Latest news with #Hermer
Spectator
6 days ago
- Business
- Spectator
Britain must not bow to the ICJ
The official cost of the deal to surrender the Chagos Islands to Mauritius – a country which never owned the islands in the first place – has been put at £101 million a year over the 99-year term of the lease. But the real cost could end up being multiples of this. Not only did it involve putting the sovereignty of an import airbase into the hands of a nation which is close to China, but it has sent a powerful message to developing countries all around the world that Britain – or at least its current government – is a pushover which can be plundered for payments on all kinds of issues. Yesterday the International Court of Justice – the same UN body which delivered the verdict on the Chagos Islands which Keir Starmer felt obliged to obey – delivered an opinion that industrialised countries are liable for the consequences of historic carbon emissions. It opens to way for countries which claim to be affected by climate change to put in demands for compensation. The government of Vanuatu – a string of low-lying islands in the Pacific – lost no time in suggesting that it will now do just this. Don't expect it to be a few billion: fantasy estimates for the cost of historic carbon emissions have run into the trillions. The Foreign Office so far has said only that it will study the opinion. Trouble is that when you have climbed on a plinth of righteousness and told the world that Britain is a country which takes notice of judgements from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), how do you then thumb your nose at it and say that its opinion stinks? I am open to being proved wrong, but sadly I can already imagine Lord Hermer shaking his head and telling members of the Cabinet that sorry, we just have to pay up. But it won't end with climate reparations. Next up, you can bet, will be a judgement from the ICJ that Britain and other developed countries are liable for reparations for slavery, too. Indeed, one of the ICJ's judges, Patrick Robertson, published a report in 2023 claiming that Britain likely owed £18 trillion to 14 countries in which it was involved in slavery. Ready to fill the fiscal hole when Lord Hermer concludes that Britain must obey the ECJ, Rachel Reeves? Think a wealth tax would sort out that kill, Lord Kinnock? It is more than six times the size of the UK economy. The only way to react to the kind of stuff coming out of the ICJ is to tell it take a running jump. It is all very nice to think of there being an international system of law which enforces justice for all, yet you can't have properly functioning international courts when you do not have a global system of democracy. The ICJ is a form of kritarchy – rule by judges – which is itself contrary to the principles of human rights. 'The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government,' states the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Tell me where that fits in with the concept of an international court which makes judgements based on no democratic process, just on its own opinions. The Conservatives and Reform have indeed already come out and, in as many words, told the ICJ where to go. Shadow foreign secretary Priti Patel said: 'The ICJ has lost its core purpose and is now joining political campaigns based on ideological obsessions.' Richard Tice has stated: 'We will not be beholden to any foreign court.' The choice at the next election, it seems, will be between a ruling party led by a human rights lawyer who is in thrall to bodies like the ICJ, and who as a result will find himself forever trying to tackle ruinous bills, and at least two opposition parties who are contemptuous of international law and promise always to put the interests of the UK citizens who elected them first. It will be an interesting battle.
Spectator
6 days ago
- Politics
- Spectator
How ‘cosmopolitan' is Lord Hermer?
The Telegraph reports that Attorney General Lord Hermer has 'been accused of asserting the primacy of human rights law over British government and politics'. Is he then a latter-day Diogenes (4th century bc), who saw himself as a 'cosmopolitan', i.e. a citizen of no one place, but rather of the whole world (kosmos, 'the ordered world' + polites 'citizen')? At one level, obviously not. Diogenes, we are told, travelled from place to place, rejected all conventional values, often lived in a large stone wine jar and performed all natural functions in public, like a dog – kunikos in Greek, whence our 'cynic'. Self-sufficiency, freedom of speech, indifference to hardship and lack of shame were Cynic hallmarks. Their aim was to build up inner resources, unconnected with worldly goods, that could be nurtured only by severe physical and mental self-discipline. Animals, primitive man, barbarians and the gods held the key to their ideal virtuous existence, which civilisation had wrecked with its notions of marriage, family, politics, the city, all social, sexual and racial distinctions, reputation, wealth, power, authority, literature, music and so on. The move to humanise this stimulating lunacy was made by Stoic thinkers who associated cosmopolitan values with a common, shared rationality, drawn from divine reason, expressed by, for example, love of friends and family. 'All men are by nature brothers,' averred Epictetus (c. ad 50-135). As the Roman empire expanded so successfully across much of Europe, North Africa, Egypt and the Middle East, it is not surprising that Romans such as Cicero, Seneca and Marcus Aurelius identified Rome with the idea(l) of a universal cosmopolis bringing lengthy periods of peace to regions often at war (as much later did St Augustine, in different terms). But modern human rights bear no relation to the ancient, and come at a very considerable social, financial and political cost, especially in relation to refugees. Perhaps Lord Hermer would be more suited to the UN, where 'no question of error is to be found in those for whom the height of virtue consists in the execution of their will' (Ammianus, 4th century ad) than the messy business of politics.
