BRUSSELS — Ukraine’s war chest stands to get a vital cash injection after EU envoys agreed on a €90 billion loan to finance Kyiv’s defense against Russia, the Cypriot Council presidency said on Wednesday. “The new financing will help ensure the country’s fierce resilience in the face of Russian aggression,” Cypriot Finance Minister Makis Keravnos said in a statement. Without the loan Ukraine had risked running out of cash by April, which would have been catastrophic for its war effort and could have crippled its negotiating efforts during ongoing American-backed peace talks with Russia. EU lawmakers still have some hurdles to clear, such as agreeing on the conditions Ukraine must satisfy to get a payout, before Brussels can raise money on the global debt market to finance the loan — which is backed by the EU’s seven-year budget. A big point of dispute among EU countries was how Ukraine will be able to spend the money, and who will benefit. One-third of the money will go for normal budgetary needs and the rest for defense. France led efforts to get Ukraine to spend as much of that as possible with EU defense companies, mindful that the bloc’s taxpayers are footing the €3 billion annual bill to cover interest payments on the loan. However, Germany, the Netherlands and the Scandinavian nations pushed to give Ukraine as much flexibility as possible. The draft deal, seen by POLITICO, will allow Ukraine to buy key weapons from third countries — including the U.S. and the U.K. — either when no equivalent product is available in the EU or when there is an urgent need, while also strengthening the oversight of EU states over such derogations. The list of weapons Kyiv will be able to buy outside the bloc includes air and missile defense systems, fighter aircraft ammunition and deep-strike capabilities. If the U.K. or other third countries like South Korea, which have signed security deals with the EU and have helped Ukraine, want to take part in procurement deals beyond that, they will have to contribute financially to help cover interest payments on the loan. The European Parliament must now examine the changes the Council has made to the legal text. | Philipp von Ditfurth/picture alliance via Getty Images The text also mentions that the contribution of non-EU countries — to be agreed in upcoming negotiations with the European Commission — should be proportional to how much their defense firms could gain from taking part in the scheme. Canada, which already has a deal to take part in the EU’s separate €150 billion SAFE loans-for-weapons scheme, will not have to pay extra to take part in the Ukraine program, but would have detail the products that could be procured by Kyiv. NEXT STEPS Now that ambassadors have reached a deal, the European Parliament must examine the changes the Council has made to the legal text before approving the measure. If all goes well, Kyiv will get €45 billion from the EU this year in tranches. The remaining cash will arrive in 2027. Ukraine will only repay the money if Moscow ends its full-scale invasion and pays war reparations. If Russia refuses, the EU will consider raiding the Kremlin’s frozen assets lying in financial institutions across the bloc. While the loan will keep Ukrainian forces in the fight, the amount won’t cover Kyiv’s total financing needs — even with another round of loans, worth $8 billion, expected from the International Monetary Fund. By the IMF’s own estimates, Kyiv will need at least €135 billion to sustain its military and budgetary needs this year and next. Meanwhile, U.S. and EU officials are working on a plan to rebuild Ukraine that aims to attract $800 billion in public and private funds over 10 years. For that to happen, the eastern front must first fall silent — a remote likelihood at this point. Veronika Melkozerova contributed reporting from Kyiv.

The Trump administration wants to work with traditional allies to secure new supplies of critical minerals. But months of aggression toward allies, culminating with since-aborted threats to seize Greenland, have left many cool to the overtures. While the State Department has drawn a lengthy list of participating countries for its first Critical Minerals Ministerial scheduled for Wednesday, a number of those attending are hesitant to commit to partnering with the U.S. in creating a supply chain that bypasses China’s current chokehold on those materials, according to five Washington-based diplomats of countries invited to or attending the event. State Department cables obtained by POLITICO also show wariness among some countries about signing onto a framework agreement pledging joint cooperation in sourcing and processing critical minerals. Representatives from more than 50 countries are expected to attend the meeting, according to the State Department — all gathered to discuss the creation of tech supply chains that can rival Beijing’s. But the meeting comes just two weeks since President Donald Trump took to the stage at Davos to call on fellow NATO member Denmark to allow a U.S. takeover of Greenland, and that isn’t sitting well. “We all need access to critical minerals, but the furor over Greenland is going to be the elephant in the room,” said a European diplomat. In the immediate run-up to the event there’s “not a great deal of interest from the European side,” the person added. The individual and others were granted anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic relationships. Their concerns underscore how international dismay at the Trump administration’s foreign policy and trade actions may kneecap its other global priorities. The Trump administration had had some success over the past two months rallying countries to support U.S. efforts to create secure supply chains for critical minerals, including a major multilateral agreement called the Pax Silica Declaration. Now those gains could be at risk. Secretary of State Marco Rubio wants foreign countries to partner with the U.S. in creating a supply chain for the 60 minerals (including rare earths) that the U.S. Geological Survey deems “vital to the U.S. economy and national security that face potential risks from disrupted supply chains.” They include antimony, used to produce munitions; samarium, which goes into aircraft engines; and germanium, which is essential to fiber-optics. The administration also launched a $12 billion joint public-private sector “strategic critical minerals stockpile” for U.S. manufacturers, a White House official said Monday. Trump has backed away from his threats of possibly deploying the U.S. military to seize Greenland from Denmark. But at Davos he demanded “immediate negotiations” with Copenhagen to transfer Greenland’s sovereignty to the U.S. That makes some EU officials leery of administration initiatives that require cooperation and trust. “We are all very wary,” said a second European diplomat. Rubio’s critical minerals framework “will not be an easy sell until there is final clarity on Greenland.” Trump compounded the damage to relations with NATO countries on Jan. 22 when he accused member country troops that deployed to support U.S. forces in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2021 of having shirked combat duty. “The White House really messed up with Greenland and Davos,” a third European diplomat said. “They may have underestimated how much that would have an impact.” The Trump administration needs the critical minerals deals to go through. The U.S. has been scrambling to find alternative supply lines for a group of minerals called rare earths since Beijing temporarily cut the U.S. off from its supply last year. China — which has a near-monopoly on rare earths — relented in the trade truce that Trump brokered with China’s leader Xi Jinping in South Korea in October. The administration is betting that foreign government officials that attend Wednesday’s event also want alternative sources to those materials. “The United States and the countries attending recognize that reliable supply chains are indispensable to our mutual economic and national security and that we must work together to address these issues in this vital sector,” the State Department statement said in a statement. The administration has been expressing confidence that it will secure critical minerals partnerships with the countries attending the ministerial, despite their concerns over Trump’s bellicose policy. “There is a commonality here around countering China,” Ruth Perry, the