BRUSSELS — Only a few days ago, EU diplomats and officials were whispering furtively about the idea they might one day need to think about how to push back against Donald Trump. They’re not whispering anymore.  Trump’s attempt, as EU leaders saw it, to “blackmail” them with the threat of tariffs into letting him take the sovereign Danish island of Greenland provoked a howl of outrage — and changed the world.  Previous emergency summits in Brussels focused on existential risks to the European Union, like the eurozone crisis, Brexit, the coronavirus pandemic, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This week, the EU’s 27 leaders cleared their diaries to discuss the assault they faced from America.  There can be little doubt that the transatlantic alliance has now been fundamentally transformed from a solid foundation for international law and order into a far looser arrangement in which neither side can be sure of the other.  “Trust was always the foundation for our relations with the United States,” said Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk as he arrived for the summit in Brussels on Thursday night. “We respected and accepted American leadership. But what we need today in our politics is trust and respect among all partners here, not domination and for sure not coercion. It doesn’t work in our world.”  The catalyst for the rupture in transatlantic relations was the U.S. president’s announcement on Saturday that he would hit eight European countries with tariffs of 10 percent for opposing his demand to annex Greenland.  That was just the start. In an avalanche of pressure, he then canceled his support for the U.K. premier’s decision to hand over the Chagos Islands, home to an important air base, to Mauritius; threatened France with tariffs on Champagne after Macron snubbed his Board of Peace initiative; slapped down the Norwegian prime minister over a Nobel Peace Prize; and ultimately dropped his threats both to take Greenland by military force and to hit countries that oppose him with tariffs.  Here was a leader, it seemed to many watching EU officials, so wild and unpredictable that he couldn’t even remain true to his own words.  But what dismayed the professional political class in Brussels and beyond was more mundane: Trump’s decision to leak the private text messages he’d received directly from other world leaders by publishing them to his 11.6 million followers on social media.  Trump’s screenshots of his phone revealed French President Emmanuel Macron offering to host a G7 meeting in Paris, and to invite the Russians in the sidelines. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, who once called Trump “daddy,” also found his private text to Trump made public, in which he praised the president’s “incredible” achievements, adding: “Can’t wait to see you.”  Leaking private messages “is not acceptable — you just don’t do it,” said one senior diplomat, like others, on condition of anonymity because the matter is sensitive. “It’s so important. After this, no one can trust him. If you were any leader you wouldn’t tell him anything. And this is a crucial means of communication because it is quick and direct. Now everything will go through layers of bureaucracy.”  Mark Carney had been one of the classic Davos set and was a regular attendee: suave, a little smug, and seeming entirely comfortable among snow-covered peaks and even loftier clientele. | Gian Ehrenzeller/EPA The value of direct contact through phone texts is well known to the leaders of Europe, who, as POLITICO revealed, have even set up their own private group chat to discuss how to respond when Trump does something inflammatory. Such messages enable ministers and officials at all levels to coordinate solutions before public statements have to be made, the same senior diplomat said. “If you don’t have trust, you can’t work together anymore.”  NO MORE NATO Diplomats and officials now fear the breakdown in personal trust between European leaders and Trump has potentially grave ramifications.  Take NATO. The military alliance is, at its core, a promise: that member countries will back each other up and rally to their defense if one of them comes under attack. Once that promise looks less than solid, the power of NATO to deter attacks is severely undermined. That’s why Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned that if Trump invaded the sovereign Danish territory of Greenland it would be the end of NATO.  The fact he threatened to do so has already put the alliance into intensive care, another diplomat said.  Asked directly if she could still trust the U.S. as she arrived at the Brussels summit, Frederiksen declined to say yes. “We have been working very closely with the United States for many years,” she replied. “But we have to work together respectfully, without threatening each other.”  European leaders now face two tasks: To bring the focus back to the short-term priorities of peace in Ukraine and resolving tensions over Greenland; and then to turn their attention to mapping out a strategy for navigating a very different world. The question of trust, again, underpins both.  When it comes to Ukraine, European leaders like Macron, Germany’s Friedrich Merz and the U.K.’s Keir Starmer have spent endless hours trying to persuade Trump and his team that providing Kyiv with an American military element underpinning security guarantees is the only way to deter Russian President Vladimir Putin from attacking again in future.  Given how unreliable Trump has been as an ally to Europe, officials are now privately asking what those guarantees are really worth. Why would Russia take America’s word seriously? Why not, in a year or two, test it to make sure?  THE POST-DAVOS WORLD Then there’s the realignment of the entire international system.  There was something ironic about the setting for Trump’s assaults on the established world order, and about the identities of those who found themselves the harbingers of its end.  Among the snow-covered slopes of the Swiss resort of Davos, the world’s business and political elite gather each year to polish their networks, promote their products, brag about their successes, and party hard. The super rich, and the occasional president, generally arrive by helicopter.  As a central bank governor, Mark Carney had been one of the classic Davos set and was a regular attendee: suave, a little smug, and seeming entirely comfortable among snow-covered peaks and even loftier clientele.  Now prime minister of Canada, this sage of the centrist liberal orthodoxy had a shocking insight to share with his tribe: “Today,” Carney began this week, “I’ll talk about the rupture in the world order, the end of a nice story, and the beginning of a brutal reality where geopolitics among the great powers is not subject to any constraints.”  “The rules-based order is fading,” he intoned, to be replaced by a world of “great power rivalry” in which “the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.”  “The old order is not coming back. We should not mourn it. Nostalgia is not a strategy.”  Carney impressed those European officials watching. He even quoted Finnish President Alexander Stubb, who has enjoyed outsized influence in recent months due to the connections he forged with Trump on the golf course.  NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, who once called Donald Trump “daddy,” also found his private text to Donald Trump made public, in which he praised the president’s “incredible” achievements, adding: “Can’t wait to see you.” |  Jim lo Scalzo/EPA Ultimately, Carney had a message for what he termed “middle powers” — countries like Canada. They could, he argued, retreat into isolation, building up their defenses against a hard and lawless world. Or they could build something “better, stronger and more just” by working together, and diversifying their alliances. Canada, another target of Trump’s territorial ambitions, has just signed a major partnership agreement with China. As they prepared for the summit in Brussels, European diplomats and officials contemplated the same questions. One official framed the new reality as the “post-Davos” world. “Now that the trust has gone, it’s not coming back,” another diplomat said. “I feel the world has changed fundamentally.”  A GOOD CRISIS It will be up to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and her team to devise ways to push the continent toward greater self-sufficiency, a state that Macron has called “strategic autonomy,” the diplomat said. This should cover energy, where the EU has now become reliant on imports of American gas.  The most urgent task is to reimagine a future for European defense that does not rely on NATO, the diplomat said. Already, there are many ideas in the air. These include a European Security Council, which would have the nuclear-armed non-EU U.K. as a member. Urgent efforts will be needed to create a drone industry and to boost air defenses.  The European Commission has already proposed a 100,000-strong standing EU army, so why not an elite special forces division as well? The Commission’s officials are world experts at designing common standards for manufacturing, which leaves them well suited to the task of integrating the patchwork of weapons systems used by EU countries, the same diplomat said.  Yet there is also a risk. Some officials fear that with Trump’s having backed down and a solution to the Greenland crisis now apparently much closer, EU leaders will lose the focus and clarity about the need for change they gained this past week. In a phrase often attributed to Churchill, the risk is that EU countries will “let a good crisis go to waste.”  Domestic political considerations will inevitably make it harder for national governments to commit funding to shared EU defense projects. As hard-right populism grows in major regional economies, like France, the U.K. and Germany, making the case for “more Europe” is harder than ever for the likes of Macron, Starmer and Merz. Even if NATO is in trouble, selling a European army will be tough.  While these leaders know they can no longer trust Trump’s America with Europe’s security, many of them lack the trust of their own voters to do what might be required instead. 

