UK News

Cabinet Office suggested Mandelson did not even need security vetting, Robbins tells MPs – UK politics live | Politics

Published

3 hours ago

April 21, 2026

info@oxinfo.co.uk

Cabinet Office suggested Mandelson did not even need security vetting, Robbins tells MPs

In his letter to the committee, Robbins says the Cabinet Office suggested that Mandelson would not have to go through security vetting. He says:

After the announcement, I believe the Cabinet Office (CO) raised whether Developed Veƫng (DV) was actually necessary. I understand the FCDO insisted that DV was a requirement before Mandelson took up his post in Washington.

Key events

Henry Dyer on Robbins’ revelation about the Cabinet Office saying security vetting not needed

Henry Dyer is a Guardian investigative correspondent.

Olly Robbins has given remarkable evidence so far. He has spoken about the pressure the Foreign Office faced from Downing Street – weeks before he took the top job – about ensuring Peter Mandelson made it to Washington as ambassador. That included, Robbins claims, a discussion between the Cabinet Office and the Foreign Office as to whether or not Mandelson even needed to go through the vetting process.

Robbins said his predecessor had to be “very firm in person” about the necessity of Mandelson to face vetting in the days leading up to Christmas, in the face of arguments from the Cabinet Office that there was no need for Mandelson to face vetting, given he was a member of the House of Lords and a member of the privy council.

Given nearly all staff – including junior civil servants – in the Foreign Office require DV clearance, it would have been astonishing for the man in the top British diplomatic posting to not have received the same security clearance.

Robbins refuses to say if Mandelson’s security vetting threw up concerns not ‘already in public domain’

Thornberry asked if the vetting process threw up anything “that wasn’t already in the public realm”.

Robbins said he would not answer that because the whole process relies on confidentiality. People comply because they know that they say will not be disclosed.

Thornberry said she was not asking what the new information might have been.

Robbins said, if he said new information came out, people would ask what it was.

Thornberry said she would not do that.

Robbins replied:

I trust you. I’m not sure that the whole of the rest of the world will hold off from wanting to know.

Robbins says Mandelson’s vetting decision ‘borderline’

Robbins confirmed that the decision about Mandelson’s developed vetting was “borderline”. (See 8.57am.)

I was told that UKSV [UK Security Vetting] were leaning towards recommending against, but accepted it was a borderline case.

He said that, although reporting suggests this is process you pass or fail, that is now how the system works.

Robbins says he does not know if Morgan McSweeney was behind No 10 trying to rush Mandelson appointment

Thornberry asked Robbins if Morgan McSweeney, the PM’s chief of staff, was the person putting pressure on the Foreign Office to push through the Mandelson appointment. She said:

We do know that Morgan McSweeney was a protege of Peter Mandelson, and we know that he was very keen on Peter Mandelson getting the job, and we know that he resigned, saying that it was all his fault and that he had advised the prime minister to appoint Peter Mandelson and took it on the chin.

Robbins said, when he said he didn’t know who the individuals were, he meant it.

Cabinet Office suggested Mandelson did not even need security vetting, Robbins tells MPs

In his letter to the committee, Robbins says the Cabinet Office suggested that Mandelson would not have to go through security vetting. He says:

After the announcement, I believe the Cabinet Office (CO) raised whether Developed Veƫng (DV) was actually necessary. I understand the FCDO insisted that DV was a requirement before Mandelson took up his post in Washington.

Thornberry asks about Robbins’ phone.

Robbins says he has had to hand in his official phone. But the messages were downloaded, he says.

Thornberry asks if there was a record of all the calls for No 10.

Robbins says if civil servants minuted every call they took, they would never get anything done.

Robbins says Foreign Office was under ‘constant pressure’ from No 10 to push through Mandelson appointment

Robbins says the Foreign Office insisted developed vetting would have to go ahead.

Thornberry is asking where the pressure for the appointment to go through very quicky was coming from. (See 9.14am.)

Robbins says that in January 2025 his office, and the foreign secretary [David Lammy’s] office were “under constant pressure”.

“There was an atmosphere of constant chasing,” he says.

Asked who this was coming from, Robbins says it was “private office to private office”.

Thornberry asks for the names of those putting pressure on the Foreign Office to expedite the appointment and the vetting process.

Robbins says he does not want to give names.