State Department’s acting principal deputy assistant secretary for ocean, fisheries and polar affairs, said at an industry event on offshore critical minerals in Washington last week. “Many of these countries understand the urgency.” Speaking at a White House event Monday, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum indicated that 11 nations would sign on to a critical minerals framework with the United States this week and another 20 are considering doing so. Greenland has rich deposits of rare earths and other minerals. But Denmark isn’t sending any representatives to the ministerial, according to the person familiar with the event’s planning. Trump said last month that a framework agreement he struck with NATO over Greenland’s future included U.S. access to the island’s minerals. Greenland’s harsh climate and lack of infrastructure in its interior makes the extraction of those materials highly challenging. Concern about the longer term economic and geostrategic risks of turning away from Washington in favor of closer ties with Beijing — despite the Trump administration’s unpredictability — may work in Rubio’s favor on Wednesday. “We still want to work on issues where our viewpoints align,” an Asian diplomat said. “Critical minerals, energy and defense are some areas where there is hope for positive movement.” State Department cables obtained by POLITICO show the administration is leaning on ministerial participants to sign on to a nonbinding framework agreement to ensure U.S. access to critical minerals. The framework establishes standards for government and private investment in areas including mining, processing and recycling, along with price guarantees to protect producers from competitors’ unfair trade policies. The basic template of the agreement being shared with other countries mirrors language in frameworks sealed with Australia and Japan and memorandums of understanding inked with Thailand and Malaysia last year. Enthusiasm for the framework varies. The Philippine and Polish governments have both agreed to the framework text, according to cables from Manila on Jan. 22 and Warsaw on Jan. 26. Romania is interested but “proposed edits to the draft MOU framework,” a cable dated Jan. 16 said. As of Jan. 22 India was noncommittal, telling U.S. diplomats that New Delhi “could be interested in exploring a memorandum of understanding in the future.” European Union members Finland and Germany both expressed reluctance to sign on without clarity on how the framework aligns with wider EU trade policies. A cable dated Jan. 15 said Finland “prefers to observe progress in the EU-U.S. discussions before engaging in substantive bilateral critical mineral framework negotiations.” Berlin also has concerns that the initiative may reap “potential retaliation from China,” according to a cable dated Jan. 16. Trump’s threats over the past two weeks to impose 100 percent tariffs on Canada for cutting a trade deal with China and 25 percent tariffs on South Korea for allegedly slow-walking legislative approval of its U.S. trade agreement are also denting enthusiasm for the U.S. critical minerals initiative. Those levies “have introduced some uncertainty, which naturally leads countries to proceed pragmatically and keep their options open,” a second Asian diplomat said. There are also doubts whether Trump will give the initiative the long-term backing it will require for success. “There’s a sense that this could end up being a TACO too,” a Latin American diplomat said, using shorthand for Trump’s tendency to make big threats or announcements that ultimately fizzle. Analysts, too, argue it’s unlikely the administration will be able to secure any deals amid the fallout from Davos and Trump’s tariff barrages. “We’re very skeptical on the interest and aptitude and trust in trade counterparties right now,” said John Miller, an energy analyst at TD Cowen who tracks critical minerals. “A lot of trading partners are very much in a wait-and-see perspective at this point saying, ‘Where’s Trump really going to go with this?’” And more unpredictability or hostility by the Trump administration toward longtime allies could push them to pursue critical mineral sourcing arrangements that exclude Washington. “The alternative is that these other countries will go the Mark Carney route of the middle powers, cooperating among themselves quietly, not necessarily going out there and saying, ‘Hey, we’re cutting out the U.S.,’ but that these things just start to crop up,” said Jonathan Czin, a former China analyst at the CIA now at the Brookings Institution. “Which will make it more challenging and allow Beijing to play divide and conquer over the long term.” Felicia Schwartz contributed to this report.

Developed and funded by AbbVie in collaboration with the World Ovarian Cancer Coalition (the Coalition) and based on an interview with Christel Paganoni-Bruijns, chief executive officer of the Coalition, and Frances Reid, programme director of the Coalition -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Late diagnoses, burdensome treatments and disease recurrence are realities for many women with ovarian cancer.1,2,3,4,5 Their stories are evidence of systemic challenges impacting care that policymakers have the power to combat. The World Ovarian Cancer Coalition (the Coalition), the only global ovarian cancer patient advocacy organization, is driving evidence generation to inform tangible policy reforms that could reduce the socioeconomic burden of this disease on individuals and wider societies.6 Ovarian cancer is one of the deadliest cancers affecting women in Europe, yet it remains overlooked.7,8 While other areas of women’s health benefit from policy frameworks and public awareness, ovarian cancer continues to sit in the margins, creating real human consequences. In 2022, Europe recorded the highest rates of ovarian cancer incidence and mortality worldwide.8 Only 40 percent of women in Europe remain alive five years after being diagnosed with ovarian cancer, with advanced-stage diagnoses often having poorer outcomes.8 Despite this, ovarian cancer remains absent from many national cancer plans and there is still no unified European policy framework to address it.  In partnership with European patient groups, the Coalition is convening a series of workshops for ovarian cancer survivors to share their experiences. Alongside leading clinicians and advocates, the Coalition is leveraging these testimonies to develop policy recommendations to inform national and European cancer strategies. Christel Paganoni-Bruijns, the Coalition’s chief executive officer, and Frances Reid, programme director and Every Woman Study lead, share their insights into the challenges women with ovarian cancer face and how policy changes can offer improved support. The hidden emotional and physical cost  There are education and awareness gaps that can impede diagnosis and prioritization. Many women believe that cervical cancer screening (otherwise known as the Pap smear) can detect ovarian cancer.9 Another widespread misconception is that ovarian cancer has no symptoms until very advanced stages.10 However, the Coalition’s Every Woman Study (2021) found that nine in 10 women do experience symptoms, even during the early stages.11  “These misconceptions cause real harm. They delay diagnosis, they delay action and they stop women from being heard,” Reid comments.  The ovarian cancer journey can be distressingly complex. Women frequently undergo major surgery, multiple rounds of treatment and long recovery periods.4,12,13 Even after treatment ends, the fear of recurrence can cast a shadow over daily life.  