Brussels’ battle over whether plant-based foods can be sold as “veggie burgers” and “vegan sausages” ended the year in stalemate on Wednesday, after talks between EU countries and the European Parliament collapsed without a deal. French centre-right lawmaker Céline Imart, a grain farmer from southern France and the architect of the naming ban, arrived determined to lock in tough restrictions on plant-based labels, according to three people involved. Her proposal, dismissed as “unnecessary” inside her own political family, was tucked inside a largely unrelated reform of the EU’s farm-market rulebook. It slipped through weeks of talks untouched and unmentioned, only reemerging in the final stretch — by which point even Paul McCartney had asked Brussels to let veggie burgers be. The Wednesday meeting quickly veered off course. Officials said Imart moved to reopen elements of the text that negotiators believed had already wrapped up, including sensitive rules for powerful farm cooperatives. She then sketched out several possible fallbacks on dairy contracts — a politically charged issue for many countries — but without settling on a clear line the rest of the Parliament team could rally behind. “And then she introduced new terms out of nowhere,” one Parliament official said, after Imart proposed adding “liver” and “ham” to the list of protected meat names for the first time. “It was very messy,” another Parliament official said. EU countries, led in the talks by Denmark, said they simply had no mandate to move — not on the naming rules and not on dairy contracts. With neither side giving ground, the discussions ground to a halt. “We did not succeed in reaching an agreement,” Danish Agriculture Minister Jacob Jensen said. Imart insisted that the gap could still be bridged. Dairy contracts and meat-related names “still call for further clarification,” she said in a written statement, arguing that “tangible progress” had been made and that “the prospect of an agreement remains close,” with negotiations due to resume under Cyprus in January. “We did not succeed in reaching an agreement,” Danish Agriculture Minister Jacob Jensen said. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images) Dutch Green lawmaker Anna Strolenberg, who was in the room, said she was relieved: “It’s frustrating that we keep losing time on a veggie burger ban — but at least it wasn’t traded for weaker contracts [for dairy farmers].” For now, that means veggie burgers, vegan nuggets and other alternative-protein products will keep their familiar names — at least until Cyprus picks up the file in the New Year and Brussels’ oddest food fight resumes.

Paul McCartney has joined forces with U.K. MPs who are urging Brussels to scrap any plans to ban the use of meat-related names such as “burger” and “sausage” for plant-based products. The proposed EU ban, if passed into law, would prohibit food producers from using designations such as “veggie burger” or “vegan sausage” for plant-based and lab-grown dishes. “To stipulate that burgers and sausages are ‘plant-based,’ ‘vegetarian’ or ‘vegan’ should be enough for sensible people to understand what they are eating,” the former Beatles star, who became a vegetarian in 1975, told The Times of London. “This also encourages attitudes essential to our health and that of the planet.” The proposed EU ban “could increase confusion” and “undermine economic growth, sustainability goals, and the EU’s own simplification agenda,” eight British MPs, including Jeremy Corbyn, wrote in a letter to Brussels. The Times reported the contents of the letter Saturday evening. The missive includes the support of the McCartney family, which owns a business selling vegetarian food and recipes. The looming ban stems from an amendment that French center-right MEP Céline Imart introduced into legislation that aims to reform EU farming rules. These proposed reforms include how farmers sign contracts with buyers alongside other technical provisions. The bill is now subject to legislative negotiations with the Council of the EU, which represents EU governments.  The proposed rules will become law if and when MEPs and the Council agree on a final version of the legislation to become EU law. MPs in the U.K. fear that the ban, if it survives, would also impact British supermarkets, as markets and companies across the continent are so closely intertwined. Imart’s burger-busting tweaks were supposed to be a gesture of respect toward the French farmers that she represents — but they have divided MEPs within her own European People’s Party. “A steak is not just a shape,” Imart told POLITICO in an interview last month. “People have eaten meat since the Neolithic. These names carry heritage. They belong to farmers.” Limiting labels for vegetarian producers will also help shoppers understand the difference between a real burger and a plant-based patty, according to Imart, despite years of EU surveys showing consumers largely understand the difference. U.K. MPs also cite research in their letter, stating that European shoppers “overwhelmingly understand and support current naming conventions” such as “veggie burger.”

