Hermer dismisses Palestine challenge by top lawyers
The Attorney General was directly challenged in a letter questioning the legality of Sir Keir Starmer's plan to recognise the Palestinian state formally in September.
The signatories from the House of Lords argue that a Palestinian state would not meet the criteria for recognition laid out in the so-called Montevideo Convention, a treaty signed in 1933.
But it is understood Lord Hermer, a close personal friend of the Prime Minister since their days as fellow lawyers, does not agree with the arguments put forward.
The Attorney General's position would likely be reflected in any legal advice issued to Sir Keir before the change in position was unveiled on Tuesday.
A spokesman for Lord Hermer's office declined to comment, citing the long-standing convention not to disclose whether legal advice may or may not exist on particular issues.
The Prime Minister said he would recognise Palestine at the UN General Assembly in September unless Israel meets four conditions.
He wants Israel to end the 'appalling' situation in Gaza and allow the UN to restart the supply of aid; reach a ceasefire; 'make clear' there will be no annexation in the West Bank; and commit to a long-term peace process that delivers a two-state solution.
Sir Keir also repeated calls for Hamas to release all remaining hostages captured on October 7, but that demand was not made an explicit condition for recognition to take place.
That position has become a focal point for critics who argue it could provide an incentive for Hamas not to release hostages, since a ceasefire would, under the UK position, help block Palestinian statehood.
The letter to Lord Hermer from the 40 peers, including prominent Israel supporters, first reported by The Times, argued that the Government's approach risked breaking international law.
The signatories wrote: 'We call on you to advise him [Starmer] that this would be contrary to international law.
'You are on record as saying that a commitment to international law goes absolutely to the heart of this Government and its approach to foreign policy.
'You have said that a selective 'pick and mix' approach to international law will lead to its disintegration, and that the criteria set out in international law should not be manipulated for reasons of political expedience.
'Accordingly, we expect you to demonstrate this commitment by explaining to the public and to the Government that recognition of Palestine would be contrary to the principles governing recognition of states in international law. We look forward to your response.'
The Montevideo Convention, signed in the Uruguayan capital, named four criteria for statehood in international law: that a state has a defined territory, a permanent population, a government and the capacity to enter into diplomatic relations with other states.
The signatories questioned whether these four tests had been met.
Lord Pannick, who represented the Government in the legal tussles over the Rwanda deportation scheme, put his name to the letter.
So too did Lord Faulks KC, a prominent human rights lawyer, Lord Collins of Mapesbury, a former Supreme Court judge, and Lord Walney, the Government's former adviser on political violence and disruption.
A spokesman for the Attorney General's office said: 'The Attorney General is the Government's chief legal adviser but, by long-standing convention, the fact he may have advised or not advised, and the content of his advice, is not disclosed outside government, as is reflected in the ministerial code.
'Decisions on policy are taken by the relevant Secretary of State and Departments as has been the case under successive governments.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
16 minutes ago
- The Sun
Labour's taken state spying of social media to whole new level – leaked emails read like their from dictatorship not UK
THE Chinese-owned social media platform TikTok has often aroused fears that personal data collected on its users could end up in the hands of the Chinese Communist Party. What fewer people imagined was that our own Government would try to use TikTok in order to police speech in Britain. Yet that is exactly what has happened. 7 7 7 Leaked emails show that a shady branch of government known as the National Security Online Information Team has been leaning on TikTok to suppress content that is critical of official migration and criminal justice policy. On several occasions during the riots which followed the Southport murders a year ago, the unit approached TikTok requesting that it 'assess' some posts made by its users — effectively a crude instruction to suppress what they were saying. Legitimate debate Britain, like every other country, operates security services that spy on terrorists who are plotting atrocities as well as organisations involved in propagating serious public disorder. Were a government organisation to prevent a bomb attack which could have killed dozens of people, no one would be too bothered about how it had obtained the vital information. But the emails show activity which goes far beyond the demands of national security. In one case, officials drew TikTok's attention to a post that suggested a large number of migrants were 'undocumented fighting age males'. Another suggested that TikTok take a look at users who spread 'concerning narratives about the police and a two-tier system [of justice] '. I am sure the police and courts will defend themselves robustly against a charge of operating two-tier justice, but whether or not you think they are doing this, it is a perfectly legitimate area for public debate, just as is the question of whether ethnic minorities suffer disadvantage in the workplace, schools, hospitals and so on. Those who made online accusations of a disproportionate response by the police towards protesters, and