BRUSSELS — The EU and U.K. must overcome historic gripes and “reset” their relationship to be able to work together in an increasingly uncertain world, the bloc’s top parliamentarian said. European Parliament President Roberta Metsola used an address to the Spanish senate on Tuesday to call for closer ties with the U.K. as London steps up efforts to secure smoother access to European markets and funding projects, after the country voted to leave the bloc in 2016. “Ten years on from Brexit … and in a world that has changed so profoundly, Europe and the U.K. need a new way of working together on trade, customs, research, mobility and on security and defense,” Metsola said. “Today it is time to exorcize the ghosts of the past.” Metsola called for a “reset” in the partnership between Britain and the EU as part of a policy of “realistic pragmatism anchored in values that will see all of us move forward together.” Her speech comes after British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he intended to try and ensure his country’s defense industries can benefit from the EU’s flagship SAFE scheme — a €150 billion funding program designed to boost procurement of military hardware. That push has been far from smooth, with a meeting of EU governments on Monday night failing to sign off U.K. access to SAFE, despite France — which has consistently opposed non-EU countries taking part — supporting the British inclusion. Starmer has also signaled in recent days that he is seeking closer integration with the EU’s single market. Brussels has so far been reluctant to reopen the terms of the U.K.’s relations with the bloc just six years after it exited. While those decisions lie with the remaining 27 EU member countries, rather than the Parliament, Metsola’s intervention marks a shift in tone that could bolster the British case for closer relations. In the context of increasingly tense relations with the U.S., capitals are depending on cooperation with British intelligence and military capabilities and in key industries. Europe must take “the next steps towards a stronger European defense, boosting our capabilities and cooperation, and working closely with our NATO allies so that Europe can better protect its people,” Metsola said.

LONDON — Keir Starmer signaled that the U.K. is ready to try again to forge closer defense ties with the European Union, after talks on British access to the SAFE loan program collapsed last year.  Speaking on a visit to China, the prime minister said he was hoping to make “some progress” on spending, capability and co-operation between European countries and Britain, whether through Security Action for Europe (SAFE) or other initiatives. “I have made the argument that that should require us to look at schemes like SAFE and others to see whether there is a way in which we can work more closely together,” he told reporters traveling with him to Beijing.  Negotiations for Britain to take part in the EU’s loan initiative for defense procurement failed in November after a dispute about how much the U.K. would have to pay. The failure to reach a deal has been a source of frustration to Labour figures in the U.K. and European allies who want to show the U.K. can achieve closer alignment with the bloc after Brexit. The U.K. can, for now,  access SAFE as a third country, but is not entitled to fuller participation as was originally envisaged. EU ambassador to Britain Pedro Serrano and British officials have both previously raised expectations that the U.K. could reach an agreement to be included in another round of SAFE, but there is not currently one under consideration.  A European Commission spokesperson said: “We will not speculate on a possible second SAFE fund at this stage.” Another avenue for closer cooperation could center on the EU’s €90 billion loan for Ukraine, which the Netherlands and many other countries would like to see the U.K. join. London could also be asked to pay a fee to join the loan. France, with the support of other countries, last week suggested that third-party countries that take part should contribute. They made the argument that since EU member countries pay interest on the loan it would be unfair if non-EU countries don’t pay anything, according to three EU diplomats.  However, British officials said this idea was not under active discussion. A U.K government spokesperson said: “We do not comment on internal EU processes,” pointing out that the country has so far committed a total of £21.8 billion in support for Ukraine through military and fiscal assistance. European Commissioners Maros Šefčovič and Valdis Dombrovskis are visiting London Monday for a series of meetings with British ministers, ahead of a planned second EU-U.K. summit later this year. Their talks this week are expected to focus on trade. As he left China, Starmer told reporters that he wanted to “get closer” to the EU then he has currently set out, not only on defense and security but also energy, emissions and trade. Referring to a second annual U.K.-EU summit planned later this spring, Starmer added: “We will not only follow up on the 10 strands that we set out at last year’s summit, we’ll also want to go closer with an iterative process.” Jacopo Barigazzi and Jon Stone contributed to this report.

LONDON — Keir Starmer is off to China to try to lock in some economic wins he can shout about back home. But some of the trickiest trade issues are already being placed firmly in the “too difficult” box. The U.K.’s trade ministry quietly dispatched several delegations to Beijing over the fall to hash out deals with the Chinese commerce ministry and lay the groundwork for the British prime minister’s visit, which gets going in earnest Wednesday. But the visit comes as Britain faces growing pressure from its Western allies to combat Chinese industrial overproduction — and just weeks after Starmer handed his trade chief new powers to move faster in imposing tariffs on cheap, subsidized imports from countries like China. For now, then, the aim is to secure progress in areas that are seen as less sensitive. Starmer’s delegation of CEOs and chairs will split their time between Beijing and Shanghai, with executives representing City giants and high-profile British brands including HSBC, Standard Chartered, Schroders, and the London Stock Exchange Group, alongside AstraZeneca, Jaguar Land Rover, Octopus Energy, and Brompton filling out the cast list. Starmer will be flanked on his visit by Trade Secretary Peter Kyle and City Minister Lucy Rigby. Despite the weighty delegation, ministers insist the approach is deliberately narrow. “We have a very clear-eyed approach when it comes to China,” Security Minister Dan Jarvis said Monday. “Where it is in our national interest to cooperate and work closely with [China], then we will do so. But when it’s our national security interest to safeguard against the threats that [they] pose, we will absolutely do that.” Starmer’s wishlist will be carefully calibrated not to rock the boat. Drumming up Chinese cash for heavy energy infrastructure, including sensitive wind turbine technology, is off the table. Instead, the U.K. has been pushing for lower whisky tariffs, improved market access for services firms, recognition of professional qualifications, banking and insurance licences for British companies operating in China, easier cross-border investment, and visa-free travel for short stays. With China fiercely protective of its domestic market, some of those asks will be easier said than done. Here’s POLITICO’s pro guide to where it could get bumpy. CHAMPIONING THE CITY OF LONDON Britain’s share of China’s services market was a modest 2.7 percent in 2024 — and U.K. firms are itching for more work in the country. British officials have been pushing for recognition of professional qualifications for accountants, designers and architects — which would allow professionals to practice in China without re-licensing locally — and visa-free travel for short stays. Vocational accreditation is a “long-standing issue” in the bilateral relationship, with “little movement” so far on persuading Beijing to recognize U.K. professional credentials as equivalent to its own, according to a senior industry representative familiar with the talks, who, like others in this report, was granted anonymity to speak freely. But while the U.K.’s allies in the European Union and the U.S. have imposed tariffs on Chinese EVs, the U.K. has resisted pressure to do so. | Jessica Lee/EPA Britain is one of the few developed countries still missing from China’s visa-free list, which now includes France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Sweden.  Starmer is hoping to mirror a deal struck by Canadian PM Mark Carney, whose own China visit unlocked visa-free travel for Canadians.  The hope is that easier business travel will reduce friction and make it easier for people to travel and explore opportunities on the ground — it would allow visa-free travel for British citizens, giving them the ability to travel for tourism, attend business conferences, visit friends and family, and participate in short exchange activities.  SMOOTHING FINANCIAL FLOWS The Financial Conduct Authority’s Chair Ashley Alder is also flying out to Beijing, hoping to secure closer alignment between the two countries’ capital markets. He’ll represent Britain’s financial watchdog at the inaugural U.K-China Financial Working Group in Beijing — and bang the drum for better market connectivity between the U.K. and China. Expect emphasis on the cross-border investments mechanism known as the Shanghai-London and Shenzhen-London Stock Connect, plus data sovereignty issues associated with Chinese companies jointly listing on the London Stock Exchange, two figures familiar with the planning said. The Stock Connect opened up both markets to investors in 2019 which, according to FCA Chair Ashley Alder, led to listings worth almost $6 billion. “Technical obstacles have so far prevented us from realizing Stock Connect’s full potential,” Alder said in a speech last year. Alder pointed to a memorandum of understanding being drawn up between the FCA and China’s National Financial Regulatory Administration, which he said is “critical” to allow information to be shared quickly and for firms to be supervised across borders. But that raises its own concerns about Chinese use of data. “The goods wins are easier,” said a senior British business representative briefed on the talks. “Some of the service ones are more difficult.” TAPPING INTO CHINA’S BIOTECH BOOM Pharma executives, including AstraZeneca’s CEO Pascal Soriot, are among those heading to China, as Britain tries to burnish its credentials as a global life sciences hub — and attract foreign direct investment. China, once known mainly for generics — cheaper versions of branded medicine that deliver the same treatment — has rapidly emerged as a pharma powerhouse. According to ING Bank’s global healthcare lead, Stephen Farrelly, the country has “effectively replaced Europe” as a center of innovation. ING data shows China’s share of global innovative drug approvals jumped from just 4 percent in 2014 to 27 percent in 2024. Pharma executives, including AstraZeneca’s CEO Pascal Soriot, are among those heading to China, as Britain tries to burnish its credentials as a global life sciences hub — and attract foreign direct investment. | John G. Mabanglo/EPA Several blockbuster drug patents are set to expire in the coming years, opening the door for cheaper generic competitors. To refill thinning pipelines, drugmakers are increasingly turning to biotech companies. British pharma giant GSK signed a licensing deal with Chinese biotech firm Hengrui Pharma last July. “Because of the increasing relevance of China, the