VIENNA — Donald Trump’s trade war has been less damaging for Europe’s economy than widely feared, and there is a hope that a stable recovery is underway, European Central Bank governing council member Martin Kocher said.  “We have not seen the strong reduction in growth rates and the inflationary effects of the trade conflicts that were anticipated in March and April,” the Austrian National Bank governor told POLITICO in an interview on Wednesday. On the same day that a closely-watched business survey pointed to an unexpected and marked pickup in activity in October, Kocher suggested there were emerging signs of an economic pickup. Kocher, who served as economy minister before joining the central bank in September, nonetheless warned against complacency. “I don’t want to sugarcoat what we are seeing,” he said. “This is the highest level of tariffs since the 1930s, and there will be effects on the world economy.” The impact on the eurozone will be exceptionally difficult to predict because we have not experienced anything similar in nearly 100 years, Kocher said, adding that this was the primary reason for diverging views about the ideal monetary policy path ahead on the ECB’s governing council. Falling inflation has allowed the ECB to cut its key deposit rate eight times since the middle of last year, bringing it down from a record-high 4 percent to 2 percent currently — a level that the Bank says is no longer restricting the economy. A behavioral economist rather than a monetary one, Kocher is one of the newest faces on the governing council, having succeeded Robert Holzmann earlier this year. Most analysts expect a more moderate approach from him than from the veteran hawk Holzmann, who was often the lone dissenter on the rate-setting body. The governor’s office leaves no doubt there is a change in style underfoot — the wooden desk replaced by a modern, height-adjustable table and new, colorful paintings by Austrian artists Wolfgang Hollegha and Hans Staudacher on the wall. While policymakers unanimously agreed to keep interest rates on hold last week, ECB President Christine Lagarde revealed that “there are different positions and different views” on whether the Bank may yet have to cut them one more time. “The difficulty is to assess whether most of the effects of the trade conflicts have already materialized or whether we will see them trickle down in the economy over the next couple of months and perhaps even years,” he said. “I’m convinced that we’ll see more effects over time. But whether they will be overall inflationary, or rather disinflationary in the euro area, is difficult to tell.” RISKY OUTLOOK Kocher explained it’s reasonable to expect deflationary pressure from the rerouting of trade from China to Europe that was flowing to the U.S. before the trade conflict began, but it’s equally plausible that geopolitical conflicts may hamper supply chains and boost prices. And things can change very fast. “Last week’s APEC summit with some interim agreement between the U.S. and China might have changed the outlook again,” he noted. While policymakers unanimously agreed to keep interest rates on hold last week, ECB President Christine Lagarde revealed that “there are different positions and different views” on whether the Bank may yet have to cut them one more time. | Nikolay Doychinov/AFP via Getty Images At the summit, the U.S. and China committed to lowering the temperature in their trade and tech rivalry. The so-called “Gyeongju Declaration” called for “robust trade and investment” and committed leaders to deepen economic cooperation. In this environment, “we have to wait and see to what extent [risks] materialize” as it’s difficult to take rate decisions “primarily based on the risk outlook,” Kocher said. As things stand, he said, the ECB would need to “see some risk materializing that would reduce … the GDP projection to a significant extent, and that would lead perhaps to some disinflationary effects” before it discussed cutting again. The governing council next meets in December, when a new set of forecasts will include estimates for growth and inflation in 2028 for the first time. Kocher warned against placing too much emphasis on the 2028 numbers, which many economists and investors focus on as an indication of whether the Bank is on track to meet its medium-term inflation target. While the forecast will offer more certainty about the outlook for 2026 and 2027, that for 2028 will be little more than “indicative,” he argued. “You always have to take projections with a grain of salt. And the further away the projection horizon, the larger the grain of salt.” GREEN BATTLE CONTINUES Kocher was speaking on the day that a majority of the EU’s 27 governments decided to water down their collective target for pollution reduction, seen by many as a sign that political momentum has swung after half a decade of green victories on climate policy. But Kocher fiercely defended the ECB’s commitment to green central banking. “Whatever is decided today, there’s no significant change in the targets of the European Union to become climate neutral in the near future,” Kocher said. And so long as it does not interfere with the ECB’s inflation-targeting mandate, the ECB has the “freedom” to support those objectives. He said the governing council had reaffirmed the view, even in the last couple of months, that it is essential to take climate risks into account in its projections, citing the massive impact that extreme weather events can have on growth and inflation. In contrast to his predecessor, Kocher also backs the inclusion of a climate criterion in the Bank’s collateral framework, a step that could one day make it more expensive for polluting companies than for green ones to borrow money. Critics of green central banking have argued that it is up to elected politicians, rather than central bankers, to create incentives for green business. But Kocher, a former downhill racer who has seen Austria’s key tourism sector struggle with an ever-shorter ski season, is unconcerned. “As long as it does not create a trade-off with our inflation target, I am perfectly fine with it,” he said.

