LONDON — Peter Mandelson said he has nothing new to tell U.S. lawmakers about Jeffrey Epstein, as he branded his sacking as Britain’s Ambassador to Washington over his links to the convicted sex offender a “life-changing crisis.” “There is nothing I can tell Congress about Epstein they don’t already know,” he told the Times in an interview published Monday night. “I had no exposure to the criminal aspects of his life,” he added. Britain’s Metropolitan Police said Monday it is reviewing reports relating to alleged misconduct in a public office. Newly-released Epstein files appear to suggest Mandelson passed information from inside the U.K. government to the convicted sex offender while he was business secretary. In the same Times interview, Mandelson, who twice resigned from the New Labour government, said being sacked as U.S. ambassador last September “felt like being killed without actually dying.” “I’ve had a lot of bad luck, no doubt some of it of my own making,” he said. The Times interview was conducted on January 25 — before the latest tranche of documents was published – and the paper also spoke to Mandelson on Sunday. U.K. minister Karin Smyth, speaking for the U.K. government on Tuesday morning, criticized Mandelson’s lack of self-awareness. “I’m sure you’ve seen and interviewed over time, men that have been involved in similar sorts of behavior, seem to not be able to recognize their own self in that,” Smith told Sky News presenter Sophy Ridge. Smith said Mandelson should testify before U.S. Congress, if asked, adding: “Anybody who’s got information should support the investigation, should be as open as they can be.” Newly released Epstein files appear to show Mandelson shared sensitive government policy decisions with the disgraced financier. They also suggest Epstein made payments linked to Mandelson. Mandelson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. He has previously said he was wrong to have continued his association with Epstein and apologized “unequivocally” to Epstein’s victims. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has asked Cabinet Secretary Chris Wormald to investigate the apparent government leaks. Politicians from across the political spectrum have called on Mandelson, who resigned from Labour, to retire or be removed from the House of Lords.

LONDON — Britain’s pubs are in distress. The beer-loving Nigel Farage has spied an opening. The Reform UK leader and his chief whip Lee Anderson are set to unveil a raft of new policies Tuesday meant to support struggling publicans — and punch a Labour bruise. It comes days after Chancellor Rachel Reeves — under pressure from a highly-organized pubs industry — was forced to U-turn on plans from her budget and announce a three-year relief package for the U.K.’s ailing hospitality sector. Farage isn’t alone — the government’s other rivals are setting out pub-friendly policies too, and are helping to push the plight of the British boozer up the political agenda.  But it’s the latest populist move by the right-wing outfit, whose leader often posts pictures from the pub on social media and has carefully cultivated an ale-drinking man-of-the people persona, to capture the attention of an electorate increasingly soured on Labour’s domestic efforts. ‘GENUINE PISS ARTIST’ Reform will on Tuesday lift the lid on a five-point plan to “save Britain’s pubs,” promising a slew of tax cuts for the sector — including slashing sales tax VAT to 10 percent, scrapping the employer National Insurance increase for the hospitality sector, cutting beer duty by 10 percent, and phasing out business rates for pubs altogether. The party will also pledge to change “beer orders” regulation, which sees large pub companies lock landlords into contracts that force them to buy beer from approved suppliers at much higher prices than the open market. Reform says the plan would be funded through social security changes — reinstating a two-child cap on universal credit, a move the party claims would save around £3 billion by 2029-30. “Labour has no connection to how real life works,” Farage said earlier this month as he lambasted government plans to lower the drink drive limit. One of the British pub industry’s biggest names thinks Farage could have a genuine opening with voters on this front. The Reform boss has “got the massive advantage in that he’s a genuine piss artist,” Tim Martin, the outspoken owner of the British pub chain JD Wetherspoons, said. “He genuinely likes a sherbet, which, when it comes to pubs, people can tell