big pharma industry and the U.K. by definition is now looking to China as a source of those new innovative therapies,” Farrelly said. There are already signs of progress. Science Minister Patrick Vallance said late last year that the U.K. and China are ready to work together in “uncontroversial” areas, including health, after talks with his Chinese counterpart. AstraZeneca, the University of Cambridge and Beijing municipal parties have already signed a partnership to share expertise. And earlier this year, the U.K. announced plans to become a “global first choice for clinical trials.” “The U.K. can really help China with the trust gap” when it comes to getting drugs onto the market, said Quin Wills, CEO of Ochre, a biotech company operating in New York, Oxford and Taiwan. “The U.K. could become a global gold stamp for China. We could be like a regulatory bridgehead where [healthcare regulator] MHRA, now separate from the EU since Brexit, can do its own thing and can maybe offer a 150-day streamlined clinical approval process for China as part of a broader agreement.” SLASHING WHISKY TARIFFS  The U.K. has also been pushing for lowered tariffs on whisky alongside wider agri-food market access, according to two of the industry figures familiar with the planning cited earlier. Talks at the end of 2024 between then-Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds and his Chinese counterpart ended Covid-era restrictions on exports, reopening pork market access. But in February 2025 China doubled its import tariffs on brandy and whisky, removing its provisional 5 percent tariff and applying the 10 percent most-favored-nation rate. “The whisky and brandy issue became China leverage,” said the senior British business representative briefed on the talks. “I think that they’re probably going to get rid of the tariff.”  It’s not yet clear how China would lower whisky tariffs without breaching World Trade Organization rules, which say it would have to lower its tariffs to all other countries too. INDUSTRIAL TENSIONS The trip comes as the U.K. faces growing international pressure to take a tougher line on Chinese industrial overproduction, particularly of steel and electric cars. But in February 2025 China doubled its import tariffs on brandy and whisky, removing its provisional 5 percent tariff and applying the 10 percent most-favored-nation rate. | Yonhap/EPA But while the U.K.’s allies in the European Union and the U.S. have imposed tariffs on Chinese EVs, the U.K. has resisted pressure to do so. There’s a deal “in the works” between Chinese EV maker and Jaguar Land Rover, said the senior British business representative briefed on the talks quoted higher, where the two are “looking for a big investment announcement. But nothing has been agreed.” The deal would see the Chinese EV maker use JLR’s factory in the U.K. to build cars in Britain, the FT reported last week. “Chinese companies are increasingly focused on localising their operations,” said another business representative familiar with the talks, noting Chinese EV makers are “realising that just flaunting their products overseas won’t be a sustainable long term model.” It’s unlikely Starmer will land a deal on heavy energy infrastructure, including wind turbine technology, that could leave Britain vulnerable to China. The U.K. has still not decided whether to let Ming Yang, a Chinese firm, invest £1.5 billion in a wind farm off the coast of Scotland.

“In Brussels, no one hears you scream” — spin doctor Kasper Juul in the Danish political TV drama “Borgen.” For some politicians, Brussels is where you are sent when you are problematic or no longer needed back home. For others, there’s the chance to get a prestigious position that goes beyond rank or experience. At the same time, bureaucrats with little or no media experience appear before the cameras every weekday as European Commission spokespeople, while career diplomats find themselves handling dossiers with major consequences for domestic politics. All these people are united by a belief, to some degree, in the EU project. But working in Brussels can turn into a nightmare (despite the visibility, high salary, and other perks). Here’s who we think have the five hardest jobs in Brussels, and why: MARK RUTTE, NATO SECRETARY-GENERAL He may have been given the nickname “Teflon” by officials in the Netherlands and NATO — because nothing sticks to him — but with Donald Trump in the White House, Rutte’s job is surely the toughest in Brussels. His role at present is seemingly less about running the military alliance and more about trying to stop one man — Trump — from dismantling the entire thing. And the former Dutch prime minister is having some success in his role as Trump whisperer. Not long after he used his speech in Davos last week to double down on wanting Greenland, the U.S. president met with Rutte and surprisingly announced that they had “formed the framework of a future deal.” However, it does put Rutte in some awkward situations. Last March, when Rutte and Trump met in the Oval Office, the U.S. president said he wanted to annex Greenland, to which the Dutchman could only reply “I don’t want to drag NATO” into it, which angered the Danes. No provision in the alliance’s 1949 founding treaty envisions one NATO ally attacking another, and Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and others warned that an invasion would mean the end of the alliance. Rutte earlier this month said NATO is “not at all” in crisis. Rutte also raised eyebrows when he called Trump “daddy” — a comment he tried to row back on. Rutte’s office didn’t respond to a request for a comment for this article. “I perfectly understand how difficult is his job [to keep NATO unity], but it’s such a pain to watch him,” said a senior EU diplomat, granted anonymity to speak freely, as were others in this article. Mark Rutte raised eyebrows when he called Donald Trump “daddy” — a comment he tried to row back on. | Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images “Walking on a tightrope in a headwind is easier than NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte’s job,” said Nicolás Pascual de la Parte, former Spanish NATO ambassador and now a member of the European Parliament’s Security and Defense Committee for the European People’s Party. “Keeping the Atlantic alliance united under present circumstances requires unparalleled statesmanship to temper down Trump’s relentless brinkmanship.” PAULA PINHO, COMMISSION CHIEF SPOKESPERSON In the von der Leyen era, the job of chief spokesperson has become a very tough gig. Officials say that the Commission president works in a (metaphorical) bunker, with only her head of cabinet, Björn Seibert, in the loop while everyone else is either left in the dark or informed only on a strictly need-to-know basis — very different from the more collegial style of her predecessor, Jean-Claude Juncker. That makes the job of Portuguese official Paula Pinho, appointed Commission chief spokesperson in November 2024 and a lawyer by training, one of the most difficult in Brussels as she has to face questions from journalists in front of the cameras every working day. But often Pinho — a German speaker close to Michael Hager, considered a Seibert ally and who is head of Cabinet for Valdis Dombrovskis — cannot respond either because she’s not allowed to or because she’s not been given the answer, officials and diplomats say. It’s made the Commission more closed off than ever. Last January, when Ursula von der Leyen was hospitalized with pneumonia, it was the German news agency DPA that broke the news. The following month, even the famously non-transparent Vatican didn’t hide the fact that Pope Francis had been taken to hospital. When Pinho’s predecessor, Eric Mamer, moved on, there were jokes among officials about how many bottles of champagne he opened to celebrate that he was finally free. At least Mamer’s sacrifice was rewarded: when he left, he got the position of director general in the environment department. Pinho told POLITICO: “I am honoured to have what is among the unique jobs in Brussels. Certainly not measured in comfort or easiness of the tasks, but in responsibility and sobriety.” She said part of the job “is to differentiate what the public needs to know and what some media would just love to know.” KAJA KALLAS, EU FOREIGN POLICY CHIEF The European External Action Service, the bloc’s diplomatic body, was created in 2010 and the job of the top diplomat who leads it has always been a difficult one as member countries, especially the big ones, want to keep foreign policy in their own hands. Relations between von der Leyen and the former holder of the role, Josep Borrell, were very bad, according to officials. It’s even worse with Kallas. The Mediterranean area has been taken away from Kallas as the Commission last year created the Directorate-General for the Middle East, North Africa and the Gulf (DG MENA). At the same time, the Commission has been actively working on plans to cut down the size of the EEAS. In an attempt to fight back, Kallas tried to appoint a powerful deputy secretary general in the form of Martin Selmayr, Juncker’s feared former chief of staff, but the move was blocked by von der Leyen’s office. Kallas “privately complains that she [von der Leyen] is a dictator but there’s little or nothing she can do about that,” said one senior official. Kallas also comes from tiny Estonia, and her party, the liberals, is small, making her position even weaker than Borrell’s (a socialist from Spain). Kallas’ office did not reply to a request for a comment. BÁLINT ÓDOR, HUNGARIAN AMBASSADOR Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán likes to play the villain with his pro-Russia and pro-Trump lines, which makes the job of the country’s EU ambassador difficult. The current ambassador, Bálint Ódor, is seen as close to Orbán’s Fidesz party, unlike his predecessor, Tibor Stelbaczky, who now works for the EU’s diplomatic body. Bálint Ódor is seen as close to Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz party. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images When Hungarian ambassadors try to soften some of the harsh lines coming from the government, it creates suspicions in Budapest about their loyalty, said a Hungarian diplomat. One official described the Hungarian ambassador as the “elephant in the room,” because of the country’s close ties with the Kremlin. During the Hungarian presidency of the Council of the EU last year, some diplomats raised concerns about sharing certain information with the Hungarians because of Orbán’ s proximity to Russia (Hungary’s Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó holds regular meetings with his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov, who is under EU sanctions). Ódor told POLITICO: “It’s a privilege to serve my country and represent Hungarian interests.” MAROŠ ŠEFČOVIČ, TRADE COMMISSIONER When a dossier is hard to crack, send for the Moscow-educated Slovak commissioner, nicknamed Mr. Fix It. The former member of the Slovak Communist Party has been a commissioner since October 2009, making him the longest-serving current commissioner, having served under José Manuel Barroso as well as Juncker and von der Leyen. Šefčovič has been called upon to oversee the EU’s response to extraordinary (and complicated) challenges like Brexit and the European Green Deal, and now, in the age of Trump, he is in charge of trade. He does more than that, though. For instance, when von der Leyen didn’t want to go to the European Parliament in Strasbourg for a debate on whether to remove her (and therefore him) from office, she sent Šefčovič instead. Šefčovič’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment.

