THE HAGUE — The European Commission should act “as soon as possible” to give clear guidance on U.S. sanctions against the International Criminal Court, its top administrative official told POLITICO in an interview.

Osvaldo Zavala Giler, who oversees the day-to-day functioning of the Hague-based court as the institution’s registrar, said his job became “preparing for sanctions” as the White House imposed an escalating regime of restrictions against it.

The Trump administration targeted prosecutors and judges from the court first in February 2025 before announcing blanket sanctions on Oct. 9 this year. The EU has repeatedly backed the Court against Washington, but it has resisted calls to activate a mechanism that would forbid firms from complying with U.S. laws.

That has agonized senior figures in The Hague. Zavala Giler said the Commission’s “lack of clarity” left private companies and NGOs in the dark over whether they should comply with sanctions decided by Washington — and what risks they face if they don’t.

Zavala Giler’s call to the Commission adds to pressure from EU lawmakers for a swift response after the Oct. 9 announcement. Kallas told the European Parliament on Tuesday that Brussels would use the next few months “to open dialogue” on the issue. The new sanctions are set to take effect in April next year.

“What I would hope is that the space for dialogue is not interpreted as a space for waiting to protect the court,” Zavala Giler said, who spoke from his glass office on the eve of a visit to the Court’s headquarters by the EU’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas.

Damocles sword

Anticipating sweeping sanctions, the Court spent six months abandoning U.S. tech providers and moving to an open-source software environment, and 20 months to make its financial transactions dollar-proof. That move has been a huge undertaking for Zavala Giler’s team, he said.

The Court initially deepened its reliance on U.S. technology after it was hit by a massive cyber attack in 2023, but what seemed a solution at that time became a problem in the face of sanctions. Even though the current regime includes a carveout for telecommunications, there is no guarantee it will remain the case.

“It becomes a sort of Damocles sword on top of our head that could be revoked at any time,” Zavala Giler said. “I cannot count on U.S. tech companies anymore.”

U.S. platforms operate as entire ecosystems, offering all-encompassing solutions under a single contract. To do without them, “you need to start creating your own architecture and systems that need to speak to each other,” the registrar said.

Financial autonomy was equally hard to achieve. The Court mapped all its suppliers’ transactions to ensure there was no U.S. nexus, meaning that no U.S. person, bank or currency is involved in a payment. “We made all of our staff members have European bank accounts. It was a very detailed process that we had to do, person by person, company by company, making sure that the contracts were in euros,” the registrar said.

The Court also went from working with tens of banks to only “a few,” since only a handful of institutions are comfortable with dollar-proof payments.

Chilling effect

That situation is likely to worsen without clear guidance from EU countries and the Commission. As Zavala Giler put it, “if the International Criminal Court cannot transact in Europe, in euros within the SEPA zone with no U.S. nexus, then there is a bigger question about European financial sovereignty.”

The Court has long called the EU to use a legislative shield — known as blocking statute — that would forbid EU firms from complying with U.S. sanctions. The request was backed by dozens of lawmakers at the European Parliament, which incidentally awarded the court its human rights Sakharov Prize on Thursday.

The blocking statute “becomes an instrument to reassert the minimum space that should not be affected by unilateral extraterritorial sanctions … that minimum space should be, at the very least, the eurozone,” Zavala Giler said. Even without it, the court needs “the reassurances that, at least within the eurozone, [it] can continue to operate,” he added.

So far, however, the Commission has taken a cautious approach, choosing dialogue with the U.S. as a way of “buying time,” as a EU diplomat put it to POLITICO.

In a balancing act, EU heads of state and government backed Brussels’ diplomatic effort at their summit last week, while also committing to do whatever is needed to support the Court.

“I hope that now that the European Council has opened this door, the Commission will feel more comfortable in taking an extra step. And at the very least, providing some kind of clear guidance,” Zavala Giler said.

As an intermediate step, the registrar suggested the use of “comfort letters” reassuring firms that they should not comply with the U.S. measures.

Zavala Giler stressed that sanctions were not only a matter to address for banks and tech operators, as the current uncertainty has already affected NGOs working with the Court. NGOs play a critical role in supporting the work of the Court, for instance “to provide reparations for victims in Uganda” or “to assist the work of the court in providing assistance to victims in Ukraine.”

“This has created an enormous chilling effect,” he said. “They don’t know if they have the legal protections or not, to continue supporting the work of the court.”

The registrar’s office overlooks the moat circling the court’s six towers across the compound’s 46,000 square meters. In one of these buildings, the trial of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte over alleged crimes against humanity is due to begin next month. Reporters who will cover the proceeds won’t be allowed to use their phones — only paper and pen.

It is Zavala Giler’s job to oversee this huge institution, which relies on secure communications, cross-border funding for investigations and the contribution of many NGOs.

“This court has for victims the promise of the never again,” Zavala Giler said.

LONDON — When Prime Minister Andy Burnham arrived a few minutes late to a meeting with regional mayors on Thursday, his Cabinet ally Angela Rayner had a name for it. She joked they were on “Andy Time.”

The rest of Britain is beginning to learn what that feels like.

Burnham entered 10 Downing Street three months ago promising a “new economic model.” However, the prime minister’s first budget next Wednesday will ask voters to wait a bit longer for it.

John Healey, Burnham’s top finance minister, is expected to announce cuts to business regulation, new steps to move power out of Whitehall and targeted cost-of-living help as energy bills surge due to the wars in Iran and Ukraine.

But while London’s banking sector is resigned to a tax rise, Healey is broadly not expected to completely overhaul tax regimes that many in Burnham’s center-left Labour Party have long seen as unfair. These include business rates, which treat high street shops more harshly than out-of-town delivery warehouses; capital gains tax, which charges less on income from assets than from work; and council tax on homes, which is based on valuations from 1991. 

Healey and his allies are already rolling out a pitch for lower-key changes to tax and spending than his predecessor, Rachel Reeves, insisting budgets are about more than their bottom-line “scorecard.” They point instead to thinning the “sludge” of business bureaucracy and helping “bloody-minded” entrepreneurs.

The reason behind this is about much more than war dragging on the British economy and keeping inflation high. Many radical reforms just aren’t ready yet. 

Next Wednesday will mark just 100 days since Burnham took office, after a whirlwind special election that ended the Greater Manchester mayor’s decade-long absence from parliament.

Burnham’s much-touted “10-year plan” to rewire Britain’s public realm is far from finished; its publication date is edging closer to Christmas. And many granular details of his plan for reform — including higher defense spending, welfare reforms and ownership of the water sector — will only come at a multi-year spending review some time in 2027. Healey is still trying to decide when that will happen.

