PARIS — France took a major step toward legalizing assisted dying on Tuesday as a majority of members of parliament voted in favor of landmark legislation. In the French lower house — the National Assembly — 305 MPs voted to pass a bill granting “a right to assistance in dying for adult patients afflicted with a serious illness who have requested it,” while 199 voted against. France joins a growing list of Western European countries that are moving toward enabling people to end their lives under strict conditions. Those who oppose assisted dying warn such laws can endanger vulnerable people, especially young people and those with mental health conditions. The French bill includes several safeguards to prevent such outcomes. To be eligible, patients must be over 18 and either French nationals or permanent residents. They must also have a “serious and incurable” illness that is both life-threatening and has reached an “advanced” or “terminal” stage. Meanwhile, their suffering — whether physical or psychological — must be considered “unbearable” or “resistant to treatment.” Patients must be capable of giving informed consent, and must self-administer the lethal medication, unless unable to do so. The final call is to be made by each patient’s doctor. The legislation requires that doctors consult with at least one other medical professional who specializes in the patient’s pathology, as well as with a health care worker who was involved in the person’s care. Assisted dying is already legal in various forms in Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain and Switzerland. In the U.K., British MPs voted in favor of legalization in November, and the legislation is currently nearing its final phase. The French bill will now be debated in the Senate, which is controlled by a conservative majority that could seek to amend or remove several provisions. If the parliamentary process fails to produce an agreement between the two chambers, President Emmanuel Macron — who promised the legislation during his 2022 campaign — has suggested the issue could be put to the public via a referendum, although constitutional experts have questioned the legality of such a move. French lawmakers also unanimously green-lit a separate bill to improve palliative care in France.

LONDON — Oh to be a fly on the wall.  Prime Minister Keir Starmer will meet Donald Trump on Thursday for the first time since the U.S. president returned to the White House. Neither of them will forget the meeting — for the right or wrong reasons. Although Starmer wasn’t the first European leader to bag time with Trump, the U.K. has prided itself on its so-called special relationship with its ally on the other side of the Atlantic. But the feeling hasn’t always been entirely mutual. On numerous occasions the duo haven’t seen eye to eye, leading to some, well, awkward encounters. The PM has engaged in a vigorous charm offensive since Trump’s Nov. 5 victory, speedily congratulating him after meeting him for the first time in September for dinner at Trump Tower. Since then, the unlikely pairing — the buttoned-up British PM and the flamboyant U.S. real estate tycoon-turned-politician — have spoken regularly, with Trump stating Starmer was doing a “very good job.”  Conversation will be dominated by the war in Ukraine as Starmer tries to convince the president that U.S. security guarantees are essential for any peace deal to work — and that Kyiv and Europe must be part of those negotiations. But keeping the relationship on track is easier said than done. POLITICO takes you through five occasions that both nations would rather forget and that, temporarily at least, sent the special relationship into a spiral. TRUMP AND MAY GO DOWNHILL  It would be difficult to find two more different characters than Trump and Theresa May (apart from, say, Trump and Starmer). In any other walk of life, their paths would never have crossed. They were brought together in January 2017 when May became the first foreign leader to meet the U.S. president after his inauguration. While they talked tough on NATO, the visit was best remembered for the duo linking arms as Trump navigated a White House slope. Despite their close proximity, the relationship never recovered.  When Trump visited this side of the pond, he slammed May’s strategy on Brexit, leading to revelations he’d told her to sue the EU (yes, really). Upon learning May got paid more than £100,000 to deliver speeches after being PM, Trump fulminated: “I’d pay £100,000 not to hear her talk!” Charming. OBAMA AND BROWN EXCHANGE GIFTS Exchanging presents with a friend is never a bad idea — unless the gifts differ dramatically in value. Barack Obama and Gordon Brown experienced that very plight in 2009 when the Labour prime minister got the brand-new U.S. president an ornamental pen holder made from the timbers of a Victorian anti-slave ship, a framed commission for HMS Resolute, and a first edition of the seven-volume biography of Winston Churchill by historian Martin Gilbert.  