The Greek prime minister’s party got the call that Rishi Sunak was cancelling his meeting with Kyriakos Mitsotakis when they were on the way to talks with Sir Keir Starmer in parliament.
It did not feel like a coincidence.
With the Conservatives trailing a disastrous average of 19 points behind Labour in the opinion polls, the thin-skinned British PM and his entourage are increasingly uptight about Starmer being treated as a prime minister in waiting – PMiW for short – especially by fellow VIPs.
It is fascinating to observe the shuffling in the corridors of power when an opponent starts to look like a credible challenger to the incumbent.
The PM cannot get away from them in a parliamentary democracy but how should they treat political rivals when they are on an upward arc? Ignore them? Snub them? Patronise them graciously?
None of these is a comfortable option. Not least because other foreign leaders and power brokers quite legitimately want to get to know someone who they anticipate could be taking over soon.
UK prime ministers behave no differently. Tony Blair made a point of meeting the conservative candidate Angela Merkel in the run-up to a German election, even though he was in Berlin on a final visit to the outgoing chancellor, and fellow social democrat, Gerhard Schroder.
More on Rishi Sunak
Related Topics:
Sunak told MPs that he cancelled the invitation to the recently re-elected centre-right prime minister of a friendly European power “when it was clear that the purpose of the meeting was not to discuss substantive issues but rather to grandstand” about the Parthenon Marbles, sold to the British Museum by Lord Elgin.
The official-looking meeting
Advertisement
Far from impressing his audience, Sunak handed the Leader of the Opposition a grandstand opportunity to whack him with a severe PMQs spanking and to advertise his own credentials as a PMiW. Few would have noticed Starmer’s talks without the row.
Starmer wasted no time retorting that he had met “a fellow NATO member, an economic ally and one of our most important partners in tackling illegal immigration” and that “I discussed the economy, security and immigration with the Greek prime minister. I also told him we would not change the law regarding the marbles – it is not that difficult”.
Image: Sir Keir Starmer meets Kyriakos Mitsotakis
By agreement, Starmer’s meeting with Mitsotakis was an official-looking affair – complete with pool camera pictures. Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, David Lammy, the shadow foreign secretary, and other officials joined them around a conference table.
Trying to look like a prime minister has meant Starmer frequently falls in line with government plans to avoid controversy. With the scent of power in the air, and the Corbynistas largely sidelined, Labour MPs are going along with this in public. By contrast the Conservatives seldom miss an opportunity to disagree among themselves.
A previous Labour PMiW, sitting on a similar poll lead, might find the situation familiar. Tony Blair notes in his memoirs: “[John] Major decided on a long campaign… the hope was I would trip up, I would suddenly lose my head, or by some trick of fate or fortune the mood of the public would change… instead and rather more predictably the Tories fell apart.
“Every time Major tried to get them on the front foot, someone in his ranks resigned, said something stupid or got caught in a scandal.”
Image: Rishi Sunak talking to former PM Tony Blair at the COP28 UN climate summit in Dubai
Leaders in office are well aware they are conferring status when they meet PMiWs.
In the run-up to the 1987 General Election, Neil Kinnock secured an audience with President Reagan, coinciding with Margaret Thatcher’s high-profile trip to Mikhail Gorbachev in Moscow.
Point one on the confidential State Department memo to the president spelt it out: “WHAT DOES KINNOCK WANT? * To meet with the President as Leader of the British Opposition and potential prime minister to demonstrate that he is a serious figure in international affairs.”
Not surprisingly, given Reagan’s fondness for Thatcher, that encounter did not go well – Labour felt slighted by White House briefings afterwards and retaliated by claiming Reagan was not on the ball.
Image: Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher had a close political relationship. Pic: AP
Presidents are also heads of state, which means they can rise above party politics when it suits them.
US presidents usually hold at least one meeting with British opposition leaders.
Party allegiances, between Conservatives and Republicans on the right or Labour and Democrats on the left, do not matter much.
Shortly after taking office in 2009, Barack Obama insisted on a half-hour meeting with David Cameron, then leader of the opposition, at the US ambassador’s residence, Winfield House.
Both sides fielded top teams of officials, including Tim Geithner, US treasury secretary and Hillary Clinton, then secretary of state.
The British monarch, Queen or King, may also facilitate contacts because opposition leaders are invited to state occasions.
Ever the iconoclast, on his state visit in 2019 Trump claimed he had turned down a request from then Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn: “He wanted to meet today. I said no. He is somewhat of a negative force.”
Rachel Reeves and David Lammy have been on official trips to Washington DC, but Starmer has not yet had a formal meeting with Joe Biden even though this president has been to the UK five times, though never on a state visit.
Perhaps this is just as well given the polarisation of US politics with an election year approaching in both countries. For now, Sunak or Starmer are transparently eager not to be seen anywhere near Donald Trump.
Opposition ‘left out’
Number 10 and the Foreign Office are certainly not making it easy for Labour.
Image: Rishi Sunak during PMQS
Reportedly, the prime minister has not yet given the green light to the civil service to begin the briefings for the opposition, which are normal courtesy in the run-up to an election.
