Keir Starmer’s Attorney General Compares Reform to Nazis Over ECHR Debate

123

Lord Hermer sparks fury by linking Brexit party’s stance on human rights court to 1930s German ‘realist’ jurists

Sir Keir Starmer’s Attorney General has ignited a political firestorm by appearing to compare Reform UK MPs to Nazi-era German jurists during a debate about Britain’s membership of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Lord Hermer, who is already under pressure over his role in the controversial Chagos Islands deal, claimed that advocates for quitting the Strasbourg court were echoing arguments made in 1930s Germany by lawyers who helped pave the way for Hitler’s regime.

The inflammatory comparison has drawn fierce condemnation from Reform UK leader Nigel Farage and Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick, who accused the Attorney General of resorting to “disgusting smears” rather than engaging with legitimate concerns about sovereignty and border control.

The Nazi Comparison

Speaking about calls to leave the ECHR, Lord Hermer declared: “This is not a new song. 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.

He added pointedly: “Because of the experience of what followed 1933, far-sighted individuals rebuilt and transformed the institutions of international law, as well as internal constitutional law.”

The reference to Carl Schmitt – a controversial legal theorist who joined the Nazi Party and provided intellectual justification for Hitler’s dictatorship – represents an extraordinary escalation in the debate over Britain’s relationship with European human rights institutions.

Farage Fires Back

Nigel Farage, whose Reform UK party has made leaving the ECHR a cornerstone policy, responded with barely contained fury to what he saw as a cheap political smear.

Our national interest is being damaged by dangerous young men crossing the channel and the absurd surrender of the Chagos Islands,” Farage told The Telegraph. “Hermer and Starmer are out of touch with the British public and these insults will only strengthen our case. The next general election will see leaving the ECHR at the centre of debate.

The Reform leader’s response highlights how the ECHR debate has become intertwined with concerns over illegal immigration and national sovereignty – issues that resonate strongly with voters who feel successive governments have failed to control Britain’s borders.

Jenrick: ‘Appalling’ and ‘Disgusting’

Robert Jenrick, who has emerged as a leading Conservative voice for ECHR withdrawal, was equally scathing in his condemnation of Lord Hermer’s comments.

“It is appalling that Hermer would insinuate that those who think we should leave the ECHR are like the Nazis,” Jenrick said. “David Lammy tried that disgusting smear with Brexiteers and it didn’t work for him – it won’t work for Hermer either. It seems Labour haven’t learned a thing.”

Jenrick’s reference to Foreign Secretary David Lammy – who once compared Brexit supporters to Nazis – underscores how Labour politicians have repeatedly resorted to inflammatory historical comparisons when debating issues of national sovereignty.

The ECHR Debate Intensifies

The controversy comes as debate over Britain’s membership of the ECHR reaches fever pitch. Critics argue the Strasbourg court repeatedly blocks British attempts to control immigration, most notably through rulings that have stymied efforts to deport foreign criminals and illegal immigrants.

Supporters of the ECHR counter that it provides vital protections for human rights and that leaving would damage Britain’s international reputation. They argue that the convention, drafted with significant British input after World War Two, represents a crucial bulwark against authoritarianism.

Lord Hermer’s intervention appears designed to frame this debate in the starkest possible terms – suggesting that those who question international legal constraints on sovereignty are walking a dangerous path that leads toward tyranny.

Historical Context and Carl Schmitt

Carl Schmitt, the figure invoked by Lord Hermer, was indeed a troubling character in legal history. A prominent jurist in Weimar Germany, he argued that sovereignty meant the power to decide on exceptions to the law – a theory that helped justify Hitler’s assumption of emergency powers.

However, critics of Lord Hermer’s comparison argue that drawing parallels between Schmitt’s authoritarian legal philosophy and contemporary British politicians’ concerns about democratic accountability represents an outrageous overreach.

There’s a world of difference between a Nazi legal theorist arguing for unlimited state power and British MPs wanting their democratically elected Parliament to have the final say on British law,” one Conservative MP told me privately.

The Chagos Context

Lord Hermer’s Nazi comparison is particularly controversial given he’s already facing criticism over the Chagos Islands deal, which will see Britain hand sovereignty of the strategic territory to Mauritius while paying for the privilege of maintaining a military base there.

Critics see both issues – the Chagos surrender and rigid adherence to ECHR rulings – as examples of how international legal obligations can override British national interests and democratic decision-making.