New Statesman
17-07-2025
- Politics
- New Statesman
In defence of Lord Hermer
Photo byIn a competitive field the Attorney General, Lord Hermer, is the biggest ministerial villain for the right-wing newspapers. Rarely a day passes without the Telegraph, Mail and others screaming about what they see as Hermer's hyper-active interventions within government. Hermer dares to warn ministers that they must act within domestic and international law and his critics fume. 'The least patriotic man EVER to hold high office?' asked former professor turned Reform mouthpiece Matt Goodwin in the Mail over the weekend. None of the media noise would matter that much but for two additional factors. Some anonymous government insiders are quoted regularly echoing the views of the newspapers in their political pages. How can we be insurgent incumbents, they ask with apparently defiant machismo, when Hermer is forever warning us that we cannot do what we need to do to beat Nigel Farage? Inevitably the rise of Reform is the other factor triggering insider briefings. Farage has never been a great upholder of international law if it gets in the way of 'Britain's interests'. A big part of his pitch is his conviction that Britain must leave the ECHR. Like Keir Starmer, Hermer is a world expert on international law, including the ECHR. Apparently No 10's self-described 'insurgent incumbents' are deeply frustrated. Whenever there is speculation about a cabinet reshuffle Hermer's name is cited as one who could or should be sacked. Such an outcome would be calamitous for Starmer and his government, not least because Hermer is an 'insurgent incumbent' as far as that latest, fashionably imprecise term has any meaning at all. He has the confidence and authority to challenge current orthodoxies that have dominated the British media and political culture since Brexit, including an assumption that breaking international law is to be celebrated because it is in Britain's self interest to do so. This is now a mainstream view in parts of the Conservative Party, Reform, as well as the newspapers. The new orthodoxies shaped Boris Johnson's Rwanda policy, a scheme that the courts found violated both international and domestic law. A recent message from Hermer to the government's law officers triggered another outrage in some newspapers partly because he declared: 'You have a key role in helping ministers meet their overarching [legal] obligation while delivering their policy objectives.' What did they expect the Attorney General to state, that they should urge ministers to ignore the legal obligations? It remains staggering that to assert the centrality of the law stirs raging controversy: 'An Attorney General warns ministers of legal obligations… He should be sacked!' Revealingly, those forces touched in some form or other by Hermer's interventions do not share the angry disdain. Senior Tory and Reform figures predicted that all hell would break loose in the Trump administration over the Chagos Islands deal that partly arose from Hermer's reading of Britain's legal obligations. The opposite happened. Trump praised the arrangements. Back in the UK, the Home Office has nothing but praise for Hermer. The Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, actively seeks his advice and willingly involves him in sensitive decisions. They do not complain that he is actively or naively obstructing policies they wish to pursue. On some highly charged issues, he shows flexibility. He supports the Justice Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, in her current efforts to reform the ECHR. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Some Labour MPs complain that Hermer is hopeless at politics – a failing that becomes more apparent when the Prime Minister struggles with the political demands of high office and the Chancellor realises she is not as skilled as she believed at the near-impossible art of blending politics and economics. But even that common observation doesn't tell the whole story. I am told that Hermer spends more time in the Westminster tea rooms engaging with backbenchers than most Cabinet ministers. Although he is rarely allowed out to do broadcast interviews he did give one recently to the BBC's Henry Zeffman in which he navigated tricky themes with skill, countering the populist onslaughts with the accessible case for his faith in the law. 'No one wants to do deals with people they don't trust. No one wants to sign international agreements with a country that's got a government that's saying, well, 'We may comply with it, we may not'… We do. We succeed… Being a good faith player in international law is overwhelmingly in the national interests of this country.' That answer from Hermer forms the substantial case for keeping him in position. The willingness to break laws displayed by previous Tory administrations did not lead to boats being stopped or flights to Rwanda taking off. There was no evidence anywhere that lawbreaking helped the UK. Starmer is ruthless enough to sack an old friend like Hermer. But doing so would raise significant questions about his own public identity and sense of self, far more than with other high-profile dismissals under his leadership. As power edged closer before last summer's election, Starmer showed only limited interest in ministerial appointments. He was preoccupied with campaigning, well before Rishi Sunak announced the election date. Sue Gray played a larger role in many junior appointments, consulting with shadow cabinet members and their advisers on who should form the ministerial teams. But Hermer's appointment was Starmer's alone. He wanted him in that role. Those within government who brief against Hermer are, in effect, challenging Starmer's judgment and worldview. The Prime Minister's public voice is often unclear. Is he the leader who warned that Britain risks becoming an 'island of strangers,' or the one who later regretted saying so? Removing Hermer would suggest that Starmer had once again ceded power and key decisions to advisers who want him to be someone he is not. The symbolism would be stark. But more than that, his government needs the incumbent insurgents to flourish. Ironically, some of the most distinctive change-makers – Hermer, Ed Miliband, Bridget Phillipson – are being briefed against by those who see themselves as the real insurgents. Yet their version of insurgency amounts to continuity with the recent past: support for Michael Gove's secondary school reforms, alignment with Rishi Sunak's caution on net zero, and a desire to emulate Johnson or Farage on international law. Labour's manifesto was titled 'Change'. It is time to move on from that past. Hermer is among those doing just that. Whatever happens in the reshuffle, the genuine incumbent insurgents should remain in place. [See also: Are Unite and Labour heading for divorce?] Related
