With one of the fastest-aging populations in the world, Europe will never be this young again. By 2050, one in three Europeans will be 65 or older, an age when Alzheimer’s disease risk starts doubling every five years. While breakthrough treatments are changing the trajectory of Alzheimer’s disease in other parts of the world, Europe is lagging in access and investment, cutting many people off from care options that could improve their lives. A global shift toward early intervention is showing what is possible, with patients starting to be diagnosed in time for treatment to have an impact.[1], [2] Detecting the disease early is like diagnosing cancer at stage one rather than stage four. It can make a profound difference for patients and families in the moments that matter most. Timely treatment can provide more independence, connection and time to make informed choices. > Detecting the disease early is like diagnosing cancer at stage one rather than > stage four. It can make a profound difference for patients and families in the > moments that matter most. Worldwide, 23 regulators have approved disease modifying therapies for Alzheimer’s disease, signaling growing confidence in these medicines. Four of the world’s largest economies also provide reimbursement so that cost is not a barrier. Yet in much of Europe, people living with the disease remain unable to access these innovations. Some countries have authorized treatments but failed to provide a reimbursement pathway, creating a two-tiered healthcare system where wealthier patients can afford treatment while others are left behind. Recent developments in the UK offer a cautiously encouraging signal. The appeal process through the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has acknowledged that the full value of innovation, including the impact on unpaid carers and the broader burden on informal carers, must be part of the conversation. This is a welcome recognition that systems need to evolve. Health technology assessment frameworks were largely designed to measure short-term, direct healthcare costs for acute interventions. They recognize clinical benefit in narrow terms, and overlook the wider impact that early intervention delivers across health and social care systems:[3] fewer years in residential and nursing home care and a reduced burden on unpaid carers. Such considerations matter enormously to patients and families, yet their voice often remains unheard in the decision-making of many European countries. The cost of this miscalculation compounds. Families are denied treatments that exist today, and future generations inherit health systems ill-equipped for the challenge ahead. Delay is already costing families and health systems When systems delay action, the burden doesn’t disappear. It shifts to families and it costs people good days with their loved ones. Dementia carries the highest global burden of disability, stealing more total years of quality life and independence than any other disease. Its economic toll is staggering, costing Europe 40 percent more than all cancers combined. The vast majority of those costs fall on families and social care. This also increases sharply as the disease progresses, going up by approximately €25,000 more per year as it moves from mild to severe.[4] Slowing disease progression eases the burden on millions of family members who      put aside their own careers and well-being to look after loved ones as unpaid carers.[5]      Yet the 90 percent of dementia costs that fall outside direct healthcare are routinely excluded from value assessments. 4 Including them would fundamentally change the equation. New medicines to treat Alzheimer’s disease have achieved efficacy and safety profiles on par with leading cancer and multiple sclerosis treatments, yet they face more skepticism. 4 Part of the problem is that diseases long considered untreatable suffer from underinvestment in care pathways. When treatments finally arrive, it is families who bear the consequences of health systems that are slow to adapt. This is where leaders can act. When assessing whether these treatments are worth paying for, policymakers must consider the full economic picture, one that captures the long-term value that early intervention delivers, not just short-term direct costs. Science is moving. Europe can lead or fall behind. At a time when European leaders are debating competitiveness, biotech leadership and fiscal sustainability, Alzheimer’s disease is not just a health issue. It is a test of whether Europe can adapt its systems to demographic reality, or allow the gap between scientific progress and patient access to widen further. European policymakers should give people this choice to know and act early. That begins with two priorities: enabling access to innovative diagnostics and treatments within a stronger system of care, and modernizing value assessment so it captures the full benefit of innovation, accounting for long-term savings across health and social care, not just short-term direct costs. > Alzheimer’s disease is not just a health issue. It is a test of whether Europe > can adapt its systems to demographic reality, or allow the gap between > scientific progress and patient access to widen further. By expanding diagnosis and access to innovation, Europe can help more people age with dignity, while reinforcing its position as a destination for research, clinical trials      and long-term investment. Europeans deserve the choice that science now makes possible. If leaders recognize the need for change, the time to act on it is now. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] Eckhardt, J. “Breakthroughs Changing The Diagnosis And Treatment Of Alzheimer’s” Forbes (2025) Breakthroughs Changing The Diagnosis And Treatment Of Alzheimer’s (Accessed March 15, 2026) [2] Beasley, B. “I Caught My Alzheimer’s at 57, Early Enough to Intervene.” The Wall Street Journal (2026). https://www.wsj.com/opinion/i-caught-my-alzheimers-at-57-early-enough-to-intervene-15072207 (Accessed March 15, 2026) [3] EFPIA. “Taking Action Together to Ensure a Brighter Today and Tomorrow for People with Alzheimer’s Disease.” Position Paper. https://www.efpia.eu/media/412735/taking-action-together-to-ensure-a-better-today-and-tomorrow-for-people-with-alzheimer-s-disease.pdf [4] Frisoni GB, Aho E, Brayne C, et al. “Alzheimer’s disease outlook: controversies and future directions.” The Lancet, Vol. 406, No. 10510, pp. 1424–1442 (September 2025). [5] Abi-Saleh N, So D, Molenkamp V. “Addressing the Impact of Alzheimer’s Disease on Care Capacity in the Netherlands: Implications for Health Technology Assessment.” Poster presentation, ISPOR Europe 2025. https://www.ispor.org/heor-resources/presentations-database/presentation-cti/ispor-europe-2025/poster-session-1-2/addressing-the-impact-of-alzheimer-s-disease-on-care-capacity-in-the-netherlands-implications-for-health-technology-assessment -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Eli Lilly & Company. * The entity ultimately controlling the sponsor is Eli Lilly & Company. * This article calls on European policymakers to reform health technology assessment and reimbursement systems to improve access to Alzheimer’s diagnostics and treatments, explicitly aiming to influence public health policy in Europe. More information here.