LONDON — Westminster discourse was blessed with a host of new words and phrases during a tumultuous 2025 — and some of them even made sense. Keir Starmer got to fight with tech bro Elon Musk, schmooze Donald Trump, endure frustration from his MPs over Labour’s dreadful polling, reshuffle his government, and preside over a stagnant economy — all while working out a “vision” some 18 months into office. As 2026 screams into view, POLITICO has looked back over the year and picked out all the weird phrases we’d rather forget. 1. Coalition of the willing: The body of nations that sprang up to support Ukraine as U.S. backing looked dicey. Defined by their “vital,” “urgent” and “pivotal” meetings, but often challenged by an unwilling dude across the pond. 2. Smorgasbord: Sweden’s given us IKEA, ABBA — and now the best way to explain an unsatisfying mix of tax rises. Thanks, chancellor! 3. AI Opportunities Action Plan: Never has a government announcement contained so many nouns. 4. AI MP: Why bother with constituency casework when ChatGPT’s around? Labour MP Mark Sewards bagged some help from LLMs … with mixed results. 5. “Beautiful accent”: Trump’s verdict on Starmer’s voice as the unlikely bromance blossomed. 6. Rent license: Everyone pretended to know about housing law as Chancellor Rachel Reeves faced scrutiny for not having one of these when renting out the family home. 7. Rod fishing license: One for the real hardcore license fans. Then-Foreign Secretary David Lammy faced questions for fishing with U.S. Vice President JD Vance without the right paperwork. In a totally unconnected event, he was reshuffled to the justice department shortly after. 8. Board of Peace: Tony Blair was on the list of people to preside over a post-war Gaza … until he very much wasn’t. 9. Golden economic rule: The Conservatives’ shiny and instantly forgettable plan to restore credibility in managing the public finances. Perhaps the No. 1 rule should have been keeping Liz Truss out of No. 10?   10. Lawyer brain: Starmer was frequently accused of acting like a lawyer, not a leader. At least he had a fixed term back when he was chief prosecutor. 11. Liberation Day: Trump’s big old chart slapped global tariffs on allies and sent Whitehall into a tailspin … before a TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) retreat on some of them. 12. The Andrew formerly known as Prince: Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor had to settle for a hyphenated surname after outrage about his friendship with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. 13. Raise the colors: Politicians spent the summer showing how much they loved flags as Brits — including organized far-right groups — plastered the Union Jack on every lamppost and roundabout in sight. 14. Lucy Listens: Lucy Powell decided the best way to recover from getting sacked from government was to run for Labour deputy leader, win, and hear endlessly from irate Labour members. 15. Joe Marler: Health Secretary Wes Streeting compared himself to a rugby player from the Celebrity Traitors after he was accused of plotting to oust Starmer. Hanging out in a Scottish castle could be quite cushy if the running-for-PM thing doesn’t work out. 16. Driving the DLR: Starmer’s premiership was compared to steering the, er, driverless part of Transport for London. 17. Double Contributions Convention: National insurance became exciting for a brief second amid a row about the India trade deal. Let’s never make that mistake again. 18. Disruptors: What Starmer wants from his ministers. Alas, they slightly misinterpreted the memo and enjoyed disrupting his leadership instead of the Whitehall status quo. 19. Build Baby Build: Housing Secretary Steve Reed not only mimicked Trump’s words but also donned a red baseball cap. The merch was a treat at Labour conference, but it was all a bit cringe.  20. Trigger Me Timbers: Leaks from this imaginatively-named Labour WhatsApp group saw two MPs suspended for vile language. Remember, assume everything in a group is public.  21. Humphrey: Obviously the best-named AI tool ever, the government’s own tech overlord paid tribute to that most conniving of civil servants in the classic BBC sitcom “Yes, Minister.”  21. Humphrey: Obviously, the best-named AI tool ever, the government’s own tech overlord paid tribute to that most conniving of civil servants in classic BBC sitcom “Yes, Minister.”  | David Zorrakino/Europa Press via Getty Images 22. Right to Try: A phrase describing a new guarantee for people entering work — and which might double up as a stirring campaign slogan for the PM. 23. Patriotic renewal: Get those flags out again as No. 10 presses the jargon button to describe what this whole government thing is about. 24. Thatcher Fest: The celebrations marking the centenary of the Iron Lady’s birth knew no bounds. 25. One in, one out: Britain and France struck a treaty for small boat crossings — until one returned migrant recrossed the English Channel to Blighty.   26. Zacktavist: A new generation of Greens got behind “eco-populist” leader Zack Polanksi — and could treat themselves to a mug with his face on for £7 a pop. 27. Yantar: Russia made its meddling against Britain known by deploying a spy ship into territorial waters … although it failed to remain incognito.   28. Two up, two down: Chancellor Rachel Reeves mooted increasing income tax by 2p and cutting national insurance by 2p … before (probably) realizing it would mark the end of her time in the Treasury. 29. Island of strangers: The PM channeled Reform with a speech on migration featuring this phrase. It was compared to former Tory MP Enoch Powell’s infamous “Rivers of Blood” speech … and Starmer later retracted the whole thing. 30. Bob Vylan: A previously obscure rap duo was thrust into the spotlight after calling for “death, death to the IDF” [Israel Defence Forces] at Glastonbury. The BBC came under fire, because of course it did. 31. Persistent knobheadery: That’s one way for a Labour source to justify suspending the whip from four MPs. 32. Sexist boys’ club: Setting up a political party is harder than it looks. Who’d have thought it? Ex-Labour MP Zarah Sultana’s tough words for her fellow independent MPs as the flailing Your Party launched meant some of them left anyway. All’s fair in love and war.   33. F**king suck it up: Running a council is pretty tricky. Reform’s Kent County Council Leader Linden Kemkaran told her fellow councilors they’d have to cope with tough decisions in these colorful terms. Running a council is pretty tricky. Reform’s Kent County Council Leader Linden Kemkaran told her fellow councilors they’d have to cope with tricky decisions in these colorful terms. | Gareth Fuller/PA Images via Getty Images 34. Three Pads Rayner: Angela Rayner’s tenure as deputy PM and, erm, housing secretary came to an abrupt end after she failed to pay the correct amount of property tax — but not before earning this moniker. 35. Further and faster: How did the government react to its local elections shellacking? By vowing to carry on in exactly the same way, albeit more intensely. 36. Phase Two: Starmer’s much-hyped fall reset of his government was followed by one calamity after another. Not too late for Phase Three! 37. Danish model: Ministers decided migration could be solved by copying Copenhagen. Anything for a trip to the continent.   38. The Liz Truss Show: Britain’s shortest-serving former prime minister used extra time on her hands to woo MAGAland with yet another political podcast. Cannot be unseen.   39. I rise to speak: MPs deploying this phrase gave an instant red flag that they may, just may, have used AI to help write their speeches.  40. Judge Plus: Labour MP Kim Leadbeater’s assurance that her assisted dying bill still had plenty of legal safeguards, despite a High Court judge getting dropped from the process.   41. Pride in Place: After Boris Johnson’s “leveling up” (RIP), Labour tries a similar approach in all but name. 42. Waste Files: Elon Musk inspired a host of U.K. DOGE copycats keen to slash complex government budgets from their armchairs. 43. Project Chainsaw: No, Starmer isn’t suddenly a Javier Milei fan, but his government wanted to reshape the state — with some bandying about this subtle, civil service-spooking nickname. 44. Global headwinds: The ultimate euphemism for how the orange-colored elephant in the room changed everything.   