Human rights ‘not breached over election interference probe refusal'
Judgment Bradshaw and Others v. the United Kingdom – Alleged interference by Russia in UK elections – the UK Government's response did not violate the right to free electionshttps://t.co/a81bFS1V6U#ECHR #CEDH #ECHRpress pic.twitter.com/zfMUyjYX4q
— ECHR CEDH (@ECHR_CEDH) July 22, 2025
The case was lodged at the ECtHR in 2022 by three then-MPs, Labour's Sir Ben Bradshaw, the Green Party's Caroline Lucas and the SNP's Alyn Smith, after applications for a judicial review of Boris Johnson's decision not to order an investigation into Russian activities were declined by domestic courts.
In a judgment published on Tuesday, the court ruled that the UK government's response did not violate the right to free elections.
The judgment said: 'While the Court does not underestimate the threat posed by the spreading of disinformation and the running of 'influence campaigns', their nature is nevertheless such that it is difficult to assess accurately the impact that they may have on individual voters and, by extension, on the outcome of a given election.'
There was also a risk to freedom of expression if there were 'knee-jerk reactions' to debate during an election contest.
'There is a very fine line between addressing the dangers of disinformation and outright censorship,' the judgment said.
Any actions taken by states 'to counter the risk of foreign election interference through the dissemination of disinformation and the running of influence campaigns' would have to be balanced against the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
'Therefore, while states should not remain passive when faced with evidence that their democratic processes are under threat they must be accorded a wide margin of appreciation in the choice of means to be adopted in order to counter such threats,' the judgment said.
'In the court's view, the United Kingdom's response to the threat of Russian election interference did not fall outside the wide margin of appreciation afforded to it in this area.'
The case followed reports from the Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) which looked at alleged Russian disinformation campaigns, including during the 2016 Brexit referendum.
The court noted that 'there were undoubtedly shortcomings in the Government's initial response' to the Russian threat but there were 'thorough and independent investigations' by the ISC and the DCMS committee..
The judgment also noted that following the publication of the ISC report in 2020 there had been new laws passed to help address the risk: the Elections Act 2022, the National Security Act 2023 ('the NSA 2023') and the Online Safety Act 2023.
Following the judgment, Ms Lucas said: 'It's hugely significant that the court has found in favour of our case that foreign interference is a threat to our right to free and fair elections and that they recognise there will be cases when states do have a duty to investigate.
'And while it's clearly disappointing that they found that the Government had done enough, I've no doubt that this will continue to be contested.
'The bottom line is that we still cannot be assured that our democratic system is robust against foreign interference – and for as long as that is the case, we will continue to explore all possible avenues for remedy.'
Tessa Gregory, a partner at Leigh Day – the law firm which represented the three former MPs, said: 'In an important judgment, which will have far-reaching implications, the court has accepted, contrary to the UK's submissions, that in order to safeguard citizens' right to free and fair elections, states will in certain circumstances have to take positive action against foreign interference in electoral processes including by investigating credible allegations.
'Our clients continue to think the UK has fallen short of protecting our democracy and are considering next steps in relation to the court's conclusion that there has been no violation of their right to free and fair elections.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
5 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Trump reverses course on Ukraine, again
Photo byIf it wasn't already clear before the events of the past few days, the bad news for Ukraine is that Donald Trump appears to have only the most cursory grasp of the complexities of the existential war it is currently fighting, and a strong proclivity to adopt the views of the person he spoke to last. This is also the good news. Before his much hyped, but ultimately underwhelming, summit with Vladimir Putin last week, Trump was certain that his main objective was to secure a ceasefire in Ukraine, ideally then and there. 'I want to see a ceasefire rapidly,' Trump declared on board Air Force One as he flew to Alaska on 15 August. 'I don't know if it's going to be today, but I'm not going to be happy if it's not today.' This was one of the five key principles he had agreed in an emergency video conference with Volodymyr Zelensky and other key European leaders 48 hours earlier, along with a commitment that territorial concessions could only be negotiated by Ukraine. Yet after three hours with Putin, Trump had dispensed with the idea of a ceasefire altogether. 