BRUSSELS — The EU needs to change its rules to enable a new wave of countries to join, the bloc’s enlargement chief said Tuesday, calling on capitals to present their own plans after they rejected proposals by the Commission to streamline the process. Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos said the EU’s executive arm had already presented three options to countries and “without … the decision of the member states, we cannot move on,” speaking at POLITICO’s Competitive Europe Summit. Those three options include maintaining the status quo, changing the current system to ensure candidate countries don’t languish for years, or the reverse enlargement proposal put forward by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and her team, where applicants would join before completing key reforms. The accession process has been complicated by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s persistent refusal to ensure the unanimous support needed for Ukraine to proceed in its candidacy. Reverse enlargement was envisioned by Brussels as a way for Kyiv and others to begin to get access to the single market and investment schemes before becoming a full EU member. “From the first exchange with the member states [it’s clear] the number three option is not okay … this would be a revolution,” Kos said in an onstage interview, adding that “the number one option, the status quo, is also not an option.” While a redesign of the system is likely, the Slovenian commissioner went on, “now we are debating into [which] direction. How can we make the process faster in the sense of enhanced gradual integration?” At a dinner with ambassadors earlier this month, von der Leyen’s chief of staff Björn Seibert was warned that the reverse enlargement proposal was seen as unworkable by capitals. Envoys cite both arduous legal requirements around how new countries can join and fears that new countries could backslide democratically and end up blocking the EU agenda, as Hungary has done. “We think only one or two countries are supportive of the proposals from the Commission so it’s not a great success,” said one of the diplomats, cautioning that capitals want to ensure enlargement proceeds in a way that fits their own legal requirements. “There is great support for accession of Ukraine to the European Union,” said a second diplomat. “But it is also true that almost no member state supports accession before the negotiations will have been finished in a regular way.” A DIFFERENT WAY Four diplomats, granted anonymity to speak frankly about the sensitive talks, told POLITICO that countries are now in the process of developing their own proposals to share with the Commission. These would set out alternative mechanisms, likely focusing on how candidate countries can feel the benefits of alignment with the EU’s market and access to its investment schemes. “If member states don’t like ‘reverse enlargement,’ that is fine,” said one EU official, “but they can put their proposals on the table too.” In a rare show of unity last month, Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama and Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić penned an op-ed in Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung that bemoaned the slow pace of efforts to get the benefits of closer alignment with the bloc. This was the result of “internal reforms, geopolitical tensions, institutional constraints, and legitimate concerns within member states,” they wrote. Instead, they said, their countries want to join the Single Market, as well as the borderless Schengen area, without getting the political rights and veto power of full members. The plan, which would create a two-tier EU of rule makers and rule takers, has been backed by some smaller candidate countries, and met with skepticism from Moldova and Ukraine which aim to be admitted on an equal basis as others have. However, Kos dismissed the call, saying she was unsure if the leaders “know how much you have to deliver if you want to be a part of Schengen or common market,” and that the process of reforms is arduous for economic integration as well as EU membership. No country has become a member since Croatia in 2013. Ukraine’s aspiration to join the bloc by Jan. 1, 2027, she went on, would be “impossible.” Iceland, by contrast, could be a “special case” and “really go quick” if voters decide to reopen negotiations in a referendum to be held this summer amid geopolitical insecurity and tensions with the United States. President Donald Trump repeatedly mistook Iceland for Greenland in a speech in January, as he insisted his country should take control of Arctic territories. “Iceland is so much integrated already through the EEA that the Common Market is there. Schengen is there,” Kos said. “So the most difficult topics, if I speak about the necessary reforms or, being integrated in the EU, they already are [there]. If we speak about the development of democracy, they are very high. European values, they are very high.”

Many describe our geopolitical moment as one of instability, but that word feels too weak for what we are living through. Some, like Mark Carney, argue that we are facing a rupture: a break with assumptions that anchored the global economic and political order for decades. Others, like Christine Lagarde, see a profound transition, a shift toward a new configuration of power, technology and societal expectations. Whichever perception we adopt, the implication is clear: leaders can no longer rely on yesterday’s mental models, institutional routines or governance templates. Johanna Mair is the Director of the Florence School of Transnational Governance at the European University Institute in Florence, where she leads education, training and research on governance beyond the nation state. Security, for example, is no longer a discrete policy field. It now reaches deeply into energy systems, artificial intelligence, cyber governance, financial stability and democratic resilience, all under conditions of strategic competition and mistrust. At the same time, competitiveness cannot be reduced to productivity metrics or short-term growth rates. It is about a society’s capacity to innovate, regulate effectively and mobilize investment toward long-term objectives — from the green and digital transitions to social cohesion. This dense web of interdependence is where transnational governance is practiced every day. The European Union illustrates this reality vividly. No single member state can build the capacity to manage these transformations on its own. EU institutions and other regional bodies shape regulatory frameworks and collective responses; corporations influence infrastructure and supply chains; financial institutions direct capital flows; and civic actors respond to social fragmentation and governance gaps. Effective leadership has become a systemic endeavour: it requires coordination across these levels, while sustaining public legitimacy and defending liberal democratic principles. > Our mission is to teach and train current and future leaders, equipping them > with the knowledge, skills and networks to tackle global challenges in ways > that are both innovative and grounded in democratic values. The Florence School of Transnational Governance (STG) at the European University Institute was created precisely to respond to this need. Located in Florence and embedded in a European institution founded by EU member states, the STG is a hub where policymakers, business leaders, civil society, media and academia meet to work on governance beyond national borders. Our mission is to teach and train current and future leaders, equipping them with the knowledge, skills and networks to tackle global challenges in ways that are both innovative and grounded in democratic values. What makes this mission distinctive is not only the topics we address, but also how and with whom we address them. We see leadership development as a practice embedded in real institutions, not a purely classroom-based exercise. People do not come to Florence to observe transnational governance