In a surprising turn of events, Richard Hermer, the UK’s Attorney General, found himself at the center of a political storm in late May 2025. His controversial remarks, made during a speech defending international law, sparked outrage among Conservative and Reform UK leaders. Hermer compared calls from these parties to abandon the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to the early days of Nazi Germany. The backlash was swift, forcing him to issue a public apology for what he described as “clumsy” wording. This incident has raised questions about political rhetoric, the role of international law, and Hermer’s position as a key legal figure in the Labour government.
The Speech That Sparked Controversy
Richard Hermer’s speech aimed to underscore the importance of international treaties, particularly the ECHR, in maintaining global security and combating issues like organized immigration crime. He argued that disregarding such treaties undermines national sovereignty and draws parallels to historical moments of legal erosion. Specifically, he referenced the 1930s Nazi regime, citing the influence of jurist Carl Schmitt, who advocated for unchecked power. The comparison, though intended to highlight the dangers of abandoning legal norms, immediately drew criticism. Conservative MP Kemi Badenoch called the remarks embarrassing, while Reform UK’s Nigel Farage labeled them inflammatory. Hermer’s office quickly acknowledged the misstep, stating he regretted the reference but stood by his defense of international law.
Richard Hermer’s Apology and Its Implications
On May 30, 2025, Richard Hermer issued a formal apology, admitting his choice of words was “clumsy.” He clarified that he did not intend to equate the Conservative or Reform parties with Nazis but was highlighting the risks of dismissing established legal frameworks. The apology came after intense pressure from political opponents and even some within his own Labour Party, who felt the comparison was indefensible. A spokesperson for Hermer emphasized that his speech was meant to defend the ECHR’s role in protecting against threats like Russian aggression. However, critics argued the damage was done, with some accusing Hermer of using “dog whistle” tactics to slur opponents. This incident has put Hermer’s judgment under scrutiny, raising questions about his ability to navigate sensitive political debates as Attorney General.
Key Points of the Controversy
To clarify the situation, here’s a breakdown of the key elements:
- The Speech: Hermer’s remarks were part of a broader defense of international law, focusing on the ECHR’s importance.
- The Comparison: He referenced Nazi Germany’s early legal shifts, specifically citing Carl Schmitt’s influence.
- The Backlash: Conservative and Reform leaders condemned the remarks, calling them inappropriate and inflammatory.
- The Apology: Hermer apologized on May 30, 2025, describing his wording as “clumsy” but defending his overall message.
This table highlights the polarized reactions, with some seeing the apology as sufficient and others viewing it as inadequate.
Political Fallout and Public Reaction
The controversy has fueled debates about political discourse in the UK. Social media platforms buzzed with reactions, with some users mocking Hermer’s “clumsy” excuse and others defending his broader point about the ECHR’s importance. Conservative leaders like Robert Jenrick seized the opportunity to criticize Labour’s judgment, while Farage used the incident to rally support for Reform UK’s anti-ECHR stance. The incident has also highlighted tensions within the Labour government, with some ministers reportedly frustrated at having to defend Hermer’s remarks before his apology. Public sentiment appears divided, with many calling for more measured rhetoric from senior officials. The episode underscores the challenges of discussing complex legal issues in a politically charged environment.
What’s Next for Richard Hermer?
As Attorney General, Richard Hermer remains a pivotal figure in shaping the UK’s legal policies. This controversy, while damaging, is unlikely to lead to his resignation, given his swift apology and Labour’s current support. However, it may affect his credibility in future debates over the ECHR and international law. Moving forward, Hermer will likely tread more carefully in his public statements, especially on divisive issues. The incident also highlights the broader challenge for Labour: balancing robust defense of their policies with avoiding alienating voters or fueling opposition narratives. For now, Hermer’s focus will likely return to his core duties, but the shadow of this misstep may linger.
Engaging Conclusion
Richard Hermer’s recent controversy serves as a reminder of how quickly words can ignite political firestorms. His attempt to defend international law veered into dangerous territory, drawing criticism that forced a rare apology from a senior official. While his intentions were rooted in principle, the backlash underscores the need for precision in public discourse. As the UK navigates complex debates over sovereignty and global cooperation, Hermer’s role will remain critical. This incident, though a setback, offers a chance for reflection on how leaders communicate in polarized times. Readers, what do you think about Hermer’s apology? Share your thoughts below and join the conversation on political rhetoric today.
