Starmer's Attorney General: Calls to quit ECHR like rise of Nazism

[Social Media]

 

Attorney General Sparks Fury with Nazi Germany Comparison in Human Rights Treaty Debate

 

Lord Hermer, the Attorney General under Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour leadership, has provoked a storm of criticism after likening calls to abandon the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to legal rhetoric from Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Speaking at a security lecture hosted by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), Lord Hermer argued that suggestions to withdraw from international law echoed those made by German jurists who paved the way for the Nazi regime.

 

In a speech aimed squarely at growing political momentum on the right to exit the ECHR, Lord Hermer accused politicians such as Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK, and Robert Jenrick, the Conservative shadow justice secretary, of embracing a dangerously nationalist mindset. Both have advocated leaving the ECHR, arguing it hinders Britain’s ability to deport illegal migrants and foreign criminals. Hermer countered that abandoning such treaties would threaten the UK's security and embolden adversaries like Vladimir Putin.

 

“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, not law,” Lord Hermer stated. Schmitt, an authoritarian legal theorist who later joined the Nazi party in 1933, provided a framework that helped justify totalitarian rule, Hermer warned.

 

Hermer defended Labour’s position, which he termed “progressive realism,” emphasizing reform within the framework of international law rather than unilateral withdrawal. “This 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 abandons the constraints of international law in favour of raw power,” he told the audience of senior defence and security officials.

 

But the speech quickly drew sharp rebukes. Nigel Farage called the comparison “disgraceful,” arguing that advocating for sovereignty and control over national borders should not be equated with Nazism. “Hermer and Starmer are out of touch with the British public and these insults will only strengthen our case,” Farage said, noting that leaving the ECHR would be a central issue in the next general election.

 

Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, also came under fire from Hermer for her “reckless and dangerous” willingness to consider pulling out of international treaties. A spokesman for Badenoch responded fiercely, saying, “It was ironic that he said he hoped to depolarise the debate and simultaneously called everyone he disagreed with Nazis.” The spokesman added that while Badenoch respects international law, she recognises its limits and prioritises national interest.

 

Robert Jenrick, another key voice pushing for an ECHR exit, dismissed Hermer’s remarks as “a disgusting smear,” stating, “It is appalling that Hermer would insinuate that 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.”

 

Despite the backlash, Hermer stood by his position, warning of the long-term consequences if the UK were to abandon its commitments to international law. “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 cautioned.

 

Hermer also warned of the strategic advantage it would hand to adversaries. “Putin does not simply apply a Schmitt-ian approach to the rule of law within the boundaries of Russia and its proxies, he recognises the huge strategic advantage that would flow in undermining the post 1945 international law framework,” he said.

 

However, Hermer acknowledged the need to adapt human rights frameworks to modern realities like illegal migration. “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,” he concluded.

 

Starmer has remained firm that Labour will not support leaving the ECHR, even as tensions over immigration policy and sovereignty continue to mount across the political spectrum.

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Telegraph  2025-05-31

 

 

[The Cyclist]

When you have no coherent argument to defend an Institution that is out of date, out of touch and not fit for purpose.

 

Just start yelling Nazi's at people who call it for what it is.

[Gsxrnz]

"Hermer defended Labour’s position, which he termed “progressive realism..."

 

Now there's an oxymoron if ever there was.  The very core of being progressive is that reality is subjective. Their version of reality is actually relativism, and objective truth does not exist. 

 

And when the muppets that make the decisions don't have a firm grip on reality, excrement happens. 

 

 

[Scouse123]

6 hours ago, The Cyclist said:

When you have no coherent argument to defend an Institution that is out of date, out of touch and not fit for purpose.

 

Just start yelling Nazi's at people who call it for what it is.

 

 

He has also backpeddled and apologised for his wrong choice of words.

[The Cyclist]

51 minutes ago, Scouse123 said:

 

 

He has also backpeddled and apologised for his wrong choice of words.

 

He has backpeddled and apologised because of the blowback.

 

He did not use the wrong choice of words. He knew exactly what words he chose to use.

[Scouse123]

17 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

He has backpeddled and apologised because of the blowback.

 

He did not use the wrong choice of words. He knew exactly what words he chose to use.

 

And do you agree with those words?????  They were total overkill just because the public disagrees with him.

 

Whatever, he's back peddled.

 

The sooner this government, the most unpopular ever in such a short space of time, is out, the better.

[The Cyclist]

1 minute ago, Scouse123 said:

 

and you agree with those words?????

 

You haven't been paying attention to my posts.

 

The ECHR is a joke, its supporters are a joke, and this joker would have been flat on his back if he had called me a Nazi to my face.

[Scouse123]

4 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

 

 

The ECHR is a joke, its supporters are a joke, and this joker would have been flat on his back if he had called me a Nazi to my face.

 

 

We all know it, only Starmers brigade refuse to accept it.

[maxcorrigan]

It the ECHR that blocked every Rawanda flight, it has to go!

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, maxcorrigan said:

It the ECHR that blocked every Rawanda flight, it has to go!

It was British courts that blocked the Rwanda flights, not the ECHR.

 

Doh!

[The Cyclist]

22 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It was British courts that blocked the Rwanda flights, not the ECHR.

 

Doh!

 

Doh, indeed

 

Quote

In June 2022, the ECHR stopped the first Rwanda flight,

 

And now we have

 

 

 

Just look at all the women and children fleeing war torn hellholes. AKA France.

 

Sarcasm was deployed in the above sentence, for the benefit of those that had successful humour and irony bypass operations.

