BEIJING — Keir Starmer wants to take the U.K. deeper into the European Union single market — if Brussels will let him. Speaking to reporters during a visit to China, the British prime minister said he wanted to “go further” in aligning with the European market where it is “in our national interest.” In May last year Starmer effectively agreed to take the U.K. back into Brussels’ orbit in two sectors: agriculture and electricity. Those agreements, which are currently being finalized, will see the U.K. follow relevant EU regulations — in exchange for more seamless market access. Seemingly buoyed by a positive reception and a smaller than anticipated Brexiteer backlash, Starmer is now doubling down. “I think the relationship with the EU and every summit should be iterative. We should be seeking to go further,” the prime minister told reporters. “And I think there are other areas in the single market where we should look to see whether we can’t make more progress. That will depend on our discussions and what we think is in our national interest. “But what I’m indicating here is — I do think we can go further.” The comments are a significant rhetorical shift for the Labour leader, whose 2024 election manifesto promised that “there will be no return to the single market” — as well as the customs union or free movement. While the Labour government has softened on the single market in office, it has arguably hardened on the customs union. Starmer told reporters that “the place to look is the single market, rather than the customs union,” arguing that joining the latter would require unpicking trade deals struck under Britain’s newly independent trade policy. GOING SWISS? While EU officials say they are always open to concrete U.K. proposals, rejoining the single market sector-by-sector might not be entirely straightforward. Brussels agreed to British access for agriculture and electricity in part because of pressure from European industry, which will arguably benefit from the new arrangements as much as the British side. But the dynamic is different in other sectors, where some European firms have been able to thrive at the expense of their locked-out British competitors. There will also be debates in Brussels about where the bloc should draw the line in granting single market access to a country that does not accept the free movement of people — a requirement other states like Norway and Switzerland must respect. Officials are also wary that the EU-U.K. relationship may come to resemble the worst aspects of the Swiss one, a complicated mess of agreements which is subject to endless renegotiation and widely disliked in Brussels. CHEMICAL ATTRACTION The prime minister would not elaborate on which sectors the U.K. should seek agreements with the EU on, stating only that “we’re negotiating with the EU as we go into the next summit.” British officials say that for now they are focused on negotiating the agreements promised at last May’s meeting. One senior business representative in Brussels, granted anonymity because their role does not authorize them to speak publicly, said alignment in sectors including chemicals, cosmetics, and medical devices could be advantageous to businesses on both sides of the English Channel. As well as the agreements on electricity and agriculture, the U.K. and EU last May agreed a security agreement to cooperate more closely on defense, and to link their emissions trading systems to exempt each other from their respective carbon border taxes. They also agreed to establish a youth mobility scheme, which will see young people get visas to live abroad for a limited period. Starmer reiterated the U.K.’s position that “there has got to be a cap” on the number of people who can take advantage of the scheme and “there has got to be a duration agreed.” “And it will be a visa-led scheme. All of our schemes are similar to that. We are negotiating,” he added. Dan Bloom reported from Beijing. Jon Stone reported from Brussels.

BRUSSELS — Europe is on track to pay at least €440 billion to deal with the pollution and health impacts from toxic PFAS chemicals by the middle of the century, according to a study released Thursday by the European Commission. The cost could soar to nearly €2 trillion under more ambitious clean-up goals, the analysis warns, describing the roughly half-trillion-euro estimate as a baseline for addressing PFAS pollution across the European Economic Area. PFAS or “forever chemicals” — man-made chemicals used in a wide variety of industrial processes and consumer products — have been linked to a range of health problems, including cancer and fertility problems. The EU is preparing to propose a ban on their use later this year, with exemptions for “critical sectors” — a position likely to draw pushback from industry and some political groups. But even a full ban would leave Europe with costs of €330 billion by 2050, the report warned. “Providing clarity on PFAS with bans for consumer uses is a top priority for both citizens and businesses,” said EU environment chief Jessika Roswall. “That is why this is an absolute priority for me to work on this and engage with all relevant stakeholders. Consumers are concerned, and rightly so. This study underlines the urgency to act.” The study, carried out by consultancies WSP, Ricardo, and Trinomics, shows that how Europe acts matters just as much as whether it acts. In one scenario, where emissions continue, and authorities rely largely on wastewater treatment to meet strict environmental standards, the total bill would soar to around €1.7 trillion by 2050, driven mainly by clean-up costs. If the EU bans forever chemicals, the health costs would fall from about €39.5 billion a year in 2024 to roughly €0.5 billion by 2040, under a full phase-out scenario. “The Commission’s study exposes the staggering costs of PFAS pollution. Every day of inaction inflates the bill,” said Noémie Jégou, policy officer for Chemicals at the European Environmental Bureau. “The EU must turn off the tap now through an ambitious EU restriction of PFAS present in consumer products and used in industrial processes.”

