BRUSSELS — Disgraced British politician Peter Mandelson is facing demands to be stripped of his pension as a former European commissioner if investigators found he broke EU rules over his contact with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.  Mandelson served as a European commissioner between 2004 and 2008 and is now at the center of a spiraling scandal in Britain. Newly released files showed how Mandelson, who was a senior British minister at the time, helped provide Epstein, then a financier, with information about a €500 billion bailout to save the euro in 2010.  The European Commission is looking into whether Mandelson broke its rules, which apply even after commissioners have left office, though ethics campaigners have called for a full fraud inquiry by independent investigators. Mandelson should lose the commissioner’s pension to which he is entitled if he’s found to have breached the rules, the campaigners said.  “Given the severity of allegations concerning Peter Mandelson’s deplorable relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, the European Commission and European Anti-Fraud Office must pursue an immediate investigation to establish any potential misconduct both during and beyond his tenure as European Commissioner,” Nick Aiossa, director at Transparency International, a leading anti-corruption campaign group, told POLITICO. “Should it do so, Mandelson must be stripped of his Commissioner’s pension.” Daniel Freund, a Green MEP from Germany, condemned the lack of action and investigations against “the most powerful people on earth” over their links to the disgraced financier. “That EU commissioners were somehow involved with this universe is just outrageous,” he told POLITICO. “Taking away the pension would be justified if he broke any EU rules.” Mandelson, 72, was entitled to an inflation-linked pension reportedly worth £31,000 a year when he turned 65 for his four years as a European commissioner. This is on top of other any pensions from his time as an elected politician in the U.K. and in other roles. Mandelson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. He has previously said he was wrong to have continued his association with Epstein and apologized “unequivocally” to Epstein’s victims. In a statement, the EU’s anti-fraud office, known as OLAF, said: “We cannot provide details regarding cases which OLAF may or may not be treating. This is to protect the confidentiality of any possible investigations and of possible ensuing judicial proceedings, as well as to ensure respect for personal data and procedural rights.” In London, Britain’s Health Secretary Wes Streeting said Mandelson should lose the severance payment he was entitled to when his career as U.K. ambassador to the United States ended over the Epstein scandal. Speaking to Times Radio, Streeting also suggested Mandelson could potentially be stripped of related pension entitlements. The opposition Reform UK party said Mandelson should lose the pension he’s entitled to receive as a former government minister. Noah Keate contributed to this report.

BRUSSELS — The EU is relaunching its elite recruitment competition after a seven-year break in an effort to find a new generation of high-level administrators to help manage the world’s second largest economy. The European Commission, which last held the competition in 2019, organizes the assessment to inject new blood into Brussels’ corridors of power. A big wage and job security await those who pass the test. “It’s a contract for life,” said András Baneth, managing partner of EU Training, which prepares applicants for the process, and author of a book on how to pass. “This is a great opportunity for predictable career advancement and, of course, a salary and everything that goes with it.” Successful applicants are eligible for roles at grade “AD-5,” which come with a monthly pay packet of between €5,973 and €6,758, as well as the chance to progress through the bureaucracy and take up influential roles in commissioners’ Cabinets — the elite teams of advisers weighing in on key policy areas. The graduate scheme, aimed at generalists, will open on Thursday, according to the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO), and close on March 10. It is the first time since 2019 that the contest has been held. The process includes psychometric testing, an EU knowledge assessment and an essay submission for those who pass the initial stages. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has made it a priority to give younger, harder-working staff a chance to climb the ladder in an institution that has historically had a stiff hierarchy, Commission officials said. “It’s very important to bring a younger talent pool with a different way of thinking in,” said a senior official, granted anonymity to speak frankly. “You’ll have a lot of certain levels retiring and you need to make sure the next generation of public servants is coming through. Of course we need people who understand the institution, but we also need people who understand the technologies of the future from a different perspective.” According to a spokesperson for the Commission, the “extended pause” over the past seven years was due to a move to full online testing. The scrapping of an assessment center stage means “the overall duration of the competitions of EPSO has been shortened.” SET FOR LIFE “After entering the workforce four years ago, this is finally my first chance to enter the [EU] institutions, which until now has seemed impossible,” said one prospective applicant, granted anonymity to avoid harming their application. “Everyone knows that once you pass the [competition], and get a job, you’re set for life. Which is why literally all of my friends will take this opportunity.” Many younger staff in the 33,000-strong Commission workforce currently serve in relatively insecure roles on short-term contracts or as agency employees, meaning they have fewer benefits, worse take-home pay and far less certainty over their future. The executive has launched a review of its structure, designed to improve its efficiency and cost-effectiveness, with concerns that those who do not have official status could be negatively affected by a restructure. A second prospective applicant, working in the private sector, hit out at the irregularity of the process. “I really hope it will be different this time to give external people a chance, since at the moment the system favors candidates already working at the institutions,” they said. Baneth, the test expert, said that about 1,200 applicants will be directly offered jobs from an applicant pool that could exceed 50,000. Others will be added to a reserve list from which “only 30 percent will actually be offered a job … this leads to a lot of negative feelings when someone goes through all this and still they cannot be sure they get a job.”