that, whereas I don’t think [they do] with the other party leaders,” he said. The pub boss recounted watching as Farage “whacked down two pints and had two cigarettes” ahead of an appearance on BBC Question Time in which Martin also featured, as other politicians hovered over their briefing notes. The dangers of upsetting the pub industry have not been lost on Labour’s political opponents. | Ben Stansall/AFP via Getty Images Green MP Siân Berry is less impressed with Farage’s pub shtick, however. She accuses him of “playing into a stereotype of pubs as spaces for older white men to sit and drink.” “Most people who run a pub business these days know that it needs to be a family space,” she said. SHOW US THE POLICY Either way, Farage is exploiting an opening left by Labour, which riled up some pubs with its planned shake-up of business rates. “When the Labour government came in, the pub industry was already weak — and they piled on more costs,” said Wetherspoons’ boss Martin. Since Labour won power in 2024 Reeves has also hiked the minimum wage employers must pay their staff, increased employer national insurance contributions, and raised beer duties. While the industry cautiously welcomed Reeves’ business rate U-turn last month, they say there’s still more to do. “This will make a significant difference, as three quarters of pubs are now going to see their bills staying the same or going down,” Andy Tighe, the British Beer and Pub Association (BBPA)’s strategy and policy director, said of the U-turn — but “it doesn’t solve everything,” he added. “For most operators, it’s those big sorts of taxes around business rates, VAT, duty, employment-related taxes that make the real difference, ultimately, to how they think about the future,” he said.  A U.K. Treasury spokesperson said: “We are backing Britain’s pubs — cutting April’s business rates bills by 15 percent followed by a two year freeze, extending World Cup opening hours and increasing the Hospitality Support Fund to £10 million to help venues. “This comes on top of capping corporation tax, cutting alcohol duty on draught pints and six cuts in interest rates, benefiting businesses in every part of Britain,” they added. ALSO PITCHING The dangers of upsetting the pub industry have not been lost on Labour’s political opponents. Politicians of all stripes are keen to engage with the industry, Tighe says. “Pubs matter to people and that’s why I think political parties increasingly want to ensure that the policies that they’re putting forward are pub-friendly,” he said.  Polling found that nearly half (48 percent) of Farage’s supporters in 2024 think pubs in their local area have deteriorated in recent years. | Henry Nicholls/AFP via Getty Images The Tories say they will abolish business rates for pubs, while the Liberal Democrats have pledged to cut their VAT by 5 percent. The Greens’ Berry also wants to tackle alcohol advertising which she says pushes people to drink at home. “A pub is a different thing in a lot of ways, it is more part of the community — drinking second,” the left-wing party’s representative said. “I think the evidence base for us is not to be anti-pub, but it might be against advertising alcohol.” Industry bigwigs like Martin have consistently argued that pubs are being asked to compete with supermarkets on a playing field tilted against them.  “They must have tax equality with supermarkets, because they can’t compete with supermarkets, which are much stronger financial institutions than pubs,” he said, citing the 20 percent VAT rate on food served in pubs — and the wider tax burden pubs face.  GLOOMY OUTLOOK The plight of the local boozer appears to be occupying British voters too. Polling from the think tank More in Common conducted in August 2025 found almost half of Brits (44 percent) go to the pub at least once a month — and among people who voted Labour in 2024 that rises to 60 percent. The same polling found nearly half (48 percent) of Farage’s supporters in 2024 think pubs in their local area have deteriorated in recent years — compared to 31 percent of Labour voters. “Reform voters are more likely than any other voter group to believe that their local area is neglected,” Louis O’Geran, research associate at More in Common, said. “These tangible signs of decline — like boarded up pubs and shops — often come up in focus groups as evidence of ‘broken Britain’ and drive support for Reform,” he added.  The job now for Farage, and his political rivals, is to convince voters their local watering hole is safe in their hands.