POLITICO spoke to 22 current and former government officials, MPs and people who speak regularly to Downing Street to map out Burnham and Healey’s strategy, most of whom were granted anonymity to speak frankly. 

Several offered the view that Healey’s budget was designed to act as a stepping stone toward the 10-year plan and spending review, while not spooking the bond markets — which Burnham complained Britain was “in hock to” last year. That is despite Britain inching closer to a general election that the prime minister must call by summer 2029.

“They want it to be a non-event,” one person who speaks regularly to both 10 and 11 Downing Street said of the budget. 

Expectation management

This narrative has already left Healey’s allies bristling.

People are “accusing us of not making decisions and kicking the can down the road when actually this budget is incredibly difficult,” said one government official. This person added: “This is the first budget of this country that will have come to the House of Commons for scrutiny while the war in the Middle East is raging and an illegal invasion of Ukraine continues by Russia. The idea that this is by any means small is quite difficult to stomach.”

A second U.K. government official argued the budget would be “as ambitious as possible within the political context.” But a third government official said they believed the budget would be more “steady as she goes” than finished solutions to Britain’s problems.

Ruth Curtice, a former Treasury official who is now chief executive of the Resolution Foundation, a think tank focused on living standards, added: “In some ways it’s quite surprising to have such a small budget, given we have a new prime minister and chancellor and quite a lot has happened in the world since the last one.”

The opposition Conservative Party is preparing to seize on this “deferral budget” theme. Tory strategists are ready to paint it as a cowardly act from an administration they claim prefers sweeping vision to hard decisions. “Why act tomorrow when you can act today?” said one shadow cabinet minister. “Have some balls!”

Cameron Brown, a former Tory special adviser in the Treasury, was more sympathetic. “There’s no need to crystallize any kind of savings or cuts now,” when the spending review is looming anyway, he argued. Brown predicted a “tight and concise” but “intellectually coherent” package: “[Healey] will have some buffer at the end, a nice little cost of living package, Labour MPs will be happy, he’ll target the bad people — gamblers and banks — and he’ll push things down the road a bit.”

A Labour official voiced concern that a cautious budget could lose the goodwill Burnham has built with the public — as happened to his predecessor Keir Starmer, who promised “change” in his 2024 manifesto.

And Reeves’ former Political Secretary Matt Pound urged “caution” on deferring too many decisions to the 2027 spending review. “The truth is that they could end up putting a monumental amount of pressure on that spending review,” he told POLITICO’s Westminster Insider podcast in an interview released Friday. “There are already a lot of pressures they will need to fund.”

Hard to get

“Energy” will be the key thread linking Healey’s messages for the budget, a fourth U.K. government official said — from “breathing space” help with bills to building a more resilient infrastructure network. 

There will also be a “fiscal devolution roadmap” on budget day, setting out terms of how regional mayors can get more power and money and drawn up partly by Burnham’s new Manchester outpost, No. 10 North. Legislation to let them impose tourist taxes will be published in the coming weeks. And officials have talked behind the scenes about procurement and boosting Britain’s heavy industries; the budget needs to find almost £5 billion to plug a hole in a defense investment plan unveiled under Starmer.

Targeted cost-of-living measures appear likely to include scrapping “standing charges” on domestic gas bills, which cost the average household just over £100 a year. Burnham said Wednesday that he had asked Healey to look at the issue — though any help could be eclipsed by a predicted £276 rise in domestic bills this January.

The other message will be that the Treasury can do big, consequential things without raising taxes. Healey will make “a political argument that actually there are other types of budgets that you can have,” said the first government official quoted above, “busting through some of that sludge and ripping up a lot of that red tape.” Cash-strapped chancellors have reached for regulatory reform before, with mixed success.

MPs are looking closely at cost-of-living support. One backbencher in an affluent seat said any help had to be significant, because even their well-off constituents were struggling to take the holidays they wanted. Defense, by contrast, barely comes up on the doorstep: “There are hardly any votes in it, but it’s just something we have to do.”

There has been heavy engagement with Labour MPs, whose detachment from No. 10 helped force Starmer out in July. Treasury ministers Torsten Bell and James Murray are among those engaging while Chief Secretary to the Treasury Emma Reynolds handles tricky negotiations with Cabinet ministers, alongside No. 10 chief of staff James Purnell.

Healey has negotiated with Cabinet ministers and spoken to union leaders, banks and MPs — though not lobbyists. “No one can get to Healey,” said one. “It’s very smart. Let him do his job.”

Markets will look at the “headroom” — a snapshot of the buffer between Healey’s five-year plans and his self-imposed fiscal rules. The fourth official quoted above said Treasury officials have considered having only a small “headroom” buffer compared to the £21.7 billion left by Reeves, as it could be increased in future years. 

Reeves’ former political secretary, Pound, warned against this, telling Westminster Insider: “If the headroom is so low that it’s clear that they can’t clear the defense investment plan, for example, or the wider defense pressures, then I think that that could then start to have a bit of a knock-on effect that would be quite negative.”

However, headroom is merely a snapshot, often out of date by the time it is published. It is likely to be buffeted further by any events in the Middle East arising from the U.S. midterm results on Nov. 3.

And as with all budget briefings, some opposition politicians believe there is an element of expectation management. Conservatives suspect that headroom will come out higher than predicted — which Healey can paint as a victory.

Time is ticking

Then it’ll all be over — and Westminster will immediately start preparing for the next step.

A date was never confirmed for Burnham’s 10-year plan (beyond the latter part of 2026), but some officials believe it has already slipped slightly from the original intention. 

Downing Street and Cabinet Office officials remain determined to publish it in December, though some in Whitehall worry it might be delayed. “Knowing the things on the horizon and how big they are, I genuinely don’t see how you could make space for it,” said one official in another department.

While some Cabinet Office civil servants were first tasked to work on the plan in August, others only joined the team this month as it has grown, according to one person with knowledge of the staffing. Burnham’s ally Louise Haigh, the first secretary of state, is leading three “task forces” ahead of the plan on the cost of living, public control of utilities and the renewal of run-down high streets.

The 10-year plan won’t have all the answers, though. POLITICO reported this week that while it will contain a high-level vision, priorities and principles for the water industry’s future, much of the granular detail of how future ownership models will work is expected in the 2027 spending review. 

One Labour figure who has spoken to the government about the water industry said they believed ministers will choose “different horses for different courses” — an array of ownership models for various firms depending on how stricken they are. A second Labour figure talking to the government said: “You can’t do this in two years.”

