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

BUDAPEST — As Hungarians awoke to a sunny national day on March 15, a question overshadowed the celebrations: Who would draw the larger crowd to the streets of Budapest? Would it be incumbent Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, still a formidable force after 16 years of uninterrupted rule? Or Péter Magyar, a less prickly opposition wild card who is bidding to bring down Orbán’s government? With less than a month to go until the April 12 election — and with Magyar’s opposition Tisza party polling about 10 points ahead of Orbán’s Fidesz — the national day festivities offered both parties a final chance to show off their strength and sway public opinion as the campaign enters its final stretch. “Everything is ready for the biggest event ever,” Magyar had said the evening before. “This will be the day when size truly matters,” he added Sunday morning. Meanwhile, as followers started gathering after 9 a.m. to march for Orbán, the Fidesz-aligned Magyar Nemzet newspaper said that “the crowd is huge.” Small wonder, then, that the two sides disputed who had attracted the bigger crowd. The Fidesz “peace march” rally at Kossuth Square, next to the Hungarian Parliament building. | Max Griera/POLITICO Fidesz shared data from the Hungarian Tourism Agency, which reported that Orbán’s “peace march” had drawn 180,000 people to the opposition’s 150,000; the agency, which is controlled by the government, based its estimate on how many cell phones had been connected to antennas near the respective rallies. But people close to Tisza estimated for POLITICO that their party had mobilized 350,000 attendees. DEFENDING HUNGARY AGAINST BRUSSELS, KYIV Hungary’s March 15 national day commemorates its revolution and war of independence to escape the rule of Austria’s Habsburg monarchy from 1848-1849. Both parties used the occasion to drive home their campaign slogans and espouse patriotism and national identity. Orbán’s Fidesz has focused on the war in Ukraine and Iran, portraying itself as the party of security but avoiding domestic issues. Tisza has campaigned on a platform of complete regime change. The competing events both featured national anthems and folk songs, most prominently “Nemzeti Dal” by Sándor Petőfi — an iconic poem and a cornerstone of Hungarian literature that is widely credited with helping spark the Hungarian Revolution in 1848. And both Orbán and Magyar called on Hungarians to rise and defend the country just like they did in 1956 against the Soviet occupation — the former invoking Ukraine as the threat, the latter another Orbán government after 16 years of uninterrupted rule. Orbán addressed his supporters beside the parliament in Kossuth Square, where they had marched from the Buda quarter of the capital across the Danube River. “We will not be a Ukrainian colony,” was the motto on the placards protesters carried, a slogan that Orbán had echoed on social media the day before. Budapest is embroiled in a furious dispute with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy over the cessation of Russian oil flows across Ukraine and a stalled €90 billion EU loan to fund Kyiv’s war effort. Orbán has framed his rival Magyar as a Brussels proxy who will do as the EU and Ukraine say. “I said no to the Soviets,” Orbán told the rally. “I said no to Brussels, to the war, and I’m standing before the vote now, together with you, saying no to the Ukrainians.” Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó took the stage to claim that Brussels, Kyiv and Berlin “want to bring Europe to war” and “want the money of Europeans to be given to the Ukrainians.” Near Kossuth Square, Bajcsy-Zsilinszky Boulevard was at a standstill with dozens of buses still disgorging supporters from the countryside, who had been brought in to offset Budapest’s predominantly opposition voters. High school student Mikolt, 16, and her stay-at-home mother Daniela, 42, were arriving from the village of Eger in the northeast of the country. They said they supported Orbán because he is keeping Hungary out of the war in Ukraine and because he supports Christianity, the family and Hungarians. Tisza volunteers Balázs and Zsigmund on Andrássy Avenue before the march starts. | Max Griera/POLITICO Magyar is a “narcissist,” Daniela said, who “behaves like a wounded little child who no longer has any power” since leaving Fidesz in February 2024. “RUSSIANS GO HOME” A 20-minute walk away, the Tisza marchers were beginning to assemble. Volunteers Zsigmund and Balázs, both 18, agreed to talk with POLITICO, despite having received a caution from their team leader not to speak with media, as Orbán’s “propagandists” could use what they said against the party. Describing themselves as “patriots,” the two students are counting on Magyar to improve the country’s health care and education systems, which they said have been battered by years of misrule. “Orbán replaced skilled people with loyalists. Tisza has many professionals and they have a program, Fidesz hasn’t had a program for years,” Zsigmund said. For Balazs, who plans to study economics at a foreign university, the election is existential — he says he may not come back if Orbán wins. “I would prefer to come back, definitely, but let’s see what happens.” Once it gets going, the Tisza march fills the 2.5 kilometer-long Andrassy Avenue, heading for Heroes Square, where Magyar is due to speak at 17:00. On stage, the opposition leader promises to fix Hungary’s health care system, restore billions of euros in EU funding that has been frozen due to rule-of-law concerns regarding Orbán’s government, improve pensions and child support, boost the economy and fight corruption. Evoking Hungary’s “other” revolution — the 1956 uprising that killed 3,000 civilians — Magyar said Hungarians need to rise up again to regain their “freedom” and protect their rights. Framing the current government as an occupier that represses its “subjects,” he accused Orbán of allowing Russian agents in the country to meddle in the election. “Russians go home!” the crowd chanted, repeating: “It’s over!”