who dubbed our Prime Minister 'two-tier Keir', had good reason for raising their concerns. Ten days before the Southport murders, the Harehills area of Leeds erupted into rioting after children from a Roma family were taken into care. Protesters descend on Canary Wharf migrant hotel as police surround building amid fears over 'summer of riots' Days later there was a machete fight on Southend seafront. Keir Starmer had little to say about those grim developments, yet went into overdrive when protesters took to the streets following the Southport riots. True, there were plenty of thugs among them, but to insinuate that all protesters were driven by nothing more than 'far-right hatred' was outrageous. I am not going to defend Lucy Connolly, who was jailed for 31 months for remarks she made in the wake of the Southport killings — her words read like a pretty clear incitement to violence even if she did not intend them to. But it is perfectly reasonable to question whether her punishment was consistent with the treatment handed out to extreme Islamist preachers and Irish Republican sympathisers. Take the Prevent programme, which was set up by the Blair government specifically to deal with the threat of Islamist terrorism in the wake of the 2005 Tube bombings. 7 7 7 Over time it seems to have become more concerned with the far right. Nineteen per cent of those reported to the programme in the year ending March 2024 were recorded as supporting a far right ideology, against only 13 per cent with Islamist ideology — in spite of the latter being responsible for far more terror attacks and killings than the former over the past two decades. For Government officials to try to stop us discussing these matters is something you might associate more with a dictatorship than with British democracy. We have a human rights lawyer as PM, but where is he when it comes to defending our long-held right to free expression? Labour, however, has taken state surveillance of social media to a new level To be fair to Starmer, it is not just his government that has been trying to silence its critics. The National Security Online Information Team was derived from a body set up during Covid to try to gag critics of vaccines and lockdown. The Online Safety Act, which places obligations on social media companies to police content — and which the Government has used to put pressure on TikTok and other companies — was the brainchild of the last Conservative government. Deep concerns Labour, however, has taken state surveillance of social media to a new level. Particularly disgraceful was Technology Secretary Peter Kyle's attempt this week to claim that Nigel Farage was on the side of Jimmy Savile for daring to criticise the Online Safety Act. To listen to Kyle you would think the act was about nothing other than age verification for users of online pornography (not that Savile used the internet to abuse his victims). There are many people, myself included, who support the age verification measures but who have deep concerns about the act's other provisions, in particular its demand that technologies companies act against anything that could fall under the vague definition of being 'harmful to children'. Even the day's news could be deemed harmful to children if it upsets their immature sensibilities. The trouble is that the Online Safety Act was pushed through on the back of emotional propaganda, with few people realising the dark and disturbing ways in which it could be used to silence any of us. We are belatedly realising that now. 7
Daily Mail
16 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Anti-migrant protesters face off with counter demonstrators in Southsea as disquiet grows over asylum seeker hotels across the UK
Anti-migrant demonstrators faced off against counter-protesters from Stand Up to Racism this evening outside a hotel on the south coast used to house asylum seekers. Protesters gathered outside the Royal Beach Hotel in Southsea, Hampshire, on August 1. Anti-migrant demonstrations have taken place across the South of England today, with locations including Portsmouth, Southampton and Bournemouth. More are expected across the UK this weekend as the topic of migrants continues to prove inflammatory.
Telegraph
16 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Labour's Civil Service proposals are unfair and misguided
That the Civil Service is in dire need of a shake-up is accepted, at this point, across much of Westminster. The frustrations are justified. The public sector is, as George Staunton found Imperial China, felt to be staffed by those who feel that 'everything is excellent' and 'proposals for improvement would be superfluous'. This agreement stretches only as far as the sense that something must change, however. The proposals on the table for reform are deeply contested, and potentially harmful. Labour's proposal to limit Civil Service internships to those from ' lower socio-economic backgrounds ' is a retrograde step which would impoverish the pool of talent available to ministers by restricting entry based on family circumstance, and would represent another blow to the idea that parents should work for their children's futures. The Government would be better advised to hark back to the Northcote-Trevelyan report, which attempted to address a Civil Service which attracted the 'unambitious', 'indolent' and 'incapable' who did not fancy 'the competition of their contemporaries', but were attracted by 'the comparative lightness of the work'. The solutions put forward included, among other things, entrance examinations open to all, merit-based promotion, and ensuring that civil servants were fully employed to the full extent of their abilities. Such an embrace of meritocracy would surely be morally and practically preferable to further clumsy attempts at social engineering.