The Labour official quoted earlier in this story said they feared the 10-year plan would be a let-down. “These big plans governments are always throwing forward to have a habit of turning out quite thin,” this person said. “At which point we all realize there was never a big plan all along.”

There are other plans to come, including an imminent plan to reform the welfare system by the former Labour Cabinet minister Alan Milburn, and a white paper in December that is due to set out a timetable, legislation and borders for plans to move more power outside Whitehall.

Devolution is one area where Burnham has moved quickly, pleasing many regional mayors. But some officials in the union movement fear that Burnham’s initial focus on devolution risks taking up bandwidth that could have been spent on other issues. A fifth government official added that they were worried all the conversations between different public bodies could crowd out the push for growth. They said: “I sit on Teams calls that are 30 people, all from different arms of the state. Sometimes I think — ‘You do know none of us are making this money?’”

‘Rubber hits the road’

Then there is the 2027 spending review. 

It will set out how the state allocates money across its arms for the next three to five years — turning these plans and the difficult trade-offs they require into reality.

The Treasury has previously confirmed it will set out the entire pathway to lift U.K. defense spending from 2.6% of GDP this year to 3.5% by 2035. It is also likely to address questions about Burnham’s pledge to create a state-funded national service for social care, funded by reducing the rise in the state pension.

There will be months of to-and-fro between Whitehall departments and a Treasury looking for cuts, efficiency savings or both to balance the books.

“The spending review is when the rubber hits the road,” said the fifth government official quoted above. “It’s already beginning. Departments are beginning to work out sacrificial lambs to offer up.”

Three people with knowledge of the conversations said Healey still hasn’t decided when in 2027 he wants to hold the spending review, though it is broadly expected no earlier than the summer. He has been privately musing with allies about the options.

Curtice said Healey’s options are essentially to hold a small fiscal event followed by a spending review next summer, or to hold a spending review with an annual budget simultaneously in fall 2027.

She added: “The big question we’ve posed for this budget — that we’re not necessarily expecting an answer to — is what is the spending total for the spending review that we know needs to come next year? Until we know the answer to that question, we don’t really know whether we can believe the path of tax and borrowing that is set out in the budget.”

Senior Conservatives argue the spending review will be so difficult that Burnham could call a snap election before it is due. He has insisted he will only force it in 2029.

Until then, much of the spending review work will fall to Reynolds. Her predecessor Darren Jones argued the existence of the 10-year plan and spending review meant it would be sensible for next week’s budget to be a little low-octane.

“The prime minister’s been clear that the 10-year plan is going to be the political strategy for the government,” Jones told POLITICO. “So I think it makes sense to do all of your public spending decisions after the publication of the 10-year plan. It would be odd if this October’s budget tried to deal with all the big trade-offs on defense, mayoral budgets, or more ownership of public utilities.

“So I think in many ways, actually the 10-year plan is more interesting this autumn in terms of the political strategy of the government. 

“And then 2027 will be the year in which ministers will have to start thinking about how to implement that strategy operationally, including in public spending decisions.”

Much of that will fall to Burnham himself.

Crowdsourcing

Rayner’s joke about “Andy Time” was not without cause.

Unlike Starmer, Burnham gets into the weeds of an issue even if it derails his schedule. The prime minister chews things over with colleagues so much that some have joked they could just remove his Downing Street desk, said the third government official quoted above. By contrast, Starmer used to retreat to No. 10’s first-floor study to read away from the hubbub.

Burnham’s approach can lead to Downing Street making decisions late in the day. One former No. 10 official said: “A Prime Minister needs to do 80 things in a day and if that goes to 60, then you end up massively behind.”

The flipside is that ministers and officials know what their leader actually wants from them — even if they are left to work out the detail.

“It’s like we’ve woken up from a political coma,” one backbench MP enthused. “I know what the prime minister thinks,” added the third government official quoted above.

Aides used to complain that Starmer, by contrast, tried to be efficient but would end meetings without setting a clear political direction. “Keir was always a stickler for time, even if the issue wasn’t resolved,” as one former colleague put it.

Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, suggested this week that Burnham was failing to flesh out the detail behind his vision. “Talking about it is not making a decision,” she said of social care reform at prime minister’s questions. Burnham was visibly frustrated—insisting he was making the long-term decisions other politicians duck.

And for the prime minister’s allies and most of his MPs, the vibes remain good. The No. 10 environment is more relaxed and open. Junior ministers, in meetings over bacon sandwiches, feel they can share their views and be heard.

“There’s definitely still a buzz,” said the person who talks regularly to Downing Street, who was quoted earlier in this story. “But you don’t want to spend too much time buzzing while Rome burns. There’s a reality check that I feel is going to come imminently.”

Patrick Baker, Sascha O’Sullivan, Esther Webber and Emilio Casalicchio contributed reporting.

BRUSSELS — The center-right European People’s Party joined forces with far-right lawmakers Thursday to push through a vote delaying a key EU climate law governing the methane emissions of oil and gas companies.

It was the latest example of the European Parliament’s biggest group ignoring old taboos and working with the far right to pass legislation weakening environmental rules.

The EU Methane Regulation requires fossil fuel companies to monitor and report emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that’s a major cause of global warming.

The requirements were due to come into force in 2027, but the Commission last week proposed delaying implementation by a year following intense lobbying from the oil and gas lobby and the U.S. government.

The EPP proposed going further, calling for a three-year delay. The amendment passed by 326 votes to 244, with the support of far-right groups Patriots for Europe, the group of Marine Le Pen’s National Rally; and Europe of Sovereign Nations, the group of the German far-right party the AfD. Giorgia Meloni’s European Conservatives and Reformists also backed the proposal.

Most lawmakers from other centrist and center-left groups, including Renew Europe, Socialists and Democrats and the Greens, opposed the three-year delay.

The right-wing majority also voted for an amendment that would force the Commission to review the law and propose any necessary changes by mid-2029.

It comes a year after the EPP — the group of Commission President Ursula von der Leyen — set a new precedent when it sided with the far right to vote to weaken environmental reporting rules for companies, breaching the so-called cordon sanitaire. Since 2024, right wing groups have made up a majority in Parliament.

Thursday’s vote, if adopted by other EU institutions, would move the deadline for implementation of rules to 2030 — well beyond the Commission’s proposed delay to 2028.

It comes after a months-long pressure campaign by oil and gas companies, which claimed that key elements of the rules requiring them to monitor and track leaks of the potent greenhouse gas were unclear, risking compliance failures that could deter critical supplies from reaching Europe.

The Parliament’s position aligns it with industry’s own call for a three-year delay, and lawmakers echoed the sector’s concerns about the risk of supply disruptions linked to hasty implementation of the rules.