The next time your favorite veggie burger quietly rebrands itself as a “plant-based patty,” you now know who to thank: Céline Imart. The grain farmer from southern France, now a first-term lawmaker in the European Parliament, slipped a ban on meaty names for plant-based, fermented and lab-grown foods into an otherwise technical measure. Inside the Parliament, it caused a minor earthquake. Her own group leader, German conservative Manfred Weber, publicly dismissed it as “unnecessary.” The group’s veteran agriculture voice, Herbert Dorfmann, voted against it. Diplomats from several capitals shrugged it off as “silly” or “just stupid.” And yet, as negotiations with EU governments begin, the amendment that everyone assumed would die in the first round is still standing — not because it has a powerful constituency behind it, but because almost no one is expending political capital to bury it. That alone says something about where Europe’s food politics are drifting. A FIGHT ABOUT MORE THAN LABELS Imart insists the amendment isn’t an attack on innovation, but a gesture of respect toward the farmers she represents. “A steak is not just a shape,” she told POLITICO in an interview. “People have eaten meat since the Neolithic. These names carry heritage. They belong to farmers.” She argues some shoppers genuinely confuse plant-based and meat products, despite years of EU surveys showing consumers largely understand what a “veggie burger” is. Her view, she argues, is shaped by what she hears at home. “Maybe some very intelligent people never make mistakes at the supermarket,” she said, referring to Weber and Dorfmann. “But a lot of people in my region do. They don’t always see the difference clearly.” In rural France, where livestock farming remains culturally central, Imart’s argument resonates. Across Europe, similar anxieties simmer. Farmers say they feel squeezed by climate targets, rising costs and what they see as moralizing rhetoric about “healthy and sustainable diets.” The EU once flirted with promoting alternative proteins as part of its Green Deal ambitions. Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen has spent most of the year soothing farm anger, not pushing dietary change. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images Today, that political moment has mostly waned. References to “protein diversification” appear in draft strategies only to be scrubbed from the final text. Public support remains dwarfed by the billions the Common Agricultural Policy funnels to animal farming each year. Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen has spent most of the year soothing farm anger, not pushing dietary change. This helps explain why an idea dismissed as fringe suddenly doesn’t feel fringe at all. Imart’s amendment taps directly into a broader mood: Defend the farmer first; innovation can wait. BOOM AND BACKLASH The industry caught in the crossfire is no longer niche. Retail sales of meat and dairy alternatives reached an estimated €6-8 billion last year, with Germany alone accounting for nearly €2 billion. Fermentation-based dairy substitutes are attracting investment, and even though cultivated meat isn’t yet authorized in the EU, it has already become a regulatory flash point. But the sector remains tiny beside the continent’s livestock economy, and is increasingly buffeted by political headwinds. After two years of farmer protests and fatigue over climate and environmental reforms, national governments have closed ranks around traditional agriculture. Countries like Austria, Italy and France have warned that novel foods could undermine “primary farm-based production.” Hungary went even further this week, voting to ban the production and sale of cultivated meat altogether. For alternative protein companies, the irony is hard to miss. They see their products as both a business opportunity and part of the solution to the food system’s climate and environmental footprint, most of which comes from animal farming. Yet they say politics are now moving in the opposite direction. “Policymakers are devoting so much attention to unnecessary restrictions that would harm companies seeking to diversify their business,” said Alex Holst of the Good Food Institute Europe, an interest group for plant-based and cultivated alternatives. He argued that familiar terms like “burger” and “sausage” help consumers understand what they’re buying, not mislead them. WHY THE NAMING BAN WON’T DIE The political climate explains why Imart’s idea suddenly resonates. But Brussels lawmaking procedure explains why it might survive. At the negotiating table, national governments are consumed by the Parliament’s more disruptive ideas on market intervention and supply management, changes they fear could distort markets and limit the authorities’ flexibility to act. Compared with those fights, a naming ban barely registers. Especially in an otherwise technical reform of the EU’s Common Market Organisation, a piece of legislation normally reserved for agricultural specialists focused on crisis reserves and market tools. That gives the amendment unusual space. Several diplomats privately complained it sits awkwardly outside the scope of the original European Commission proposal. But not enough to coordinate a pushback. The Commission, meanwhile, has signaled it can “live with” stricter naming rules, having floated narrower limits in its own post-2027 market plan. That removes what might have been the decisive obstacle. Retail sales of meat and dairy alternatives reached an estimated €6-8 billion last year. | Jens Kalaene/Getty Images Even translation quirks, like the fact that “filet,” “filete” and “fillet” can mean different things across languages, haven’t slowed it. Imart shrugged those off: “It’s normal that texts evolve. That’s the point of negotiation.” Whether the naming ban makes it into the final law will depend on the coming weeks. But the fact it is even in contention, after being mocked, dismissed and rejected inside Imart’s own political family, is telling. In today’s Brussels, appeals to heritage and identity land more softly than calls for food system innovation. In that climate, that’s all even a fringe idea needs to survive.