from a distance; they come to practice it, test hypotheses and co-create solutions with peers who work on the frontlines of policy and politics. This philosophy underpins our portfolio of programs, from degree offerings to executive education. With early career professionals, we focus on helping them understand and shape governance beyond the state, whether in international organizations, national administrations, the private sector or civil society. We encourage them to see institutions not as static structures, but as arrangements that can and must be strengthened and reformed to support a liberal, rules-based order under stress. At the same time, we devote significant attention to practitioners already in positions of responsibility. Our Global Executive Master (GEM) is designed for experienced professionals who cannot pause their careers, but recognize that the governance landscape in which they operate has changed fundamentally. Developed by the STG, the GEM convenes participants from EU institutions, national administrations, international organizations, business and civil society — professionals from a wide range of nationalities and institutional backgrounds, reflecting the coalitions required to address complex problems. The program is structured to fit the reality of leadership today. Delivered part time over two years, it combines online learning with residential periods in Florence and executive study visits in key policy centres. This blended format allows participants to remain in full-time roles while advancing their qualifications and networks, and it ensures that learning is continuously tested against institutional realities rather than remaining an abstract exercise. Participants specialize in tracks such as geopolitics and security, tech and governance, economy and finance, or energy and climate. Alongside this subject depth, they build capabilities more commonly associated with top executive programs than traditional public policy degrees: change management, negotiations, strategic communication, foresight and leadership under uncertainty. These skills are essential for bridging policy design and implementation — a gap that is increasingly visible as governments struggle to deliver on ambitious agendas. Executive study visits are a core element of this practice-oriented approach. In a recent Brussels visit, GEM participants engaged with high-level speakers from the European Commission, the European External Action Service, the Council, the European Parliament, NATO, Business Europe, Fleishman Hillard and POLITICO itself. Over several days, they discussed foreign and security policy, industrial strategy, strategic foresight and the governance of emerging technologies. These encounters do more than illustrate theory; they give participants a chance to stress-test their assumptions, understand the constraints facing decision-makers and build relationships across institutional boundaries. via EUI Throughout the program, each participant develops a capstone project that addresses a strategic challenge connected to a policy organization, often their own employer. This ensures that executive education translates into institutional impact: projects range from new regulatory approaches and partnership models to internal reforms aimed at making organizations more agile and resilient. At the same time, they help weave a durable transnational network of practitioners who can work together beyond the programme. Across our activities at the STG, a common thread runs through our work: a commitment to defending and renewing the liberal order through concrete practice. Addressing the rupture or transition we are living through requires more than technical fixes. It demands leaders who can think systemically, act across borders and design governance solutions that are both unconventional and democratically legitimate. > Across our activities at the STG, a common thread runs through our work: a > commitment to defending and renewing the liberal order through concrete > practice. In a period defined by systemic risk and strategic competition, leadership development cannot remain sectoral or reactive. It must be interdisciplinary, practice-oriented and anchored in real policy environments. At the Florence School of Transnational Governance, we aim to create precisely this kind of learning community — one where students, fellows and executives work side by side to reimagine how institutions can respond to global challenges. For policymakers and professionals who recognize themselves in this moment of rupture, our programs — including the GEM — offer a space to step back, learn with peers and return to their institutions better equipped to lead change. The task is urgent, but it is also an opportunity: by investing in transnational governance education today, we can help lay the foundations for a more resilient and inclusive order tomorrow.

TOULOUSE, France — The prospect of the hard-left France Unbowed party taking control of Toulouse, France’s fourth-largest city and home to Europe’s best-known airplane maker, is putting industry on edge. It’s not just that a win in the second round of local elections Sunday could give the party’s anticapitalist leader, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, a major boost ahead of next year’s presidential election. That’s a concern for later. The immediate fear is that if France Unbowed makes history here — the party has never come close to controlling such a big metropolis — it will heap taxes on local icons like Airbus to pay for a generous manifesto that includes water subsidies, free public transport for residents under 26 years old, and free school meals and educational supplies. “I’m concerned it will jeopardize plans for new firms and factories to open in Toulouse, including the future prospects of Airbus,” said Pierre-Olivier Nau, the president of the employers’ lobby MEDEF in the Haute-Garonne department, which includes Toulouse. Nau also worries that the hard left’s opposition to adding a high-speed rail connection between Bordeaux and Toulouse, due to cost at least €14 billion, will harm businesses that have been expecting it a long time. France Unbowed’s mayoral hopeful argues the project will damage the environment and push up rents in Toulouse by attracting commuters or remote workers from other cities with higher salaries. A TIGHT RACE MEDEF and other business lobbies are now scrambling to react, given France Unbowed was never expected to get this close to power in Toulouse. Its candidate, lawmaker François Piquemal, was polling behind his Socialist Party rival François Briançon in the run-up to the first round of the vote last Sunday. The Socialist leadership had vowed not to work with the hard left after the torrent of criticism unleashed against Mélenchon following accusations of antisemitic behavior and his unapologetic reaction to the death of a far-right activist. So Piquemal’s second-place finish and his quickly formed alliance with Briançon to topple the longtime center-right mayor, Jean-Luc Moudenc, came as a surprise. The runoff is expected to be close. A poll released Thursday showed Moudenc winning by just two points in the second round, within the margin of error. Two local employers’ lobbies recently slammed the hard left’s plans for Toulouse, and a group of 350 local celebrities, including rugby luminaries and business owners, signed an open letter calling on citizens to vote against France Unbowed. “A lot of business projects have been put on hold,” said Nau. Piquemal says this is scaremongering. The 41-year-old former teacher denied he will raise taxes and downplayed talk among business leaders that Airbus, the region’s dominant employer responsible for more than 200,000 direct and indirect jobs, would reduce investments or shift facilities if he were elected. Airbus declined a request for comment. A general view shows an entrance of the Airbus Defence and Space campus in Toulouse on October 16, 2024. | Ed Jones/AFP via Getty Images “Moudenc’s policies, but also [President Emmanuel] Macron’s policies, have worsened