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.”

BRUSSELS — Pressure is mounting on the European Commission to exempt fertilizers from its new carbon tariff scheme, as national capitals side with farmers over industry to unpick one of the EU’s newest climate policies. During a discussion requested by Austria on Monday, 12 countries called for a temporary exclusion of fertilizers from the European Union’s carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM), a levy on the greenhouse gas emissions of certain goods imported into the bloc. They argued that CBAM, which only became fully operational on Jan. 1, is sending already-rising fertilizer even higher, adding to economic difficulties for crop farmers. “European arable farmers are currently facing not just low producer prices, but also rising production costs. The main cost drivers are fertilizer prices, which have increased markedly since 2020,” Johannes Frankhauser, a senior official in Austria’s agriculture ministry, told ministers gathered in Brussels. Eleven countries backed Vienna in Monday’s meeting. Yet critics — which include fertilizer producers, environment-focused MEPs and several governments — warn that such an exemption would not only penalize the EU’s domestic producers but threaten the integrity of the carbon tariff scheme. “High prices of production inputs, including fertilizers, have a direct impact on the economic situation of farms… However, we want an optimal solution in order to maintain food security on one hand and on the other [avoid] possible negative impacts on the competitiveness of EU fertilizer producers,” said Polish Agriculture Minister Stefan Krajewski, whose country is a major fertilizer producer.  Germany, Belgium, Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands expressed similar sentiments.  CBAM was phased in over several years and is supposed to protect European producers of heavily polluting goods — cement, iron, steel, aluminum, fertilizers, electricity and hydrogen — from cheap and dirty foreign competition. EU manufacturers of these products currently pay a carbon price on their planet-warming emissions, while importers didn’t before the CBAM came into force. By introducing a levy on imports from countries without carbon pricing, the EU wants to even out the playing field and encourage its trading partners to switch to cleaner manufacturing practices. (Those partners aren’t too happy.) The CBAM price is paid by the importers, which are free to pass on the cost to buyers — in the case of fertilizers, farmers.  Fertilizers make up a substantial share of farms’ operating costs, and EU-based companies do not produce enough to match demand. CBAM is therefore expected to push up fertilizer costs, though estimates on by how much vary greatly. A group of nine EU countries led by France mentioned a 25 percent increase in a recent missive, while Austria reckons it’s 10-15 percent.  The main cost drivers are fertilizer prices, which have increased markedly since 2020,” Johannes Frankhauser, a senior official in Austria’s agriculture ministry, told ministers gathered in Brussels. | Olivier Hoslet/EPA Carbon pricing analyst firm Sandbag, however, says it’s far lower for the next two years — less than 1 percent, or a couple of euros per ton of ammonia, a fertilizer component that costs several hundred euros per ton without the levy. Responding to governments on Monday, Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen noted that the EU executive already tweaked the policy to provide relief to farmers in December, and followed up in January with a promise to suspend some regular tariffs on fertilizer components to offset the additional CBAM cost. SUSPENSION SUSPENSE The Commission in December set in motion legislative changes that could allow it to enact such a suspension in the event of “serious and unforeseen circumstances” harming the bloc’s internal market — in effect, an emergency brake for CBAM. The suspension can apply retroactively, the EU executive said earlier this month. Yet EU governments and the European Parliament each have to approve this clause before the Commission could make such a move, a process expected to take the better part of this year. Environment ministers can vote on the changes in March or June, and MEPs haven’t even chosen their lead lawmakers to work on the Parliament’s position yet. That’s why Austria on Monday called on the Commission to “immediately” suspend CBAM until “the regular possibility to temporarily suspend CBAM on fertilisers is ensured.” The legal basis for such a move is unclear, as the legislation in force does not feature an exemption clause.  Vienna’s request for a debate came after a group of nine countries — Bulgaria, Croatia, France, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Luxembourg, Portugal and Romania — wrote to the Commission requesting a suspension earlier this month. During Monday’s discussion, Croatia and Estonia also expressed support for such a move.  Ireland welcomed the Commission’s proposal of a suspension clause but asked for additional details.  