BRUSSELS — The EU is flipping its script on artificial intelligence amid a global race to win cash and influence. The European Commission is on Wednesday expected to postpone the implementation of landmark AI restrictions by at least a year as part of sweeping changes to digital rules aimed at staying competitive with the U.S. and China. For years EU policymakers focused on making regulations to ensure the technology can be trusted. Now, in a year that saw major advances in artificial intelligence and Donald Trump reenter office, the EU is letting go of its dream of being the global leader on regulating AI. The Artificial Intelligence Act, which took years to negotiate, is not even fully in place yet. Throughout 2025 a growing chorus of national governments and executives from tech companies and industry lobby groups have called for a delay of a part of the law, putting the issue at the center of a wider fight in Brussels over how the EU should balance regulation and innovation. Wednesday’s proposal will see industry voices win out, with the announcement made under the same Commission president that heralded the original law as a “historic moment” to make people safer. While the EU executive will present the proposal as a technical adjustment that will ultimately make the EU’s regulation more effective — on the basis that changes will help industry to comply — it follows an intense lobbying effort by the Trump administration in Washington and from corporate lobbies in Brussels against the bloc’s digital rules. “A part of the message that Europe is giving to the rest of the world is that it is open to pressure from tech companies and other nations,” said Natali Helberger, a professor of law and digital technology at the University of Amsterdam. “I would say this harms the credibility.” Under the plans expected Wednesday, a series of AI practices that are classified as high risk — for example using artificial intelligence in recruitment, to assess people’s suitability to get loans or to score exams — won’t face obligations for at least a year longer than planned. A big part of the justification for the decision has been concerns that the regulations will prevent Europe from being competitive at a time when it needs to level up. Tech lobbies have slammed the foreseen timeline as “unworkable.” “If we only could take the foot off the brake and give innovation a bit more chance, I think that’s all we need,” Germany’s Digital Minister Karsten Wildberger said Tuesday when asked about the Commission’s upcoming proposal. The plans are prompting pushback from civil society. “The Commission seems intent on destroying fundamental rights safeguards and setting us up for months, if not years of infighting and legal uncertainty without any tangible gains for EU competitiveness,” said Daniel Leufer, senior policy analyst at AccessNow. Other changes expected Wednesday would exempt more companies from certain rules altogether, and would also give industry a grace period on new rules for watermarking visual content made by AI. TOO AMBITIOUS? The bloc’s AI rulebook was adopted in August 2024 but the rules were always intended to take effect gradually. Some AI practices that carry an “unacceptable risk” such as predictive policing or social scoring have been forbidden since February. The most complex AI models, such as OpenAI’s GPT, have also had to play by a separate set of rules since August. The rules that the EU executive is now pressing pause on — those that pose a risk to people’s health, safety or fundamental rights — were slated to take effect in August next year. Countries and companies argued a delay was necessary due to a delay in the technical standards, designed to help companies comply with the requirements. Standardization bodies missed the deadline to deliver on them twice, and now the standards won’t be ready until 2026. The timeline to come up with standards was a “bit ambitious from the start,” a representative from the standardization bodies told POLITICO in September. By branding it as a technical delay due to the lack of guidance, some in favor of a pause are choosing not to label it as a retreat, but instead to suggest a little more time is needed to get things right. “Many companies would welcome this,” said Wildberger. “But equally important is that we use the time to get certain things right. It’s not just: we postpone it. No, we have some work to do.” Germany and France came out publicly in favor of a one-year pause on Tuesday. Sweden, Poland, the Czech Republic and Denmark all called for a pause or a grace period before. Countries had a stake in delaying the process. “It is also motivated by the fact that so far, a lot of member states haven’t assigned and equipped their national regulatory authorities that must enforce the AI Act,” said Helberger. Hitting pause “will give them more time to get their act together at the national level,” she said. Wednesday’s proposal will need approval from EU countries and by the European Parliament before becoming final. There’s a hard deadline of August 2026 when the rules were set to apply. Within Parliament, even critics of the pause have privately conceded defeat and are now focused on keeping the delay as short as possible and avoiding further pushback. “Unfortunately, a pause now seems inevitable given the delay in developing the standards,” Irish Renew lawmaker Michael McNamara said last week after POLITICO first reported that the rules would be delayed by at least a year. McNamara warned that there should be “no further delays,” because “if there were, it would undermine regulation and rule of law beyond just the AI Act.” Mathieu Pollet contributed to this report.

A major five-year effort to build a technology base for Europe free of U.S. influence foundered amid conflicting national strategies and powerful corporate lobbying. As Europe’s leaders once again discuss tackling American tech dependence, those involved in the project to build a European cloud warn against repeating past mistakes. The Gaia-X initiative was “a crushing failure, a colossal waste of time, and just as many years gained for the hyperscalers — in other words, an industrial disaster,” said Yann Lechelle, a former CEO of French cloud champion Scaleway and one of the founding members of the initiative who quit in frustration in 2021, describing it as the “best decision ever.” The industry-led project was born in 2019 from a Franco-German drive to forge a “European industrial policy fit for the 21st Century” — a rallying cry that brought German and French companies together with top political backing to create a data infrastructure. The endgame goal of Gaia-X, named after the Greek goddess of Earth, was to “establish data sovereignty in Europe” and “counteract monopolistic tendencies.” As political momentum once again swings behind digital sovereignty, leaders will gather in Berlin on Tuesday to talk about how to become less dependent on foreign-owned technology. POLITICO spoke to both current and former Gaia-X officials, both on and off the record, about the lessons they learned that could prove valuable. Those conversations illuminated an initiative that failed to help Europe’s own digital ecosystem take root because it was weighed down by politics, bureaucracy and the interference of precisely the American and Chinese tech titans it was meant to challenge. Despite a fast-growing market for cloud computing services that underpin the internet, the global share of European cloud providers has continued to fall, dwarfed by the dominance of Amazon, Microsoft and Google. One of Gaia-X’s initial success stories, called Agdatahub, which was touted as a triumph for farming data, went bankrupt last year. “I joined Gaia-X because I believed in the original mission. I left Gaia-X because I didn’t believe it was going in the original direction,” said its former CEO, Francesco Bonfiglio. FRANCO-GERMAN DIVIDES Misalignment among the founding companies on the mission of Gaia-X became apparent early on, consistent with the traditional divergence in Paris and Berlin over tech sovereignty. In Paris, sovereignty was about backing local champions and breaking