For a year, federal judges grappling with President Donald Trump’s mass deportation agenda have looked askance at his administration, warning of potential or, in rarer cases, outright violations of their orders. But in recent weeks, that drumbeat of subtle alarm has metastasized into a full-blown clarion call by judges across the country, who are now openly castigating what they say are systematic legal and constitutional abuses by the administration. “There has been an undeniable move by the Government in the past month to defy court orders or at least to stretch the legal process to the breaking point in an attempt to deny noncitizens their due process rights,” warned U.S. District Judge Michael Davis, a Minnesota-based Clinton appointee. His docket has been inundated as a result of Operation Metro Surge, the Trump administration’s large-scale deportation campaign in the Twin Cities. The object of judges’ frustration has routinely been Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the vanguard of Trump’s push to round up and expel millions of noncitizens as quickly as possible. The agency’s unprecedented strategy to mass detain people while their deportation proceedings are pending has flooded the courts with tens of thousands of emergency lawsuits and resulted in a breathtaking rejection by hundreds of judges. “ICE is not a law unto itself,” Judge Patrick Schiltz, the chief judge on Minnesota’s federal bench, said Wednesday in a ruling describing staggering defiance by ICE to judges’ orders — particularly ones requiring the release of detained immigrants. He estimated, conservatively, that the agency had violated court orders by Minnesota judges 96 times this month alone. Though the national focus has been on Minnesota, judges in other states have grown exasperated as well: — Judge Christine O’Hearn, a Biden appointee in New Jersey, blasted the administration’s defiance of her order to release a man from ICE custody without any conditions, noting that they instead required him to submit to electronic monitoring. “Respondents blatantly disregarded this Court’s Order,” O’Hearn wrote in a Tuesday order. “This was not a misunderstanding or lack of clarity; it was knowing and purposeful,” she added. — Judge Roy Dalton, a Florida-based Obama appointee, threatened sanctions against Trump administration attorneys for what he says was presenting misleading arguments in support of the administration’s deportation policies. “Don’t hide the ball. Don’t ignore the overwhelming weight of persuasive authority as if it won’t be found. And don’t send a sacrificial lamb to stand before this Court with a fistful of cases that don’t apply and no cogent argument for why they should,” he wrote in a Monday ruling. — Judge Mary McElroy, a Trump appointee in Rhode Island, ruled Tuesday that the administration defied her orders regarding the location of an ICE detainee, who was moved to a facility in Massachusetts that McElroy had deemed “wholly unsuitable.” “It seems clear that the Court can conclude that the [administration] willfully violated two of this Court’s orders and willfully misrepresented facts to the Court,” McElroy wrote. — Judge Angel Kelley, a Biden appointee in Massachusetts, said ICE moved a Salvadoran woman out of Maine without warning and in violation of an order to keep her in place. That relocation caused the woman to miss her hearing to seek protection from being deported back to El Salvador, where she said she feared domestic abuse. “The Court notes that ICE signing its own permission slip, citing its own operational needs as reason for the transfer, offers little comfort or justification for ignoring a Federal Court Order,” Kelley wrote Wednesday. — Judge Sunshine Sykes, a Biden appointee in Los Angeles, threatened to hold administration officials in contempt for what she labeled “continued defiance” of her order providing class action relief to immigrants targeted for detention. — Judge Donovan Frank, a Clinton appointee in Minnesota, described a “deeply concerning” practice by ICE to race detainees to states with more favorable judges, which he said “generally suggest that ICE is attempting to hide the location of detainees.” Throughout the first year of Trump’s second term, there have been high-profile examples in which judges have accused ICE and the Department of Homeland Security of violating court orders — from Judge James Boasberg’s command in March to retain custody of 137 Venezuelans shipped to El Salvador without due process, to Judge Paula Xinis’ April order for the administration to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia after his illegal deportation. But the sheer volume of violations judges are now describing reflects an intensification of the mass deportation effort and a system ill-prepared to handle the influx. A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson responded to questions about the complaints from judges by noting Schiltz backed off an initial plan to have ICE’s director, Todd Lyons, appear for a potential contempt proceeding. “If DHS’s behavior was so vile, why dismiss the order to appear?” said Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin, labeling Schiltz — a two-time clerk for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia — an “activist judge.”“DHS will continue to enforce the laws of the United States within all applicable constitutional guidelines. We will not be deterred by activists either in the streets or on the bench,” she added. The surge in violations of court orders has been accompanied by signs that the Justice Department — like the court system — is simply overwhelmed by the volume of emergency cases brought by people detained in the mass deportation push. It’s led to mistakes, missed deadlines and even more frustration from judges, who themselves are buckling under the caseload. Ana Voss, the top civil litigator in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minnesota, apologized to U.S. District Judge Jerry Blackwell last week, noting that in the crush of cases her office has handled recently, she failed to keep the court updated on the location of a man the judge had ordered to be returned to Minnesota from Texas. “I have spent considerable time on this and other cases related to transfer and return issues over the past 3 days,” Voss said. Notably, Schiltz singled out Voss and her office for praise when he initially criticized ICE for its legal violations. He said the career prosecutors “have struggled mightily” to comply with court orders despite their leadership’s failure “to provide them with adequate resources.” When he itemized the violations Wednesday, Schiltz said it was likely ICE had violated more court orders in January than some agencies had in their entire existence. “This list,” he said, “should give pause to anyone — no matter his or her political beliefs — who cares about the rule of law. “

When pro-European liberal Rob Jetten defeated the far right to win the Dutch election three months ago, he gave beleaguered centrists across the region cause to hope.  Now, with a coalition deal finally agreed, his incoming government intends to do the same for NATO and the battered transatlantic alliance on which it depends.  That is the pledge from Dutch Foreign Minister David van Weel, who told POLITICO in an interview what the world should expect from the new administration in The Hague, which must oversee one of Europe’s fastest growing militaries, and is a significant NATO contributor within the EU.  “You will have a government that will look at the world as it is and not as it wishes it to be,” Van Weel said this week. “Therefore you will see a government that will still consider NATO to be the cornerstone of our collective security.” But the EU itself will also need to be “stronger” on its own, both economically and in military terms, he said. Van Weel was speaking after a bruising three weeks in which Donald Trump has rocked the foundations of the transatlantic alliance. European leaders are brainstorming ideas for how to survive in a world without American protection — or even friendship.  The damage Trump’s Greenland demands have done to transatlantic trust is real: “I think that is undeniable,” he said. “Let’s hope we don’t see Greenland back on the menu.” Van Weel also regards Trump’s demands for Greenland as a damaging distraction from the urgent task of negotiating peace in Ukraine. “I really regret that this has taken up so much time and effort of so many people in these times when the whole world seems to be on fire,” he said. And, he added: “There’s many other areas around the world that we need to work together in order to achieve something. So whether or not there is trust, I think that is something we need to work on, but we need each other.” NATO OR NOT? The Netherlands, a country of only 18 million people, has pledged to meet the new NATO target to spend 5 percent of GDP on national security. It currently spends around $28 billion a year on defense. That’s a larger sum than all the European Union’s NATO members apart from France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain, all of which have populations at least twice the size of the Netherlands’. The previous Dutch government aimed to increase the size of the armed forces from 70,000 personnel to 100,000 by 2030, and perhaps 200,000 in future. Earlier in his career, Van Weel worked with Mark Rutte during the latter’s time as prime minister. Rutte now finds himself in a fight to preserve the transatlantic security alliance as secretary-general of NATO. Rutte caused uproar on Jan. 26 when he warned EU politicians they were “dreaming” if they believed Europe could defend itself without American help. Some of his critics think he is the delusional one if he believes Trump can be relied on. Van Weel thinks both sides have a point. “One, at the moment, yes, we rely heavily on the U.S.. Two, we have to decrease that … And three, that’s also in the interest of a more even and balanced transatlantic bond,” he said. European governments must be prepared to take drastic decisions to boost the region’s defenses, he believes. For example, he is not against the idea of creating a new European Security Council, which would include non-EU countries such as the U.K. “The EU was built from a premise of economic cooperation in order to prevent war and therefore never had a security-oriented structure or aim,” Van Weel said. “The world has changed. The EU needs to play a role in the security realm and therefore you might need to look at structures that we don’t have at the moment.” Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine was “a major wake-up call,” as is the “changing geopolitical situation in general.” He added: “Even if you don’t want to do it [increase defense spending] for NATO, even if you don’t want to do it to please the U.S., you should do it for your own interests. And that’s why I am happy that our own coalition will indeed ensure that we reach the targets for defense spending.”  Van Weel said he hopes that a peace deal for Ukraine is “close,” adding that he was hearing “promising things” from the Ukrainian side about progress. But the big problem is Vladimir Putin, he said, and this is where Trump can help. “We do need the U.S. president to put pressure on Russia to come to the negotiating table to finish this conflict,” he said. “It really is time for peace.” 