Spain was ambivalent: “We need to strengthen our industrial capacity to contribute to the strategic autonomy of the European Union. But clearly, the decarbonisation of this sector mustn’t jeopardize farmers’ livelihoods,” said Spanish Agriculture Minister Luis Planas.  Italy, which previously signaled its support for a suspension, did not explicitly endorse such a move — merely backing the Commission’s already-announced tweaks to normal fertilizer tariffs in its intervention on Monday.  Not all countries took to the floor. Czechia, for example — whose new government is opposed to large parts of EU climate legislation, but whose prime minister owns Europe’s second-largest nitrogen fertilizer producer — remained silent. The Czech agriculture ministry did not respond to a request for comment. INDUSTRY ALARMED While exempting fertilizers may win governments kudos from farmers, European fertilizer manufacturers would be irate. The producers’ association Fertilisers Europe warned that such a move would be “totally unacceptable” and “undermine the competitiveness” of EU companies. Yara, a major Norwegian fertilizer producer, said that “CBAM was designed to ensure a level playing field. Weakening it through tariff reductions or retroactive suspension sends the wrong signal to companies investing in Europe’s green transition.” Mohammed Chahim, the vice president of the center-left Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, said that EU companies “need regulatory stability.” “European fertilizer producers have spent precious time and significant resources, often with support from taxpayer money, to decarbonize,” said the Dutch MEP, who drafted the Parliament’s position on the original CBAM law. “Any exemptions for CBAM send a terrible signal — not just to our own industry, but to the world.”  It’s not only makers of fertilizer that are up in arms. Companies in the heavy industry sector — whose competitiveness CBAM is supposed to protect — are warning that granting an exemption once could produce a domino effect, encouraging buyers of all CBAM goods to lobby for relief.  German MEP Peter Liese, environment coordinator of the center-right European People’s Party, said earlier this month that a retroactive exemption would be “theoretically possible” but that he was “very much against it because I believe that if we start doing that, we will end up in a cascade. | Ronald Wittek/EPA “Once one sector gets an exemption, other sectors will want this too,” warned the Business for CBAM coalition, a lobby group of companies and industry groups. “We therefore call on the European Parliament and [ministers] to remove” the exemption clause, it added.  Similarly, German MEP Peter Liese, environment coordinator of the center-right European People’s Party, said earlier this month that a retroactive exemption would be “theoretically possible” but that he was “very much against it because I believe that if we start doing that, we will end up in a cascade. If we suspend it for fertilizers, there are immediately arguments to suspend it in other sectors as well.” 

BRUSSELS — Powerful political allies helped automakers force the EU to water down climate laws for cars — and now the aviation sector is borrowing those tactics. Their big target is getting the EU to dilute its mandate forcing airlines to use increasing amounts of cleaner jet fuels, alternatives to kerosene that are also much more expensive and harder to source. Aviation is emerging as the next crucial stress test for the EU’s climate agenda, as key leaders push to do whatever it takes to help struggling European businesses. With industry and allied governments pressing for relief from costly green rules, the fight will show how far Brussels is willing to go — and what it is willing to give up — in pursuit of its climate goals. “I will make a bet today that what happened to the car regulation will happen to the SAF [Sustainable Aviation Fuels] regulation in Europe,” French energy giant TotalEnergies CEO Patrick Pouyanné predicted at the World Economic Forum in Davos earlier this month. Carmakers provide a model on how to get the EU to backtrack. The bloc mandated that no CO2-emitting cars could be sold from 2035, essentially killing the combustion engine and replacing it with batteries (possibly with a minor role for hydrogen). But many carmakers — allied with countries like Germany, Italy and automaking nations in Central Europe — pushed back, arguing that the 2035 mandate would destroy the car sector just as it is battling U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs, sluggish demand and a rising threat from Chinese competitors. “I will make a bet today that what happened to the car regulation will happen to the SAF [Sustainable Aviation Fuels] regulation in Europe,” Patrick Pouyanné said. | Ludovic Marin/ AFP via Getty Images In the end, the European Commission gave way and watered down the 2035 mandate, which will now only aim to cut CO2 emissions by 90 percent. AVIATION DEMANDS The aviation sector has a similar list of issues with the EU. It is taking aim at a host of other climate policies, such as including aviation in the bloc’s