Latest news with #DavidWolfson
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- Business
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on the Conservatives and international law: a party trapped inside its own destructive obsessions
Kemi Badenoch's announcement of a Conservative party inquiry into a British withdrawal from the European convention on human rights (ECHR) should fool no one. The working party under the shadow attorney general, David Wolfson, announced on Thursday, will not look dispassionately at whether the UK should withdraw. It will merely try to say why and how. The policy of withdrawal itself is almost, to coin a phrase, oven-ready. This back-to-front policymaking process exemplifies the party's rudderless drift under Mrs Badenoch. Tory policy is not now in the hands of the leader or the shadow cabinet. It is in the hands of Reform UK and the opinion polls. Mrs Badenoch is a follower of events. Hers is the approach of someone still trapped in a party bubble which is consumed by the belief that withdrawal is the key to regaining the Conservatives' squandered popularity. This is nonsensical politics for the Tories. But it is also dangerous for Britain. The UK's long commitment to international law is a cornerstone of this country's soft power standing in the world. Labour's reassertion of this approach, with its clear signal to the world that Britain can again be trusted as a partner, has generated national benefits since the party returned to office last year. This does not mean that every aspect of international law (of which the ECHR is part) is unchallengeable or holy writ. The primary responsibility for the rule of law and for human rights is at the national level. The states that signed international covenants and treaties after 1945 '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 in their member states'. Those words come from the current attorney general, Richard Hermer. They were part of his lucid and balanced lecture on security to the Royal United Services Institute last week. To judge by the fury it unleashed among the Daily Telegraph and Spectator writing classes, you might think that Lord Hermer had insisted that only lawyers like him could solve the world's conflicts and injustices, and that anyone who disagreed with him was a Nazi. Lord Hermer said no such things. Those who read his lecture will instead find an explicit attempt to depolarise the debate. He criticises as 'romantic idealists' those who treat international law as the reign of universal moral principle and who abhor all concession to nation-state interests. But he also denounced the 'pseudo-realists' who argue, amid the current unravelling of the post-1945 order, that nation-state interests can now take precedence over law. This, he said, was Russia's argument in Ukraine (he was too craven to mention that it is Donald Trump's philosophy of government too). British politicians drawn to this exceptionalist thinking in the name of realism risked committing 'deeply unserious acts in a deadly serious age'. To leave the ECHR would be just such an act. But its consequences would be desperately serious. It would give succour to authoritarian rulers on all continents. It would drain Britain's reputation for reliability again, as Brexit did. And it would achieve none of the goals in national security, criminal justice and migration control that its supporters imagine. Lord Hermer is right that serious problems can ultimately only be resolved through negotiations, driven by politics, which are then knitted together in laws that must be upheld. You cannot have one without the other.
The Guardian
29-05-2025
- General
- The Guardian
Pick-and-mix approach to international law will make UK less secure, says attorney general
The UK faces 'disintegration' and will become 'less prosperous and secure' if it takes a pick-and-mix approach to international law, the attorney general has said. In a speech on Thursday, Richard Hermer launched a defence of international law and multilateral frameworks which 'have kept us safe since 1945'. He rebuked the leader of the Conservatives, Kemi Badenoch, and her shadow attorney general, David Wolfson, who have accused ministers of rigidly following international law, and said 'their arguments if ever adopted would provide succour to [Vladimir] Putin'. 'Their temptingly simple narratives not only misunderstand our history and the nature of international law, it is also reckless and dangerous, and will make us less prosperous and secure in a troubled world,' he said. Hermer, who is a human rights lawyer and former colleague of Keir Starmer, was appointed the government's chief law officer when Labour entered office last summer. Earlier this year he was attacked in sections of the press over his past clients, and also faced claims from internal critics that he was slowing down the work of government. He has also faced criticism over the government's decision to agree to hand sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius after an advisory ruling by the international court of justice. Giving the annual security lecture at the Royal United Services Institute, Hermer defended the government's approach to international relations and accused Tory critics of a 'deeply unworldly' stance. 'Their analysis is the precise opposite of realistic – it is deeply unworldly, fit for a university debating chamber perhaps, but not the world in which our enemies recognise the strategic benefits of the disintegration of the international rules-based framework,' he said. 'Let me be crystal clear: I do not question for a moment the good faith, let alone patriotism of the pseudo-realists but their arguments, if ever adopted, would provide succour to Putin.' 'In this dangerous world it is instructive to ask yourself: if the international law framework fails, if our multilateral institutions fall, then cui bono? Who benefits? The answer is obvious – it is our enemies who succeed. It is obvious that Russia and other malign state-actors see the undermining of the legal-based framework as a core objective.' Hermer also accused the previous Conservative government and particularly Boris Johnson, who served as both a foreign minister and a prime minister during that period, of undermining the UK's reputation on the world stage. 'No one can sensibly argue that the bombast of Johnson increased the standing of the United Kingdom in the globe – that people took us more seriously as a result of his shtick, that either allies or adversaries were impressed by the doctrine of 'cakeism' or thought our reputation or reliability enhanced by legislating to deliberately breach international law,' he said. He argued that 'it is a great British value to say that we want to make the world a better, safer and more prosperous place. There is no contradiction in our view between approaching the world with both a hard head but also a warm heart.' Nonetheless, Hermer argued, international law was 'incomplete' and 'must be critiqued and reformed and improved'. In what will be regarded as a criticism of the way the European convention of human rights (ECHR) is being interpreted by some judges, Hermer said that 'states agreeing to treaties some time ago 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 in their member states'. Ministers are reviewing how article eight of the Human Rights Act, which enshrines the ECHR in domestic law, is being applied to allow irregular migrants to stay in the UK.