Ovarian cancer often strikes when many women are still working, caring for children, supporting aging parents and contributing to their communities in a variety of ways. 14,15 When they fall ill, the consequences ripple outwards. Some partners have to reduce their working hours or leave employment entirely to care for their loved ones.16 Families may take on emotional strain and financial pressure that can carry lasting impacts.17,18  Reid says: “These women are mothers, daughters, employees, carers, community anchors. When they are affected, the impact is not only personal — it is economic, social and predictable.” The Coalition’s socioeconomic burden study explored the cost to health services, the impact of informal caregiving, productive time lost by patients traveling to and receiving care, and longer-term productivity impacts.17 It found that the majority of the socioeconomic impact of ovarian cancer does not come from health service costs, but from the value of lives lost.17 Across the 11 countries examined, ill-health from ovarian cancer led to lost labor productivity equivalent to 2.5 million days of work.17 In the U.K. alone, productivity losses amounted to over US$52 million per year.17 In 2026, the Coalition will look further into the socioeconomic impact across high-income countries across Europe. Despite this measurable burden, ovarian cancer remains under-prioritized in health planning and funding decisions. Why women still struggle to get the care they need  Across Europe, many women face delays at various stages along their journey, some due to policy and system design choices. For example, without screening methods for early detection, diagnosis relies heavily on recognizing symptoms and receiving timely referrals.1,19,20 Yet many women often struggle to access specialists or face long waits for investigations.2,11,21   While Europe benefits from world-class innovation in ovarian cancer research, access to that innovation can be inconsistent. Recently published data from the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) found that average time to availability for oncology products in Europe continues to increase, with 2024 data showing time from approval to access was 33 days slower than in 2023 and 66 days slower than in 2022.22 In 2024, it took an average of 586 days — or ~19 months — for patients to access new therapies after approval, with significant variation between countries.22 Delays in treatment impact prognosis and survival for patients with ovarian cancer.23 The challenges in care also extend to psychological and emotional support. The Every Woman Study found that only 28 percent of women were offered mental health support, despite the known vulnerabilities throughout treatment, recovery and recurrence.12   Paganoni-Bruijns and Reid reinforce that through the Coalition’s work, they have often found that “women feel unseen and unheard. They see progress in other cancers and ask: why not us?” What a better future looks like A better future starts with addressing ovarian cancer as part of a holistic vision and plan for women’s health. Europe has the foundational frameworks, infrastructure and clinical expertise to lead the way. What is needed now is political attention and policy alignment that includes ovarian cancer as part of these broader programs.  Paganoni-Bruijns comments: “We cannot keep treating gynecological cancers as if they exist in separate boxes. Women experience their health as one reality, so policies must reflect that.”  Existing structures in breast and cervical cancer offer valuable lessons. Across Europe, millions of women already move through screening programs, health promotion initiatives and established diagnostic pathways.24 These systems could be used to increase awareness of ovarian cancer symptoms, improve referral routes and access to specialist care, and support earlier detection. Increased investment in genetic and biomarker testing, as well as emerging early detection research, can be accelerated by aligning with these established programs. The Coalition is partnering with global experts to translate these lessons into the first-ever evidence-based framework for ovarian cancer mortality rate reduction, however, policy action at the regional and national level must keep pace.  The EU-funded DISARM project is a promising example of the progress underway to help Europe ‘disarm’ the threat of ovarian cancer. DISARM is a coordinated, multi-country effort to strengthen ovarian cancer risk assessment, validate affordable early-detection tools and understand how these innovations can be implemented within real-world health systems. Crucially, it is designed both to generate evidence and to address feasibility, uptake and system readiness, the factors that, together, determine whether innovation actually reaches patients.   As Paganoni-Bruijns explains, “DISARM shows what progress looks like when science, policy and patient experience are designed to work together. It is not about a single breakthrough or ‘quick fix’, but about building the conditions for earlier detection — through better risk assessment, validated tools and systems that are ready to use them.”  Yet projects like DISARM, while essential, cannot carry the burden alone. Without a cohesive European or global World Health Organization framework for ovarian cancer, progress remains fragmented, uneven and vulnerable to delay. Europe has often set the pace for global cancer policy and ovarian cancer should be no exception. By recognizing ovarian cancer as a priority within European women’s health, policymakers can be part of setting the global standard for a new era of coordinated and patient-centered care. Paganoni-Bruijns shares the Coalition’s call-to-action: “The systems exist. The evidence exists. We know that we need to include ovarian cancer in national cancer plans, improve diagnostic pathways, strengthen genetic testing and commit to EU-level monitoring. What is missing is prioritization. With leadership and accountability, ovarian cancer does not have to remain one of Europe’s deadliest cancers.” The stakes are rising and the window for meaningful action is narrowing. But with focused leadership, Europe can change the trajectory of ovarian cancer. Women across the continent deserve earlier diagnoses, access to innovation and the chance to live not just longer, but better. To understand why action on ovarian cancer cannot wait, listen to the Coalition’s Changing the Ovarian Cancer Story podcast series, or visit the Coalition’s website. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- References 1 Rampes S, et al. Early diagnosis of symptomatic ovarian cancer in primary care in the UK: opportunities and challenges. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2022;23:e52. 2 Funston G, et al. Detecting ovarian cancer in primary care: can we do better? Br J Gen Pract. 2022;72:312-313.  3 Tookman L, et al. Diagnosis, treatment and burden in advanced ovarian cancer: a UK real-world survey of healthcare professionals and patients. Future Oncol. 2024;20:1657-1673.  4 National Cancer Institute. Ovarian Epithelial, Fallopian Tube, and Primary Peritoneal Cancer Treatment (PDQ) – Health Professional Version. Available at: https://www.cancer.gov/types/ovarian/hp/ovarian-epithelial-treatment-pdq [Last accessed: January 2026]. 5 Beesley et al. Evaluating patient-reported symptoms and late adverse effects following completion of first-line chemotherapy for ovarian cancer using the MOST (Measure of Ovarian Symptoms and Treatment concerns). Gynecologic Oncology 164 (2022):437-445.  6 World Ovarian Cancer Coalition. About the World Ovarian Cancer Coalition. Available at: https://worldovariancancercoalition.org/about-us/ [Last accessed: January 2026]. 7 Manzano A, Košir U, Hofmarcher T. Bridging the gap in women’s cancers care: a global policy report on disparities, innovations and solutions. IHE Report 2025:12. The Swedish Institute for Health Economics (IHE); 2025. 8 ENGAGe. Ovarian Cancer. Available at: https://engage.esgo.org/gynaecological-cancers/ovarian-cancer/ [Last accessed: January 2026].  9 Target Ovarian Cancer. Driving change through knowledge – updated NHS cervical screening guide. Available at: https://targetovariancancer.org.uk/news/driving-change-through-knowledge-updated-nhs-cervical-screening-guide [Last accessed: January 2026]. 10 Goff BA, et al. Frequency of Symptoms of Ovarian Cancer in Women Presenting to Primary Care Clinics. JAMA. 2004;291(22):2705–2712.  11 Reid F, et al. The World Ovarian Cancer Coalition Every Woman Study: identifying challenges and opportunities to improve survival and quality of life. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2021;31:238-244.  12 National Health Service (NHS). Ovarian cancer. Treatment. Available at: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/ovarian-cancer/treatment/ [Last accessed: January 2026].  13 Cancer Research UK. Recovering from ovarian cancer surgery. Available at: https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/ovarian-cancer/treatment/surgery/recovering-from-surgery [Last accessed: January 2026]. 14 National Health Service (NHS). Ovarian cancer. Causes. Available at: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/ovarian-cancer/causes/ [Last accessed: January 2026].  