Labour’s History of Nazi Comparisons

The Attorney General’s comments fit into a troubling pattern of Labour politicians invoking Nazi comparisons against political opponents:

• David Lammy compared Brexit supporters to Nazis
• Various Labour MPs have likened Conservative immigration policies to 1930s Germany
• Left-wing activists routinely deploy Nazi imagery at anti-government protests

Each time, these comparisons have backfired, alienating moderate voters who see them as hysterical overreactions that cheapen the memory of actual Nazi atrocities.

Why the ECHR Matters

Beyond the inflammatory rhetoric, the substantive debate over ECHR membership reflects genuine tensions in British politics:

Arguments for leaving:

• Restore parliamentary sovereignty
• Enable effective border control
• Stop foreign judges overruling British courts
• Allow deportation of foreign criminals
• Reduce illegal immigration

Arguments for staying:

• Protect fundamental human rights
• Maintain international reputation
• Preserve Good Friday Agreement (which references ECHR)
• Avoid isolation from European allies
• Uphold post-war international order

The Reform UK Position

Reform UK has made leaving the ECHR central to its political offer, arguing it’s impossible to control immigration while Strasbourg judges can block deportations. The party sees this as a winning issue that could attract millions of voters frustrated by high immigration levels.

Farage’s prediction that ECHR withdrawal will be “at the centre of debate” in the next general election reflects his belief that establishment politicians like Lord Hermer are out of touch with public opinion on sovereignty and border control.

Conservative Soul-Searching

The controversy also highlights ongoing Conservative debates about the ECHR. While Jenrick and other right-wingers advocate withdrawal, more moderate Tories worry about the international implications and prefer reform to exit.

This division contributed to the Conservatives’ electoral defeat, as voters seeking clear positions on immigration and sovereignty defected to Reform UK. Lord Hermer’s Nazi comparison may inadvertently strengthen the hand of Tory hardliners arguing for a tougher stance.

International Law vs Democracy

At its core, this debate reflects fundamental questions about the relationship between international law and democratic sovereignty. Should elected parliaments be constrained by international courts? Where do universal human rights end and national self-determination begin?

Lord Hermer clearly believes international legal constraints are essential safeguards against tyranny. His opponents argue that democracy itself – the ability of voters to change laws through elections – provides the best protection against authoritarianism.

The Rhetorical Escalation

By invoking Nazi comparisons, Lord Hermer has dramatically escalated the rhetorical stakes. Such inflammatory language risks:

• Polarizing the debate further
• Alienating moderate opinion
• Undermining serious discussion of complex issues
• Trivializing actual historical atrocities
• Damaging public trust in legal institutions

Political Consequences

The Attorney General’s comments may have significant political ramifications:

1. Strengthening Reform UK: As Farage notes, such attacks often backfire, making Reform seem like brave truth-tellers against an out-of-touch establishment
2. Emboldening Conservative hardliners: Moderate Tories may feel pushed toward more radical positions when reasonable concerns are met with Nazi comparisons
3. Undermining Labour: The government appears hysterical and unable to engage substantively with sovereignty concerns
4. Polarizing the debate: Middle ground becomes harder to find when one side deploys such inflammatory rhetoric

Where Next?

This controversy seems unlikely to die down quickly. Expect:

• Demands for Lord Hermer to apologize or clarify his remarks
• Renewed Conservative calls for ECHR withdrawal
• Reform UK to weaponize the comments in campaigning
• Increased public attention on the ECHR debate
• Possible intervention from the Prime Minister to calm tensions

Conclusion: A Dangerous Precedent

Lord Hermer’s Nazi comparison represents a dangerous escalation in British political discourse. By suggesting that those who question international legal constraints are echoing Nazi-era arguments, he risks poisoning legitimate democratic debate.

The irony is stark: in attempting to defend institutions designed to prevent tyranny, the Attorney General deploys the kind of inflammatory rhetoric that undermines rational discussion and democratic deliberation.

Whether one supports or opposes ECHR membership, surely all can agree that comparing mainstream British politicians to Nazi enablers crosses a line. Such rhetorical excess doesn’t strengthen the case for international law – it weakens it by making its defenders seem unhinged and autocratic.

As Britain grapples with fundamental questions about sovereignty, borders, and international obligations, we need serious debate, not childish name-calling. Lord Hermer has failed that test spectacularly, and in doing so, may have inadvertently strengthened the very forces he sought to discredit.

The Nazi card, once played, cannot be taken back. In reaching for history’s darkest chapter to score political points, Keir Starmer’s Attorney General has diminished his office and damaged the cause he claims to champion. The British public deserves better than government ministers who cry “Nazi” when faced with democratic disagreement.

Image credit: Richard Hermer Official Cabinet Portrait, July 2024 (cropped) by Lauren Hurley / No 10 Downing Street, licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0, via Wikimedia Commons.