BRUSSELS — Only a few days ago, EU diplomats and officials were whispering furtively about the idea they might one day need to think about how to push back against Donald Trump. They’re not whispering anymore.  Trump’s attempt, as EU leaders saw it, to “blackmail” them with the threat of tariffs into letting him take the sovereign Danish island of Greenland provoked a howl of outrage — and changed the world.  Previous emergency summits in Brussels focused on existential risks to the European Union, like the eurozone crisis, Brexit, the coronavirus pandemic, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This week, the EU’s 27 leaders cleared their diaries to discuss the assault they faced from America.  There can be little doubt that the transatlantic alliance has now been fundamentally transformed from a solid foundation for international law and order into a far looser arrangement in which neither side can be sure of the other.  “Trust was always the foundation for our relations with the United States,” said Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk as he arrived for the summit in Brussels on Thursday night. “We respected and accepted American leadership. But what we need today in our politics is trust and respect among all partners here, not domination and for sure not coercion. It doesn’t work in our world.”  The catalyst for the rupture in transatlantic relations was the U.S. president’s announcement on Saturday that he would hit eight European countries with tariffs of 10 percent for opposing his demand to annex Greenland.  That was just the start. In an avalanche of pressure, he then canceled his support for the U.K. premier’s decision to hand over the Chagos Islands, home to an important air base, to Mauritius; threatened France with tariffs on Champagne after Macron snubbed his Board of Peace initiative; slapped down the Norwegian prime minister over a Nobel Peace Prize; and ultimately dropped his threats both to take Greenland by military force and to hit countries that oppose him with tariffs.  Here was a leader, it seemed to many watching EU officials, so wild and unpredictable that he couldn’t even remain true to his own words.  But what dismayed the professional political class in Brussels and beyond was more mundane: Trump’s decision to leak the private text messages he’d received directly from other world leaders by publishing them to his 11.6 million followers on social media.  Trump’s screenshots of his phone revealed French President Emmanuel Macron offering to host a G7 meeting in Paris, and to invite the Russians in the sidelines. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, who once called Trump “daddy,” also found his private text to Trump made public, in which he praised the president’s “incredible” achievements, adding: “Can’t wait to see you.”  Leaking private messages “is not acceptable — you just don’t do it,” said one senior diplomat, like others, on condition of anonymity because the matter is sensitive. “It’s so important. After this, no one can trust him. If you were any leader you wouldn’t tell him anything. And this is a crucial means of communication because it is quick and direct. Now everything will go through layers of bureaucracy.”  Mark Carney had been one of the classic Davos set and was a regular attendee: suave, a little smug, and seeming entirely comfortable among snow-covered peaks and even loftier clientele. | Gian Ehrenzeller/EPA The value of direct contact through phone texts is well known to the leaders of Europe, who, as POLITICO revealed, have even set up their own private group chat to discuss how to respond when Trump does something inflammatory. Such messages enable ministers and officials at all levels to coordinate solutions before public statements have to be made, the same senior diplomat said. “If you don’t have trust, you can’t work together anymore.”  NO MORE NATO Diplomats and officials now fear the breakdown in personal trust between European leaders and Trump has potentially grave ramifications.  Take NATO. The military alliance is, at its core, a promise: that member countries will back each other up and rally to their defense if one of them comes under attack. Once that promise looks less than solid, the power of NATO to deter attacks is severely undermined. That’s why Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned that if Trump invaded the sovereign Danish territory of Greenland it would be the end of NATO.  The fact he threatened to do so has already put the alliance into intensive care, another diplomat said.  Asked directly if she could still trust the U.S. as she arrived at the Brussels summit, Frederiksen declined to say yes. “We have been working very closely with the United States for many years,” she replied. “But we have to work together respectfully, without threatening each other.”  European leaders now face two tasks: To bring the focus back to the short-term priorities of peace in Ukraine and resolving tensions over Greenland; and then to turn their attention to mapping out a strategy for navigating a very different world. The question of trust, again, underpins both.  When it comes to Ukraine, European leaders like Macron, Germany’s Friedrich Merz and the U.K.’s Keir Starmer have spent endless hours trying to persuade Trump and his team that providing Kyiv with an American military element underpinning security guarantees is the only way to deter Russian President Vladimir Putin from attacking again in future.  Given how unreliable Trump has been as an ally to Europe, officials are now privately asking what those guarantees are really worth. Why would Russia take America’s word seriously? Why not, in a year or two, test it to make sure?  THE POST-DAVOS WORLD Then there’s the realignment of the entire international system.  There was something ironic about the setting for Trump’s assaults on the established world order, and about the identities of those who found themselves the harbingers of its end.  Among the snow-covered slopes of the Swiss resort of Davos, the world’s business and political elite gather each year to polish their networks, promote their products, brag about their successes, and party hard. The super rich, and the occasional president, generally arrive by helicopter.  As a central bank governor, Mark Carney had been one of the classic Davos set and was a regular attendee: suave, a little smug, and seeming entirely comfortable among snow-covered peaks and even loftier clientele.  Now prime minister of Canada, this sage of the centrist liberal orthodoxy had a shocking insight to share with his tribe: “Today,” Carney began this week, “I’ll talk about the rupture in the world order, the end of a nice story, and the beginning of a brutal reality where geopolitics among the great powers is not subject to any constraints.”  “The rules-based order is fading,” he intoned, to be replaced by a world of “great power rivalry” in which “the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.”  “The old order is not coming back. We should not mourn it. Nostalgia is not a strategy.”  Carney impressed those European officials watching. He even quoted Finnish President Alexander Stubb, who has enjoyed outsized influence in recent months due to the connections he forged with Trump on the golf course.  NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, who once called Donald Trump “daddy,” also found his private text to Donald Trump made public, in which he praised the president’s “incredible” achievements, adding: “Can’t wait to see you.” |  Jim lo Scalzo/EPA Ultimately, Carney had a message for what he termed “middle powers” — countries like Canada. They could, he argued, retreat into isolation, building up their defenses against a hard and lawless world. Or they could build something “better, stronger and more just” by working together, and diversifying their alliances. Canada, another target of Trump’s territorial ambitions, has just signed a major partnership agreement with China. As they prepared for the summit in Brussels, European diplomats and officials contemplated the same questions. One official framed the new reality as the “post-Davos” world. “Now that the trust has gone, it’s not coming back,” another diplomat said. “I feel the world has changed fundamentally.”  A GOOD CRISIS It will be up to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and her team to devise ways to push the continent toward greater self-sufficiency, a state that Macron has called “strategic autonomy,” the diplomat said. This should cover energy, where the EU has now become reliant on imports of American gas.  The most urgent task is to reimagine a future for European defense that does not rely on NATO, the diplomat said. Already, there are many ideas in the air. These include a European Security Council, which would have the nuclear-armed non-EU U.K. as a member. Urgent efforts will be needed to create a drone industry and to boost air defenses.  The European Commission has already proposed a 100,000-strong standing EU army, so why not an elite special forces division as well? The Commission’s officials are world experts at designing common standards for manufacturing, which leaves them well suited to the task of integrating the patchwork of weapons systems used by EU countries, the same diplomat said.  Yet there is also a risk. Some officials fear that with Trump’s having backed down and a solution to the Greenland crisis now apparently much closer, EU leaders will lose the focus and clarity about the need for change they gained this past week. In a phrase often attributed to Churchill, the risk is that EU countries will “let a good crisis go to waste.”  Domestic political considerations will inevitably make it harder for national governments to commit funding to shared EU defense projects. As hard-right populism grows in major regional economies, like France, the U.K. and Germany, making the case for “more Europe” is harder than ever for the likes of Macron, Starmer and Merz. Even if NATO is in trouble, selling a European army will be tough.  While these leaders know they can no longer trust Trump’s America with Europe’s security, many of them lack the trust of their own voters to do what might be required instead. 