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

AVENTURA, Florida — Energy Secretary Chris Wright said Wednesday that the United States will sell Venezuelan oil “indefinitely” after completing sales of the crude currently accumulating in storage there. Wright said the proceeds from those sales would be “deposited into accounts controlled by the U.S. government” and then “flow back into Venezuela to benefit the Venezuelan people.” Wright made the statements even as the United States the same morning seized a Russian-flagged oil tanker that was linked to Venezuela. “Instead of the oil being blockaded, as it is right now, we’re gonna let the oil flow … to United States refineries and around the world to bring better oil supplies, but have those sales done by the U.S. government,” he said at Goldman Sachs’ Energy, CleanTech & Utilities Conference. “We’re going to market the crude coming out of Venezuela, first this backed-up stored oil, and then indefinitely, going forward, we will sell the production that comes out of Venezuela into the marketplace,” Wright added. The move would be a huge step up in the Trump administration’s moves to pressure Venezuela’s interim government and essentially have the United States take over the country’s oil industry. President Donald Trump announced late Tuesday that Wright would lead a U.S. plan to sell up to 50 million barrels of sanctioned Venezuelan crude turned over to the U.S. by the country’s interim authorities, an amount market analysts estimated could yield up to $2.5 billion. Wright said he has been in discussions with U.S. oil companies about the conditions they will require to return to Venezuela, acknowledging that restoring historic production levels in the country will require “tens of millions of dollars and significant time.” The industry remains hesitant, however, given the capital — projected by analysts to be in the billions — and risk required to revive Venezuela’s dilapidated oil sector. Wright said the U.S. would initially supply the chemicals required to get Venezuela’s sludgy crude flowing again, and it plans to work with the government to send supplies and equipment needed for a larger-scale revitalization. Wright is expected to meet with several industry executives about Venezuela on the sidelines of the conference Wednesday. He is also expected to meet with oil companies Friday at the White House, along with Trump and other top administration officials.

BRUSSELS — European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is determined to travel to South America next week to sign the EU’s long-delayed trade pact with the Mercosur bloc, but she’s having to make last-minute pledges to Europe’s farmers in order to board that flight. EU countries are set to make a pivotal decision on Friday on whether the contentious deal with Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay — which has been more than a quarter of a century in the making — will finally get over the line. It’s still not certain that von der Leyen can secure the majority she needs on Friday; everything boils down to whether Italy, the key swing voter, will support the accord. To secure Rome’s backing, von der Leyen on Tuesday rolled out some extra budget promises on farm funding. The target was clear: Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, whose refusal to back the Mercosur agreement forced von der Leyen to cancel her planned signing trip in December. At its heart, the Mercosur agreement is a drive by Europe’s big manufacturers to sell more cars, machinery and chemicals in Latin America, while the agri powerhouses of the southern hemisphere will secure greater access to sell food to Europe — a prospect that terrifies EU farmers. While Germany and Spain have long led the charge for a deal, France and Poland are dead-set against. That leaves Italy as the key member country poised to cast the deciding vote. Von der Leyen’s letter on Tuesday was carefully choreographed political theater. Writing to the EU Council presidency and European Parliament President Roberta Metsola, she offered earlier access to up to €45 billion in agricultural funding under the bloc’s next long-term budget, while reaffirming €293.7 billion in farm spending after 2027. POLITICO was the first to report on Monday that the declaration was in the works. She insisted the measures in her letter would “provide the farmers and rural communities