45. Pan-Euro-Mediterranean Convention: Want Britain closer to the EU? Choose a trade agreement guaranteed to send even the most ardent Europhile to sleep. President Trump’s trade wars caused global headwinds throughout the year. | Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images 46. Headphone dodgers: A nuisance to everyone, the Lib Dems went full throttle by pledging to fine the public transport irritants £1,000. It’s a wonder the party isn’t leading the polls. 47. StormShroud drones: All wars create an opportunity for futuristic tech that hopefully does what it says on the tin. 48. Return hubs: Ministers insist migration definitely isn’t getting outsourced to other countries by mooting third-party “processing” … something Albania won’t even take part in. See also: Deport Now, Appeal Later.  49. Far-right bandwagon: Starmer’s row with Musk reached a crescendo with the PM’s phrase lobbed at some proponents of an inquiry into grooming gangs operating in the U.K. 50. Impossible trilemma: Ahead of the budget, a top think tank warned that Reeves faced the unenviable task of meeting fiscal targets while sticking to spending promises and not raising taxes. No pressure. 51. Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister: Darren Jones’ prefect vibes were rewarded with a brand spanking new gig in the pre-shuffle right at the start of Phase Two. 52. Growth people feel in their pockets: One No. 10 press officer may have collected their P45 after publishing *that* press release. 53. Mainstream: This totally normal, nothing-to-see-here, soft-left Labour group definitely isn’t a vehicle for Andy Burnham’s return to Westminster.   54. Plastic patriots/plastic progressives: The synthetic material really got a kicking from Labour, who deployed the terms to slam Reform and the Greens respectively. Let’s hope voters have reusable bags. 55. Quint: Five lucky people (Starmer, Reeves, Lammy, Jones and Pat McFadden) who apparently decide how government operates. Great job, guys! 56. Hard bastard: The PM’s best effort to show he was “tough enough,” Ed Miliband-style. We all know how that ended.    57. Global Progress Action Summit: Progressives met in a desperate attempt to figure out how to avoid a trouncing from populists. More updates as we get them. 58. Contribution: Reeves’ framing of higher taxes, carefully sidestepping the fact that taxes aren’t optional. 59. Maintenance department: Deffo-not-future Labour leadership contender Wes Streeting’s description of how the party presents itself publicly. Stirring stuff. 60. Terminator: Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood earned an Arnie-inspired new nickname as she tried to show Labour is really, really tough on migration, honest. 61. Reverse Midas Touch: Anything the PM touches, including ID cards, is hit by this tragic affliction, according to his critics. 62. V levels: The natural successor to A and T level educational qualifications. Just a matter of time before there’s one for each letter of the alphabet. 63. Culturally coherent: Tory rising star Katie Lam’s justification for deporting legal migrants got her into some hot water. 64. 24/7 circus of sh*t: One former Tory aide’s pithy description of the Home Office. Who are the clowns? 65. Six seven: Nobody over the age of 11 understands this meme — yet the PM unleashed havoc in a classroom by joining in. 66. Civilizational erasure: America’s dystopian portrayal of what Europe is facing probably won’t feature in many tourist brochures. 67. Turning renewal into reality: Starmer’s ambition for next year in his final Cabinet meeting of 2025. Bookmark that one.

BRUSSELS — The European Commission has proposed rolling back several EU environmental laws including industrial emissions reporting requirements, confirming previous reporting by POLITICO. It’s the latest in a series of proposed deregulation plans — known as omnibus bills — as Commission President Ursula von der Leyen tries to make good on a promise to EU leaders to dramatically reduce administrative burden for companies.   The bill’s aim is to make it easier for businesses to comply with EU laws on waste management, emissions, and resource use, with the Commission stressing the benefits to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) which make up 99 percent of all EU businesses. The Commission insisted the rollbacks would not have a negative impact on the environment. “We all agree that we need to protect our environmental standards, but we also at the same time need to do it more efficiently,” said Environment Commissioner Jessika Roswall during a press conference on Wednesday.  “This is a complex exercise,” said Executive Vice President Teresa Ribera during a press conference on Wednesday. “It is not easy for anyone to try to identify how we can respond to this demand to simplify while responding to this other demand to keep these [environmental] standards high.”  Like previous omnibus packages, the environmental omnibus was released without an impact assessment. The Commission found that “without considering other alternative options, an impact assessment is not deemed necessary.” This comes right after the Ombudswoman found the Commission at fault for “maladministration” for the first omnibus.   The Commission claims “the proposed amendments will not affect environmental standards” — a claim that’s already under attack from environmental groups.   MORE REPORTING CUTS  The Commission wants to exempt livestock and aquaculture operators from reporting on water, energy and materials use under the industrial emissions reporting legislation.  EU countries, competent authorities and operators would also be given more time to comply with some of the new or revised provisions in the updated Industrial Emissions Directive while being given further “clarity on when these provisions apply.”  The Commission is also proposing “significant simplification” for environmental management systems (EMS) — which lay out goals and performance measures related to environmental impacts of an industrial site — under the industrial and livestock rearing emissions directive.  These would be completed by industrial plants at the level of a company and not at the level of every installation, as it currently stands.   There would also be fewer compliance obligations under EU waste laws.   The Commission wants to remove the Substances of Concern in Products (SCIP) database, for example, claiming that it “has not been effective in informing recyclers about the presence of hazardous substances in products and has imposed substantial administrative costs.”  Producers selling goods in another EU country will also not have to appoint an authorized representative in both countries to comply with extended producer responsibility (EPR). The Commission calls it a “stepping stone to more profound simplification,” also reducing reporting requirements to just once per year.  The Commission will not be changing the Nature Restoration Regulation — which has been a key question in discussions between EU commissioners — but it will intensify its support to EU countries and regional authorities in preparing their draft National Restoration Plans.  The Commission will stress-test the Birds and Habitats Directives in 2026 “taking into account climate change, food security, and other developments and present a series of guidelines to facilitate implementation,” it said.  CRITIQUES ROLL IN   Some industry groups, like the Computer & Communications Industry Association, have welcomed the changes, calling it a “a common-sense fix.” German center-right MEP Pieter Liese also welcomed the omnibus package, saying, “[W]e need to streamline environmental laws precisely because we want to preserve them. Bureaucracy and paperwork are not environmental protection.” But environmental groups opposed the rollbacks.  “The Von der Leyen Commission is dismantling decades of hard-won nature protections, putting air, water, and public health at risk in the name of competitiveness,” WWF said in a statement. The estimated savings “come with no impact assessment and focus only on reduced compliance costs, ignoring the far larger price of pollution, ecosystem decline, and climate-related disasters,” it added.   The Industrial Emissions Directive, which entered into force last year and is already being transposed by member countries, was “already much weaker than what the European Commission had originally proposed” during the last revision, pointed out ClientEarth lawyer Selin Esen.  “The Birds and Habitats Directives are the backbone of nature protection in Europe,” said BirdLife Europe’s Sofie Ruysschaert. “Undermining them now would not only wipe out decades of hard-won progress but also push the EU toward a future where ecosystems and the communities that rely on them are left dangerously exposed.” 