cap-and-trade Emissions Trading System and intervening on non-CO2 impacts of airplanes like contrails — the ice clouds produced by airplanes that have an effect on global warming. Brussels introduced several regulations over the last 15 years to address the growing climate impact of air transport, which accounts for about 3 percent of global CO2 emissions. Those policies include the obligation to use sustainable aviation fuels, to put a price on carbon emissions and to take action on non-CO2 emissions. Each of these green initiatives is now under attack. The ReFuelEU regulation requires all airlines to use SAF for at least 2 percent of their fuel mix starting this year. That mandate rises to 6 percent from 2030, 20 percent from 2035 and 70 percent by 2050. “Today, all airline companies are fighting even the 6 percent … which is easy to reach to be honest,” Pouyanné said, but then warned, “20 percent five years after makes zero sense.” He is echoed by CEOs like Ryanair’s combative Michael O’Leary, who called the SAF mandate “nonsense.” “It is all gradually dying a death, which is what it deserves to do,” O’Leary said last year. “We have just about met our 2 percent mandate. There is no possibility of meeting 6 percent by 2030; 10 percent, not a hope in hell. We’re not going to get to net zero by 2050.” Brussels-based airline lobbies are not calling for the SAF mandate to be killed, rather they are demanding a book-and-claim system. Under such a scheme, airlines could claim carbon credits for a certain amount of SAF, even if they don’t use it in their own aircraft. They would buy it at an airport where it’s available and then let other airlines use it. That would make it easier for airlines to meet the SAF mandate even if the fuel is not easily available. However, so far the Commission is opposed. LOBBYING BATTLE The car coalition only worked because industry allied with countries, and there are signs of that happening with aviation. The sector’s lobbying effort to slash the EU carbon pricing could find an ally in the new Italo-German team-up to promote competitiveness. The German government last year announced a plan to cut national aviation taxes — with the call made during the COP30 global climate conference, something that angered the German Greens. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and German Federal Chancellor Friedrich Merz attend the Italy-Germany Intergovernmental Summit at Villa Doria Pamphilj. | Vincenzo Nuzzolese/LightRocket via Getty Images Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said Friday that she and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz wanted to start “a decisive change of pace … in terms of the competitiveness of our businesses.” “A certain ideological vision of the green transition has ended up bringing our industries to their knees, creating new dangerous strategic dependencies for Europe without, however, having any real impact on the global protection of the environment and nature,” she added. Her far-right coalition ally, Italian Transport Minister Matteo Salvini, has called the ETS and taxes on maritime transport and air transport “economic suicide” that “must be dismantled piece by piece.” COMMISSION SAYS NO As with the 2035 policy for cars, the European Commission is strongly defending its policy against those attacks. Apostolos Tzitzikostas, the transport commissioner, stressed the EU’s “firm commitment” to stick with aviation decarbonization policies. “Investment decisions and construction must start by 2027, or we will miss the 2030 targets. It is as simple as that,” the commissioner said in November when announcing the bloc’s new plans to boost investment into sustainable aviation and maritime fuels. Climate campaigners fought hard against the car sector’s efforts to gut 2035, and now they’re gearing up for another battle over aviation targets. “The airlines’ whining comes as no surprise — yet it is disappointing to see airlines come after such a fundamental piece of EU legislation,” said Marte van der Graaf, aviation policy officer at green NGO Transport & Environment. She was incensed about efforts to dodge the high prices set by the EU’s ETS in favor of the U.N.’s cheaper CORSIA emissions reduction scheme. Airline lobbyA4E said its members paid €2.3 billion for ETS permits last year. “By 2030, [the ETS cost] should rise up to €5 billion because the free allowances are phased out,” said Monika Rybakowska, the lobby’s policy director.  A recent study by the think tank InfluenceMap found that airlines are working to increase their impact on policymakers by aligning their positions on ETS. T&E also took aim at a recent position paper by A4E that asked the EU to postpone measures to curb non-CO2 pollution — such as nitrogen oxides and soot particles that, along with water vapor, contribute to contrails. The A4E paper said that “the scientific foundation for regulating non-CO2 effects remains insufficient” and “introducing financial liability risks misdirecting resources.” This is “an outdated excuse,” responded T&E, noting that the climate impact of contrails has been known for over 20 years.