with an unprecedented level of support, in some respects even higher than in the current budget cycle.” The money isn’t new — it’s being brought forward from an existing pot in the EU’s next long-term budget — but governments can now lock it in for farmers early, before it is reassigned during later budget negotiations. Von der Leyen framed the move as offering stability and crisis readiness, giving Meloni a tangible win she can parade to her powerful farm lobby. WILL MELONI BACK MERCOSUR? The big question is whether Italy will view von der Leyen’s promises as going far enough ahead of the crunch meeting on Friday. Early signs suggested Rome might be softening. Meloni issued a statement saying the farm funding pledge was “a positive and significant step forward in the negotiations leading to the new EU budget,” but conspicuously avoided making a direct link to Mercosur. (French President Emmanuel Macron also welcomed von der Leyen’s letter, but there’s no prospect of Paris backing Mercosur on Friday.) taly’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, whose refusal to back the Mercosur agreement forced Ursula von der Leyen to cancel her planned signing trip in December. | Tom Nicholson/Getty Images Nicola Procaccini, a close Meloni ally in the European Parliament, told POLITICO: “We are moving in the right direction to enable Italy to sign Mercosur.” Right direction, but not yet at the destination? The government in Rome would not comment on whether it was about to back the deal. Germany, the EU’s industrial kingpin, is keen to secure a Mercosur agreement to boost its exports, but is still wary as to whether sufficient support exists to finalize an accord on Friday. A German official cautioned everything was still to play for. “A qualified majority is emerging, but it’s not a done deal yet. Until we have the result, there’s no reason to sit back and relax,” the official said. Optimism is growing regarding Rome in the pro-Mercosur camp, however. After all, the pact is widely viewed as strongly in the interests not only of Italy’s engineering companies, but also of its high-end wine and food producers, which are big exporters to South America. Additional curveballs are being thrown by Romania and Czechia, said one EU diplomat, who expressed concern they could turn against the deal on Friday, reducing any majority to very tight margins. The diplomat said they believed Italy would back the deal, however. FINAL STRETCH? The maneuvering is set to continue on Wednesday, when agriculture ministers descend on Brussels for what the Commission is billing as a “political meeting” after December’s farm protests. Officially, Mercosur isn’t on the agenda. Unofficially, however, it’s expected to be omnipresent — in the corridors, in the side meetings, and in the questions ministers choose not to answer. Farm ministers don’t approve trade deals, but the optics matter. Von der Leyen needs momentum — and cover — ahead of Friday’s vote. France — the country most hostile to the deal — will be vocal. On Wednesday, French Agriculture Minister Annie Genevard is expected to open yet another offensive — this time for a lower trigger on emergency safeguards related to the deal. This would reopen a compromise already struck between EU governments, the Parliament and the Commission. It’s a familiar tactic: Keep pushing. “France is still not satisfied with the proposals made by the Commission,” a French agriculture ministry official told reporters on Tuesday, while acknowledging that there has been some improvement. “Paris’ strategy for this week is still to continue to look for a blocking minority.” “Italy has its own strategy, we have ours,” added the official, who was granted anonymity in line with the rules for French government briefings. France’s allies, notably Poland, are equally blunt. Agriculture Minister Stefan Krajewski said the priority was simply “to block this agreement.” If that failed, Warsaw would seek maximum safeguards and compensation. That means it’s all coming down to the wire on Friday. A second failure to dispatch von der Leyen to finalize the agreement would be deeply embarrassing, and would only stoke Berlin’s anger at other EU countries thwarting the deal. For now, it’s still unclear whether von der Leyen will board that plane. Bartosz Brzeziński reported from Brussels, Giorgio Leali reported from Paris, and Nette Nöstlinger reported from Berlin.