There was no invitation to a Labour minister to join in the recent international talks on AI security at Bletchley Park.
This week, Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch posted on X from the government’s investor conference: “It was sad to hear from some investors yesterday that they’d move their HQs out of UK if Labour win.
“They tell me Labour relentlessly talk down the economy. Labour are like one of those candidates on The Apprentice who get fired early on. All talk no substance.”
She did not respond to challenges to name any such investors.
In the business community, a different rumour has been circulating; that attendees were quietly warned their invitations to the Hampton Court junket would be withdrawn if they committed prominently to one of shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves’ over-subscribed events.
Labour says the chancellor pressured “a load of businesses” not to sign up to their “British Infrastructure Council”.
This autumn, French President Emmanuel Macron invited Starmer and colleagues to the Elysee for talks.
Rishi Sunak is Britain’s only Brexiteer prime minister by life-long conviction.
He is super sensitive about relations with Europe and turned down an EU invitation to hold regular EU-UK ministerial summits.
Barbs at PMQs
During PMQs he chided Starmer, with no justification beyond the Greek meeting, that “no one will be surprised that he is backing an EU country over Britain”.
Image: Keir Starmer during PMQS
Starmer stuttered back that the PM was digging himself into a deeper hole: “Let me get this straight: the prime minister is now saying that meeting the prime minister of Greece is somehow supporting the EU, instead of discussing serious issues”.
If the prime minister was trying to energise a group of voters, the pickings may be slim. Well over 60% now tell pollsters that Brexit has not gone well and would like better relations with the EU.
Is it important for a PMiW to mix with current leaders on equal terms? It is surely good preparation if they end up getting the job. For some voters, it will be reassuring that a new leader might already count for something in international negotiations.
Sunak and Starmer both attended the COP28 climate summit in the UAE this weekend, where the King made a speech.
The PM dashed in for less than 24 hours. Starmer stayed three days until Sunday – to fulfil requests for meetings from a number of heads of state and government, according to his staff.
Neither the Elgin Marbles nor, frankly, Greece, are at the top of the diplomatic agenda. The UK government and opposition agree they are not going to change the law so the sculptures can be handed over.
The difference is that Sunak has made a diplomatic incident of it and, unlike Starmer, he has also obstructed the attempts to broker a compromise by a former Conservative colleague George Osborne, who is now chairman of the British Museum.
Perhaps the most painful swipe at PMQs for the prime minister came when Starmer risked a question, with the merest hint of a sizeist jibe at Sunak’s diminutive stature: “Why such small politics, prime minister?”
Or was it more humiliating when the Speaker rose to quell rowdies drowning out the PM’s peroration that “the British people aren’t listening” – to Starmer, he meant?
Whether they are listening now or not, come the general election the wait will be over for Sunak and Starmer. It will be up to the British people to choose who they think looks like the next PM.
Cryptocurrency firms felt the heat from US President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff rollout this week as market turbulence sent share prices tumbling and foiled initial public offering (IPO) plans.
From exchanges to Bitcoin (BTC) miners, crypto stocks suffered as much, if not more, than shares of other companies — despite the industry’s warm relationship with the US president.
On April 2, Trump announced he was placing tariffs of at least 10% on practically all imports into the United States and adding additional “reciprocal” tariffs on some 57 countries.
Since then, major US stock indices — including the S&P 500 and Nasdaq — tumbled by roughly 10% as traders braced for a looming trade war.
Bitcoin miners sold off on Trump’s tariff news. Source: Morningstar
Crypto exchange Coinbase — a prominent ally of Trump during the November US elections — experienced a similarly severe sell-off, with its stock price dropping by roughly 12% during the same period, according to data from Google Finance.
Bitcoin miners are also taking a hit. The CoinShares Crypto Miners ETF (WGMI) — which tracks a diverse basket of Bitcoin mining stocks — has lost roughly 13% of its value since immediately prior to Trump’s April 2 announcement, according to data from Morningstar.
Even Strategy, one of the best-performing stocks of 2024, wasn’t immune. Its share price has fallen by around 6% on the news, Google Finance data showed.
According to Reuters, investment bank JPMorgan has raised its estimated odds of a global economic recession in 2025 to 60% from 40% previously.
“Disruptive U.S. policies have been recognized as the biggest risk to the global outlook all year,” JP Morgan reportedly said.
“The effect … is likely to be magnified through (tariff) retaliation, a slide in U.S. business sentiment and supply-chain disruptions.”
Strategy’s shares also dropped this week. Source: Google Finance
IPO delays
The impact of US tariffs hasn’t been limited to stock price volatility. Stablecoin issuer Circle has reportedly paused plans for a 2025 IPO, citing market turbulence.
According to The Wall Street Journal, Circle is “waiting anxiously” before taking further steps after filing to take the company public on April 1.
It is among several companies — including fintech Klarna and ticketing service StubHub — reportedly considering altering or shelving IPO plans.
Brazilian judges have been authorized to seize cryptocurrency assets from debtors who owe money and are behind on their payments, signaling a growing recognition that digital assets can be both a form of payment and a store of value.