Switzerland will raise its value-added tax rate for a decade to boost defense spending, its government announced today. “In view of the deteriorating geopolitical situation, the Federal Council wants to substantially strengthen Switzerland’s security and defense capabilities,” the statement reads. “To this end, additional resources in the order of 31 billion Swiss francs [€33 billion] are required.” The Council plans to temporarily raise VAT by 0.8 percent from the current 8.1 percent for 10 years, as of 2028. The additional revenues will be allocated to an armament fund that will also have borrowing capacity. However, raising the VAT requires a change in the constitution and a public consultation will open in the spring. Switzerland has been rethinking its defense stance since Russia’s attack on Ukraine almost four years ago. It is looking for more military cooperation with European nations and ramping up its rearmament, although it still has no intention of joining NATO. Switzerland spends about 0.7 percent of its GDP on defense, one of the lowest rates in Europe. The current goal of boosting that to 1 percent by 2032 is now out of date, the Federal Council said. “Due to the savings made in recent decades, the armed forces are also insufficiently equipped, particularly to effectively repel the most likely threats, namely long-range attacks and hybrid conflicts,” the statement added. Priorities for the country’s armament push include short- and medium-range air defense systems, cybersecurity and electromagnetic capabilities.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Die Koalition will raus aus dem Reformstillstand. Mit dem Bericht der Sozialstaatskommission soll heute ein Wendepunkt markiert werden: weniger Bürokratie, mehr Digitalisierung, effizientere Leistungen. Arbeitsministerin Bärbel Bas legt vor, der Kanzler positioniert sich. Gordon Repinski ordnet die Vorschläge gemeinsam mit Rasmus Buchsteiner ein und blickt auf die nächste, politisch heiklere Reformrunde bei Rente und Krankenversicherung. Im 200-Sekunden-Interview: Matthias Moosdorf, der frühere außenpolitische Sprecher der AfD. Es geht um Russland, den Angriffskrieg gegen die Ukraine, persönliche Verbindungen nach Moskau und um die Frage, wo politische Provokation endet und journalistische Konfrontation beginnt. Warum dieses Gespräch das letzte seiner Art bleibt, erklärt Repinski im Podcast. International richtet sich der Blick nach Brüssel und Neu-Delhi: Die EU setzt auf eine neue strategische Nähe zu Indien. Ein schlankes Handelsabkommen, ausgeklammerte Konfliktfelder und sicherheitspolitische Kooperation sollen Tempo bringen – auch als Lehre aus dem stockenden Mercosur-Deal. Oliver Nojan analysiert, warum die Kommission jetzt anders vorgeht und was geopolitisch auf dem Spiel steht. Zum Schluss: ein Rückblick auf „Young Female in Politics“ in Berlin und ein Ausblick auf den heutigen Weltwirtschaftsgipfel – eine Woche, in der sich alles um Reformdruck, Wirtschaft und politische Handlungsfähigkeit dreht. Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren. Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski: Instagram: @gordon.repinski | X: @GordonRepinski. POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0 information@axelspringer.de Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390 Geschäftsführer: Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna

Europe isn’t doomed to inexorable decline — and in fact is doing better than most people realize, said the IMF’s Kristalina Georgieva. Much of the European Union’s policymaking bubble has been gripped with despair since the bloc’s weakness was exposed during a recent confrontation with the U.S. over Greenland. While U.S. President Donald Trump eventually backed down, the European military response — sending a symbolic handful of soldiers to the North Atlantic island — underlined that had the White House really wanted to seize Greenland, Europeans would have had no choice but to accede. But in an interview with POLITICO, Georgieva, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, said the pessimism was misplaced. In an end-of-year shortlist of top-performing economies put together by the Economist, she noted, the top 10 included seven EU countries, with Portugal in the top spot. The Iberian economy has recorded steady growth while comfortably paying down its debt in the past few years. That’s a fact, she said, that should be celebrated. “Europeans — we are modest people. We don’t brag,” the IMF head stated. She recalled how a U.S. colleague had recently done “something marginal.” “He said ‘oh, let’s look at this. I’m great. I’m fantastic,’” Georgieva recounted. “In Europe you do something great and you say ‘not too bad.’ In this world we are in now, you have to brag a little, exude confidence.” Even before the Greenland standoff, a sense of despair had settled over the top echelons of European economic decision-making. Mario Draghi, former head of the European Central Bank, warned that the bloc faced “slow agony” if it didn’t reform. Georgieva acknowledged the increasingly sharp-elbowed way in which countries now operate — one that leaves little room for multilateral organizations like her own IMF. In a speech earlier on Monday she acknowledged that the world had become “multipolar” — code for a new era of jostling geopolitical blocs that has replaced unilateral American dominance. Speaking to POLITICO, Georgieva said that “geopolitical factors play an increasingly bigger role in defining the world economy.” On Greenland, she said the fact that “allies find it more difficult to retain their sense of common purpose” was a “significant change.” But she insisted that the “destiny of Europe is in the hands of Europeans.” The IMF’s list of advice to reform the EU’s economy echoes Draghi’s own, contained in his competitiveness report from 2024: They include strengthening the single market, cutting regulations on businesses, and integrating the continent’s fragmented energy and financial systems. Mario Draghi, former head of the European Central Bank, warned that the bloc faced “slow agony” if it didn’t reform. | Olivier Matthys/EPA Georgieva said it was “paramount” for the EU to press ahead with reform. “Get your own house in order,” she said. Three of the Economist shortlist’s best-performing countries — Ireland, Portugal and Greece — were put under IMF supervision at the height of the eurozone crisis. There, they had to agree to painful adjustments known as structural reform programs, which included tax hikes and brutal cuts to public services. In the case of Greece in particular, those structural reforms resulted in a sharp increase in unemployment and poverty levels; gross domestic product per capita is still not at its pre-crisis level. But, said Georgieva, their current success is proof that countries, and the EU as a whole, can change their economic trajectories. Asked whether Europe should consider retaliating against U.S. aggression by selling off assets like government bonds, a suggestion included in a recent analyst report from Deutsche Bank, the senior official urged caution. “I would say that the smooth functioning of the international monetary system is of value to all countries,” she said. “Disturbing that smooth functioning of the international monetary system with the same token can bring negative impact.” The Bulgarian boss of the Washington, D.C.-based fund did, however, back a deeper pool of joint EU debt — an idea favored by Draghi but regarded with suspicion by frugal countries like Germany and the Netherlands. As for the disbursement of $8.1 billion in IMF funds to Ukraine to help the country meet its financing needs, Georgieva said she was aiming to hold an IMF board meeting in the second half of `February at which the board could approve the program and start paying out funds. Though the amount is relatively small — less than a tenth of the €90 billion that the EU has agreed to lend to Ukraine — IMF approval is a signal of confidence for financial markets. The IMF chief also said that a meeting “is scheduled” with U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent regarding the situation in Venezuela, and that it would happen in the “nearest future.” The IMF stopped working with Venezuela in 2019. The fund estimates that the South American country’s economy, battered by U.S. sanctions and plagued by mismanagement, has shrunk to a third of its previous largest size. Since the U.S. captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro at the start of the year, it has floated the possibility of allowing Venezuela to access IMF financing again.

Its been a bad stretch of polling for President Donald Trump. In recent weeks, a string of new polls has found Trump losing ground with key constituencies, especially the young, non-white and low-propensity voters who swung decisively in his direction in 2024. The uptick in support for Trump among those non-traditional Republican voters helped fuel chatter of an enduring “realignment” in the American electorate — but the durability of that realignment is now coming into doubt with those same groups cooling on Trump. Surveying the findings of the most recent New York Times-Siena poll, polling analyst Nate Cohn bluntly declared that “the second Trump coalition has unraveled.” Is it time to touch up the obituaries for the Trumpian realignment? To find out, I spoke with conservative pollster and strategist Patrick Ruffini, whose 2024 book “Party of the People” was widely credited with predicting the contours of Trump’s electoral realignment. Ruffini cautioned against prematurely eulogizing the GOP’s new coalition, noting that the erosion of support has so far not extended to the constituencies that have served as the primary drivers of the Trumpian realignment — particularly white working-class voters and working-class Latinos and Asian Americans. But he also acknowledged that the findings of the recent polls should raise alarms for Republicans ahead of 2026 and especially 2028. His advice to Trump for reversing the trend: a relentless focus on “affordability,” which the White House has so far struggled to muster, and which remains the key issue dragging down the president. “I think that is undeniable,” he said. “It’s the number one issue among the swing voter electorate.” This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. Based on your own polling, do you agree that “the second Trump coalition has unraveled?” It really depends on how you define the Trump coalition. The coalition that has really