LONDON — Britain’s steel industry is having a tough time. Thanks to the EU, it’s about to get even tougher. As 2025 comes to a close, a combination of new tariffs from Washington and Brussels has left the sector teetering on the edge. And now it’s going to be smacked by Brussels’ new carbon import taxes. The maelstrom could leave the industry “irreversibly and profoundly harmed,” according to its representative body. The EU’s catchily-named Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) goes live from the start of 2026. It will charge importers for the carbon price of their goods and introduce reams of new paperwork. In the long run, British businesses will be exempt from the levy, thanks to Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s EU reset. In May, Brussels and London agreed to link their carbon emissions trading systems, bringing the U.K. into the exclusive club of “third countries” that won’t have to pay. But those negotiations will take time, and until they are complete British steelmakers will face higher costs selling into the EU — by far their biggest overseas market. On Wednesday the two capitals issued a joint statement pledging to complete talks by sometime in 2026, in time for an as-yet-to-be-scheduled summit. For U.K. steel, it’ll feel like a long wait. “The EU CBAM creates barriers to U.K. steel exports to Europe and piles additional costs and admin onto our steelmakers at a time when global trade is increasingly turbulent,” Frank Aaskov, UK Steel’s director for energy and climate change policy, told POLITICO. The ripple effects of the EU’s new policy are also expected to lead to steel from abroad being diverted to the less protectionist U.K., providing further competition on the domestic market for beleaguered producers. “Our U.K. steel industry is largely unprotected as the EU CBAM risks redirecting steel flows away from Europe and into open markets like ours,” Aaskov added. He argued this was arguably “worse” than the CBAM charges themselves. The industry body is urging the U.K. government to get a move on linking its carbon market with the EU to secure an exemption. It also wants ministers to develop the U.K.’s own version of CBAM, something promised for 2027. Aaskov called for “urgent” steel import quota measures to stop the influx of diverted foreign products, without which “the U.K. steel industry is likely to be irreversibly and profoundly harmed.” BRIDGING THE GAP British exporters across carbon-intensive industries, including steel along with heavy manufacturing like concrete and chemicals, were hoping for a “bridging” deal that would shield U.K. businesses from CBAM levies while ETS linkage was being negotiated. None materialized. Instead, the EU agreed a blanket exemption for electricity imports from neighboring countries and a slate of other category exemptions, such as for small and medium-sized businesses. It’s an approach the U.K. — with its highly interlinked, cross-channel electricity market — will do well out of at the macro level. But it leaves steel exposed, at least temporarily. Despite Starmer supposedly securing a widely-trumpeted exception back in May, those tariffs still remain in place. | Pool Photo by Alastair Grant via Getty Images “We’re not exempting anyone,” European Commissioner for Climate Wopke Hoekstra told a press conference Wednesday.  “But the moment we will be fully linking those [carbon markets], it is likely that there will be an exemption.” Hoekstra added that “the price that [the U.K.] will be paying is actually minimal” and that that was “just one of the realities of how the system works.” While the scheme technically starts from Jan. 1, declarations of the carbon embedded in imports — and the associated fees — won’t be due until September 2027. Adam Berman, director of policy and advocacy at trade body Energy UK, told a briefing of journalists ahead of the announcement: “I understand the position of the European Commission, which is that they will inevitably be concerned that any exemption that they might offer on an ad hoc basis to a country like the U.K. would then lead to countries like China and India — which are the main targets of the CBAM — turning around and saying: ‘Why don’t you give us equal treatment?’” One EU official, granted anonymity to speak candidly, told POLITICO: “The companies, or the sectors that are actually concerned when it comes to the U.K., are very limited. So there will be an impact, but it will be very, very limited. And it will be also limited in time, because once the ETS agreement is in place it won’t be a question anymore.” A U.K. government official said: “ETS linkage will remove CBAM. In the interim, we’ve always told businesses they need to prepare for January.” The carbon levy is just the latest challenge for the industry, which sells 78 percent of its exported steel to the EU — totalling 1.9 million tons in 2024. Back in March, it was slapped with 25 percent tariffs by Donald Trump’s protectionist U.S. administration. Despite Starmer supposedly securing a widely-trumpeted exception back in May, those tariffs still remain in place. Then in October, British steelmakers learned they would be in the firing line from Brussels, too. The EU plans, which were in part a blanket response to Trump’s tariffs, as well as Chinese dumping, will cut its steel import quotas in half. The industry said it was “the biggest crisis the U.K. steel industry has ever faced.” In an interview with POLITICO on Monday, the EU’s trade chief Maroš Šefčovič said the U.K. and EU were “close allies” and “definitely on the first list of the countries with whom to start to talk” about the coming tariffs. Where those talks might lead, he didn’t say. Additional reporting from Brussels by Camille Gijs and Antonia Zimmerman