By contrast, the Obamas got the Browns a box set of 25 American DVDs including “Raging Bull,” “Psycho” and “The Grapes of Wrath” — after which the metaphors for Brown’s political predicament wrote themselves. Barack Obama and Gordon Brown experienced that very plight in 2009 when the Labour prime minister got the brand-new U.S. president an ornamental pen holder. | Anthony Devlin/Getty Images Their previous encounter wasn’t much better: After a brief press conference, Brown wasn’t invited to Camp David, and the traditional side-by-side photo op in front of the two nations’ flags was skipped altogether. Later that year Obama turned down no fewer than five requests from Downing Street for a bilateral meeting at the U.N. in New York. Eek. BUSH AND BROWN GO ROUND IN CIRCLES  When Tony Blair was in Downing Street he pledged to stand shoulder to shoulder with George W. Bush. Brown, Blair’s successor, didn’t have quite the same flair. His opening line on meeting Bush at Camp David was: “Do you come here quite a bit?” followed by a playful spin on Golf Cart One, where the PM didn’t appear to be living his best life.  After Brown left office, reports emerged that Bush’s White House had had “grave doubts” about Brown’s suitability to become PM after a difficult meeting with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice about U.S. policy on aid and development in Africa. Still, at least at their joint press conference in 2007, Bush called Brown “the humorous Scotsman” rather than “dour” or “awkward.” Take the compliments where you can get them. CLINTON AND MAJOR TRADE FIRE OVER CONTROVERSIAL VISA  When your BFF leaves office, working with the new kid on the block is always a challenge. Prime Minister John Major’s close allegiance to George H. W. Bush was mothballed after the latter lost the 1992 presidential election to Bill Clinton. Things were never quite the same. The duo fell out badly when Clinton granted then-Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams a 48-hour visa to speak at a Northern Ireland conference in New York. At the time, Sinn Féin was regarded as the political wing of the Provisional Irish Republican Army, with “the Troubles” over Northern Ireland’s future having killed thousands. Major also apologized to Clinton personally after the Home Office checked immigration files to see if he’d applied for U.K. citizenship while studying at the University of Oxford to avoid being drafted during the Vietnam War. While the story had no substance, the fact the Home Office did so without Clinton’s knowledge or approval was deeply embarrassing. No wonder Clinton and Blair looked like a match made in heaven when the latter entered Downing Street in 1997.  THATCHER AND CARTER FAIL TO GEL  Margaret Thatcher first came across Jimmy Carter as leader of the opposition in 1977 at Winfield House, the U.S. ambassador’s residence in Regent’s Park, though no record was kept of their conversation. Their second meeting, later that year in Washington, D.C., went badly wrong. Papers show that Carter took very badly to Thatcher, finding her hectoring and dogmatic, and instructed staff never again to schedule a meeting with an opposition leader. On the plus side, relations thawed slightly after Thatcher entered No. 10 as the pair supported each other over the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan and Iran’s taking dozens of American diplomats and citizens hostage at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran — a common enemy clearly helping ties a great deal. However, their relationship never matched Thatcher’s dealings with Carter’s successor Ronald Reagan. United on the Cold War and economic policy, it was perhaps the best embodiment of the special relationship — and a nearly impossible act to follow.