reliance on the U.S., while Berlin focused on protecting Europe without severing important trade ties. “The influence of political happenings inside the association was evident. Sometimes they were clashing,” said Bonfiglio, describing how it pitted a “historically more protectionist” France against a “fluctuating” Germany. American cloud giants Amazon, Microsoft and Google, as well as Chinese tech giants Huawei and Alibaba, are all members of Gaia-X. | Jonas Roosens/Getty Images Everybody “interpreted” Gaia-X as they wanted to, he said. The former CEO described how this divergence in expectations and a lack of a “clear or common” definition of sovereignty — let alone a shared understanding of what it would take to get there — made his task extremely difficult. “France turned it into a very political issue, whereas the Germans treated it more as a technical matter,” said another founding member of Gaia-X, who is still part of the initiative and was granted anonymity to speak candidly. The interests were at odds from day one, founding member Lechelle recalled, which was part of the reason the initiative would never deliver “the fantasy of a European cloud Airbus.” The Germans came on board with the idea to create data sovereignty, by shielding the data of their citizens and industries from foreign snooping and legal control, he said, adding: “Atlanticist as they may be, they were totally fine with the idea of depending on Microsoft.” Meanwhile, the French pushed a more self-serving vision, hoping to see Europe become self-reliant, from infrastructure all the way to software. That’s how the mission to create a “federated cloud infrastructure” came to life. But that “staggering complexity” would soon turn into an “unmanageable mess,” said Lechelle. Current CEO Ulrich Ahle, who joined in 2023, pushed back — saying Gaia-X is far from a “failure.” It has united the industry — both large and small players — around tangible deliverables, such as federated data spaces and compliance labels, he said. “At the beginning, some people thought that Gaia-X would be the European hyperscaler as the competition to Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Alibaba and so on,” he said, but in fact, “it is more about creating a way to handle data in a European way.” “The results we’re providing and the real business benefits these interoperable data spaces are creating are more and more visible,” he said, highlighting the example of a data space based on Gaia-X standards that French energy company EDF will use to securely coordinate the construction of new nuclear sites. BACK-DOOR LOBBYING As Gaia-X grew and set out to define Europe’s blueprint for secure data sharing, it opened its doors to industry participants from beyond Europe in a bid to push new standards on the global stage. While board seats remained reserved for EU companies and industry groups, alarm bells grew louder that the project was being hijacked by the very players it was meant to take on. Those firms “steered the entire roadmap,” Lechelle said, throwing money and people at it. “The committees were drowning. They [global players] had the capacity, the bandwidth, but we were already underwater … Americans have full-time lobbyists and massive budgets. Their job is basically to derail any initiative they don’t like.” American cloud giants Amazon, Microsoft and Google, as well as Chinese tech giants Huawei and Alibaba, are all members of Gaia-X. In 2021, the annual summit in Milan was sponsored by Huawei and Alibaba, prompting backlash. Some interviewees expressed criticism that the European industry associations and companies on the board were representing the interests of business partners abroad. “I was struggling against many, many forces that were trying to dilute the rules of verification, dilute the efforts,” said Bonfiglio, stressing he was “the CEO of a consensus-based organization where consensus couldn’t be achieved most of the time.” Bonfiglio said he didn’t regret opening up the initiative to foreign players. “The problem is not America vs. Europe,” he said, but “trust” or lack thereof. Letting non-EU providers in was supposed to force them to become more transparent, he argued. “You think you’re good, show us what you have,” was his mantra at the time, he said. He now acknowledges the unavoidable influence of corporate giants in the cloud space. “You don’t need Microsoft, Amazon and Google on the board, because they would be represented by people sitting on the board from European companies. It’s an indirect lobby,” he said. The current member of the association interviewed for this story said the bylaws of Gaia-X should be changed to kick out industry associations from the board, as they play into the hands of tech giants. In response, Gaia-X’s Ahle said that “the strategic directions are given and the strategic decisions are taken in the board of directors.” He touted the initiative’s top-tier certification label — which excludes non-EU companies — as proof that it took decisions that went against U.S. interests. This was something “members like Amazon, Google and Microsoft didn’t like at all,” yet it happened. WHERE NOW As leaders prepare to meet at the high-profile summit in Berlin to debate how far to go in pivoting away from Big Tech, several of the people interviewed for this piece cautioned against repeating past mistakes. While European countries have not yet aligned on a common definition of digital sovereignty — something many see as crucial for real progress — there are signs that Paris and Germany are closer on positioning than they were five years ago. “I admit, I struggled with the term [digital sovereignty] before. I didn’t think it was necessary, but the global situation has changed so dramatically that we Europeans now have to become more sovereign,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Thursday. At the summit, Merz said, “We’ll explore all the possibilities, together with industry representatives, of what we can do not only to become more independent from China, but also, for example, less dependent on the U.S., less dependent on the Big Tech companies. We want to catch up, we want to improve.” Friedrich Merz said, “We’ll explore all the possibilities, together with industry representatives, of what we can do not only to become more independent from China, but also, for example, less dependent on the U.S.” | Harald Tittel/Getty Images And yet — with Germany this month celebrating Google’s decision to invest more than €5 billion in building data centers in the country, a move that Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil described as “exactly what we need right now” — the reality of corporate interests may be hard to address. For Bonfiglio, the lesson from Gaia-X is that ”it is obvious that everybody sitting in the boardroom of an association with such a big and impactful objective tries to protect the interests of their own company.” While Gaia-X may have missed its shot at delivering on its big, original ambitions, Lechelle insists the upcoming Franco-German summit is “a chance to put a finger on the sore spots.” In the meantime, “those who wanted to maintain the status quo have won.”

