relations, signaling a need for investors to remain vigilant.
In summary, the article highlights a significant political misstep that has broader implications for public trust, community divisions, and the UK's international stance. The Attorney General's remarks, while intended to defend international law, have instead ignited a contentious debate that could shape political discourse for some time.