reshaped American politics over the last decade has been a coalition that saw voters who are aligned with a more populist view of America come into the Republican Party — in many cases, after voting for Barack Obama twice. Those shifts have proven to be pretty durable, especially among white working-class voters but also among conservative Hispanic voters and conservative Asian American voters. You have another group of voters who is younger and disconnected from politics — a group that had been really one of the core groups for Barack Obama and the Democrats back in the 2010s. They didn’t always vote, but there was really no hope or prospect for Republicans winning that group or being very competitive with that group. That happens for the first time in 2024, when that specific combination of young, minority, male voters really comes into play in a big way. But that shift right has proven to be a little bit less durable — and maybe a lot less durable — because of the nature of who those voters are. They’re not really connected to one political party, and they’re inherently non-partisan. So what you’re seeing is less of a shift among people who reliably vote in midterms, and what we are seeing is more of a shift among those infrequent voters. The question then becomes are these voters going to show up in 2026? How big of a problem is it for Republicans if they don’t? How alarmed should Republicans be by the current trends? I think they’re right to focus on affordability. You’ve seen that as an intentional effort by the White House, including what seems like embracing some Democratic policy proposals that also are in some ways an end-run around traditional Republican and conservative economics — things like a 10 percent cap on credit card interest. What’s the evidence that cost of living is the thing that’s primarily eroding Republican support among that group of voters you described? I think that is undeniable. It’s the number one issue among the swing voter electorate. However you want to define the swing voter electorate in 2024, cost of living was far and away the number one issue among the Biden-to-Trump voters in 2024. It is still the number one issue. And that’s because of demographically who they are. The profile of the voter who swung in ‘24 was not just minority, but young, low-income, who tends to be less college-educated, less married and more exposed to affordability concerns. So I think that’s obviously their north star right now. The core Democratic voter is concerned about the erosion of norms and democracy. The core Republican voter is concerned about immigration and border security. But this swing vote is very, very much concerned about the cost of living. Is there any evidence that things like Trump’s immigration crackdown or his foreign policy adventurism are contributing at all to the erosion of support among this group? I have to laugh at the idea of foreign policy being decisive for a large segment of voters. I think you could probably say that, to the extent that Trump had some non-intervention rhetoric, there might be some backlash among some of the podcast bros, or among the Tucker Carlson universe. But that is practically a non-entity when it comes to the actual electorate and especially this group that is floating between the two political parties. Maybe there’s a dissident faction on the right that is particularly focused on this, but what really matters is this cost-of-living issue, which people don’t view as having been solved by Trump coming into office. The White House would say — and Vance said recently — that it takes a while to turn the Titanic around. Which is not the most reassuring metaphor, but sure. Exactly, but nonetheless. I think a lot of these things are very interesting bait for media, but they are not necessarily what is really driving the voters who are disconnected from these narratives. What about his immigration agenda? Does that seem to be having any specific effect? I do think there’s probably some aspect of this that might be challenging with Latinos, but I think it’s very easy to fall back into the 2010 pattern of saying Latino voters are inordinately primarily focused on immigration, which has proven incorrect time after time after time. So, yes, I would say the ICE actions are probably a bit negative, but I think Latino voters primarily share the same concerns as other voters in the electorate. They’re primarily focused on cost of living, jobs and health care. How would Trump’s first year in office have looked different if he had been really laser-focused on consolidating the gains that Republicans saw among these voters in 2024? What would he have done that he didn’t do, and what shouldn’t he have done that he did do? I would first concede that the focus on affordability needed to be, like, a Day 1 concern. I will also concede how hard it is to move this group that is very, very disaffected from traditional politics and doesn’t trust or believe the promises made by politicians — even one as seemingly authentic as Trump. I go back to 2018. While in some ways you would kill for the economic perceptions that you had in 2018, that didn’t seem to help them much in the midterms. The other problem with a laser focus on affordability on Day 1 is that I don’t think it