According to local media reports, the Third Panel of Brazil’s Superior Court of Justice unanimously authorized judges to send letters to cryptocurrency brokers informing them about their intent to seize an account holder’s assets to repay creditors.
The report was confirmed by the Superior Court of Justice, which issued a notice on its website.
The decision was reached unanimously by the Third Panel, which reviewed a case brought forward by a creditor.
“Although they are not legal tender, crypto assets can be used as a form of payment and as a store of value,” a translated version of the Superior Court of Justice’s memo read.
Under existing rules, Brazilian judges are allowed to freeze bank accounts and order fund withdrawals, even without a debtor’s knowledge, should they rule that a creditor is owed money.
Following the recent decision, crypto assets now fall under the same purview.
Minister Ricardo Villas Bôas Cueva, who voted in the five-person panel, said cryptocurrencies still lack formal regulation in Brazil but noted certain bills have recognized the asset class as “a digital representation of value.”
Despite regulatory uncertainty, Brazil is a major hub for crypto
Although Brazil still lacks an overarching framework for digital assets, with the country’s central bank divvying up the regulatory processes into phases, crypto adoption is surging across the country.
Brazil ranks second among all Latin American countries in terms of “crypto value received,” which is a key benchmark for adoption, according to an October report by Chainalysis.
In Latin America, only Argentina has higher crypto penetration in terms of value received as of June 2024. Source: Chainalysis
A Binance executive told Cointelegraph at the time that Brazil was making “significant strides” in regulating the industry and expects a comprehensive framework to be finalized “by mid-year.”
Nevertheless, not all of Brazil’s regulatory proposals have been favorable for the industry.
In December, the country’s central bank proposed banning stablecoin transactions on self-custodial wallets at a time when more locals were using dollar-pegged tokens to hedge against the devaluation of the Brazilian real.
Industry observers told Cointelegraph at the time that such a ban would be difficult to enforce.
“Governments can regulate centralized exchanges, but P2P transactions and decentralized platforms are much harder to control, which means the ban would likely only affect part of the ecosystem,” said Lucien Bourdon, an analyst with Trezor.
Sir Keir Starmer needs to choose between parents who want stronger action to tackle harmful content on children’s phones, or the “tech bros” who are resisting changes to their platforms, Baroness Harriet Harman has said.
Speaking to Beth Rigby on Sky News’ Electoral Dysfunction podcast, the Labour peer noted that the prime minister met with the creators of hit Netflix drama Adolescence to discuss safety on social media, but she questioned if he is going to take action to “stop the tech companies allowing this sort of stuff” on their platforms where children can access it.
Sir Keir hosted a roundtable on Monday with Adolescence co-writer Jack Thorne and producer Jo Johnson to discuss issues raised in the series, which centres on a 13-year-old boy arrested for the murder of a young girl, and the rise of incel culture.
The aim was to discuss how to prevent young boys being dragged into a “whirlpool of hatred and misogyny”, and the prime minister said the four-part series raises questions about how to keep young people safe from technology.
Sir Keir has backed calls for the four-part drama to be shown in all schools across the country, but Baroness Harman questioned what is going to be achieved by having young people simply watch the show.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:15
Sir Keir Starmer held a roundtable with the creators of the Adolescence TV drama.
“Two questions were raised [for me],” she said. ” Firstly – after they’ve watched it, what is going to be the discussion afterwards?
More on Electoral Dysfunction
Related Topics:
“And secondly, is he going to act to stop the tech companies allowing this sort of stuff to go online into smartphones without protection of children?
“Because if the tech companies wanted to do this, they could actually protect children. They can do everything they want with their tech.”
She acknowledged there are “very big public policy challenges” in this area, but added of the prime minister: “Is he going to side with parents who are terrified and want this content off their children’s phones, or is he going to accept the tech bros’ resistance to having to make changes?”
The Labour peer backed the Conservative Party’s call for a ban on smartphones in schools to be mandated from Westminster, saying it would “enable all schools not to have a discussion with their parents or to battle it out, but just to say, this is the ruling” from central government, which Ofsted would then enforce.
“I’m sensitive to the idea that we shouldn’t constantly be telling schools what to do,” she continued. “And they’ve got a lot of common sense and a lot of professional experience, and they should have as much autonomy as possible.
“But perhaps it’s easier for them if it’s done top down.”
Baroness Harman also questioned the speed with which parliament is actually able to legislate to deal with the very rapid development of new technologies, and posits that it could “change its processes to be able to legislate in real time”.
She suggested that a “powerful select committee” of MPs could be established to do that, because “otherwise we talk about it, and then we’re not able to legislate for 10 years – by which time that problem has really set in, and we’ve got a whole load more problems”.
On the podcast, the trio also discussed the 10% tariffs imposed on the UK by Donald Trump and the government’s efforts to strike a trade deal with the US to mitigate the impact of the levy.
The government has refused to rule out scrapping the Digital Services Tax, a 2% levy on tech giants’ revenues in the UK, as part of the negotiations with the Trump administration – a move Baroness Harman said would be “very heartbreaking”.