The European Central Bank left its key interest rate unchanged at 2 percent on Thursday, with the euro area economy still proving itself resilient and with inflation reasonably steady around the Bank’s target. The decision was consistent with guidance from policymakers that monetary policy is in “a good place,” giving them room to wait for year-end projections that will include the ECB’s first inflation forecast for 2028. The economy grew a faster-than-expected 0.2 percent in the third quarter of this year, while preliminary data showed inflation ticking up to 2.2 percent in October, calming fears about a possible undershoot. “The economy has continued to grow despite the challenging global environment,” the ECB said in its statement. “The robust labor market, solid private sector balance sheets and the Governing Council’s past interest rate cuts remain important sources of resilience.” At the same time, however, the ECB warned that “the outlook is still uncertain, owing particularly to ongoing global trade disputes and geopolitical tensions.” Risks remain abundant: beyond potential delayed effects from new U.S. tariffs, they include a further strengthening of the euro, as the U.S. Federal Reserve continues to lower its own rates. On Wednesday, the Fed cut rates by another quarter-point — the second consecutive reduction — citing a slowdown in job growth. Domestically, a delay to Germany’s fiscal stimulus measures and France’s ongoing budget crisis could also threaten to push the ECB out of its “good place.” Even so, a growing number of economists believe the central bank has reached the end of its easing cycle, a recent Reuters survey showed. While a slim majority of analysts last month expected one more rate cut before the end of 2026, nearly 60 percent now anticipate no further changes to borrowing costs in the current cycle.

Nigel Farage and co. are taking aim at the Bank of England in a way that may help Chancellor Rachel Reeves out of her budget woes — if she dares go along with it. The Reform U.K. leader and his deputy Richard Tice dropped in on Bank Governor Andrew Bailey on Thursday to press him into changes in monetary policy that could help trim the public sector’s interest bill, but which could also unnerve investors.  The Reform U.K. leader and his deputy Richard Tice said they had urged Bailey at their meeting to stop paying interest on the excess money created by the Bank during a decade of ‘quantitative easing.’ That money is now largely held on deposit back at the BoE by commercial banks, which earn a risk-free return of 4 percent on it at the current Bank Rate. Critics on both right and left wings of the political spectrum argue that amounts to a massive taxpayer subsidy to the banks. The Reform duo also urged the Bank to stop the active selling of the gilts it bought during the QE period, something that several analysts and investors have argued is putting unnecessary upward pressure on the government’s borrowing costs. Tice told POLITICO on Thursday that stopping gilt sales alone could have taken around £1.5 billion off the government’s bill for debt interest this year. The Bank argues that the taxpayer wouldn’t end up paying any less in the long run, though. Reform is now seeking a full parliamentary debate on ‘quantitative tightening’, or QT, when MPs return from their recess, something he may get in the second half of next month if the Leader of the House of Commons is sympathetic. “It’s much more powerful as a debate in government time, as opposed to a backbench business debate,” Tice argued. The political argument is simple. “If Parliament via the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a different steer to the Bank of England, this could significantly reduce the need for tax rises at the Budget,” Tice said in a statement released after the meeting. Reeves can ill afford to ignore anything that will raise money at a time when sluggish growth and productivity and constant increases in spending have made it all but impossible for her to stick to her own self-defined fiscal rule. And left-leaning think-tanks such as the Institute for Public Policy Research and Positive Money have already come to much the same conclusions. Yet Reform’s high-volume handling of a meeting that the Bank styled as a routine meeting with elected politicians represents something of a break with convention. Since Tony Blair’s government granted the Bank independence in 1997, party leaders have refrained from appearing to give instruction to the Bank on how to conduct monetary policy. Tice, however, in comments to POLITICO, argued that the issue is essentially a fiscal one, since the losses incurred by the Bank through QT have to be picked up by the taxpayer. “Parliament has failed in its duty to give the Bank more direction and support in this area,” he said. “It’s left the Bank to make its own decision and sort of … swing in the wind.” A spokesperson for the Bank said the Governor “had a productive meeting with Reform U.K. | Jordan Pettitt/Getty Images Reform’s intervention comes at a time when U.S. President Donald Trump is putting heavy pressure on the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates to support flagging growth. By contrast, talking to POLITICO, Tice said he and Farage had “absolutely not” put any pressure on Bailey to lower rates. A spokesperson for the Bank said the Governor “had a productive meeting with Reform U.K. on Thursday as part of the Bank’s engagement with political representatives,” but declined to elaborate.  Tice and Farage said the meeting also covered cryptocurrency and stablecoins, an issue where the MP for Clacton has called the Bank “out of touch” and “behaving like a dinosaur.” Farage was particularly incensed by the Bank’s proposal to put a limit of £10,000 on the amount of stablecoins that investors can hold. The Bank expects to publish formal proposals on stablecoin regulation by the end of 2025. 