LONDON — U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade negotiators are pushing for the U.K. to adopt American standards in a move that would derail Britain’s post-Brexit relationship with the European Union, two people familiar with the talks have told POLITICO. The U.S. is also pushing hard for the recognition of American accreditation bodies in the U.K., three other people with knowledge of the demands confirmed. The joint moves would have knock-on effects for safety-critical sectors like food, forensics, manufacturing and NHS testing, experts fear. “It’s this invisible infrastructure that no one really knows about but which keeps everyone safe — and that’s now under threat,” a person briefed on the talks told POLITICO. They, like others cited in this piece, were granted anonymity to speak freely. American negotiators have turned up the heat in trade talks with the recent suspension of the Technology Prosperity Deal, amid frustration over the pace of wider negotiations. U.K. negotiating asks on steel and Scotch whisky tariffs have also gone unanswered. Trump threatened a fresh wedge in the relationship over the weekend, vowing to impose tariffs on Britain and other European allies pushing back at his desire for the United States to own Greenland. The standards push comes as the Trump administration hollows out American watchdogs, with sweeping cuts to the Food and Drug Administration and the dismantling of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. While food standards remain a red line for the U.K. government, some figures familiar with the talks fear the U.K. could cave in on other U.S. demands. “My concern is that these red lines that have been red lines from the outset and for years are under increasing threat of being breached,” the person cited above said.   British negotiators have so far refused to back down, but U.S. negotiators “keep circling back” on these issues, another person who was briefed on the talks by both governments said. Peter Holmes, an expert on standards from the UK Trade Policy Observatory at the University of Sussex, warned that accepting U.S. demands could lead to a “race to the bottom” with the U.K. regarded as a “wild west market” internationally. A U.K. government spokesperson said: “Our historic agreement with the U.S. has already delivered for the pharma, aerospace and auto sectors, while our deal with the EU will see the removal of trade barriers including SPS, saving hundreds of millions on U.K. exports.” “We have and always will be clear that we will uphold our high food, animal welfare and environmental standards in trade deals, and negotiations will continue with both the EU and U.S. on strengthening our trading relationship,” the spokesperson added. The U.K. says it will uphold its high food, animal welfare and environmental standards in trade deals. | Geography Photos/Universal Images Group via Getty Images A spokesperson for the United States Trade Representative said the claims came from “anonymous and irrelevant sources” with “no insight into the trade discussions between the U.S. and U.K.”  The spokesperson did not contest any specific aspects of this report. They added that the two nations had successfully implemented “numerous aspects of the U.S.-U.K. EPD,” including “mutually expanding access of U.S. and U.K. beef in each other’s markets.”  “The U.S. and U.K. continue to work together constructively on finalizing remaining aspects of the EPD, including the U.K. commitment to ‘improve market access for agricultural products’ from the United States,” the spokesperson said. IMPACT ON BREXIT RESET TALKS Giving in to the U.S. demands would upset Britain’s ability to trade more closely with the EU as part of ongoing Brexit “reset” negotiations with the bloc that include alignment on food standards and carbon emissions in manufacturing. The U.K. government has “very clear red lines around all of this because they are going to do certain things with the EU,” the second person quoted above explained. “You would have thought these matters had already been well ventilated and resolved,” the person added, explaining that in talks the U.S. side “keep saying ‘why can’t you do more food standards? Why aren’t you coming closer on our side of it? Are you really sure what you’re doing with the EU is the right thing to do?’” Negotiations with the U.S. are “pretty much [in] stasis at the moment,” the same person continued. As London’s Brexit reset talks with the EU progress this year, “the possibility to have the kinds of changes that the U.S. is putting forward become much diminished when those agreements with the EU start to get over the line.” RECOGNITION OF ACCREDITATION BODIES Multiple people briefed on the trade talks claim the U.S. proposals go beyond the terms of the original U.K.-U.S. Economic Prosperity Deal agreed last May between U.S. President Donald Trump and Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer.  In addition to headline commitments to cut tariffs on cars, steel and pharmaceuticals, the wide-ranging deal included a promise to address “non-tariff barriers,” including a pledge to treat conformity assessment bodies — such as testing labs and certification groups from the other nation — in a way that is “no less favorable” than the treatment of its own.  