15 American Cancer Society. Ovarian Cancer Risk Factors. Available at: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/ovarian-cancer/causes-risks-prevention/risk-factors.html [Last accessed: January 2026].  16 Shukla S, et al. VOCAL (Views of Ovarian Cancer Patients and Their Caregivers – How Maintenance Therapy Affects Their Lives) Study: Cancer-Related Burden and Quality of Life of Caregivers [Poster]. Presented at: International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Europe; 2022 Nov 6–9; Vienna, Austria. 17 Hutchinson B, et al. Socioeconomic Burden of Ovarian Cancer in 11 Countries. JCO Glob Oncol. 2025;11:e2400313. 18 Petricone-Westwood D, et al.An Investigation of the Effect of Attachment on Distress among Partners of Patients with Ovarian Cancer and Their Relationship with the Cancer Care Providers. Current Oncology. 2021;28(4):2950–2960.  19 World Ovarian Cancer Coalition. Ovarian Cancer Testing & Detection. Available at: http://worldovariancancercoalition.org/about-ovarian-cancer/detection-testing/ [Last accessed: January 2026]. 20 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Suspected cancer: recognition and referral. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng12/resources/suspected-cancer-recognition-and-referral-pdf-1837268071621 [Last accessed: January 2026]. 21 Menon U, et al. Diagnostic routes and time intervals for ovarian cancer in nine international jurisdictions; findings from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP). Br J Cancer. 2022;127:844-854.  22 European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA). New data shows no shift in access to medicines for millions of Europeans. Available at: https://www.efpia.eu/news-events/the-efpia-view/statements-press-releases/new-data-shows-no-shift-in-access-to-medicines-for-millions-of-europeans/ [Last accessed: January 2026].  23 Zhao J, et al. Impact of Treatment Delay on the Prognosis of Patients with Ovarian Cancer: A Population-based Study Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Database. J Cancer. 2024;15:473-483.  24 European Commission. Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan: Communication from the commission to the European Parliament and the Council. Available at: https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-02/eu_cancer-plan_en_0.pdf [Last accessed: January 2026].  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ALL-ONCOC-250039 v1.0  February 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is AbbVie * The ultimate controlling entity is AbbVie More information here.

The UK has historically been a global leader in life sciences innovation, but recent statistics paint a worrying picture for medicines access. The right policy can start to reverse this. We are living in a time where the intersection between breakthrough science, technology and data insights has the potential to transform treatment options for some of the toughest health conditions faced by patients in the UK. The UK has long played a central role in driving innovation when it comes to healthcare, and at Johnson & Johnson (J&J) we were pleased to see some positive signs from the Government at the end of 2025, illustrating an intent to reverse a decade of decline of investment in how the UK values innovative treatments. It was a positive first step, but now the real work begins to enable us to deliver the best possible outcomes for UK patients. To achieve this, our focus must be on ensuring our health system is set up to match the pace and gain the benefits of innovation that science provides. We need a supportive medicines environment that fully fosters growth, because even the most pioneering drugs and therapies are only valuable if they can be accessed by patients when they need them most. > even the most pioneering drugs and therapies are only valuable if they can be > accessed by patients when they need them most. At J&J, we are proud to have been part of the UK’s health innovation story for more than a century. We believe that turning ambition into delivery requires a clearer focus on the foundations that enable innovation to reach patients. We have had a substantial and long-term economic presence, with our expertise serving as the grounds for successful partnerships with patients, healthcare providers, clinical researchers and the NHS. Recent national developments are a step in the right direction The UK Government’s recent announcements on the life sciences industry are an important move to help address concerns around medicines access, innovation and the UK’s international standing. This includes a welcome planned increase to the baseline cost-effectiveness threshold (the first change to be made since its introduction in the early 2000s). While it is crucial to get this implemented properly, this seems like a step in the right direction — providing a starting point towards meaningful policy reform, industry partnership and progress for patients. The true impact of stifling medicine innovation in the UK compared with our peers These positive developments come at a critical time, but they do not fix everything. Over the past decade, spending on branded medicines has fallen in real terms, even as the NHS budget has grown by a third.[i] Years of cost-containment have left the UK health system ill-prepared for the health challenges of today, with short-term savings creating long-term consequences. Right now, access to innovative medicines in the UK lags behind almost every major European country[ii]; the UK ranks 16th and 18th among 19 comparable countries for preventable and treatable causes of mortality.[iii]These are conditions for which effective medicines already exist. Even when new medicines are approved, access is often restricted. One year after launch, usage of innovative treatments in England is just over half the average of comparator countries such as France, Germany and Spain.[iv] The effect is that people living with cancer, autoimmune conditions and rare diseases wait longer to access therapies that are already transforming lives elsewhere in Europe. And even at its new level, the UK’s Voluntary Scheme for Branded Medicines Pricing, Access and Growth (VPAG) clawback rate remains higher than in comparable countries.[v] J&J is committed to working together to develop a new pricing and access framework that is stable, predictable and internationally competitive — enabling the UK to regain its position as a leading destination for life sciences. Seeing the value of health and medicines investment as a catalyst for prosperity and growth Timely access to the right treatment achieves two things; it keeps people healthy and prevents disease worsening so they can participate in society and a thriving economy. New research from the WifOR Institute, funded by J&J, shows that countries that allocate more resources to health — especially when combined with a skilled workforce and strong infrastructure — consistently achieve better outcomes.[vi] > Timely access to the right treatment achieves two things; it keeps people > healthy and prevents disease worsening so they can participate in society and > a thriving economy. The UK Government’s recent recognition of the need for long-term change, setting out plans to increase investment in new medicines from 0.3 percent of GDP to 0.6 percent over the next 10 years is positive. It signals a move towards seeing health as one of our smartest long-term investments, underpinning the UK’s international competitiveness by beginning to bring us nearer to the levels in other major European countries. This mindset shift is critical to getting medicines to patients, and the life sciences ecosystem, including the pharmaceutical sector as a cornerstone, plays a pivotal role. It operates as a virtuous cycle — driven by the generation, production, investment in, access to and uptake of innovation. Exciting scientific developments and evolving treatment pathways mean that we have an opportunity to review the structures around medicines reimbursement to ensure they remain sustainable, competitive and responsive. At J&J, we have the knowledge and heritage to work hand-in-hand with the Government and all partners to achieve this. Together, we can realise the potential of medicine innovation in the UK Patients have the right to expect that science and innovation will reach them when they need it. Innovative treatments can be transformative for patients, meaning