Europe stands at a crossroads. Cancer cases continue to rise, health systems are under visible strain and critical gaps in care remain unaddressed. Yet, just as the need for action grows more urgent, political attention to health — and to cancer — is fading. Now is the moment for Europe to build on hard-won work and ensure patients across the continent benefit from the care they deserve. As negotiations open on the EU’s next long-term budget (2028-34), priorities are shifting toward fiscal restraint, competitiveness and security. Health — once firmly on the political radar — is slipping down the agenda. This shift comes at a critical moment: Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan, a €4 billion flagship effort to turn the tide against cancer, is set to end in 2027 with no clear commitment to renew its mandate. With cancer incidence rising and systems struggling, letting Europe’s cancer framework fade would be a costly mistake. Across Europe, patients, clinicians and advocates are sounding the alarm. > With cancer incidence rising and systems struggling, letting Europe’s cancer > framework fade would be a costly mistake. “With 2.7 million cancer diagnoses and 1.3 million deaths each year, Europe must reach higher for cancer care, not step back,” says Dr. Isabel Rubio, president of the European Cancer Organisation. “Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan has set a new course, but sustained funding is now essential to protect progress and close the gaps patients still face.” Protecting the status quo is not enough. If the EU is serious about patient-centered cancer care, it must make a firm commitment to cancer and confront long-overlooked gaps, namely one with profound impact but minimal political attention: cancer-related malnutrition. The invisible crisis undermining cancer care Nutrition remains one of the most glaring blind spots in European cancer care. Cancer-related malnutrition affects up to seven out of ten patients, driven by the disease and its treatments.1 Increased nutritional needs — combined with symptoms such as nausea, fatigue and loss of appetite — mean that many patients cannot meet requirements through normal diet alone. The result is avoidable weight loss that weakens resilience, delays treatment and undermines outcomes.2 A new pan-European study by Cancer Patient Europe, spanning 12 countries, underscores the scale of this silent crisis: despite widespread nutritional challenges, support remains inconsistent and insufficient. Only 20 percent of patients reported receiving a nutritional assessment during treatment, and just 14 percent said their nutritional status was monitored over time — a clear mismatch between needs and the care provided. > If the EU is serious about patient-centered cancer care, it must make a firm > commitment to cancer and confront long-overlooked gaps, namely one with > profound impact but minimal political attention: cancer-related malnutrition. International authorities have repeatedly raised concerns about these gaps. The WHO Regional Office for Europe has warned that without proper training, healthcare providers lack the tools to screen, diagnose and address cancer-related malnutrition — highlighting a systemic weakness that continues to be overlooked. Patients themselves understand these shortcomings and seek more information and support. Most recognize nutrition as essential to their wellbeing, yet only 26 percent say they received guidance from their care team. As Antonella Cardone, CEO of Cancer Patient Europe, stresses: “Too many patients are left to face nutritional challenges alone, even when these difficulties directly affect their ability to cope with treatment.” She continues: “Malnutrition is not peripheral to their care. It is central. Addressing malnutrition can contribute to better treatment outcomes and recovery.” Without systematic action, malnutrition will continue to erode patients’ resilience — a preventable barrier that demands attention. A viable yet under-used solution Yet, the tools to address malnutrition already exist. In cancer care, systematic nutritional support has been shown to improve treatment tolerance and support recovery. Medical nutrition — taken orally or through tube feeding — is a science-based intervention designed for patients who cannot meet their nutritional needs through diet alone. Research shows it can reduce complications, limit treatment interruptions and help patients regain strength throughout their cancer journey. “Precision oncology is not only about targeting tumors, but about treating the whole patient. When nutritional needs are overlooked, the effectiveness of cancer therapies is compromised from the very start of the clinical journey,” says Alessandro Laviano, head of the Clinical Nutrition Unit at Sapienza University Hospital Sant’Andrea in Rome. The case is equally compelling for health systems. Malnourished patients face more infections, more complications and longer hospital stays — driving an estimated €17 billion in avoidable costs across Europe each year. In other words, tackling malnutrition is not only clinically essential; it is fiscally smart, precisely the kind of reform that strengthens systems under pressure. > Malnourished patients face more infections, more complications and longer > hospital stays — driving an estimated €17 billion in avoidable costs across > Europe each year. Ultimately, the challenge is not the absence of tools, but their inconsistent use. Nutritional care has proven benefits for patients and for health systems alike, yet it remains unevenly integrated in cancer care across Europe. To change this, the EU needs a clear policy framework that makes nutritional care a standard part of cancer care. This means ensuring routine malnutrition screening, equipping healthcare professionals with the practical skills to act and guaranteeing equal access to medical nutrition for eligible patients. Keep cancer high on the agenda and close the nutritional gap Europe has both the opportunity and the responsibility to keep cancer high on the political agenda. A more equitable and effective approach to cancer care is within reach, but only if EU leaders resist scaling back ambition in the next budget cycle. Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan, a major political and financial commitment, has strengthened prevention, screening, workforce training and patient rights. Yet the mission is far from complete. Cancer continues to affect millions of families and places a significant and rising burden on European health systems. Protecting progress means addressing persistent gaps in care. As the EU pushes for earlier detection, integrated pathways and stronger resilience, nutritional care must be part of that effort, not left on the margins. With such a patient-first approach — screening early, equipping clinicians and ensuring equitable access to medical nutrition — Europe can improve outcomes and further strengthen health systems. Now is the moment to build on hard-won progress and accelerate results for patients across the region. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- References 1. Ryan AM, et al. 2019. https://www.danone.com/newsroom/stories/malnutrition-in-cancer.html 2. Ipsos European Oncology Patient Survey, data on file, 2023. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Danone * The political advertisement is linked to advocacy on EU health and budgetary policy. It calls for sustained EU funding and political commitment to renew and strengthen Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan in the upcoming 2028–34 budget cycle, and urges integration of medical nutrition into EU cancer policy frameworks. The article explicitly addresses EU leaders and institutions, advocating policy and funding decisions to close gaps in cancer care across Member States. More information here.