This is an increasingly common commitment in U.K. trade deals and typically means that accreditation bodies would have the power to accredit a whole range of certification and testing providers from the other country. However, U.S. negotiators are now pushing for the recognition of disparate American accreditation bodies, which would give them the authority to approve certification, testing and verification organizations in the U.K., three people briefed on the talks confirmed. Accepting this demand would mean that the U.K.’s national accreditation body, UKAS, would no longer meet the basic requirements of membership in the European Co-operation for Accreditation, under which national accreditation bodies recognize each other’s accreditations.  U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer says he wanted the U.K. to seek “even closer alignment” with the EU. | Leon Neal/Getty Images This would put the proposed U.K.-EU agrifood deal and plans to link U.K. and EU Emissions Trading Schemes “at massive risk,” should those deals require the EU to recognize U.K. emissions verification bodies and food control laboratories, the first person cited above explained. An industry figure familiar with the ETS linkage talks said an acceptance of the changes would amount to a “watering down” of the entire carbon pricing system, adding that “every single company falling under UK ETS” would be “absolutely furious.” It could also jeopardize any future alignment with the EU in other areas such as manufactured goods, a second industry figure briefed on the negotiations said.  The U.K. government has indicated a willingness to go even further in its relationship with the EU, with U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer saying he wanted the U.K. to seek “even closer alignment” with the single market.  Beyond plans outlined in the Common Understanding last May, “there are other areas where we should consider if it’s in our interests to … align with the single market,” he told the BBC in a recent interview. “Now that needs to be considered on an issue-by-issue, sector-by-sector basis, but we’ve already done it with food and agriculture, and that will be implemented this year.” ‘RACE TO THE BOTTOM’ The U.S. operates a decentralized standards system in which accreditation is carried out by a competitive network of organizations, most of which are commercial. This is in direct contrast to the U.K.’s current model of accreditation, whereby a single, non-profit accreditation body, UKAS, oversees certification and product testing in the public interest. The UK Trade Policy Observatory’s Peter Holmes warned that adopting the U.S. system could lead to a “race to the bottom”, with UKAS pitted against American accreditation bodies. “They might have to cut corners and give up their legally-required public service obligations,” he said.  Accepting U.S. accreditation bodies would make the U.K. a “wild west market where you can’t trust anything that’s on sale in the U.K.,” he added. The U.K. government has repeatedly rejected the possibility of changes to British standards, including the possibility of accepting American chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-treated beef.  “We will not compromise on food standards,” Trade Minister Chris Bryant said in an interview with CNBC this month. “That is the beginning and end of everything I have to say on that subject. Food standards are really important. There is no compromise for us to strike there.”

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?

LONDON — The U.K. should follow Donald Trump’s example and quit the United Nations treaty that underpins global action to combat climate change, the deputy leader of Reform UK said. Richard Tice, energy spokesperson for Nigel Farage’s right-wing populist party, said the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the linked U.N. climate science body the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were “failing British voters.” Asked if the U.K. should follow the U.S. — which announced its withdrawal from the institutions, plus 64 other multilateral bodies, on Wednesday — Tice told POLITICO: “Yes I do. They are deeply flawed, unaccountable, and expensive institutions.” The 1992 UNFCCC serves as the international structure for efforts by 198 countries to slow the rate of greenhouse gas emissions. It also underpins the system of annual COP climate conferences. The U.S. will be the only country ever to leave the convention. Reform UK has led in U.K. polls for nearly a year, but the country’s next election is not expected until 2029. A theoretical U.K. exit from the UNFCCC would represent an extraordinary volteface for a country which has long boasted about global leadership on climate. Under former Conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson, the U.K. hosted COP26 in 2021. It has been one of the most active participants in recent summits under Prime Minister Keir Starmer. It was also the first major economy in the world to legislate for a net zero goal by 2050, in line with the findings of IPCC reports. Tice has repeatedly referred to the target as “net stupid zero.” The U.K. government was approached for comment on the U.S. withdrawal. Pippa Heylings, energy and net zero spokesperson for the U.K.’s centrist Liberal Democrat party, said Trump’s decision would “make the world less secure.”