“The postponement of the requirements for oil and gas importers in the Methane Regulation is a matter of political responsibility … We need legally certain rules in place … to safeguard Europe’s energy supply and competitiveness,” MEPs Andrea Wechlser and Christian Ehler, both in the EPP, said in a statement to POLITICO.

“The crisis in the Middle East is already putting massive pressure on energy markets—about 20 percent of global LNG trade passes through the Strait of Hormuz,” they added.

The Parliament’s position could empower national delegations — which failed to agree on a joint position Wednesday after pushback from Germany, Italy and Poland — pushing for a longer delay. Member countries hope to find a compromise next Wednesday after failing to find agreement earlier this week.

CORRECTION: This article has been updated to reflect that Parliament voted to delay the rules until 2030.

STRASBOURG — The International Criminal Court has won this year’s Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, awarded by the European Parliament, according to two people with knowledge of the decision.

The €50,000 prize honors defenders of human rights and freedom of thought, with past winners including Nelson Mandela, Alexei Navalny, Belarusian journalists, and the people of Ukraine.

The Socialists and Democrats group nominated the ICC following U.S. President Donald Trump’s sanctions on the court, announced on Oct. 9.

“We stand by the ICC and its officials, and we are committed to safeguarding its work. We must guarantee that the ICC is able to operate independently, free from pressure or external interference,” said S&D vice-chair Yannis Maniatis in early October. “It is a people-based organization, not a political one. If the aggressors become the victims, and if we stand by helplessly as international justice erodes, we risk allowing those who believe themselves above the law to prevail.”

The prize is named in honor of Andrei Sakharov, a Soviet physicist and political dissident. Shortlisted candidates are traditionally invited to the Parliament’s award ceremony, which takes place during the December plenary session in Strasbourg.

BERLIN — Friedrich Merz has tried to move on from his conservatives’ historic defeats to the far right in eastern Germany, but his biggest test as chancellor — and of his grip over his own party — may still lie ahead.

The Alternative for Germany is pushing to deliver its biggest blow yet to the chancellor’s weakened coalition government by installing the country’s first far-right state premier since World War II in the eastern state of Saxony-Anhalt when lawmakers vote on the post in December.

Merz’s fellow Christian Democrats in Berlin fear regional members of their own party will help the AfD do this, creating a nightmare scenario for the chancellor. That concern stems from accusations that a group of Saxony-Anhalt conservatives already broke ranks by voting in a secret ballot for the AfD’s candidate for state speaker earlier this month, outraging national conservative leaders.

“The behavior of the CDU parliamentary group in Saxony-Anhalt with regard to past and upcoming elections is completely unacceptable,” Thomas Röwekamp, a CDU lawmaker who chairs the Bundestag’s defense committee, said. The AfD “wants to annihilate the CDU in Germany” by “forcing us into a debate about how to deal with it in order to divide the party,” he added. “We must not allow that to happen.”

Under pressure from conservatives in Berlin, Saxony-Anhalt CDU leader Sven Schulze announced a plan last week to have his party’s lawmakers leave the chamber during the initial two rounds of secret voting in December, ensuring none can vote for the far-right candidate — or be suspected of doing so. It’s unclear what the party would do in a potential third round, when the AfD would only need a majority of votes cast.

AfD leaders have openly said they are seeking defections from conservative ranks, a strategy designed as much to sow division among conservatives as to win the premiership. That approach seems to be working, at least partly.

State conservatives have faced intense criticism for appearing so divided and vulnerable to aiding the AfD that their leaders apparently have no choice but to avoid the vote altogether. “It’s about taking a stand and assuming responsibility, rather than shirking a decision,” Röwekamp said.

Local CDU lawmakers, however, say their approach is tactically necessary.  “We have always drawn a clear line between ourselves and the AfD,” CDU state lawmaker Chris Schulenburg said. “We adhere to the principle of distinguishing ourselves on the basis of substance, but not excluding them [the AfD], because, after all, the party is not currently banned, and its parliamentarians were also democratically elected.”

AfD leaders, meanwhile, have rejoiced in the CDU’s disarray.

“This is nothing less than the CDU’s capitulation,” AfD national co-leader Tino Chrupalla said after the state conservatives announced their plan to leave the chamber. “They’re afraid of elections.”

Centrists flirting with radicals

For Merz, whose approval ratings are at historic lows, his party’s conduct in Saxony-Anhalt — and the prospect of a politically explosive AfD victory in December — are complicating efforts to move past last month’s humiliating election losses in eastern Germany and project renewed control as he attempts to focus on core priorities: backing Ukraine and reviving the economy.

Already, center-left lawmakers have attacked parts of Merz’s party as having failed to learn the lessons of Germany’s history, drawing parallels with the Nazis’ rise to power with conservative help.

After local conservative lawmakers appeared to back the AfD’s candidate for the Saxony-Anhalt speaker earlier this month, Social Democratic Party (SPD) lawmakers in Berlin marched in protest past the Brandenburg Gate to a square where the Nazis carried out book burnings. SPD Defense Minister Boris Pistorius sang the national anthem and called the episode the breaking of a taboo that “we haven’t seen in this form for more than 90 years.”

Conservative lawmakers have retorted in recent weeks by attacking the SPD and Greens for letting their Berlin branches enter coalition talks with the Left — a far-left party rooted in the East German communist party— which won first in the city in last month’s election.

But for Merz and his coalition government, the stakes of the December vote in Saxony-Anhalt are far greater.

How the December vote will unfold remains highly unpredictable. Ultimately, the AfD’s candidate for the premiership, Ulrich Siegmund, could win the post with support from Alliance Sahra Wagenknecht, a small, populist-left party that has expressed openness to working with the AfD and shares its Kremlin-friendly views.

Merz is clearly alarmed by the prospect of CDU lawmakers covertly assisting the AfD — an outcome that could trigger his chancellorship’s greatest political crisis yet.

“People who do things like that — members of parliament who extend a hand — there is no place in the CDU for such a choice, and that will not change,” Merz said earlier this month. “The CDU will never elect extremists to public office or government positions anywhere in Germany.”

The jailed former leader of Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party, Jeffrey Donaldson, is facing a new allegation that he raped a woman inside the DUP’s Westminster offices in 2016.

Donaldson, who last week received a 15-year prison sentence for sexually assaulting two girls, is serving his punishment in an isolated wing for sex offenders in Northern Ireland’s Maghaberry Prison. Donaldson — who is tentatively scheduled for release by 2033 after serving half of his sentence — is appealing his conviction on 18 counts, including one of rape.

The Metropolitan Police in London said Wednesday it has opened its own investigation after receiving an evidence file from Police Service of Northern Ireland detectives, who interviewed the woman on October 13.