Europe’s capitals have supported Brussels’ plan to extend smoking bans for cigarettes and vapes to outdoor areas — days after members of the European Parliament opposed it. Only two countries — Germany and Greece — abstained during a vote on the measure during a meeting of health ministers in Brussels on Tuesday. Other countries expressed their dissatisfaction with the plan, before nonetheless passing it. The move, which is nonbinding, encourages national governments to prohibit vaping and smoking in outdoor areas such as transport hubs, bar and café terraces, beaches and playgrounds. And while there was significant opposition to the plan among lawmakers last week in Europe’s now more polarized Parliament, the capitals were able to largely align with Brussels’ intention. To some who opposed it in the Parliament, the capitals’ vote is merely symbolic. “I regret the voting outcome in the Health Council regarding the smoke-free environment topic,” said German lawmaker and doctor Peter Liese, “but I also believe it is a Pyrrhic victory for the opponents of e-cigarettes.” Liese, the health spokesperson for the European People’s Party, argues that vapes and cigarettes should not be treated equally, and that vapes can help smokers to quit. In the Parliament, left-leaning MEPs had argued that a watered-down compromise steered by the center-right EPP and the European Conservatives and Reformists was too weak on vapes, while right-wing parliamentarians said that the European Union shouldn’t be legislating in this area. UNLIKELY DEFENSE Some national media reports on the move led to an unlikely defender of the EU process in Tuesday’s health ministers’ meeting — Hungary. Its Health Minister Péter Takács, who chaired the meeting while Hungary holds the Council of the EU’s rotating presidency, said: “In many member states’ press we see some misunderstandings. This is a Council recommendation which means that there is no binding effect for member states.” Countries can “pick and choose” if they want to implement the recommendation, he said, adding: “There is no obligatory ban,” in this instance — unlike binding tobacco legislation which the European Commission is supposed to be introducing during this new mandate.  Hungary’s Olivér Várhelyi, also toed the Commission’s line in his first ministers’ meeting as the EU’s health commissioner. He said the revision was needed “in order to better protect people in the EU from exposure to secondhand smoke and aerosols in indoor and specific outdoor spaces.” “The World Health Organization clearly states that there is no safe or acceptable level of exposure to secondhand smoke,” he said. “Secondhand emissions from electronic cigarettes also put people nearby at risk, whether they contain nicotine or not.” But that’s not the position in Germany. Thomas Steffen, Germany’s state secretary at the Federal Ministry of Health, pointed to a decision made last week by the country’s Bundesrat, the legislative body representing its federal states. It questioned the “scientific basis” for outdoor bans and that the Commission’s recommendation could “lead to a loss of sales in the catering industry and poses further challenges for businesses in enforcing the bans.”  Greece’s Health Minister Spyridon-Adonis Georgiadis also abstained, saying the Commission should have done an impact assessment before putting forward the recommendation. He said that in Greece — which has the highest rates of smoking in Europe at 42 percent of those over 15 — the “climate and geographical location” would carry a “particular weight” in terms of implementing any new prohibitions. Health ministers from Romania and Czechia called for more studies to demonstrate the risks of vapes — but they went on to back the recommendation. ALIGNING NATIONAL BANS Many of the countries supporting the plan have already introduced similar legislation nationally — and want to see the rest of Europe aligned. France’s Health Minister Geneviève Darrieussecq said new measures being introduced in the coming weeks meant that vapes — which “lead to addictions and poor health” —  will no longer be sold in the country, and called for similar preventative action to be “reflected at European level.” Slovenia has banned all flavored vapes — except for tobacco flavor — while the Netherlands has also outlawed certain flavors. But with neighboring countries still selling them, the Dutch Health Minister Fleur Agema said the country is still seeing illegal products on the market and therefore called for more EU action. Belgium’s Health Minister Frank Vandenbroucke said countries are currently playing “cat and mouse” with the tobacco industry, which is “flooding” EU markets with “ever so creative new tobacco, nicotine or smoking products, cleverly attracting and addicting young generations.” While Estonia echoed calls for EU-wide restrictions, arguing that its own ban on flavored vapes is undermined by different legislation in neighboring countries. With the nonbinding measures passed, many countries — including Finland, Latvia and Belgium — now want the Commission to move ahead with its revision of harder-hitting tobacco rules, which will include updated laws on taxation, as well as a refresh of its overarching tobacco framework. But that means getting MEPs on side, which might not be so easy.