BRUSSELS — The European Commission has unveiled a new plan to end the dominance of planet-heating fossil fuels in Europe’s economy — and replace them with trees. The so-called Bioeconomy Strategy, released Thursday, aims to replace fossil fuels in products like plastics, building materials, chemicals and fibers with organic materials that regrow, such as trees and crops. “The bioeconomy holds enormous opportunities for our society, economy and industry, for our farmers and foresters and small businesses and for our ecosystem,” EU environment chief Jessika Roswall said on Thursday, in front of a staged backdrop of bio-based products, including a bathtub made of wood composite and clothing from the H&M “Conscious” range. At the center of the strategy is carbon, the fundamental building block of a wide range of manufactured products, not just energy. Almost all plastic, for example, is made from carbon, and currently most of that carbon comes from oil and natural gas. But fossil fuels have two major drawbacks: they pollute the atmosphere with planet-warming CO2, and they are mostly imported from outside the EU, compromising the bloc’s strategic autonomy. The bioeconomy strategy aims to address both drawbacks by using locally produced or recycled carbon-rich biomass rather than imported fossil fuels. It proposes doing this by setting targets in relevant legislation, such as the EU’s packaging waste laws, helping bioeconomy startups access finance, harmonizing the regulatory regime and encouraging new biomass supply. The 23-page strategy is light on legislative or funding promises, mostly piggybacking on existing laws and funds. Still, it was hailed by industries that stand to gain from a bigger market for biological materials. “The forest industry welcomes the Commission’s growth-oriented approach for bioeconomy,” said Viveka Beckeman, director general of the Swedish Forest Industries Federation, stressing the need to “boost the use of biomass as a strategic resource that benefits not only green transition and our joint climate goals but the overall economic security.” HOW RENEWABLE IS IT? But environmentalists worry Brussels may be getting too chainsaw-happy. Trees don’t grow back at the drop of a hat and pressure on natural ecosystems is already unsustainably high. Scientific reports show that the amount of carbon stored in the EU’s forests and soils is decreasing, the bloc’s natural habitats are in poor condition and biodiversity is being lost at unprecedented rates. Protecting the bloc’s forests has also fallen out of fashion among EU lawmakers. The EU’s landmark anti-deforestation law is currently facing a second, year-long delay after a vote in the European Parliament this week. In October, the Parliament also voted to scrap a law to monitor the health of Europe’s forests to reduce paperwork. Environmentalists warn the bloc may simply not have enough biomass to meet the increasing demand. “Instead of setting a strategy that confronts Europe’s excessive demand for resources, the Commission clings to the illusion that we can simply replace our current consumption with bio-based inputs, overlooking the serious and immediate harm this will inflict on people and nature,” said Eva Bille, the European Environmental Bureau’s (EEB) circular economy head, in a statement. TOO WOOD TO BE TRUE Environmental groups want the Commission to prioritize the use of its biological resources in long-lasting products — like construction — rather than lower-value or short-lived uses, like single-use packaging or fuel. A first leak of the proposal, obtained by POLITICO, gave environmental groups hope. It celebrated new opportunities for sustainable bio-based materials while also warning that the “sources of primary biomass must be sustainable and the pressure on ecosystems must be considerably reduced” — to ensure those opportunities are taken up in the longer term. It also said the Commission would work on “disincentivising inefficient biomass combustion” and substituting it with other types of renewable energy. That rankled industry lobbies. Craig Winneker, communications director of ethanol lobby ePURE, complained that the document’s language “continues an unfortunate tradition in some quarters of the Commission of completely ignoring how sustainable biofuels are produced in Europe,” arguing that the energy is “actually a co-product along with food, feed, and biogenic CO2.” Now, those lines pledging to reduce environmental pressures and to disincentivize inefficient biomass combustion are gone. “Bioenergy continues to play a role in energy security, particularly where it uses residues, does not increase water and air pollution, and complements other renewables,” the final text reads. “This is a crucial omission, given that the EU’s unsustainable production and consumption are already massively overshooting ecological boundaries and putting people, nature and businesses at risk,” said the EEB. Delara Burkhardt, a member of the European Parliament with the center-left Socialists and Democrats, said it was “good that the strategy recognizes the need to source biomass sustainably,” but added the proposal did not address sufficiency. “Simply replacing fossil materials with bio-based ones at today’s levels of consumption risks increasing pressure on ecosystems. That shifts problems rather than solving them. We need to reduce overall resource use, not just switch inputs,” she said. Roswall declined to comment on the previous draft at Thursday’s press conference. “I think that we need to increase the resources that we have, and that is what this strategy is trying to do,” she said.

