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.

A controversial ban on calling plant-based patties “burgers” could have an unintended consequence: harming the seafood industry.  As the debate over which proteins can be labeled “hamburger” and “steak” swirls across Brussels, no one is talking about how it would play out in the other 23 languages of the bloc. In Spanish, for example, the translated term for “steak” — a word the ban says can only apply to meat products — is “filete,” often used for cuts of fish. Lawmakers and farm groups in favor of the ban say it will help clarify things for consumers, but it could end up causing confusion.  Terms like “filete de lubina” (sea bass filet) and “lomos de atún” (tuna loin or steak) are common on fish labels, according to Daniel Voces de Onaíndi, managing director of Europêche. The EU seafood industry trade association backs the principle behind the veggie burger ban when it comes to blocking vegetables from using words associated with meat or fish. But ambiguity about non-English terms could ensnare fish, Voces de Onaíndi noted with alarm. He called on EU negotiators to sort out the issue during interinstitutional talks on the broader legislation, which is related to the EU’s common agricultural market. “We hope it could be clarified … that it refers exclusively to meat products, without negatively affecting or excluding traditional seafood packaging in other sectors,” he said. “Attention must be given to ensuring the linguistic consistency across all EU languages.”  French MEP Céline Imart, who proposed European Parliament’s ban, did not respond to requests for comment. A separate proposal from the European Commission bans more specific terms, like “wing” and “drumstick.” In Spanish, for example, the translated term for “steak” — a word the ban says can only apply to meat products — is “filete,” often used for cuts of fish. | Richard Lautens/Getty Images Even in English, some of these “meaty” terms cross sectors. After all, anglophones eat “tuna steaks,” too. Will Nestlé have to update its famous Drumstick ice cream cones? (Unclear.) Will McDonald’s need to rename the Filet-O-Fish? (Probably not. “Filet” in English is still kosher for meat products.) Consumer organizations say linguistic issues aside, the ban should be a nonstarter.  “The term ‘sausage’ or ‘burger’ is about the shape of food, not what’s in there, and it shouldn’t be claimed by one industry alone,” said Olivia Brown, policy officer at Euroconsumers.  She said the goal should be clear labeling that helps consumers understand what they’re eating. So, the `”veggie” part of “veggie burger” is more relevant for consumer clarity than eliminating “burger.” A 2020 BEUC study found that consumers are not confused by the naming of veggie burgers or sausages, as long as they are identifiable as vegetarian.

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 — Britain is sleepwalking through its biggest food safety crisis since the horsemeat scandal of 2013, a group of influential MPs warned as they dismissed a recent personal import ban on EU meat and cheese as “toothless.” The government moved in April to prohibit travelers from EU countries from bringing meat and dairy products into the U.K. following an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease across the continent. However, as reported by POLITICO, the ban has not been fully enforced, with experts warning that U.K. health officials lack the funds to uphold the rules. In a damning report on Monday, the parliament’s Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee warned that “alarming amounts” of meat and dairy products were still being illegally imported for both personal consumption and sale. The committee welcomed the government’s ban on personal imports of meat and dairy from the EU but described it as “toothless,” with prohibited products continuing to enter the U.K. through airports, seaports and the Eurotunnel in freight, parcels, personal baggage and passenger vehicles. “It would not be an exaggeration to say that Britain is sleepwalking through its biggest food safety crisis since the horse meat scandal,” committee chair Alistair Carmichael said. “A still bigger concern is the very real risk of a major animal disease outbreak. The single case of foot-and-mouth disease in Germany this year, most likely caused by illegally imported meat, cost its economy one billion euros.” He urged the government to “get a grip on what has become a crisis” by establishing a national taskforce, boosting food crime intelligence networks, enforcing “real deterrents,” and giving port health and local authorities the resources and powers they need.   During the committee’s nine-month inquiry into animal and plant health, experts painted a gruesome picture of the situation at the border, describing cases of meat arriving in unsanitary conditions, often in the back of vans, stashed in plastic bags, suitcases and cardboard boxes. At the Port of Dover alone, port health officials say they intercepted 70 tons of illegal meat imports from vehicles between January and the end of April, compared with 24 tons during the same period in 2024. During a Public Accounts Committee session on animal disease last week, Emma Miles, director general for food, biosecurity and trade at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said it was unclear whether the increase in the number of seizures of illegal meat at Dover was due to a rise in crime or to better surveillance. “When you’re catching people it might just mean you are doing better surveillance and enforcement,” she said.