France’s fiscal troubles will present European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde with a particularly sensitive challenge at her regular press conference on Thursday. Aside from the Governing Council’s latest decisions, the former French finance minister will have to field awkward questions about the situation in her homeland. She faces a tricky balancing act, and will have to avoid suggesting that the ECB may “bail out an unrepentant fiscal sinner” while also taking care not to unsettle bond markets that are still giving France “the benefit of the doubt,” said Berenberg Bank chief economist Holger Schmieding. The Bank is overwhelmingly expected to keep its deposit rate at 2 percent again on the basis of new forecasts showing continued expectations of modest growth. Markets see any further rate cuts as unlikely and think rates will begin to rise again in early 2027. Lagarde will need to manage expectations carefully, HSBC economist Fabio Balboni warned, since ruling cuts out completely could drive up borrowing costs across the eurozone, including in France. “Many countries in Europe face tough fiscal challenges, especially France,” Balboni said. “They simply can’t afford” to spend more money just on interest payments. The situation Balboni describes is something economists call “fiscal dominance,” which occurs when the central bank is forced to keep interest rates low so governments can continue to borrow. Such intervention generally leads to higher inflation in short order. It was debt problems, more than anything else, that brought down France’s government on Monday, after Prime Minister François Bayrou failed to garner enough support for €44 billion in proposed budget cuts for next year. But after initially taking fright when Bayrou called his fateful vote of confidence, investors have largely held their nerve. The spread between French and German 10-year bond yields, a bellwether of market stress, is now at 0.82 percentage points, the widest it’s been all year. But it continues to resemble a slow puncture more than a blow-up. That’s partly because President Emmanuel Macron, who has appointed yet another centrist prime minister, is still trying to build consensus around a deficit reduction plan, rather than call new elections. C’EST LA VIE It has been a humbling summer for France, which has always benchmarked its economic and financial strength against Germany. But as its politics have become increasingly paralyzed and its debts have mounted, markets have come to see it more as a peer of Italy. For the first time this century, Paris’ borrowing costs surpassed those of Rome on Tuesday, albeit only briefly and due to a technical quirk. But the fear is that a growing public debt burden — which stands at over €3.35 trillion — will make the country increasingly vulnerable to a financial crisis. Under Lagarde, the ECB has given itself the power to intervene in bond markets if it feels that unjustified volatility is stopping its interest rates from working as intended, something it calls the transmission mechanism of monetary policy. It drew up the rules for using what it calls the “Transmission Protection Instrument” during the pandemic in 2022, the last time investors were seriously spooked by the size of eurozone budget deficits. Most analysts, such as Swiss Re’s Patrick Saner and UniCredit’s Marco Valli, say the current situation isn’t anywhere near serious enough to justify using the TPI. There is no certainty, however, because the criteria for intervening through the TPI are deliberately vague, giving the ECB full discretion over when and how to use it. On paper, at least, the TPI allows the ECB to buy unlimited amounts of a eurozone country’s bonds from investors, provided that market stress is “unwarranted;” that doing so would not risk stoking inflation; and that the country is not under an EU excessive deficit procedure. Hawks such as the ECB’s head of markets, Isabel Schnabel, have argued that talk of using the TPI today is “far-fetched” insofar as Paris’ problems have no “wider implications for the euro.” | Horacio Villalobos Corbis/Corbis via Getty Images The last criterion would exclude France, but policymakers were careful not to tie their hands, saying these criteria would only serve as “an input” to the decision-making process. It’s anyone’s guess where the ECB’s pain threshold might be. Hawks such as the ECB’s head of markets, Isabel Schnabel, have argued that talk of using the TPI today is “far-fetched” insofar as Paris’ problems have no “wider implications for the euro.” “It would be difficult for the ECB — at least in terms of building a majority at the Governing Council — to use its new arsenal if there is no spillover effect from the country under pressure” to others in the eurozone, AXA group chief economist Gilles Moëc agreed. Moreover, there is no sign yet that bond market conditions are really hurting growth: The Bank of France on Tuesday estimated that the French economy will grow by a respectable 0.3 percent in the current quarter. However, the fear of bond markets suddenly getting out of control runs deep. Last year, Italian central bank chief Fabio Panetta said the ECB should be “prepared to deal with the consequences” of shocks caused by “an increase in political uncertainty within countries,” much as France is currently enduring. Talk of spreads is particularly sensitive for Lagarde, whose cavalier comment during the pandemic that the ECB “is not here to close the spreads” briefly threw markets into a panic. As Raboresearch economist Bas Van Geffen said: “She will not make that mistake again.” The ECB president appeared to try to strike a balance last week in an interview with Radio Classique, saying she was watching the spreads “very closely” while urging Paris to “get organized … and put your public finances in order.”