As trilogue negotiations on the End-of-Life Vehicles Regulation (ELVR) reach their decisive phase, Europe stands at a crossroads, not just for the future of sustainable mobility, but also for the future of its industrial base and competitiveness. The debate over whether recycled plastic content in new vehicles should be 15, 20 or 25 percent is crucial as a key driver for circularity investment in Europe’s plastics and automotive value chains for the next decade and beyond. The ELVR is more than a recycled content target. It is also an important test of whether and how Europe can align its circularity and competitiveness ambitions. Circularity and competitiveness should be complementary  Europe’s plastics industry is at a cliff edge. High energy and feedstock costs, complex regulation and investment flight are eroding production capacity in Europe at an alarming rate. Industrial assets are closing and relocating. Policymakers must recognize the strategic importance of European plastics manufacturing. Plastics are and will remain an essential material that underpins key European industries, including automotive, construction, healthcare, renewables and defense. Without a competitive domestic sector, Europe’s net-zero pathway becomes slower, costlier and more import-dependent. Without urgent action to safeguard plastics manufacturing in Europe, we will continue to undermine our industrial resilience, strategic autonomy and green transition through deindustrialization. The ELVR can help turn the tide and become a cornerstone of the EU’s circular economy and a driver of industrial competitiveness. It can become a flagship regulation containing ambitious recycled content targets that can accelerate reindustrialization in line with the objectives of the Green Industrial Deal. > Policymakers must recognize the strategic importance of > European plastics manufacturing. Without a competitive domestic sector, > Europe’s net-zero pathway becomes slower, costlier and more import-dependent. Enabling circular technologies  The automotive sector recognizes that its ability to decarbonize depends on access to innovative, circular materials made in Europe. The European Commission’s original proposal to drive this increased circularity to 25 percent recycled plastic content in new vehicles within six years, with a quarter of that coming from end-of-life vehicles, is ambitious but achievable with the available technologies and right incentives. To meet these targets, Europe must recognize the essential role of chemical recycling. Mechanical recycling alone cannot deliver the quality, scale and performance required for automotive applications. Without chemical recycling, the EU risks setting targets that look good on paper but fail in practice. However, to scale up chemical recycling we must unlock billions in investment and integrate circular feedstocks into complex value chains. This requires legal clarity, and the explicit recognition that chemical recycling, alongside mechanical and bio-based routes, are eligible pathways to meet recycled content targets. These are not technical details; they will determine whether Europe builds a competitive and scalable circular plastics industry or increasingly depends on imported materials. A broader competitiveness and circularity framework is essential  While a well-designed ELVR is crucial, it cannot succeed in isolation. Europe also needs a wider industrial policy framework that restores the competitiveness of our plastics value chain and creates the conditions for increased investment in circular technologies, and recycling and sorting infrastructure. We need to tackle Europe’s high energy and feedstock costs, which are eroding our competitiveness. The EU must add polymers to the EU Emissions Trading System compensation list and reinvest revenues in circular infrastructure to reduce energy intensity and boost recycling. Europe’s recyclers and manufacturers are competing with materials produced under weaker environmental and social standards abroad. Harmonized customs controls and mandatory third-party certification for imports are essential to prevent carbon leakage and ensure a level playing field with imports, preventing unfair competition. > To accelerate circular plastics production Europe needs a true single market > for circular materials. That means removing internal market barriers, streamlining approvals for new technologies such as chemical recycling, and providing predictable incentives that reward investment in recycled and circular feedstocks. Today, fragmented national rules add unnecessary cost, complexity and delay, especially for the small and medium-sized enterprises that form the backbone of Europe’s recycling network. These issues must be addressed. Establishing a Chemicals and Plastics Trade Observatory to monitor trade flows in real time is essential. This will help ensure a level playing field, enabling EU industry and officials to respond promptly with trade defense measures when necessary. We need policies that enable transformation rather than outsource it, and these must be implemented as a matter of urgency if we are to scale up recycling and circular innovations and investments.  A defining moment for Europe’s competitiveness and circular economy > Circularity and competitiveness should not be in conflict; together, they will > allow us to keep plastics manufacturing in Europe, and safeguard the jobs, > know-how, innovation hubs and materials essential for the EU’s climate > neutrality transition and strategic autonomy. The ELVR is not just another piece of environmental legislation. It is a test of Europe’s ability to turn its green vision into industrial reality. It means that the trilogue negotiators now face a defining choice: design a regulation that simply manages waste or one that unleashes Europe’s industrial renewal. These decisions will shape Europe’s place in the global economy and can provide a positive template for reconciling our climate and competitiveness ambitions. These decisions will echo far beyond the automotive sector. Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Plastics Europe AISBL * The advertisement is linked to policy advocacy on the EU End-of-Life Vehicles Regulation (ELVR), circular plastics, chemical recycling, and industrial competitiveness in Europe. More information here.

President Donald Trump is suddenly reversing his monthslong campaign to bottle up a bipartisan effort to disclose federal records dealing with Jeffrey Epstein — just as scores of House Republicans prepare to defy his demands concerning the late convicted sex offender. “House Republicans should vote to release the Epstein files, because we have nothing to hide, and it’s time to move on from this Democrat Hoax,” he wrote Sunday night on Truth Social, adding, “I DON’T CARE! All I do care about is that Republicans get BACK ON POINT” discussing economic issues. The U-turn came after months of drama inside the House GOP over a bill that would compel the Justice Department to release its entire Epstein file. An effort by Trump and Speaker Mike Johnson to prevent a floor vote on the measure imploded last week amid an intense White House push to try to keep Republicans in line. The vote is now expected Tuesday. At the end of last week, Johnson and senior House leaders appeared powerless to stop perhaps as many as 100 Republicans from breaking ranks and voting with Democrats to release the files. The situation worsened over the weekend, as Trump lashed out in deeply personal terms at Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who is leading the effort to force a House vote on Epstein, and publicly spurned Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), a one-time close ally who has recently broken with Trump on Epstein and other matters. Even before that, some members closest to House GOP leadership were mulling whether to support Massie’s effort. Those include lawmakers like Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), who as Rules Committee chair is among the most trusted members of Johnson’s inner circle. She declined to say in an interview last week whether she would support Massie’s measure. But she suggested she favored it coming to a vote, which GOP leaders expect to happen Tuesday. “I’m a big full disclosure person,” Foxx said. “I have nothing to hide, and I assume nobody else does, either.” Rep. Blake Moore of Utah, the Republican conference vice chair, said in an interview last week he normally doesn’t discuss how he will vote. Rep. Kevin Hern of Oklahoma, the House GOP policy chair, acknowledged “a lot of consternation” inside the party about what to do. Asked about his own vote, Hern said, “We’ll make that decision at game time.” The internal GOP strife underscores how politically toxic Trump’s association with Epstein has become, especially after Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released an email Wednesday in which Epstein suggested that Trump “knew about the girls.” Evidence has not linked Trump to wrongdoing in the Epstein case, and the president has maintained that he and the disgraced financier had a falling out years ago. Trump appeared trained on keeping the defections to a minimum as recently as Friday, when he sent multiple Truth Social posts where he accused Democrats of pushing an “Epstein Hoax … in order to deflect from all of their bad policies and losses” and ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate Democrats’ connections to Epstein. The posts, according to three Republicans granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter, were part of an effort to limit mass GOP defections on this week’s vote. “Some Weak Republicans have fallen into their clutches because they are soft and foolish,” he wrote, telling them, “don’t waste your time with Trump. I have a Country to run!” Trump normally enjoys an iron grip over the House, where Republicans are rarely anything but subservient to the president. He’s seen hints of pushback recently on key nominees and his demand to eliminate the Senate filibuster. But he’s lost all control over the chamber when it comes to the Epstein matter, and Hill Republicans have grown increasingly wary of Trump’s fixation on the issue, according to five other people granted anonymity