The Netherlands should veto fewer decisions in Brussels and boost European Union integration, Dutch prime minister hopeful Rob Jetten said. “We want to stop saying ‘no’ by default, and start saying ‘yes’ to doing more together,” he told POLITICO in an interview via messaging app after the final electoral debate Tuesday night. “I cannot stress enough how dire Europe’s situation will be if we do not integrate further,” he continued. “The Netherlands is one of the founding countries of the European Union,” Jetten pointed out ahead of election day, Wednesday. “We are proud of that history, and now we want to be a leading voice in shaping its future.” Jetten’s Democrats 66 has seen a doubling in popularity, from 11 seats projected at the end of September to reaching the same level as giants far-right Party for Freedom (PVV) and GreenLeft-Labor this past Tuesday night, at 23 seats each — and ahead of the Christian Democrats, who are trailing at 19 seats. The Netherlands has traditionally maintained a conservative stance on treaty reform and has opposed dropping unanimity among countries as a requirement for some key decisions, such as letting new members into the bloc. The Dutch, who are known to punch above their weight in shaping debates, have also been traditionally frugal, and generally oppose joint EU borrowing. Especially in the last year, when its government included a tinge of the Euroskeptic far right, the Netherlands has kept Brussels at arm’s length, including by asking for an opt-out on the bloc’s migration policy — though it has remained in sync on other topics, such as sanctions for Israel and military support to Ukraine. “I want a return of the Netherlands to the role of kingmaker in Europe,” Jetten said. “We used to play that role. And when we did, it was for the better,” he added. Europe must transform itself into a serious “democratic global power,” Jetten continued. “That means giving the EU the power and the resources to do what citizens all across Europe are asking it to do: defend our territory against Putin’s aggression, grow the economy, protect the climate.” LAST GOVERNMENT’S ANTITHESIS Observers credit Jetten’s optimism in an otherwise gloomy campaign, focused on quarrels between the left and right, as key to his last-minute success. His participation in the popular Dutch TV contest “The Smartest Person,” where he managed to end up third, also helped make Jetten a more visible personality. If he succeeds, Jetten would be the Netherlands’ youngest and first openly gay prime minister — standing in stark contrast to Dick Schoof, the 68-year-old ex-civil servant appointed by Wilders to lead the previous (right-wing) government. But Jetten dismisses any focus on identity politics. “I’m not the gay candidate, nor the young candidate,” he said. “Much more relevant is that voters are rejecting a failed experiment with the far right. We lost time, our public finances worsened and nothing gets done.” “My party wants to infuse a renewed optimism into Dutch politics,” he confirmed.   The Netherlands was long dominated by Mark Rutte’s People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) — the fiscally conservative force now led by Dilan Yeşilgöz. But if projections hold, D66 and Rob Jetten could overtake the VVD, claiming the mantle of the country’s leading liberal party.  Asked about the possibility of becoming prime minister, Jetten responded: “I stand ready to lead if I’m given the chance. It would be a privilege to have the support and cooperation of other parties. It is our political tradition.” When it comes to potential coalition partners, Jetten brushed off traditional political labels. “The whole left-right discussion is outdated,” he said. He would seek to form a pro-European government that invests in education, builds homes for everyone and ramps up climate action. “We are ready to work with all those democratic forces who want to make that happen.”  Despite his party’s positive trajectory, Dutch polls are known to be unpredictable, with many voters not deciding until the last minute. Gerardo Fortuna contributed reporting.

BRUSSELS — Heard the one about the 12-and-half-hour meeting of 27 national leaders that succeeded in agreeing very little apart from coming up with quite a lot of “let’s decide in a couple of months” or “let’s just all agree on language that means absolutely nothing but looks like we’re united” or “let’s at least celebrate that we got through this packed agenda without having to come back on Friday”? No? Well let us enlighten you. And if that makes you question how we’ve managed to squeeze 29 things out of this, well let’s just say one of these is about badly functioning vending machines… 1 . STRAIGHT OUT OF THE BOX WITH A QUICK WIN ON SANCTIONS … The day was off to a flying start when Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico lifted his veto over the latest raft of Russia sanctions on the eve of the summit — allowing the package to get formally signed off at 8 a.m. before leaders even started talking. Fico rolled over after claiming to achieve what he set out to do: clinch support for Slovakia’s car industry. He found an unusual ally in German Chancellor Friedrich Merz who he met separately to discuss the impact of climate targets on their countries’ automotive sectors. 2. … BUT AGREEMENT ON FROZEN RUSSIAN ASSETS WAS LESS FORTHCOMING There was a moment earlier in the week where the EU looked to be on the cusp of a breakthrough on using Russian frozen assets to fund a €140 billion loan for Ukraine. Belgium, the main holdout, appeared to be warming to the European Commission’s daring idea to crack open the piggy bank. But Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever stuck by his guns , saying he feared taking the assets, which are held in a Brussels-based financial depository, could trigger Moscow to take legal action. 3. BELGIUM DIDN’T MOVE ON ITS BIG THREE BIG DEMANDS The Flemish right-winger’s prerequisites were threefold: the “full mutualization of the risk,” guarantees that if the money has to paid back, “every member state will chip in,” and for every other EU country that holds immobilized assets to also seize them. Leaders eventually agreed on that classic EU summit outcome: a fudge. They tasked the European Commission to “present options” at the next European Council — effectively deciding not to decide. “Political will is clear, and the process will move forward,” said one EU official. But it’s uncertain whether a deal can be brokered by the next summit, currently set for December. 