LONDON — Who’d want to be Rachel Reeves right now? While Britain’s top finance minister has the full-throated support of her boss, Prime Minister Keir Starmer, it’s been a deeply bruising week for the country’s first female chancellor. A humiliating government climb-down on a money-saving welfare reform plan was followed by market-moving tears from Reeves in the House of Commons on what she has stressed is a personal matter. With unfortunate timing, the scene — mocked by opposition politicians — came just as Starmer failed to explicitly endorse Reeves staying in post. He has now very publicly backed her — but the fundamental economic challenges Reeves faces aren’t going anywhere. Reeves’ self-imposed fiscal rules restrict government borrowing. But, after the latest costly welfare climb-down, the keen chess player’s next move could involve tax hikes toxic to swing voters, spending cuts disliked by her Labour colleagues — or both. POLITICO courted the views of six wise heads who have been in the political trenches in the U.K. and further afield to gauge where Reeves might turn next. DON’T APPEASE — JARED BERNSTEIN, FORMER CHAIR OF JOE BIDEN’S COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS AND AN ARCHITECT OF ‘BIDENOMICS‘ Jared Bernstein — who saw Joe Biden lose to Donald Trump despite touting improvements in the economy — urged Reeves not to get too freaked out about public opinion. “If voters are perennially unhappy, they’ll always throw out the incumbents no matter what they do,” he said. “If you try too hard to appease … a deeply unhappy electorate, you won’t have time for anything else.” Reeves’ head is “in the right place” and she should keep her focus and do what she thinks is right, he added. Acknowledging the U.K. economic data is “quite tough” with an “uncomfortably low growth rate bumping up against uncomfortably high interest rates,” Bernstein argued the math is “pretty straightforward.”  “You have to cut spending, raise taxes, or some combination of both,” he said. On the tax-raising front, without breaking manifesto pledges, Bernstein thought there were options “including freezing [income] tax thresholds … for a couple of more years through to 2030.”  “I’ve seen ideas to raise the private health insurance premium tax, some pension tax reform,” he added. “I think there’s a proposal to reduce the revenue level at which businesses pay VAT. And that has potential … [to] be quite revenue-positive.” Chair of the US Council of Economic Advisers Jared Bernstein. | Samuel Corum/EFE via EPA He added: “One has to be mindful of raising the tax burden when growth is already underperforming. But I think some of the suggestions that I just walked through seem pretty marginal to me, so perhaps there’s some action there.” MANIFESTO PROMISES COULD GO — RUTH CURTICE, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE RESOLUTION FOUNDATION Ruth Curtice, the Treasury’s former director of fiscal policy and now boss of a key living standards think tank, said Reeves should consider raising taxes and cutting Whitehall spending — including 2028-29 totals that were set at her spending review just weeks ago. But Reeves should not, Curtice cautioned, touch her fiscal rules. This is especially true because Reeves’ next budget will have less wriggle room. She’ll be working within a four-year timeline and not a five-year one, thanks to Reeves’ changes to fiscal rules. The Resolution Foundation has previously branded the freezing of income tax thresholds a “stealth tax,” but Curtice said Reeves should consider more freezes — and even manifesto-breaching rises in income tax, national insurance or VAT. “She shouldn’t rule out personal taxes, given the sums of money she needs to raise and the economic challenges of raising further business taxation,” said Curtice. “One option is freezing personal tax thresholds, but she might need to be bolder and explicitly break manifesto commitments if she needs big sums of money.” Curtice reckoned Reeves needs to show her general direction of travel much sooner than the fall to avoid a summer of speculation. “Some laying the ground on tax could be helpful … Speculation all the way from now until autumn could be unhelpful economically,” she added. USE BANK OF ENGLAND RESERVES — JAMES MEADWAY, FORMER ECONOMIC ADVISER TO SHADOW CHANCELLOR JOHN MCDONNELL James Meadway — who was once a policy adviser at the Treasury, went on to advise