LONDON — Reform UK is not a one-man band anymore. At least, that’s what Nigel Farage wants you to think. The leader of Britain’s populist right-wing party named four politicians to lead on key policy areas on Tuesday, after months of deliberate ambiguity about who does what in his top team. At a made-for-TV event in Westminster’s Church House — where Tony Blair addressed Labour MPs after his 1997 landslide — Farage promised an economic “super department” modelled on German rebuilding after World War 2, led by his deputy Richard Tice. Recent Conservative Party defectors Robert Jenrick and Suella Braverman will lead on the Treasury brief and education, skills and equalities respectively, while millionaire donor Zia Yusuf, Reform’s head of policy, will focus on home affairs and migration. Farage gave all four “shadow” government job titles, despite British convention reserving these only for the party of parliamentary opposition (the Conservatives). But his upstart party’s poll lead — and instability in the center-left Labour government — mean pressure has been growing for him to color in the lines of his plan for Britain. The message so far embodies the tension at the heart of Reform’s pitch to voters — be radical enough to inspire right-leaning voters but safe enough to keep their vote; give enough detail to look serious but not tie itself up in knots; and be Farage-focused enough to benefit from his stardust without turning into a one-man show. Here, POLITICO looks at what today’s line-up shows about Farage’s plan for government. 1) REFORM IS STILL MORE A CAMPAIGNING FORCE THAN A GOVERNMENT-IN-WAITING Farage insists Britain could get a snap general election in 2027, but his choice of priorities today — zoning in on hot-button issues such as migration, net zero and gender — shows a party focused more on contentious debate than the quiet, boring work of government. This is in stark contrast to Labour, which tried to avoid ideological spats in 2023 and 2024 in favor of technocratic preparations for power (which Labour officials later complained were a disaster). Much of this is just basic political strategy. Polls show Reform’s lead, while still substantial, has narrowed in recent months and there are more votes in migration and economic policies than in having spokespeople on foreign affairs or defense (both roles remain unfilled). Some things will also take time. Reform’s policy teams have long been thinly-staffed, though the party hired 25 new staff at its London HQ who started in January, said two people briefed on the detail (and granted anonymity to speak freely). A third person briefed on the details said the party is planning to work up detailed energy and business policies in time for its conference in September. But ultimately, Farage focuses on issues such as migration and supposed liberal creep because he feels strongly about them, and has done so for decades. His choices today show Britain will have a more radical, ideologically-driven government if he is prime minister. 2) THE RUBBER WILL START HITTING THE ROAD Farage and his allies announced a blizzard of policy ideas, but without firm decisions or timings, and questions will now grow about how Reform will get there and when. Tice said he wants GDP growth of 3 to 4 percent per year and to bury “net stupid zero” climate rules. He vowed to work up an industrial strategy focused on areas such as steel and car-making, and promised a “British sovereign wealth fund,” with more details to be unveiled next week. All this will require trade-offs. Tice wants to strip away regulation; the property tycoon questioned in November whether 30,000 pages of EU-derived financial sector rules could be stripped back to 100 pages. But at the same time, Reform does not rule out state involvement in strategic heavy industries. (Farage denied this would be “socialism.”) Likewise, Jenrick said taxes are “clearly too high” and promised to “build an economy that serves alarm clock Britain” — people who get up early for work — but was thin on the detail of any specific tax cuts. Fundamental questions about the shape of policy or the economy under Reform have yet to be answered. Four groups are due to finish work in May on regulation, growth capital, pensions and savings, and tax. Farage and Tice have toyed with the idea of scrapping the “triple lock” (which guarantees large increases in the state pension) but have not reached a conclusion. Braverman said 50 percent of young people should enter manual trades, while Tice has suggested a complete overhaul of pensions for public sector workers; these policies are yet to be fleshed out. At the same time, Farage’s appointees have their hands full — especially Tice, whose theoretical super-department would cover business, trade, energy and housing policy. He is also still in charge of Reform’s cost-cutting efforts in local councils. Some basic questions about personnel remain unanswered, too. Yusuf did not clarify at Tuesday’s event whether his role as “head of policy” remains intact. And as neither an MP nor a member of the House of Lords, Yusuf — a tech-investing millionaire — will not be required to declare his outside interests while running Reform’s home affairs policy, which could lead to more scrutiny of him personally. 3) FARAGE IS FIGHTING HARD IN THE CULTURE WARS Farage and his allies continue to take a leaf out of U.S. President Donald Trump’s book, doling out hardline policies and rhetoric on contentious issues — and picking strategic fights with journalists. Yusuf reiterated Reform’s plan for mass deportations, calling recent immigration the “most profound betrayal of the British electorate in history,” claiming people have “literally died” as a result. He promised that the U.K. would not just leave the European Convention on Human Rights, but “derogate from every international treaty that would otherwise then be used to frustrate and upend deportations.” That could be a long list. Braverman said “social transitioning” for gender-questioning children — where they change their pronouns, clothes or name — would be “absolutely banned in all schools, no ifs, no buts.” She also said Reform would abolish the equalities department “on day one,” repeal the 2010 Equality Act and abolish the “pernicious, divisive notion of protected characteristics,” which set down the terms of workplace discrimination in law. While these policies bear similarities with the Conservative Party, they are designed to go a step further and show that Reform is serious about tearing up many of the agreed-upon rules that have underpinned British policy and politics for decades. 4) … BUT HE’S ALSO DESPERATE TO WIN VOTERS’ TRUST Reform’s whole strategy on the economy is to reassure voters that it can be credible. Farage tore up £90 billion of promised tax cuts from his party’s 2024 manifesto in the name of fiscal credibility, despite saying today that he wants to upend the “prevailing economic orthodoxy” of the last few decades. The Conservative Party sensed this weakness last fall and moved to position itself as the reliable choice on the economy. Reform strategists know that it is one of the Tories’ advantages in polling, and a vulnerability in their own reputation that must be patched. They will partly know this because Jenrick himself was a prominent Tory until only a few weeks ago. The new “shadow chancellor” — who will re-state his own reassurance message in a press conference on Wednesday — said in September that he was “terrified” of a financial crash on the scale of 2008. Today, he promised a “government in waiting that can be trusted with the economy” and will work up policy in conversation with business. Hence, the details of any tax cuts under Reform remain vague and will be a key point of tension if Farage ever enters Downing Street. The leader said today that he “might” support tax breaks for people who have “quite a few children.” If he were PM, that sort of comment would lead news bulletins for days. Tice has called for “mad ideas” from the business community to support his deregulation drive. There are other areas where Reform wants to reassure. In her vision of the education system, Braverman promoted the Michaela Community School in north-west London, which the Tories have repeatedly looked to for inspiration. And Farage has long distanced himself from the far-right activist Tommy Robinson, knowing of his toxicity with center-ground voters. Perhaps the biggest bid at reassurance is hauling in former Tories. Jenrick and Braverman defected recently. Thatcherite Tice was a Conservative until 2019 and Yusuf only left the party in 2024. There could be more defectors to come, given the defense and foreign affairs jobs have been conspicuously left open. 5) THE ‘ONE-MAN BAND’ CHARGE IS STICKING Farage used the event to show that his party will have “a little bit less of me,” in his words: “If I was hit by a bus tomorrow, Reform has its own brand, Reform has its own identity.” Yet Farage has always struggled to shake off his own fame and done little to dispel it. Of the five lecterns arranged in a V-shape, his was the most prominent, central and closest to the audience. He repeatedly answered questions that were directed at his colleagues, and joked that if they are “disloyal,” they “won’t be here very long.” While Farage is more an electoral strategist than a deep policy thinker, some believe his picks simply reinforce his dominance over his party (for now). For example, Yusuf has so far focused much of his energy on tech and economic policy, while Jenrick has not held an economic brief for several years. One senior figure involved in Reform said of Jenrick’s appointment: “It’s a clear sign by Nigel that he doesn’t want an imperial chancellor like Gordon Brown or George Osborne. This is a statement that growth policy is going to be driven out of the business department.” There are plenty more appointments to come. But quite simply, there won’t be room in the spotlight for everyone — and much of that spotlight is taken up by Farage himself.  James Orr, a senior advisor to Farage, perhaps put it best last September, saying: “Don’t underestimate how much effect a small band of dedicated people in the cockpit of the nation can do.” That cockpit just got a little bigger; now Reform just has to decide who is at the controls. Noah Keate and Andrew McDonald contributed reporting.