BRUSSELS — Donald Trump blew up global efforts to cut emissions from shipping, and now the EU is terrified the U.S. president will do the same to any plans to tax carbon emissions from long-haul flights. The European Commission is studying whether to expand its existing carbon pricing scheme that forces airlines to pay for emissions from short- and medium-haul flights within Europe into a more ambitious effort covering all flights departing the bloc. If that happens, all international airlines flying out of Europe — including U.S. ones — would face higher costs, something that’s likely to stick in the craw of the Trump administration. “God only knows what the Trump administration will do” if Brussels expands its own Emissions Trading System to include transatlantic flights, a senior EU official told POLITICO. A big issue is how to ensure that the new system doesn’t end up charging only European airlines, which often complain about the higher regulatory burden they face compared with their non-EU rivals. The EU official said Commission experts are now “scratching their heads how you can, on the one hand, talk about extending the ETS worldwide … [but] also make sure that you have a bit of a level playing field,” meaning a system that doesn’t only penalize European carriers. Any new costs will hit airlines by 2027, following a Commission assessment that will be completed by July 1. Brussels has reason to be worried.  “Trump has made it very clear that he does not want any policies that harm business … So he does not want any environmental regulation,” said Marina Efthymiou, aviation management professor at Dublin City University. “We do have an administration with a bullying behavior threatening countries and even entities like the European Commission.” The new U.S. National Security Strategy, released last week, closely hews to Trump’s thinking and is scathing on climate efforts. “We reject the disastrous ‘climate change’ and ‘Net Zero’ ideologies that have so greatly harmed Europe, threaten the United States, and subsidize our adversaries,” it says. In October, the U.S. led efforts to prevent the International Maritime Organization from setting up a global tax to encourage commercial fleets to go green. The no-holds-barred push was personally led by Trump and even threatened negotiators with personal consequences if they went along with the measure. In October, the U.S. led efforts to prevent the International Maritime Organization from setting up a global tax aimed at encouraging commercial fleets to go green. | Nicolas Tucat/AFP via Getty Images This “will be a parameter to consider seriously from the European Commission” when it thinks about aviation, Efthymiou said. The airline industry hopes the prospect of a furious Trump will scare off the Commission. “The EU is not going to extend ETS to transatlantic flights because that will lead to a war,” said Willie Walsh, director general of the International Air Transport Association, the global airline lobby, at a November conference in Brussels. “And that is not a war that the EU will win.” EUROPEAN ETS VS. GLOBAL CORSIA In 2012, the EU began taxing aviation emissions through its cap-and-trade ETS, which covers all outgoing flights from the European Economic Area — meaning EU countries plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. Switzerland and the U.K. later introduced similar schemes. In parallel, the U.N.’s International Civil Aviation Organization was working on its own carbon reduction plan, the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation. Given that fact, Brussels delayed imposing the ETS on flights to non-European destinations. The EU will now be examining the ICAO’s CORSIA to see if it meets the mark. “CORSIA lets airlines pay pennies for pollution — about €2.50 per passenger on a Paris-New York flight,” said Marte van der Graaf, aviation policy officer at green NGO Transport & Environment. Applying the ETS on the same route would cost “€92.40 per passenger based on 2024 traffic.” There are two reasons for such a big difference: the fourfold higher price for ETS credits compared with CORSIA credits, and the fact that “under CORSIA, airlines don’t pay for total emissions, but only for the increase above a fixed 2019 baseline,” Van der Graaf explained. “Thus, for a Paris-New York flight that emits an average of 131 tons of CO2, only 14 percent of emissions are offset under CORSIA. This means that, instead of covering the full 131 tons, the airline only has to purchase credits for approximately 18 tons.” Efthymiou, the professor, warned the price difference is projected to increase due to the progressive withdrawal of free ETS allowances granted to aviation. The U.N. scheme will become mandatory for all U.N. member countries in 2027 but will not cover domestic flights, including those in large countries such as the U.S., Russia and China. KEY DECISIONS By July 1, the Commission must release a report assessing the geographical coverage and environmental integrity of CORSIA. Based on this evaluation, the EU