'It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement,' Trump wrote on Truth Social on 16 August, 'which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up.' By 'all' he seems to have meant the Russian and American delegations. There were no Ukrainians present. Zelensky was thus, understandably, concerned, when he was summoned to Washington on Monday (18 August) to learn 'all the details,' presumably including how much of his country he would be expected to surrender in exchange for 'peace'. Rumours swirled that Putin was prepared to contemplate freezing the conflict along its current lines if Kyiv surrendered the entirety of Luhansk and Donetsk. (Ukraine still controls around a quarter of the Donetsk region, which includes key defensive strongholds and heavily fortified territory that functions as a bulwark against further Russian advances.) His European allies, too, were sufficiently alarmed to rush to the US capital en-masse in an attempt to head off another damaging Oval Office showdown between Zelensky and Trump. Their last White House meeting, six months earlier, had ended with Trump yelling at Zelensky that he did not 'have the cards' and having him removed from the premises. But this time, the encounter went better than any of them could have dared to hope. Zelensky had clearly learned the lessons of his previous experience, when his combat-style fatigues – which he was worn since the start of the conflict in solidarity with the Ukrainian military – seemed to upset the US president. When he stepped out of his motorcade outside the White House wearing in a black suit, specially designed by a Ukrainian tailor, Trump was delighted. 'I can't believe it,' he exclaimed, gesturing at Zelensky. 'I love it!' Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe The meeting itself, at least the part in front of the cameras, was perfectly cordial. Zelensky kept his answers short, taking every available opportunity to compliment Trump, and skirted around any difficult questions. The Ukrainian president's priority was clearly to shower Trump with praise and gratitude, and to take him up on what seemed to be the nascent suggestion, emerging in the days since the Alaska summit, that the US might be prepared to offer some sort of security guarantees for Ukraine as part of any peace deal. Zelensky mentioned this multiple times, making sure also to echo Trump's recent calls for a trilateral meeting with Putin, which he knew the Russian president would be reluctant to grant. Trump appears suddenly to have warmed to the prospect of US involvement in providing security guarantees, which he had previously seemed to reject, presumably wary of drawing the country into another open-ended commitment when he has styled himself as a president who ends 'forever wars'. 'There's going to be a lot of help,' he assured Zelensky during their meeting. The European forces would be the 'first line of defence,' Trump said. 'But we are going to help them out. We are going to be involved.' During the wider meeting that afternoon in the East Room – attended by British prime minister Keir Starmer, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French president Emmanuel Macron, Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni, Finnish president Alexander Stubb, Nato secretary-general Mark Rutte, and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen – the European leaders reinforced Zelensky's call for security guarantees. One after the other, they praised Trump's leadership and then repeated, mantra-like, the need to 'stop the killing' by providing strong security guarantees to Ukraine. (Only Merz and Macron dared also to push for a ceasefire.) By this stage in the second Trump presidency, the world's diplomats are already fluent in the required terms of flattery, where it is safer to err of the side of extreme obsequiousness and the only limit is one's own dignity. Putin, in Alaska, supposedly told Trump that he had made America as 'hot as a pistol'. Von der Leyen duly began her remarks by reminding Trump that they had just completed the 'largest trade deal ever agreed'. She then delivered a moving appeal, 'as a mother and a grandmother,' for the assembled leaders to prioritise returning the thousands of Ukrainian children who are believed to have been abducted and taken to Russia. But when she finished speaking, it was the size of the trade deal that Trump remarked upon. The reason for Trump's apparent volte-face on the issue security guarantees is difficult to parse, but probably best explained by his sense that a deal to end the war is finally within reach. By his own, questionable account, he has resolved six wars in a little over six months and has his now sights set on a seventh, and the Nobel peace prize that he has long suggested should rightly then follow. (Trump's claim to have stopped six wars is heavily disputed.) He seems to believe that he has already pulled off a masterstroke by convincing Putin to meet him in Alaska, when in fact, the Russian president had been hinting they should meet since January. And while Putin appears to have quickly dismissed the possibility of a ceasefire during their meeting, he is said to have agreed that the US and Europe could provide 'Article Five-like' security guarantees to Ukraine. (It is worth noting that this claim seems to have originated with Steve Witkoff, Trump's roaming special envoy, who has form for delivering confusing – and confused – accounts of meetings with Putin.) So perhaps Trump genuinely believes that this is an uncontroversial issue for the Russian side, and an area for possible compromise. The only problem is that even as Trump and the Europeans were discussing the importance of security guarantees at the White House, the Russian foreign ministry issued a statement making clear that it had repeatedly and strenuously objected to the idea of any troops from Nato countries being deployed in Ukraine. 