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Doh, indeed

 

 

And now we have

 

 

 

Just look at all the women and children fleeing war torn hellholes. AKA France.

 

Sarcasm was deployed in the above sentence, for the benefit of those that had successful humour and irony bypass operations.

The EHCR stopped the first flight and handed the case back to the British courts, the British Supreme Court ruled the Rwanda scheme illegal.

 

The EHCR prevent the British Government from breaking the law.

 

I thought the Tories said they had taken back control of British borders?

 

Sadly, that’s not sarcasm.

 

 

 

 

[The Cyclist]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

The EHCR stopped the first flight

 

You just had to stop there. The ECHR stopped the 1st flight.

 

That was all that was needed. Yet again you ere talking horse manure.

 

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I thought the Tories said they had taken back control of British borders?

 

They did, until the Lawfare started and Starmer and his crew of useful idiots started voting against any measures the Government took.

 

Anyway.

 

How is " Smash the gangs " going for Starmer ?
 

1200 yesterday alone

 

 

 

That 1200 that arrived yesterday will cost the taxpayer a minimum of £50,000,000 over the next year alone

 

£700 million on the Rwanda Scheme will seem like peanuts by the time this year alone is finished.

 

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, The Cyclist said:

 

You just had to stop there. The ECHR stopped the 1st flight.

 

That was all that was needed. Yet again you ere talking horse manure.

 

 

They did, until the Lawfare started and Starmer and his crew of useful idiots started voting against any measures the Government took.

 

Anyway.

 

How is " Smash the gangs " going for Starmer ?
 

1200 yesterday alone

 

 

 

That 1200 that arrived yesterday will cost the taxpayer a minimum of £50,000,000 over the next year alone

 

£700 million on the Rwanda Scheme will seem like peanuts by the time this year alone is finished.

 

 

 

 

£700 million splurged on an illegal scheme that managed to deport 4 volunteers.

I look forward to the next update on this data:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-removes-highest-number-of-illegal-migrants-in-5-years

[The Cyclist]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

£700 million splurged on an illegal scheme that managed to deport 4 volunteers.

 

Does your crib sheet not tell you that the Rwanda Scheme received Royal Assent in April 2024 ?
 

Not illegal, UK Law.

 

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-removes-highest-number-of-illegal-migrants-in-5-years

 

Tell us all how many Channel hopping Gimmegrants are within those figures ?
 

Paying visa overstayers up to £3000 to voluntary repatriate is nothing to crow about.

 

Neither is deporting 9000 convicted foreign criminals. Which should be automatic on completion of sentence.

 

Up your game, or go and play hide and seek in fast moving traffic. You are adding nothing to anything.

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

Does your crib sheet not tell you that the Rwanda Scheme received Royal Assent in April 2024 ?
 

Not illegal, UK Law.

You do understand the principle that new laws may not breach existing laws and treaties?

 

OK, perhaps you don’t, however the UK Supreme Court does.

6 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

Paying visa overstayers up to £3000 to voluntary repatriate is nothing to crow about.

 

The Tories spent £175,000,000 for each of the 4 immigrants who volunteered to leave.

 

7 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

Neither is deporting 9000 convicted foreign criminals. Which should be automatic on completion of sentence.

You donor do not support the Labour Government deporting 9000 convicted foreign criminals and do you have an excuse for the Tories not having done so?

8 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

Up your game, or go and play hide and seek in fast moving traffic. You are adding nothing to anything.

Well I’m clearly calling out your nonsense, hence your resort to ad hominem.

[The Cyclist]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You donor do not support the Labour Government

 

Can you come back when you sort your English skills out, thanks

 

You posted the link

 

25 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-removes-highest-number-of-illegal-migrants-in-5-years

 

You tell us all, how many

 

1, Visa overstayers were paid up to £3000 to voluntary repatriate  ( about  18,000 )

 

2. How many were convicted foreign criminals. ( about 9000 )

 

3. How many were Illegal Channel Hoppers. ( about a big fat 0 )

 

1 & 2 deportation should be automatic.

 

But you now have the opportunity to use your link to prove me wrong, or disappear.

[Chomper Higgot]

26 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Can you come back when you sort your English skills out, thanks

 

You posted the link

 

 

You tell us all, how many

 

1, Visa overstayers were paid up to £3000 to voluntary repatriate  ( about  18,000 )

 

2. How many were convicted foreign criminals. ( about 9000 )

 

3. How many were Illegal Channel Hoppers. ( about a big fat 0 )

 

1 & 2 deportation should be automatic.

 

But you now have the opportunity to use your link to prove me wrong, or disappear.

Not happy the Labour Government are deporting illegal immigrants then and obviously not prevented from doing so by the ECHR

 

I wonder what was really behind the Tory failure on immigration?

 

A cynic might think they needed an immigration problem to keep the rabid right on board. A problem if their own making.

[The Cyclist]

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Not happy the Labour Government are deporting illegal immigrants

 

Why is plain English so difficult for you to understand? Are you one of those highly educated Lefties ?
 

The Labour Government are not deporting illegal Channel Hoppers.

Convicted criminals are not illegal immigrants, they are convicted criminals.

 

And only Labour retards would equate voluntary repatriation with the aid of a £3000 bung to visa overstayers as deportation.

 

The answers are all in the link that you provided, but your struggle with the English language means you cannot see those answers.

 

 

 

[JonnyF]

These idiots never learn. They need a new schtick.

 

The ECHR is indeed a disgrace and I hope Reform leave the corrupt mob after the next election.