to describe internal GOP conversations. One senior Republican marveled at Trump’s “erratic” and unsettling effort last week to kill the bipartisan end-around led by Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.). That included pulling Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) into the White House Situation Room to try to remove her name from the discharge petition she had signed alongside GOP Reps. Nancy Mace of South Carolina and Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. The effort failed, and Trump administration officials privately warned that Mace’s defiance is likely to cost her an endorsement in the South Carolina governor’s race. One of her Republican opponents in that campaign, Rep. Ralph Norman, suggested he may not vote for the bill in an interview last week: “Oh, I don’t know. We’ll see.” A major source of Trump’s obsession over the House vote is Massie, who has opposed a raft of major GOP legislation, including spending bills and the megabill that passed this summer. Trump is now intent on ousting Massie in next year’s primary, but the Kentucky Republican has now managed to outmaneuver the president despite Trump and Johnson trying to hold him off for months. Massie said in an interview that the Epstein vote will reflect how Republicans are starting to take stock of a post-Trump world. “They need to look past 2028 and wonder if they want this on their record for the rest of their political career,” he said. “Right now, it’s okay to cover up for pedophiles because the president will take up for you if you’re in the red districts — that’s the deal,” Massie later told reporters. “But that deal only works as long as he’s popular or president. … If they’re thinking about the right thing to do, that’s pretty obvious: You vote for it.” That is reflected in the broad swath of House Republicans who said last week they were ready to back Massie, ranging from conservative hard-liners to moderate dealmakers to endangered swing-seat targets, including Rep. Tom Barrett of Michigan and Reps. Rob Bresnahan and Ryan Mackenzie of Pennsylvania. “If it’s on the floor, I’ll be voting for it,” Mackenzie said. On the right flank, Reps. Eli Crane of Arizona, Warren Davidson of Ohio, Eric Burlison of Missouri and Tim Burchett of Tennessee said they planned to support the measure. (Burchett sought to pass it on a voice vote last week, but Democrats insisted on a recorded vote.) More centrist-leaning Reps. Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, Kevin Kiley of California and Don Bacon of Nebraska said they would vote for the bill. Bacon, who is retiring, suggested the last-minute pressure campaign from the White House was ill-advised. “The train has already left the station, so we should move on,” he said. Johnson, arguing Republicans have been “for maximum transparency of the Epstein files from the very beginning,” made clear last week he would not vote for the bill himself. He has argued that the bill would not do enough to protect Epstein’s victims, a claim Massie and Khanna reject. He and Trump still had good reason to try and avoid a total GOP jailbreak: A big vote could increase pressure on the Senate to take up the bill and send it to the president’s desk, forcing an embarrassing veto that would prolong the controversy. Senate GOP leaders have not committed to holding a vote, and Republicans widely expect the measure to die in the chamber. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), who authored a Senate version of the bill, is coordinating with Massie, and Democrats have some options to force the issue, including seeking to force a vote by unanimous consent or to amend unrelated legislation. Some key GOP blocs remained split on the matter, including the hard-line House Freedom Caucus and the Republican Study Committee, composed of 189 conservatives. But the legislation is likely to get universal Democratic support in addition to considerable GOP backing, Khanna said before Trump reversed course. “While there might be pressure from the White House, there is even more pressure from the public,” he said. “People are sick of our system protecting the Epstein class.” Nicholas Wu and Hailey Fuchs contributed to this report.

The spirit of mutirão — communities joining forces to get something done — runs deep in Brazil’s culture. Here at COP30 it is inescapable. The phrase is on the lips of negotiators from nearly 200 countries and it has become the defining ethos of this conference: global climate cooperation built on shared effort and mutual accountability.  National governments and cities, campaigners and businesses must now come together in that same spirit to move from the age of negotiation to the decade of delivery. Here in Belém it is impossible to forget why this matters. Every country has its story of floods, heatwaves, wildfires or supercharged storms that strike hardest in the places least able to cope. At both the Brazilian Ministry of Cities and C40 Cities we see every day that adapting to current challenges and turning the tide on the climate crisis are not separate challenges but part of one mission: to protect the people and places we love now and for generations to come. We are becoming a planet of urbanites, even here in the Amazon rainforest there are nearly 22 million people living in cities like Belém, so it’s crucial to combine preservation with sustainable and inclusive development for those communities. Across Brazil and around the world, cities are already facing up to this challenge. They are greening streets, serving sustainable and nutritious lunches to school children, keeping the most vulnerable safe from heat and floods, designing urban areas that meet the needs of people — not cars — and creating good green jobs for all.  > Every country has its story of floods, heatwaves, wildfires or supercharged > storms that strike hardest in the places least able to cope. Last week we both joined mayors, governors and regional leaders representing more than 14,000 cities, towns, states and provinces at the Bloomberg COP30 Local Leaders Forum in Rio de Janeiro. It was the largest and most diverse gathering of subnational climate leaders in history, and it sent an unmistakable message to national governments: local leadership is already delivering and it is ready to go further.  Via C40/Caroline Teo – GLA Following this historic moment and boosted by the COP30 presidency’s willingness to put urban climate action to the fore, cities came to COP30 with three clear offers: 1. Partner with us to implement national climate plans and turn strategies into results that improve lives. 2. Invest in the local project pipeline. More than 2,500 projects seek support and thousands more can follow if the political will is forthcoming. 3. Make COP a place of action and accountability where progress is measured not in pledges but in cleaner air, reduced health risks and green jobs created.  If countries accept these offers the COP process itself can evolve from negotiation to delivery, from promises to proof that the Paris Agreement goals can be not just agreed but also delivered.  This is not just a theory. It is already happening here. Under President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s leadership Brazil has embedded ‘climate federalism’ into national policy, linking the federal government, states and municipalities in coordinated delivery for the good of all Brazilians and the planet.   Research shows that, in countries that are part of the Coalition for High Ambition Multilevel Partnerships for Climate Action (CHAMP), collaboration between national and subnational governments could close 37 percent of the global emissions gap needed to stay on a Paris-aligned pathway. Launched at COP28, CHAMP already includes 77 nations and continues to grow. Brazil is showing what this looks like in practice and is inspiring more countries to take action.  Via 10 Billion Solutions, Mariana Castaño Cano On the city side of the equation the evidence is unequivocal. Per-capita emissions in C40 Cities are falling five times faster than the global average and more than 70 percent of C40 cities have already peaked emissions and are now delivering significant emissions reductions. Many C40 cities are also committing to a Yearly Offer of Action, demonstrating how to translate global ambition into measurable progress by announcing every year what they will do in the next 12 months to accelerate climate action.  To unlock that progress the financial system must evolve too. The world’s development and climate finance architecture was designed for national ministries not city halls. Yet cities control or influence most of the decisions that shape emissions from transport, waste, buildings and land use. This means they can enhance and accelerate the implementation of National Climate Plans. Much more could be achieved if urban climate finance is increased and local governments have direct access to the capital they need. The Baku to Belém Roadmap is calling for $1.3 trillion of annual climate investment to support developing countries. This could help scale-up finance and make it more reliable and accessible while prioritizing a just and resilient transition. Cities have the projects, partners and are the closest level of government to people’s daily needs — enhanced collaboration, preparation and direct access to finance can help bring their ambitious visions to life.     > To unlock that progress the financial system must evolve too. The world’s > development and climate finance architecture was designed for national > ministries not city halls. We have both witnessed here in Brazil how quickly change accelerates when local and national leaders come together. When buses run on clean power, when families in flood-prone neighborhoods move into resilient homes, when air is cleaner and streets are safer, climate policy stops being abstract. It becomes tangible progress that citizens can see and support.  If COP30 becomes the moment the world embraces climate federalism and genuine national and sub-national collaboration, then Brazil will have set a new global standard for collective climate delivery and a real just transition.  The decade of delivery begins here in Belém. Let us build it together, in mutirão. 