an improved quality of life or more precious time with loved ones. We fully support the Government’s ambitions for life sciences and the health of the nation. Now is the moment to deliver meaningful change — the NHS, Government and all system partners, including J&J, must look at what valuing innovation actually means when it comes to modernising the frameworks and mechanisms that support access and uptake. Practical ways to do this include: * Establishing a new pricing and access framework that is stable, predictable and internationally competitive. * Evolving medicines appraisal methods and processes, to deliver on the commitments of the UK-US Economic Prosperity Deal. * Adapting thresholds and value frameworks to ensure they are fit for the future — in the context of wider system pressures, including inflation, and the evolution of medical innovation requiring new approaches to assessment and access. > the NHS, Government and all system partners, including J&J, must look at what > valuing innovation actually means when it comes to modernising the frameworks > and mechanisms that support access and uptake. By truly recognising the value of health as an investment, rather than as a cost, we can return the UK to a more competitive position. The direction of travel is positive. At J&J, we stand ready to work in partnership to help ensure the UK is once again the best place in the world to research, develop and access medicines. Follow Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine UK on LinkedIn for updates on our business, our people and our community. CP-562703 | January 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [i] House of Commons Library (2026). ‘NHS Funding and Expenditure’ Research Briefing. Available at: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn00724/ (Accessed January 2026). [ii] IQVIA & EFPIA (2025). EFPIA Patients W.A.I.T Indicator 2024 Survey. Available at: https://efpia.eu/media/oeganukm/efpia-patients-wait-indicator-2024-final-110425.pdf. (Accessed January 2026) [iii] The Kings Fund (2022). ‘How does the NHS compare to the health care systems of other countries?’ Available at: https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/reports/nhs-compare-health-care-systems-other-countries (Accessed January 2026) [iv] Office for Life Sciences (2024). Life sciences competitiveness indicators 2024: summary. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/life-sciences-sector-data-2024/life-sciences-competitiveness-indicators-2024-summary (Accessed January 2026). [v] ABPI. VPAG payment rate for newer medicines will be 14.5% in 2026. December 2025. Available at: https://www.abpi.org.uk/media/news/2025/december/vpag-payment-rate-for-newer-medicines-will-be-145-in-2026/. (Accessed January 2026). [vi] WifOR Institute (2025). Healthy Returns: A Catalyst for Economic Growth and Resilience. Available at: https://www.wifor.com/en/download/healthy-returns-a-catalyst-for-economic-growth-and-resilience/?wpdmdl=360794&refresh=6942abe7a7f511765977063. (Accessed January 2026).

German industrial giant Bosch on Friday confirmed plans to cut 20,000 jobs after profits nearly halved last year, underlining the mounting strain on Germany’s once-dominant manufacturing sector and increasing the pressure on politicians in Berlin to find a solution. Official data released Friday also showed Germany’s unemployment rate, unadjusted for seasonal factors, rising to 6.6 percent — the highest level in twelve years. The number of unemployed people surpassed three million in January. “Economic reality is also reflected in our results,” Bosch CEO Stefan Hartung said, describing 2025 as “a difficult and, in some cases, painful year” for the company, which is a leading supplier of parts for cars. The move lands amid a deepening slump in the country’s automotive industry, long the backbone of German manufacturing. The sector has been shedding jobs rapidly: A 2025 study by EY found that more than 50,000 automotive positions were cut in Germany last year alone. Germany’s automotive downturn has become a wider political test for the government in Berlin and Europe more widely. Once the economy’s crown jewel, the industry is now being challenged by current policy on electric vehicles, energy costs and aggressive competition from Chinese manufacturers. As suppliers weaken, the risk is shifting from lower profits to a lasting loss of competitiveness. With layoffs rising and investment decisions being delayed, Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s government is coming under growing pressure from workers, unions and industry leaders to rethink Germany’s industrial strategy — as doubts spread domestically and across Europe about the country’s ability to remain an economic powerhouse.

SHANGHAI — As Keir Starmer arrived for the first visit by a British prime minister to China for eight years, he stood next to a TV game show-style wheel of fortune. The arrow pointed at “rise high,” next to “get rich immediately” and “everything will go smoothly.” Not one option on the wheel was negative. Sadly for the U.K. prime minister, reality does not match the wheel — but he gave it a good go. After an almost decade-long British chill toward China, Starmer reveled in three hours of talks and lunch with Chinese President Xi Jinping on Thursday, where he called for a “more sophisticated” relationship and won effusive praise in return. Britain boasted it had secured visa-free travel for British citizens to China for up to 30 days and a cut in Chinese tariffs on Scotch whisky. Xi even said the warming would help “world peace.” His wins so far (many details of which remain vague) are only a tiny sliver of the range of opportunities he claimed Chinese engagement could bring — and do not even touch on the controversies, given Beijing’s record on aggressive trade practices, human rights, espionage, cyber sabotage and transnational repression. But the vibes on the ground are clear — Starmer is loving it, and wants to go much further. POLITICO picks out five takeaways from following the entourage. 1) THERE’S NO TURNING BACK NOW Britain is now rolling inevitably toward greater engagement in a way that will be hard to reverse. Labour’s warming to China has been in train since the party was in opposition, inspired by the U.S. Democrats and Australian Labor, and the lead-up to this meeting took more than a year. No. 10 has bought into China’s reliance on protocol and iterative engagement. Xi is said to have been significantly warmer toward Starmer this week (their second meeting) than the first time they met at the G20 in Rome. Officials say it takes a long time to warm him up. There is no doubt China’s readout of the meeting was deliberately friendlier to Labour than the Conservatives. One person on the last leader-level visit to China, by Conservative PM Theresa May in 2018, recalled that the meetings were “intellectually grueling” because Xi used consecutive translation, speaking for long periods before May could reply. This time officials say he used simultaneous translation. It will not end here — because Starmer can’t afford for it to. Many of the dozen or so deals announced this week are only commitments to investigate options for future cooperation, so Britain will need to now push them into reality, with an array of dialogues planned in the future along with a visit by Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper. As Business Secretary Peter Kyle told a Thursday night reception at the British Embassy: “This trip is just the start.” 