Latest news with #CarlSchmitt
Yahoo
2 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Minister regrets 'clumsy' reference to Nazi Germany
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."
The Independent
2 days ago
- General
- The Independent
Oh dear, m'lud: It's never a good idea to call people Nazis if they are not Nazis
Godwin's Law states that, as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 100 per cent. A corollary to the law is that the first person to mention the Nazis loses the argument. So it is surprising that Richard Hermer, the attorney general, should make that mistake. He said in a lecture on Thursday: 'The claim that international law is fine as far as it goes, but can be put aside when the 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.' Schmitt supported Hitler's rule by decree in 1933, bypassing the German constitution. Hermer went on: 'Our approach is a rejection of the siren song, that can sadly now be heard in the Palace of Westminster, not to mention the press, that Britain abandon the constraints of international law in favour of raw power.' Oops. He referred in his lecture to Kemi Badenoch's plan to 'disengage' from the European Court of Human Rights if necessary to protect British interests, and made it clear that this was part of the 'pick and mix' approach that he was condemning. The backpedalling was almost immediate. Sources 'close to' Lord Hermer insisted that he was not likening Badenoch or Nigel Farage to Nazis, and pointed out that he also said in the lecture that those who advocated repudiating treaties were 'patriots' who were doing so in 'good faith'. A spokesperson for Lord Hermer has now also issued a statement, apologising for his 'clumsy' choice of words. Too late. Another corollary of Godwin's Law – named in 1990 after Mike Godwin, an American lawyer who took part in Usenet newsgroup discussions in the early days of the internet – is that, once made, a comparison to the Nazis is difficult to unmake. The significance of Hermer's blooper is twofold. One is that he is like the Ghost of Starmer Past, a reminder that the prime minister was a human rights barrister too before before he was captured by Morgan McSweeney, his chief of staff, who reprogrammed him according to the overriding need to win votes. The other is that Hermer, as the government's chief legal adviser, in effect holds a veto on the home secretary's review of the application of human rights law. Yvette Cooper said in March that the government was reviewing the way the European Convention on Human Rights – including Article 8, the right to family life – is applied, 'to make sure that the immigration and asylum system works effectively in the way that parliament intended it to and make sure that there is a proper sense of control in the system'. This review is part of the emerging consensus around Europe that human rights law needs to be reformed. Indeed, Hermer is part of that consensus, saying in his lecture that Britain 'must be ready to reform' international agreements such as the European Convention on Human Rights so that they retain 'democratic legitimacy'. Nine EU leaders, led by the prime ministers of Italy and Denmark, published an open letter last week protesting that the court's interpretation of the convention 'has, in some cases, limited our ability to make political decisions in our own democracies'. They said: 'We have seen, for example, cases concerning the expulsion of criminal foreign nationals where the interpretation of the convention has resulted in the protection of the wrong people and posed too many limitations on the states' ability to decide whom to expel from their territories.' So Badenoch and Farage may be pushing at a door that is already opening. Farage advocates withdrawing from the European Court regardless, while Badenoch says that she would be prepared to withdraw from the European Court if it, and the application of convention rights by British courts, cannot be reformed. Rishi Sunak said the same. Even Jack Straw, the Labour former home secretary, asked in a letter to The Times two months ago: 'What utility is there in the UK being bound any more into the Strasbourg court? Not much, is my answer.' He said convention rights are 'safe enough' being enforced by British courts. This is an argument that the reformers are winning. It seems not only legitimate to keep open the option of withdrawing from the European Court, but to make good tactical sense, bringing pressure to bear on the Council of Europe that oversees it. The case for sensible reform risks being destroyed by Hermer's hyperbole about 1930s Germany. And the political argument against Farage is weakened by comparing his policy, however indirectly, to that of the Nazis. The prime minister should exorcise the unhelpful ghost of his past.
Spectator
2 days ago
- Politics
- Spectator
Lord Hermer is preposterously wrong about international law
Lord Hermer KC has done it again. Delivering RUSI's annual security lecture this week, the Attorney General set out to 'depolarise' the debate about international law, before promptly comparing those who are open to withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) with Carl Schmitt, the notorious German jurist who joined the Nazi party in 1933. If Lord Hermer's intention truly was to lower the political temperature, and to help to broaden the base of support for the government's approach to international law, his speech must be judged a failure. Perhaps his choice of words was simply clumsy, as he has since said, although the text as a whole suggests otherwise. The Attorney's speech mentions Schmitt, and a Schmittian approach to the rule of law, four times, linking him not only to the Nazis but also to Putin's aggression against Ukraine.