I didn’t come here today to put scapegoats other civil servants. I came here to make sure the committee understood the circumstances.

Robbins says, when he started as permament secretary, it was not even clear that Peter Mandelson would have to go through the developed vetting process.

Robbins says No 10 wanted Mandelson in US ‘as quickly as humanly possible’ before security vetting started

Robbins starts by saying that when he started as permanent secretary, the Mandelson appointment was well under way. He says:

I wasn’t walking into a vacuum. I arrived to a situation in which a due diligence report had been undertaken into Mandelson by the Cabinet Office, assessing the reputational risks and his fitness for office.

The prime minister had then presumably taken advice on his fitness for office.

The name had been submitted to the king as ministers’ recommendation.

The prime minister had made an announcement that Mandelson was his nominee without caveats.

The British government had sought agreement, the formal diplomatic process for a host government accepting a nominee from the US government, and that had been obtained before I arrived in post.

He’d been given access to the building. You’ve been given access to low classification [information]. And, from time to time for case specific issues, he was being given access to higher classification briefing.

So I’m afraid I walked into a situation in which, there was already a very, very strong expectation [that the appointment would go through].

Robbins also said that “coming from No 10” there was an expectation that “he needed to be in post and in America as quickly as humanly possible”.

The hearing has started.

Emily Thornberry, the chair, started by saying that Robbins did not tell the whole truth about this process when he gave evidence to it in November.

She says she hopes he will be more forthcoming today.

Foreign affairs committee releases letter from Olly Robbins

Here is the letter from Olly Robbins.

Olly Robbins letter Photograph: FAC

The full text of the letter is here.

The foreign affairs committee has released a letter it has received from Olly Robbins. According to Sky News, in it he says he will not be able to talk about some matters related to his sacking because he is taking legal advice.

That seems to be confirmation that he is pursuing an unfair dismissal case.

Robbins gives evidence to foreign affairs committee

The foreign affairs committee hearing is about to start.

There is a live feed at the top of this blog, you may need to refresh the page for it to appear.

According to the report by Steven Swinford and Oliver Wright in the Times, Olly Robbins will tell the foreign affairs committee that he never actually read the full developed vetting report on Peter Mandelson. They say:

The Times has been told that Robbins will use an appearance before the foreign affairs select committee on Tuesday to reveal that he did not see the formal recommendation by UK Security Vetting (UKSV), the body that vets public appointments, stating that Mandelson should not be given clearance.

He was given a verbal briefing by the Foreign Office’s security team and told that UKSV considered Mandelson’s case to be “borderline”, although if the decision was UKSV’s, it was likely to oppose giving him clearance. Robbins assessed the “outstanding risks” and concluded that they could be mitigated.

Robbins is expected to highlight the “prevailing atmosphere” at the time of the appointment, including the fact that Starmer chose to press ahead with announcing Mandelson as ambassador to the United States before security vetting had been conducted.

Ed Miliband says he always thought appointment of Mandelson as ambassador to US would ‘blow up’

Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, has said that he always thought that the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the US would “blow up”.

In an interview with Sky News this morning, Miliband claimed that David Lammy, the deputy PM who was foreign secretary at the time of the appointment, also had doubts about the appointment.

But Miliband said he did not express his concens to Keir Starmer, in part because it was well known that Miliband and Mandelson did not get on.

They clashed when they were both cabinet ministers when Gordon Brown was PM, and when Miliband subsequently became Labour leader, he marginalised Mandelson – who in turn became a critic of Miliband’s leadership strategy.

Miliband told Sky News:

You’re saying [Mandelson] should never have been appointed [as US ambassador] and I agree with you …

I steered well clear of Peter Mandelson when I became Labour leader in 2010.

Asked what he thought when the Mandelson appointment was announced, Miliband said:

That it could blow up, that it could go wrong.

I had a conversation with David Lammy about it before the appointment, and I said I was worried about it … I think he was worried about it too.

But Miliband did not discuss this with Starmer, he said.

Maybe I wasn’t the person that people would necessarily ask, I think people knew my view on Peter Mandelson.

But Miliband also said he did not think Starmer should resign over this.

You’re asking me should Keir Starmer resign over the appointment of Lord Mandelson? And I’m saying to you, no, I don’t think he should.

Because I think if every time a prime minister made a mistake they resigned, we would shuttle through prime ministers like nobody’s business.