Passing smoking legislation will be no easy feat for the new European Commission, if Thursday is anything to go by. Members of the European Parliament failed to agree a position on even a nonbinding decision on smoking and vaping restrictions in a surprise move in the Parliament’s plenary. The Commission recommended earlier this year that European countries extend smoking bans to cover outdoor areas like restaurants, bars, cafés and transport hubs, and this included vapes and nicotine-free products. The first of a series of measures expected to come out from the European Union executive on the topic, the so-called smoke free environments plan is the softest of the lot, since it’s up to national governments if they want to follow the recommendations. The Parliament’s position is symbolic rather than political, but, nevertheless, lawmakers in Strasbourg failed to reach an agreement. A watered-down version of the Commission’s vision had been negotiated among some political groups, but failed to win enough support from lawmakers with 378 votes against, 152 in favour and 26 abstentions. That’s because new amendments supported by the center-right European People’s Party (EPP) members and European Conservative and Reformists, which removed references to e-cigarettes and outdoor cafés and bars, went too far for groups on the left. The Socialists and Democrats (S&D) rejected the plan, arguing that it was now too soft on vapes, while the far-right groups, and some EPP members, rejected it because they considered it too harsh, or because they don’t see it as an EU competence. DIVISIVE TOPIC Amendments to tweak the position also failed to gain enough support.  Peter Liese, a German lawmaker from the EPP, voted against the proposal, arguing that it’s still too strong on vapes, which he argues can be a legitimate alternative for smokers trying to quit. “I find it troubling that the Commission completely equates e-cigarettes with traditional cigarettes,” he said. “This is definitely wrong … a heavy smoker who switches from traditional cigarettes to e-cigarettes is doing something good for their health. Imposing restrictions, such as when visiting the outdoor areas of a café, might be counterproductive.” The World Health Organization’s position is that in countries that allow e-cigarettes, governments should ensure “strong regulations” to reduce their appeal and their harm to the population, including banning all flavors, limiting the concentration and quality of nicotine, and taxing them. Another EPP lawmaker, granted anonymity to speak freely, said: “It’s a divisive topic. We had a big discussion in the EPP and a big majority was in favor of being less restrictive than the original resolution, in that prohibiting electronic cigarettes in outdoor terraces was too much.” But the MEP said the watered-down proposal was still too strong for German and Austrian lawmakers in the group. The center-left S&D group took a different view. It said in a statement after the vote that Parliament “failed to protect children and young people today,” and blamed the EPP and far-right groups for blocking “critical recommendations” to extend public bans against e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products. As a result, the S&D group was “forced to vote against the watered-down resolution to preserve the integrity of smoke-free policies,” it said. Tiemo Wölken, S&D coordinator for the environment, public health and food safety committee said: “It is cynical and scandalous that the EPP does not want to combat the number one cause of cancer and instead falls for the tobacco lobby’s rhetoric that e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products are harmless.”  Michael Landl, director of the World Vapers’ Alliance, celebrated the vote, saying it “demonstrates that facts and consumer choice can prevail over fearmongering and overregulation, dealing a blow to the creeping nanny state mentality that has too often characterized EU regulations.” It raises questions for next week’s meeting of health ministers, who were expected to sign off on an agreement on the recommendation. So far, Italy and Romania have raised some concerns about the measure, according to a report from a pro-vaping outlet, but one Council health official had said before the Parliament vote that it was expected countries would find agreement when they meet on Dec. 3. The official said the vote wouldn’t affect the Council’s position next week on the plan but it does “raise concerns” on the revision of the tobacco products directive, upcoming legislation which will require support from all EU institutions when it’s ultimately released by the Commission. The Parliament’s outcome “is bad news,” the official added.

LONDON — MPs have voted by 330 to 275 in favor of a bill to legalize assisted dying in England and Wales for the first time. MPs backed the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, introduced by backbench Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, at second reading, meaning it will now continue through parliament for further scrutiny. The decision followed a packed five-hour debate in the House of Commons, where MPs made their choice in a free vote, meaning they did not have to vote on party lines. Introducing the bill, Leadbeater urged her colleagues to reflect on “the heartbreaking reality and human suffering which far too many people are experiencing as a result of the status quo.” She argued the legislation would give dying people choice, autonomy and dignity at the end of their lives. Danny Kruger, a Conservative MP and one of the most prominent critics of the bill, said MPs should not opt for “a vote for despair but the start of a proper debate about dying well in which we do better than a state suicide service.” At present, laws throughout the U.K. prevent people from receiving medical help to die. This is a live story which is being updated.