BIRMINGHAM — It had suits, wonks, outriders, sponsors, lobbyists, receptions, and a rapidly-growing party flock. But Reform UK’s conference remained in many ways the Nigel Farage show. From the scrum around the populist leader to the teal “No. 10” football shirts in his name, Farage — a 30-year veteran of right-wing insurgency — dominated. He filled most of the hall at Birmingham’s National Exhibition Centre for his Friday speech, despite a last-minute timing change. Much of Reform’s runaway lead in U.K. opinion polls is down to one man’s charisma. “It’s like going on tour with the Pope,” said one party figure, granted anonymity (like other officials and politicians quoted in this piece) to speak candidly. But to survive in government, Reform will need more. And Farage, who turns 65 in 2029, knows it. He and his allies are now conspicuously trying to emphasize that Reform is not just about him. Attendees could barely move for talk of new party structures and policy fringes. Farage tries to farm out media interviews and visits to his allies, particularly his deputy Richard Tice and new Head of Policy Zia Yusuf (neither of whom have ruled out eyeing the job of chancellor). Yet Farage’s word is still gospel. The leader personally pushed to have Aseem Malhotra, an adviser to Trump’s Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr, on the conference’s main stage due to his links with the U.S. administration, one party figure said. Malhotra then used the platform to suggest Covid vaccinations may have caused King Charles’ cancer (Reform distanced itself from his comments). Like the MAGA movement — reflected in the conference’s “Make Britain Great Again” caps, stage pyrotechnics and talk of the death of the old right — Reform is still vested in an ultra-high-profile figurehead. But Britain does not have presidents, and Downing Street has far fewer political appointees than the White House. Reform must prepare for a system that is bigger than the principal. That begins, for now, with policy. THE SMALL TENT Reform now has three fully-fledged paid policy officials, said a party figure, including Simon Marcus, a former Tory councilor in London. This is a small number for a party hoping to reach government, though soon he will have more backup. Reform is recruiting at least four more paid policy officials, several officials told POLITICO, including two on central policy and one each for Scotland and Wales ahead of devolved elections in May 2026. There are unpaid officials too, such as Yusuf, and the party relies on enthusiastic volunteers. In Scotland, where the party does not yet have a paid policy official, party figures pointed to an unpaid activist as the main backroom thinker on policy (as part of a committee). Neil Hall/EPA Broadly speaking, though, the circle of people in the room for key decisions is small. As well as key elected representatives and Yusuf, Reform figures who were asked by POLITICO pointed to Farage’s Director of Communications and effectively his chief of staff Dan Jukes; long-time Farage ally and strategist Chris Bruni-Lowe; Director of Operations Aaron Lobo; and Reform Director of Communications Ed Sumner. A second Reform figure described Farage’s core team as “very tight.” A third Reform figure suggested four people plus Farage were in the room at key moments, adding: “Ultimately Nigel is the leader and he makes the decisions.” Yusuf told a conference event that Reform’s recent immigration policy — a sprawling pledge that would lead to around 600,000 deportations — was drawn up “entirely in-house.” On policy, though, Reform figures are keen to show that they know they’ll need a wider pool of thinkers. “Our biggest weakness is we have no experience in government,” said a fourth Reform figure. “We have no one that knows the ropes.” Sometimes it seems to show. Farage’s big announcement in his Friday speech, to stop migrant boat crossings in the English Channel “within two weeks of winning government,” became “within two weeks of legislation being passed” by the time he gave press interviews Saturday. Tory strategists are separately keen to pick at what they paint as fiscal incoherence in Farage’s call to ease a two-child limit on benefits — a pledge that emerged from his desire for more British babies — at the same time