LONDON — Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney left Beijing and promptly declared the U.S.-led “world order” broken. Don’t expect his British counterpart to do the same. Keir Starmer will land in the Chinese capital Wednesday for the first visit by a U.K. prime minister since 2018. By meeting President Xi Jinping, he will end what he has called an “ice age” under the previous Conservative administration, and try to win deals that he can sell to voters as a boost to Britain’s sputtering economy. Starmer is one of a queue of leaders flocking to the world’s second-largest economy, including France’s Emmanuel Macron in December and Germany’s Friedrich Merz next month. Like Carney did in Davos last week, the British PM has warned the world is the most unstable it has been for a generation. Yet unlike Carney, Starmer is desperate not to paint this as a rupture from the U.S. — and to avoid the criticism Trump unleashed on Carney in recent days over his dealings with China. The U.K. PM is trying to ride three horses at once, staying friendly — or at least engaging — with Washington D.C., Brussels and Beijing.  It is his “three-body problem,” joked a senior Westminster figure who has long worked on British-China relations. POLITICO spoke to 22 current and former officials, MPs, diplomats, industry figures and China experts, most of whom were granted anonymity to speak frankly. They painted a picture of a leader walking the same tightrope he always has surrounded by grim choices — from tricky post-Brexit negotiations with the EU, to Donald Trump taking potshots at British policies and freezing talks on a U.K.-U.S. tech deal. Starmer wants his (long-planned) visit to China to secure growth, but be cautious enough not to compromise national security or enrage Trump. He appears neither to have ramped up engagement with Beijing in response to Trump, nor reduced it amid criticism of China’s espionage and human rights record. In short, he doesn’t want any drama. “Starmer is more managerial. He wants to keep the U.K.’s relationships with big powers steady,” said one person familiar with planning for the trip. “You can’t really imagine him doing a Carney or a Macron and using the trip to set out a big geopolitical vision.” An official in 10 Downing Street added: “He’s clear that it is in the U.K.’s interests to have a relationship with the world’s second biggest economy. While the U.S. is our closest ally, he rejects the suggestion that means you can’t have pragmatic dealings with China.” He will be hoping Trump — whose own China visit is planned for April — sees it that way too. BRING OUT THE CAVALRY Starmer has one word in his mind for this trip — growth, which was just 0.1 percent in the three months to September. The prime minister will be flanked by executives from City giants HSBC, Standard Chartered, Schroders and the London Stock Exchange Group; pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca; car manufacturer Jaguar Land Rover; energy provider Octopus; and Brompton, the folding bicycle manufacturer. The priority in Downing Street will be bringing back “a sellable headline,” said the person familiar with trip planning quoted above. The economy is the overwhelming focus. While officials discussed trying to secure a political win, such as China lifting sanctions it imposed on British parliamentarians in 2021, one U.K. official said they now believe this to be unlikely. Between them, five people familiar with the trip’s planning predicted a large number of deals, dialogues and memorandums of understanding — but largely in areas with the fewest national security concerns. These are likely to include joint work on medical, health and life sciences, cooperation on climate science, and work to highlight Mandarin language schemes, the people said.  Officials are also working on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications and visa-free travel for short stays, while firms have been pushing for more expansive banking and insurance licences for British companies operating in China. The U.K. is meanwhile likely to try to persuade Beijing to lower import tariffs on Scotch whisky, which doubled in February 2025. A former U.K. official who was involved in Britain’s last prime ministerial visit to China, by Theresa May in 2018, predicted all deals will already be “either 100 or 99 percent agreed, in the system, and No. 10 will already have a firm number in its head that it can announce.” THREADING THE NEEDLE Yet all five people agreed there is unlikely to be a deal on heavy energy infrastructure, including wind turbine technology, that could leave Britain vulnerable to China. The U.K. has still not decided whether to let Ming Yang, a Chinese firm, invest £1.5 billion in a wind farm off the coast of Scotland. And while Carney agreed to ease tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles (EVs), three of the five people familiar with the trip’s planning said that any deep co-operation on EV technology is likely to be off the table. One of them predicted: “This won’t be another Canada moment. I don’t see us opening the floodgates on EVs.” Britain is trying to stick to “amber and green areas” for any deals, said the first person familiar with the planning. The second of the five people said: “I think they‘re going for the soft, slightly lovey stuff.” Britain has good reason to be reluctant, as Chinese-affiliated groups have long been accused of hacking and espionage, including against MPs and Britain’s Electoral Commission. Westminster was gripped by headlines in December about a collapsed case against two men who had been accused of spying for China. Chinese firm Huawei was banned from helping build the U.K.’s 5G phone network in 2020 after pressure from Trump. Even now, Britain’s security agencies are working on mitigations to telecommunications cables near the Tower of London. They pass close to the boundary of China’s proposed embassy, which won planning approval last week. Andrew Small, director of the Asia Programme at the European Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank working on foreign and security policy, said: “The current debate about how to ‘safely’ increase China’s role in U.K. green energy supplies — especially through wind power — has serious echoes of 5G all over again, and is a bigger concern on the U.S. side than the embassy decision.”  Starmer and his team also “don’t want to antagonize the Americans” ahead of Trump’s own visit in April, said the third of the five people familiar with trip planning. “They’re on eggshells … if they announce a new dialogue on United Nations policy or whatever bullshit they can come up with, any of those could be interpreted as a broadside to the Trump administration.” All these factors mean Starmer’s path to a “win” is narrow. Tahlia Peterson, a fellow working on China at Chatham House, the international affairs think tank, said: “Starmer isn’t going to ‘reset’ the relationship in one visit or unlock large-scale Chinese investment into Britain’s core infrastructure.” Small said foreign firms are being squeezed out of the Chinese market and Xi is “weaponizing” the dependency on Chinese supply chains. He added: “Beijing will likely offer extremely minor concessions in areas such as financial services, [amounting to] no more than a rounding error in economic scale.” Chancellor Rachel Reeves knows the pain of this. Britain’s top finance minister was mocked when she returned with just £600 million of agreements from her visit to China a year ago. One former Tory minister said the figure was a “deliberate insult” by China. Even once the big win is in the bag, there is the danger of it falling apart on arrival. Carney announced Canada and China would expand visa-free travel, only for Beijing’s ambassador to Ottawa to say that the move was not yet official. Despite this, businesses have been keen on Starmer’s re-engagement.  