The Met’s statement specified the case as “an allegation of rape” and identified the suspect only as “a man now aged 63,” in keeping with English legal practice that suspects are not named unless charged.

“The allegation relates to one victim who is being supported by specialist officers,” the force said. “The investigation is in its early stages. No arrests have been made and enquiries are ongoing.”

The 2016 allegations against Donaldson first surfaced in July when the Belfast Telegraph reported an interview with a woman who claimed Donaldson had plied her with vodka shots inside the DUP’s parliamentary offices in London, before trying to kiss her and put his hand up her skirt.

The Belfast Telegraph reported that Donaldson had given the woman a tour of the Houses of Parliament, introduced her to senior MPs and lords, and taken her to dinner inside the MPs’ dining room before the alleged assault.

LONDON — Water firms and campaigners are set to wait until next year to see the full details of Andy Burnham’s plans to overhaul the sector in England.

Britain’s new prime minister has promised greater “public control” of the water industry as a centerpiece of his domestic agenda, partly reversing a wave of privatization that began in the 1980s. Ministers are due to unveil more detail in a “10-year plan for Britain” that is currently expected in December.

However, while this 10-year plan will contain a high-level vision, priorities and principles for the industry’s future, much of the granular detail of how future ownership models will work in practice is only expected later, said two people with knowledge of the discussions.

Some of these key details will be laid out in Chancellor John Healey’s multi-year spending review at some point in 2027, added the two people, who were granted anonymity to discuss evolving policy. One said the spending review — a date for which has not been decided — was where the full details would be “nailed down.”

These include any fiscal implications for the Treasury, which could have to find billions of pounds if ministers decided to transfer privately-owned shares to the public purse.

This appears to mirror an approach Burnham has taken to policymaking for decades, first as a Cabinet minister and then mayor of Greater Manchester before he took over 10 Downing Street in July. He is known for setting out a broad direction which his officials can later use to pin down detailed policy, while also seeking buy-in from private industry.

With a general election due by summer 2029, however, any wait will compress the prime minister’s window to enact far-reaching reform before he goes back to the electorate.

‘£40 being added to every single water bill’

England’s privatized water firms also argue that uncertainty over the sector’s future is damaging investor confidence.

The industry trade association Water UK has said the entire industry risks being downgraded by the credit ratings agency Moody’s, which would add £40 to customers’ annual bills.

Water UK Chief Executive David Henderson urged the government to move ahead with reforms suggested last year by former Bank of England Deputy Governor Jon Cunliffe, before ministers decide the overall path of how the sector is owned.

The Cunliffe report “was given to the government 15 months ago and the credit rating agencies are watching,” Henderson told POLITICO. “If the government doesn’t pretty soon decide what it wants to do with that report, then we risk a downgrade, as Moody’s has indicated. And if there’s a downgrade, that would sadly see £40 being added to every single water bill across England and Wales. That’s the last thing anybody wants.”

He added: “We still have no idea how [a proposed] new regulator will look, what status it will have, what its duties will be, which parts of the Environment Agency will stay in the Environment Agency, and which parts will go into the new regulator. That is causing uncertainty … an important consideration for any investor.”

One government official insisted the 10-year plan would contain some finer details of plans to overhaul the water industry, though they accepted that fiscal implications were always dealt with in fiscal events such as the spending review. 

Environment Secretary Angela Eagle is also due to bring a water bill to parliament before Christmas with separate policy, such as closing what Burnham has called “loopholes used to pay excessive bonuses” to water company executives. It will also contain scrutiny powers for regional mayors.

Burnham announced last month that the bill would lift a ban on the government owning more than 3% of shares in any English water firm. But he has also long made clear that he would not fully nationalize the industry, a move the government previously estimated would cost £100 billion for England and Wales together.

First Secretary of State Louise Haigh, one of Burnham’s most powerful allies in government, is leading three task forces including one on public control of water alongside housing, energy and transport.

Officials have been working through a “spectrum of options” for how public control in the water sector will look, a second government official said. They added that ministers are due to begin deciding which option — or combination of options — will be taken forward before the 10-year plan.

STRASBOURG — Officials acting on behalf of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office searched the offices of staff of the far-right Patriots group in the European Parliament on Wednesday morning.

The searches are part of an investigation into allegations that the now-defunct Identity and Democracy group mismanaged EU funds. In 2025, the Parliament’s finance department found that ID misspent €4.3 million between 2019 and 2024 in irregular donations and public tenders. The EPPO, which investigates financial crimes involving the EU budget, opened a probe based on the Parliament’s reports. 

“Since this morning, searches have been underway at the European Parliament in Strasbourg — where we are currently located — targeting the offices of staff members of the former Identity and Democracy Group,” said France’s National Rally chief in the Parliament, Jean-Paul Garraud. 

The EPPO confirmed it carried out searches in the Parliament’s buildings in France and Belgium “as part of an ongoing investigation into the use of European funds by a former political group in the European Parliament.”

The searches took place at the group’s secretariat offices, according to two officials, granted anonymity to speak about the ongoing investigation.

When ID dissolved in 2024, many of its staff moved to the Patriots, including lawmakers from France’s National Rally, Austria’s Freedom Party, Hungary’s Fidesz, Spain’s Vox, Belgium’s Flemish Interest and Czechia’s ANO 2011.

In their statement, the group insisted “there is no legal continuity with the ID Group” and that “it is not involved in the ongoing investigations.”

The allegations of mismanagement of funds relate to the budget allocated annually by the Parliament for political groups to spend on administrative and operative costs. EPPO is probing whether ID made irregular donations to regional organizations in several EU countries, and whether the group breached tender rules in contracts awarded to companies friendly to the group.

In 2025, the finance department ordered the Patriots to give back €276,967 in EU funds it says the group misused during the second half of 2024, related to similar irregular tender procedures.

“As always when requested Parliament cooperates with relevant authorities — we don’t have additional comment,” a Parliament spokesperson said via a text message.

This story was updated.

BRUSSELS — Center-right lawmakers in the European Parliament are intensifying efforts to weaken two EU climate laws, a campaign that could undermine the bloc’s push to cut planet-warming emissions.

The European People’s Party, the largest group in Parliament, will this week push for a three-year delay to rules on emissions of the climate pollutant methane, a change the fossil fuel sector and the U.S. government have lobbied hard for.

A growing number of EPP lawmakers now also want to delay — or scrap altogether — a new carbon price on transport and heating, known as ETS2, according to a document obtained by POLITICO. That puts them in line with several EU member countries, including Italy and Poland, which pushed for a delay to the new carbon price at a meeting of EU leaders in Brussels last week.