LONDON — Nigel Farage announced the key members of Reform UK’s “shadow cabinet” in an effort to present his insurgent populist party as the real government-in-waiting. Farage has long been his party’s most high-profile figure, but said on Tuesday morning he wants to underscore that the party is not merely a one-man band. With only eight MPs, Reform UK is not the official opposition, a position held by the Conservatives, which gets to name a shadow cabinet. But Robert Jenrick is being dubbed “shadow chancellor” by Reform. He defected from the Conservatives to Reform UK last month, and leapfrogs both the party’s Deputy Leader Richard Tice and its Head of Policy Zia Yusuf for the role. Jenrick is expected to deliver a speech in the City of London on Wednesday to outline his economic agenda. At an event in London Tuesday, he decried what he called “decades of mismanagement” of the U.K. economy and pledged to “oppose the wrecking ball that is [U.K. Chancellor] Rachel Reeves. Tice, who also leads Reform’s government efficiency efforts in local authorities, bagged the consolation prize of running a new department of business, trade, and energy, as well as becoming deputy prime minister, should Reform emerge victorious at the next general election. He said the department would have a “total focus on growth and prosperity” and would end the net zero energy agenda in favor of more use of offshore oil and gas. A sovereign wealth fund is also being promised to help re-industrialize the U.K. Yusuf was appointed “shadow home secretary,” responsible for developing the party’s immigration and crime policies, while former Conservative Home Secretary Suella Braverman — another defector from the Tories — was appointed “shadow education and skills secretary.” Despite having just eight MPs, four of whom defected from the Tories since the last election, Farage’s populist outfit consistently leads the opinion polls ahead of Labour and the Conservatives. Bethany Dawson contributed to this report.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson, a civil rights activist known for his rousing oratory who became the first African American candidate to have a plausible path to winning the presidency, has died. He was 84. Because of declining health, Jackson stepped down as the leader of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition in July 2023. In the summer of 2024, as Democrats gathered to back Kamala Harris’ candidacy, Jackson received a standing ovation when he was wheeled on stage at the party’s convention in Chicago. The Baptist minister pulled in 3.3 million votes in the 1984 Democratic primaries and 6.9 million in the 1988 contests, drawing far more votes than any Black candidate had at that point in U.S. history and making his Rainbow Coalition a legitimate force in the Democratic Party. He also carved a transformative grassroots path through the primaries that would be emulated in various forms by other candidates in Democratic primaries over the years, including Bernie Sanders and Barack Obama, who would go on to realize Jackson’s ambition of becoming the first Black president. “People forget about this,” Sanders, the Vermont senator, said in 2015 before the Iowa caucuses, “but Barack Obama would not be president today if Jesse Jackson didn’t come to Iowa. That was a guerrilla-type campaign that clearly didn’t have resources but had incredible energy.” Jackson particularly appealed to minority voters who had long been underrepresented or totally ignored. “When I look out at this convention,” he told the 1988 Democratic National Convention, “I see the face of America, red, yellow, brown, black and white. We are all precious in God’s sight — the real rainbow coalition.” Jackson’s positions occasionally put him at odds with longtime Democratic voters, but his campaigns galvanized some people who detested mainstream politics. “Even though he did not win the Democratic Party presidential nomination,” Marxist activist Angela Davis wrote in an introduction to her autobiography, “Jesse Jackson conducted a truly triumphant campaign, one that confirmed and further nurtured progressive thought patterns among the people of our country.” Before his presidential bids, Jackson was a civil rights activist and organizer who worked with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and founded Operation PUSH, an organization designed to improve economic opportunities for Black people and other minorities. In later years, Jackson was an all-purpose activist, jumping from crisis to crisis with seemingly boundless energy. He‘d be enthusiastically welcomed in impoverished neighborhoods that terrified others, in difficult situations that no other politician wanted any part of. His impact was also felt internationally, particularly as a supporter of Nelson Mandela and those who worked to topple apartheid in South Africa. “Jackson had come to see himself as America’s racial traffic cop and ambassador. All racial cases seemed to flow eventually to Jesse Jackson — as he preferred. If they didn’t, he often flowed to them,” wrote Mike Kelly in “Color Lines: The Troubled Dreams of Racial Harmony in an American Town,” his 1995 book. Activism was his life’s blood. “Gandhi had to act. Mandela had to act. Dr. King had to march,” Jackson said in a Chicago speech in 2002. “Dr. King suffered and sacrificed. We must honor that tradition. We must use the pitter-patter of our marching feet and go forward.” Aiming to inspire, Jackson frequently recited variations of a poem called “I am — Somebody!” written in the 1950s by the Rev. William Holmes Borders Sr. On “Sesame Street“ in 1972, Jackson began: “I am. Somebody! I am. Somebody! I may be poor. But I am. Somebody. I may be young, But I am. Somebody.“ The children on the PBS show shouted the words back at him. They were neither the first nor the last to do so. Jackson was born Jesse Louis Burns on Oct. 8, 1941, in Greenville, South Carolina, to Helen Burns, a high school student. “Born in a three-room house, bathroom in the backyard, slop jar by the bed, no hot and cold running water,” he told the 1988 Democratic National Convention. “Jesse Jackson is my third name. I’m adopted,” he said in that speech. “When I had no name, my grandmother gave me her name. My name was Jesse Burns until I was 12. So I wouldn’t have a blank space, she gave me a name to hold me over. I understand when nobody knows your name. I understand when you have no name.