Europe prides itself on being a world leader in animal protection, with legal frameworks requiring member states to pay regard to animal welfare standards when designing and implementing policies. However, under REACH — Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) — the EU’s cornerstone regulation on chemical safety, hundreds of thousands of animals are subjected to painful tests every year, despite the legal requirement that animal testing should be used only as a ‘last resort’. With REACH’s first major revamp in almost 20 years forthcoming, lawmakers now face a once-in-a-generation opportunity to drive a genuine transformation of chemical regulation.  When REACH was introduced nearly a quarter of a century ago, it outlined a bold vision to protect people and the environment from dangerous chemicals, while simultaneously driving a transition toward modern, animal-free testing approaches. In practice, however, companies are still required to generate extensive toxicity data to bring both new chemicals and chemicals with long histories of safe use onto the market. This has resulted in a flood of animal tests that could too often be dispensed, especially when animal-free methods are just as protective (if not more) of human health and the environment.  > Hundreds of thousands of animals are subjected to painful tests every year, > despite the legal requirement that animal testing should be used only as a > ‘last resort’. Despite the last resort requirement, some of the cruelest tests in the books are still expressly required under REACH. For example, ‘lethal dose’ animal tests were developed back in 1927 — the same year as the first solo transatlantic flight — and remain part of the toolbox when regulators demand ‘acute toxicity’ data, despite the availability of animal-free methods. Yet while the aviation industry has advanced significantly over the last century, chemical safety regulations remain stuck in the past.   Today’s science offers fully viable replacement approaches for evaluating oral, skin and fish lethality to irritation, sensitization, aquatic bioconcentration and more. It is time for the European Commission and member states to urgently revise REACH information requirements to align with the proven capabilities of animal-free science.   But this is only the first step. A 2023 review projected that animal testing under REACH will rise in the coming years in the absence of significant reform. With the forthcoming revision of the REACH legal text, lawmakers face a choice: lock Europe into decades of archaic testing requirements or finally bring chemical safety into the 21st century by removing regulatory obstacles that slow the adoption of advanced animal-free science.   If REACH continues to treat animal testing as the default option, it risks eroding its credibility and the values it claims to uphold. However, animal-free science won’t be achieved by stitching together one-for-one replacements for legacy animal tests. A truly modern, European relevant chemicals framework demands deeper shifts in how we think, generate evidence and make safety decisions. Only by embracing next-generation assessment paradigms that leverage both exposure science and innovative approaches to the evaluation of a chemical’s biological activity can we unlock the full power of state-of the-art non-animal approaches and leave the old toolbox behind.  > With the forthcoming revision of the REACH legal text, lawmakers face a > choice: lock Europe into decades of archaic testing requirements or finally > bring chemical safety into the 21st century. The recent endorsement of One Substance, One Assessment regulations aims to drive collaboration across the sector while reducing duplicate testing on animals, helping to ensure transparency and improve data sharing. This is a step in the right direction, and provides the framework to help industry, regulators and other interest-holders to work together and chart a new path forward for chemical safety.   The EU has already demonstrated in the cosmetics sector that phasing out animal testing is not only possible but can spark innovation and build public trust. In 2021, the European Parliament urged the Commission to develop an EU plan to replace animal testing with modern scientific innovation. But momentum has since stalled. In the meantime, more than 1.2 million citizens have backed a European Citizens’ Initiative calling for chemical safety laws that protect people and the environment without adding new animal testing requirements; a clear indication that both science and society are eager for change.   > The EU has already demonstrated in the cosmetics sector that phasing out > animal testing is not only possible but can spark innovation and build public > trust. Jay Ingram, managing director, chemicals, Humane World for Animals (founding member of AFSA Collaboration) states: “Citizens are rightfully concerned about the safety of chemicals that they are exposed to on a daily basis, and are equally invested in phasing out animal testing. Trust and credibility must be built in the systems, structures, and people that are in place to achieve both of those goals.”  The REACH revision can both strengthen health and environmental safeguards while delivering a meaningful, measurable reduction in animal use year on year.  Policymakers need not choose between keeping Europe safe and embracing kinder science; they can and should take advantage of the upcoming REACH revision as an opportunity to do both.  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Humane World for Animals * The ultimate controlling entity is Humane World for Animals More information here.