LONDON — British businesses that have plowed millions into border control facilities are demanding compensation from the U.K. government over its Brexit “reset” deal with the European Union. Since the U.K. left the bloc, dozens of firms importing plants and fresh produce from the continent have invested in purpose-built inspection facilities, known as “control points,” in an attempt to reduce the border friction and costs associated with EU trade.  By developing in-house facilities, businesses had hoped to bypass the expense and disruption that had plagued larger border control posts, like the government’s Sevington site in Kent. But as the U.K. and EU negotiate a sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) deal — which is expected to remove the need for most border checks on food imported from the bloc — business owners now fear these facilities will be rendered redundant. Nigel Jenney, CEO of the Fresh Produce Consortium, said several members had spent “anything from a few hundred thousand to several millions” on control points to accommodate checks on imports of fresh fruit and vegetables and cut flowers. “In good faith, the industry proactively responded to the requests of government; and now it’s been hung out to dry, costing modest family businesses huge amounts of money,” Jenney added. ‘BITTERSWEET’ DEAL Provender Nurseries, a wholesaler of plants and plant products that imports 80 percent of its stock from the EU, is one of many firms in this predicament. In 2024, it splashed out around £250,000 to convert a large general-purpose barn into a control point, the culmination of three years of paperwork.   Speaking to POLITICO on site in Swanley, Kent, where workers were busy unloading a shipment of trees from Italy ready for inspection, Provender’s site operations manager Stuart Tickner said the prospect of an SPS deal was “bittersweet” for the business. “I fully support and back up the SPS agreement,” Tickner said, pointing out that it would decrease border friction with the EU. “But at the same time, we’ve spent a lot of time, money and effort to achieve it [the control point]. So it’s gutting that it’s got to go.” Investment in the control point has also restricted the business’s ability to grow, he claims.  “We’ve pumped so much money into it [the control point] that the directors are reluctant to invest in more at the moment,” Tickner added. Provender Nurseries, a wholesaler of plants and plant products that imports 80 percent of its stock from the EU, is one of many firms in this predicament. | Photo by Provender Nurseries A U.K. government spokesperson said: “We are focused on delivering a food and drink deal that could add up to £5.1 billion a year to our economy, supporting British producers and businesses, backing British jobs, and putting more money in people’s pockets.” “With negotiations ongoing, our aim is to reduce regulatory barriers, slash costs, and cut red tape for businesses, while maintaining the UK’s high biosecurity standards.” CALLS FOR COMPENSATION  Shortly after the U.K. and EU announced plans for an SPS deal last May, Tickner and two other horticultural businesses wrote to former Farming Minister Daniel Zeichner asking for a meeting on the issue of compensation for control points.   In their letter, shared with POLITICO, the businesses warned of “significant knock-on effects” for businesses like theirs that have invested in control points.  “This process involved not only major capital expenditure, but also serious operational impacts, including staffing adjustments, the implementation of import software and compliance systems, and long-term contractual commitments,” they said. “Importantly, the building of these control points also caused substantial disruption to our day-to-day operations,” they added. “Many of us had to redesign or repurpose areas of our business premises, manage construction activity around ongoing operations, and absorb the associated delays and interruptions to normal business.” Neither Zeichner nor his successor, Angela Eagle, responded to the letter or follow-up messages sent by Tickner.  These are just the latest calls for compensation for potentially redundant Brexit border facilities. Last year, POLITICO reported that the British taxpayer had spent more than £700 million on border control posts, which may no longer be needed once the SPS deal comes into effect.  That’s not counting the £120 million that British ports themselves splashed out on specialist facilities. Ports are also demanding compensation from the government.  While Tickner and his colleagues have managed to make good use of their control point since the introduction of checks on imported plants from the EU in April 2024, other businesses with control points have been less fortunate. In June last year, the government announced that it would scrap checks on fruit and vegetables in anticipation of the SPS deal, meaning many of these facilities are underused. More recently, the government announced that it would reduce inspection rates for four popular varieties of cut flowers imported from the EU. “The government is constantly changing its mind. I’ve lost count of the amount of U-turns,” Fresh Produce Consortium CEO Jenney said, the exasperation clear in his voice.  Speaking to POLITICO on site in Swanley, Kent, where workers were busy unloading a shipment of trees from Italy ready for inspection, Provender’s site operations manager Stuart Tickner said the prospect of an SPS deal was “bittersweet” for the business. | Photo by Provender Nurserie “We have secured confirmation of a low-risk position for fruit and vegetables and most cut flowers from Europe. But that’s after the industry has spent a small fortune doing what the government wanted us to do. There is now no likelihood of future income because the reset would appear to remove that requirement.” PILOT SCHEME SCRAPPED To make matters more difficult for these businesses, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last year cancelled the rollout of an “Authorised Operator Scheme,” which would have allowed businesses to carry out their own checks on imports, following a pilot.  Firms running control points must instead rely on government inspectors to check imports, who only work certain hours of the week, defeating a key purpose of control points. “Government gave businesses a clear message and advice that for those importing perishable and sensitive goods at scale, investing in control points to then have the chance to achieve Authorised Operator Status was the best option to control your supply chains and give critical certainty,” said Jennifer Pheasey, director of policy and public affairs at the Horticultural Trades Association.  By canning the Authorised Operator Scheme scheme and agreeing to an SPS deal, control points “cannot deliver real returns and will be underutilized,” she added. HTA is now joining calls for government support for businesses that have invested in control points to help them mitigate and repurpose.  Like plant importers, Jenney would also like to see his members compensated for their investment in control points.  “We’d love to see businesses compensated for the losses they’ve incurred through no fault of their own — but we also accept that the government might find that difficult. What there does need to be is a genuine awareness of the cost burden that they’ve placed on industry and to make sure it never, ever happens again.”