clearly aligns with what the policy demanders on the right are actually asking for. If you ask, “What is MAGA economic policy?”, for many, MAGA economic policy is tariffs — and in many ways, tariffs run up against an impulse to do something about affordability. Now, to date, we haven’t really seen that actually play out. We haven’t really seen an increase in the inflation rate, which is good. But there’s an opportunity cost to focusing on certain issues over this focus on affordability. I think the challenge is that I don’t think either party has a pre-baked agenda that is all about reducing costs. They certainly had a pre-baked agenda around immigration, and they do have a pre-baked agenda around tariffs. What else has stopped the administration from effectively consolidating this part of the 2024 coalition? It’s a very hard-to-reach group. In 2024, Trump’s team had the insight to really put him front-and-center in these non-political arenas, whether it was going to UFC matches or appearing on Joe Rogan. I think it’s very easy for any administration to come into office and pivot towards the policy demanders on the right, and I think that we’ve seen a pivot in that direction, at least on the policy. So I would say they should be doing more of that 2024 strategy of actually going into spaces where non-political voters live and talking to them. Is it possible to turn negative perception around among this group? Or is it a one-way ratchet, where once you’ve lost their support, it’s very hard to get it back? I don’t think it’s impossible. We are seeing some improvement in the economic perception numbers, but we also saw how hard it is to sustain that. I think the mindset of the average voter is just that they’re in a far different place post-Covid than they were pre-Covid. There’s just been a huge negative bias in the economy since Covid, so I think any thought that, “Oh, it would be easy that Trump gets elected, and that’s going to be the thing that restores optimism” was wrong. I think he’s taken really decisive action, and he has solved a lot of problems, but the big nut to crack is, How do you break people out of this post-Covid economic pessimism? The more critical case that could be made against Trump’s approach to economic policy is not just that he’s failed to address the cost-of-living crisis, but that he’s actively done things that run contrary to any stated vision of economic populism. The tax cuts are the major one, which included some populist components tacked on, but which was essentially a massively regressive tax cut. Do you think that has contributed to the sour feeling among this cohort at all? I think we know very clearly when red lines are crossed and when different policies really get voters writ large to sit up and take notice. For instance, it was only when you had SNAP benefits really being cut off that Congress had any impetus to actually solve the shutdown. I don’t think people are quite as tuned in to the distributional effects of tax policy. The White House would say that there were very popular parts of this proposal, like the Trump accounts and no tax on tips, that didn’t get coverage — and our polling has shown that people have barely actually heard about those things compared to some of the Democratic lines of attack. So I think that the tax policy debate is relatively overrated, because it simply doesn’t matter as much to voters as much as the cultural issues or the general sense that life is not as affordable as it was. Assuming these trends continue and this cohort of sort of young, low-propensity voters continues to shift away from Trump, what does the picture look like for Republicans in 2026 and 2028? I would say 2026 is perhaps a false indicator. In the midterms, you’re really talking about an electorate that is going to be much older, much whiter, much more college-educated. I think you really have to have a presidential campaign to test how these voters are going to behave. And presidential campaigns are also a choice between Republicans and Democrats. I think certainly Republicans would want to make it into a Republican-versus-Democrat choice, because polling is very clear that voters do not trust the Democrats either on these issues. It’s clear that a lot of these voters have actually moved away from the Democratic Party — they just haven’t necessarily moved into the Republican Party. Thinking big picture, does this erosion of support change or alter your view of the “realignment” in any respect? I’ve always said that we are headed towards a future where these groups are up for grabs, and whichever party captures them has the advantage. That’s different from the politics of the Obama era, where we were talking about an emerging Democratic majority driven by a generational shift and by the rise of non-white voters in the electorate. The most recent New York Times poll has Democrats ahead among Latino voters by 16 points, which is certainly different than 2024, when Trump lost them by just single digits, but that is a far cry from where we were in 2016 and 2018. So I think in many respects, that version of it is coming true. But if 2024 was a best-case scenario for the right, and 2026 is a worst-case scenario, we really have to wait till 2028 to see where this all shakes out.