as “serious cuts” to the welfare budget. A fifth Reform figure argued the leader is a factor: “Nigel’s not a huge policy guy,” they said. “Nigel’s role is to drive the party forward, to inspire the ranks.” AND SO, ENTER THE WONKS Reform’s nine-member party board met for the first time last week. It consists of Farage, Yusuf, chairman David Bull, racehorse trainer Andrew Reid, the former leader of UKIP (Reform’s predecessor party) Paul Nuttall, ex-GB News presenter Darren Grimes, regional mayor Andrea Jenkyns, former Tory Greater Manchester mayoral candidate Dan Barker, and Farage’s former press chief Gawain Towler. Yusuf, who Farage named as head of policy on Friday, told a fringe event that board will have a “subordinate committee” that essentially “rubber-stamps” party policy. Then there is a nascent ecosystem of think tanks including the Reform-friendly Centre for a Better Britain (referred to verbally by supporters as CFABB). Its chief executive Jonathan Brown — Reform’s former chief operating officer — meets Tice roughly every couple of weeks, said a person with knowledge of the meetings. While the group declined to say who funds it, a document leaked to the Sunday Times suggested it wanted to raise more than £25 million by 2029 — much of it from the U.S. (A CFABB official insisted to POLITICO that all current donors are either British or reside in Britain.) The chair of its advisory board, James Orr, has been a friend of U.S. Vice President JD Vance since 2019. Neill Hall/EPA But CFABB also has a British flavor — as a home for Brexit warriors of old. Veteran Tory Euroskeptic John Redwood is helping with some of its work. Christopher Howarth, the former fixer for the Tory European Research Group, is one of its seven or so current staff. Brown is in a WhatsApp group with right-wing Conservative peers, including Boris Johnson’s former Brexit negotiator David Frost. And his fellow CBB director David Lilley — who has donated more than £250,000 to Reform — previously funded Johnson and the Vote Leave campaign. A CAST OF THOUSANDS Yusuf told members he will take the “best ideas” from right-wing think tanks — others include the Prosperity Institute (formerly known as Legatum) and the Taxpayers’ Alliance — at the same time as building out internal policy. But at other times they will disagree. Brown has also met Robert Jenrick, the ambitious Conservative shadow minister who is pushing on law and order. Reform is keen to stress that CFABB is independent of the party. Reform is involving its own MPs (Richard Tice, Lee Anderson and Sarah Pochin) in policy development, while Farage is also leaning on outsiders with real-world experience such as detective Colin Sutton and prison governor Vanessa Frake. Yusuf told a fringe event: “We have draughtsmen working on legislation. We will have thousands of pages of legislation ready to go.” Reform can rely too on its growing pool of elected officials in councils and mayoralties across England — expected to increase dramatically after May 2026 elections in Scotland and Wales. Yet this growing cast leaves some of Reform’s own foot soldiers in the dark. Helen Manson, interim chair of the South Cambridgeshire branch, told Yusuf — who focuses both on red meat policies such as migration and his personal interests like cryptocurrency — that she receives many questions on the doorstep about whether the party is ready for government. “We don’t know what Reform is doing. We can’t respond to that,” she said. Lobbyists at the conference for the first time felt similarly. One industry figure complained that Tice, when holding private business round tables, tends to lay out his “talking points” but does not respond well to challenge. A second said: “It was obvious that a small group of think tanks are currently the only engine room for ideas beyond Reform’s pet interests.” Speaking to POLITICO, Brown said: “You can’t really judge them on the policy for the next election because it’s early days. I think the idea is to build out a full and integrated policy platform and an implementation strategy before the next election.” But some senior Reform-linked figures resist opening the conversation too widely — as the center would lose control. Orr told a fringe event: “Don’t underestimate how much effect a small band of