LONDON — Will Benjamin Netanyahu be arrested if he sets foot in the U.K.? The British government can’t quite say. The International Criminal Court warrant for the Israeli PM’s apprehension has thrown a fresh headache at Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer — and is just the latest example of the tightrope he’s walking on the Middle East. When it came to office in a July landslide, Starmer’s government — which had faced pressure in the election from pro-Gaza independent candidates — swiftly dropped objections from his Tory predecessors to the ICC’s move. It banned some arms exports to Israel. And it restored funding to the UNRWA, the U.N. refugee agency heavily criticised by Israel in the wake of the Oct. 7 attacks by Hamas. Yet in his stance on those issues, some pro-Palestinian critics on the left of Labour say Starmer has only revealed the sharp limits of British influence over Israel. At the same time, pro-Israel figures in the Labour tribe are concerned at what looks like wavering from a key ally at a time of pain. “We’ve taken the wrong direction,” said Leslie Turnberg, a member of the House of Lords and the Labour Friends of Israel group. “I fear that the signals that have been given do not sound very helpful. I think they’re perverse.” ‘PROPER PROCESS’ In its response to the ICC’s warrant, issued Thursday and already dividing Western governments, Starmer’s administration tried to walk a fine line. The prime minister’s spokesperson said Thursday that the ICC is the “primary international institution for investigating and prosecuting the most serious crimes of international concern,” and confirmed Britain would “comply with its legal obligations.” But there is, the spokesperson added, “no moral equivalence between Israel, a democracy, and Hamas and Hezbollah, which are terrorist organizations.” No. 10 Downing Street has stressed that it would be down to a domestic court to approve the warrant and then up to police to arrest Netanyahu if Britain is to comply with its international treaty obligations. On Friday morning, Starmer’s top interior minister, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, refused to get into the details. Asked directly if the Israeli leader would be arrested if he set foot in Britain, the Home Secretary told Times Radio: “International criminal court investigations rarely become a matter for the British legal or law enforcement processes or for the British government.” She added: “If they ever do, there are proper processes that need to be followed and it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to comment in advance on any of those as home secretary.” A Palestinian man carries the bodies of two young victims inside the Kamal Adwan hospital following an Israeli strike that hit an area near the medical establishment in Beit Layia in the northern Gaza Strip early on November 21, 2024. | AFP via Getty Images Starmer’s critics on the left already want him to go much further. Jeremy Corbyn, the former Labour leader who was booted out of the party and now sits as an independent MP, said ministers must “immediately endorse” the ICC’s decision as a “bare minimum.” He fired off a letter to the government Friday asking whether Starmer is “on the side of Israeli impunity or international law?” CRITICAL FRIEND  It’s a familiar challenge to Starmer, who has tried to keep a party which has sharply divided views on the war in Gaza on side — and see off the electoral threat of independent, pro-Palestinian election candidates. In the background, Labour remains deeply sensitive to accusations of antisemitism that came to the fore during Corbyn’s time as leader. In its most notable Middle East move since Labour took office, 30 arms export licenses between the U.K. and Israel were suspended amid concerns such weapons could be used to break international humanitarian law in Gaza. Though the U.K. supplies comparatively few arms when put against the United States, the decision had instant diplomatic consequences. Netanyahu went public to claim Britain had sent a “horrible message to Hamas” and “undermined” Israel’s security. Some in the Labour tribe, who have longed for Britain to flex its muscles as a grinding war with a huge civilian toll continues in Gaza, were pleased with the change in tone from the top. “There has been a good shift in the right direction,” said one Labour MP, granted anonymity to speak candidly. “They have been able to demonstrate that shift: that actually the Conservative government’s position and … Labour’s positions are not the same.”  In opposition, Starmer felt fury from his own side after slowly coming out in favor of an Israel-Gaza cease-fire. Just days after Oct. 7, Starmer enraged some Labour activists with an interview in which he said Israel “has the right” to withhold water and aid from Gaza. “The starting position of the party was in the wrong place,” the Labour MP quoted above said. “Giving this particular Israeli government a blank check was the wrong thing to do, and we’ve seen how that has been abused.”  