“ At Greenville’s segregated Sterling High School, he was the class president; in 1960, he took part in a sit-in at the public library. Jackson went to the University of Illinois to play football but transferred to North Carolina A&T, a historically Black college where he played quarterback and was elected class president. After graduating with a degree in sociology, he became an organizer for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and attended the Chicago Theological Seminary. He was ordained as a minister in 1968. Deeply segregated Chicago was a tough nut to crack, as it was in the grip of an entrenched Democratic Party machine led by Mayor Richard J. Daley. When Jackson arrived, he showed up at the mayor‘s office with a letter of introduction but left empty-handed. According to “Boss: Richard J. Daley of Chicago” by Chicago journalist Mike Royko: “Daley told him to see his ward committeeman, and if he did some precinct work, rang doorbells, hustled up some votes, there might be a government job for him. Maybe something like taking coins at a tollway booth.” That was clearly not what Jackson had in mind. Instead, Jackson became the leader of SCLC’s newly created Operation Breadbasket, which pushed businesses located in Black communities to employ Black people and invest in the community. He was also a highly visible presence in King’s Chicago Freedom Movement in 1966. SCLC veteran Andrew Young later wrote in his autobiography “An Easy Burden“: “Jesse’s model for leadership was the traditional Baptist preacher. He was eager for the leadership mantle. We didn’t know exactly what was driving Jesse, but Martin appreciated Jesse’s desire to lead and encouraged it.“ While critical of Jackson’s ambition and ego, Young wrote that Operation Breadbasket “achieved excellent results by bringing economic strength to the black ghetto over a period of several years.” As a Christian activist in the civil rights movement, Jackson said of King: “He was the pilot of the plane, but we were the ground crew.” On April 4, 1968, Jackson witnessed King’s assassination in Memphis. King was shot to death as he stood on the balcony of Room 306 at the Lorraine Motel. At that moment, King was talking to Jackson and Memphis musician Ben Branch, who were waiting in the parking lot to join King and others for dinner at the home of the Rev. Samuel Billy Kyles. Jackson claimed to have cradled King in his arms before he died, an assertion at odds with eyewitness accounts. (It was Marrell McCollough who grabbed a towel off a cleaning cart to try to stanch King’s bleeding; the Rev. Ralph Abernathy then took over at King’s side.) Five days later, Jackson walked with other movement leaders next to the mule-drawn farm wagon that carried King’s casket through the streets of Atlanta to Morehouse College. Abernathy succeeded King atop the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. In 2018, Jackson said King’s assassination still haunted him whenever he returned to Memphis. “Every time I go back, it pulls a scab off and the wound is still raw,” Jackson told CNN. “Every time, the trauma of the incident. His lying there. Blood everywhere. It hurts all the time.” Along with Abernathy and the widow Coretta Scott King, Jackson carried on with King’s planned Poor People’s Campaign for economic justice in Washington in the spring of 1968. But the movement became increasingly fragmented. At odds with Abernathy, Jackson left the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in 1971. “Without King’s powers of mediation and persuasion, rifts had deepened between the two men who inherited the largest pieces of King’s mantle,” Time magazine wrote of them in January 1972. Jackson then launched a variation of Operation Breadbasket in Chicago called Operation PUSH, which stood for People United to Save (later Serve) Humanity. “Despite precarious finances,“ James Ralph wrote in “The Encyclopedia of Chicago,” “Operation PUSH was active.” Ralph added: “It held rousing weekly meetings at its Hyde Park headquarters to energize its supporters, which included both black and white Chicagoans. It pressured major companies to hire more African Americans and to extend business ties with the black community. And in 1976, it launched PUSH-Excel, a program designed to inspire inner-city teenagers across the country to work hard and to stay out of trouble.” Operation PUSH utilized strategic boycotts, including one of Anheuser-Busch in 1983, designed to increase minority hiring. These boycotts elevated Jackson’s national profile. Jackson’s organization also spotlighted high-achieving African Americans as role models. In 1973, for instance, Operation PUSH hosted Hank Aaron as a speaker as the baseball superstar chased the sport’s all-time record for home runs set by Babe Ruth. Aaron biographer Howard Bryant described the scene in “The Last Hero.” “When we look at Hank,” Jackson said, “there’s something on the outside in his presence that tells us that we can achieve, and because he’s just like us, there’s something on the inside that tells us we deserve to achieve, and if he can, any man can.” In November 1983, Jackson declared his candidacy for president, becoming the second African American after New York Rep. Shirley Chisholm in 1972 to mount a potentially viable major-party bid. It was only months after Chicago had unexpectedly elected Harold Washington to be the city’s first Black mayor. That election was as mean and ugly as elections get, but Washington’s supporters mounted a vigorous grassroots campaign that overcame systemic racism to win with 51.7 percent of the vote. It became a template for Jackson’s efforts. Almost immediately, though, Jackson ignited a firestorm when he referred to Jewish people as “Hymie” and New York City as “Hymietown“ in an interview with a Washington Post reporter. Jackson already had critics within the Jewish community, having embraced Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat in 1979 and called Zionism “a poisonous weed,“ but his “Hymietown” remarks threatened to derail his fledgling candidacy. “He was no longer an indication of Black-Jewish problems; he was the problem,” wrote J.J. Goldberg in “Jewish Power.” In February, Jackson apologized at a New Hampshire synagogue, saying: “However innocent and unintended, it was wrong.