PARIS — The French government survived two no-confidence votes over its fiscal plans Friday, moving one step closer to finally adopting a proper state budget for the year. The motion of no confidence put forward by the far-left France Unbowed was backed by 269 MPs — 19 votes short of passing— while the far-right National Rally’s version netted support from a mere 142 lawmakers. The two parties attempted to bring down Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu’s government following his decision to use a constitutional backdoor to pass France’s 2026 budget after lawmakers failed to approve one before the end of 2025. That maneuver, Article 49.3 of the constitution, allows the government to ram through legislation without a vote but in turn gives opposition lawmakers the opportunity to respond by putting forward a no-confidence vote. Lecornu triggered that measure on Tuesday to pass the part of the budget that concerns raising revenue. He is expected to use it again Friday to pass the final part of the budget concerning government expenditures. Lecornu had been expected to survive, as the political extremes do not have enough lawmakers among themselves to bring down the government. The more centrist Socialists, who have played a kingmaker role during the prime minister’s tenure, did not try to topple the government after Lecornu offered them several last-minute budgetary concessions. France is under pressure from financial markets and international institutions to cut a budget deficit that came in at 5.4 percent of GDP last year and debt that is projected to go up to 118.2 percent of GDP in 2026, according to the government’s forecast. The country’s hung parliament was, for a second year in a row, unable to craft a state budget on its own despite Lecornu’s pledge to let lawmakers search for a consensus. They did, however, agree to a deal on funding the country’s social security system. Without proper plans in place, lawmakers were forced to roll over the 2025 budget into the new year until proper fiscal plans could be finalized. Lecornu said last week he would use Article 49.3 to enact a budget despite having ruled that option out in October. The 2026 budget being enacted is projected to carry a deficit of 5 percent of GDP and remains under excessive deficit procedure from the European Commission. Paris has pledged to bring the figure below 3 percent of GDP, as required by EU rules, by 2029.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Lars Klingbeil spricht mit Gordon Repinski über den Moment, in dem das World Economic Forum endgültig geopolitisch wird. Die Rede von Donald Trump, der europäische Schulterschluss – und die Frage, warum sich Europa jetzt nicht zurücklehnen darf. Außerdem geht es beim Spaziergang am Rande des Weltwirtschaftsforums um Fragen der Krisenfestigkeit des deutschen Wirtschaftsmodells. Ist Wettbewerbsfähigkeit ein sozialdemokratisches Thema? Klingbeil erklärt, warum sichere Arbeitsplätze, Investitionen und Resilienz für ihn keine Gegensätze sind. Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren. Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski: Instagram: @gordon.repinski | X: @GordonRepinski. POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0 information@axelspringer.de Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390 Geschäftsführer: Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage said he doesn’t like banks and will scrap interest payments British lenders receive through the Bank of England’s quantitative easing program.  The Reform Party included the proposal to end the practice of the U.K. central bank paying interest on the reserves placed with it by banks in its 2024 manifesto, which it claimed would bring in up to £40 billion for taxpayers.  “We are going to do it. Some of the banks won’t like it. Well, I don’t like the banks very much because they debanked me, didn’t they?” Farage said in an interview with Bloomberg at the World Economic Forum in Davos.  “This will be tough for banks to accept, but I am sorry, the drain on public finances is just too great. It’s not a tax. They are just not going to get free money anymore. They’ll adjust; business always does.” The BoE currently pays interest on the bank reserves created during the post-global financial crisis quantitative easing (QE) program. That money is now largely held on deposit back at the BoE by commercial banks, which earn a risk-free return linked to the current Bank Rate. Amid concerns about what a Reform government would mean for policymakers’ independence, Farage declared that he’s “not questioning the independence” of the central bank, but didn’t rule out appointing his own governor.  “Andrew Bailey is a perfectly polite, nice man, but they should have picked somebody who was a Brexiteer to be in charge of the Bank of England to think totally differently, especially around financial markets, financial market regulation,” he said.  “If we don’t do things differently, we’re going to get poorer. We’re going to pick different people with a different attitude towards everything.”  Farage has recently claimed he is giving “serious thought” to scrapping the independent Office for Budget Responsibility if his party wins the next general election.

