The miserable nomos of Starmerism

The arc of history is long but it bends towards Keir Starmer paying reparations

This article was first published in The Critic in late February. All articles published elsewhere are published free here; but for paywalled articles & postscripts, subscribe below.

Carl Schmitt was first introduced to me, unforgettably, as “problematic but unavoidable”. Although he is best known for his critiques of liberal democracy, and his writing on the effective wielding of political power, I was first acquainted with his book on international relations, Nomos of the Earth, which traces the evolution of international order through distinct legal and spatial frameworks. Each era, Schmitt argued, was defined by a specific nomos — a structure governing sovereignty, war, and territorial division.

Before the rise of the modern state, the world was dominated by empires and religious authorities, with no clear legal framework for war. Conflicts were often unlimited, justified by divine or dynastic claims.

Schmitt argued the Westphalian system introduced a new nomos, establishing mutual recognition among European states and limiting conflicts to political objectives rather than total destruction. This order also justified colonial expansion, with European powers dividing non-European territories among themselves.

By the 19th century, liberalism and economic globalization introduced new justifications for war. Conflicts became ideological, and intervention was increasingly framed in terms of free trade, humanitarianism, and civilisation. The First World War dealt a final blow, leading to efforts — primarily the League of Nations — to impose a universal legal order, which Schmitt derided as unrealistic.

After World War II, a new nomos emerged, criminalising war except under strict legal conditions. International institutions sought to constrain state sovereignty, while ideological conflicts continued through proxy wars and interventions. The Cold War divided the world into competing blocs, further reshaping the legal and territorial structure of global politics.

Dying in 1985, Schmitt was never able to consider the nomos that would emerge after the fall of the Berlin Wall; the hegemony of the Western rules-based order, international law and primacy of global institutions. But his concept of nomos gives us a framework of understanding; international order has never been fixed, but continually evolves through shifts in power and law.

We may be seeing just such a shift now; the imposition of the grievance-based international order.

In April, the Reparations Commission of the Caribbean Community (Caricom), a political grouping of 15 states which have been demanding compensation for slavery from former colonial powers for years, are travelling to the UK. Although furiously denied by the Foreign Office, it’s been widely reported that they are here to meet Foreign Secretary David Lammy to discuss reparations.

Let me be upfront; I am going to argue against them, but I am certain that Britain is going to end up paying reparations under Labour, whether in purely cash terms or in other forms. The script is written, the stage is set, the players in their place.

In October last year, Starmer signed a document, along with 56 other Commonwealth leaders, that acknowledges calls for “discussions on reparatory justice” for the “abhorrent” transatlantic slave trade, whilst making it clear that there were no discussions about money during the meeting, and that he had made Britain’s position “very clear” that it will not pay reparations. Reportedly, he was pressured into this by Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley, who has previously said Britain owes her country £3.9 trillion — and is overseeing this trip.

The following month David Lammy – who has previously expressed support for reparations, emphasising in 2020 the need for a “reckoning” with Britain’s colonial past and a process of “repairing” — stated that the concept of reparations for former colonial nations impacted by slavery “is not about the transfer of cash”. He suggested that Britain’s commitment to strengthening relations with African nations through the exchange of skills and scientific collaboration could serve as an alternative.

Perhaps most ominously, Attorney General Lord Hermer has also expressed support for reparations. In a 2020 podcast for Matrix Chambers, where he was head of chambers, he stated that there was both a moral and legal case for reparations.

Whilst calls for reparations have been floating around for a long time, the formalised calls from Caricom came in the wake of the PM’s decision to hand the Chagos islands to the republic of Mauritius. As I warned in these most august pages, the Starmerist approach will weaken us from within “by years of preferment for soft power over hard, the deprioritisation of our national interest, a disinterest in our international position and a willingness to be duped.”

So far, Starmer’s international affairs have made it clear he is not a man to be negotiated with, but mugged. When you act like a hapless rube, people treat you like one. The world sees Labour for what they are; empty men with deep pockets.

We should, categorically, refuse any and all demands for reparations at every level. Firstly, we should not be so credulous about the motivations of those who call for them. Reparations have never been about righting historical wrongs; they have been, always, a way to engineer the reallocation of money, power and resources in the here and now. And, much like foreign aid and charity programmes in the third world, they will never reach the huddled masses of those countries. Reparations will become just another way to transfer money from the struggling British taxpayer to a wealthy international elite.

Secondly, Britain’s history is not a great, or unique, world evil. In fact, I believe that we made the world better by being who we were. As I have previously written:

In the 19th Century this country defined what we mean by liberty, freedom and human dignity, then enacted those principles by imposing abolition on an unwilling world. In the 20th Century, this country spent its last full measure of strength to create a world that upheld those values. Yet in the 21st Century this country has been asked to do nothing but apologise. Yet our place as the muscular, pioneer abolitionist is a history to be proud of.

Research has shown that the British Empire “was relatively less harmful than other imperial efforts” when it comes to outcomes like health and economic growth. But this is only considering our colonial history. What about our contribution to science or technology? If we owe the world for slavery, are we not owed for the Industrial Revolution? The only thing more ridiculous is to believe only one of these positions.

Ultimately, I believe the fact that an international organisation is calling for reparations will be enough to make Procedural Man crumble. We can only hope the costs will be kept to an absolute minimum; to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, even procedure may be followed at too high a price.