At New York Climate Week in September, opinion leaders voiced concern that high-profile events often gloss over the deep inequalities exposed by climate change, especially how poorer populations suffer disproportionately and struggle to access mitigation or adaptation resources. The message was clear: climate policies should better reflect social justice concerns, ensuring they are inclusive and do not unintentionally favor those already privileged.  We believe access to food sits at the heart of this call for inclusion, because everything starts with food: it is a fundamental human right and a foundation for health, education and opportunity. It is also a lever for climate, economic and social resilience.  > We believe access to food sits at the heart of this call for inclusion, > because everything starts with food This makes the global conversation around food systems transformation more urgent than ever. Food systems are under unprecedented strain. Without urgent, coordinated action, billions of people face heightened risks of malnutrition, displacement and social unrest.   Delivering systemic transformation requires coordinated cross-sector action, not fragmented solutions. Food systems are deeply interconnected, and isolated interventions cannot solve systemic problems. The Food and Agriculture Organization’s recent Transforming Food and Agriculture Through a Systems Approach report calls for systems thinking and collaboration across the value chain to address overlapping food, health and environmental challenges.   Now, with COP30 on the horizon, unified and equitable solutions are needed to benefit entire value chains and communities. This is where a systems approach becomes essential.  A systems approach to transforming food and agriculture  Food systems transformation must serve both people and planet. We must ensure everyone has access to safe, nutritious food while protecting human rights and supporting a just transition.   At Tetra Pak, we support food and beverage companies throughout the journey of food production, from processing raw ingredients like milk and fruit to packaging and distribution. This end-to-end perspective gives us a unique view into the interconnected challenges within the food system, and how an integrated approach can help manufacturers reduce food loss and waste, improve energy and water efficiency, and deliver food where it is needed most.   Meaningful reductions to emissions require expanding the use of renewable and carbon-free energy sources. As outlined in our Food Systems 2040 whitepaper,1 the integration of low-carbon fuels like biofuels and green hydrogen, alongside electrification supported by advanced energy storage technologies, will be critical to driving the transition in factories, farms and food production and processing facilities.   Digitalization also plays a key role. Through advanced automation and data-driven insights, solutions like Tetra Pak® PlantMaster enable food and beverage companies to run fully automated plants with a single point of control for their production, helping them improve operational efficiency, minimize production downtime and reduce their environmental footprint.  The “hidden middle”: A critical gap in food systems policy  Today, much of the focus on transforming food systems is placed on farming and on promoting healthy diets. Both are important, but they risk overlooking the many and varied processes that get food from the farmer to the end consumer. In 2015 Dr Thomas Reardon coined the term the “hidden middle” to describe this midstream segment of global agricultural value chains.2   This hidden middle includes processing, logistics, storage, packaging and handling, and it is pivotal. It accounts for approximately 22 percent of food-based emissions and between 40-60 percent of the total costs and value added in food systems.3 Yet despite its huge economic value, it receives only 2.5 to 4 percent of climate finance.4  Policymakers need to recognize the full journey from farm to fork as a lynchpin priority. Strategic enablers such as packaging that protects perishable food and extends shelf life, along with climate-resilient processing technologies, can maximize yield and minimize loss and waste across the value chain. In addition, they demonstrate how sustainability and competitiveness can go hand in hand.  Alongside this, climate and development finance must be redirected to increase investment in the hidden middle, with a particular focus on small and medium-sized enterprises, which make up most of the sector.   Collaboration in action  Investment is just the start. Change depends on collaboration between stakeholders across the value chain: farmers, food manufacturers, brands, retailers, governments, financiers and civil society.  In practice, a systems approach means joining up actors and incentives at every stage.5 The dairy sector provides a perfect example of the possibilities of connecting. We work with our customers and with development partners to establish dairy hubs in countries around the world. These hubs connect smallholder farmers with local processors, providing chilling infrastructure, veterinary support, training and reliable routes to market.6 This helps drive higher milk quality, more stable incomes and safer nutrition for local communities.  Our strategic partnership with UNIDO* is a powerful example of this collaboration in action. Together, we are scaling Dairy Hub projects in Kenya, building on the success of earlier initiatives with our customer Githunguri Dairy. UNIDO plays a key role in securing donor funding and aligning public-private efforts to expand local dairy production and improve livelihoods. This model demonstrates how collaborations can unlock changes in food systems.  COP30 and beyond  Strategic investment can strengthen local supply chains, extend social protections and open economic opportunity, particularly in vulnerable regions. Lasting progress will require a systems approach, with policymakers helping to mitigate transition costs and backing sustainable business models that build resilience across global food systems for generations to come.   As COP30 approaches, we urge policymakers to consider food systems as part of all decision-making, to prevent unintended trade-offs between climate and nutrition goals. We also recommend that COP30 negotiators ensure the Global Goal on Adaptation include priorities indicators that enable countries to collect, monitor and report data on the adoption of climate-resilient technologies and practices by food processors. This would reinforce the importance of the hidden middle and help unlock targeted adaptation finance across the food value chain.  When every actor plays their part, from policymakers to producers, and from farmers to financiers, the whole system moves forward. Only then can food systems be truly equitable, resilient and sustainable, protecting what matters most: food, people and the planet.  * UNIDO (United Nations Industrial Development Organization)  Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Tetra Pak * The ultimate controlling entity is Brands2Life Ltd * The advertisement is linked to policy advocacy regarding food systems and climate policy More information here. https://www.politico.eu/7449678-2