executive will propose either extending the ETS to all departing flights from the EU starting in 2027 or maintaining it for intra-EU flights only. Opposition to the ETS in the U.S. dates back to the Barack Obama administration. | Pete Souza/White House via Getty Images According to T&E, CORSIA doesn’t meet the EU’s climate goals. “Extending the scope of the EU ETS to all departing flights from 2027 could raise an extra €147 billion by 2040,” said Van der Graaf, noting that this money could support the production of greener aviation fuels to replace fossil kerosene. But according to Efthymiou, the Commission might decide to continue the current exemption “considering the very fragile political environment we currently have with a lunatic being in power,” she said, referring to Trump. “CORSIA has received a lot of criticism for sure … but the importance of CORSIA is that for the first time ever we have an agreement,” she added. “Even though that agreement might not be very ambitious, ICAO is the only entity with power to put an international regulation [into effect].” Regardless of what is decided in Brussels, Washington is prepared to fight. Opposition to the ETS in the U.S. dates back to the Barack Obama administration, when then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sent a letter to the Commission opposing its application to American airlines. During the same term, the U.S. passed the EU ETS Prohibition Act, which gives Washington the power to prohibit American carriers from paying for European carbon pricing. John Thune, the Republican politician who proposed the bill, is now the majority leader of the U.S. Senate.

LONDON — The government is preparing a bill that will give overarching powers to allow the U.K. to align with the EU over a wide suite of areas to give legal shape to their “reset” deal with the bloc. One U.K. official said a bill is due to be introduced to parliament this spring or summer, establishing a legal framework for U.K.-EU alignment. These potential areas include food standards, animal welfare, pesticide use, the EU’s electricity market and carbon emissions trading, according to the official, who was granted anonymity to speak freely about the plans. The bill would create a new framework for the U.K. government and devolved administrations to adopt new EU laws when they are passed in Brussels. It raises the prospect that new EU laws in agreed areas will effectively transfer to the U.K. statute book automatically, with Britain retaining the power to veto them in specific cases. U.K. officials stress that the exact form the powers will take has not yet been decided. The U.K. is currently negotiating a Brexit “reset” agreement with the bloc, including an agrifood deal, plans to link its emissions trading system with the EU’s and reintegrating electricity markets. Britain is still seeking carve-outs as part of these deals, the official said, making it too early to say exactly where alignment will happen and what it will look like. News of the scope of the bill comes after EU Relations Minister Nick Thomas-Symonds said in August last year that parliament would “rightly have a say” on alignment with new EU rules in a speech delivered to The Spectator. He has insisted that the U.K. will still “have decision-shaping rights when new EU policies are made.” The U.K. government has been approached for comment.

Europe’s night trains were hailed as a pillar of the EU’s green-mobility future, but the promised renaissance has stalled — leaving a handful of cash-strapped startups trying to keep the dream alive. The national rail giants best placed to invest see night services as money losers, while the newcomers hungry to run them can’t finance the expensive, highly specialized equipment. “The demand is there,” said Chris Engelsman, co‑founder of startup operator European Sleeper. “People like night trains. They think they’re better for the environment or more efficient — that’s not the issue. The problem is the limitations and bureaucracy of the railway system.” It’s a stalemate that has frozen the revival. “Those that could act don’t want to — and those that want to don’t have the means,” said railway expert Jon Worth. “Try booking a night train months ahead. You can’t. Demand is through the roof. But customer demand doesn’t drive railway behavior.” What does drive it are balance sheets — and most night services lose money. By definition, sleeper trains can run only once per night per trainset, need extra staff on board, and require rolling stock that is highly specific and very expensive. “A coach costs around €2 million, that’s pretty expensive,” said Thibault Constant, founder of French startup Nox Mobility. “Investors look at the history of night trains and say: ‘No way this can be profitable.’” European Sleeper, a Belgian-Dutch company, currently runs with carriages “basically saved from the scrap heap,” Worth noted. “You can’t scale up night trains without building more night trains,” he added. “But no one is making those orders.” Constant described the same