Both policies are central pillars in the EU’s effort to reduce its planet-warming emissions. A successful repeal of ETS2 in particular would be a blow to EU climate goals, as it covers around 40% of the bloc’s greenhouse gas emissions.

But it would also be a major victory for conservative and pro-business lawmakers and national governments that have been campaigning for less stringent EU climate laws in the name of industrial competitiveness.

Ax the tax

The EU Emissions Trading System, launched in 2005, requires power plants and factories in sectors like steel, chemicals and cement to acquire carbon allowances for every ton of carbon they emit. The total number of allowances is reduced each year, eventually reaching zero.

ETS2 applies the same idea to suppliers of fuel for transport and heating from 2028.

The cap-and-trade scheme will be a powerful tool for reducing emissions from these highly polluting activities. But many policymakers worry it will raise the cost of gasoline, diesel and natural gas and add to voters’ cost-of-living pressures.

Nine national delegations of the EPP — the Polish, Spanish, Italian, French, Romanian, Croatian, Slovenian, Slovak and Estonian — are now calling for ETS2 to be repealed, according to draft amendments obtained by POLITICO. “ETS2 should be deleted,” the amendment, sponsored by Polish EPP lawmaker Adam Jarubas, argues.

Another amendment in the same draft, backed by 10 national delegations, takes a softer approach and asks for ETS2 to be “postponed until 2031.”

EU legislators are already reviewing a proposed reform of the EU’s original Emissions Trading System, which makes amending ETS2 — which is contained in the same legislation as the first ETS — much simpler.

No majority in Parliament or among member countries currently supports delaying or repealing ETS2, but a string of elections next year raises the likelihood that more right-wing governments will be in power before ETS2 comes into force, adding momentum to the push to scrap or delay it.

Methane delay

Last week, the European Commission, the EU’s executive arm, proposed a year-long delay to rules that will require oil and gas importers to monitor, report, and eventually reduce emissions of the potent greenhouse gas.

The delay — which affects monitoring requirements and later obligations on methane intensity — followed months of lobbying from industry and member countries, which claimed the Commission provided insufficient clarity on how to comply. The U.S. government also pushed to delay the rules, which are currently due to come into force on Jan. 1, 2027.

But the proposed delay requires support from both governments and lawmakers, some of whom want to go well beyond the Commission’s revised timeline.

On Tuesday, European lawmakers voted to fast-track parliamentary discussions around the Commission’s proposed delay, laying the groundwork for a fresh vote Thursday. At that vote, the EPP is expected to campaign for a three-year delay of the rules, as well as possible further adjustments, according to one lawmaker familiar with the matter.

Dimitris Tsiodras, a European lawmaker, echoed industry concerns that compliance risks could deter cargoes from Europe if left unaddressed. “We cannot afford to put our energy supplies at further risk,” he told lawmakers.

Right-wingers against the rules will still face opposition from left-leaning lawmakers. Jutta Paulus, a German Greens lawmaker who steered the parliament’s position on the legislation in 2024, announced on Tuesday that her party would table an amendment to reject the delay altogether.

However, the EPP could reach an outright majority if it joined with right-wing and far-right groups.

The party is already exploring a deal with those groups if the Socialists and Democrats — the Parliament’s second-largest group — don’t cooperate with its push for a longer postponement, according to two people familiar with the matter. S&D lawmakers opposed extending the delay earlier this month, but a group spokesperson said the party has yet to adopt a formal position in negotiations.

A parliamentary push for a three-year delay could also invigorate member countries’ efforts to delay the rules further.

Member countries are currently divided, though many, including heavyweight France, support the one-year delay proposed by Brussels, according to two diplomats briefed on the matter.

Poland, Slovakia and Czechia, meanwhile, would prefer a three-year delay, but their luck in campaigning for an extension may depend on where Germany lands, the people said. Berlin is currently split between its socialist-controlled environment ministry and its center-right-controlled energy ministry, leaving countries uncertain whether they can formulate a joint position tomorrow, they added.

Italy is also trying to decide whether to opt for one year or more, two diplomats familiar with the matter said.

PARIS — Looting and rioting across France over the weekend are threatening to reshape the contours of the French presidential race.

Far-right front-runner Marine Le Pen is seizing on the crisis to cast herself as the candidate of law and order, but there are risks for her too. Many voters see her as a highly divisive leader whose 2027 victory would only deepen the societal fault lines exposed by the riots.

Far-left firebrand Jean-Luc Mélenchon, widely tipped to challenge Le Pen in the second round next year, is also treading carefully as rivals accuse him of encouraging the rage on the streets that has morphed into pillaging and arson.

For the flailing centrists, there is now an opportunity to finally make an impression in the contest — but only if they can distance themselves from President Emmanuel Macron, who is seen as fluffing his response to the nationwide wave of vandalism.

Overall, it’s pushing the election into uncharted waters.

“If there’s a real crisis, you don’t know where it could lead,” said one conservative who holds regular talks with officials from the far-right National Rally and was granted anonymity to discuss the subject.

Where does that leave the candidates? POLITICO takes a look at the strategic calculus for the leading runners across the political spectrum.

Marine Le Pen, on the up

Le Pen is receiving an immediate boost. Even her rivals admit it.

This Saturday’s unrest “benefits the far right,” said center-right European Member of Parliament Nathalie Loiseau. “They are circling around the violence like vultures,” she said in an interview.

Le Pen has already cast herself as the alternative president, delivering a sober address to the nation Sunday and pitching herself as the candidate of a “pacified France.”

Jordan Bardella, president of her National Rally party, upped the ante on the protests and pitched his party as the only one able to restore order, dialing up fears about the pillaging. The rioters “will soon be breaking into people’s homes,” he said at a press conference in Paris. “The authorities are collapsing.”

But excessive, prolonged chaos could backfire on a party long seen as instigating civil unrest. And the topic is already becoming a talking point inside the National Rally.

“Some say that this shows that there will be riots if the National Rally comes to power,” said Charles-Henri Gallois, one of Bardella’s advisers. “But I don’t believe it.”

According to the conservative quoted above, periods of instability can lead the French to turn their backs on anti-establishment figures and prefer traditional veterans.

“You could end up with [Charles] De Gaulle on the Champs-Elysées,” the official said, referring to how the first president of the Fifth Republic emerged with extra powers after the 1958 crisis that roiled the nation.

Jean-Luc Mélenchon, on the defensive

Far-left leader Mélenchon is in a bind as he walks a tightrope between supporting protesters and distancing himself from violence.