Rain Newton-Smith, director-general of the Confederation of British Industry, said firms are concerned about the dependence on Chinese rare earths but added: “If you map supply chains from anywhere, the idea that you can decouple from China is impossible. It’s about how that trade can be facilitated in the best way.” EMBASSY ROW Even if Starmer gets his wins, this visit will bring controversies that (critics say) show the asymmetry in Britain’s relationship with China. A tale of two embassies serves as a good metaphor.  Britain finally approved plans last week for China’s new outpost in London, despite a long row over national security. China held off formally confirming Starmer’s visit until the London embassy decision was finalized, the first person familiar with planning for the trip said. (Others point out Starmer would not want to go until the issue was resolved.) The result was a scramble in which executives were only formally invited a week before take-off. And Britain has not yet received approval to renovate its own embassy in Beijing. Officials privately refer to the building as “falling down,” while one person who has visited said construction materials were piled up against walls. It is “crumbling,” added another U.K. official: “The walls have got cracks on them, the wallpaper’s peeling off, it’s got damp patches.” British officials refused to give any impression of a “quid pro quo” for the two projects under the U.K.’s semi-judicial planning system. But that means much of Whitehall still does not know if Britain’s embassy revamp in Beijing will be approved, or held back until China’s project in London undergoes a further review in the courts. U.K. officials are privately pressing their Chinese counterparts to give the green light. One of the people keenest on a breakthrough will be Britain’s new ambassador to Beijing Peter Wilson, a career diplomat described by people who have met him as “outstanding,” “super smart” and “very friendly.”  For Wilson, hosting Starmer will be one of his trickiest jobs yet. The everyday precautions when doing business in China have made preparations for this trip more intense. Government officials and corporate executives are bringing secure devices and will have been briefed on the risk of eavesdropping and honeytraps. One member of Theresa May’s 2018 delegation to China recalled opening the door of what they thought was their vehicle, only to see several people with headsets on, listening carefully and typing. They compared it to a scene in a spy film. Activists and MPs will put Starmer under pressure to raise human rights issues — including what campaigners say is a genocide against the Uyghur people in Xinjiang province — on a trip governed by strict protocol where one stray word can derail a deal.  Pro-democracy publisher Jimmy Lai, who has British nationality, is facing sentencing in Hong Kong imminently for national security offenses. During the PM’s last meeting with Xi in 2024, Chinese officials bundled British journalists out of the room when he raised the case. Campaigners had thought Lai’s sentencing could take place this week. All these factors mean tension in the British state — which has faced a tussle between “securocrats” and departments pushing for growth — has been high ahead of the trip. Government comments on China are workshopped carefully before publication. Earlier this month, Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper told POLITICO her work on Beijing involves looking at “transnational repression” and “espionage threats.” But when Chancellor Rachel Reeves met China’s Finance Minister He Lifeng in Davos last week to tee up Starmer’s visit, the U.K. Treasury did not publicize the meeting — beyond a little-noticed photo on its Flickr account. SLOW BOAT TO CHINA Whatever the controversies, Labour’s China stance has been steadily taking shape since before Starmer took office in 2024. Labour drew inspiration from its sister party in Australia and the U.S. Democrats, both of which had regular meetings with Beijing. Party aides argued that after a brief “golden era” under Conservative PM David Cameron, Britain engaged less with China than with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The result of Labour’s thinking was the policy of “three Cs” — “challenge, compete, and cooperate.” A procession of visits to Beijing followed, most notably Reeves last year, culminating in Starmer’s trip. His National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell was involved in planning across much of 2025, even travelling to meet China’s top diplomat, Wang Yi, in November. Starmer teed up this week’s visit with a December speech arguing the “binary” view of China had persisted for too long. He promised to engage with Beijing carefully while taking a “more transactional approach to pretty well everything.”  The result was that this visit has long been locked in; just as Labour aides argue the London embassy decision was set in train in 2018, when the Tory government gave diplomatic consent for the site. Labour ministers “just want to normalize” the fact of dealing with China, said the senior Westminster figure quoted above. Newton-Smith added: “I think the view is that the government’s engagement with eyes wide open is the right strategy. And under the previous government, we did lose out.” But for each person who praises the re-engagement, there are others who say it has left Britain vulnerable while begging for scraps at China’s table. Hawks argue the hard details behind the “three Cs” were long nebulous, while Labour’s long-awaited “audit” of U.K.-China relations was delayed before being folded briefly into a wider security document. “Every single bad decision now can be traced back to the first six months,” argued the third person familiar with planning quoted above. “They were absolutely ill-prepared and made a series of decisions that have boxed them into a corner.” They added: “The government lacks the killer instinct to deal with China. It’s not in their DNA.” Luke de Pulford, a human rights campaigner and director of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, argued the Tories had engaged with China — Foreign Secretary James Cleverly visited in 2023 — and Labour was simply going much further. “China is pursuing an enterprise to reshape the global order in its own image, and to that end, to change our institutions and way of life to the extent that they’re an obstacle to it,” he said. “That’s what they’re up to — and we keep falling for it.” END OF THE OLD ORDER? His language may be less dramatic, but Starmer’s visit to China does have some parallels with Canada. Carney’s trip was the first by a Canadian PM since 2017, and he and Xi agreed a “new strategic partnership.” Later at Davos, the Canadian PM talked of “the end of a pleasant fiction” and warned multilateral institutions such as the United Nations are under threat. One British industry figure who attended Davos said of Carney’s speech: “It was great. Everyone was talking about it. Someone said to me that was the best and most poignant speech they’d ever seen at the World Economic Forum. That may be a little overblown, but I guess most of the speeches at the WEF are quite dull.” The language used by Starmer, a former human rights lawyer devoted to multilateralism, has not been totally dissimilar. Britain could no longer “look only to international institutions to uphold our values and interests,” he said in December. “We must do it ourselves through deals and alliances.” But while some in the U.K. government privately agree with Carney’s point, the real difference is the two men’s approach to Trump. Starmer will temper his messaging carefully to avoid upsetting either his Chinese hosts or the U.S., even as Trump throws semi-regular rocks at Britain. To Peterson, this is unavoidable. “China, the U.S. and the EU are likely to continue to dominate global economic growth for the foreseeable future,” she said. “Starmer’s choice is not whether to engage, but how.” Esther Webber contributed reporting.

