The Betrayal of Britain: Starmer and Hermer’s Spineless Retreat from Duty

 

As the clock strikes 12:05 PM BST on June 23, 2025, the United Kingdom finds itself led by two figures—Sir Keir Starmer and his very close friend Attorney General, Richard Hermer—who appear determined to erode the nation’s credibility and abandon its allies at the most critical juncture. The latest scandal involves their deafening silence on the potential U.S. bombing of Iran and their refusal to affirm whether Britain, as a NATO ally, would stand by America if Iran retaliates. Hiding behind a flimsy legal interpretation that NATO obligations don’t compel military assistance, Starmer and Hermer are not just dodging responsibility—they are actively weakening the UK’s global standing and betraying the British people.

Dodging the Bullet: A Spineless Stance on NATO

The breaking news from Joe Rich (@joerichlaw) on X this morning—reporting Hermer’s assertion that Britain’s NATO treaty obligations do not mandate military support for the U.S. if attacked by Iran—has sparked outrage. This claim hinges on Article 5’s ambiguous phrasing, which allows members to determine what “necessary” assistance entails. Yet, this legalistic wriggling ignores the spirit of NATO, forged in the fires of the Cold War and solidified by the unanimous support for the U.S. after 9/11. Hermer’s position suggests a calculated retreat, one that Starmer seems all too willing to endorse by his conspicuous silence.

 

Why the hesitation? Are they afraid of upsetting Iran’s regime, or are they pandering to a domestic base wary of foreign entanglements? The refusal to commit to supporting the U.S.—a nation that hosts critical UK military bases like Diego Garcia—sends a chilling message to allies: Britain can no longer be relied upon. This isn’t statesmanship; it’s cowardice dressed up as legal nuance, and it risks painting the UK as a fair-weather friend on the global stage.

A Pattern of Weakness: From Chagos to Veterans

This evasiveness is no isolated incident. Starmer and Hermer have built a track record of actions that undermine British interests and sovereignty. Take the Chagos Islands surrender, finalised in May 2025, which The Telegraph reports could cost the UK up to £30 billion. This deal, brokered by Starmer, hands over a strategically vital Indian Ocean territory to Mauritius, jeopardising the joint UK-U.S. military base at Diego Garcia. 

 

Critics, including campaigners like Bertrice Pompe, argue it breaches human rights, yet Starmer pressed ahead, allegedly to avoid a legal challenge. Is this leadership, or a craven capitulation to international pressure?

 

Then there’s the assault on free expression. As ARTICLE 19 warned in June 2024, the UK government has seen a decade-long decline in free speech protections, a trend accelerated under Labour. Hermer’s legal manoeuvres have supported proposals like the Criminal Justice Bill’s restrictions on protest anonymity, while hate speech laws have been weaponised against dissenters. This isn’t defending democracy—it’s lawfare to silence it.

 

Most egregious is the persecution of British veterans. Labour’s push to scrap the Legacy Act, which shielded Northern Ireland Troubles veterans from endless legal battles, has sparked a “mutiny” within the armed forces, per the Daily Mail (May 14, 2025). Regiments like The Rifles have publicly condemned these reforms, with veterans calling it a “total betrayal.” Hermer’s legal framework enables this, turning the law into a tool to harass those who served rather than protect them.

Whose Interests Are They Serving?

The question looms large: why are Starmer and Hermer so assiduously working against the British people? Their progressive agenda, influenced by groups like the Labour Foreign Policy Group, seems to prioritise globalist ideals over national security. Hermer’s RUSI lecture (Spectator, June 3, 2025) comparing ECHR withdrawal advocates to Nazis reveals a mindset hostile to British sovereignty, while Starmer’s Chagos deal suggests a willingness to trade strategic assets for political expediency.

 

Could it be personal ambition? Starmer’s forensic image takes a hit with every dodge, yet he clings to Hermer, a man X users like @CathyMo41926708 and @FedUpNowGo call “evil” and “dangerous.” 

 

Or is it ideological? Their actions align with a vision of a diminished UK, less reliant on the U.S. and more subservient to international bodies—a vision that sacrifices the military, free speech, and national pride on the altar of progressive virtue.

A Call to Account

The British public deserves answers. Why does Starmer tolerate Hermer’s anti-Western folly? Why surrender Chagos for £30 billion when the strategic cost is incalculable? Why prosecute veterans while shielding your own political flanks? And why, when Iran’s cyberwarfare capabilities threaten global stability (Daily Mail, June 18, 2025), do you cower behind legal technicalities instead of standing with NATO?

 

This duo’s leadership is a disgrace. Their legalistic evasions weaken the UK’s reputation, alienate allies, and erode the trust of their own people. It’s time for Starmer to sack Hermer and for both to face the electorate’s judgement. Anything less is a betrayal of the nation they swore to serve.