The France Unbowed party supported the school protests in the run-up to last weekend’s riots, and far-left elected officials have played a prominent role in the blockades, either in decrying alleged police violence or in support of the protesters.

In the battle for leadership between Mélenchon and center-left MEP Raphaël Glucksmann, the former grabbed the limelight.

But the violence this weekend could end up marginalizing the far left, especially with the government and political rivals accusing them of fueling the unrest. “They tried to aggravate the situation,” Loiseau said.

According to a poll from Cluster 17 for POLITICO, the 75-year-old far-left firebrand is already one of the most commonly “rejected” politicians in France.

On Monday, Mélenchon tried to turn the tables, firing back at the government, saying the prime minister was fomenting “disorder” with his accusations that ultra-left groups were trying to disrupt the election.

Edouard Philippe, looking for a reset

For the center-right presidential hopeful Philippe, the riots aren’t good news either. He has to work hard to distance himself from his old boss, President Emmanuel Macron, who is seen as failing to respond sufficiently to the crisis. (Philippe was Macron’s first prime minister.)

But the protests could also be his opportunity to show some character, and rebut critics who think his campaign lacks energy and panache. Philippe, the best-placed centrist candidate to beat the far-right, has seen his poll ratings stall in recent months and has struggled to cut through the campaign noise.

A break with Macron might just be what he needs.

Philippe came out hard against the president after he failed to announce any measures during his primetime television address Sunday. “I would have preferred… decisions and initiatives to restore order,” he wrote online. “This country needs someone in command.”

But the former PM will need to stick his neck out more if he’s going to make an impact.

“He’s very presidential, and it’s a posture that suits him,” said one of Macron’s ministers, who, like others cited here, was granted anonymity to speak candidly.

“But he’s not saying anything. What’s his measure? Why doesn’t he say we need to call a state of emergency? “

Raphaël Glucksmann, on the offensive

For the MEP Raphaël Glucksmann, the protests are a trial by fire after he won the Socialist Party primary contest earlier this month and became the center-left’s presidential candidate.

On Monday, Glucksmann tried to strike a very different note from Mélenchon, telling reporters that “it’s unbearable … that hordes of looters should attack symbols of the state.”

Sensing a chink in the far-left leader’s armor, he accused the leader of France Unbowed of being “a springboard” for Le Pen, who would be “the beneficiary of the chaos.”

Glucksmann has seen his poll ratings go up since he won the Socialist Party primary outright, reaching 15% to 16.5% according to a recent Elabe poll — in a similar territory to Mélenchon and Philippe.

But the minister quoted above expected Glucksmann to peak soon.

“He can only take voters away from Mélenchon,” the minister said. “A left-wing voter may vote for the right, but a right-wing voter won’t vote for the left anytime soon,” the person said.

Emmanuel Macron, on the skids

Macron is being roasted for going on television to address the nation and announce … absolutely nothing.

On Sunday, Macron promised that rioters who “destroyed” things would have to pay the price and called for “clear answers” on why the protests turned violent.

“Fucking hell, it’s rubbish,” said one former senior government official.

Macron has cultivated an image of being above the fray and went on a trip to the Middle East on Monday. But his failure to respond to the violence risks damaging his final months in power. “It’s out of touch,” a regional official said.

According to the minister quoted above, Macron should have let his prime minister do the talking but instead was encouraged to make “a speech to calm” the situation.

On Monday, Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu tried to get a grip on the situation, announcing localized curfews, movement restrictions, and bans on public demonstrations.

But another day of demonstrations has already been announced for next Saturday, sparking fears the protests will snowball into sustained protests similar to the Yellow Vests movement in 2018 and 2019.

If so, this chaos will be a defining element of the 2027 campaign.

ABERDEEN — The SNP-led Scottish government is set to drop its long-standing opposition to new oil and gas exploration in the North Sea.

Two senior members of the Scottish government — granted anonymity to discuss a strategy not yet ready for publication — told POLITICO the government will revise its energy plans to take a more pro-oil and gas exploration position.

Tests on compatibility with the government’s climate targets will remain, but Scotland will no longer begin from a position of opposition to new oil and gas projects. The move marks a major change in the Scottish government’s energy policy.

The Scottish government — led by the SNP since 2007 — released a draft energy strategy in 2023 which set out its “presumption against” new oil and gas fields in the North Sea.

That draft strategy is “out of date,” one senior Scottish government official said. They said a new strategy, expected by the summer, will not contain this wording. A second person with knowledge of the policy said the new strategy will “reflect the world as it is.”

The shift in policy comes with the U.K. government widely expected to give the go-ahead to the Jackdaw gas field next week.

While the Scottish government has little power over the granting of new licenses for projects such as Jackdaw or the Rosebank oil field — where a decision is expected to come separately and at a later date — it has an important symbolic role, and can apply pressure to the U.K. government to approve licenses. 

SNP politicians at the party’s conference in Aberdeen privately admitted the stance on Jackdaw has hurt the party electorally. 

The party passed a resolution at its conference Friday which stated that the “utilisation of domestic production” of oil and gas is “clearly preferable to importation”. This was seen as a further softening of the position of the SNP — which governed in a quasi-coalition with the anti-exploration Scottish Greens until as recently as 2004.

This resolution, which changes the party’s official policy, will be used as the government writes its new energy strategy, the two people quoted above said.

In the summer, the SNP lost a key parliamentary by-election in Aberdeen to the pro-drilling Conservative Party, where their North Sea messaging was a key focus. “It was bruising ,” the official quoted above said. “But we’d been shifting our position for a while.” 

Speaking in the debate at the party’s conference Friday, the defeated SNP candidate in that by-election said the victorious Conservatives had hung the words ‘presumption against’ around “our necks lie an albatross.”

”We need to put to bed any suggestion that our party, or our government, supports a ‘presumption against’,” Richard Thomson said. 

BRUSSELS — EU leaders will go back to the drawing board in November as they race to finalize a deal on the bloc’s next seven-year budget by the end of the year.

During the first day of a two-day summit in Brussels on Thursday, European Council President António Costa announced he was convening an additional gathering on Nov. 26 in a bid to overcome disagreements and lay the ground for a final deal in December. To bring the sides closer to an agreement, he will present new budget figures before the meeting, according to an EU official, who was granted anonymity to discuss the confidential planning.

Costa is pressing leaders to finalize negotiations by the end of the year — before elections in France, Italy and Poland in 2027 threaten to derail the talks.

In a speech to the leaders, Costa warned that going past the end-of-year deadline will delay EU payments to farmers and researchers past Jan. 1, 2028, when the new budget is scheduled to come into force.