Europe’s chemical industry has reached a breaking point. The warning lights are no longer blinking — they are blazing. Unless Europe changes course immediately, we risk watching an entire industrial backbone, with the countless jobs it supports, slowly hollow out before our eyes. Consider the energy situation: this year European gas prices have stood at 2.9 times higher than in the United States. What began as a temporary shock is now a structural disadvantage. High energy costs are becoming Europe’s new normal, with no sign of relief. This is not sustainable for an energy-intensive sector that competes globally every day. Without effective infrastructure and targeted energy-cost relief — including direct support, tax credits and compensation for indirect costs from the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) — we are effectively asking European companies and their workers to compete with their hands tied behind their backs. > Unless Europe changes course immediately, we risk watching an entire > industrial backbone, with the countless jobs it supports, slowly hollow out > before our eyes. The impact is already visible. This year, EU27 chemical production fell by a further 2.5 percent, and the sector is now operating 9.5 percent below pre-crisis capacity. These are not just numbers, they are factories scaling down, investments postponed and skilled workers leaving sites. This is what industrial decline looks like in real time. We are losing track of the number of closures and job losses across Europe, and this is accelerating at an alarming pace. And the world is not standing still. In the first eight months of 2025, EU27 chemicals exports dropped by €3.5 billion, while imports rose by €3.2 billion. The volume trends mirror this: exports are down, imports are up. Our trade surplus shrank to €25 billion, losing €6.6 billion in just one year. Meanwhile, global distortions are intensifying. Imports, especially from China, continue to increase, and new tariff policies from the United States are likely to divert even more products toward Europe, while making EU exports less competitive. Yet again, in 2025, most EU trade defense cases involved chemical products. In this challenging environment, EU trade policy needs to step up: we need fast, decisive action against unfair practices to protect European production against international trade distortions. And we need more free trade agreements to access growth market and secure input materials. “Open but not naïve” must become more than a slogan. It must shape policy. > Our producers comply with the strictest safety and environmental standards in > the world. Yet resource-constrained authorities cannot ensure that imported > products meet those same standards. Europe is also struggling to enforce its own rules at the borders and online. Our producers comply with the strictest safety and environmental standards in the world. Yet resource-constrained authorities cannot ensure that imported products meet those same standards. This weak enforcement undermines competitiveness and safety, while allowing products that would fail EU scrutiny to enter the single market unchecked. If Europe wants global leadership on climate, biodiversity and international chemicals management, credibility starts at home. Regulatory uncertainty adds to the pressure. The Chemical Industry Action Plan recognizes what industry has long stressed: clarity, coherence and predictability are essential for investment. Clear, harmonized rules are not a luxury — they are prerequisites for maintaining any industrial presence in Europe. This is where REACH must be seen for what it is: the world’s most comprehensive piece of legislation governing chemicals. Yet the real issues lie in implementation. We therefore call on policymakers to focus on smarter, more efficient implementation without reopening the legal text. Industry is facing too many headwinds already. Simplification can be achieved without weakening standards, but this requires a clear political choice. We call on European policymakers to restore the investment and profitability of our industry for Europe. Only then will the transition to climate neutrality, circularity, and safe and sustainable chemicals be possible, while keeping our industrial base in Europe. > Our industry is an enabler of the transition to a climate-neutral and circular > future, but we need support for technologies that will define that future. In this context, the ETS must urgently evolve. With enabling conditions still missing, like a market for low-carbon products, energy and carbon infrastructures, access to cost-competitive low-carbon energy sources, ETS costs risk incentivizing closures rather than investment in decarbonization. This may reduce emissions inside the EU, but it does not decarbonize European consumption because production shifts abroad. This is what is