living conditions in Toulouse,” Piquemal told reporters in Toulouse on Thursday. “We are the ones who support jobs, we support companies,” he added. “We are the ones defending small shop owners against big corporations.” A soft-spoken man with a light beard and warm manner, Piquemal is characteristic of the new generation of radical left activists in France. He’s just as comfortable discussing toxic masculinity and making videos on TikTok as he is campaigning for rent controls or against Israel’s war in Gaza. He was aboard the so-called Freedom Flotilla with Greta Thunberg and MEP Rima Hassan, carrying aid to Gaza before they were all arrested by Israeli forces. Piquemal, however, is much more understated than his party’s flamethrowing leader. But he’s benefiting from the success of Mélenchon’s adversarial approach to politics. France Unbowed is trying to establish itself as the ultimate anti-establishment party ahead of what is expected to be a showdown with the far right in next year’s presidential election. Most polls show Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella’s party, the National Rally, is currently the favorite in the race for the Elysée. “France Unbowed is the most solid, the best-placed to build a barrage against the far right,” said Ismael Youssouf-Huard, a France Unbowed activist and candidate for the Toulouse city council. “Mélenchon is the sensible choice against the National Rally,” he said. Results in the first round of voting have gone some way toward validating Mélenchon’s provocative approach. France Unbowed won the poor, diverse city of Saint-Denis in the Paris suburbs outright in the first round and is on track to score the mayor’s job in the industrial northeastern city of Roubaix. Hard-left candidate François Piquemal talking to voters in the impoverished Reynerie neighbourhood in Toulouse. | Clea Caulcutt/POLITICO The election in Toulouse is seen as a major test case for Mélenchon ahead of the 2027 presidential election. Can he and his party confirm its leadership role on the left ahead of the presidential election or will more moderate voters, turned off by the hard left’s radicalism, flock toward the opposition? ‘ARE YOU READY FOR SUNDAY?’ At a market squashed between a burnt-out drug dealers’ den and a tower block in the Reynerie neighborhood, Piquemal is trying to get people to vote. “Are you ready for Sunday?” he asked, as he handed out leaflets. “You need to go and vote.” In the Reynerie market, shoppers are pleased to see him. “I’m so happy he did well in the first round,” said Claude Compas, a retired special education teacher. Thibaut Cazal, a leftwing candidate for the city council, hopes to beat abstention in the poorer neighbourhoods of Toulouse. | Clea Caulcutt/POLITICO But some voters are worried about the prospect of the far left running the city. “They say they’ll give free public transport to the youth, but nothing’s free,” said retiree Abdallah Taberkokt. “Who’s going to pay? We are.” Piquemal was generally warmly received — little surprise considering Reynerie swung heavily for him in the first round of the vote. Still, Piquemal thought there was more excitement than usual in his core constituencies. He said he was harnessing “greater momentum” than during the last local election six years ago, when Moudenc narrowly defeated a more moderate candidate backed by a united left. Piquemal’s supporters believe their champion will pave the way for a unified left, despite the fact that the first round of voting exposed deep divisions nationally over local alliances with Mélenchon and the hard left. “These local elections are going to make history,” said Thibaut Cazal, a candidate for councilor alongside Piquemal. “It’ll show that left-wing families can be reconciled.” France Unbowed may still fall short in Toulouse. But even if it does, the party will have proved that it cannot be ignored ahead of the big presidential showdown in 2027.

Biotechnology is central to modern medicine and Europe’s long-term competitiveness. From cancer and cardiovascular disease to rare conditions, it is driving transformative advances for patients across Europe and beyond . 1         Yet innovation in Europe is increasingly shaped by regulatory fragmentation, procedural complexity and uneven implementation across  m ember s tates. As scientific progress accelerates, policy frameworks must evolve in parallel, supporting the full lifecycle of innovation from research and clinical development to manufacturing and patient access.  The proposed EU Biotech Act seeks to address these challenges. By streamlining regulatory procedures, strengthening coordination  and supporting scale-up and manufacturing, it aims to reinforce Europe’s position in a highly competitive global biotechnology landscape .2       Its success, however, will depend less on ambition than on delivery. Consistent implementation, proportionate oversight and continued global openness will determine whether the  a ct translates into faster patient access, sustained investment and long-term resilience.  Q: Why is biotechnology increasingly seen as a strategic pillar for Europe’s competitiveness, resilience and long-term growth?  Gilles Marrache, SVP and regional general manager, Europe, Latin America, Middle East, Africa and Canada, Amgen:  Biotechnology sits at the intersection of health, industrial policy and economic competitiveness. The sector is one of Europe’s strongest strategic assets and a leading contributor to  research and development  growth . 3    At the same time, Europe’s position is under increasing pressure. Over the past two decades, the EU has lost approximately 25  percent of its global share of pharmaceutical investment to other regions, such as the  United States  and China.   The choices made today will shape Europe’s long-term strength in the sector, influencing not only competitiveness and growth, but also how quickly patients can benefit from new treatments.  > Europe stands at a pivotal moment in biotechnology. Our life sciences legacy > is strong, but maintaining global competitiveness requires evolution .” 4   > >  Gilles Marrache, SVP and regional general manager, Europe, Latin America, > Middle East, Africa and Canada, Amgen. Q: What does the EU Biotech Act aim to do  and why is it considered an important step forward for patients and Europe’s innovation ecosystem?  Marrache: The EU Biotech Act represents a timely opportunity to better support biotechnology products from the laboratory to the market. By streamlining medicines’ pathways and improving conditions for scale-up and investment, it can help strengthen Europe’s innovation ecosystem and accelerate patient access to breakthrough therapies. These measures will help anchor biotechnology as a strategic priority for Europe’s future  —  and one that can deliver earlier patient benefit  —  so long as we can make it work in practice.  Q: How does the EU Biotech Act address regulatory fragmentation, and where will effective delivery and coordination be most decisive? Marrache: Regulatory fragmentation has long challenged biotechnology development in Europe, particularly for multinational clinical trials and innovative products. The Biotech Act introduces faster, more coordinated trials, expanded regulatory sandboxes and new investment and industrial capacity instruments.   The proposed EU Health Biotechnology Support Network and a  u nion-level regulatory status repository would strengthen transparency and predictability. Together, these measures would support earlier regulatory dialogue, help de-risk development   and promote more consistent implementation across  m ember  s tates.   They also create an opportunity to address complexities surrounding combination products  —  spanning medicines, devices and diagnostics  —  where overlapping requirements and parallel assessments have added delays.5 This builds on related efforts, such as the COMBINE programme,6 which seeks to streamline the navigation of the In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation , 7 Clinical Trials Regulation8 and the Medical Device Regulation9 through a single, coordinated assessment process. Continued clarity and coordination will be essential to reduce duplication and accelerate development timelines .10 Q: What conditions will be most critical to support biotech scale-up, manufacturing  and long-term investment in Europe?  