'We reaffirm our repeatedly stated position of categorical rejection of any scenarios involving the presence of a military contingent from Nato countries in Ukraine,' said the foreign ministry statement on 18 August. Russia has also previously demanded to a halt to western military aid to Ukraine as a condition for any potential peace deal, along with strict limits on the size of Ukraine's military and the abandonment of its goal to join Nato. It is not clear whether the Kremlin is prepared to negotiate on these terms. Pressed later that evening on what form any western security guarantees might take given these conditions, Rutte, Nato's secretary-general, was noncommittal in an interview on Fox News. 'What it will exactly mean' and the question of US involvement, he said, would be 'discussed in the coming days'. Trump left the meeting for around 40 minutes at one point to call Putin, as one does, while the other leaders waited in the White House. Rutte later claimed that in the course of that call, Trump had persuaded Putin to agree to a meeting with Zelensky, which would then be followed by a three-way meeting hosted by the US president. Merz said Putin and Zelensky could meet within the next two weeks. But at the time of writing, the Kremlin had yet to confirm Putin would take part, merely noting that the Russian president had 'discussed the idea of raising the level of direct Russian-Ukrainian negotiations.' It is possible we are now headed towards a rapid series of summits between Putin, Zelensky and Trump that could yield an imminent end to the fighting and a genuine peace deal. In which case, Trump might finally be able to begin preparing his Nobel prize speech. But it is equally possible that the US president's sudden mad dash for peace, accompanied by none of the preparation and little understanding of the complex issues and historical fault lines behind this conflict, will just as quickly fizzle out when it becomes clear how far apart the two sides really are, and whether or not Putin was ever really interested in peace. At a time when the Russian leader believes his forces are winning on the battlefield and time is on his side, it seems unlikely that he will agree to abandon his longstanding mission to subjugate Ukraine just to placate his 'dear friend'. This may well just be an effort to string out a putative peace process and keep Trump on side, while the Russian military grinds ahead. Given that Trump has, so far, shown little sign of following through on his threats to impose greater consequences for Putin's actions, what is to stop Russia fighting on through the rest of this year and then pushing for a peace deal on more advantageous terms next year, when the US president is likely to be even more desperate for a win ahead of the coming mid-terms? Others, too, are sceptical. 'I am not convinced that President Putin also wants peace,' Macron said at a press conference as he left Washington. 'His ultimate goal is to gain as much territory as he can, to weaken Ukraine.' Still, as long as they have Trump's attention, and they are able to impress on him the importance of making serious commitments to ensure Ukraine's security beyond this war, that will count as a victory for Zelensky and his allies for now. At least until Trump's next big encounter with Putin. Then, of course, the policy could just as easily change again. [See also: The great big anti-climax in Alaska] Related
Daily Mail
5 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Zelensky's master stroke to win over Trump and avoid another White House debacle as he seeks US help to bring peace in Ukraine
Volodymyr Zelensky delivered a masterful charm offensive to win over President Donald Trump and set up a potential meeting with Vladimir Putin to end the years long war in Ukraine. Trump hyped a face-to-face meeting between Putin and Zelensky after he called the Russian leader following a dramatic summit in the White House with European leaders. The potential peace deal immediately drew skeptics, as French President Emmanuel Macron said he did not 'see President Putin very willing to get peace now.' He laid the groundwork by offering a $100 billion weapons deal as an olive branch to Trump. The Ukrainian leader also donned corporate attire in accordance with a more nuanced approach to handling the professionally dressed US president. The Ukrainian leader clearly learned several lessons from his last visit to Washington, which led to a bitter confrontation with Trump and Vice President JD Vance. Zelensky had the backing of several European leaders this time, including the UK's Keir Starmer, Italy's Giorgia Meloni and France's Emmanuel Macron. The heads of state had coached him prior to speaking to Trump, The Times reported. He may have either taken their advice or the withering counsel of Vice President Vance from the last time they met, as he was immediately complimentary of and thankful for Trump. In fact, The Washington Post noted that Zelensky thanked Trump approximately 11 times in a nearly five-minute public address Monday. He thanked Trump another seven times in 50 seconds as they addressed the press in the Oval Office, the site of their infamous showdown in March. 