Prime ministers make mistakes.

I think on big judgments for this country, the biggest judgment of all, whether to join the war against Iran, Keir Starmer made a big and fundamental correct judgment.

Voters ‘don’t like’ Starmer, but leadership challenge ‘last thing we want right now’, says Labour MP Sarah Champion

Sarah Champion, the Labour MP who chairs the international development committee, was on the Today programme this morning talking about the mood in the Labour party following the Peter Mandelson crisis. She said that Keir Starmer was unpopular with voters, but not because of this. She said:

I’ll be honest with you, people don’t like Keir on the door but it’s not over this Mandelson thing. They don’t like him personally.

There’s been a fantastic campaign by opposition parties to undermine him …

I think that so much attention being given to the minutiae of this just confirms the Westminster bubble in their mind and they don’t like it.

But Champion also said that a leadership challenge was “absolutely the last thing that we want right now”.

Trump says Starmer made ‘really bad pick’ when he chose Mandelson as US ambassador

Donald Trump seems to be conducting his relationship with Keir Starmer chiefly by online trolling at the moment. He was at it again overnight, with a post on his Truth Social network saying that, when Starmer appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the US, it was a “really bad pick”.

Trump post Photograph: Truth Social

Sacked Foreign Office chief Olly Robbins to face MPs’ questions over Mandelson vetting

Good morning. At 9am Olly Robbins will give evidence to the Commons foreign affairs committee about the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the US. Until last week Robbins was permanent secretary at the Foreign Office and his predecessor but one in that office, Simon McDonald, was the man who terminated Boris Johnson’s career with a revelation showing that Johnson had lied about his knowledge of a sleaze allegation about a minister. Robbins is not expected to produce a bombshell on that scale, but his evidence will be moment of jeodpardy for Keir Starmer nevertheless.

Robbins was sacked because he had not told Starmer that Mandelson failed his security vetting interview after Starmer had announced he was getting the ambassador’s job. If Robbins were to prove that Starmer were told, that would be career ending for the PM. But no one is expecting that.

Instead, the hearing will illustrate the dispute between the PM and the former head of the Foreign Office over whether Robbins should have told Downing Street. Starmer says he should; Robbins is expected to say that that he was meant to keep the process confidential because all that ultimately mattered was the final decision – which is that Mandelson did get vetting approval, because Robbins used his judgment as the decision-maker to ignore the recommendation from officials and grant vetting approval.

The most interesting question is, why? And here it will get difficult for Starmer, because Robbins is likely to argue that he felt under pressure to grant vetting approval because Starmer had already said he wanted Mandelson to get the job, despite knowing full well about the multiple factors that made his appointment problematic.

We know this because Robbins suggested as much when he last gave evidence to the committee about this appointment, in November last year. Robbins told the committee:

Back before Lord Mandelson was announced as the appointee, there was a process … within the Cabinet Office to make sure that the prime minister was aware of Lord Mandelson and the issues around his appointment. There was then a process of clearing his conflicts of interest, which the employing department [the Foreign Office] oversaw, which we have talked about. In parallel with that process, we also went through the standard UK national security vetting process for DV [developed vetting].

Mandleson failed the DV interview. But Robbins was making the point that, by then, Mandelson had already been approved by the Cabinet Office’s due diligence process (a separate vetting exercise). Robbins also told the committee:

By the time we are describing [when DV was carried out], it was clear that the prime minister wanted to make this appointment himself.

In the Times, Steven Swinford and Oliver Wright highlight this in their story on today’s hearing, saying Stamer “will be accused of pressuring the Foreign Office into approving the appointment of Lord Mandelson despite being aware of his friendship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein and his business links to Russia and China”.

And here is the our analysis, by Kiran Stacey, Henry Dyer and Paul Lewis, of all the issues likely to come up at the hearing.

Here is the agenda for the day.

9am: Olly Robbins, the former permanent secretary at the Foreign Office, gives evidence to the Commons foreign affairs committee.

9.30am: Keir Starmer chairs cabinet, including a political cabinet session.

9.30am: The Good Growth Foundation holds a day-long National Growth Debate, with speeches from Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, and Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the PM.

10am: Executives from TikTok, Meta, Roblox, and academics give evidence to the Commons education committee on screen time and social media.

11.30am: Yvette Cooper, the foreign secretary, takes questions in the Commons.