WHEN POLITICIANS SAY THE QUIET PART OUT LOUD As Kaja Kallas’ unguarded comments showed, wisecracks and slips of the tongue often reveal far more than a carefully crafted speech. By GABRIEL GAVIN Illustration by Natália Delgado/POLITICO When Hungary’s Viktor Orbán arrived at an EU summit in 2015, Jean-Claude Juncker said “the dictator is coming” and greeted him with a playful slap to the face. The then-European Commission president’s jab was a revealing glimpse into a political dynamic usually kept behind closed doors, or even just in leaders’ heads. Whether gaffe or veiled signal, the stunt sparked discussions about Hungary’s democratic backsliding. When everything they say is scrutinized and every statement twisted by political opponents, politicians have learned the need to keep quiet, to polish their communications and stay diplomatic. But under extraordinary pressure, in private or as a joke, the mask slips — betraying more than carefully worded speeches ever will. On Wednesday, EU top diplomat Kaja Kallas summed up what many were thinking when she quipped privately that the state of the world makes it a “good moment” to start drinking. She might not have intended it as a serious assessment, but it offered a telling insight: Europe’s representative on the global stage thinks things are looking pretty dire. Some asides distill political truths that stand the test of time. Juncker’s declaration that European leaders “all know what to do, but we don’t know how to get re-elected once we’ve done it” came to be known as the “Juncker curse,” shorthand for the electoral challenges faced by reformist governments. “Advisers and communications people often try to stage-manage everything a politician says. But leaders are human and sometimes they just say what they’re thinking — either in jest or as the pressure of the job gets to them,” said Louis Rynsard, a former political adviser in the U.K. House of Commons and co-founder of Milton Advisers. “The instinctive reaction is ‘oh, dear God, what just happened,’ but nine times out of 10 political leaders being human works better than all the beautiful crafted PR lines ever could. For the one out of 10, you just have to hope no one was listening.” Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever is welcomed by French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris early this month. De Wever, hailed as Europe’s funniest leaders, likes to use “dark humor” to get his point across. | Teresa Suarez/EPA For those living in a world of secrets, what they laugh about can reveal their attitudes to things they can’t openly discuss. “There’s only so much politicians can carry around with them and you get this sort of leakage of ideas, things that have been half thought-through,” said Ashley Weinberg, senior lecturer at the University of Salford and author of The Psychology of Politicians. Britain’s royal family is famously measured in its communications. Yet King Charles was uncharacteristically frank when he welcomed his first prime minister, Liz Truss, to a weekly audience at Buckingham Palace in 2022, just as her proposed budget threw the markets into turmoil. “Back again? Dear, oh dear,” he smiled. Truss resigned 12 days later. According to political psychologist Ramzi Abou Ismail, those kinds of wisecracks can be “a way to pass on messages in a soft way, sort of saying ‘oh I don’t really mean it — unless you agree.'” Diplomats who have been in high-stakes international negotiations told POLITICO they’re often more jovial than people realize, an antidote to the anxiety that comes with high politics. “People would be surprised how often jokes get cracked in tense diplomatic situations and the whole room relaxes a bit and realizes they’re dealing with a human being,” said Chris Fitzgerald, a former British diplomat posted to Brussels during the Brexit negotiations. “The best lines are often those that are unscripted, and even better if they show you understand the culture of your interlocutor.” Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever, often hailed as the continent’s funniest leader, said after a European Council that he likes a well-timed quip using “dark humor” to get his point across. Former Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis, who earned a reputation for landing political zingers, said absurd political situations just call for laughter. “When you see what is happening in the world, just being serious about it doesn’t feel like it’s enough any more, you feel like the best way to engage with it is to show the absurdity,” he said. But “it’s not always a polished strategy,” said one EU diplomat, who has attended hundreds of sit-downs with counterparts in Brussels. “These meetings are often long and boring and you see an opportunity to make people laugh. Sometimes it lands and makes you look human, other times it backfires and causes problems.” That’s a balancing act U.S. President Donald Trump’s nominee for ambassador to Iceland flubbed last week, sparking a diplomatic crisis by joking his new host country would become a U.S. state at a time when the White House has been piling on pressure to seize Greenland. Ismail, the political psychologist, credits Trump with having stretched the boundaries of political norms so far that otherwise austere figures in Europe and elsewhere feel freer to speak frankly. “Trump didn’t just change the norms when it comes to political communication, the guy collapsed the boundaries between what is considered private cognition and public speech,” he said. European politicians are also realizing the value of being less polished. One EU official said the bloc’s institutions “have a notorious humor deficit,” which is an increasing disadvantage when it comes to getting Europe’s message out “in the era of the social media-effective Trumpian soundbite” and of a public that values plain speech. The jocular approach has been championed by Olof Gill, the European Commission’s deputy chief spokesperson, who uses daily televised podium appearances to crack jokes and take swipes at rivals and reporters alike. “The value of the Commission’s midday press briefing as a live piece of political theater is substantial, and within that theater, humor can be a very useful device to take the sting out of a difficult question or highlight the absurdity of a political viewpoint,” he said. For his part, Orbán seemed to recognize the nature of the game when branded a dictator by Juncker. “Hungarians talk straight about tough things,” he said. “We don’t like to beat about the bush. We are a frank people.” These moments will only happen more frequently at a time when the established global order is collapsing — and leaders can often do little but laugh, Ismail said. “There’s also a sort of psychological adaptation to permanent crises in politics of the kind we’ve had for the past five years,” he said. “Leaders will be feeling crisis fatigue and this gives room for some humor, some irony, because it sort of breaks the pattern.” “Think of it as a valve, and then the humor just sort of releases the pressure.” Mari Eccles contributed reporting.

LONDON — U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade negotiators are pushing for the U.K. to adopt American standards in a move that would derail Britain’s post-Brexit relationship with the European Union, two people familiar with the talks have told POLITICO. The U.S. is also pushing hard for the recognition of American accreditation bodies in the U.K., three other people with knowledge of the demands confirmed. The joint moves would have knock-on effects for safety-critical sectors like food, forensics, manufacturing and NHS testing, experts fear. “It’s this invisible infrastructure that no one really knows about but which keeps everyone safe — and that’s now under threat,” a person briefed on the talks told POLITICO. They, like others cited in this piece, were granted anonymity to speak freely. American negotiators have turned up the heat in trade talks with the recent suspension of the Technology Prosperity Deal, amid frustration over the pace of wider negotiations. U.K. negotiating asks on steel and Scotch whisky tariffs have also gone unanswered. Trump threatened a fresh wedge in the relationship over the weekend, vowing to impose tariffs on Britain and other European allies pushing back at his desire for the United States to own Greenland. The standards push comes as the Trump administration hollows out American watchdogs, with sweeping cuts to the Food and Drug Administration and the dismantling of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. While food standards remain a red line for the U.K. government, some figures familiar with the talks fear the U.K. could cave in on other U.S. demands. “My concern is that these red lines that have been red lines from the outset and for years are under increasing threat of being breached,” the person cited above said.   British negotiators have so far refused to back down, but U.S. negotiators “keep circling back” on these issues, another person who was briefed on the talks by both governments said. Peter Holmes, an expert on standards from the UK Trade Policy Observatory at the University of Sussex, warned that accepting U.S. demands could lead to a “race to the bottom” with the U.K. regarded as a “wild west market” internationally. A U.K. government spokesperson said: “Our historic agreement with the U.S. has already delivered for the pharma, aerospace and auto sectors, while our deal with the EU will see the removal of trade barriers including SPS, saving hundreds of millions on U.K. exports.” “We have and always will be clear that we will uphold our high food, animal welfare and environmental standards in trade deals, and negotiations will continue with both the EU and U.S. on strengthening our trading relationship,” the spokesperson added. The U.K. says it will uphold its high food, animal welfare and environmental standards in trade deals. | Geography Photos/Universal Images Group via Getty Images A spokesperson for the United States Trade Representative said the claims came from “anonymous and irrelevant sources” with “no insight into the trade discussions between the U.S. and U.K.”  The spokesperson did not contest any specific aspects of this report. They added that the two nations had successfully implemented “numerous aspects of the U.S.-U.K. EPD,” including “mutually expanding access of U.S. and U.K. beef in each other’s markets.”  “The U.S. and U.K. continue to work together constructively on finalizing remaining aspects of the EPD, including the U.K. commitment to ‘improve market access for agricultural products’ from the United States,” the spokesperson said. IMPACT ON BREXIT RESET TALKS Giving in to the U.S. demands would upset Britain’s ability to trade more closely with the EU as part of ongoing Brexit “reset” negotiations with the bloc that include alignment on food standards and carbon emissions in manufacturing. The U.K. government has “very clear red lines around all of this because they are going to do certain things with the EU,” the second person quoted above explained. “You would have thought these matters had already been well ventilated and resolved,” the person added, explaining that in talks the U.S. side “keep saying ‘why can’t you do more food standards? Why aren’t you coming closer on our side of it? Are you really sure what you’re doing with the EU is the right thing to do?’” Negotiations with the U.S. are “pretty much [in] stasis at the moment,” the same person continued. As London’s Brexit reset talks with the EU progress this year, “the possibility to have the kinds of changes that the U.S. is putting forward become much diminished when those agreements with the EU start to get over the line.” RECOGNITION OF ACCREDITATION BODIES Multiple people briefed on the trade talks claim the U.S. proposals go beyond the terms of the original U.K.