Marrache: Europe must strike the right balance between strategic autonomy and openness to global collaboration. Any new instruments under the Biotech Act mechanisms should remain open and supportive of all types of biotech investments, recogni z ing that biotech manufacturing operates through globally integrated and highly speciali z ed value chains.   Q: How can Europe ensure faster and more predictable pathways from scientific discovery to patient access, while maintaining high standards of safety and quality?   Marrache: Faster and more predictable patient access depends on strengthening end-to-end pathways across the lifecycle.  The Biotech Act will help ensure continuity of scientific and regulatory experti z e, from clinical development through post-authori z ation. It will also support stronger alignment with downstream processes, such as health technology assessments, which  are  critical to success.   Moreover, reducing unnecessary delays or duplication in approval processes can set clearer expectations, more predictable development timelines and earlier planning for scale-up.    Gilles Marrache, SVP and regional general manager, Europe, Latin America, Middle East, Africa and Canada, Amgen. Via Amgen. Finally, embedding a limited number of practical tools (procedural, digital or governance-based) and ensuring they are integrated within existing  European Medicines Agency and EU regulatory structures can help achieve faster patient access . 11 Q: What role can stronger regulatory coordination, data use and public - private collaboration play in strengthening Europe’s global position in biotechnology?  Marrache: To unlock biotechnology’s full potential, consistent implementation is essential. Fragmented approaches to secondary data use, divergent  m ember   state interpretations and uncertainty for data holders still limit access to high-quality datasets at scale. The Biotech Act introduces key building blocks to address this.   These include Biotechnology Data Quality Accelerators to improve interoperability, trusted testing environments for advanced innovation, and alignment with the EU AI Act ,12  European Health Data Space13 and wider EU data initiatives. It also foresees AI-specific provisions and clinical trial guidance to provide greater operational clarity.  Crucially, these structures must simplify rather than add further layers of complexity.   Addressing remaining barriers will reduce legal uncertainty for AI deployment, support innovation and strengthen Europe’s competitiveness.  > These reforms will create a moderni z ed biotech ecosystem, healthier > societies, sustainable healthcare systems and faster patient access to the > latest breakthroughs in Europe .” 14 > > Gilles Marrache, SVP and regional general manager, Europe, Latin America, > Middle East, Africa and Canada, Amgen.  Q: As technologies evolve and global competition intensifies, how can policymakers ensure the Biotech Act remains flexible and future-proof?  Marrache:  To remain future-proof, the Biotech Act must be designed to evolve alongside scientific progress, market dynamics and patient needs. Clear objectives, risk-based requirements, regular review mechanisms and timely updates to guidance will enhance regulatory agility without creating unnecessary rigidity or administrative burden.  Continuous stakeholder dialogue combined with horizon scanning will be essential to sustaining innovation, resilience and timely patient access over the long term. Preserving regulatory openness and international cooperation will be critical in avoiding fragmentation and maintaining Europe’s credibility as a global biotech hub.  Q: Looking ahead, what two or three priorities should policymakers focus on to ensure the EU Biotech Act delivers meaningful impact in practice?  Marrache: Looking ahead, policymakers should focus on three priorities for the Biotech Act:    First, implementation must deliver real regulatory efficiency, predictability and coordination in practice. Second, Europe must sustain an open and investment-friendly framework that reflects the global nature of biotechnology.  And third, policymakers should ensure a clear and coherent legal framework across the lifecycle of innovative medicines, providing certainty for the use of  artificial intelligence   —  as a key driver of innovation in health biotechnology.  In practical terms, the EU Biotech Act will be judged not by the number of new instruments it creates, but by whether it reduces complexity, increases predictability and shortens the path from scientific discovery to patient benefit. An open, innovation-friendly framework that is competitive at the global level will help sustain investment, strengthen resilient supply chains and deliver better outcomes for patients across Europe and beyond. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- References 1. Amgen Europe, The EU Biotech Act Unlocking Europe’s Potential, May 2025. Retrieved from https://www.amgen.eu/media/press-releases/2025/05/The_EU_Biotech_Act_Unlocking_Europes_Potential 2. European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation to establish measures to strengthen the Union’s biotechnology and biomanufacturing sectors, December 2025. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/publications/proposal-regulation-establish-measures-strengthen-unions-biotechnology-and-biomanufacturing-sectors_en 3. EFPIA, The pharmaceutical sector: A catalyst to foster Europe’s competitiveness, February 2026. Retrieved from https://www.efpia.eu/media/zkhfr3kp/10-actions-for-competitiveness-growth-and-security.pdf 4. The Parliament, Investing in healthy societies by boosting biotech competitiveness, November 2024. Retrieved from https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/partner/article/investing-in-healthy-societies-by-boosting-biotech-competitiveness#_ftn4 5. Amgen Europe, The EU Biotech Act Unlocking Europe’s Potential, May 2025. Retrieved from https://www.amgen.eu/docs/BiotechPP_final_digital_version_May_2025.pdf   6. European Commission, combine programme, June 2023. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/medical-devices-topics-interest/combine-programme_en  7. European Commission. Medical Devices – In Vitro Diagnostics, March 2026. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/medical-devices-vitro-diagnostics_en 8. European Commission, Clinical trials – Regulation EU No 536/2014, January 2022. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/medicinal-products/clinical-trials/clinical-trials-regulation-eu-no-5362014_en 9. European Commission, Simpler and more effective rules for medical devices – Commission proposal for a targeted revision of the medical devices regulations, December 2025. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/medical-devices-sector/new-regulations_en#mdr 10. Amgen Europe, The EU Biotech Act Unlocking Europe’s Potential, May 2025. Retrieved from https://www.amgen.eu/docs/BiotechPP_final_digital_version_May_2025.pdf   11. AmCham, EU position on the Commission Proposal for an EU Biotech Act 12. European Commission, AI Act | Shaping Europe’s digital future, June 2024. Retrieved from https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-framework-ai 13. European Commission, European Health Data Space, March 2025. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/ehealth-digital-health-and-care/european-health-data-space-regulation-ehds_en 14. The Parliament, Why Europe needs a Biotech Act, October 2025. Retrieved from https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/partner/article/why-europe-needs-a-biotech-act -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Amgen Inc * The ultimate controlling entity is Amgen Inc * The political advertisement is linked to advocacy on the EU Biotech Act. More information here.