It seems impossible to have a conversation today without artificial intelligence (AI) playing some role, demonstrating the massive power of the technology. It has the potential to impact every part of business, and European policymakers are on board. In February 2025, Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president, said, “We want Europe to be one of the leading AI continents … AI can help us boost our competitiveness, protect our security, shore up public health, and make access to knowledge and information more democratic.” Research from Nokia suggests that businesses share this enthusiasm and ambition: 84 percent of more than 1,000 respondents said AI features in the growth strategy of their organization, while 62 percent are directing at least 20 percent of ICT capex budgets toward the technology. However, the equation is not yet balanced. Three-quarters of survey respondents state that current telecom infrastructure limits the ability to deliver on those ambitions. Meanwhile, 45 percent suggest these limitations would delay, constrain or entirely limit investments. There is clearly a disconnect between the ambition and the ability to deliver. At present, Europe lags the United States and parts of Asia in areas such as network deployment, related investment levels and scale. > If AI does not reach its full potential, EU competitiveness will suffer, > economic growth will have a ceiling, the creation of new jobs will have a > limit and consumers will not see the benefits. What we must remember primarily is that AI does not happen without advanced, trusted and future-proofed networks. Infrastructure is not a ‘nice to have’ it is a fundamental part. Simply put, today’s networks in Europe require more investments to power the AI dream we all have. If AI does not reach its full potential, EU competitiveness will suffer, economic growth will have a ceiling, the creation of new jobs will have a limit and consumers will not see the benefits. When we asked businesses about the challenge of meeting AI demands during our research, the lack of adequate connectivity infrastructure was the fourth common answer out of 15 potential options. Our telecom connectivity regulatory approach must be more closely aligned with the goal of fostering AI. That means progressing toward a genuine telecom single market, adopting a novel approach to competition policy to allow market consolidation to lead to more investments, and ensuring connectivity is always secure and trusted. Supporting more investments in next-generation networks through consolidation AI places heavy demands on networks. It requires low latency, high bandwidth and reliability, and efficient traffic management. To deliver this, Europe needs to accelerate investment in 5G standalone, fiber to enterprises, edge data centers and IP-optical backbone networks optimized for AI. > As industry voices such as Nokia have emphasized, the networks that power AI > must themselves make greater use of automation and AI. Consolidation (i.e. reducing the number of telecom operators within the national telecom markets of EU member states) is part of the solution. Consolidation will allow operators to achieve economies of scale and improve operating efficiency, therefore encouraging investment and catalyzing innovation. As industry voices such as Nokia have emphasized, the networks that power AI must themselves make greater use of automation and AI. Policy support should therefore extend to both network innovation and deployment. Trust: A precondition for AI adoption Intellectual property (IP) theft is a threat to Europe’s industrial future and only trusted technology should be used in core functions, systems and sectors (such as energy, transport and defense). In this context, the underlying connectivity should always be secure and trusted. The 5G Security Toolbox, restricting untrusted technology, should therefore be extended to all telecom technologies (including fiber, optics and IP) and made compulsory in all EU member states. European governments must make protecting their industries and citizens a high priority. Completing the digital single market Although the single market is one of Europe’s defining projects, the reality in telecoms — a key part of the digital single market — is still fragmented. As an example, different spectrum policies create barriers across borders and can limit network roll outs. Levers on top of advanced connectivity To enable the AI ecosystem in Europe, there are several different enabling levers European policymakers should advance on top of fostering advanced and trusted connectivity: * The availability of compute infrastructure. The AI Continent Action Plan, as well as the IPCEI Compute Infrastructure Continuum, and the European High-Performance Computing Joint Undertaking should facilitate building AI data centers in Europe.   * Leadership in edge computing. There should also be clear support for securing Europe’s access to and leadership in edge solutions and building out edge capacity. Edge solutions increase processing speeds and are important for enabling AI adoption, while also creating a catalyst for economic growth. With the right data center capacity and edge compute capabilities available, European businesses can meet the new requirements of AI use cases.  * Harmonization of rules. There are currently implications for AI in several policy areas, including the AI Act, GDPR, Data Act, cybersecurity laws and sector-specific regulations. This creates confusion, whereas AI requires clarity. Simplification and harmonization of these regulations should be pursued.  * AI Act implementation and simplification. There are concerns about the implementation of the AI Act. The standards for high-risk AI may not be available before the obligations of the AI act enter into force, hampering business ambitions due to legal uncertainty. The application date of the AI Act’s provisions on high-risk AI should be postponed by two years to align with the development of standards. There needs to be greater clarity on definitions and simplification measures should be pursued across the entire ecosystem. Policies must be simple enough to follow, otherwise adoption may falter. Policy needs to act as an enabler, not a barrier to innovation.  * Upskilling and new skills. AI will require new skills of employees and users, as well as creating entirely new career paths. Europe needs to prepare for this new world.  If Europe can deliver on these priorities, the benefits will be tangible: improved services, stronger industries, increased competitiveness and higher economic growth. AI will deliver to those who best prepare themselves. We must act now with the urgency and consistency that the moment demands. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author biography: Marc Vancoppenolle is leading the geopolitical and government relations EU and Europe function at Nokia. He and his team are working with institutions and stakeholders in Europe to create a favorable political and regulatory environment fostering broadband investments and cross sectoral digitalization at large. Vancoppenolle has over 30 years of experience in the telecommunication industry. He joined Alcatel in 1991, and then Alcatel-Lucent, where he took various international and worldwide technical, commercial, marketing, communication and government affairs leadership roles. Vancoppenolle is a Belgian and French national. He holds a Master of Science, with a specialization in telecommunication, from the University of Leuven complemented with marketing studies from the University of Antwerp. He is a member of the DIGITALEUROPE Executive Board, Associate to Nokia’s CEO at the ERT (European Round Table for Industry), and advisor to FITCE Belgium (Forum for ICT & Media professionals). He has been vice-chair of the BUSINESSEUROPE Digital Economy Taskforce as well as a member of the board of IICB (Innovation & Incubation Center Brussels).