Spectator
11-07-2025
- Politics
- Spectator
What Richard Hermer gets wrong about international law
Our two-tier Attorney General, Lord Richard Hermer, is in the news again. The controversial lawyer and 'old friend' of the Prime Minister, has issued new instructions to government lawyers which give him an 'effective veto' over all government policy and which also create a network of legal spies within government departments. The Hermer doctrine revealed by these instructions relies on an extreme view of international law, which seeks to limit the power of ministers to govern and parliament to legislate. The Attorney General wrote that: The rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law as in national law, even though they operate on different planes: the government and Ministers must act in good faith to comply with the law and in a way that seeks to align the UK's domestic law and international obligations, and fulfil the international obligations binding on the UK. To honour the UK's international obligations, the government should not invite parliament to legislate contrary to those international obligations. What makes all this particularly odd is that 'international law' is very different to English law In case that wasn't clear enough, the guidance also says that allowing ministers to breach international law could 'incur significant consequences, be they legal, political, diplomatic and/or reputational'. Framed in legal language, what is this saying? That the 'rule of law' requires the government to comply with international law, insists that ministers change British law to comply with international law, and that the government may not even seek to legislate to limit how an international treaty is imposed. This is wrong. A basic principle of our constitution is that we have a dualist system, where domestic law can diverge from international law. Our parliament is sovereign, and that international law has no effect on our domestic law unless parliament legislates to that effect. This is an important protection against ministers being able to create law by signing international treaties. Hermer's guidance also makes it very clear that he does not trust his ministerial colleagues, as it creates an obligation for government lawyers to report on ministers: If it is proposed to proceed with a course of action despite advice that it would be unlawful to do so because it is not supported at least by a tenable legal argument, law officer advice must be sought immediately. This means that if a minister listens to a government lawyer's advice and decides to act, or to govern anyway, then that lawyer should report them to the Attorney General's office. No doubt the Attorney General would then visit the minister concerned to explain why international law is supreme, and they are not allowed to govern. When I put this to the Attorney General's office, they issued a statement saying, 'this government is committed to upholding its obligations under international law' and went on to add that 'we are clear that while government lawyers advise ministers, it is always ministers that make decisions on policy as has been the case under successive governments'. It is not clear how Hermer reconciles this with his legal snoops and insistence that ministers must change domestic law to mirror international law. The Attorney General has made it clear how much he values international law. At the Bingham Lecture in November 2024, Hermer said: International law is not simply some kind of optional add-on, with which states can pick or choose whether to comply. It is central to ensuring our prosperity and security, and that of all global citizens. As will develop later, our reputation as a country that can be trusted to comply with its international law obligations, and has a robust adherence to the rule of law, is essential to our ability to grow the economy. What makes all this particularly odd is that 'international law' is very different to English law. There isn't an international parliament creating laws, nor an international government, nor a world court issuing binding judgments. 'International law' is the term given to describe the aggregated treaties, international agreements and agreed-upon ways in which states act. Yuan Yi Zhu, Senior Research Fellow at Policy Exchange's Judicial Power Project, assistant professor at Leiden University and international law expert, told me that while: International law is 'law'…it is very different to domestic laws. Many domestic lawyers make the mistake of assuming the two are equivalent. International law is primarily between states, almost always voluntary and more like contract law. The United Nations charter recognises this and provides a whole raft of non-court dispute resolution mechanisms. International law is not backed by a population, resources or military power, and nation states quite rightly choose to ignore or 'break' these rules when it suits their interests. Hermer's guidance does, grudgingly, acknowledge this, saying, 'International law principally applies between states. It may not give rise to legally enforceable rights or duties in UK domestic law'. Given this, why is the Attorney General instructing government legal staff to behave as though such rights and duties exist? Yuan Yi Zhu says that: Hermer is wrong in two ways. Firstly, because he misunderstands international law. He is not an international law specialist. He's an English barrister who has practised English law with international elements in England. Secondly, he oversteps his constitutional role. It is not the role of the AG to control other departments nor parliament, which he comes dangerously close to. Hermer's fanatical devotion to international law is driving his power grab. Far from protecting the rule of law, he is a threat to it. He has acted to deliver two-tier justice, he believes that criticism of the judiciary is wrong and now he seeks to prevent ministers of the Crown executing their duties. This lawyer seeks rule by lawyers and would make this country ungovernable if he had his way. There are people within government who recognise the threat Hermer's fanaticism poses. It is clear he does not trust his colleagues. They should make their feelings known to the Prime Minister, who must decide between rule by a friendly lawyer and the rule of law.