LONDON — For years, Labour didn’t want to talk about Brexit. It’s changed its mind. As the 10th anniversary looms of Britain’s vote to the leave the European Union, senior ministers in the ruling center-left Labour Party are going studs up — daring to pin the U.K.’s sluggish economic performance on its departure from the trading bloc. “There is no doubting that the impact of Brexit is severe and long-lasting,” Chancellor Rachel Reeves said in an interview broadcast on Wednesday. “I’m glad that Brexit is a problem whose name we now dare speak,” Health Secretary Wes Streeting, another staunch ally of Keir Starmer, told a well-heeled literary festival audience in the leafy county of Berkshire on Monday. Senior government officials insist the reason for this week’s interventions is simple — rolling the pitch for bad news in Reeves’ Nov. 26 budget. Britain’s productivity over the last 15 years is expected to be downgraded in a review by the Office for Budget Responsibility watchdog. Officials expect it to say explicitly that Brexit had a larger impact than first thought — leaving Reeves with no choice but to talk about the issue. Others in Starmer’s government, though, also spy a link to the prime minister’s wider strategy to challenge Reform UK leader Nigel Farage in a more muscular way. Labour ministers are seeking to paint Tory leaders and Farage — one of Brexit’s biggest champions — as politicians who took Britain out of the EU without answers, contrasted with the (still-limited) deal that Labour secured with Brussels in May. But these strategies, and particularly the way they are voiced, create a tension within government. Some aides and MPs fear they will be perceived to blame Brexit voters, reopening the bitter politics that followed the 2016 vote and driving them further toward Farage. This risk rises, argued one Labour official, when the government line strays beyond a narrow one of attacking the implementation or Farage and into the consequences of Brexit itself. The official added: “You can’t just go around blaming Brexit, because it’s saying voters are wrong.” LAYING THE GROUND Reeves’ intervention this week did not come out of the blue. “I’m glad that Brexit is a problem whose name we now dare speak,” said Health Secretary Wes Streeting, another staunch ally of Keir Starmer. | Dan Kitwood/Getty Images Nick Thomas-Symonds, Starmer’s minister negotiating post-Brexit trading rules with the EU, pointedly turned up at the Spectator — a magazine once edited by Boris Johnson — in August to make his pitch for a new relationship. Armed with statistics about the Brexit hit to exports, he said: “Behind every number and statistic is a British business, a British entrepreneur, a British start-up paying the price.” Starmer (who campaigned for a second referendum in 2019) is said to have liked what he heard. In his party conference speech in September the PM went a step further, attacking politicians “who lied to this country, unleashed chaos, and walked away after Brexit,” while also hitting out at those responsible for the “Brexit lies on the side of that bus.” The shift in No. 10 over recent months has been informed by focus groups and polls that show many Britons think Brexit was implemented badly, said one minister. “I think it’s very risky,” the minister added. “But it’s a gamble they’ve decided to take because they can see which way the wind is blowing.” It has also been encouraged by some campaign groups and think tanks. The Labour-friendly Good Growth Foundation shared a report with the government in May saying 75 percent of Labour-to-Reform switchers (out of a sample of 222) would support co-operation with the EU on trade and the economy. One Labour MP added: “It’s totally the right strategy. Just look at the maths. It’s, like, 70-30 for people saying Brexit was a bad idea. It’s just where people are.” (A July poll by More in Common found 29 percent would vote to leave and 52 percent to remain if the 2016 referendum was today. The rest would not vote or did not know.) Supporters of Starmer’s strategy believe the May deal — which will ease some trade barriers and sand off the hardest edges of Boris Johnson’s Brexit — allows the government to sound more positive. The government is “in a really confident position on this” and “actively negotiating” solutions, a second minister argued. Labour officials also believe they can hammer Farage as a man without the answers to complex problems such as returning migrants to Europe. One argued the Reform leader promised to leave the EU for stronger borders and a better NHS, but did not “do the work” to show how it would happen. Labour aides also note that Farage did not mention Brexit directly in his recent conference speech — instead focusing on issues such as net zero, government waste and immigration. (Challenged on this criticism, a Reform spokesperson texted a statement with the party’s nickname for Reeves: “Labour can try any excuse they like, but they can’t escape the reality that Rachel from accounts has the U.K. economy flatlining.”) PITCH TO THE LEFT One group that will lap up any anti-Brexit noise is Starmer’s own party. The first minister quoted above said the pivot had gone down well with their local Labour members, many of whom have long viewed Brexit as a mistake. “There’s been a feeling in the party and in government that we have been alienating our own members a bit by trying to appeal to Reform voters,” the minister said. “It’s not gone unnoticed by our faithful — it’s been seen as something finally for them.” Anti-Brexit activist Steve Bray holds a ‘Stop the Brexit mess’ placard during a protest in Parliament Square calling on the government to rejoin the European Union. | Vuk Valcic/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images Some in Labour also believe that talking about the harms of Brexit could slow a drift of left-wing voters towards the Green Party and Liberal Democrats. The minister added: “If you are looking at younger voters, the polls are saying we’re losing them in their droves to more progressive parties.” But worried Labour strategists want to keep the messaging tight and nuanced, not drift back into a pro-EU comfort zone. This means keeping the focus on jobs, the cost of living and borders — bread-and-butter issues touched by Brexit. “Nobody is suggesting we relitigate 2016,” said the second minister quoted above. This is especially true now that Labour has implemented policies that could not have been done inside the EU, such as economic deals with the U.S. and India — and even the controversial 20 percent Value Added Tax on private school fees. A second Labour MP said: “We’re not going to rejoin, but we can at least say that it went badly and has harmed the economy.” A third Labour MP added: “I think now it’s happened, we can discuss if it was done well. It’s certainly felt like an elephant in the room while there was a general consensus that our economy was amorphously fucked. There is always a danger — but this pretence it was without impact was treating the public like fools.” Nuance can become lost in a world of partisan social media, though. One person who speaks regularly to No. 10 said: “I was surprised that they took that on as a new narrative … it is a risky strategy. You’ve got to be careful about how you frame that — to blame what people voted for, not them.” Farage could also try to turn Labour’s strategy on its head. Luke Tryl, Executive Director of the More in Common think tank, said Brexit voters in focus groups often believe it has gone badly — but tend to blame politicians “rather than saying it could never have worked.” This exposes a flaw in Labour’s policy of attacking Farage, Tryl argued: “It leaves Farage able to say ‘if I am in charge, I will do a proper Brexit and get the benefits.’” OUR FRIENDS IN EUROPE Labour’s stance may, at least, go down well in Brussels. Many in the EU (naturally) also think Brexit has gone badly, and showing a willingness to open up about problems might help Thomas-Symonds — who is in the process of negotiating a deal to smooth the trade of food, animals and plant products across the channel by aligning with EU rules, the boldest step back into Brussels’ orbit yet. Anand Menon, director of the UK in a Changing Europe think tank, said: “[U.K. ministers] are ramping up the rhetoric, saying we’ve got this, we need to implement it fast … There’s a lot of deadlines coming up, and they want movement, and they want to show a sense of enthusiasm.” But Menon was skeptical about whether it will make any difference. He added: “For all this newfound enthusiasm, actually, the EU aren’t going to let them get much closer. “So it’s probably a doomed strategy anyway.” Bethany Dawson and Jon Stone contributed reporting.