'Thanks so much, Mr President. If I can, first of all, thank you for the invitation, and thank you very much for your efforts, personal efforts, to stop killings and stop this war. Thank you,' Zelensky said. Beyond pleasantries, Zelensky had come prepared to speak in the language that Trump made famous: the art of the deal. He announced that Ukraine plans to buy $100billion in American weapons in exchange for the 'major step forward' toward peace Zelensky believes Trump has offered. The European allies will be helping Ukraine finance the deal, as well as a $50billion deal between Washington and Kyiv to help Ukrainian companies produce drones, The Financial Times reported. Trump told Zelensky on Monday that the United States would help guarantee Ukraine's security in any deal to end Russia's war there, though the extent of any assistance was not immediately clear. 'When it comes to security, there's going to be a lot of help,' Trump told reporters, adding that European countries would be involved. 'They are a first line of defense because they're there, but we'll help them out.' Trump hyped a face-to-face meeting between Putin and Zelensky after he called the Russian leader following a dramatic summit in the White House with European leaders Trump refused three times to rule out putting American boots on the ground though any assistance is more likely to come in the form of air support. Zelensky hailed the promise as 'a major step forward,' adding that the guarantees would be 'formalized on paper within the next week to 10 days.' However, Zelensky clearly saw charming the president as key to getting any deals done. He borrowed a move from Starmer, who received compliments from Trump in February after he presented the president with a letter from King Charles. This letter was instead from Zelensky's wife, Olena, addressed to Trump's wife, First Lady Melania. 'It's very nice,' said Trump. Zelensky corrected: 'It's not to you, it's to your wife, about our children, our abducted children.' 'Oh, I want it,' Trump replied, before praising his wife in self-deprecating fashion. 'She's got a great love of children. She has a wonderful son that she loves, probably more than anyone including me, I hate to say it.' He also gave Trump credit for bringing peace to other parts of the world which led to perhaps the most important aesthetic change Zelensky made between now and his last visit. Brian Glenn - the journalist and boyfriend of Marjorie Taylor Green who slammed Zelensky for not wearing a suit months earlier - pointed out how Trump's federal intervention had made Washington DC a more peaceful place. 'If I can walk around with MTG and not be attacked, this city is safe,' Glenn said, which led Trump to reintroducing the pair. 'President Zelensky, you look fabulous in that suit,' Glenn noted. Trump added: 'I said the same thing. This is the one that attacked you last time, you remember that?' 'I remember,' Zelensky replied. Glenn said: 'I apologize to you, you look wonderful.' In a far more light-hearted encounter than their previous meeting, Zelensky noticed how Glenn was wearing a similar outfit to the last time the two met. 'But you are in the same suit,' Zelensky shot back. 'You see, I changed you [did] not.' The reply was followed by laughter from fellow members of the press, before Glenn replied: 'Maybe yours is much better than mine.' Trump initially declared himself 'very happy' and hyped up plans for a historic showdown between Zelensky and Putin after a 40-minute phone call with the Russian leader. However, Putin has failed to commit to peace talks with Zelensky - fueling fears he will pull out of efforts to end the Ukraine war at the last minute. It comes as the Kremlin branded a 40-minute phone call between President Trump and Putin on Monday as 'frank' and only 'fairly constructive'. Putin's aide Yuri Ushakov made the comments as he confirmed the pair had explored 'raising the level of representatives of Moscow and Kyiv at the talks'. Furthermore, the leaders of both Finland and France have declared their skepticism in Putin making a deal. Speaking after he left Trump's historic talks in the White House with Zelensky and other European leaders, Alexander Stubb said: 'Putin is rarely to be trusted. 'So now it remains to be seen whether he has the courage to come to this type of meeting. 'Does he have the courage to come to a trilateral meeting, or is he once again playing for time?' Macron, speaking to NBC News, praised the president's optimism but was similarly wary of Putin. 'When I look at the situation and the facts, I don't see President Putin very willing to get peace now,' he said. 'But I think this is great news, and indeed, your president is very confident about this capacity to get this deal done with President Putin, and it's great,' Macron added. Their rhetoric was in stark contrast to that of President Trump who hailed the success of Monday's talks in the White House. The president said on social media Monday that he and Putin discussed plans for a summit between the leaders of Russia and Ukraine, at a location to be determined. Following that diplomatic showdown, Trump said he will then sit down with both leaders in an attempt to make peace in the war torn country. 