2) BRITAIN’S STILL ON THE EASY WINS Deals on whisky tariffs and visa-free travel were top of the No. 10 list but — as standalone wins without national security implications — they were the lowest-hanging fruit. The two sides agreed to explore whether to enter negotiations towards a bilateral services agreement, which would make it easier for lawyers and accountants to use their professional qualifications across the two countries. In return, investment decisions in China were announced by firms including AstraZeneca and Octopus Energy. But many of the other deals are only the start of a dialogue. One U.K. official called them “jam tomorrow deals.” And Luke de Pulford, of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China campaign group, argued that despite Britain having a slight trade surplus in services “it’s tiny compared to the whole.” He added: “This trip to China seems to be based upon the notion that China is part of the solution to our economic woes. It’s not rooted in any evidence. China hasn’t done foreign direct investment in any serious way since 2017. It’s dropped off a cliff.” Then there are areas — particularly wind farms — where officials are more edgy and which weren’t discussed by Starmer and Xi. One industry figure dismissed concerns that China could install “kill switches” in key infrastructure — shutting down a wind turbine would be the equivalent of a windless day — but concerns are real. A second U.K. official said Britain had effectively categorized areas of the economy into three buckets — “slam dunks” to engage with China, “slam dunks” to block China, and everything in between. “We’ve been really clear [with China] about which sectors are accessible,” they said, which had helped smooth the path. Then there are the litany of non-trade areas where China will be reluctant to engage: being challenged on Xi’s relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, the treatment of the Uyghur people and democracy campaigner Jimmy Lai. Britain is still awaiting approval of a major revamp of its embassy in Beijing, which will be expensive with U.K. contractors, materials and tech, all security-cleared, being brought in. 3) STARMER AND HIS TEAM WERE GENUINELY LOVING IT After such a build-up and so much controversy, Starmer has … been having a great time. The prime minister has struggled to peel the smile off his face and told business delegates they were “making history.” Privately, several people around him enthused about the novelty of it all (many have never visited China and Starmer has not done so since before he went into politics). One said they were looking forward to seeing how Xi operates: “He’s very enigmatic.” Briefing journalists in a small ante-room in the Forbidden City, Starmer enthused about Xi’s love of football and Shakespeare. And talking to business leaders, he repeated the president’s line about blind men finding an elephant: “One touches the leg and thinks it’s a pillow, another feels the belly and thinks it’s a wall. Too often this reflects how China is seen.” So into the spirit was Starmer that he even ticked off Kyle for not bowing deeply enough. At the signing ceremony for a string of business deals, Kyle had seen his counterpart bend halfway to the floor — and responded with a polite nod of the head. The vibes were energetic. Britain’s new ambassador to Beijing, Peter Wilson, flitted around ceaselessly and sat along from Starmer in seat 1E. The PM’s No. 10 business adviser, Varun Chandra, jumped from CEO to CEO at the British embassy. The whole delegation was on burner phones and laptops (even leaving Apple Watches at home) but the security fears soon faded to the background for U.K. officials. CEOs on the trip queued up to tell journalists that Starmer was making the right choice. “We risk a technological gulf if we don’t engage,” said one. There is one problem. Carry on like this, and Starmer will struggle to maintain his line that he is not re-entering a “golden era” — like the one controversially pushed by the Tories under David Cameron in the early 2010s — after all. 4) BUSINESS WAS EVERYTHING The trip was a tale of two groups of CEOs. The creatives and arts bosses gave the stardust and human connection that such a controversial visit needed — but business investment was the meat. In his opening speech Starmer name-checked three people: Business Secretary Peter Kyle, City Minister Lucy Rigby and No. 10 business adviser Varun Chandra. It even came through in the seating plan on the chartered British Airways plane, with financial services CEOs in the pricey seats while creatives were in economy — although this was because they were all paying their own way. Everyone knew the bargain. One arts CEO confessed that, while their industry made money too, they knew they were not the uppermost priority. Starmer’s aides insist they are delighted with what they managed to bag from Xi on Thursday, and believe it is at the top end of the expectations they had on the way out. But that will mean the focus back home on the final “big number” of investment that No. 10 produces — and the questions about whether it is worth all the political energy — are even more acute. 5) STARMER’S STILL WALKING A TIGHTROPE British CEOs were taken to see a collection of priceless Ming vases. It was a good metaphor. Starmer and the No. 10 operation were more reticent even than usual on Thursday, refusing to give on-the-record comment about several basic details of what he raised in his meeting with Xi. Journalists were told that he raised the case of democracy campaigner Jimmy Lai, but not whether he called directly for his release. The readout of the meeting from Communist China was more extensive (and poetic) than that from No. 10. Likewise, journalists were given no advance heads-up of deals on tariffs and visas, even in the few hours between the bilateral and the announcements, while the details and protocol were nailed down. There was good reason for the reticence. Not only was Starmer cautious not to offend his hosts; he also did not want to enrage U.S. President Donald Trump, who threatened Canada with new tariffs after PM Mark Carney’s visit to Beijing this month. Even with No. 10 briefing the U.S. on the trip’s objectives beforehand, and Starmer giving a pre-flight interview saying he wouldn’t choose between Xi and Trump, the president called Britain’s engagement “very dangerous” on Friday. And then there’s the EU. The longer Trump’s provocations go on, the more some of Starmer’s more Europhile allies will want him to side not with the U.S. or China, but Brussels. “There’s this huge blind spot in the middle of Europe,” complained one European diplomat. “The U.K. had the advantage of being the Trump whisperer, but that’s gone now.” Starmer leaves China hoping he can whisper to Trump, Xi and Ursula von der Leyen all at the same time.

LONDON — Donald Trump’s appointment of his former boss on “The Apprentice” as his special envoy to Britain made for a headline-grabbing pick during his presidential transition. But Mark Burnett has made a quiet exit from the diplomatic world.  The British-born Falklands veteran turned Hollywood producer left the role liaising between D.C. and London “around August,” his publicist in the entertainment world, Lina Catalfamo Plath, confirmed to POLITICO, noting it was the end of his term. But Burnett’s departure from the diplomatic service hadn’t been publicized and he was still listed as special envoy on Buckingham Palace’s attendance list at the state banquet for the Trumps in Windsor on Sept. 17.  Billionaire investment banker and Republican donor Warren Stephens arrived in London as U.S. ambassador in May, and has been actively involved in pushing Trump’s policy objectives. “I don’t think there was room for both him and the ambassador,” one person who worked with Burnett in the diplomatic arena and granted anonymity to discuss the issue said this week. The White House and the U.S. embassy in London are yet to respond to requests for comment. There had long been concerns there would be “conflict and confusion” in having the two separate but hard to distinguish roles, as covered in a POLITICO profile of Burnett published in March. “He speaks to the president a lot — they’re personal friends,” said one U.S. government official at the time, who was granted anonymity to discuss the nature of the special envoy’s role. “He will tell you that Trump used to work for him for 15 years,” the official added with a laugh. As a producer in the largely MAGA-antithetical television industry, Burnett’s public relationship with Trump wasn’t always easy. Burnett faced heat over the existence of tapes of the Republican saying a deeply offensive racial epithet. The producer even distanced himself from the then-presidential candidate in 2016 after the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape leaked. While special envoy, Burnett was credited with helping present the British case to Trump over the Chagos deal with Mauritius, which has again come under pressure after Trump recently turned against it. But his most showbiz moment in the role was when during a Downing Street meeting with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer not long after Trump’s inauguration he was able to get the president on the phone for an impromptu chat. Two weeks later, the PM got his White House meeting with Trump, and Burnett was there too.