dedicated people in the cockpit of the nation can do.” Orr looked to an unlikely comparison — what he called Tony Blair’s “catastrophic and extremely consequential” Labour government in 1997. That, argued Orr, was run by “a gang of six … [and] they completely overturned the constitutional, legal, political and cultural landscape of the U.K. for 25 years. In fact, we’re going to spend the best part of the next 15 years trying to unravel it.” NO SUCCESSION PLAN? Small team or not, the importance of elevating the background players out of Farage’s shadow isn’t just desirable for Reform — it’s existential. When Farage denied on stage that his party is a “one-man band,” he used the example of the branded football shirts in the conference shop — pointing out that several other party figures had their names on shirts as well. Tellingly, when POLITICO visited the shop, only the “Farage” shirts were filling the shelves. An announcement that Farage was to sign shirts for 45 minutes (price for a signed shirt: £100) caused a jolt of excitement in the venue. More importantly, it was Farage’s return to the party last year that turbocharged its (already healthy) poll rating, and has senior Reform figures beginning to eye up which Whitehall department they would like to lead. Contrary to protestations by Farage’s allies, aides and the man himself, the party is still tied closely to him — to the point where some in Reform darkly wonder how the party would survive if he suddenly wasn’t on the scene. “If something happens [to Nigel] now, we’re fucked,” a Reform candidate in the last election said. In four years “maybe we’d be fine,” they said, but right now “there’s no one else with the charisma or the ability to pull people together.” Towler, his longtime former aide, has a more nuanced view. “There is nobody else in Britain who can do what he does,” he said, but “there is a bunch of driven people who want to change the country and I think they would still do it without him. It would be awful and it would be harder, but I really think the mood of the country is so febrile and so anti-the last two, that we need change. Nigel is a vector for that change — he’s not the only vector.” Farage is keen for the public to agree. He closed the conference by inviting all the main speakers for an on-stage singalong of the U.K’s national anthem led by the Greater Lincolnshire Mayor Andrea Jenkyns — who had earlier surprised attendees with a solo musical performance of her own-self written song Insomniac. The hope in Reform circles is that by boosting those around him, Farage will create figures substantial enough to be major players in a future government, while also reducing the party’s reliance on his oratory and leadership skills. “I think Reform is coming out of Nigel’s shadow to some extent,” said Brown. “All of a sudden there’s a raft of elected officials who are there. Are any of them Nigel yet? No, of course not. But Nigel has had 30 years so it’s very unfair to pick the consummate performer of his generation and say ‘why aren’t you like him?’ Nigel wasn’t like that in 2005.” Others point out that Farage, despite being electoral dynamite, remains a Marmite figure with harder-to-reach sections of the electorate. “Yes he’s a brilliant communicator and no one’s doubting that, but he’s a known quantity and a lot of voters don’t like him,” said one Labour Party official. Then there is the question of whether Farage — who spent years in lucrative TV work — really wants the grim responsibilities of being prime minister at all. His allies insist he does. Towler said: “He made a decision last year to get back involved. Is it his want, is it his ambition? Really, I don’t think it is. But does he think he’s the only person to break the duopoly of failure in this country? Yes. And he takes that responsibility deeply seriously.” Wherever things go from here, though, Farage remains a godhead for now — sometimes quite literally. “His body is stronger than anybody else’s,” said a sixth Reform figure, when asked about what the party would be without him. “He’s survived a plane crash and everything.” Some Reform figures are daring to dream of the party’s fortunes as similarly immortal. But things don’t always work out that way. John Johnston and Abby Wallace contributed reporting.