'This was a very good, early step for a War that has been going on for almost four years,' he said. Zelensky responded by saying 'we are ready' for any leader-level meetings while speaking to reporters after the White House. He said it's the only way to solve these 'complicated and painful issues.' The Ukrainian leader was reluctant to set conditions for the meeting, regarding a potential ceasefire or other matters, to prevent Russia from making their own demands, potentially jeopardizing those talks. 'That's why I believe that we must meet without any conditions,' he told reporters. Zelensky said Trump showed him a map of the Ukraine front lines in the Oval Office and they got into a little debate about territories it showed. But they didn't argue, he said. 'We had a truly warm, good and substantial conversation,' Zelensky said. No date has been set for him and Putin to meet, he said, though German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said afterward that Trump and Putin agreed there will be a meeting 'within the next two weeks.' Trump revealed that Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and special envoy Steve Witkoff are coordinating with Russia and Ukraine. 'During the meeting we discussed Security Guarantees for Ukraine, which Guarantees would be provided by the various European Countries, with a coordination with the United States of America. Everyone is very happy about the possibility of PEACE for Russia/Ukraine,' Trump wrote on Truth Social. 'At the conclusion of the meetings, I called President Putin, and began the arrangements for a meeting, at a location to be determined, between President Putin and President Zelensky. After that meeting takes place, we will have a Trilat, which would be the two Presidents, plus myself.' Monday's meeting, which was praised by Zelensky as the best he had with Trump, saw the two presidents swap praises as they sought to make progress towards peace. However, lots of questions remained unanswered early on Tuesday morning as to what that would look like or how it would come about. The hastily arranged scenes at the White House saw a contingent of European leaders, including Starmer, put summer holiday plans to the side and arrive at the West Wing to stand with Zelensky. They were locked in talks on Monday night as Trump pledged they would 'come to a resolution today on almost everything, including probably security'. He had earlier spent an hour with just his Ukrainian counterpart, presenting him with a giant battlefield map showing the 20 per cent of the country under Russian control. The 'possible exchanges of territory, taking into consideration the current line of contact' was up for discussion, the President said. Trump told reporters: 'If everything works out well, we will have a tri-lat [between himself, Zelensky and Putin] and have a good chance of ending the war.' Responding calmly to a provocative first question from an American journalist over whether he is prepared 'to keep sending Ukrainian troops to their deaths', Zelensky said he was ready to sit down with Putin. 'We support the idea of the United States, of personally President Trump, to stop this war, to make a diplomatic way of finishing this war', he said. 'And we are ready for a trilateral, as the president said. 'This is a good signal about trilateral. I think this is very good.' It was a complete contrast from their meeting nearly six months ago, when Trump abruptly halted peace talks between Russia and Ukraine and kicked President Zelensky out of the White House after a blistering Oval Office shouting match between the two leaders. The unprecedented scene left Ukraine's future in doubt as the country fights for its life. Tempers flared on all sides during the February Oval Office showdown. Trump threatened to abandon Ukraine completely if Zelensky did not agree to his peace terms. He also accused Zelensky of not being grateful. Zelensky held his own, even showing Trump photos he brought of the devastation to his country, and arguing he had thanked the American people. The yelling match was unlike anything ever seen publicly in the Oval Office. And it played out on TV screens across the world. 'You're gambling with World War III,' Trump bellowed Zelensky at one point. After the contentious meeting Trump announced he had asked Zelensky to leave. In a post on Truth Social, Trump wrote:. 'It's amazing what comes out through emotion, and I have determined that President Zelensky is not ready for Peace if America is involved. 'Because he feels our involvement gives him a big advantage in negotiations. I don't want advantage, I want PEACE. He disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office. He can come back when he is ready for Peace.' After the cameras left the Oval Office, Zelensky went to a holding room in the West Wing. He and Trump did not meet again. Trump issued his statement. National Security Advisor Michael Waltz and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who were in the Oval Office meeting, went and told Zelensky his meetings at the White House were over, a White House official said. The two leaders never had their scheduled lunch. White House reporters saw it sitting in the hallway outside the Oval Office, untouched. Trump and Zelensky had been scheduled to participate in a press conference later Friday. That was canceled. However, tempers soon calmed down with the pair meeting at Pope Francis' funeral
BreakingNews.ie