LONDON — It’s a far cry from the ice age of U.K.-China relations that characterized Rishi Sunak’s leadership — and it’s not exactly David Cameron’s “golden era,” either.  As U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer embarks on his Chinese charm offensive against a turbulent economic backdrop, he has opted for a softly-softly approach in a bid to warm up one of Britain’s most important trading partners — a marked departure from his Tory predecessors. With the specter of U.S. President Donald Trump looming over the visit — not to mention national security concerns back home — Starmer’s cautious optimism is hardly surprising.  Despite reservations from China skeptics, Starmer’s trip — the first such visit by a British prime minister since 2018 — was peppered with warm words and a smattering of deals, some more consequential than others. Britain’s haul from the trip may be modest, but it’s just the beginning, Business and Trade Secretary Peter Kyle — who joined Starmer on the trip — told a traveling pack of reporters in Beijing. “This visit is a springboard,” the minister said. “This is not the last moment, it is a springboard into a future with far more action to come.” STEP-BY-STEP On the ground in Beijing, British officials gave the impression that the prime minister was focused on getting as many uncontroversial wins over the line as possible, in a bid to thaw relations with China. That’s not to say Starmer and his team don’t have a few tangible wins to write home about. Headline announcements include a commitment from China to allow visa-free travel for British tourists and business travelers, enabling visits of up to 30 days without the need for documents.   The provisions are similar to those extended to 50 other countries including France, Germany, Italy, Australia and Japan. The timings of the visa change have not yet been set out publicly, but one official — who, like others cited in this piece, was granted anonymity to speak freely — said they were aiming to get it nailed down in coming months. “From a business standpoint, it will reduce a lot of friction,” said a British business representative, adding it will make it easier for U.K. firms to explore opportunities and form partnerships. “China is very complicated. You have to be on the ground to really assess opportunities,” they said, adding visa-free travel “will make things a lot easier.” The commitment to visa-free travel forms part of a wider services package aimed at driving  collaboration for businesses in healthcare, financial and professional services, legal services, education and skills — areas where British firms often face regulatory or administrative hurdles.  The countries have also agreed to conduct a “feasibility study” to explore whether to enter negotiations towards a bilateral services agreement. If it goes ahead, this would establish clear and legally binding rules for U.K. firms doing business in China. Once again, the timeframe is vague. David Taylor, head of policy at the Asia House think tank in London, said “Xi’s language has been warmer and more expansive, signaling interest in stabilizing the relationship, but the substance on offer so far remains tightly defined.” “Beyond the immediate announcements, progress — particularly on services and professional access — will be harder and slower if it happens at all,” he added. WHISKY TARIFF RELIEF Another victory talked up by the British government is a plan for China to slash Scotch whisky tariffs by half, from 10 percent to 5 percent.  However, some may question the scale of the commitment, which effectively restores the rate that was in place one year ago, ahead of a doubling of the rate for whisky and brandy in February 2025. The two sides have not yet set out a timeframe for the reduction of tariffs.  Speaking to POLITICO ahead of Starmer’s trip, a senior business representative said the whisky and brandy issue had become “China leverage” in talks leading up to the visit. However, they argued that even a removal of the tariff was “not going to solve the main issue for British whisky companies in China and everywhere, which is that people aren’t buying and drinking whisky.” CHINA INVESTMENT WIN Meanwhile, China can boast a significant win in the form of a $15 billion investment in medicines manufacturing and research and development from British pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca.  ING Bank’s global healthcare lead Stephen Farelly said that increasing investment into China “makes good business sense,” given the country is “now becoming a force in biopharma.” However, it “does shine a light on the isolation of Europe and the U.K. more generally, where there is a structural decline in investment and R&D.” AstraZeneca recently paused a £200 million investment at a Cambridge research site in September last year, which was due to create 1,000 jobs.  Britain recently increased the amount the NHS pays for branded, pharmaceutical drugs, following heavy industry lobbying and following trade negotiations with the Trump administration — all in the hopes of attracting new investment into the struggling sector.  Shadow Trade Secretary Andrew Griffith was blunt in his assessment. “AstraZeneca’s a great British company but under this government it’s investing everywhere in the world other than its U.K. home. When we are losing investment to communist China, alarm bells should be ringing in No 10 Downing Street.” Conspicuously absent from Starmer’s haul was any mention of net zero infrastructure imports, like solar panels, a reflection of rising concerns about China’s grip on Britain’s critical infrastructure. XI RETURNS So what next? As Starmer prepares to fly back home, attention has already turned to his next encounter with the Chinese leader.  On Thursday, Britain opened the door to an inward visit by Xi Jinping, with Downing Street repeatedly declining to rule out the prospect of welcoming him in future. Asked about the prospect of an inward visit — which would be the first for 11 years — Starmer’s official spokesperson told reporters: “I think the prime minister has been clear that a reset relationship with China, that it’s no longer in an ice age, is beneficial to British people and British business.” As Starmer’s trip draws to a close, one thing is certain: there is more to come. “This isn’t a question of a one-and-done summit with China,” Starmer’s spokesperson added. “It is a resetting of a relationship that has been on ice for eight years.”