BRUSSELS — After decades spent lambasting European politicians, Michael O’Leary is now targeting Donald Trump and Elon Musk. In less than a week, the outspoken Ryanair boss slammed both the U.S. president and his on-again, off-again supporter Musk. The latter hit back on social media, launching a feud and threatening to buy the Irish airline just to fire O’Leary, a proposal the airline CEO called “Twitshit.” Everyone involved is a seasoned infotainment warrior — they’ve all used outrageous attacks and language to further their financial and political goals. But this fight is putting O’Leary into a different league; his targets are a lot richer and more powerful than his normal punching bags of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, officials from Spain, the Netherlands and Belgium or UK Reform leader Nigel Farage. After telling POLITICO that Trump was “a liar” and taking aim at the U.S. president’s foreign policy and tariffs he said were harming business, O’Leary told Irish radio that Musk was “an idiot” in response to the world’s richest man calling him “misinformed” about the cost of installing Starlink systems on its fleet. Ryanair has publicly ruled out installing Starlink across its more than 600 Boeing 737s, arguing the external antennas would increase drag and fuel consumption. O’Leary’s keenness to scrap with Trump and Musk contrasts sharply with the approach taken by most of his fellow CEOs, who often balk at crossing the powerful. But insulting politicians and rivals is part of O’Leary’s DNA. He’s also insulated from blowback because his airline doesn’t fly to the U.S.; because it’s one of Boeing’s largest customers; and because Ryanair is protected against a hostile Musk acquisition by EU rules mandating that airlines have to be majority-owned by EU shareholders. The online scuffle escalated quickly, with Musk calling O’Leary “a retarded twat” and O’Leary telling Musk on Wednesday “to join the back of a very, very, very, very long queue of people who already think I’m a ‘retarded twat,’ including my four teenage children.” The airline said it was “launching a Great Idiots seat sale especially for Elon and any other idiots.” So far, Trump hasn’t responded to needling from O’Leary. But the dissing contest is more than a casual brawl among tycoons. It reflects what O’Leary has been doing for a long time in Europe: offending anyone who crosses his path, getting public attention and selling more tickets. After days of mutual insults between the flamboyant airline chief and his quasi-equivalent in the space industry with come-and-go ties to the White House, O’Leary offered Musk “a free ride air ticket, to thank him for the wonderful boost in publicity which has seen our bookings rise significantly.” “They’re up about 2 or 3 percent in the last five days,” he added at a press conference in Dublin. The company’s shares were also up over 2 percent on Wednesday. “O’Leary’s complaint about Starlink was an absolutely classic Michael O’Leary complaint: operationally driven, cost-based, almost certainly technically correct, quite probably an attempt to negotiate the price down by Musk,” said Andrew Charlton, managing director of the Aviation Advocacy consultancy. O’Leary confirmed on Wednesday that he had been in talks for over a year with Starlink and its rivals Amazon and Vodafone to provide Wi-Fi on Ryanair planes at no extra cost to passengers. This is just the latest cost-cutting crusade taken by the Irish businessman, who spent the first weeks of the new year threatening to slash flights to and from Belgium over a ticket tax increase of less than €10. “He’s the Trump of aviation, the same kind of idiot,” said Toto Bongiorno, a former union leader from Belgium’s now-defunct flag carrier, Sabena. “He’s the guy who once said he was going to allow standing seats on planes. He’s the one who said people would have to pay to use the [onboard] toilets at some point,” Bongiorno told the Belgian TV channel LN24. “He invented a different way of doing aviation.” CURSING DOESN’T COST In a market previously dominated by flag carriers that offered larger seats and free luggage, drinks and snacks — but also charged higher prices and occasionally received state aid from governments — Ryanair and other low-cost European airlines, such as easyJet and Wizz Air, have gained market share thanks to cheaper airfares and minimal extras. However, O’Leary built Ryanair not only by slashing costs at the expense of the passenger experience; he also harangued European leaders, demanding fewer rules and lower taxes. Von der Leyen is often referred to as “Derlayed-Again” by Ryanair due to her alleged failure to guarantee the right of airlines to overfly countries affected by air traffic controller strikes. After Ryanair was fined by Spain’s Minister for Consumer Affairs Pablo Bustinduy for unfair practices, O’Leary called him “a crazy Spanish communist minister” and showed a cardboard cutout of Bustinduy dressed as a clown and wearing an apron with the words “I raise prices.” Now it’s Trump’s turn. “If Trump threatens Europe with tariffs, Europe should respond in like measure and Trump will chicken out. He generally does,” O’Leary said on Wednesday.