Noon: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

After 12.30pm: Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, makes a statement to MPs.

After 1.30pm: MPs begin an emergency debate tabed by the Tories on the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the US.

2.20pm: John Swinney, the Scottish first minister, speaks at the STUC conference.

If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (between 10am and 3pm), or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.

If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn.bsky.social. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X, but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.

I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.

Source link

UK News

EU optimistic over approval of €90bn loan for Ukraine following Orbán defeat – Europe live | Europe

Published

43 minutes ago

April 21, 2026

info@oxinfo.co.uk

EU expects ‘some positive decisions’ on €90bn loan for Ukraine on Wednesday

But it looks like there is some movement on Ukraine.

EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has just confirmed that she expects “some positive decisions tomorrow” on the €90bn loan.

“Ukraine really needs this loan and it is also a sign that Russia cannot outlast Ukraine. This is extremely important at this moment.”

Key events

EU’s top court finds Hungary’s anti-LGBTQ+ law in breach of key values in early test for new PM

Jennifer Rankin

Brussels correspondent

The EU’s highest court has found Hungary’s anti-LGBTQ+ law to be discriminatory, stigmatising and in breach of basic democratic values, setting up an early test for the incoming prime minister Péter Magyar’s government when it takes power next month.

People attend the Budapest Pride March in Budapest, Hungary. Photograph: Bernadett Szabó/Reuters

In a wide-ranging judgment, the European court of justice said the 2021 law that bans content about LGBTQ+ people from schools and primetime TV was at odds with a society based on pluralism and fundamental rights such as prohibition of discrimination and freedom of expression.

Magyar won a landslide election victory last week after promising to root out corruption and improve living standards, but he has so far been muted on whether he will roll back the anti-LGBTQ+ policies introduced by Viktor Orbán, who was defeated after 16 years in power.

He has vowed to “bring home” EU funds intended to help Hungary develop its economy, some of which were frozen over the anti-LGBTQ+ law. A larger part was suspended over risks to academic freedom, breaches of the right to asylum and concerns about corruption and lack of judicial independence.

The ruling marks the first time the ECJ has found a member state guilty of breaking EU law based exclusively on breaching the bloc’s fundamental values described in article 2 of its treaty. These include respect for human dignity, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for fundamental rights, including those of minorities.

As a result, the judgment paves the way for future cases against EU member states that systematically flout basic values on democracy and the rule of law.

Hungary passed the so-called child protection law in 2021, imposing restrictions on schools and media companies in depicting LGBTQ+ people. Previously likened to Russia’s notorious “gay propaganda” law, the Hungarian legislation means gay and transgender people or themes cannot feature in school educational material or in any TV show, film or advert shown before 10pm.

The court said in a statement that the Hungarian law was “contrary to the very identity of the union as a common legal order in a society in which pluralism prevails”, and that Hungary could not “validly rely on its national identity” as justification for a law that breached fundamental values.

It said it expected Hungary to comply without delay and it ordered Budapest to pay its costs and those incurred by the European Commission, which brought the case. The Hungarian government has been contacted for comment.

Jakub Krupa

So, as promised (10:25), let’s get a bit more detail on today’s ruling against Hungary.

Here is our Brussels correspondent Jennifer Rankin’s take on what happened – and why it matters.

European Commission says waiting for Druzhba updates; ‘ball in Hungary’s court’ on two major court rulings

The European Commission is now giving its daily press briefing with some details on how it looks to move ahead on the €90bn loan for Ukraine, and the state of play with the Druzbha pipeline.

The commission said that for its part it was doing “what we can to complete” the negotiations “as soon as possible” and get ready for a potential political decision on disbursing the funds to Ukraine.

But the commission said it was still waiting to see when Ukraine could resume the oil flows through the Druzhba pipeline.

The commission was also asked about Péter Magyar’s suggestion yesterday that as part of his broader political agreement with the EU, he could get the bloc to suspend daily fines for its controversial asylum law which was found to be in violation with the EU law.

The commission said that “there were no promises” and the first discussions over the weekend were merely “initial talks to take stock of where we are with Hungary on a wide set of topics.”

But it added that following the court’s ruling, “it’s up to … the Hungarian government to abide by the ruling, and once that is done, the issue is solved.”