South Wales Argus
07-07-2025
- Politics
- South Wales Argus
US air strikes on Iran were absolutely necessary, says Patel
The Conservative frontbencher pressed Foreign Office minister Hamish Falconer for details about the 'UK's response to the actions of the Iranian regime' in the Commons on Monday. It followed Operation Midnight Hammer last month, an air raid when US defence forces attacked Iranian nuclear sites near Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan. UK Attorney General Lord Hermer is reported to have raised legal concerns about any potential British involvement in the conflict beyond defending its allies. 'Two weeks have passed since the US air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities,' shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti said. Shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel (House of Commons/PA) 'Does the minister have an assessment of their impact, and what is his response to the Iranian regime now prohibiting co-operation with the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) and their inspectors leaving Iran? 'Given Tehran's refusal to co-operate, is the minister and the department in discussions with the partners about snapback sanctions being applied (by reinstating UN sanctions on Iran removed through the 2015 Iran nuclear deal) and other measures? 'Is he concerned that demonstrates that Iran will continue to pursue nuclear weapons and their entire programme? 'And with the information received from discussions with America, Israel and other intelligence partners, will the Government finally come off the fence about those strikes and agree with this side of the House that they were absolutely necessary?' Mr Falconer replied: 'I won't provide, I'm afraid, a detailed commentary from the despatch box on the extent of damage from the strikes, for reasons that I'm sure (Dame Priti) and the rest of the House will understand. 'I can confirm we are in discussions about the snapback mechanisms. As the Prime Minister (Sir Keir Starmer) has said, as the Foreign Secretary (David Lammy) has said, as I have said, we cannot see Iran get a nuclear weapon – snapback is an important lever. 'We're talking with our E3 partners and indeed the Americans about what role snapback can play. 'We hope to see a diplomatic solution. That is ultimately the most enduring way to ensure that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon, but we will continue to consider all diplomatic tools including snapback.' US defence forces attacked Iranian nuclear sites near Fordo (Maxar Technologies via AP) Andrew Murrison referred to comments which Defence Secretary John Healey made on social media website X, when the Cabinet minister said the 'US has taken action to alleviate the grave threat that Iran poses to global security'. The Conservative MP for South West Wiltshire told the Commons: 'The Defence Secretary correctly has said that Operation Midnight Hammer has alleviated a grave threat, but the Attorney General appears to be less clear and wonders if it was illegal, whilst the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary appear to sit on the fence. 'Sorry to put the minister on the spot – does he agree with the Attorney General or with the Defence Secretary?' Mr Falconer replied: 'The Defence Secretary and the Attorney General are doing rather different roles, and I don't think they're in disagreement – and in any case, collective responsibility would bind them both and indeed me.' The Foreign Office minister, whose portfolio includes the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan, also referred to a 'gap' in the law which independent reviewer of state threats legislation Jonathan Hall identified in a 2025 report. Mr Hall recommended that the Government should be able to issue 'statutory alert and liability threat notices' against foreign intelligence services. 'By way of example, this strong power would be available for use against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps', he wrote, referring to the Iran-backed organisation. It would be a 'new proscription-type power', similar to existing terrorism legislation used to ban organisations such as Hamas and National Action, the reviewer said. When Labour MP for Newcastle-under-Lyme Adam Jogee asked Mr Falconer to 'elaborate a little more on what that means', the minister replied: 'A state in this case has proved a persistent threat in the UK using methods unlike those usually employed by a state.' He said the Government was 'seeking to fill' the gap in the law.