ITV News
3 days ago
- Politics
- ITV News
Attorney General compares calls to leave international courts with Nazi Germany
The Attorney General appears to have compared calls for the UK to leave international courts with Nazi Germany. Lord Richard Hermer KC said the idea that the UK can breach international obligations is a 'radical departure from the UK's constitutional tradition'. Lord Hermer used a speech in London on Thursday to say claims that international law can be 'put aside' were made in the early 1930s in Germany. 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 Lord Hermer In a version of his speech to the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) thinktank, published on the website, Lord Hermer suggested the Government's approach is a 'rejection of the siren song' that can be 'heard in the Palace of Westminster' in which 'Britain abandons the constraints of international law in favour of raw power'. 'This is not a new song,' he said. '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.' Lord Hermer also said that because of what happened 'in 1933, far-sighted individuals rebuilt and transformed the institutions of international law'. That is the year that Adolf Hitler became German chancellor. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has stopped short of calling for the UK to leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as other Conservative figures have advocated. However, she suggested the UK would have to leave the convention if it stops the country from doing 'what is right'. Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has said he would get rid of the ECHR, and told ITV in April that 'we have to get back the ability to decide, can we really control our borders'. In his same speech to Rusi on Thursday, the Attorney General said 'we must not stagnate in our approach to international rules' and that officials should 'look to apply and adapt existing obligations to address new situations'. 'We must be ready to reform where necessary,' he added.
Times
3 days ago
- General
- Times
Starmer's legal chief in Nazi jibe at anti-ECHR Tories and Reform
Sir Keir Starmer's chief legal officer has likened attempts by the Tories and Reform to pull Britain out of international courts to 1930s Nazi Germany. Lord Hermer, the attorney-general, said Britain 'must be ready to reform' international agreements such as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) so that they retain 'democratic legitimacy'. But he categorised Kemi Badenoch's policy to 'disengage' from the ECHR and other international bodies if they no longer serve British interests as a 'pick and mix' approach similar to that pursued by Nazi Germany to ensure the power of the state trumped the law. Reform's policy at the last election was to leave the ECHR and the 'foreign' court in Strasbourg. Sources close to Hermer insisted he was not likening right-wing politicians to Nazis, pointing out that he said they were acting in 'good faith' and were 'patriots'. Hermer said in a speech to the Royal United Services Institute: 'The claim that international law is fine as far as it goes, but can be put aside when the 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.' Schmitt was a German political theorist who provided ideological justification to the Nazi regime and supported Hitler's move to bypass the German constitution and rule by decree in 1933. Hermer added: 'Our approach is a rejection of the siren song, that can sadly now be heard in the Palace of Westminster, not to mention the press, that Britain abandon the constraints of international law in favour of raw power.' He said that while the government must respect and comply with international institutions, the law could not 'stand still and rest on its laurels'. Hermer added: 'International law cannot and must not replace politics. As we have shown time and again as a nation, from a position of respect and compliance . . . reform is possible and institutions can be reformed. We must be ready to reform where necessary.' Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, described Hermer's plan to reform the convention as 'fanciful' because it would require unanimity from all 46 signatories. He hit back at criticism of those who want to leave it, saying: 'It is appalling that Hermer would insinuate those who think we should leave the ECHR are like the Nazis. David Lammy tried that disgusting smear with Brexiteers and it didn't work for him. It won't work for Hermer either.' deportation of foreign criminals, including sex offenders. Hermer's speech signals a notable shift in his approach. He has previously been blamed for acting as a 'freeze on government' by taking a risk-averse approach to potential legal challenges. It also suggests that the government is prepared to go further to tweak the way in which domestic courts interpret Article 8 of the ECHR, which protects the right to a family and private life. • • Leaving the ECHR can become Badenoch's big cause This month ministers said that they would change the law to prevent judges blocking deportation of foreign criminals and failed asylum seekers. The move would constrain interpretation of Article 8 and more closely define who qualifies for protection and when. Cases in which Article 8 has been invoked include an Albanian jailed for running a cannabis factory who avoided deportation when judges ruled it would deprive his daughter of a 'male role model'. There is a growing appetite across the continent to consider changes to the convention to help tackle illegal immigration. Hermer's speech suggests the government is now willing to go further than reforms to Article 8. He also criticised international judges for overinterpreting agreements signed decades ago in different circumstances. 'States . . . did not give an open-ended licence for international rules to be ever more expansively interpreted or for institutions to adopt a position of blindness or indifference to public sentiment,' he said. 'As progressive realists we recognise that international law cannot stand still.' A source close to Hermer said: 'The attorney-general sees those on the other side of this debate as patriots acting in good faith — but deeply misguided because ripping up international law will only help those who want a lawless world like Vladimir Putin. He is the son of a former Conservative councillor, who sees this as nothing but a good-faith argument in the British family.'