BRUSSELS ― For decades, Belgium has been Europe’s beating heart. That its current prime minister fought against the EU ― and won ― ushers in a dramatic new chapter for the bloc. Even though the EU agreed to send Ukraine €90 billion after 16 hours of marathon talks that ended Friday morning, this disguises yet more fracturing of European unity. Bart De Wever’s belligerence means it’s another victory for an anti-establishment leader. The plan to use frozen Russian assets to pay for the loan, for so long the only idea under consideration, is in tatters. De Wever, the Flemish nationalist whose career has been based on wanting to tear his country apart, held out for more than two months. Even as late as Thursday afternoon, many EU governments believed he’d back down. He didn’t. “He basically got everything he wanted,” one EU diplomat said after the summit broke up in the early hours of Friday morning. Based on conversations with 23 EU officials, diplomats and politicians, nearly all of whom were granted anonymity so they could describe in detail the events of recent weeks, this is the story of how he did it. BERLIN TO BRUSSELS It started during a mild night in October. That was the last time EU leaders met, and when they initially hoped they’d get a deal to take the unprecedented step of using Russian assets to give Ukraine financial support. The EU has got used to leaders like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán throwing their weight around but, suddenly, the 54-year-old De Wever became the latest to break rank. When leaders left that gathering shame-faced and empty-handed after promising Volodymyr Zelenskyy they were ready to send Kyiv billions of euros, they swore all they needed was two more months to win the Belgian over. Instead, as more time went on, more leaders took his side. What started to emerge was a populist bloc. After near-daily meetings of EU ambassadors, dozens of phone calls, diplomacy dashes from Berlin to Brussels and amid a brutal Russian onslaught on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure and civilian targets, two rival camps were still pulling in opposite directions by the morning of the summit on Thursday.  “Is Belgium alone? Is Belgium isolated? I cannot predict what will happen,” De Wever told Belgian lawmakers before taking the shortest of trips to his capital’s EU quarter. He knew it wasn’t. The first camp of countries — by then led by Belgium with support from Italy, Bulgaria and Malta — opposed using Russia’s assets over fears of reprisals.  Instead they wanted the EU to borrow money jointly. The fact that this idea was unpalatable to German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Hungary’s Russia-friendly Orbán and yet turned out to be exactly what happened, shows the scale of De Wever’s victory. “Countries that live close to Russia … found it emotionally satisfying” to try to tap Russia’s frozen assets, De Wever told reporters after the summit. But “politics is not an emotional job,” and “rationality has prevailed.” DECEMBER REDUX De Wever had been rewarded for his October stubbornness with unprecedented popularity at home and fawning attention from the EU’s big-hitters. By continuing to refuse to yield to pressure, he only made himself more popular. In early December, the man who had spent his political career denigrating the French-speaking parts of Belgium, received several minutes of rousing applause after delivering a lecture to a Francophone audience. Sixty-seven percent of Belgians polled the week of the summit said they backed his opposition to the frozen assets plan. Earlier in the month, Germany’s Merz and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen wined and dined De Wever in Brussels, pulling out all the stops to convince him to drop his opposition to the frozen assets plan.  The two Germans got nowhere with the carrot. So some diplomats suggested a stick. A week ago EU diplomats suggested that if Belgium didn’t come to the table on the frozen assets plan, it would be iced out of decision-making around the EU table, like Hungary has been over its rule-of-law backsliding. Latvian Prime Minister Evika Siliņa told POLITICO on Tuesday: “For Belgium, I think I don’t wish them to become a second Hungary.” But the warning did little to sway De Wever. Neither did the threat of the EU circumventing Belgium to ram through the frozen assets deal with so-called qualified majority voting. Less than 24 hours before the summit began, Belgium’s ambassador told peers during closed-door talks that “we’re going backward” on frozen assets. Yet most European leaders arrived for the high-stakes gathering still expecting it to materialize. It was still Plan A. SUMMIT DAY As they gathered in the Europa building rabbit-warren, the 27 EU leaders decided to rip up plans to discuss Ukraine funding first up and opted to leave them to the end, to give them time to convince De Wever. The real action was happening in the rarefied backrooms, where EU leaders were discreetly huddling with their peers. While his fellow leaders debated key issues such as enlargement and the bloc’s next multi-year budget, the Belgian PM and other key players, including Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and Germany’s Merz, slipped out of the room. Merz met Meloni one-on-one to try to bring her round. De Wever’s price for backing the asset plan: unlimited financial guarantees from his fellow member countries against the €210 billion package, in case Russia sued or retaliated in some other way.  But the idea of giving Belgium a blank check was a non-starter, with countries concerned about an unlimited liability to their bottom line.  After four hours of talks there was the real prospect of no deal. The idea of using Russian assets for the loan unraveled shortly after a two-page legal document addressing Belgium’s concerns was circulated among leaders. For many leaders, it raised too many questions and went too far. Meloni quickly started picking holes in the document. French President Emmanuel Macron chimed in, followed by Luxembourg’s PM Luc Frieden. The plan was dead. With the clock ticking, leaders keen to get out of Brussels for their Christmas breaks and Ukraine waiting for certainty, talk turned to the European Commission’s Plan B for funding Ukraine: joint borrowing. In truth, such an idea had been in the air for days. Von der Leyen had opened the door to eurobonds on Wednesday morning during a speech to the European Parliament. “I proposed two different options for this upcoming European Council, one based on assets and one based on EU borrowing,” she said. The question was how the EU could get Hungary, which had ruled out eurobonds, to lift its veto. Commission officials seemed confident that it had found a way. In exchange for Orbán’s support, the Commission would spare Hungarian taxpayers from having to pay for Ukraine’s defense.   