In recent political developments, the Attorney General of the United Kingdom, Lord Richard Hermer, stirred controversy with remarks that were seen as a misguided historical comparison. During a speech delivered on Thursday, he equated calls for the United Kingdom to break away from international law with ideas espoused by legal theorists in 1930s Germany prior to the rise of the Nazi Party. Lord Hermer characterized this political rhetoric as a dangerous push towards abandoning the principles of international law, framing it as an appeal to raw power rather than adherence to established legal frameworks.
His comments sparked immediate backlash, most notably from Kemi Badenoch, the leader of the Conservative Party. Badenoch accused Hermer of irresponsibly labeling dissenting opinions as akin to Nazi ideology, implying that his words trivialized the historical atrocities committed during that period. She called for Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to terminate his position as Attorney General, reflecting a significant rift within the party regarding the interpretation of international legal standards and their relevance to UK law.
In a follow-up statement, a spokesperson for Lord Hermer attributed his choice of words to a lapse in judgement, acknowledging that they were indeed “clumsy” and regrettable. However, they insisted that he did not intend to vilify those with differing viewpoints but instead aimed to advocate for international law, which they argued underpins British national security and helps counter threats from hostile states, like Russia, as well as addressing issues related to organized immigration crime.
Lord Hermer made his remarks during a speech at the Royal United Services Institute, a think tank that focuses on defense and security. He highlighted how the current discourse surrounding international law often echoes the sentiments of pre-Nazi legal theorists, particularly referencing the works of Carl Schmitt, a controversial figure known for justifying authoritarianism. Schmitt’s philosophy claimed that state power supersedes legal frameworks, a thesis that Lord Hermer warned could lead to disastrous consequences if modern lawmakers were to adopt a similar viewpoint.
The attorney general’s comments not only drew ire from Conservative figures but also from other political commentators who feared that such rhetoric could erode public trust in legal institutions. Lord Hermer emphasized the importance of upholding a rules-based international order, arguing that a pragmatic yet principled approach to national interests is essential for maintaining security and stability.
In contrast, political figures from the Conservative and Reform UK parties have criticized certain aspects of international law, proposing potential withdrawal from treaties such as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). They argue that these laws complicate immigration enforcement and inhibit the government’s ability to address migration challenges, especially concerning individuals arriving through the English Channel in small boats. Badenoch’s past comments indicated she would favor leaving the ECHR if it impeded the government’s capacity to act decisively on immigration.
Badenoch’s condemnation of Lord Hermer’s speech extended to questions of his competence to serve as Attorney General, labeling his judgement “appalling” and suggesting that if Labour leader Keir Starmer were assertive, he would relieve Hermer of his duties. Richard Tice, who serves as the deputy leader of Reform UK, echoed these sentiments, asserting that the attorney general should issue an apology for his remarks, which he believed would have elicited outrage had they been made by someone from the right.
This unfolding saga positions Lord Hermer’s comments as a focal point of the ongoing debate regarding the influence of international law on domestic practices within Britain and raises questions about the future of the UK’s commitments to such frameworks in an increasingly polarized political landscape.