If leaders fail to reach a deal in December, the electoral calendar might push an agreement to May or even October 2027, Costa warned leaders in his concluding remarks, according to two EU diplomats briefed on the discussions.

Pressure on governments

Costa’s plan received a major boost on Thursday from French President Emmanuel Macron, who told fellow leaders that he won’t have a political mandate to sign a deal close to the French presidential elections in April 2027.

This is a major reversal for France, which has previously been unwilling to commit to the end-of-year deadline.

Macron’s words put more pressure on governments to advance the talks over the coming weeks — although some cast doubt on his good intentions.

“There are so many elections next year. [French far-right leader Marine] Le Pen herself [said] it’s undemocratic if we were now to agree,” said one EU diplomat.

Just hours before the leaders’ gathering, Le Pen renewed calls to halve France’s contributions to the EU budget if she wins the presidential elections next year.

She said that rushing the budget agreement before the French elections would be “a democratic scandal.”

The new frugal

Costa is stuck between messy domestic politics across Europe and hardening stances among the EU’s 27 leaders.

The so-called frugal EU countries pushing for major budget cuts — Germany, Netherlands, Austria, Sweden, Denmark and Finland — have publicly said that an Irish proposal envisioning €159 billion cuts doesn’t go far enough.

On Thursday, the six hardliners were joined by Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever, who joked in a press conference after the summit that “I’m married to a Dutch person so I’m very frugal also in my personal life.”

However, behind closed doors the budget hardliners employed a more conciliatory tone.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz — the unofficial leader of the frugal camp — said that the Irish proposal has achieved progress despite reductions still being needed, said two EU diplomats briefed on the discussions.

He pointed to EU payouts to poorer regions, as opposed to farmer’s subsidies, as an avenue for cuts.

On the other side of the spectrum, Spanish Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez — who will try to cling on to power in an election on Nov. 29 — insisted that the budget is way too small.

“It is a distribution of misery,” he told fellow leaders during the discussions, according to the diplomats. He was joined by Italy’s right-wing Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni — an ideological foe on most issues, but an ally of sorts in the budget battle. She insisted that no further cuts to the budget will be accepted.

To bring sides together closer to a deal, Costa promised to advance progress on EU-wide taxes, or own resources, to finance the next seven-year budget and reduce national contributions.  

He will explore the European Parliament’s proposed taxes on crypto firms, online gambling and tech giants as well as a Greek idea to funnel future national sales of 6G mobile spectrum to the EU budget.

But given the level of opposition, getting EU countries to agree to any of these options will no be no mean feat.

“It is time to be realistic and work on what is plausible and reasonable, instead of wishful thinking,” said another EU diplomat.

TIRANA — Student demonstrations in Tirana spiraled out of control Wednesday as protesters clashed with police for over 10 hours, setting buildings on fire, entering government institutions and looting.

While Albania has seen daily protests since the end of May over opposition to a Jared Kushner-linked resort in the south of the country, on Tuesday, students took to the streets over conditions in universities and dorms, the cost of living, and grievances over governance.

“The right to peaceful protest is a foundation of democracy and the state’s obligation to guarantee it. But violence cannot be a means of expressing dissatisfaction, nor should the use of force by the police exceed the limits of the law and proportionality,” President Bajram Begaj said in a public statement Wednesday. He called for the youth to engage in dialogue with him.

Starting outside the Ministry of Education on Wednesday morning, masked individuals threw stones, paving slabs, bottles and improvised pyrotechnics at the institution. They ripped up metal railings from the side of the road and used them to batter the iron gates of the building. After several hours, police with batons, tear gas guns, water cannons, and riot gear moved in, forcibly removing protesters and citizens from the vicinity.

Over the following hours, the situation escalated further as protestors set fire to benches, trees, and several buildings. They breached the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Justice, and the Ministry of Finance, damaged several private businesses and billboards, then moved to the main boulevard and encircled the prime minister’s office. They later broke into shopping centers and banks.

Economy Minister Delina Ibrahimaj condemned the “burning and destruction of institutional premises,” calling them “unacceptable acts.”

As of Wednesday evening, at least 40 demonstrators had been arrested and dozens of injuries had been reported by protestors, civilians, and the police. Several journalists reported being prevented from conducting their work by police who physically blocked them or seized their equipment. On Tuesday evening, one young man had his legs broken and required emergency surgery following an altercation with police.

The situation remains tense as protestors, mostly in masks, and police continue to battle it out on the city’s main boulevard, home to several parliament buildings, the president’s office, and the prime minister’s office.

The U.S. Embassy in Tirana warned its citizens to be vigilant and avoid areas impacted by the protest, noting that it could spread. Explosions and sirens continue to be heard throughout the city center on Wednesday evening.

Meanwhile, the delegation of the European Union to Albania stated it has taken note of allegations of excessive violence by police against protestors and journalists and expects the police to prioritize full investigations. The EU delegation also called for de-escalation from both sides.

LONDON — Andy Burnham appeared to rule out cooperating with the Green Party on Wednesday, after the left-wing force passed a motion declaring that Zionism is a form of racism.

At prime minister’s questions in the House of Commons, Burnham condemned the motion approved at the Greens’ annual conference earlier this month, which defines Zionism as supporting “an ethnonationalist Jewish state.” Party members also backed a “single democratic Palestinian state in all of historic Palestine.”

Asked by Conservative Shadow Paymaster General Harriett Baldwin if he would rule out cooperating with the Greens, Burnham said: “We will always take the right response when it comes to any partnerships we have with other parties. We cannot support a partnership with a party that holds a position that has recently been adopted.”

On the motion, he said: “It is wrong. It is antisemitic, and this side of the house will have nothing to do with it.”

Burnham currently has a House of Commons majority, but a seat model by YouGov published last month suggests Labour would be the largest party in a hung parliament at the next general election — not due until the middle of 2029.

The Greens currently have five MPs in the Commons after winning their first by-election in Greater Manchester from Labour in February. Zack Polanski, the Green Party leader, failed to take the Holborn and St Pancras constituency from Labour in a by-election early this month, days after the party conference motion was passed.

A Labour party official was unable to immediately clarify what Burnham’s stance means for local government partnerships between Labour and the Greens.

Polanski said he wouldn’t have supported the motion but did not vote because he was campaigning in the contest. Senior party figures, including former leaders Caroline Lucas and Adrian Ramsay and Westminster leader Ellie Chowns, opposed the motion. Co-Deputy Leader Mothin Ali supported the motion.

In a joint statement after the vote, Polanski, the co-deputy leaders and party MPs said the Green Party “will never tolerate any form of discrimination or harassment.” It said, “there is no conflict between supporting the rights of Palestinians and the rights of Jewish people.”