Orbán, Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babiš and Slovakia’s Robert Fico — the EU’s troika of Euroskeptic leaders — huddled for a private meeting on the sidelines of the summit before the leaders sat down to dinner. They would all get carve-outs from the joint debt scheme in the end. THE TASK AHEAD What united the other 24 EU leaders was that they agreed that failure at this December summit was not an option. Without money from the EU, Ukraine would go broke next year. Zelenskyy, who jetted into Brussels on Thursday morning seeking to focus the leaders’ minds on the task ahead, told reporters after lunch that if they failed to get a deal, Ukraine would have to drastically cut spending. That would mean fewer weapons and drones and more casualties from Russian attacks. Ultimately, the compromise deal means ― as is so often the case in EU decision-making ― pretty much every leader can sell it as a victory. But no one as much as the Belgian prime minister. The bad news for him is that in the EU’s corridors of power, that won’t be forgotten for a long time. “Bart De Wever isn’t going to be getting any favors from the Commission any time soon,” a diplomat said. “And he will likely need them.”

LONDON — Christian Turner has been chosen as Britain’s new ambassador to the United States. The U.K. government on Thursday picked the career diplomat — who had been due to become Britain’s designated representative to the United Nations in the coming months — to take on the key transatlantic diplomacy role vacated by Peter Mandelson, amid controversy over Mandelson’s friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The PM’s business adviser Varun Chandra had been seen as the frontrunner as recently as this week, but Turner secured the plum job after Keir Starmer was persuaded to appoint from within the Foreign Office. One Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) official familiar with the final shortlist process said there had been a “massive fightback in the past days” to sway the PM towards appointing a career diplomat. Turner has spent three years as political director at the Foreign Office in London, but brings U.S. experience too. He spent four years in Washington from 2002 to 2006 as first secretary at the British Embassy there. The decision to opt for an FCDO veteran comes at a crucial time for U.S and European relations. President Donald Trump is pushing for peace in Ukraine — and has been aiming pointed attacks at Europe’s leaders he sees as weak. U.K. and U.S. negotiators are continuing to haggle over key elements of a trade deal unveiled in May. Turner was U.K. deputy national security adviser to Theresa May as prime minister. This developing story is being updated.

This article is presented by EFPIA with the support of AbbVie I made a trip back to Europe recently, where I spent the vast majority of my pharmaceutical career, to share my perspectives on competitiveness at the European Health Summit. Now that I work in a role responsible for supporting patient access to medicine globally, I view Europe, and how it compares internationally, through a new lens, and I have been reflecting further on why the choices made today will have such a critical impact on where medicines are developed tomorrow. Today, many patients around the world benefit from medicines built on European science and breakthroughs of the last 20 years. Europeans, like me, can be proud of this contribution. As I look forward, my concern is that we may not be able to make the same claim in the next 20 years. It’s clear that Europe has a choice. Investing in sustainable medicines growth and other enabling policies will, I believe, bring significant benefits. Not doing so risks diminishing global influence. > Today, many patients around the world benefit from medicines built on European > science and breakthroughs of the last 20 years I reflect on three important points: 1) investment in healthcare benefits individuals, healthcare and society, but the scale of this benefit remains underappreciated; 2) connected to this, the underpinning science for future innovation is increasingly happening elsewhere; and 3) this means the choices we make today must address both of these trends. First, let’s use the example of migraine. As I have heard a patient say, “Migraine will not kill you but neither [will they] let you live.”[1] Individuals can face being under a migraine attack for more than half of every month, unable to leave home, maintain a job and engage in society.[2] It is the second biggest cause of disability globally and the first among young women.[3] It affects the quality of life of millions of Europeans.[4] From 2011-21 the economic burden of migraine in Europe due to the loss of working days ranged from €35-557 billion, depending on the country, representing 1-2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).[5]   Overall socioeconomic burden of migraine as percentage of the country’s GDP in 2021 Source: WifOR, The socioeconomic burden of migraine. The case of 6 European Countries.5 Access to effective therapies could radically improve individuals’ lives and their ability to return to work.[6] Yet, despite the staggering economic and personal impacts, in some member states the latest medicines are either not reimbursed or only available after several treatment failures.[7] Imagine if Europe shifted its perspective on these conditions, investing to improve not only health but unlocking the potential for workforce and economic productivity? Moving to my second point, against this backdrop of underinvestment, where are scientific advances now happening in our sector? In recent years it is impressive to see China has become the second-largest drug developer in the world,[8] and within five years it may lead the innovative antibodies therapeutics sector,[9] which is particularly promising for complex areas like oncology. Cancer is projected to become the leading cause of death in Europe by 2035,[10] yet the continent’s share of the number of oncology trials dropped from 41 percent in 2013 to 21 percent in 2023.10 Today, antibody-drug conjugates are bringing new hope in hard-to-treat tumor types,[11] like ovarian,[12] lung[13] and colorectal[14] cancer, and we hope to see more of these advances in the future. Unfortunately, Europe is no longer at the forefront of the development of these innovations. This geographical shift could impact high-quality jobs, the vitality of Europe’s biotech sector and, most importantly, patients’ outcomes. [15] > This is why I encourage choices to be made that clearly signal the value > Europe attaches to medicines This is why I encourage choices to be made that clearly signal the value Europe attaches to medicines. This can be done by removing national cost-containment measures, like clawbacks, that are increasingly eroding the ability of companies to invest in European R&D. To provide a sense of their impact, between 2012 and 2023, clawbacks and price controls reduced manufacturer revenues by over €1.2 billion across five major EU markets, corresponding to a loss of 4.7 percent in countries like Spain.