So, that doesn’t really sound like there’s too much scope for political agreement on this issue.

The commission was also asked about today’s separate ruling on anti-LGBTQ law, which was found to be in breach of the EU law (10:25).

The spokesperson said it was a “landmark ruling” and, again, that it’s “now for the Hungarian government to implement the decision of the court.”

“The ball is on the Hungarian side of the court.”

Hungarian-Slovak relations could get awkward as leaders clash over Beneš decrees

Jakub Krupa

As the new Hungarian government prepares to take office, it’s worth watching how the relationship between Hungary and Slovakia will change as a result.

Slovakia’s Robert Fico has often worked closely with Viktor Orbán, teaming up when it comes to discussing energy issues or Ukraine-Russia policy, with both leaders openly engaging with Russia despite the EU’s highly-critical stance towards Moscow.

But the incoming prime minister, Péter Magyar, is likely to take different positions on some of these issues.

The relationship will be further complicated by Slovakia’s recently adopted law seeking to stop questioning of the long controversial Beneš decrees that led to the disenfranchisement and expulsion of Hungarians and Sudeten Germans from the former Czechoslovakia.

The pair spoke this morning in early engagement ahead of Magyar taking office next month, and the Hungarian leader made it clear that he wanted Bratislava to move on the contentious issue.

“I made it clear that we can only engage in discussions on any policy matters if we receive guarantees that Slovakia will repeal the legislation threatening Hungarians in Slovakia with imprisonment, and if it is clearly established that, in the future, there will be no confiscation of the land of our Hungarian compatriots in Slovakia on the basis of the Beneš Decrees and the principle of collective guilt,” he said.

Magyar said that “the protection of the rights of our Hungarian compatriots in Slovakia remains the highest priority in Hungarian – Slovak relations,” and that he would discuss this further with Fico at this week’s European Council in Brussels.

The Slovak prime minister struck a different tone, saying he would want to work closely with Magyar and was hoping to discuss his plans on the Druzhba pipeline and the previous government’s plans to sue the EU over plans to halt Russian energy imports.

But, he admitted, that “it clearly emerged from the conversation that Péter Magyar’s priority in Slovak–Hungarian relations is, and will be, the Beneš Decrees on which we have fundamentally different positions.”

For what it’s worth, the two leaders had clashed over this issue even before the Hungarian election, with the issue of rights of Hungarians abroad remaining politically salient domestically, but it will obviously become much more important now that Magyar is in government.

One to watch.

Russia says it’s ‘technically ready’ to restore oil flows through Druzhba

Meanwhile over in Russia, the Kremlin said it was technically ready to resume oil flows through the Druzhba pipeline to Hungary and Slovakia if and when Ukraine ended what Moscow called its “blackmail”.

Russia, and Hungary’s outgoing government led by Viktor Orbán, continues to blame Ukraine for suspending the deliveries after Kyiv said the pipeline was damaged by Russian strikes.

“As things stand, you are aware that the Russian side remains technically ready. We have contractual obligations with Hungary. But following the start of the Kyiv regime’s blackmail, deliveries have been halted,” Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said in comments reported by Reuters.

“Everything depends on the Kyiv regime – whether they will open the pipeline and put an end to the blackmail,” he said.

‘We won’t have Trojan horse in our castle’ any more, Lithuania’s foreign minister says after Hungary election

Lithuania’s Kęstutis Budrys is also clearly relieved about the election result in Hungary, as he says it’s “a great development.”

Now we won’t have a Trojan horse in our castle [any more], and it’s a good thing.

Ouch.

But he says that “what was done before should not be forgotten” as he urges the EU to continue its investigation into what the outgoing Hungarian foreign minister Péter Szijjártó shared with Russia and when.

“On Ukraine, using this momentum, we have to release the support loan to Ukraine, €90bn. It is important to move fast and to have the first payment already next month,” he says.

But, somewhat optimistically, he also says he wants to see progress on Ukraine’s accession to the EU – but there seems to be no political agreement on this issue at the moment.

Funds from EU loan to Ukraine could start flowing in May, Latvia’s minister suggests

On Ukraine, Latvia’s junior foreign minister Artjoms Uršuļskis gives us a bit of news as he says that it’s hoped that the EU could start disbursing to Ukraine “already in May.”