Poland is stepping up to protect farmers fielding complaints from disgruntled neighbors about the smells coming from pig farming. Polish Minister of Agriculture Stefan Krajewski plans to introduce legislation to protect farmers from lawsuits related to odor or noise, said ministry spokesperson Renata Kania-Miętusiewicz. It’s a reaction to a 2012 lawsuit filed by neighbors upset with the smell and antisocial working hours of Szymon Kluka’s 65-hectare farm, which holds 360 pigs. The Polish Supreme Court in May upheld a verdict requiring that Kluka pay a 110,000 złotys (€26,000) penalty and take action to reduce the “unbearable” smell of his farm. Those measures include requirements that the farmer not work in the evenings or during holidays, that he only spread manure during certain weather conditions, and that he plant a hedge around his farm. “I’ve lived here for generations — from my grandfather and great-grandfather. They are the ones who moved here,” Kluka told agricultural news site Rolnicy, referring to the plaintiffs. Krajewski, who took over the ministry in last month’s government reshuffle, is a member of the farmer-friendly conservative Polish People’s Party, part of the ruling coalition. He called the ruling “erroneous,” complaining it doesn’t reflect the realities of running an agricultural business. “The character of rural areas is changing,” Krajewski told Poland’s RMF FM radio station. “There are more and more new residents in rural areas, and sometimes they do not accept the nuisances associated with agricultural production. Our task is to protect the interests of farmers. Noise, night work during harvest time, and odors are inextricably linked to rural areas and agricultural activities.” As well as pledging the new bill, Krajewski also met Kluka in late July to show his support, stating that his political party would cover 80,000 złotys of the fine. This may not be the end of the case. Krajewski’s ministry said he has spoken to both Poland’s minister of justice and the country’s human rights commissioner about filing an extraordinary complaint — a legal mechanism introduced in Poland’s controversial legal reform in 2017 — which allows the Supreme Court to reopen a case. The Polish Supreme Court in May upheld a verdict requiring that Kluka pay a 110,000 złotys penalty and take action to reduce the “unbearable” smell of his farm. | Jakub Kaminski/EPA Kluka is continuing to farm but said he’s worried about being hit with another lawsuit, something he said could also affect other farmers in his area raising pigs, chickens and cattle. “Sometimes one also begins to doubt whether it is worth continuing to struggle, living in constant fear: Will someone call the police again, report the matter to the environmental protection authorities, file another complaint?” he told the farming portal. Poland is one of the EU’s larger pig producers, with almost 12 million animals. It is also the bloc’s largest chicken producer, responsible for about a quarter of the market.

Donald Trump wants to enjoy a long weekend of golfing. Good luck with that. The U.S. president lands in Scotland, his mother’s birthplace, on Friday for the first time since his return to the White House. On the itinerary is time at his Turnberry and Aberdeen golf resorts, plus meetings with U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Scottish First Minister John Swinney.  But with colorful protests expected, Trump’s trip has prompted a security operation as big as Queen Elizabeth’s funeral in 2022. Up to 6,000 officers will shield the most powerful man in the world from what are expected to be significant demonstrations. The Scottish Police Federation has already queried whether adequate resources are in place to manage such a huge operation. So what do those closest to the action think about the circus coming to town? POLITICO grilled seven plugged-in Scottish politicians of all stripes on the flying visit — and asked where Trump should go if he does manage to venture away from the golf course. ELAINE STEWART, LABOUR MP FOR AYR, CARRICK & CUMNOCK Elaine Stewart has only been the Labour MP whose patch covers Trump Turnberry for just over a year — but she isn’t daunted by the president’s arrival.  “He’s been here before,” Stewart says. “That same spectacle happened when he was president the first time.” Despite concerns around policing, Stewart — who recalls the last presidential Trump trip to Scotland — says she’s confident this visit will go off without a security hitch. “There was security on the beaches and the roads and there were loads of police everywhere,” she says. “Loads of people … watched because it’s something that they thought they would never see again,” Stewart mused. “But here we are.”  Stewart has been meeting farmers in her local constituency — who say they benefit directly from Trump’s presence. “[The resort] sources all his meat and his seafood and vegetables locally,” she says. The U.S. president loves a grand gesture and a prime bit of real estate — so Stewart recommends a trip to the clifftop Culzean Castle just a few miles from Turnberry.  