-U.S. Economic Prosperity Deal agreed last May between U.S. President Donald Trump and Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer.  In addition to headline commitments to cut tariffs on cars, steel and pharmaceuticals, the wide-ranging deal included a promise to address “non-tariff barriers,” including a pledge to treat conformity assessment bodies — such as testing labs and certification groups from the other nation — in a way that is “no less favorable” than the treatment of its own.  This is an increasingly common commitment in U.K. trade deals and typically means that accreditation bodies would have the power to accredit a whole range of certification and testing providers from the other country. However, U.S. negotiators are now pushing for the recognition of disparate American accreditation bodies, which would give them the authority to approve certification, testing and verification organizations in the U.K., three people briefed on the talks confirmed. Accepting this demand would mean that the U.K.’s national accreditation body, UKAS, would no longer meet the basic requirements of membership in the European Co-operation for Accreditation, under which national accreditation bodies recognize each other’s accreditations.  U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer says he wanted the U.K. to seek “even closer alignment” with the EU. | Leon Neal/Getty Images This would put the proposed U.K.-EU agrifood deal and plans to link U.K. and EU Emissions Trading Schemes “at massive risk,” should those deals require the EU to recognize U.K. emissions verification bodies and food control laboratories, the first person cited above explained. An industry figure familiar with the ETS linkage talks said an acceptance of the changes would amount to a “watering down” of the entire carbon pricing system, adding that “every single company falling under UK ETS” would be “absolutely furious.” It could also jeopardize any future alignment with the EU in other areas such as manufactured goods, a second industry figure briefed on the negotiations said.  The U.K. government has indicated a willingness to go even further in its relationship with the EU, with U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer saying he wanted the U.K. to seek “even closer alignment” with the single market.  Beyond plans outlined in the Common Understanding last May, “there are other areas where we should consider if it’s in our interests to … align with the single market,” he told the BBC in a recent interview. “Now that needs to be considered on an issue-by-issue, sector-by-sector basis, but we’ve already done it with food and agriculture, and that will be implemented this year.” ‘RACE TO THE BOTTOM’ The U.S. operates a decentralized standards system in which accreditation is carried out by a competitive network of organizations, most of which are commercial. This is in direct contrast to the U.K.’s current model of accreditation, whereby a single, non-profit accreditation body, UKAS, oversees certification and product testing in the public interest. The UK Trade Policy Observatory’s Peter Holmes warned that adopting the U.S. system could lead to a “race to the bottom”, with UKAS pitted against American accreditation bodies. “They might have to cut corners and give up their legally-required public service obligations,” he said.  Accepting U.S. accreditation bodies would make the U.K. a “wild west market where you can’t trust anything that’s on sale in the U.K.,” he added. The U.K. government has repeatedly rejected the possibility of changes to British standards, including the possibility of accepting American chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-treated beef.  “We will not compromise on food standards,” Trade Minister Chris Bryant said in an interview with CNBC this month. “That is the beginning and end of everything I have to say on that subject. Food standards are really important. There is no compromise for us to strike there.”

LONDON — If there’s one thing Keir Starmer has mastered in office, it’s changing his mind. The PM has been pushed by his backbenchers toward a flurry of about-turns since entering Downing Street just 18 months ago.  Starmer’s vast parliamentary majority hasn’t stopped him feeling the pressure — and has meant mischievous MPs are less worried their antics will topple the government.  POLITICO recaps 7 occasions MPs mounted objections to the government’s agenda — and forced the PM into a spin. Expect this list to get a few more updates… PUB BUSINESS RATES  Getting on the wrong side of your local watering hole is never a good idea. Many Labour MPs realized that the hard way. Chancellor Rachel Reeves used her budget last year to slash a pandemic-era discount on business rates — taxes levied on firms — from 75 percent to 40 percent. Cue uproar from publicans. Labour MPs were barred from numerous boozers in protest at a sharp bill increase afflicting an already struggling hospitality sector. A £300 million lifeline for pubs, watering down some of the changes, is now being prepped. At least Treasury officials should now have a few more places to drown their sorrows. Time to U-turn: 43 days (Nov. 26, 2025 — Jan. 8, 2026). FARMERS’ INHERITANCE TAX  Part of Labour’s electoral success came from winning dozens of rural constituencies. But Britain’s farmers soon fell out of love with the government.  Reeves’ first budget slapped inheritance tax on farming estates worth more than £1 million from April 2026. Farmers drive tractors near Westminster ahead of a protest against inheritance tax rules on Nov. 19, 2024. | Ben Stansall/AFP via Getty Images Aimed at closing loopholes wealthy individuals use to avoid coughing up to the exchequer, the decision generated uproar from opposition parties (calling the measure the “family farm tax”) and farmers themselves, who drove tractors around Westminster playing “Baby Shark.”  Campaigners including TV presenter and newfound farmer Jeremy Clarkson joined the fight by highlighting that many farmers are asset rich but cash poor — so can’t fund increased inheritance taxes without flogging off their estates altogether. A mounting rebellion by rural Labour MPs (including Cumbria’s Markus Campbell-Savours, who lost the whip for voting against the budget resolution on inheritance tax) saw the government sneak out a threshold hike to £2.5 million just two days before Christmas, lowering the number of affected estates from 375 to 185. Why ever could that have been?  Time to U-turn: 419 days (Oct. 30, 2024 — Dec. 23, 2025). WINTER FUEL PAYMENTS  Labour’s election honeymoon ended abruptly just three and a half weeks into power after Reeves made an economic move no chancellor before her dared to take.  Reeves significantly tightened eligibility for winter fuel payments, a previously universal benefit helping the older generation with heating costs in the colder months.  Given pensioners are the cohort most likely to vote, the policy was seen as a big electoral gamble. It wasn’t previewed in Labour’s manifesto and made many newly elected MPs angsty.  After a battering in the subsequent local elections, the government swiftly confirmed all pensioners earning up to £35,000 would now be eligible for the cash. That’s one way of trying to bag the grey vote. Time until U-turn: 315 days (July 29, 2024 — June 9, 2025).  WELFARE REFORM Labour wanted to rein in Britain’s spiraling welfare bill, which never fully recovered from the Covid-19 pandemic.  The government vowed to save around £5 billion by tightening eligibility for Personal Independence Payment (PIP), a benefit helping people in and out of work with long term health issues. It also said other health related benefits would be cut. However, Labour MPs worried about the impact on the most vulnerable (and nervously eyeing their inboxes) weren’t impressed. More than 100 signed an amendment that would have torpedoed the proposed reforms.  The government vowed to save around £5 billion by tightening eligibility for Personal Independence Payment. | Vuk Valcic via SOPA Images/LightRocket/Getty Images In an initial concession, the government said existing PIP claimants wouldn’t be affected by any eligibility cuts. It wasn’t enough: Welfare Minister Stephen Timms was forced to confirm in the House of Commons during an actual, ongoing welfare debate that eligibility changes for future claimants would be delayed until a review was completed.  What started as £5 billion of savings didn’t reduce welfare costs whatsoever.  Time to U-turn: 101 days (Mar. 18, 2025 — June 27, 2025).  GROOMING GANGS INQUIRY  The widescale abuse of girls across Britain over decades reentered the political spotlight in early 2025 after numerous tweets from X owner Elon Musk. It led to calls for a specific national inquiry into the scandal. Starmer initially rejected this request, pointing to recommendations left unimplemented from a previous inquiry into child sexual abuse and arguing for a local approach. Starmer accused those critical of his stance (aka Musk) of spreading “lies and misinformation” and “amplifying what the far-right is saying.” Yet less than six months later, a rapid review from crossbench peer Louise Casey called for … a national inquiry. Starmer soon confirmed one would happen. Time to U-turn: 159 days (Jan. 6, 2025 — June 14, 2025).  ‘ISLAND OF STRANGERS’ Immigration is a hot-button issue in the U.K. — especially with Reform UK Leader Nigel Farage breathing down Starmer’s neck. The PM tried reflecting this in a speech last May, warning that Britain risked becoming an “island of strangers” without government action to curb migration. That triggered some of Starmer’s own MPs, who drew parallels with the notorious 1968 “rivers of blood” speech by politician Enoch Powell. The PM conceded he’d put a foot wrong month later, giving an Observer interview where he claimed to not be aware of the Powell connection. “I deeply regret using” the term, he said. Time to U-turn: 46 days (May 12, 2025 — June 27, 2025).  Immigration is a hot-button issue in the U.K. — especially with Reform UK Leader Nigel Farage breathing down Starmer’s neck. | Tolga Akmen/EPA TWO-CHILD BENEFIT CAP  Here’s the U-turn that took the longest to arrive — but left Labour MPs the happiest. Introduced by the previous Conservative government, a two-child welfare cap meant parents could only claim social security payments such as Universal Credit or tax credits for their first two children. Many Labour MPs saw it as a relic of the Tory austerity era. Yet just weeks into government, seven Labour MPs lost the whip for backing an amendment calling for it to be scrapped, highlighting Reeves’ preference for fiscal caution over easy wins.  A year and a half later, that disappeared out the window. Reeves embracing its removal in her budget last fall as a child poverty-busty measure got plenty of cheers from Labour MPs — though the cap’s continued popularity with some voters may open up a fresh vulnerability. Time until U-turn: 491 days (July 23, 2024 — Nov. 26, 2025).