known as carbon leakage, and this is not how EU climate policy intends to reach climate neutrality. The system needs urgent repair to avoid serious consequences for Europe’s industrial fabric and strategic autonomy, with no climate benefit. These shortcomings must be addressed well before 2030, including a way to neutralize ETS costs while industry works toward decarbonization. Our industry is an enabler of the transition to a climate-neutral and circular future, but we need support for technologies that will define that future. Europe must ensure that chemical recycling, carbon capture and utilization, and bio-based feedstocks are not only invented here, but also fully scaled here. Complex permitting, fragmented rules and insufficient funding are slowing us down while other regions race ahead. Decarbonization cannot be built on imported technology — it must be built on a strong EU industrial presence. Critically, we must stimulate markets for sustainable products that come with an unavoidable ‘green premium’. If Europe wants low-carbon and circular materials, then fiscal, financial and regulatory policy recipes must support their uptake — with minimum recycled or bio-based content, new value chain mobilizing schemes and the right dose of ‘European preference’. If we create these markets but fail to ensure that European producers capture a fair share, we will simply create new opportunities for imports rather than European jobs. > If Europe wants a strong, innovative resilient chemical industry in 2030 and > beyond, the decisions must be made today. The window is closing fast. The Critical Chemicals Alliance offers a path forward. Its primary goal will be to tackle key issues facing the chemical sector, such as risks of closures and trade challenges, and to support modernization and investments in critical productions. It will ultimately enable the chemical industry to remain resilient in the face of geopolitical threats, reinforcing Europe’s strategic autonomy. But let us be honest: time is no longer on our side. Europe’s chemical industry is the foundation of countless supply chains — from clean energy to semiconductors, from health to mobility. If we allow this foundation to erode, every other strategic ambition becomes more fragile. If you weren’t already alarmed — you should be. This is a wake-up call. Not for tomorrow, for now. Energy support, enforceable rules, smart regulation, strategic trade policies and demand-driven sustainability are not optional. They are the conditions for survival. If Europe wants a strong, innovative resilient chemical industry in 2030 and beyond, the decisions must be made today. The window is closing fast. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is CEFIC- The European Chemical Industry Council  * The ultimate controlling entity is CEFIC- The European Chemical Industry Council  More information here.

BRUSSELS — More than 80 percent of Europe’s companies will be freed from environmental-reporting obligations after EU institutions reached a deal on a proposal to cut green rules on Monday.   The deal is a major legislative victory for European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in her push cut red tape for business, one of the defining missions of her second term in office. However, that victory came at a political cost: The file pushed the coalition that got her re-elected to the brink of collapse and led her own political family, the center-right European People’s Party (EPP), to team up with the far right to get the deal over the line. The new law, the first of many so-called omnibus simplification bills, will massively reduce the scope of corporate sustainability disclosure rules introduced in the last political term. The aim of the red tape cuts is to boost the competitiveness of European businesses and drive economic growth. The deal concludes a year of intense negotiations between EU decision-makers, investors, businesses and civil society, who argued over how much to reduce reporting obligations for companies on the environmental impacts of their business and supply chains — all while the effects of climate change in Europe were getting worse. “This is an important step towards our common goal to create a more favourable business environment to help our companies grow and innovate,” said Marie Bjerre, Danish minister for European affairs. Denmark, which holds the presidency of the Council of the EU until the end of the year, led the negotiations on behalf of EU governments. Marie Bjerre, Den|mark’s Minister for European affairs, who said the agreement was an important step for a more favourable business environment. | Philipp von Ditfurth/picture alliance via Getty Images Proposed by the Commission last February, the omnibus is designed to address businesses’ concerns that the paperwork needed to comply with EU laws is costly and unfair. Many companies have been blaming Europe’s overzealous green lawmaking and the restrictions it places on doing business in the region for low economic growth and job losses, preventing them from competing with U.S. and Chinese rivals.   