“ The 1984 Democratic presidential race seemed like it might end quickly, but frontrunner Walter Mondale stumbled in New Hampshire, losing to Colorado Sen. Gary Hart. As the race heated up, Jackson became a factor. “It means a victory for the boats stuck at the bottom,” he said in May after winning Louisiana. Jackson ended up with more than 3 million votes and 465 delegates, both well short of Hart and eventual nominee Mondale, but enough to make him a force to be reckoned with. In July, Mondale ruled out picking Jackson as his running mate, citing deep philosophical differences on some issues. (Mondale picked New York Rep. Geraldine Ferraro instead.) The National Rainbow Coalition grew out of the 1984 campaign. Jackson had used the phrase “Rainbow Coalition” for years — Black Panther leader Fred Hampton had launched a group by that name in 1969, months before he was shot to death by Chicago police. Jackson adopted the phrase as part of an effort to broaden his appeal for his next presidential bid. The group would later morph into the Rainbow PUSH Coalition. It soon became clear Jackson would be a much more formidable candidate in 1988. “Jesse Jackson is a serious candidate for the presidency,” The Nation wrote in April 1988. “He was always serious; it was just the political scientists and the other politicians who belittled his campaign, trivialized his efforts, and disdained his prospects. Despite the contempt and condescension of the media — or perhaps because of it — Jackson went to the most remote and isolated grass roots in the American social landscape to find the strength for a campaign that has already begun to transform politics.“ Among those endorsing him was Sanders, then the mayor of Burlington, Vermont, who helped Jackson win the state’s caucuses. After early front-runner Hart quickly fell by the wayside because of scandal, five Democrats won primaries in 1988, including Jackson and Tennessee Sen. Al Gore, who took five Southern states each on Super Tuesday in March. But both took a back seat to Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis, who dominated in other regions of the country. Jackson accumulated 1,219 delegates, second only to Dukakis. He angled unsuccessfully for the vice-presidential slot, but Texas Sen. Lloyd Bentsen got the nod instead. “Never surrender, move forward,” Jackson told the Democratic National Convention in support of Dukakis that July in Atlanta. Jackson finished his speech with a repeated exhortation: “Keep hope alive!” He did not run again in 1992, but ended up playing an important role in the race inadvertently and perhaps unhappily. At a Rainbow Coalition gathering, Democratic nominee Bill Clinton criticized racial remarks made by hip-hop artist Sister Souljah, another featured speaker. “This planned political stunt,” argued Ibram X. Kendi in his book “Stamped From The Beginning,” showed Clinton was not captive to Jackson’s wing of the party, something that Kendi said “thrilled racist voters.” Unlike Mondale in 1984 and Dukakis in 1988, Clinton won the general election. Jackson’s electoral success gave him a platform from which to launch reform efforts around the country and jump into crisis situations wherever and whenever he saw fit. One such case came in Teaneck, New Jersey, in April 1990, when Phillip Pannell, a Black teenager, was shot to death by a white police officer under questionable circumstances. Protests and unrest followed. Arriving on the scene soon thereafter, Jackson pushed for justice but also tried to dial down tensions. “When the lights go out, don’t turn on each other,” Jackson urged students at Teaneck High School, according to Kelly’s “Color Lines” book. “In the dark, turn to each other and not on each other, and then wait until morning comes.“ He added: “What is the challenge of your age? Learning to live together.” Children in need remained a focus of his. “We must invest in the formative years of these children,” Jackson said in 2013. “So we need more than a conversation. We need transportation and education and trade skill training. And that will cost. It will cost more to not do it.” He did not limit his activism to the United States, at times venturing into hostile lands, meeting with dictators such as Cuba’s Fidel Castro, Nigeria’s Ibrahim Babangida and Iraq’s Saddam Hussein to seek the release of prisoners. Perhaps no other American secured the release of so many people trapped in places they didn’t wish to be. Jackson vigorously opposed apartheid in South Africa, noting the parallels between the American civil rights movement and the efforts to upend the existing order in South Africa. ”Whatever you do to protest this evil system does not go without notice to those it is being done to,” South African Bishop Desmond Tutu told Jackson about his activism in December 1984. Jackson, in his own community, remained a symbol of what was possible. In Derrick Bell’s 1992 book “Faces at the Bottom of the Well,” one of the characters likened the inspirational impact of Jackson in the African American community to that of a Chicago basketball superstar. “With Jackson still active,” Bell’s character says, “we can expect some more Michael Jordan-type moves, political slam dunks in which he does the impossible and looks good while doing it.” In December 1995, his son Jesse Jr. was elected to fill a vacancy in Congress from Chicago’s South Side; he resigned in 2012, but sibling Jonathan was elected to a Chicago seat in 2022. For his part, Jesse Jackson never held a government post more significant than his stint as the District of Columbia’s “shadow senator” from 1991 to 1997. During the 2008 campaign, Jesse Jackson said some unflattering things about Obama, a fellow Chicagoan whom he accused of “talking down to black people.” But on election night, Jackson was seen crying with joy in Chicago’s Grant Park after Obama was elected. He saw progress but, as always, pushed for more. “Africans are free but not equal, Americans are free but not equal,” Jackson wrote in 2013 at the time of Mandela’s death. “Ending apartheid and ending slavery was a big deal, Mandela becoming president of South Africa, [Barack] Obama becoming the first African American president was a big deal, but we have to go deeper. We were enslaved longer than we have been free and we have a long way to go.” Jackson in 2017 announced he had been diagnosed with Parkinson’s, though his son, Yusef Jackson, later said it was actually a related condition called progressive supranuclear palsy. Seven years later, the ailing Jackson was clearly moved by the response when he was wheeled on stage at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago by Yusef and Jonathan Jackson and the Rev. Al Sharpton. “The thunderous applause went on for several minutes,” wrote David Maraniss in the Washington Post. “Cameras panned to members of the audience in tears. Jackson’s face lit up, his eyes sparkling, his puffed cheeks rising from a broad smile. He lifted his hands and gave a thumbs-up sign.” Shia Kapos contributed to this report.