EINDHOVEN, Netherlands — Europe needs to be “realistic” about its reliance on the rest of the world for technology, the chief executive of Europe’s largest technology company told POLITICO. Christophe Fouquet, CEO of Dutch chips giant ASML, tempered expectations about Europe’s drive to become technologically sovereign in an interview Wednesday following the release of the company’s annual results. “Everyone would have to find a balance between this huge claim for sovereignty … ‘we want everything to be done in our country’ … and the reality, which is: this is a fairly spread ecosystem, with key elements in different places,” Fouquet said.  “Everyone should be realistic on what it takes and how long it may take,” he said, adding that there will always be a “need” to import key parts of technology supply chains from abroad.  As the company that designs and builds the world’s most advanced machines for making semiconductors, ASML is not only a major economic asset but also gives Europe a rare point of leverage and resilience in the geopolitically sensitive chips industry. While Wednesday’s better-than-expected financial results sent the company’s stock soaring, ASML also said it would cut 1,700 jobs to “streamline” its organization.  Fouquet’s remarks follow growing calls in Brussels to reduce Europe’s heavy reliance on foreign technology, amid strained EU-U.S. ties and concerns about China.  On Monday, the European Commission’s tech chief Henna Virkkunen told POLITICO in an interview that Europe’s dependencies “can be weaponized against us” and urged the continent not to be dependent on “one country or one company.” She pointed to chips as the area where she saw the biggest need for Europe to break away from foreign reliance. Asked about the ongoing U.S.-EU tensions and the continuous threat of tariffs, Fouquet on Wednesday labeled those as “a lot of noise.”  He cited Nexperia, a Dutch-based yet Chinese-owned chipmaker that has been the subject of a recent geopolitical fight, as the latest example of “the interdependencies between the different blocs.” The ASML boss had another warning for Brussels’ ambitions to boost homegrown technology, arguing the EU needs to dial back its regulatory environment further than it has to date. Europe needs to make deeper regulatory cuts to get more promising companies, Fouquet said — citing the example of French artificial intelligence frontrunner Mistral, in which ASML last year invested €1.3 billion. Both ASML and Mistral signed a letter in July last year advocating for a pause to key parts of the bloc’s artificial intelligence law, a suggestion that the EU’s executive picked up in its first digital simplification package, presented in November.  That simplification package is already an “improvement” but more is needed, Fouquet said.  “You cannot make things very complicated, and then simplify it a bit and be proud of it,” he said.  Europe needs to create the conditions for companies “to grow without being annoyed by regulations,” he said. 

LONDON —  Keir Starmer lands in China trying to do everything at once. As his government searches desperately for economic growth, the prime minister’s policy is to cooperate, compete with, and, where appropriate, challenge the Asian superpower. That’s easier said than done. POLITICO asked five China analysts — ranging from former government ministers to ex-diplomats — to give their honest take on how the British PM should handle the days ahead. DON’T LECTURE — VINCE CABLE, FORMER BUSINESS SECRETARY Vince Cable, who visited China three times as U.K. business secretary between 2010 and 2015, says Starmer must not give Chinese President Xi Jinping public lectures. It will be tempting, given China’s human rights record. U.K. lawmakers are particularly concerned about Beijing’s treatment of Uyghur Muslims and Hong Kongers. “From experience, that just antagonizes people. They’ll respond in kind and will remind us about all the bad things the British have done throughout our history. You’ll get absolutely nowhere,” Cable, a former Liberal Democrat leader who wrote “The Chinese Conundrum: Engagement or Conflict” after leaving office, said.  Raising concerns in private is more likely to get a positive result, he thinks. “Although I’m by no means an admirer of President [Donald] Trump … his approach, which is business-like and uses actually quite respectful language in public, has actually had far more success in dealing with the Chinese than the traditional missionary approach of some Western European countries,” Cable adds.  LISTEN AND SPEAK UP — BEN BLAND, CHATHAM HOUSE ASIA-PACIFIC PROGRAM DIRECTOR Ben Bland, director of the Chatham House think tank’s Asia-Pacific program, warns there can’t be a return to the “naive optimism” of the “golden era” under Cameron. Britain should “listen to the Chinese leadership and try and understand more about how [Chinese President] Xi Jinping and other senior communist leaders see the world, how they see China,” the former Financial Times South China correspondent says. “The U.K.’s ability to influence China directly is quite limited, but it’s really important that we understand what they’re trying to do in the world.” Starmer should be clear about the U.K.’s red lines on espionage, interference in British society, and the harassment of people living in this country, Bland says. Vince Cable, who visited China three times as U.K. business secretary between 2010 and 2015, says Starmer must not give Chinese President Xi Jinping public lectures. | Andy Rain/EPA TREAT TRADE CAUTIOUSLY — CHARLES PARTON, FORMER DIPLOMAT “The Chinese are adept at the propaganda of these visits, and ensuring that everything seems wonderful,” Charles Parton, an ex-diplomat who was First Counsellor to the EU Delegation in Beijing between 2011 and 2016, warns.   “There’s an awful lot of strange counting going on of [investment] deals that have already been signed, deals that are on the cards to be signed [and] deals that are glimmers in the eye and almost certainly won’t be signed,” Parton, now an adviser to the Council on Geostrategy think tank, says. “Trade is highly fungible. It’s not political,” Parton, who is also a senior associate at the Royal United Services Institute, adds. “We shouldn’t be saying to ourselves ‘oh my gosh, we better knuckle down to whatever the Chinese want of us, because otherwise our trade and investment will suffer’,” he believes. “If you can push through trade investment which is beneficial — excellent. That’s great, but let’s not think that this is the be-all and end-all,” he warns. SEE CHINA AS IT IS — LUKE DE PULFORD, INTER-PARLIAMENTARY ALLIANCE ON CHINA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR  Luke De Pulford, executive director of the hawkish global cross-party Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, is skeptical about the timing of Starmer’s China trip —  a week after ministers gave planning approval for Beijing’s controversial mega embassy in London. “Going to China against that backdrop, to look as if you’re going to make national security concessions in the hope of economic preferment, is unwise,” he says. He is also doubtful that closer ties with Beijing will improve the British economy. “All of the evidence seems to point towards China investing in the U.K. only in as far as it suits their strategic interests,” De Pulford says. “There’s a lot to lose and not very much to gain.”  Prioritizing the U.K. agenda will be paramount for Starmer. “There’s nothing wrong at all with visiting China if you’re going to represent your interests and the United Kingdom’s interests,” he says, while remaining doubtful that this will be achieved. SET OUT A CHINA STRATEGY — EVIE ASPINALL, BRITISH FOREIGN POLICY GROUP DIRECTOR  Securing a “symbolic, long-term relationship” with China should be a priority for Starmer, Evie Aspinall, who leads the non-partisan British Foreign Policy Group think tank, says. She wants the U.K.’s China Audit to be published in full, warning businesses “don’t have a strong understanding of what the U.K.’s approach is.”  The audit was launched in late 2024 to allow the government to understand Beijing’s threats and opportunities, but its findings have not been published in detail because much of its content is classified. “I think that’s a fundamental limitation,” Aspinall says, pointing out it is businesses which will generate the growth Starmer wants.  U.K. businesses need to know they “will be supported around some of those risks if they do decide to engage more closely with China,” she says.