Germany urges Iran to engage with US, but dismisses call to suspend association agreement with Israel

On the Middle East, Germany’s Wadephul urged Iran to engage in talks with the US in Islamabad and to ensure “free and safe shipping lanes through the Strait of Hormuz without delay.”

He said that Iran should accept the US request for talks “in the interests of its people,” as he said “there is still a window of opportunity to end this war through negotiations.”

But on Israel, just I like suggested earlier (10:05), he made it clear that Germany would not support the suspension of the association agreement, calling the suggestion “inappropriate.”

But he did say that the EU needs to have a word with Israel – “critical, constructive dialogue” in diplospeak – and demand it “confronts the settler violence clearly, firmly, and with all legal means.”

Germany’s Wadephul welcomes Hungarian election in hope of movement on Ukraine very soon

German foreign minister Joseph Wadephul also makes it very clear that he is relieved with the change of government in Hungary, calling it “a breath of fresh air” and a promise of hope for Ukraine.

He urged Hungary to drop its “unusual blockade” for policies for Ukraine “as quickly as possible,” pointing to what he argued was a clear pro-European mandate from the electorate in Hungary (it’s a bit more complicated than that, though).

He said the 90bn loan needed to be released “very swiftly,” and there is no time to wait for the change of government next month.

Jakub Krupa

For what it’s worth, Viktor Orbán also said earlier this week that he would drop his veto on the €90bn loan the moment the oil deliveries were flowing again through the Druzhba pipeline, which had been under repair for months.

As this is now expected to happen essentially any moment now, it looks like there could be some movement on the loan even before the government in Budapest changes.

Remember: the new Hungarian administration won’t take office before mid-May.

Ministers express relief after Orbán’s defeat in Hungary as they hope to progress Ukraine loan, sanctions against Russia

Back in Luxembourg, it’s quite telling how many ministers are talking with relief about the expected change of government in Hungary after Viktor Orbán lost to Péter Magyar just over a week ago.

The issue comes up in almost every doorstep, with ministers talking about how hopeful they are that the €90bn loan for Ukraine will finally be able to progress.

Sweden’s Maria Malmer Stenergard said she was “quite optimistic that after the Hungarian obstacle is gone, so to speak, we will be able to deliver on the promise we have made to the Ukrainians … and move forward with the 20th sanctions package” against Russia.

Poland’s junior minister Ignacy Niemczycki said that “after the expected change of government in Hungary, many things to do with Ukraine will get unblocked.”

“I am hopeful that we will be able to swiftly progress the loan for Ukraine, and the 20th package of sanctions, and I am expecting decisions already in the coming days.”

EU’s top court finds Hungary’s crackdown on LGBTQ+ content against EU law in fresh political test for Magyar

The EU’s top court has ruled that a Hungarian law banning content about LGBTQ+ people from schools and primetime TV violates basic human rights and freedom of expression.

In its ruling, the first time an adverse finding was made on the basis of the EU’s foundational list of values, the court said the Orbán-era reform violated “several fundamental rights” protected by the EU laws.

“The law is contrary to the very identity of the Union as a common legal order in a society in which pluralism prevails,” the court’s statement said.

Hungary should comply with the judgment “without delay”, posing a fresh political test for the incoming Tisza government of Péter Magyar as he hopes to improve Budapest’s relations with the EU.

If the country does not follow the ruling, the European Commission could bring a further legal action asking for financial penalties to be imposed, like it happened in a separate case on Hungary’s asylum laws.

More on this to follow.

Irish foreign minister presses the EU to ‘make progress’ on Ukraine, Israel

Ireland’s foreign minister Helen McEntee has just been speaking with reporters as she arrived at the meeting in Luxembourg, and she offered a neat summary of where we are on both issues.

On Ukraine, she said it was “really important as the EU that we make progress” on the loan and the related 20th package of sanctions against Russia to “exert as much pressure as possible on Russia.”

She said that talking to Ukrainian leaders it was clear “we are at that breaking point where that loan is absolutely essential.”

She also pointedly welcomed the new Hungarian government’s position on this, and said she hoped that “we will see the release of funds” soon.

On the Middle East, she said the joint Spanish, Slovenian and Irish initiative to ask for a debate on the association agreement was meant to send a clear signal that “we … need to uphold our fundamental values” in relations with associated countries.