Dating back centuries, the stately home has a suite gifted to former U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower for his military leadership during the Second World War as supreme commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force in Europe. ALEC CLARK, INDEPENDENT DEPUTY LEADER OF SOUTH AYRSHIRE COUNCIL  Trump’s presence will generate global attention — but Alec Clark will have to deal with the local reaction long after the president has jetted back to America. The independent deputy leader of South Ayrshire Council, whose ward includes Trump Turnberry, is in a sunny mood about the trip, praising the funds that Trump’s company has plowed into the tiny rural village. “The actual investment that goes into Turnberry year after year, week after week, day after day, is tremendous,” Clark says, lauding the more than 400 people employed “in a rural area where every job is like gold dust.”  The estate unsurprisingly became a huge attraction after Trump entered politics, and Clark has noticed that “tourists are stopping there to take photographs of the hotel.” He ascribes Trump’s “sympathetic stance” toward Scotland to his mother’s Scottish roots. On the itinerary is time at his Turnberry and Aberdeen golf resorts. | Robert Perry/EPA As police prepare for protests, Clark defends such dissent as “one of the things you’ve got to handle” in a democracy. “It’s only courteous to listen, because people can protest … but the only way to make a difference is to discuss,” he reflects. If Trump does have some time away from the golf buggy, Clark reckons he should pop along to the Robert Burns museum in Alloway, a suburb north of Turnberry, to learn more about the poet and view some original manuscripts. “Burns is history,” Clark says. “Burns is the National Bard of Scotland. He’s known all over the world.” BRIAN WHITTLE, TORY SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT MEMBER (MSP) FOR SOUTH SCOTLAND  Brian Whittle is no stranger to presidential big beasts rolling into town. Prior to entering the Scottish Parliament to represent South Scotland — which includes Turnberry — the Conservative MSP ran an event management company that organized a visit to Glasgow by Bill Clinton. When U.S. presidents come to Scotland, they don’t travel lightly.  Clinton’s trip in the mid-2000s after leaving the White House involved three months of preparation, Whittle said, including many meetings with the U.S. Secret Service and British spooks in MI5 and MI6. “If that’s the level of security required for a former president of the United States, a current president, especially one with Donald Trump’s current reputation … would be even greater, much greater than what I had to deal with,” he says. Given that Trump’s visit — billed as a private trip — is a tad spontaneous, Whittle isn’t surprised there’s been a “bit of scrambling around to make sure all the protocols are in place.”  “No matter where he goes, there’ll be protests,” the Tory MSP says. “That’s part of the deal, that’s part of the job.”  But he urges Scots not to get too excited. “On one level, this story is about: Somebody owns a bit of property and is coming to see a property.” Whittle says Turnberry is a “massive asset” that encourages global visitors. “If you go down there, it’s always busy as a venue,” he adds. WENDY CHAMBERLAIN, LIB DEM MP FOR NORTH EAST FIFE  As a former cop, the Liberal Democrat MP for North East Fife, Wendy Chamberlain, is thinking about the “day-to-day” impact on policing of the Trump team rolling into town. “These are huge logistical challenges for police forces,” she says. “One of the challenges of it being private is there seems to be a lack of knowledge about what’s actually happening.” Keir Starmer’s Westminster administration has been at pains to cosy up to Donald Trump. | Pool Photo by Ludovic Marin via EPA Chamberlain is the chief enforcer of House of Commons discipline for the centrist Liberal Democrats, who have built a brand around calling out Trump. “There always has been quite an active protest movement, sometimes with a good deal of humor as well, which is very Scottish,” Chamberlain says. But she understands why Starmer and Swinney — both from center-left parties — would meet with the right-wing Republican firebrand. “You have to look past the individual that’s in the role of the president of the United States — and look at the role itself,” she says. MERCEDES VILLALBA, LABOUR MSP FOR NORTH EAST SCOTLAND  Starmer’s Westminster administration has been at pains to cosy up to Trump. Not everyone in his party is happy. Mercedes Villalba, a Labour MSP for North East Scotland, which covers Trump’s Aberdeen estate, is a fierce critic of the U.S. president’s foreign policy — especially in the Middle East.  