LONDON — Choosing your Brexit camp was once the preserve of Britain’s Tories. Now Labour is joining in the fun.  Six years after Britain left the EU, a host of loose — and mostly overlapping — groupings in the U.K.’s ruling party are thinking about precisely how close to try to get to the bloc. They range from customs union enthusiasts to outright skeptics — with plenty of shades of grey in between. There’s a political urgency to all of this too: with Prime Minister Keir Starmer tanking in the polls, the Europhile streak among many Labour MPs and members means Brexit could become a key issue for anyone who would seek to replace him. “The more the screws and pressure have been on Keir around leadership, the more we’ve seen that play to the base,” said one Labour MP, granted anonymity like others quoted in this piece to speak frankly. Indeed, Starmer started the new year explicitly talking up closer alignment with the European Union’s single market. At face value, nothing has changed: Starmer’s comments reflect his existing policy of a “reset” with Brussels. His manifesto red lines on not rejoining the customs union or single market remain. Most of his MPs care more about aligning than how to get there. In short, this is not like the Tory wars of the late 2010s. Well, not yet. POLITICO sketches out Labour’s nascent Brexit tribes. THE CUSTOMS UNIONISTS  It all started with a Christmas walk. Health Secretary Wes Streeting told an interviewer he desires a “deeper trading relationship” with the EU — widely interpreted as hinting at joining a customs union. This had been a whispered topic in Labour circles for a while, discussed privately by figures including Starmer’s economic adviser Minouche Shafik. Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy said last month that rejoining a customs union is not “currently” government policy — which some took as a hint that the position could shift. But Streeting’s leadership ambitions (he denies plotting for the top job) and his willingness to describe Brexit as a problem gave his comments an elevated status among Labour Europhiles.  “This has really come from Wes’s leadership camp,” said one person who talks regularly to No. 10 Downing Street. Naomi Smith, CEO of the pro-EU pressure group Best for Britain, added any Labour leadership contest will be dominated by the Brexit question. MPs and members who would vote in a race “are even further ahead than the public average on all of those issues relating to Europe,” she argued. Joining a customs union would in theory allow smoother trade without returning to free movement of people. But Labour critics of a customs union policy — including Starmer himself — argue it is a non-starter because it would mean tearing up post-Brexit agreements with other countries such as India and the U.S. “It’s just absolutely nonsense,” said a second Labour MP.    Keir Starmer has argued that the customs union route would mean hard conversations with workers in the car industry after Britain secured a U.K.-U.S. tariff deal last summer. | Colin McPherson/Getty Images And since Streeting denies plotting and did not even mention a customs union by name, the identities of the players pushing for one are understandably murky beyond the 13 Labour MPs who backed a Liberal Democrat bill last month requiring the government to begin negotiations on joining a bespoke customs union with the EU. One senior Labour official said “hardly any” MPs back it, while a minister said there was no organized group, only a vague idea. “There are people who don’t really know what it is, but realize Brexit has been painful and the economy needs a stimulus,” they said. “And there are people who do know what this means and they effectively want to rejoin. For people who know about trade, this is an absolute non-starter.” Anand Menon, director of the UK in a Changing Europe think tank, said a full rejoining of the EU customs union would mean negotiating round a suite of “add-ons” — and no nations have secured this without also being in the EU single market. (Turkey has a customs union with the EU, but does not benefit from the EU’s wider trade agreements.) “I’m not convinced the customs union works without the single market,” Menon added.  Starmer has argued that the customs union route would mean hard conversations with workers in the car industry after Britain secured a U.K.-U.S. tariff deal last summer, a person with knowledge of his thinking said. “When you read anything from any economically literate commentator, the customs union is not their go-to,” added the senior Labour official quoted above. “Keir is really strong on it. He fully believes it isn’t a viable route in the national interest or economic interest.” THE SINGLE MARKETEERS (A.K.A. THE GOVERNMENT) Starmer and his allies, then, want to park the customs union and get closer to the single market.  Paymaster General Nick Thomas-Symonds has long led negotiations along these lines through Labour’s existing EU “reset.” He and Starmer recently discussed post-Brexit policy on a walk through the grounds of the PM’s country retreat, Chequers. Working on the detail with Thomas-Symonds is Michael Ellam, the former director of communications for ex-PM Gordon Brown, now a senior civil servant in the Cabinet Office. Ellam is “a really highly regarded, serious guy” and attends regular meetings with Brussels officials, said a second person who speaks regularly to No. 10.   A bill is due to be introduced to the U.K. parliament by summer which will allow “dynamic” alignment with new EU laws in areas of agreement. Two people with knowledge of his role said the bill will be steered through parliament by Cabinet Office Minister Chris Ward, Starmer’s former aide and close ally, who was by his side when Starmer was shadow Brexit secretary during the “Brexit wars” of the late 2010s. Starmer himself talked up this approach in a rare long-form interview this week with BBC host Laura Kuenssberg, saying: “We are better looking to the single market rather than the customs union for our further alignment.” While the PM’s allies insist he simply answered a question, some of his MPs spy a need to seize back the pro-EU narrative. The second person who talks regularly to No. 10 argued a “relatively small … factional leadership challenge group around Wes” is pushing ideas around a customs union, while Starmer wants to “not match that but bypass it, and say actually, we’re doing something more practical and potentially bigger.”  A third Labour MP was blunter about No. 10’s messaging: “They’re terrified and they’re worrying about an internal leadership challenge.” Starmer’s allies argue that their approach is pragmatic and recognizes what the EU will actually be willing to accept. Christabel Cooper, director of research at the pro-Labour think tank Labour Together — which plans polling and focus groups in the coming months to test public opinion on the issue — said: “We’ve talked to a few trade experts and economists, and actually the customs union is not all that helpful. To get a bigger bang for your buck, you do need to go down more of a single market alignment route.”  Stella Creasy argued that promising a Swiss-style deal in Labour’s next election manifesto (likely in 2029) would benefit the economy — far more than the “reset” currently on the table. | Nicola Tree/Getty Images Nick Harvey, CEO of the pro-EU pressure group European Movement UK, concurred: “The fact that they’re now talking about a fuller alignment towards the single market is very good news, and shows that to make progress economically and to make progress politically, they simply have to do this.”  But critics point out there are still big questions about what alignment will look like — or more importantly, what the EU will go for.  The bill will include areas such as food standards, animal welfare, pesticide use, the EU’s electricity market and carbon emissions trading, but talks on all of these remain ongoing. Negotiations to join the EU’s defense framework, SAFE, stalled over the costs to Britain. Menon said: “I just don’t see what [Starmer] is spelling out being practically possible. Even at the highest levels there has been, under the Labour Party, quite a degree of ignorance, I think, about how the EU works and what the EU wants.   “I’ve heard Labour MPs say, well, they’ve got a veterinary deal with New Zealand, so how hard can it be? And you want to say, I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but New Zealand doesn’t have a land border with the EU.”  THE SWISS BANKERS Then there are Europhile MPs, peers and campaigners who back aligning with the single market — but going much further than Starmer.  For some this takes the form of a “Swiss-style” deal, which would allow single market access for some sectors without rejoining the customs union.   This would plough through Starmer’s red lines by reintroducing EU freedom of movement, along with substantial payments to Brussels.  But Stella Creasy, chair of the Labour Movement for Europe (LME), argued that promising a Swiss-style deal in Labour’s next election manifesto (likely in 2029) would benefit the economy — far more than the “reset” currently on the table. She said: “If you could get a Swiss-style deal and put it in the manifesto … that would be enough for businesses to invest.”  Creasy said LME has around 150 MPs as members and holds regular briefings for them. While few Labour MPs back a Swiss deal — and various colleagues see Creasy as an outlier — she said MPs and peers, including herself, plan to put forward amendments to the dynamic alignment bill when it goes through parliament.  