Attorney General’s new guidance puts more emphasis on international than on British law
Our exclusive explainer written for non-lawyers, but with top-level, expert legal advice
As a rule, Attorneys General do not generally cause much of a stir, but the Rt Hon the Lord Richard Hermer PC KC – a close friend of Sir Keir Starmer – has certainly been doing that. He has altered the advice given to the c. 2,500 lawyers on the government payroll in such a way that it could have the effect of altering policies or even of circumventing Parliament.
The three risks to your democratic rights under Sir Keir Starmer’s Attorney General
- Government lawyers and Lord Hermer could have much more say over policy, over and above ministers and your MP who should vote for these policies
- The Attorney General is altering the constitution to put himself in a higher, veto-like position than he should be in relation to the ultimate lawmaker – Parliament itself
- He is putting international law on a par with domestic law, against the UK’s constitutional norms, meaning unelected foreign bodies will carry more weight than ministers’ wishes and those of your elected representatives
How you could be disenfranchised by one unelected man
In short, Lord Hermer has rewritten the advice given to government lawyers in such a way as to make it more likely that a Minister will be told he or she can’t – or shouldn’t – enact a policy which might be popular with the voters.
Turning voters into bystanders
“This is less about law and more about power.
“What we’re seeing is an unelected lawyer, handpicked by the Prime Minister, quietly and progressively shifting control away from elected MPs and toward global legal frameworks most people have never heard of.
“It risks turning voters into bystanders while foreign courts and legal advisers start calling the shots.
“Parliament should decide our laws – not lawyers, and not international committees.”
– The Rt Hon David Jones,
commenting to Facts4EU.Org and Stand for Our Sovereignty, 16 July 2025
1. Persuading Ministers not to take bold actions or pursue bold policies
Lord Hermer’s new advice tells lawyers that if there is a risk of a challenge, even if there is a ‘tenable legal argument’ that can be made by the Government, then they should dissuade the Minister from proceeding.
This could apply in the case of many difficult policy decisions that must be made if some serious societal problems are to be addressed, such as immigration. If the Minister is advised against proceeding where there is a medium-high risk, even if no challenge might be made, then the result will be paralysis.
This is contrary to the previous advice to government lawyers from Suella Braverman which encouraged them to advise more positively, with potential mitigations or solutions.
Typical contrast between the two approaches
Suella Braverman: “Ensure legal risk doesn’t become a perceived “block” to what a Minister wishes to achieve.”
Lord Hermer on riskier policies:
“Reliance on a legal basis which is underpinned only by a tenable legal argument carries a high risk that the responsible Minister may be in breach of the law. Therefore:
“a. It should be a last resort and only pursued when all other options have been considered and discounted.
b. It may not be appropriate in some cases – for example, in situations where the fundamental rights of individuals are significantly undermined…”
Lawyers are being asked to make recommendations based on undefined “fundamental rights of individuals” possibly being undermined – rights which the lawyers will be able to choose.
2. Lord Hermer’s power grab?
The second problem relates to the increasing number of decisions that will be referred to Lord Hermer, where he will start to have an effective veto over policies he considers contentious.
“Proposals to rely only on a tenable legal argument or where the legal risk is assessed as being otherwise high or medium-high should always be brought to the attention of your line manager or Legal Director, who will consider consulting the Law Officers.”
Inevitably more decisions will be passed upwards, where Lord Hermer will also decide on whether “fundamental rights” are at risk. Just like Sir Keir Starmer, his specialism is human rights law.
3. Lord Hermer’s new ‘globalist’ approach and how it could supplant Parliament’s sovereignty
Chagos
Gibraltar
UK’s sovereign fishing waters
The globalist element is Lord Hermer’s biggest change of all. The difference between Ms Braverman’s guidance and Lord Hermer’s on international obligations is that Ms Braverman only mentions them once, compared to 24 times in Lord Hermer’s document.
How does international law affect our democracy?
Lord Hermer appears to be putting international obligations on a par with domestic law and that is not how our constitution works. In our constitution, Parliament is sovereign and international obligations are not.
His document is full of egregious examples, such as policies with no chance of being tested before a court having to be scrutinised very carefully. Government lawyers are now expected to become experts in a raft of areas which should be the province of Ministers. He states that a breach “may incur significant consequences, be they legal, political, diplomatic and/or reputational” and that these “will require legal and policy assessments of the reputational, diplomatic and Parliamentary impact to be put clearly to Ministers. It will also require an assessment of the likely response of the international community as a whole…”
This encourages government lawyers to venture into territories for which they are neither prepared, trained, nor inclined, and advise ministers with the emphasis being on foreign interests.
What about the British people?
“Hermer attaches more importance to the likely response of the international community than to the opinion of the British electorate and their representatives in Parliament.”
– The Rt Hon The Lord Lilley PC,
commenting to Facts4EU.Org and Stand for Our Sovereignty, 16 July 2025
Observations
This report has been written for the general reader who has no specialist knowledge of the law. It focuses on the potentially very serious ramifications of what Lord Hermer has done which will concern the average voter.
[Note: To make this readable for everyone we have of course had to simplify things, but we have have sought top-level, expert legal advice to ensure we have summed it all up reasonably.]
Do you want international obligations to rule your country?
The Attorney General strays so far from the constitutional principles and requirements as to raise the question of his belief in them. He appears to have no regard for the ‘dualist’ system used in the United Kingdom which places ultimate democratic control of, and accountability for, national laws where they rightfully belong: in Parliament.
In case any readers are still unsure about Lord Hermer’s feelings regarding international obligations (rather than domestic law passed in Parliament), here is a final quote from his guidance to the Government’s 2,500 lawyers:
“… 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.”
Unless Parliament is ultimately supreme, there is no UK sovereignty. Without sovereignty, democracy dies and your vote doesn’t matter.
And that, we suspect, would suit Lord Hermer and Sir Keir Starmer very nicely indeed.
[ Sources: General Guidance to Government Lawyers 2015 | Suella Braverman’s AG Guidance on Legal Risk 2022 | Lord Hermer’s AG Legal Risk Guidance_2024 | Stand for Our Sovereignty’s Expert Panel of top legal experts | The Rt Hon The Lord Lilley PC | The Rt Hon David Jones ] Politicians and journalists can contact us for details, as ever.
Please, please help us to carry on our vital work in defence of independence, sovereignty, democracy and freedom by joining or donating today. Thank you.
Join us here – UK sovereignty needs you!
(newsletters)
( + pin or brooch)
( + Zoom/YouTube meetings with senior politicians, other ‘specials’)
Very much welcomed – in addition to or instead of the above
Membership will of course give you other benefits, which we will be outlining here as soon as possible. If you can’t afford to give us anything to help fund the work, you can still write to tell us you support the campaign here.
Big-hitter who believes in sovereignty and wants to see their donation make a real difference? If you are a potential large donor, then please contact our Chairman here.
All monies are handled by CIBUK, the oldest-established organisation for independence, sovereignty, democracy and freedom in the UK, having been founded in 1969. We trust this will give everyone confidence that their money will be managed properly and spent effectively.
© Stand for Our Sovereignty and Facts4EU.Org, Thurs 17 July 2025
Montage above © Facts4EU.Org 2025