ELECTORAL THREAT Labour’s stance on the war in Gaza also animated voters in July’s election. On an otherwise highly successful night, the party lost five seats to independent candidates who made support for the Palestinian people a bedrock of their campaign. Among the high-profile defeats of the night was Jonathan Ashworth, who was being lined up for a Cabinet job by Starmer. Incoming Health Secretary Wes Streeting, facing a pro-Gaza challenge, clung on by fewer than 1,000 votes. “There’s no doubt that there was a reaction,” said the Labour MP. “There are many people who did not like our position and it wasn’t just Muslims. I myself had that experience from non-Muslims telling me to get off their property.” Richard Johnson, a politics professor at Queen Mary University of London, said Labour is “aware that it has been perceived in opposition, at least, to be neglectful of the concerns of Muslim voters.” In opposition, Starmer felt fury from his own side after slowly coming out in favor of an Israel-Gaza cease-fire. | POOL photo by Benjamin Cremel/Getty Images “They have a desire to try and win back those seats and the countervailing influence of a pro-Israel position in the Labour Party is not nearly as strong as it once was,” he argued. Four of the five seats — Blackburn, Dewsbury and Batley, Birmingham Perry Barr and Leicester South — that now have pro-Gaza independent candidates are in the top 20 U.K. constituencies with the highest proportion of Muslims, according to the 2021 census. ICC IS ‘EXTREME’ For their part, the opposition Conservatives have been quick to frame Labour’s policy changes as a cowardly response to election losses. Boris Johnson, the former Conservative prime minister, accused Labour of “abandoning Israel.” On Thursday the Conservatives, who originally objected to the ICC’s move earlier this year, called on Labour to “condemn and challenge” a “deeply concerning and provocative” decision by the top court. In the Labour tribe itself, the new government’s changing tone on Israel has fuelled disagreement from supporters of the country. Turnberg, of Labour Friends of Israel, said the ICC’s position on Netanyahu is “extreme and quite outside the balance of reasonableness.” He said Labour’s “distasteful and unhelpful” policy shifts since the election could have been affected by the new caucus of pro-Gaza independent MPs, which includes Corbyn, and Labour’s hopes of neutralizing a further electoral threat. For others, Starmer has still not gone far enough — and there could be pain to come on the issue at local elections. More than 100 Muslim Labour councilors wrote to Starmer last month calling for a complete halt in arms sales to Israel. “Council elections will be used as regular referendums on the government,” Johnson, of Queen Mary University, predicts. Some observers point to the couched, legalistic language the U.K. government has used to justify its Israel shifts so far — pointing to process rather than directly criticising Israel. Christopher Phillips, an associate fellow at the Chatham House think tank, said this is unsurprising given Starmer and his Foreign Secretary David Lammy’s backgrounds as lawyers. “They have repeatedly said they are supporters of maintaining and upholding the standards of international law,” he said. But there’s a political convenience to it as well. “It allows them to take action that’s critical of Israel while simultaneously trying to limit the fallout and the diplomatic relationship with Israel,” Phillips said. Matt Honeycombe-Foster contributed to this report

European health groups could be facing an existential threat as the European Commission plans to cut grants by 50 percent next year, people familiar with the plan are warning. The EU executive is expected to halve the amount it will provide health non-governmental organizations (NGOs) for running costs such as staff salaries, rent, conferences and travel, according to two people briefed on the plan and a memo circulated among civil society groups and seen by POLITICO. Currently, the Commission dishes out around €9 million per year to the NGOs. But one NGO staffer with knowledge of the plan said that while the Commission is expected to increase the number of NGOs eligible to receive the cash to 33, the sum itself will be slashed. That could lead to NGOs needing to cut staff numbers or even having to “close shop,” the person said. While larger NGOs have several sources of funding, some smaller organizations rely heavily on EU grants. “This could affect us (if it does, it will in a big way) but could be worse or catastrophic for smaller NGOs,” the second staffer said. It’s causing “fatigue and frustration” the second staffer said, “and discouragement that this is how the new mandate might start.” The Commission hasn’t formally told NGOs yet how much they’ll each receive next year, but health policymakers in Brussels are already concerned about how much funding the sector is likely to receive this mandate. EU leaders decided in February to slash 20 percent of the EU4Health budget — the blockbuster €5.3 billion funding that the executive introduced in 2021 — and reallocate it to support Ukraine. The European Commission said that preparatory work for the 2025 EU4Health work program “is on-going with a current focus on its strategic orientations and priorities.” It is expected to be adopted under the incoming Commission. “We cannot share further details at this stage.” This article has been updated with the European Commission’s response.