chicken‑and‑egg problem. “There is no proof that night trains can be commercially successful right now, so investors don’t believe in the product. We have to show them that we can do better than existing operators — which is a challenge, but there is a way to do so.” Even Austrian state railway operator ÖBB — Europe’s most committed night‑train operator — acknowledged the crunch. “Long delivery times for new vehicles, high personnel costs, and increased night construction sites are major challenges,” an ÖBB spokesperson said. “Night trains are a good addition to daytime rail services … and there is sufficient demand for night trains, and there is a need for more night trains. [But] the costs of operation are limiting the service offering,” they added. German railway operator Deutsche Bahn sounded the same alarm. Even if someone finds the money for new trains, actually running them is another battle. | Alex Halada/Getty Images “Under current political conditions, operating night trains poses a major economic challenge,” said Marco Kampp, DB’s head of international long‑distance transport. “Passenger trains must no longer be disadvantaged compared to air travel and cars — the niche market of night trains is particularly affected by this.” And even if someone finds the money for new trains, actually running them is another battle. Engelsman described constant operational hurdles, including last‑minute messages from rail network managers that effectively say “sorry, your train can’t run for a month,” and a general reluctance from incumbents to help newcomers. Cross‑border bureaucracy makes things worse. “Timetabling is still national,” Engelsman said. When European Sleeper tried to plan its new Brussels–Milan service, it had to negotiate with each country separately. Belgium would first assign a border time that made the whole route commercially useless; then the process had to start again from scratch. “You can’t optimize the whole stretch — you’re stuck adjusting country by country. It’s very inefficient,” he said. Over time, he added, relationships with individual staff in these organizations improve — “they like trains, they like our projects” — but the structures they work within remain slow and rigid. “It’s not the individuals. It’s the bureaucracy.” According to Worth, the promised renaissance of night trains never materialized because it wasn’t grounded in rolling stock, financing or real coordination. “There was lots of hope, but not much planning,” he said. Even the flagship Paris–Vienna route run with ÖBB fell apart once French government subsidies vanished. “[French rail operator] SNCF didn’t want to run it. The moment the subsidy disappeared, they walked away,” he said. START-UP TIME Despite all this, a new wave of operators is still trying. Startups such as European Sleeper are expanding cautiously. Nox Mobility is experimenting with leased coaches to lower capital costs and redesign how a sleeper service works — from ticketing and pricing to onboard offerings. “We’re essentially rethinking the whole ecosystem,” Constant said. For European Sleeper, Worth noted, the key question is whether it can squeeze a break‑even operation out of its patched‑together, aging trains long enough to build the financial footing needed to buy new ones. For Nox, the equation is even starker: “How does Nox get the money?” Worth said. “That’s the most important question by quite some distance.” On paper, there is a list of potential routes and projects that could form the backbone of a real revival — if the money and the trains materialize. Worth pointed to plans in Central Europe as the most realistic starting point. “If they start by focusing in Central Europe, not France and Spain but Germany and its neighbors, then they have a real chance of success,” he said. Beyond that, the picture is hazier. A proposed overnight service by the Swiss Federal Railways from Basel to Malmö will not go ahead as planned after Swiss lawmakers scrapped the funding needed to support it. There are “odds and ends,” as Worth put it: some carriage renovations in Slovakia and Poland that may or may not turn into viable services. Rail Baltica, the new north-south line through the Baltics, is supposed to host night trains to Tallinn when it opens around 2030, but, Worth noted, “no one knows where those trains are going to come from,” and he was skeptical it will happen as advertised. Constant said “it will get easier” as more private players enter the market and infrastructure managers adapt. Worth said new projects “will happen” — but only in minimal form until someone funds large‑scale carriage production. Thijmen van Reijsen, an urban mobility researcher at Radbout University, summed it up: “There’s demand. People want night trains. But for now, the problems are structural — rolling stock, funding, cooperation, infrastructure.” Even ÖBB admitted to the limits: “Night trains are a niche market and will remain so.” All of these dysfunctions can be explained, Worth concluded, “but the question is: who’s going to step up and fix it?”