5 minutes ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Putin and Zelenskiy to meet, Donald Trump says following European leaders summit
Presidents Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskiy will meet, Donald Trump has said following a White House summit with European leaders aimed at bringing an end to the war in Ukraine. The US president spoke directly with the Russian president to begin planning a meeting between the two warring leaders, which will then be followed by a three-way meeting involving himself. Advertisement It comes after Mr Trump said Moscow will 'accept' multinational efforts to guarantee Ukraine's security while hosting several European leaders including the Ukrainian President, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron and Nato secretary general Mark Rutte. Posting on his Truth Social platform after the meeting, Mr Trump said he and the eight leaders discussed security guarantees before he called the Russian president. He described the meeting as 'very good' and said: 'During the meeting we discussed security guarantees for Ukraine, which guarantees would be provided by the various European countries, with a coordination with the United States of America. 'Everyone is happy about the possibility of PEACE for Russia/Ukraine. Advertisement 'At the conclusion of the meetings, I called president Putin and began arrangements for a meeting, at a location to be determined, between president Putin and president Zelenskiy. 'After the meeting takes place, we will have a trilat which would be the two presidents plus myself.' Before the White House talks, the US president said he would 'probably' be able to find common ground with the leaders on a plan to ward off future attacks on Ukraine. He previously met with Mr Putin in Anchorage, Alaska, on Friday, where he declared there was 'no deal until there's a deal' to end more than three years of fighting in eastern Europe. Advertisement 'The Alaska summit reinforced my belief that while difficult, peace is within reach and I believe, in a very significant step, President Putin agreed that Russia would accept security guarantees for Ukraine,' Mr Trump said on Monday. 'And this is one of the key points that we need to consider.' He later said: 'We also need to discuss the possible exchanges of territory taken into consideration the current line of contact.' Mr Trump's envoy, Steve Witkoff, had suggested measures similar to Nato's article five mutual defence provision – that an attack on one member is an attack on the entire bloc – could be offered by the US without Kyiv joining the alliance. Advertisement 'We were able to win the following concession: that the United States could offer article five-like protection, which is one of the real reasons why Ukraine wants to be in Nato,' Mr Witkoff told CNN over the weekend, as he spoke about the Alaska summit. Future three-way talks 'have a good chance' of stopping the conflict, the US president claimed. But the president appeared to share conflicting views on whether a ceasefire was necessary to stop the war. 'I don't think you need a ceasefire,' he had originally said, before later explaining that, 'all of us would obviously prefer an immediate ceasefire while we work on a lasting peace'. Advertisement Starmer welcomed plans for a security guarantee, after Mr Trump introduced him at the negotiating table as a 'friend'. The Prime Minister said: 'Your indication of security guarantees, of some sort of article five-style guarantees, fits with what we've been doing with the coalition of the willing which we started some months ago, bringing countries together and showing that we were prepared to step up to the plate when it came to security. United States President Donald J Trump leads European leaders, including Keir Starmer, in the Cross Hall of the White House (Aaron Schwartz/PA) 'With you coming alongside, the US alongside, what we've already developed, I think we could take a really important step forward today – a historic step, actually, could come out of this meeting in terms of security for Ukraine and security in Europe.' Mr Starmer also described potential future trilateral talks as appearing to be a 'sensible next step' and continued: 'So, thank you for being prepared to take that forward, because I think if we can ensure that that is the progress out of this meeting – both security guarantees and some sort of progress on (a) trilateral meeting of some sort to bring some of the difficult issues to a head – then I think today will be seen as a very important day in recent years.' The PA news agency understands the British Prime Minister disrupted his holiday plans over the weekend to join calls, including with Mr Trump and Mr Zelenskiy, before he headed to Washington, as reported in The Times. Mr Zelenskiy, whom Mr Trump greeted at the door of the West Wing with a handshake earlier in the evening, wore a black shirt with buttons and a black blazer to the meeting at the White House. His attire had appeared to become a point of irritation for Mr Trump during a previous meeting in February. Early in the meeting, the Ukrainian described the talks as 'really good', saying they had been 'the best' so far. Mr Zelenskiy said: 'We are very happy with the president that all the leaders are here and security in Ukraine depends on the United States and on you and on those leaders who are with us in our hearts.'