ABOARD THE PRIME MINISTER’S PLANE TO SAMOA — As a symbol of the decline of British power, it could hardly be more stark. This week King Charles III and his prime minister, Keir Starmer, will host 56 nations in Samoa for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM), a biennial gathering of state leaders associated with the fraying ends of the British empire. But a glance at this year’s guest list highlights how the British monarch’s convening power is not what it was. Indian PM Narendra Modi and South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa, two of the most powerful Commonwealth heads of government who would normally be in attendance, both plan to skip this year’s summit in favor of BRICS — a separate gathering of major developing nations hosted by the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, in Kazan, where Chinese President Xi Jinping is also in attendance. Sri Lanka, which is applying to join BRICS this week, is sending neither its prime minister nor foreign minister to Samoa, an official at the High Commission in London said. Not even Canada, a close ally of the U.K. and fellow member of the powerful “Five Eyes” intelligence-sharing network, will send its prime minister or foreign minister to CHOGM. The head of its delegation will be Ottawa’s high commissioner to the U.K, a Canadian official confirmed. Even Starmer’s own trip — his first to Britain’s former colonies in the southern hemisphere — has been cut short. A U.K. government official confirmed the PM had scrapped plans to add in a stop in Australia, as aides feared it would keep him abroad for too long ahead of a pivotal government spending package being unveiled in London next week. Speaking to journalists on board his 28-hour flight to Samoa Tuesday evening, Starmer appeared in good spirits. But he has brought up the summit’s grueling flight time in conversations with fellow MPs, two of them told POLITICO. The 9,400-mile journey each way is by far his longest since taking office in July. ‘NOT MY KING’ Also struggling with the epic flight time is 75-year-old King Charles, who — while still recovering from cancer — did at least make it to Australia ahead of this week’s summit. Charles, officially the head of the Commonwealth, remains the king of 14 nations aside from the U.K. But here too the direction of travel appears less than promising for Britain’s soft power. Barbados became a republic in 2021; Jamaica plans to follow suit next year. The debate erupted again Monday when an indigenous senator heckled Charles in Australia, repeatedly shouting “not my king” and demanding: “Give us what you stole from us — our bones, our skulls, our babies, our people.” King Charles III and prime minister, Keir Starmer will host 56 nations in Samoa for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. | Pool Photo by Yui Mok/Getty Images For now, most realms’ ambitions to become a republic are “often discussed but seldom actioned,” said Harshan Kumarasingham, a senior research fellow at the Institute of Commonwealth Studies.  Australia shelved a vote earlier this year, despite much chatter during the king’s visit and republicans selling merchandise branding the trip Charles’s “farewell tour.” A recent NewsCorp poll found only 33 percent of Australians wanted to live in a republic. Australia’s written constitution requires a double majority at national and state level in a referendum to activate change. George Brandis, Australia’s former high commissioner to the U.K. and a monarchist, argues the appetite was quelled last year, when a referendum failed to change the constitution around indigenous people’s rights despite “yes” initially having a large lead in the polls.  “When the queen [Elizabeth II] died, I think naturally the question was asked ‘is this now time for Australia to become a republic?’ That discussion basically fell away within a few months,” added Brandis. “The wind has really gone out of the sails of Australian republicanism.” REPARATIONS LOOM OVER SUMMIT The Commonwealth itself, formed 75 years ago, shows no sign of breaking up. It remains, in theory, a supreme networking club for small states to meet regularly with Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India. Strikingly, Barbados stayed in the club in 2021 despite ditching its monarch, and two nations which joined in 2022 — Gabon and Togo — have no historic links to the U.K.  And this year the Commonwealth’s smaller members are demanding more than just goodwill from their hosts. Multiple Caribbean nations have used the run-up to the summit to call for reparations from Britain for the legacy of slavery, with Bahamas Prime Minister Philip Davis calling CHOGM the ideal forum to “make progress.” Nations have been in talks about whether to reflect reparative justice in their communique, to be finalized by leaders Saturday. All three African leaders vying to be the Commonwealth’s new secretary-general — a choice leaders will make Saturday — said last month the issue should broadly be on the table. It is part of a “long history of using Commonwealth summits as a forum to air broader grievances which often have Britain involved,” said Harshan Kumarasingham. No one really believes the U.K. will hand over reparations worth alternatively £200 billion (according to one leading academic) or £18 trillion (per a United Nations judge). In truth the conversation is moving away from calls for “pure” reparations and toward help combating wider issues like climate change, which hits developing, small and island states hardest. The issue is firmly on the agenda at CHOGM, alongside a declaration for a “sustainable and resilient ocean.” One of the three candidates for