[16] Moreover, we should address health technology assessment approaches in Europe, or mandatory discount policies, which are simply not adequately accounting for the wider societal value of medicines, such as in the migraine example, and promoting a short-term approach to investment. By broadening horizons and choosing a long-term investment strategy for medicines and the life science sector, Europe will not only enable this strategic industry to drive global competitiveness but, more importantly, bring hope to Europeans suffering from health conditions. AbbVie SA/NV – BE-ABBV-250177 (V1.0) – December 2025 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] The Parliament Magazine, https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/partner/article/unmet-medical-needs-and-migraine-assessing-the-added-value-for-patients-and-society, Last accessed December 2025. [2] The Migraine Trust; https://migrainetrust.org/understand-migraine/types-of-migraine/chronic-migraine/, Last accessed December 2025. [3] Steiner TJ, et al; Lifting The Burden: the Global Campaign against Headache. Migraine remains second among the world’s causes of disability, and first among young women: findings from GBD2019. J Headache Pain. 2020 Dec 2;21(1):137 [4] Coppola G, Brown JD, Mercadante AR, Drakeley S, Sternbach N, Jenkins A, Blakeman KH, Gendolla A. The epidemiology and unmet need of migraine in five european countries: results from the national health and wellness survey. BMC Public Health. 2025 Jan 21;25(1):254. doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-21244-8. [5] WifOR. Calculating the Socioeconomic Burden of Migraine: The Case of 6 European Countries. Available at: [https://www.wifor.com/en/download/the-socioeconomic-burden-of-migraine-the-case-of-6-eu­ropean-countries/?wpdmdl=358249&refresh=687823f915e751752703993]. Accessed June 2025. [6] Seddik AH, Schiener C, Ostwald DA, Schramm S, Huels J, Katsarava Z. Social Impact of Prophylactic Migraine Treatments in Germany: A State-Transition and Open Cohort Approach. Value Health. 2021 Oct;24(10):1446-1453. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2021.04.1281 [7] Moisset X, Demarquay G, et al., Migraine treatment: Position paper of the French Headache Society. Rev Neurol (Paris). 2024 Dec;180(10):1087-1099. doi: 10.1016/j.neurol.2024.09.008. [8] The Economist, https://www.economist.com/china/2025/11/23/chinese-pharma-is-on-the-cusp-of-going-global, Last accessed December 2025. [9] Crescioli S, Reichert JM. Innovative antibody therapeutic development in China compared with the USA and Europe. Nat Rev Drug Discov. Published online November 7, 2025. [10] Manzano A., Svedman C., Hofmarcher T., Wilking N.. Comparator Report on Cancer in Europe 2025 – Disease Burden, Costs and Access to Medicines and Molecular Diagnostics. EFPIA, 2025. [IHE REPORT 2025:2, page 20] [11] Armstrong GB, Graham H, Cheung A, Montaseri H, Burley GA, Karagiannis SN, Rattray Z. Antibody-drug conjugates as multimodal therapies against hard-to-treat cancers. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2025 Sep;224:115648. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2025.115648. Epub 2025 Jul 11. PMID: 40653109.. [12] Narayana, R.V.L., Gupta, R. Exploring the therapeutic use and outcome of antibody-drug conjugates in ovarian cancer treatment. Oncogene 44, 2343–2356 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41388-025-03448-3 [13] Coleman, N., Yap, T.A., Heymach, J.V. et al. Antibody-drug conjugates in lung cancer: dawn of a new era?. npj Precis. Onc. 7, 5 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41698-022-00338-9 [14] Wang Y, Lu K, Xu Y, Xu S, Chu H, Fang X. Antibody-drug conjugates as immuno-oncology agents in colorectal cancer: targets, payloads, and therapeutic synergies. Front Immunol. 2025 Nov 3;16:1678907. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2025.1678907. PMID: 41256852; PMCID: PMC12620403. [15] EFPIA, Improving EU Clinical Trials: Proposals to Overcome Current Challenges and Strengthen the Ecosystem, efpias-list-of-proposals-clinical-trials-15-apr-2025.pdf, Last accessed December 2025. [16] The EU General Pharmaceutical Legislation & Clawbacks, © Vital Transformation BVBA, 2024.

OTTAWA — Canada’s ambassador to the United States and its chief trade negotiator with the Trump administration said she is stepping down in the new year. “I have advised Prime Minister [Mark] Carney that I will be ending my tenure in the United States in the New Year. It has been the greatest privilege of my professional life to have served and represented Canada and Canadians during this critical period in Canada-U.S. relations,” Kirsten Hillman said in her resignation letter posted on X on Tuesday afternoon. Hillman’s departure comes after eight years in Washington, as the Carney government navigates President Donald Trump’s abrupt cancellation of bilateral trade talks in October and prepares for next year’s review of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. Hillman, a trade lawyer and career diplomat, was a key member of the Canadian negotiating team that faced off against Trump’s first administration during the talks that led to the creation of the USMCA. “While there will never be a perfect time to leave, this is the right time to put a team in place that will see the CUSMA Review through to its conclusion,” she wrote, using the Canadian acronym for the new North American trade pact. Despite the current trade disruptions and the aftermath of navigating the Covid-19 pandemic, Hillman said her greatest accomplishment was working to secure the release of two Canadian men who spent more than 1,000 days arbitrarily imprisoned in China from 2018 to 2021. “In a relationship as deep and complex as ours, pressing and consequential issues arise almost daily,” she wrote. “Yet none was more personal to me than the hundreds of hours I spent with U.S. and Chinese counterparts working for the release of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor.”