BRUSSELS — The European Commission will make a proposal to boost the bloc’s carbon market reserve within “days” and develop a €30 billion decarbonization fund, in response to pressure from EU leaders to limit the CO2 price’s impact on electricity bills. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the EU executive would work on a mix of immediate relief and structural changes to bring down high energy prices, with measures to tackle all components of the power bill, from taxes and levies to carbon costs. Two measures to tweak the Emissions Trading System (ETS), which requires factories and power plants to purchase a permit for every ton of CO2 they emit, “will come in the next days,” von der Leyen said at a press conference following Thursday’s EU leaders’ summit. They include an update to the so-called benchmarks that determine how many free-of-charge permits a certain industrial sector receives and a proposal to “increase the firepower” of the Market Stability Reserve governing the ETS permit supply. In what she described as the “medium term,” von der Leyen pointed to the review of the ETS scheduled for this summer, as well as a new “ETS investment booster” providing financial support to industry. This booster, first reported by POLITICO on Thursday, will “have a budget of round about €30 billion, financed by 400 million ETS allowances,” she said. “The aim is to finance projects for decarbonization” under a first-come, first-served scheme with a focus on lower-income EU countries. In their summit conclusions, leaders asked the Commission to conduct the ETS review “by July 2026 at the latest, to reduce the volatility of the carbon price and mitigate its impact on electricity prices … while preserving the essential role of the ETS.” Compared to previous drafts, the final conclusions also “invited” the Commission “to work closely with Member States to design national temporary and targeted measures” to rein in high energy prices. This addition was seen as catering to countries such as Italy and Poland, which had cited their national circumstances — in particular, high reliance on fossil fuels in their power mix — as reasons for more substantial changes to the ETS, two diplomats said. Asked specifically about a controversial Italian decree subsidizing power companies to make up for their ETS costs, von der Leyen said: “Because of different energy mix in different member states you cannot have one-size-fits-all” and vowed to “work closely with the Italian government on the Italian decree.” In general, she said, Thursday’s summit was “positive for the ETS.” The bloc’s bedrock climate measure escaped demands for fundamental changes from leaders and was widely praised as a key lever for accelerating the bloc’s transition to cheaper clean energy.

LONDON — Britain will reduce its aid sent to Africa by more than half, as the government unveils the impact of steep cuts to development assistance for countries across the world. On Thursday the Foreign Office revealed the next three years of its overseas development spending, giving MPs and the public the first look at the impact of Labour’s decision to gut Britain’s aid budget in order to fund an increase in defense spending. Government figures show that the value of Britain’s programs in Africa will fall by 56 percent from the £1.5 billion in 2024/25 when Labour took office to £677 million in 2028/9. It follows the move to reduce aid spending from 0.5 to 0.3 percent of gross national income. However, the government did not release the details of the funding for specific countries, giving Britain’s ambassadors and diplomats time to deliver the news personally to their counterparts across the world ahead of any potential backlash from allies. Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper told MPs that affected countries want Britain “to be an investor, not just a donor” and “want to attract finance, not be dependent on aid,” as she pointed to money her department had committed to development banks and funds which will help Africa raise money. The decision shows a substantial shift in the government’s focus, moving away from direct assistance for countries, and funneling much of the remaining money into international organizations and private finance initiatives. Chi Onwurah, chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Africa, told POLITICO that she was “dismayed at the level and extent of the cuts to investment in Africa and the impact it will have particularly on health and economic development.” She added: “I hope the government recognizes that security of the British people is not increased by insecurity in Africa and increased migration from Africa, quite the opposite.” Ian Mitchell from the Center for Global Development think tank noted the move was “a remarkable step back from Africa by the U.K.” NEW PRIORITIES Announcing the cuts in the House of Commons, Cooper stressed that the decision to reduce the aid budget had been “hugely difficult,” pointing to similar moves by allies such as France and Germany following the U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to dramatically shrink America’s aid programs after taking office in January 2025. She insisted that it was still “part of our moral purpose” to tackle global disease and hunger, reiterating Labour’s ambition to work towards “a world free from extreme poverty on a livable planet.” Cooper set out three new priorities for Britain’s remaining budget: funding for unstable countries with conflict and humanitarian disasters, funneling money into “proven” global partnerships such as vaccine organizations, and a focus on women and girls, pledging that these will be at the core of 90 percent of Britain’s bilateral aid programs by 2030. A box with the Ukrainian flag on it awaits collection in Peterborough, U.K. on March 10, 2022. | Martin Pope/Getty Images Only three recipients will see their aid spending fully protected: Ukraine, the Palestinian territories and Sudan. Lebanon will also see its funding protected for another year. All bilateral funding for G20 countries will end. Despite the government’s stated priorities, the scale of the cuts mean that even the areas it is seeking to protect will not be protected fully. An impact assessment — which was so stark that ministers claimed they had to rethink some of the cuts in order to better protect focus areas such as contraception — published alongside the announcement found that there will likely be an end to programs in Malawi where 250,000 young people will lose access to family planning, and 20,000 children risk dropping out of school. “These steep cuts will impact the most marginalized and left behind communities,” said Romilly Greenhill, CEO of Bond, the U.K. network for NGOs, adding: “The U.K. is turning its back on the communities that need support the most.” Last-minute negotiations did see some areas protected from more severe cuts, with the BBC World Service seeing a funding boost, the British Council set to receive an uplift amid its financial struggles, and the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) — the aid spending watchdog that had been at risk of being axed — continuing to operate with a 40 percent budget cut. GREEN THREAT Though the move will not require legislation to be confirmed — after Prime Minister Keir Starmer successfully got the move past his MPs last year — MPs inside his party and out have lamented the impact of the cuts, amid the ongoing threat to Labour’s left from a resurgent Green Party under new leader Zack Polanski. Labour MP Becky Cooper, chair of the APPG on global health and security said that her party “is, and always has been, a party of internationalism” but today’s plans would “put Britain and the world at risk.” Sarah Champion, another Labour MP who chairs the House of Commons international development committee said that the announcement confirmed that there “will be no winners from unrelenting U.K. aid cuts, just different degrees of losers,” creating a “desperately bleak” picture for the world’s most vulnerable. “These cuts do not aid our defense, they make the whole world more vulnerable,” she added. Her Labour colleague Gareth Thomas, a former development minister, added: “In an already unsafe world, cutting aid risks alienating key allies and will make improving children’s health and education in Commonwealth countries more difficult.” The announcement may give fresh ammunition to the Greens ahead of May’s local elections, where the party is eyeing up one of its best nights in local government amid a collapse in support for Labour among Britain’s young, progressive, and Muslim voters. Reacting to the news that Britain will cut its aid to developing countries aimed at combatting climate change, Polanski said: “Appalling and just unbelievably short-sighted. Our security here in the U.K. relies on action around the world to tackle the climate crisis.”

EU efforts to ban Huawei from 5G networks won the backing of a top court advisor Thursday, in a legal opinion that is likely to galvanize security hawks seeking to restrict Chinese tech in Europe. A lawyer for the EU’s top court in Luxembourg said rules blocking telecom operators from using risky suppliers can be set by the EU, not just national governments. They also said telecom operators don’t need to be compensated for the cost of replacing Huawei equipment. It’s a blow for Europe’s telecom giants, which have pushed back against banning China’s Huawei from 5G procurement and have told EU officials that large-scale bans are an “act of self-harm” that could even bring down networks. It is a win for China hawks, who have fought to impose tougher measures against Huawei — with strong backing from Washington. The EU has spent years trying to persuade national governments to voluntarily kick out Huawei and ZTE over concerns that their presence in European telecom networks could enable large-scale spying and surveillance by the Chinese government. It is now working on broader rules that seek to reduce the bloc’s reliance on foreign “high-risk” suppliers and limit foreign government control over its digital networks. The case was brought by Estonian telecom operator Elisa, which is seeking compensation for the costs of removing Huawei and is challenging whether the EU has the competence to ask for restrictions on Chinese vendors. Thursday’s opinion said national security authorities can follow EU guidance when imposing bans on Huawei. The Court of Justice is expected to issue its final ruling on the case later this year, and may take the opinion from Advocate General Tamara Ćapet into account. Laszlo Toth, head of Europe at global telecom lobby association GSMA, said in reaction that “blanket rip-and-replace mandates are an unreasonable approach to what is a highly nuanced situation.” The industry considers national security measures should remain the responsibility of national governments, he said. Huawei said the opinion “recognizes that all restrictive measures with regards to telecom equipment must be subject to judicial review, under a strict standard of proportionality” and that “decisions cannot rest on general suspicion … but must be based on a specific assessment.” “We expect EU or national restrictions to be scrutinized under this principle,” Huawei said. BOON FOR BRUSSELS Progress towards an EU-wide ban has been sluggish, with many national governments dragging their feet, in part due to fears of Chinese trade retaliation. European Commission Executive Vice President Henna Virkkunen told POLITICO in January that she is “not satisfied” with voluntary efforts by EU capitals to kick out Huawei. The EU executive now wants binding rules, laid out in a proposal in January. Large telecom players in Europe have pushed back hard against restrictions on Huawei, arguing that blocking risky vendors is a national security measure — an area handled exclusively by national governments. Efforts to clamp down on risky vendors should respect “the competence of member states for national security matters,” industry group Connect Europe said in January. Thursday’s opinion suggests operators will have a harder time fighting the bans.  It also bodes badly for operators hoping to get compensated for ripping out Huawei equipment. Many have sought financial support and compensation for the measures, which they say add massive unexpected costs to network rollouts. The EU executive previously estimated that phasing out “specific high-risk equipment” would cost between €3.4 billion and €4.3 billion per year for three years. Only if the burden for replacing Huawei is “disproportionately heavy,” could telcos seek compensation, according to the opinion. Elisa said it welcomed the legal recommendation that all decisions made on the grounds of national security should still be subject to judicial review. It said the restrictions in Estonia “amounted to a deprivation of its ownership rights … as the impacted equipment has become unusable” and that Elisa “already swapped the majority of its network equipment to Nokia.” Chinese vendor ZTE, the smaller rival of Huawei, did not respond to a request for comment. Mathieu Pollet contributed reporting.

LONDON — The House of Lords has struck down the government’s controversial proposal to direct where pension schemes invest, handing Rachel Reeves’ Treasury a significant defeat. The government had sought to give itself a controversial “reserve power” in the Pension Schemes Bill, which would allow it to direct where pension schemes invest, in a bid to boost U.K. and private assets. That provision was met with fury by the pensions industry, and Thursday’s amendment shows enough peers feel the same way. An amendment to the Pension Schemes Bill — tabled by Liberal Democrat peer Sharon Bowles, Conservative peers Deborah Stedman-Scott and Thérèse Coffey, and independent peer Ros Altmann — won a vote in the upper chamber Thursday by 217 to 113. It removes the provision on the asset allocation condition in the legislation. The defeat is a blow to Pensions Minister Torsten Bell, who only last week tried to reassure industry and peers by telling POLITICO that he would table “clarifications” to the bill outlining that the power would only align to Mansion House Accord signatories and targets. It means ministers will now be required to reconsider the proposed law. “This power must be removed,” said Stedman-Scott. “It is a massive overstep from the government, and despite the assurances of the minister, no one is yet convinced that this can remai.” The amendment removing the threat of a mandate will now go back to the House of Commons, where Bell will need to decide whether to include new changes to reinstate the power.  Altmann got another victory in the report stage debate on Thursday by winning a vote on her amendment to extend the time limit defining an unused pension pot as “dormant” from 12 months to two years.  Under government plans, all “dormant” small pots worth under £1,000 will be consolidated into larger schemes.

President Donald Trump is demanding that the Federal Reserve immediately lower borrowing costs. But the war in the Middle East has now made any interest rate cuts much less likely in 2026 — not just in the U.S. but around the world. With oil prices surging past $100 a barrel and Gulf shipping routes disrupted by Iran, governments and investors are bracing for a repeat of the 2022 energy shock from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. And from Washington to Frankfurt, and London to Tokyo, the world’s central banks are likely to strike a more wary tone on inflation while assessing the fallout during a flurry of policy meetings taking place this week. The effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a channel through which roughly a fifth of global oil passes, is pushing up costs not only for energy and transportation, but also for other key goods that are shipped through the waterway. The result could be a toxic mix for central banks: higher prices and lower employment, two problems they’re not equipped to address simultaneously. “My best guess, but spoken with no conviction at all, is that this gets sorted out somehow in the next few weeks, and by the middle of the year, oil prices have come back down a fair amount,” said William English, a former top staffer at the Fed who is now a professor at Yale University. “But there’s a real risk, of course, that things go on for longer and are more damaging. And in that case, all bets are off.” The specter of a prolonged global energy crunch could dash the hopes of consumers, businesses and investors worldwide for rate cuts this year — and in some cases, throw those plans in reverse. No immediate moves are likely except in Australia, which raised its target rate by a quarter-point on Tuesday. But markets have already repriced their bets on what comes next from monetary policymakers. Indeed, if the Fed does cut rates later this year, it might be one of the few major central banks that does so, given that other economies like Europe are more exposed to higher energy costs than the U.S. Before the war, investors saw a chance of cuts from the Fed, the European Central Bank and the Bank of England. Now they’re pricing in an altogether tighter policy stance: at least one ECB rate hike this year, a 60 percent chance of a BoE increase, fewer and later cuts from the Fed and more urgency in raising rates from the Bank of Japan. Central bankers will prefer to wait until they get a better gauge of the economic repercussions from the conflict because “the shock could turn out to be negligible or very large,” said EFG chief economist Stefan Gerlach. But few doubt the need for strong messaging as central banks are wary of repeating 2022, when energy price shocks combined with the after-effects from Covid and fiscal stimulus to morph into the worst inflation spike in half a century. “There will be a significant contingent worrying about upside inflation risks in light of the 2022 experience,” J.P. Morgan economist Greg Fuzesi said ahead of the ECB’s policy-making council’s meeting on Thursday. The Iran conflict is further complicating efforts by Trump to demonstrate to voters that the GOP is addressing cost-of-living concerns before this year’s midterm elections. Already, the war has caused a surge in politically salient gas prices and erased some of the progress toward more affordable mortgage rates. And it’s further muddied the picture for a central bank that the president has been pressing hard to take decisive action toward rate cuts. Now, when Chair Jerome Powell and other Fed officials meet on Wednesday, they’re expected to be more open to the idea of rate increases later this year, though that’s still not the likeliest outcome. As Yale’s English pointed out, higher costs might ultimately increase the case for rate cuts if they slow the economy significantly. “With the higher oil prices and the shock to the global economy, the likelihood of overheating seems reduced now, so that’s one of the reasons you might be comfortable waiting through some period of higher inflation,” rather than hiking rates in response, English said. “This might be enough to push the economy into real weakness, and in that case, they might well have to cut.” But if households and businesses start to worry about a new acceleration in inflation and start expecting higher prices, that dynamic can be self-fulfilling and might call for rate hikes. Hawkish policymakers are already signaling the ECB won’t hesitate this time. “A reaction by the ECB is potentially closer than many people think,” Peter Kažimír, Slovakia’s central bank governor, told Bloomberg last week. “We will be ready to act if needed.” President Christine Lagarde pledged to ensure that consumers “don’t suffer the same inflation increases like those we saw in 2022 and 2023.” Back then, the ECB was slow to react, helping inflation surge past 10 percent. Economists say today’s backdrop looks very different: In 2022, rates were near or below zero, balance sheets were bloated and fiscal policy was highly expansionary. “When inflation rose, it did so in an environment of strong demand supported by both fiscal and monetary stimulus,” said Gerlach. Now, tighter monetary and fiscal policy should limit the risk of energy shocks spilling through the economy into second-round effects. Still, Barclays analyst Silvia Ardagna says that if medium-term inflation expectations “deteriorate significantly,” she expects “the ECB to act more swiftly than in 2022, but to tighten policy gradually.” Nick Kounis, of Dutch bank ABN AMRO, also sees a more hawkish tone. “Uncertainty on the conflict is high, but if the current situation persists through to the April meeting, a hike becomes a distinct possibility,” he said. Many analysts say the first obvious central bank casualty of the war is likely to be the Bank of England, which was widely expected to cut this week but is now seen firmly on hold. That’s because the U.K. still hasn’t quite gotten on top of the inflation that was unleashed four years ago. Andrew Benito, an economist with hedge fund Point72 in London, reckons that the inevitable increase in fuel prices and household energy bills alone will add a full percentage point to headline inflation by summer, with “second-round” impacts on other prices pushing it even further away from the BoE’s target. That, says Deutsche Bank’s Sanjay Raja, will force the bank into some “uncomfortable trade-offs”: The U.K. economy has already slowed over the last year due to global trade uncertainty and various government tax hikes to close the budget deficit. Hiking rates when the economy is already struggling could risk needlessly making things worse. But any sign of complacency could be disproportionately punished by the markets, given that the BoE performed worse than any other major central bank during the last inflation shock (the headline rate peaked at over 11 percent). Raja expects BoE Governor Andrew Bailey to highlight the differences with 2022 — when inflation was accelerating rather than slowing — as one reason not to overreact to today’s price spike. However, he expects that Bailey, like the ECB and others, will talk tough about not letting business and households develop an inflationary mindset again. More important will be the Bank of Japan’s decisions and press conference on Thursday, due to the outsized influence of Japanese interest rates on global financial markets. For decades, Japan kept interest rates low and printed money furiously to escape deflation. As long as it did so, Japanese and foreign investors borrowed yen cheaply to throw at higher-yielding markets such as the U.S. Now, however, the BoJ’s concerns have finally switched from deflation to inflation, and BoJ Governor Kazuo Ueda is now in a hurry to “normalize” policy. Its key interest rate, at 0.75 percent, is the lowest in the developed world outside Switzerland. But Japan, too, faces a big headwind from higher energy prices because of its dependence on imports, and Gregor Hirt, chief investment officer for Multi Asset at Allianz Global Investors, argues that the BoJ will hesitate before raising rates again. The trouble with waiting and seeing is that the yen has already lurched lower, prompting alarm in Washington and sparking rumors of possible intervention to support it. “In order to stop further weakness, the BoJ may have to move up a rate hike to stabilize the currency,” Hirt said. Meanwhile, the war has presented the Swiss National Bank, which has kept interest rates at zero since June 2025, with a different kind of conundrum. One risk is that a global “flight to safety” drives the Swiss franc to even greater heights against the euro and others. That could make so many imports cheaper that the overall inflation rate could turn negative. Alternatively, the boost in energy prices could have the same malign impact on inflation as it will elsewhere. “The SNB will probably prefer to wait and see which of the two effects will have the greater impact on inflation prospects before acting in one direction or the other,” said ING economist Charlotte de Montpellier, who expects the Swiss central bank to stay on hold. That response, shot through with varying degrees of nervousness, looks likely to be the dominant one this week. But things will look very different if the war situation hasn’t improved by the next round of meetings.