“Israel has, since our last meeting, enacted a new law which essentially introduces the death penalty, but in particular penalises and specifically targets Palestinian people. It’s completely unacceptable, and so we have asked for a suspension of the Israeli agreement, and if not, then a suspension on the trade elements of the Israeli agreement.

We must be seeking to have this not just as a discussion here today at the council but that there would be some clear actions at the next council meeting.”

Again, she says that the result of the Hungarian election last week, “it is very clear that there has been a shift” there in terms of political signals coming from the new government.

Ukraine loan release closer than ever amid expectations Druzhba will be reopened

Jakub Krupa

This is not entirely unexpected and, as explained earlier, it is still hinging on the Druzhba pipeline restarting in the next 24 hours, but it definitely sounds like there are growing reasons for optimism among the EU’s most senior leaders.

Could the loan, agreed in December but held up by Hungary and Slovakia, be finally released to Ukraine in the next few days or weeks?

EU expects ‘some positive decisions’ on €90bn loan for Ukraine on Wednesday

But it looks like there is some movement on Ukraine.

EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has just confirmed that she expects “some positive decisions tomorrow” on the €90bn loan.

“Ukraine really needs this loan and it is also a sign that Russia cannot outlast Ukraine. This is extremely important at this moment.”

Jakub Krupa

For what it’s worth, it’s unlikely that any decisions on this will be actually made today on this – but the request for a focused debate on this marks growing concern among EU member states and mounting pressure on the EU to act more decisively.

Spain, Slovenia, Ireland request discussion on suspending EU association treaty with Israel

Just as expected.

Spain’s foreign minister José Manuel Albares has just confirmed that Spain, Slovenia and Ireland have requested a discussion on suspending the EU’s association treaty with Israel at today’s meeting of the bloc’s foreign ministers.

He said the process was about the EU’s “credibility” on all other issues, as the bloc is expected to stand “for the same principles” everywhere.

He said that if the EU is “not capable to say today to Israel” that it is expected to respect human rights and international law, and not make war a foreign policy tool, “we are going to lose that credibility.”

“We have to say the same thing that we say to Russia concerning Ukraine, and that we say in other scenarios, and since the last time we brought this same position, things have worsened,” he said.

“European Union has to say today very clearly to Israel that that change is needed. That’s not the right path, and that while Israel continues in that path of a permanent perpetual war, we will not be able to [run our relations] in the same way.”

He said that if suspending the association treaty in full is unacceptable for some members, the bloc should consider suspending at least the trade element of the deal.

Morning opening: EU foreign ministers to discuss Ukraine, Russia and the Middle East

Jakub Krupa

EU foreign ministers are meeting in Luxembourg this morning to discuss the latest on Ukraine, Russia and the Middle East.

EU top diplomat Kaja Kallas at a press conference in Brussels, Belgium. Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images

The ministers are awaiting an update on the Druzbha pipeline carrying Russian oil to Hungary and Slovakia, which is understood to be close to being operational against after months of bitter disputes between Ukraine and the two countries.

Hungary’s outgoing prime minister Viktor Orbán suggested he would drop his country’s veto on the EU’s €90bn loan for Ukraine as soon as the oil starts flowing, which could happen this week. Slovakia is understood to be in the same position.

The issue is currently expected to be discussed by EU ambassadors on Wednesday, but could come up earlier. One to watch.

But the discussions will also focus on the situation in the Middle East, with the Lebanese prime minister, Nawaf Salam, joining the ministers to give an update on the regional security situation.

Spain, Ireland and Slovenia are among countries calling for closer scrutiny of Israel’s actions, including a more radical step of suspending the association agreement with the EU and imposing sanctions on violent Israeli settlers.

While substantial progress is unlikely to be made on this today as Orbán’s Hungary, a close Israel ally, continues to oppose any such move, the ministers will probably be looking at what could be possible at their next meeting once the government in Budapest changes.

EU foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, hinted yesterday that the position of Magyar’s government could be different, saying – without naming Hungary specifically – that there could be “a new approach” to the issue:

“Now this country [has recently] had the elections and will [soon] have a new government. I will not speak for the new government, but definitely I think we can look into all these policies and see whether they have a new approach.”

Lots for us to cover this morning.

I will keep an eye on all of that and bring you the latest here.

It’s Tuesday, 21 April 2026, it’s Jakub Krupa here, and this is Europe Live.

Good morning.

Source link