4. DE WEVER REJECTS THE ‘BAD BOY’ LABEL After POLITICO ranked the Belgian leader among its list of “bad boys” likely to disrupt Thursday’s summit (rightfully, might we add), he protested the branding. “A bad boy! Me? … If you talk about the immobilized assets, we’re the very, very best,” he said. The day was off to a flying start when Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico lifted his veto over the latest raft of Russia sanctions on the eve of the summit. | Olivier Hoslet/EPA 5. URSULA VON DER LEYEN ALSO CONCEDED THEY’RE NOT QUITE THERE YET The high-level talks “allowed us to identify points we need to clarify,” the Commission president said tactfully. “Nobody vetoed nothing today,” European Council President António Costa chimed in. “The technical and legal aspects of Europe’s support need to be worked upon.” Translation in case you didn’t understand the double negative: The EU needs to come up with a better plan to reassure Belgium — and fast. 6. UKRAINE: EVER THE OPTIMIST Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy ― a guest of the summit ― told reporters Russia must pay the price for its invasion, calling on the EU to follow through with its frozen assets proposal, adding he thought the leaders were “close” to an agreement. “If Russia brought war to our land, they have to pay for this war,” he said. 7. AND ZELENSKYY IS STILL HOLDING OUT FOR TOMAHAWKS “We will see,” was Zelenskyy’s message on the topic of acquiring the long-range missiles from the U.S., which Donald Trump has so far ruled out selling to Kyiv. “Each day brings something … maybe tomorrow we will have Tomahawks,” Zelenskyy said. “I don’t know.” 8. UKRAINE WANTS GERMANY TO SEND MORE WEAPONS TOO Merz held a meeting with Zelenskyy about “the situation in Washington and the American plans that are now on the table,” a German official said, adding Zelenskyy made “specific requests” to the chancellor about helping Ukraine with its “defense capabilities.” After the summit, the German leader said Berlin would review a proposal on how German technologies could help to protect Ukrainian’s energy and water infrastructure. 9. THUMBS UP TO DEFENSE ROADMAP! EU leaders endorsed the Defense Readiness Roadmap 2030 presented last week by the Commission, which aims to prepare member countries for war by 2030. One of its main objectives is to fill EU capability gaps in nine areas: air and missile defense, enablers, military mobility, artillery systems, AI and cyber, missile and ammunition, drones and anti-drones, ground combat, and maritime. The plan also mentions areas like defense readiness and the role of Ukraine, which would be heavily armed and supported to become a “steel porcupine” able to deter Russian aggression. As leaders deliberated, a Russian fighter jet and a refueling aircraft briefly crossed into Lithuanian airspace from the Kaliningrad region, underscoring the need for the EU to protect its skies. 10. KYIV IS PROMISING TO BUY EUROPEAN — MOSTLY Ukraine will prioritize domestic and European industry when spending cash from the proposed reparation loan funded by Russia’s frozen assets, Zelenskyy told leaders at the summit — but wants to be able to go across the pond when necessary. 11. MUCH THE SAME FOR SPAIN Spanish leader Pedro Sánchez said the country had committed to contributing cash to a fund organized by NATO to buy weapons for Ukraine from the U.S. | Nicolas Tucat/Getty Images Spanish leader Pedro Sánchez said the country had committed to contributing cash to a fund organized by NATO to buy weapons for Ukraine from the U.S. “Today, most of the air defense components, such as Patriots or Tomahawks … which Ukraine clearly needs, are only manufactured in the United States,” he said. Madrid has been a thorn in Washington’s side over its lax defense spending. 12. THERE WAS A MERCOSUR SURPRISE Merz stunned trade watchers when he announced the leaders had backed a controversial trade agreement with Latin American countries. “We voted on it today: The Mercosur agreement can be ratified,” the German chancellor told reporters, adding that he was “very happy” about that. “All 27 countries voted unanimously in favor,” Merz added on Mercosur. “It’s done.” The remark sparked confusion amongst delegations, as the European Council doesn’t usually vote on trade agreements — let alone one as controversial as the mammoth agreement with the countries of the Latin American bloc of Mercosur, which has been in negotiations for over 25 years. One EU diplomat clarified that it’s because European Council President António Costa sought confirmation from EU leaders that they would agree to take a stance on the deal by the end of this year — and no formal vote was taken yet. 13. CLIMATE TALKS PASSED WITHOUT A HITCH One of the hotter potatoes ahead of the summit passed surprisingly smoothly. Leaders ultimately refrained from bulldozing the EU’s climate targets, agreeing to a vaguely worded commitment to a green transition, though without committing to a 2040 goal, which proposes cutting emissions by 90 percent compared to 1990 levels. In the words of one diplomat: “Classic balance, everyone equally unhappy.” 14. AT LEAST ONE LEADER SEEMED PLEASED, THOUGH Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk called the summit a “turning point” in Europe’s approach to green policy, adding he succeeded in inserting a “revision clause” into the EU’s plan to extend its carbon-trading system to heating and transport emissions that will give member countries the option to delay or adjust the rollout. “We’ve defused a threat to Polish families and drivers,” he declared, calling the change a signal that “Europe is finally speaking our language.” 15. BUT THE ISSUE WON’T STAY BURIED FOR LONG Ministers are set to reconvene and cast a vote on the 2040 goal on Nov. 4, described by one diplomat as “groundhog day.” 16. MEANWHILE, THERE WAS NOTHING ON MIGRATION … Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk called the summit a “turning point” in Europe’s approach to green policy. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images Aside from promising to make migration a “priority,” the EU’s leaders failed to make any kind of breakthrough on a stalled proposal for burden-sharing. Reminder: The EU missed a deadline last week to agree on a new way of deciding which member countries are under stress from receiving migrants and ways of sharing the responsibility more equally across the bloc. 17. … BUT THE ANTI-MIGRANT BREAKFAST CLUB LIVES ON Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, Denmark’s Mette Frederiksen and the Netherlands’ Dick Schoof have kept up their informal pre-summit “migration breakfasts” since last June, swapping innovative ideas on tougher border and asylum policies. They met again on Thursday with von der Leyen, who updated them on the EU’s latest plans for accelerating migrant returns, and the trio agreed an informal summit will take place next month in Rome. 18. NOR DID THE EU’S SOCIAL MEDIA BAN GET MUCH OF A LOOK IN As expected, the leaders endorsed a “possible” minimum age for kids to use social media, but failed to commit to a bloc-wide ban, with capitals divided on whether to make the age 15 or 16, as well as on the issue of parental consent. 