POLICE have been urged to investigate the leak of sensitive diplomatic messages which showed the UK’s ambassador to Washington believed Donald Trump’s administration to be “inept”, as the president escalated the diplomatic dispute.
Downing Street said Theresa May has “full faith” in Kim Darroch after the extraordinary breach of confidentiality triggered a political firestorm on both sides of the Atlantic.
President Donald Trump yesterday said he will “no longer deal” with Darroch and criticised Prime Minister Theresa May for making a “mess” of Brexit, he said on Twitter.
Conservative Tom Tugendhat, chairman of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, told MPs he had written to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick to “ask that a criminal investigation also be opened into the leak”.
And Foreign Office minister Alan Duncan said police could be involved if evidence of wrongdoing over the leak is found, telling the Commons: “If evidence of criminality is found, then yes, the police could be involved.” While showing support for the ambassador and the need for “unvarnished assessments” of foreign political situations, Number 10 distanced itself from Kim’s withering assessment of the Trump White House. May’s official spokesman told a Westminster briefing on Monday morning: “The PM has full faith in her ambassador to Washington.
“Our ambassadors provide honest, unvarnished assessments of politics in their country, those views are not necessarily the views of ministers or indeed of the Government.
“As the Foreign Secretary has said, this leak is not acceptable.
“We would expect such advice to be handled in the correct way and a leak inquiry has been launched.”
Simon McDonald, Permanent Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, told the Public Accounts Committee that “significant damage” had been caused by the leak.
Asked if May agreed with the contents of Kim’s leaked assessment of the Trump administration, the spokesman said: “The PM does not agree with that assessment.”
Trump tweeted: “I have been very critical about the way the U.K. and Prime Minister Theresa May handled Brexit. What a mess she and her representatives have created. I told her how it should be done, but she decided to go another way. I do not know the Ambassador, but he is not liked or well thought of within the U.S. We will no longer deal with him. The good news for the wonderful United Kingdom is that they will soon have a new Prime Minister.”
Earlier, International Trade Secretary Liam Fox called for the law to be involved in how the explosive and supposedly secret remarks from the British ambassador to the US became public. Fox said the leaks could damage the UK’s relationship with Washington after Trump made clear his displeasure with Britain’s chief envoy to the US.
Trump hit out at the UK’s ambassador to Washington after the leak of sensitive diplomatic messages painting an unflattering assessment of his administration. The president said Kim had “not served the UK well” and his administration were “not big fans” of the envoy.
Fox, who is visiting the US, told the BBC: “This is such a damaging, potentially damaging, event that I hope the full force of our internal discipline, or even the law, will come down on whoever actually carried out this particular act.”
A formal investigation will be carried out to determine how the candid and highly embarrassing messages from Kim to the UK Government were leaked.
Trump, who was described as “radiating insecurity” in Kim’s assessment, was clearly annoyed by the leak.
He said: “The ambassador has not served the UK well, I can tell you that. We are not big fans of that man and he has not served the UK well. So I can understand it and I can say things about him but I won’t bother.”
Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt said he did not agree with all the views expressed by Kim and insisted Britain has the “warmest” of relationships with the US.
Speaking at a press conference at the Foreign Office, Hunt said: “It’s a personal view and there will be many people in this building who don’t agree with that view and indeed I don’t agree with some of the views that we saw in those letters.
“I think the US administration is highly effective and we have the warmest of relationships and a partnership based on standing up for shared values.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel