The Guardian view on the Conservatives and international law: a party trapped inside its own destructive obsessions | Editorial

yourAmy Badnosh announced a conservative party a question In a British withdrawal from the European Human Rights Convention (Echr), no one should be deceived. David Wolfson announced on Thursday that the Labor Party is under the leadership of the Public Prosecutor Withdraw. He will just try to say why and how. Almost withdrawal policy itself, to clarify the phrase, The oven is ready.

The final policy -making process embodies this infrastructure of the party during the era of Mrs. Badnosh. The Conservative Party policy is not now in the hands of the leader or the shadow cabinet. It is in the hands of the UK reform and polls. Mrs. Badnosh is the followers of the events. Her salary is an approach to someone who is still trapped in a party bubble consumed by the belief that withdrawal is the key to the restoration of the popularity of conservatives.

This is the irrational policy for the party. It is also dangerous for Britain. The UK’s long commitment to international law is the cornerstone of the soft power of this country in the world. The reaffirmation of the Labor Party of this approach, with a clear reference to the world that Britain can be trusted again as a partner, has achieved national advantages since the party’s return to office last year.

This does not mean that every aspect of international law (which Echr is part of) cannot be challenged or the Bible. The main responsibility for the rule of law and human rights at the national level. Countries that signed international covenants and treaties after 1945 “have not provided an open license for international rules that are interpreted more consumed or that institutions adopt a position on blindness or indifference in public morale in their member states.”

These words come from the current public prosecutor, Richard Hermer. They were part of clear and balanced a lecture Security to the Royal United Services Institute last week. To judge the anger that unleashed Daily Telegraph and Scenery Writing lessons, you may think that Lord Hermer insisted that only lawyers can solve conflicts and injustice in the world, and that anyone who does not agree with was Nazi.

Lord Hermer said nothing of that. Those who have read his lecture will instead find a clear attempt to remove it from the discussion. S as “ideal romantic” criticized those who treat international law as the era of the global moral principle and who deceive all the privilege of the interests of the nation -state. But he also condemned the “false realism” who argue, amid the current collapse of the post -1945 matter, that the interests of the nation -state can now have precedence over the law. He said this is the argument of Russia in Ukraine (it was so very Kravin that he mentioned that Donald Trump’s philosophy was also). British politicians have risked the exceptional thinking of the name of realism in committing “unintentionally deep acts in a dangerous era.”

To leave the European Human Rights Convention will be just such an act. But its consequences will be very dangerous. It will be given the nomads to the authoritarian rulers on all continents. Britain’s reputation will drain the reliability again, as it did Britain’s exit from the European Union. It will not achieve any of the goals in national security, criminal justice, and the control of the migration that its supporters imagine. Lord Hermer is right that serious problems can only be solved through negotiations, which are driven by politics, which are then being held in the laws that must be supported. You cannot have one without the other.

• Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you want to provide a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered to be published in our Messages Please section Click here.