19. THERE WAS A WHOLE LOT OF WAITING FOR NEWS… Journalists were frantically pressing their sources in the Council and national delegations to find out what was happening at the leaders’ table as the meeting dragged into the late hours. It eventually finished at 10.30 p.m. ― 12 and a half hours after it began. 20. … AND THE GREENS SEIZED THEIR MOMENT The EU Parliament’s Greens group co-chair Bas Eickhout wandered the hallways of the Justus Lipsius building ready to brief bored journalists about the wonders of the Green Deal — while leaders debated how to unravel it in the other room. 21. THE COMBUSTION ENGINE BAN FELL FLAT One of the pillars of the EU’s green transition, its 2035 de facto combustion engine ban, was set to play a major role in the competitiveness and climate discussions, with Merz and Fico spoiling for a fight over the proposal — yet it barely registered as a footnote. Slovakia used the climate talks to oppose the ban, and the Czech Republic chimed in to agree, but in the end the summit’s official conclusions welcomed the Commission’s proposed ban without mentioning how it should be watered down. 22. THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL’S VENDING MACHINES AREN’T VERY, ER, COMPETITIVE Officials and journalists alike found that the vending machines in the EU’s Justus Lipsius building, which incidentally is due for a €1 billion renovation, about as efficient as a roundtable of 27 national leaders lasting 12 and a half hours. 23. THE BLOC IS WORRIED ABOUT CHINA… Beijing’s export controls on rare earths came up in the talks on competitiveness, according to two EU officials, with some leaders expressing their concerns. 24. … BUT THEY’RE NOT READY TO GO NUCLEAR — YET One of the officials said the EU’s most powerful trade weapon, the Anti-Coercion Instrument, was mentioned, but didn’t garner much interest around the table. 25. HOUSING GETS 40 MINUTES — NOT BAD FOR A FIRST RUN Leaders spent a chunk of time discussing the continent’s housing crisis. A solid start for the topic, which made it onto the agenda for the first time at Costa’s behest. The EU executive “is ready to help,” von der Leyen said after the summit, announcing a European Affordable Housing Plan is in the pipeline and the first EU Housing Summit in 2026. | Dursun Aydemir/Getty Images During talks, Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis called on the Commission to create a database tracking which housing policies work — and which don’t — across Europe. Most leaders agreed that, while housing remains a national competence, the EU still has a role to play. 26. AND THE COMMISSION WANTS TO ROLL UP ITS SLEEVES The EU executive “is ready to help,” von der Leyen said after the summit, announcing a European Affordable Housing Plan is in the pipeline and the first EU Housing Summit in 2026. 27. LEADERS ENJOYED A FEAST OR TWO For lunch, langoustine with yuzu, celeriac and apple, fillet of veal with artichokes and crispy polenta, and a selection of fresh fruit. For dinner, cannelloni with herbs, courgette velouté, fillet of brill with chorizo and pepper, and fig meringue cake. Yum. 28. THOUGH A FEW COULDN’T MAKE IT Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán was the most notable absence, rocking up several hours late due to a national holiday in Budapest. Portugal and Slovenia’s leaders were also absent at one point. 29. AND COSTA KEPT HIS PROMISE … JUST The European Council president pledged to streamline summits under his watch, making them one-day affairs instead of two. And with just a couple hours to spare, he was successful. Okay, breathe. Did we miss anything? (Don’t answer that.) Gerardo Fortuna, Max Griera Andrieu, Jordyn Dahl, Gabriel Gavin, Hanne Cokelaere, Clea Caulcutt, Hans von der Burchard, Kathryn Carlson, Tim Ross, Jacopo Barigazzi, Gregorio Sorgi, Eliza Gkritsi, Carlo Martuscelli, Nicholas Vinocur, Saga Ringmar, Sarah Wheaton, Louise Guillot, Zia Weise, Camille Gijs, Bartosz Brzezinski and Giedre Peseckyte contributed to this report.

STRASBOURG — Less than 24 hours after the European Parliament voted to ban plant-based foods across the EU from using names like “burger,” “sausage” or “steak” — the institution’s canteen in Strasbourg served up a “vegan burger” as its healthy lunch option. The prohibition was slipped into a wider reform of EU farm rules via an amendment spearheaded by French lawmaker Céline Imart of the conservative European People’s Party. While supporters pitched it as a win for transparency and recognition for livestock producers, NGOs blasted it as “just dumb” and a blow to sustainable diets. The timing of Thursday’s lunch menu was not lost on lawmakers and their aides, several of whom messaged POLITICO in uproar or mockery.  “A day after the highly controversial ban, it seems like the chefs in the canteen have decided upon some civil disobedience,” quipped Dutch Green MEP Anna Strolenberg. “Let’s see what daredevils still order a veggie b***r.” By early afternoon, the burgers were sold out. “They hid them,” joked one Parliament official. A second official said the canteen had simply run out and insisted menus are “established in advance by the contractors in full respect with legislations in place.” Staffers were split on quality. “Wait, is this just veggies on a bun? If they’re taking the piss, then I think it’s hilarious,” said an assistant to a liberal MEP. Lowie Kok, spokesperson for the Greens, was lukewarm on the quality. “For a seasoned vegan, I’m used to waaay worse in the canteen. In Brussels, they can’t do anything properly vegan. So this is … edible,” he said. Another aide, shown a photo, cracked: “EPP was right, all the way.” Despite the lunchtime comedy, the deep-seated political fault lines are evident on the prohibition. Even inside Imart’s own political family, there were dissenters. EPP chief, Manfred Weber, distanced himself from the ban, calling it unnecessary. Herbert Dorfmann, the group’s point person on agriculture, went further and voted against the measure. “I don’t really think there is a danger that somebody wants to buy a meat sausage and gets a veggie sausage,” he told POLITICO. “We should have some trust in the consumer.” Asked if he tried the burger, he replied:  “Not a fan of the canteen.”