left-winger John McDonnell, and now hosts a podcast called “Macrodose” — suggested Reeves could save billions of pounds a year by moving to a system of “tiered reserves.” “The Treasury indemnifies the losses that the Bank of England somewhat notionally makes on quantitative easing,” he said. “If you introduced a system of not paying so much interest on the reserves that the commercial banks hold at the Bank of England, you could save several billion pounds a year on this.” Meadway acknowledged “the City [of London, Britain’s financial powerhouse] wouldn’t like it” — but reckoned it would be “a lot easier than making more cuts, or raising whacking great taxes elsewhere.” “It would free up billions for the Treasury to spend to get you through what is otherwise going to be an extremely tight budget,” he said, and “keep within the fiscal rules. “The problem that Rachel Reeves really sharply faces … is that you have pinned everything on the fiscal rules,” he argued. “If you say we are now going to change them, that will provoke a reaction of the kind we have just seen through bond markets.” DON’T SURPRISE THE MARKETS — RUPERT HARRISON, FORMER ADVISER TO GEORGE OSBORNE Rupert Harrison — a key Tory ex-aide who is now a senior adviser at investment management company PIMCO — agreed markets would be spooked by any watering down of Reeves’ fiscal rules, with investors already factoring in tax rises.  “The gilt market has already started to react negatively to news about the welfare bill, with yields rising relative to other countries, but the scale of that reaction has been limited by a widespread assumption amongst investors that the government’s response will be to raise taxes in the autumn,” he said. “Any suggestions that the government might look again at watering down its fiscal rules would start to risk a more negative market reaction given the U.K.’s well-known fiscal vulnerabilities,” Harrison added. “Markets now assume that cuts to welfare spending and departmental budgets are effectively off the table — if they start to sense that the political will to raise taxes is also lacking then concerns about fiscal sustainability will grow.” Gavin Barwell, former chief of staff to Theresa May. | Vickie Flores/EFE via EPA GIVE MPS A REALITY CHECK — GAVIN BARWELL, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO THERESA MAY Gavin Barwell, in the trenches as the Theresa May government faced huge disloyalty in the ranks over Brexit, thought Reeves needed to be better at forcing members of parliament to say what hard choices they would actually make. He drew parallels between the current government’s party management woes and the dilemma facing his former boss. “Different people kept putting to parliament different propositions of how to solve the Brexit question, and parliament just kept saying no, but it never had to say what its answer was,” he recalled. “You’ve got to do a better job of exposing to your backbenchers what the realm of possible options are. You can’t ultimately change the fiscal arithmetic. Does the government try and borrow some more money? It is quite difficult in the bond markets at the moment. “Does it tax more? If so, who does it tax? Does it cut spending? If you don’t want to cut spending from welfare, where do you want to cut spending?” He added: “You’ve got to find some way of confronting [MPs] with the reality of the situation, and having some collective decision-making about what are the least bad ways of trying to navigate out of that situation.”   ‘LABOUR MPS MUST DECIDE’ — LUKE SULLIVAN, STARMER’S FORMER POLITICAL DIRECTOR “Rachel Reeves’ position is significantly stronger than is often perceived,” Sullivan — an ex-aide to Starmer who is now a director at the consultancy Headland — pointed out. The prime minister’s “full-hearted support” and the “notable vote of confidence from the financial markets” to Starmer’s endorsement of her show “Reeves is not only secure in her position, but pivotal to the government’s economic credibility.” “While some policy adjustments, such as on welfare, may be understandable,” Sullivan said, he warned Labour MPs must not be under any illusion that the government’s ambitions need anything less than “rigorous fiscal discipline” met by “increased taxation, spending restraint, or other measures.” He added: “None of these choices will be politically easy, but they are necessary and Labour MPs must decide.”