PARIS — French President Emmanuel Macron’s celebrations over the imminent passage of the 2026 budget will be short-lived. Once it’s approved, he’s going to be a lame duck until the presidential election of spring next year. Current and former ministers, lawmakers and political aides — including three Macron allies — told POLITICO that now that the budget fight is over and the concerns of angry citizens and jittery markets are assuaged, the whole cycle of French politics will shift to campaign mode at the expense of the dirty work of lawmaking.  First will come next month’s municipal elections, where voters in all of France’s 35,000-plus communes will elect mayors and city councils. Then all attention will flip to the race for the all-powerful presidency, Macron cannot run again due to term limits, and polls show he could be replaced by a candidate from the far-right National Rally. “It’s the end of [Macron’s] term,” a former adviser close to Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu said of the budget’s passage.   Gabriel Attal, Macron’s former prime minister who now leads the French president’s party, confirmed in an interview with French media last month that he told his troops the budget marked “the end” of Macron’s second term.  “I stand by what I said,” Attal told FranceInfo.  As president, Macron continues to exert a strong influence over foreign affairs and defense, two realms that will keep him on the world stage given the geopolitical upheaval brought on by U.S. President Donald Trump’s second term. Domestically, however, he’s been hampered by the snap election in 2024 that delivered a hung parliament.  Lecornu was only able to avoid being toppled over the passage of the budget, as his two immediate predecessors were, thanks to his political savvy, some compromises and a few bold decisions. These included pausing Macron’s flagship pension reform that raised the retirement age and going back on his promise not to use a constitutional backdoor to ram it through without a vote. “Lecornu was smart enough to make the budget phase pass and end on a high note. That’s commendable, given that [former Prime Ministers Michel] Barnier and [François] Bayrou didn’t manage to do so, and he did it with considerable skill,” said a ministerial adviser who, like others quoted in this piece, was granted anonymity to speak candidly.  But Lecornu’s decision to prioritize uncontroversial measures in the coming weeks speak to the difficulties that lie ahead.   These priorities include defining the division of power between the central government and local authorities, and streamlining and centralizing welfare payments that are currently doled out in an ad hoc fashion. Lecornu is also planning to get to work early on France’s 2027 fiscal plans to try to prevent the third budget crisis in a row.  French Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu leaves the Elysee Palace in Paris after a Cabinet meeting on Jan. 28. His decision to prioritize uncontroversial measures in the coming weeks speak to the difficulties ahead. | Mohammed Badra/EPA “There will be a presidential election in 2027. Before then, we need to agree on a bottom line which allows the country to move forward,” government spokesperson Maud Bregeon said Thursday on Sud Radio.  Lecornu has repeatedly stressed that his government should be disconnected from the race for president, blaming “partisan appetites” for both the budget crisis and the collapse of his 14-hour government, which was eventually replaced with a suite of less ambitious ministers.   But it’s ironic that some French government officials and MPs are now saying the self-described warrior-monk prime minister may have vaulted himself into the realm of presidential contender with his budget win. Mathieu Gallard, a pollster at Ipsos, said Lecornu had clearly become a more viable presidential candidate but noted that the jump from prime minister to president “is always a hard task.”  One parliamentary leader was much less sanguine. They said the same “partisan appetites” Lecornu has long warned about will likely cost him his job before voters head to the polls to choose Macron’s successor.   “[Lecornu] has few friends … And now that the budget has passed, every political group can have fun throwing him out of office to plant their flag before the next presidential election,” the leader said.  Anthony Lattier, Sarah Paillou and Elisa Bertholomey contributed to this report. 

The center-right European People’s Party is eyeing “better implementation” of the Lisbon Treaty to better prepare the EU for what it sees as historic shifts in the global balance of power involving the U.S., China and Russia, EPP leader Manfred Weber said on Saturday. Speaking at a press conference on the second day of an EPP Leaders Retreat in Zagreb, Weber highlighted the possibility of broadening the use of qualified majority voting in EU decision-making and developing a practical plan for military response if a member state is attacked. Currently EU leaders can use qualified majority voting on most legislative proposals, from energy and climate issues to research and innovation. But common foreign and security policy, EU finances and membership issues, among other areas, need a unified majority. This means that on issues such as sanctions against Russia, one country can block agreement, as happened last summer when Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico vetoed a package of EU measures against Moscow — a veto that was eventually lifted. Such power in one country’s hands is something that the EPP would like to change.  As for military solidarity, Article 42.7 of the Lisbon Treaty obliges countries to provide “aid and assistance by all the means in their power” if an EU country is attacked. For Weber, the formulation under European law is stronger than NATO’s Article 5 collective defense commitment. However, he stressed that the EU still lacks a clear operational plan for how the clause would work in practice. Article 42.7 was previously used when France requested that other EU countries make additional contributions to the fight against terrorism, following the Paris terrorist attacks in November 2015.  Such ideas were presented as the party with a biggest grouping in the European Parliament — and therefore the power to shape EU political priorities — presented its strategic focus for 2026, with competitiveness as its main priority.  Keeping the pulse on what matters in 2026  The EPP wants to unleash the bloc’s competitiveness through further cutting red tape, “completing” the EU single market, diversifying supply chains, protecting economic independence and security and promoting innovation including in AI, chips and biotech, among other actions, according to its list 2026 priorities unveiled on Saturday. On defense, the EPP is pushing for a “360-degree” security approach to safeguard Europe against growing geopolitical threats, “addressing state and non-state threats from all directions,” according to the document. The EPP is calling for enhanced European defense capabilities, including a stronger defense market, joint procurement of military equipment, and new strategic initiatives to boost readiness. The party also stressed the need for better protection against cyberattacks and hybrid threats, and robust measures to counter disinformation campaigns targeting EU institutions and societies. On migration and border security, the EPP backs tougher asylum admissibility rules, faster returns, and strengthened external borders, including reinforced Frontex operations and improved digital systems like the Entry/Exit System.  The party also urged a Demographic Strategy for Europe amid the continent’s shrinking and aging population. The text, initiated by Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ), member of the EPP, wants to see demographic considerations integrated into EU economic governance, cohesion funds, and policymaking, while boosting family support, intergenerational solidarity, labor participation, skills development, mobility and managed immigration.  Demographic change is “the most important issue, which is not really intensively discussed in the public discourse,” Weber said. “That’s why we want to highlight this, we want to underline the importance.” 