Tom Baldwin, Starmer’s biographer and the former communications director of the People’s Vote campaign (which called for a second referendum on Brexit), also suggests Labour could go further in 2029. “Keir Starmer’s comments at the weekend about aligning with — and gaining access to — the single market open up a whole range of possibilities,” he said. “At the low end, this is a pragmatic choice by a PM who doesn’t want to be forced to choose between Europe and America.   “At the upper end, it suggests Labour may seek a second term mandate at the next election by which the U.K. would get very close to rejoining the single market. That would be worth a lot more in terms of economic growth and national prosperity than the customs union deal favoured by the Lib Dems.”  A third person who speaks regularly to No. 10 called it a “boil the frog strategy.” They added: “You get closer and closer and then maybe … you go into the election saying ‘we’ll try to negotiate something more single markety or customs uniony.’”  THE REJOINERS? Labour’s political enemies (and some of its supporters) argue this could all lead even further — to rejoining the EU one day. “Genuinely, I am not advocating rejoin now in any sense because it’s a 10-year process,” said Creasy, who is about as Europhile as they come in Labour. “Our European counterparts would say ‘hang on a minute, could you actually win a referendum, given [Reform UK Leader and Brexiteer Nigel] Farage is doing so well?’”  With Prime Minister Keir Starmer tanking in the polls, the Europhile streak among many Labour MPs and members means Brexit could become a key issue for anyone who would seek to replace him. | Tom Nicholson/Getty Images Simon Opher, an MP and member of the Mainstream Labour group closely aligned with Burnham, said rejoining was “probably for a future generation” as “the difficulty is, would they want us back?” But look into the soul of many Labour politicians, and they would love to still be in the bloc — even if they insist rejoining is not on the table now. Andy Burnham — the Greater Manchester mayor who has flirted with the leadership — remarked last year that he would like to rejoin the EU in his lifetime (he’s 56). London Mayor Sadiq Khan said “in the medium to long term, yes, of course, I would like to see us rejoining.” In the meantime Khan backs membership of the single market and customs union, which would still go far beyond No. 10’s red lines.  THE ISSUES-LED MPS Then there are the disparate — yet overlapping — groups of MPs whose views on Europe are guided by their politics, their constituencies or their professional interests. To Starmer’s left, backbench rebels including Richard Burgon and Dawn Butler backed the push toward a customs union by the opposition Lib Dems. The members of the left-wing Socialist Campaign Group frame their argument around fears Labour will lose voters to other progressive parties, namely the Lib Dems, Greens and SNP, if they fail to show adequate bonds with Europe. Some other, more centrist MPs fear similar. Labour MPs with a military background or in military-heavy seats also want the U.K. and EU to cooperate further. London MP Calvin Bailey, who spent more than two decades in the Royal Air Force, endorsed closer security relations between Britain and France through greater intelligence sharing and possibly permanent infrastructure. Alex Baker, whose Aldershot constituency is known as the home of the British Army, backed British involvement in a global Defense, Security and Resilience Bank, arguing it could be key to a U.K.-EU Defence and Security Pact. The government opted against joining such a scheme.   Parliamentarians keen for young people to bag more traveling rights were buoyed by a breakthrough on Erasmus+ membership for British students at the end of last year. More than 60 Labour MPs earlier signed a letter calling for a youth mobility scheme allowing 18 to 30-year-olds expanded travel opportunities on time limited visas. It was organized by Andrew Lewin, the Welywn Hatfield MP, and signatories included future Home Office Minister Mike Tapp (then a backbencher).  Labour also has an influential group of rural MPs, most elected in 2024, who are keen to boost cooperation and cut red tape for farmers. Rural MP Steve Witherden, on the party’s left, said: “Three quarters of Welsh food and drink exports go straight to the EU … regulatory alignment is a top priority for rural Labour MPs. Success here could point the way towards closer ties with Europe in other sectors.”  THE NOT-SO-SECRET EUROPHILES (A.K.A. ALL OF THE ABOVE) Many Labour figures argue that all of the above are actually just one mega-group — Labour MPs who want to be closer to Brussels, regardless of the mechanism. Menon agreed Labour camps are not formalized because most Labour MPs agree on working closely with Brussels. “I think it’s a mishmash,” he said. But he added: “I think these tribes will emerge or develop because there’s an intra-party fight looming, and Brexit is one of the issues people use to signal where they stand.” A fourth Labour MP agreed: “I didn’t think there was much of a distinction between the camps of people who want to get closer to the EU. The first I heard of that was over the weekend.”  The senior Labour official quoted above added: “I don’t think it cuts across tribes in such a clear way … a broader group of people just want us to move faster in terms of closeness into the EU, in terms of a whole load of things. I don’t think it fits neatly.” For years MPs were bound by a strategy of talking little about Brexit because it was so divisive with Labour’s voter base. That shifted over 2025. Labour advisers were buoyed by polls showing a rise in “Bregret” among some who voted for Brexit in 2016, as well as changing demographics (bluntly, young voters come of age while older voters die).  No. 10 aides also noted last summer that Farage, the leader of the right-wing populist party Reform UK, was making Brexit less central to his campaigning. Some aides (though others dispute this) credit individual advisers such as Tim Allan, No. 10’s director of communications, as helping a more openly EU-friendly media strategy into being. For all the talk of tribes and camps, Labour doesn’t have warring Brexit factions in the same way that the Tories did at the height of the EU divorce in the 2010s. | Jakub Porzycki/Getty Images THE BLUE LABOUR HOLDOUTS  Not everyone in Labour wants to hug Brussels tight.  A small but significant rump of Labour MPs, largely from the socially conservative Blue Labour tribe, is anxious that pursuing closer ties could be seen as a rejection of the Brexit referendum — and a betrayal of voters in Leave-backing seats who are looking to Reform. One of them, Liverpool MP Dan Carden, said the failure of both London and Brussels to strike a recent deal on defense funding, even amid threats from Russia, showed Brussels is not serious.   “Any Labour MP who thinks that the U.K. can get closer to the single market or the customs union without giving up freedoms and taking instruction from an EU that we’re not a part of is living in cloud cuckoo land,” he said. A similar skepticism of the EU’s authority is echoed by the Tony Blair Institute (TBI), led by one of the most pro-European prime ministers in Britain’s history. The TBI has been meeting politicians in Brussels and published a paper translated into French, German and Italian in a bid to shape the EU’s future from within.   Ryan Wain, the TBI’s senior director for policy and politics, argued: “We live in a G2 world where there are two superpowers, China and the U.S. By the middle of this century there will likely be three, with India. To me, it’s just abysmal that Europe isn’t mentioned in that at all. It has massive potential to adapt and reclaim its influence, but that opportunity needs to be unlocked.”  Such holdouts enjoy a strange alliance with left-wing Euroskeptics (“Lexiteers”), who believe the EU does not have the interests of workers at its heart. But few of these were ever in Labour and few remain; former Leader Jeremy Corbyn has long since been cast out. At the same time many Labour MPs in Leave-voting areas, who opposed efforts to stop Brexit in the late 2010s, now support closer alignment with Brussels to help their local car and chemical industries. As such, there are now 20 or fewer MPs holding their noses on closer alignment. Just three Labour MPs, including fellow Blue Labour supporter Jonathan Brash, voted against a bill supporting a customs union proposed by the centrist, pro-Europe Lib Dems last month.  WHERE WILL IT ALL END?  For all the talk of tribes and camps, Labour doesn’t have warring Brexit factions in the same way that the Tories did at the height of the EU divorce in the 2010s. Most MPs agree on closer alignment with the EU; the question is how they get there.  Even so, Menon has a warning from the last Brexit wars. Back in the late 2010s, Conservative MPs would jostle to set out their positions — workable or otherwise. The crowded field just made negotiations with Brussels harder. “We end up with absolutely batshit stupid positions when viewed from the EU,” said Menon, “because they’re being derived as a function of the need to position yourself in a British political party.” But few of these were ever in Labour and few remain; former Leader Jeremy Corbyn has long since been cast out. | Seiya Tanase/Getty Images The saving grace could be that most Labour MPs are united by a deeper gut feeling about the EU — one that, Baldwin argues, is reflected in Starmer himself. The PM’s biographer said: “At heart, Keir Starmer is an outward-looking internationalist whose pro-European beliefs are derived from what he calls the ‘blood-bond’ of 1945 and shared values, rather than the more transactional trade benefits of 1973,” when Britain joined the European Economic Community.  All that remains is to turn a “blood-bond” into hard policy. Simple, right?