Her constituents will show support for “the Palestinian people and their right to self-determination,” she says, with the Palestinian flag flying above Dundee’s City Chambers, a place twinned with Nablus in the Occupied West Bank since 1980.   “Our region’s rich history of solidarity at home and abroad is alien to Donald Trump,” Villalba said. To her, Trump is a “convicted felon who has pledged to turn Gaza into the ‘Riviera of the Middle East’ and continues to send weapons to a state credibly accused of genocide.”  Villalba has no doubt her constituents “will make their opposition to the U.S. president’s visit abundantly clear,” and hopes Swinney demonstrates “the same commitment to peace and justice” during his own expected meeting with the U.S. president. TESS WHITE, CONSERVATIVE MSP FOR NORTH EAST SCOTLAND  Northeastern Scotland sits on vast quantities of gas and oil — but the British government is wary about the climate impacts of getting stuck in. Having worked in the energy sector for three decades, Tess White, a Tory MSP for the region, hopes the president’s trip will spark “widespread recognition” of the dangers of switching to renewables too quickly.  Trump has long complained about Scotland’s wind turbines. White said she hopes that “President Trump will do in two days what the SNP have just failed to do in over a decade,” aiming a shot at Scotland’s ruling Scottish National Party. She reckons Trump should visit the government-run renewables investment body GB Energy in Aberdeen — to see for himself that it’s “really not a serious vehicle for strengthening and improving our oil and gas industry.” White also blames “very, very” stretched policing around the visit on the SNP. “Police officers are under immense strain with millions of hours in overtime being notched up,” she warns. When in town, White recommends Trump try some Angus beef (“the best in the world”) and additive-free locally grown fruit. Northeastern Scotland sits on vast quantities of gas and oil — but the British government is wary about the climate impacts of getting stuck in. | Robert Perry/EPA TORCUIL CRICHTON, LABOUR MP FOR NA H-EILEANAN AN IAR  Torcuil Crichton has served as Labour MP for Na h-Eileanan an Iar since last July. The Western Isles include Lewis, where Trump’s mother Mary Anne MacLeod was born in 1912.  “People in Lewis are very proud of Mary Anne MacLeod and that entire emigration generation of islanders who left in their thousands during the hungry 1920s and made America great,” Crichton said. “Mr Trump is a son of Lewis,” he added. “While oceans separate our politics, any island exile is embraced on their return. “Every prodigal son is welcomed home.”

BERLIN — When French President Emmanuel Macron arrives on Wednesday evening at a villa on the outskirts of Berlin where he is set to go for a stroll, listen to a jazz trumpet performance and dine with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, the two leaders are likely to exhibit plenty of back-slapping bonhomie. After all, on Merz’s first full day in office in May, he traveled to Paris and vowed “a new Franco-German start for Europe” after years of strained relations between Macron and Merz’s predecessor, Olaf Scholz. Merz said at the time that he had already developed a “deep personal bond” with the French leader that would help them work together. “The atmosphere is completely different,” said one senior German government official with intimate knowledge of Franco-German relations. “I’ve never experienced this kind of interaction in all these years.” Paris thinks the same. “The Franco-German reflex has been rediscovered,” an Elysée official said. But despite the good vibes and increased cooperation on policy areas involving deregulation and migration, the leaders are finding it increasingly difficult to conceal an uncomfortable reality: The promised restart of the Franco-German engine that long powered the European Union is already sputtering, as Merz and Macron confront a series of intractable divisions on everything from defense to trade. One of the key differences between the current German chancellor and his predecessor is that Scholz recognized how difficult it would be to resolve the key Franco-German differences, and didn’t want to exert enormous energy to achieve the nearly impossible, one conservative lawmaker focusing on foreign relations told POLITICO. “Scholz failed because he is smart and simply realized how difficult it is and then lost interest,” the lawmaker said. “We have the desire” to make the Franco-German relationship work, he added, “but it is still difficult.” NEW AGREEMENT, DEEPER DIVISIONS Merz and Macron have a lot in common when it comes to their pro-business leanings and desire to see less regulation. Perhaps the greatest example of this was last month’s cooperation between the two leaders to defang a due diligence law meant to bring EU-style protections to global supply chains. Another area