LONDON — It’s a far cry from the ice age of U.K.-China relations that characterized Rishi Sunak’s leadership — and it’s not exactly David Cameron’s “golden era,” either.  As U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer embarks on his Chinese charm offensive against a turbulent economic backdrop, he has opted for a softly-softly approach in a bid to warm up one of Britain’s most important trading partners — a marked departure from his Tory predecessors. With the specter of U.S. President Donald Trump looming over the visit — not to mention national security concerns back home — Starmer’s cautious optimism is hardly surprising.  Despite reservations from China skeptics, Starmer’s trip — the first such visit by a British prime minister since 2018 — was peppered with warm words and a smattering of deals, some more consequential than others. Britain’s haul from the trip may be modest, but it’s just the beginning, Business and Trade Secretary Peter Kyle — who joined Starmer on the trip — told a traveling pack of reporters in Beijing. “This visit is a springboard,” the minister said. “This is not the last moment, it is a springboard into a future with far more action to come.” STEP-BY-STEP On the ground in Beijing, British officials gave the impression that the prime minister was focused on getting as many uncontroversial wins over the line as possible, in a bid to thaw relations with China. That’s not to say Starmer and his team don’t have a few tangible wins to write home about. Headline announcements include a commitment from China to allow visa-free travel for British tourists and business travelers, enabling visits of up to 30 days without the need for documents.   The provisions are similar to those extended to 50 other countries including France, Germany, Italy, Australia and Japan. The timings of the visa change have not yet been set out publicly, but one official — who, like others cited in this piece, was granted anonymity to speak freely — said they were aiming to get it nailed down in coming months. “From a business standpoint, it will reduce a lot of friction,” said a British business representative, adding it will make it easier for U.K. firms to explore opportunities and form partnerships. “China is very complicated. You have to be on the ground to really assess opportunities,” they said, adding visa-free travel “will make things a lot easier.” The commitment to visa-free travel forms part of a wider services package aimed at driving  collaboration for businesses in healthcare, financial and professional services, legal services, education and skills — areas where British firms often face regulatory or administrative hurdles.  The countries have also agreed to conduct a “feasibility study” to explore whether to enter negotiations towards a bilateral services agreement. If it goes ahead, this would establish clear and legally binding rules for U.K. firms doing business in China. Once again, the timeframe is vague. David Taylor, head of policy at the Asia House think tank in London, said “Xi’s language has been warmer and more expansive, signaling interest in stabilizing the relationship, but the substance on offer so far remains tightly defined.” “Beyond the immediate announcements, progress — particularly on services and professional access — will be harder and slower if it happens at all,” he added. WHISKY TARIFF RELIEF Another victory talked up by the British government is a plan for China to slash Scotch whisky tariffs by half, from 10 percent to 5 percent.  However, some may question the scale of the commitment, which effectively restores the rate that was in place one year ago, ahead of a doubling of the rate for whisky and brandy in February 2025. The two sides have not yet set out a timeframe for the reduction of tariffs.  Speaking to POLITICO ahead of Starmer’s trip, a senior business representative said the whisky and brandy issue had become “China leverage” in talks leading up to the visit. However, they argued that even a removal of the tariff was “not going to solve the main issue for British whisky companies in China and everywhere, which is that people aren’t buying and drinking whisky.” CHINA INVESTMENT WIN Meanwhile, China can boast a significant win in the form of a $15 billion investment in medicines manufacturing and research and development from British pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca.  ING Bank’s global healthcare lead Stephen Farelly said that increasing investment into China “makes good business sense,” given the country is “now becoming a force in biopharma.” However, it “does shine a light on the isolation of Europe and the U.K. more generally, where there is a structural decline in investment and R&D.” AstraZeneca recently paused a £200 million investment at a Cambridge research site in September last year, which was due to create 1,000 jobs.  Britain recently increased the amount the NHS pays for branded, pharmaceutical drugs, following heavy industry lobbying and following trade negotiations with the Trump administration — all in the hopes of attracting new investment into the struggling sector.  Shadow Trade Secretary Andrew Griffith was blunt in his assessment. “AstraZeneca’s a great British company but under this government it’s investing everywhere in the world other than its U.K. home. When we are losing investment to communist China, alarm bells should be ringing in No 10 Downing Street.” Conspicuously absent from Starmer’s haul was any mention of net zero infrastructure imports, like solar panels, a reflection of rising concerns about China’s grip on Britain’s critical infrastructure. XI RETURNS So what next? As Starmer prepares to fly back home, attention has already turned to his next encounter with the Chinese leader.  On Thursday, Britain opened the door to an inward visit by Xi Jinping, with Downing Street repeatedly declining to rule out the prospect of welcoming him in future. Asked about the prospect of an inward visit — which would be the first for 11 years — Starmer’s official spokesperson told reporters: “I think the prime minister has been clear that a reset relationship with China, that it’s no longer in an ice age, is beneficial to British people and British business.” As Starmer’s trip draws to a close, one thing is certain: there is more to come. “This isn’t a question of a one-and-done summit with China,” Starmer’s spokesperson added. “It is a resetting of a relationship that has been on ice for eight years.”

The U.K. and China have announced a new services partnership to support British businesses operating in China, including through visa-free travel for short stays. The partnership will see Beijing relax its visa rules for British citizens, adding the U.K. to its visa-free list of countries. This will enable visits of up to 30 days for business and tourism without the need for a visa. The timings of the visa change have not yet been set out. The partnership focuses on better collaboration for businesses in healthcare, financial and professional services, legal services, education and skills — areas where British firms often face regulatory or administrative hurdles.  Britain and China have also agreed to conduct a “feasibility study” to explore whether to enter negotiations towards a bilateral services agreement. If it proceeds, this would establish clear and legally binding rules for U.K. firms doing business in China. Prime Minister Keir Starmer said: “As one of the world’s economic powerhouses, businesses have been crying out for ways to grow their footprints in China. “We’ll make it easier for them to do so – including via relaxed visa rules for short-term travel — supporting them to expand abroad, all while boosting growth and jobs at home.” The U.K. and China have also signed pacts covering co-operation on conformity assessments for exports from the U.K. to China, food safety, animal, and plant quarantine health and the work the UK-China Joint Economic and Trade Commission. The two sides aren’t planning to publish the full texts of the pacts.