But Green and civil society groups — and some businesses too — argued this backtracking would put environmental and human health at risk. That disagreement reverberated through Brussels, disturbing the balance of power in Parliament as the EPP broke the so-called cordon sanitaire — an unwritten rule that forbids mainstream parties from collaborating with the far right — to pass major cuts to green rules. It set a precedent for future lawmaking in Europe as the bloc grapples with the at-times conflicting priorities of boosting economic growth and advancing on its green transition. The word “omnibus” has since become a mainstay of the Brussels bubble vernacular with the Commission putting forward at least 10 more simplification bills on topics like data protection, finance, chemical use, agriculture and defense. LESS PAPERWORK   The deal struck by negotiators from the European Parliament, EU Council and the Commission includes changes to two key pieces of legislation in the EU’s arsenal of green rules: The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD).  The rules originally required businesses large and small to collect and publish data on their greenhouse gas emissions, how much water they use, the impact of rising temperatures on working conditions, chemical leakages and whether their suppliers — which are often spread across the globe — respect human rights and labor laws.    Now the reporting rules will only apply to companies with more than 1,000 employees and €450 million in net turnover, while only the largest companies — with 5,000 employees and at least €1.5 billion in net turnover — are covered by supply chain due diligence obligations. They also don’t have to adopt transition plans, with details on how they intend to adapt their business model to reach targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.   Importantly the decision-makers got rid of an EU-level legal framework that allowed civilians to hold businesses accountable for the impact of their supply chains on human rights or local ecosystems. MEPs have another say on whether the deal goes through or not, with a final vote on the file slated for Dec. 16. It means that lawmakers have a chance to reject what the co-legislators have agreed to if they consider it to be too far from their original position.

LONDON — Russian President Vladimir Putin was “morally responsible” for the 2018 Novichok poisonings which led to the death of an innocent British woman, an official inquiry concluded Thursday. Dawn Sturgess died in July 2018 after spraying herself with a perfume bottle that contained the Russian nerve agent Novichok in the English city of Salisbury. The bottle had been a gift from her then partner Charlie Rowley. Former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were attacked with the nerve agent four months earlier. Anthony Hughes, who chaired the public inquiry into Sturgess’ death, said the attack was “expected to stand as a public demonstration of Russian power” and “amounted to a public statement, both for international and domestic consumption, that Russia will act decisively in what it regards are its own interests.” He said there were “failings” to adequately protect the Skripals, but acknowledged CCTV cameras, alarms or hidden bugs would not have stopped a “professionally mounted attack with a nerve agent.” The government believes the Russian president personally approved the poisoning on Skripal. The ex-Russian spy lived in an easily accessible property and declined the offer of CCTV. In a statement following publication of the report, Hughes said Sturgess’ death was “needless and arbitrary. She was the entirely innocent victim of the cruel and cynical acts of others.” He said: “I’ve concluded that the operation to assassinate Sergei Skripal must have been authorized at the highest level, indeed, by President Putin.” The U.K. government on Thursday said it has sanctioned the Russian military intelligence agency (GRU) in its entirety, and summoned Russian Ambassador to the U.K. Andrey Kelin. The public inquiry began in Salisbury last year more than six years after Sturgess’ death, which also left 80 other people in hospital. Nobody has been charged with Sturgess’ murder. Alexander Mishkin and Anatoliy Chepiga were named as the suspects responsible for deploying the nerve agent in Salisbury, but returned to Russia before they could be captured. They were charged with conspiracy to murder, three counts of attempted murder, two counts of grievous bodily harm with intent, and one count of use or possession of a chemical weapon. But those charges related to the attacks on the Skripals rather than Sturgess’ death.