secretary-general, Ghana’s Foreign Minister Shirley Botchwey, said last month: “We’ve all moved from financial reparations … to what we can get out of in terms of our development, in terms of our resilience building.” U.K. Development Minister Anneliese Dodds pledged last week to “accelerate” reform of development banks to help vulnerable states. | Leon Neal/Getty Images A No. 10 spokesperson insisted the U.K. does not pay reparations and that the issue is simply “not on the agenda.” They said there would be no apology for Britain’s role in slavery at CHOGM. THE FIGHT FOR RELEVANCE The rows over reparations at least give the Commonwealth some sort of relevance in the modern age. Outcomes from these grand gatherings are otherwise notoriously hard to pin down. The vague-sounding theme of this year’s event, “One Resilient Common Future: Transforming our Common Wealth,” will do little to dissuade critics who paint CHOGM as a platitudinous talking shop of increasingly disinterested members. Indeed, the next iteration of the Commonwealth Games, a kind of post-colonial Olympics, has already been dismissed as an albatross by the Australian state of Victoria, which scrapped plans to host the sporting championship in 2026. (Glasgow eventually picked up the baton.) But some back in the U.K. still maintain a more positive vision for the Commonwealth. The grouping contains almost a third of the world’s population, and aside from the United Nations is arguably the most diverse of any group of states — by wealth, size, geography and religious make-up. This diversity can help Britain “revive” ties with smaller economies after Brexit, argued Kumarasingham. He added: “It is unquestionably a product of empire, but at the same time, it is not another version of it.” The Commonwealth is not a mere “talking shop,” said Samir Puri, an associate fellow at the British foreign affairs think tank Chatham House — but its strengths such as education programs are “niche” and “it never fulfilled its promise of being a hard power bloc.” The argument that the Commonwealth could become a focus for future trade and investment once Britain left the EU was made repeatedly by Brexiteers in 2016, and has now been adopted by the newish Labour government in London. Starmer’s official spokesperson noted the delegations from 56 countries represent “a combined market for British business that is worth $19.5 trillion by 2027.” CHINA’S MIGHT But it’s hard to avoid a sense of the sun setting on the remains of the British empire. Earlier this month the U.K. announced a deal to return sovereignty of the Chagos Islands, an Indian Ocean archipelago with a U.K. and U.S. military base, to Commonwealth member Mauritius. While the Diego Garcia base will remain under U.S./U.K. jurisdiction for at least 99 years, the decision prompted Tory fury over China’s trade ties with Mauritius and military muscle. It’s not just Mauritius. Last year the Solomon Islands, another Commonwealth member, signed a police cooperation deal with China. “The Solomon Islands very obviously flipped to China and it caused massive panic for the Australians and the Americans,” said Puri. U.K. officials are aware of the need to keep smaller states, many in Africa, from being too reliant on China. U.K. Development Minister Anneliese Dodds pledged last week to “accelerate” reform of development banks to help vulnerable states “escape the trap of unsustainable debt.” Puri added: “That concern is really at the forefront of why the Commonwealth is a valuable network for the U.K.” The U.K. announced a deal to return sovereignty of the Chagos Islands, an Indian Ocean archipelago with a U.K. and U.S. military base, to Commonwealth member Mauritius. | Adrian Dennis/Getty Images Britain should seize the summit as a chance to shore up relations with these nations — giving them alternatives to Chinese investment, said former U.K. Trade Secretary Penny Mordaunt, who attended CHOGM in 2018. She told POLITICO: “There are massive opportunities for all: for trade and prosperity, for the climate challenges we all face, for security against and autocratic regimes, including China. Vision and common cause is needed to protect our collective interest over the long term.” Yet all the candidates for secretary-general have said firmly it is not the Commonwealth Secretariat’s job to help “contain” China. Botchwey told a recent Chatham House debate: “It would be violating sovereignty and poking its nose where it’s not needed.” Starmer, arriving at this week’s Commonwealth summit with several of his opposite numbers already lured away by Xi and Putin, will have got the message. Esther Webber contributed reporting.

Germany has reported its first case of the new type of mpox behind the major outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and neighboring countries. The case, which was detected on Oct. 18, was acquired abroad and the risk to the general population remains low, Germany’s disease control agency Robert Koch Institute (RKI) announced Tuesday. “The RKI continues to monitor the situation closely and adjusts its assessment to the current state of knowledge if necessary,” the agency said. The case in Germany is mpox clade Ib, a novel variant that first emerged in the DRC. It is an offshoot of clade I, a much more dangerous version of the virus than the one that caused the global outbreak in 2022. It is the second European case of mpox clade Ib since Sweden reported the first in August. The World Health Organization and Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) declared the mpox outbreak an international public health emergency in August. Mpox has killed more than 1,000 people in Africa so far this year.