LONDON — When Britain made its formal exit from the European Union in 2021, the move attracted some unlikely fans — among them, South African citrus growers. With the U.K. out of the bloc, it was free to implement its own rules on imported food, including relaxing stringent EU controls on citrus fruit. Today, thanks to Brexit, citrus fruits such as lemons and oranges can be imported to the U.K. without a plant health certificate and without the need for inspection, making the country an increasingly popular partner for South African exporters. But it seems their joy may be short-lived, as the U.K. prepares to realign with EU animal and plant health rules — known as Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measures — under the terms of the U.K.-EU ‘reset’ deal. This would effectively mean readopting EU citrus controls, which have become even stricter in the intervening years since Brexit.   Since 2022, EU regulations require South African citrus exporters to subject fruits to cooling treatments to limit the spread of pests and disease, such as false codling moth and citrus black spot, in addition to providing a phytosanitary certificate.  However, these measures have come at a significant cost to exporters, who say the cooling treatment heightens the risk of spoilage — particularly for organic fruit.  The South African government has since initiated two separate dispute settlement procedures at the World Trade Organization against EU regulations, arguing that they are unscientific, discriminatory, and primarily protect Spanish citrus producers.  The EU, meanwhile, maintains that its pest control measures are necessary and scientifically sound, citing recent interceptions of pests in South African consignments.  With the prospect of the U.K. now signing up to EU SPS rules — and potentially inserting itself into a bitter WTO dispute — South African exporters are rattled. CALL FOR CARVE-OUTS A South African official — granted anonymity to speak freely — told POLITICO they had recently informally engaged with officials from the U.K.’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to discuss the impact of a U.K.-EU SPS deal on citrus imports but were told that negotiations had not formally begun.  “Whatever they do with the EU, hopefully it will not affect other trading partners,” the official said. One solution under discussion, the official said, was the possibility of applying labels to South African citrus to ensure it could not be re-exported to the EU. The EU, meanwhile, maintains that its pest control measures are necessary and scientifically sound. | Filippo Monteforte/Getty Images “This is just an idea in terms of easy-to-control consignments destined for the U.K. to be identified which requires additional measures for the EU,” they explained. Asked about the impact of an SPS deal on South African citrus, Boitshoko Ntshabele, CEO of the South African Citrus Growers’ Association, told POLITICO “things are in a very early stage, with nothing set in stone.”  “What is clear, however, is that the EU’s current plant health measures on citrus black spot and false codling moth are unscientific,” he said. “These measures restrict trade unnecessarily.” Ntshabele added: “Unnecessarily restricting the supply of high quality and safe South African citrus would have an impact on citrus consumers in the U.K. The U.K. would have to introduce carve-outs.” EXTRA COSTS Over in the U.K., importers who rely on a steady stream of South African citrus to keep consumers happy are also concerned. Nigel Jenney, chief executive of the Fresh Produce Consortium — which represents importers of fresh produce — said the adoption of EU import controls for non-EU citrus imported to the U.K. would be a “huge additional burden at the border.”  “Ultimately, if it occurs, there are significant additional costs the industry will have to pay which sadly can only be passed on to the consumer,” Jenney added. “It’s the same situation we’ve found ourselves in [currently] with Europe.” Jenney, who is in favor of the SPS deal, is now pushing the U.K. government to negotiate an exemption for non-EU fresh produce entering the U.K. that would allow Britain to impose its own import controls on products like South African citrus. “Otherwise we’ll find that, what we’ve saved on the one hand with trading with Europe, we’ve simply imposed that liability, responsibility and cost onto countries that have had no involvement in these negotiations.” Currently, he said, the U.K. grows roughly a third of its fresh produce supply, with around a third imported from Europe and a third from the rest of the world. “So, in simple volume terms, why would we give preference only to Europe?” he asked. The South African government has since initiated two separate dispute settlement procedures at the World Trade Organization against EU regulations. | Fabrice Conffrini/Getty Images A carve-out for citrus in the SPS deal may be possible. According to the “common understanding” document published at the U.K.-EU summit in May, the SPS deal can include a “short list of exceptions to dynamic alignment,” subject to certain conditions. The U.K. is already seeking exemptions for gene-edited products as well as for British animal welfare standards, with negotiations expected to kick off in earnest later this year. Asked about a potential exemption for citrus, a government spokesperson said: “We are removing barriers to trade so U.K. businesses can sell more products in new markets around the world as part of our Plan for Change.”

LONDON — The case against two men accused of spying for China collapsed because the government refused to label Beijing a “threat to the national security of the U.K.,” the director of public prosecutions said Tuesday evening. In a rare intervention, Stephen Parkinson, the head of the Crown Prosecution Service, said his agency tried “over many months” to obtain evidence from the government that China posed a national security threat but was not successful. Christopher Cash, 30, a former researcher for a Conservative MP, and Christopher Berry, a 33-year-old teacher, were due to face trial this month on charges of breaching the Official Secrets Act between December 2021 and February 2023 by spying for China, which they strongly denied. The charges were dropped last month after the CPS said the “evidential standard for the offence indicted is no longer met.” Writing to the chairs of the Commons’ Home and Justice Select Committees, Parkinson said a 2024 High Court decision meant an “enemy” under the Official Secrets Act includes “a country which represents at the time of the offence, a threat to the national security of the U.K.” Despite receiving further witness statements in light of the judgment, “none of these stated that at the time of the offense China represented a threat to national security.” Parkinson added: “By late August 2025 it was realized that this evidence would not be forthcoming.” Even though the CPS does not usually comment on the factors leading to a case collapsing, Parkinson said he was “now able to provide further information to contextualize the position” as “government briefings have been provided commenting on the evidential situation.” CRUCIAL TIMING Prime Minister Keir Starmer, a former DPP, said any evidence must be based on the previous government’s stance towards China because that was when the offenses were allegedly committed. “If you’re prosecuting someone on the basis of what the situation was in 2023, you have to prosecute them on the basis of what the situation was in 2023,” the prime minister told reporters on a plane to India. “You can’t change the situation afterwards and then prosecute people on the basis of a changed situation.” The Conservatives previously referred to Beijing as a  “systemic competitor” and an “epoch-defining and systemic challenge,” but never as a threat. Environment Minister Emma Hardy insisted the CPS dropped the case independently of the government and rejected accusations of pressure about labeling China an enemy or that National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell had anything to do with the decision. “We’re constantly re-evaluating our relationship with every single country,” Hardy told Sky Wednesday about not calling China a threat. “At the moment, our consideration is that China is a challenge.”