of increasing agreement is on nuclear energy. In May, Merz’s economy minister, Katherina Reiche, signaled that Berlin was prepared to give up its long-standing opposition to classifying nuclear power as a renewable energy source, potentially ending an enduring clash that has complicated EU energy policy. (Merz’s junior coalition partners, the Social Democrats, oppose the move however.) Disagreements between France and Germany also threaten to derail a European project to develop a next-generation fighter jet that would make the bloc less likely to rely on American F-35s. | Jeroen Jumelet/EPA The two leaders are also increasingly aligned on drastically reducing the number of asylum seekers coming to Europe. Another potential area of cooperation may involve France’s nuclear deterrent and a potential agreement on how the French could use it to contribute to Europe’s wider security. “This is not a debate that takes place in the media spotlight,” the Elysée official said.  But the core disagreements concerning trade and defense have seen little in the way of rapprochement. “There are two major issues that Germany and France need to resolve in order for us to really make progress,” said Roland Theis, a conservative German lawmaker specializing in Berlin’s relationship with Paris. DEFENSE AND TRADE The divisions on defense were laid bare earlier this month when U.S. President Donald Trump backed a German initiative to have Europeans supply Ukraine with American-made weapons. While Nordic countries and the U.K. supported the plan, France opposed it in keeping with Macron’s longstanding push to have Europe produce more weapons locally and reduce dependence on the U.S. Disagreements between France and Germany also threaten to derail a European project to develop a next-generation fighter jet that would make the bloc less likely to rely on American F-35s. The Elysée official downplayed disagreements over the fighter jet program, saying Merz and Macron “want to move forward.” But some of the deepest divisions continue to revolve around trade. Merz is pushing the EU to come up with a quick and simple trade agreement with the U.S. in order to put an end to the Trump tariff wars that are hitting German industries particularly hard. The French, meanwhile, are pushing for a tougher approach and better terms. As Merz pushes for free trade agreements with other parts of the world, the Germans are also encountering French resistance on an EU deal with South America’s Mercosur trade bloc, with Macron anxious to protect his small but politically powerful farming community from new meat imports. The only way to bridge these differences is for the Germans to move closer to the French on defense, and for France to move closer to Germany on trade, says German lawmaker Theis. “Behind every French push for greater Europeanization of our armaments, Germany always sees a Trojan horse that allows the French to transport their own interests, especially with regard to their arms industry. We must get over that,” he said. At the same time, he added, “the French need to move on the issue of free trade. Just as we must become more independent from the U.S. in terms of defense, [Europe] must also become more independent from the U.S. in terms of trade relations.” WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY CLOSING Both Macron and Merz will likely have to upset key constituencies at home in order to push the alliance forward, according to experts. “The chancellor and the president are in a dilemma,” said Jacob Ross, a researcher focused on Franco-German relations at the German Council on Foreign Relations. “They have to sacrifice things in terms of domestic policy to make progress in terms of foreign policy.” But the moment for compromise may soon be lost as both leaders face similar domestic political pressures — in particular the growing influence of far-right parties. The far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), now the biggest opposition force in the country’s parliament, portrays Merz as preferring to spend time abroad rather than solving problems at home. In France, the far-right National Rally is polling far ahead of all other parties at 36 percent.  The far-right Alternative for Germany portrays Merz as preferring to spend time abroad rather than solving problems at home. | Hannibal Hanschke/EPA But the biggest obstacle to compromise may be the next presidential election in France, which is set for April 2027. Macron can’t run again because of constitutional term limits, and the country’s domestic politics are looking increasingly unstable. “There simply is a lot of time pressure,” Ross said. “There is only a year left in which they can somehow reasonably work together.” After that, he added, “the Germans can forget about relying on a functional and active French government, because they will be in complete election mode.” Laura Kayali contributed reporting from Paris.