LONDON — Elon Musk has been granted a license to supply energy in the U.K. Ofgem announced Thursday morning it has issued Musk-owned Tesla Energy Ventures with a license to provide electricity to U.K. businesses and households.  It brings a fresh contender into the supplier market, amid fears the global energy crisis will force up household bills.  The decision comes at the end of a seven-month approval process. Musk’s bid to enter the U.K. market has been highly controversial, after the world’s richest man and ally of U.S. President Donald Trump publicly criticized Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his government’s handling of the grooming gangs scandal.  Musk appeared last year via video link at a rally organized by the far-right activist Tommy Robinson, where he warned that “violence is going to come” to the British people “whether you choose violence or not.”   Energy Secretary Ed Miliband responded at the Labour Party conference in September: “We have a message for Elon Musk. Get the hell out of our politics and our country.” Miliband said Musk “incites violence on our streets.”   But Miliband would not be drawn at the time on whether Tesla Ventures should be granted an energy license. He insisted it was a matter for Ofgem and had to “go through the proper process.”  Miliband has faced calls from the centrist Liberal Democrats, and from some of Labour’s own MPs, to block the license.  After Musk’s comments about violence, Labour backbencher Clive Lewis said in September: “Elon Musk shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near our critical infrastructure.” The news comes at it a critical time for the domestic retail market, with industry warnings that customer debts have hit £5.5 billion. Disruption of key trade routes in the Gulf has pushed up wholesale gas and oil prices sharply.   Ofgem’s license for Tesla Ventures took effect on Wednesday, the regulator said.  It said the company must comply with all licensing conditions including requirements for treating customers fairly, financial responsibility, operational capability, billing, information provision and consumer protection.  Ofgem will have assessed whether Musk was a “fit and proper” person to lead a U.K energy supplier, although experts have previously said that is unlikely to take political statements into account. Ed Miliband’s Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has been approached for comment.

LONDON — The U.K.’s leading energy retail companies will meet with Energy Secretary Ed Miliband Thursday to discuss the risk of higher bills for consumers amid the ongoing crisis in the Middle East. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has invited the country’s biggest retailers to a roundtable Thursday afternoon with Miliband and Martin McCluskey, the minister responsible for energy consumers, four industry figures said. “This roundtable will discuss the ongoing situation in the Middle East and its implications for energy markets and consumers,” the government’s invite says, seen by POLITICO. “We are keen to hear directly from suppliers about the real-world impact of global energy developments, and to ensure that the voices of those most affected by price and supply volatility are central to our policy thinking,” according to the email. DESNZ is hoping companies will “share reflections on impacts on consumers” including consumer debt. “This is an opportunity for open and candid dialogue, and your organisation’s perspective would be of considerable value,” the email said. The meeting will last an hour. One of the industry figures referenced above confirmed this would be a discussion involving the most senior company executives. Chancellor Rachel Reeves confirmed to parliament Wednesday morning that the government was “looking at a whole range of different scenarios” to help consumers hit by higher bills, including planning for “any future [energy support] package, if it were necessary.”  The government has been approached for comment.

LE HAVRE, France — Former Prime Minister Édouard Philippe is often seen as the centrist candidate best placed to challenge the far right in France’s presidential election next year — but his political future is under threat in the gritty industrial port of Le Havre. Philippe, one of President Emmanuel Macron’s most popular former lieutenants, has been mayor of this city in Normandy since 2020, but polling suggests he now faces a make-or-break battle not to lose it to a Communist rival in the municipal elections of March 15 and 22. If he does lose his northern stronghold — which he also ran from 2010 to 2017 — Philippe’s loss will send shockwaves through France. The center-right politician has said that will mean he won’t run in the 2027 election against the candidate from the far-right National Rally (RN) party — either Marine Le Pen or Jordan Bardella, the current frontrunners for the presidency. It will also be a grave personal disappointment for Philippe, who has long held ambitions to run for the Élysée. As prime minister from 2017 to 2020 he steered France through the Covid pandemic, but was ultimately sidelined by Macron when the president wanted to give his government a “new direction,” a decision that many in the administration believed was due to Philippe’s higher popularity ratings. This month’s local elections are an opportunity to launch his campaign ahead of the 2027 presidential race. But Philippe now risks slipping up before he even reaches the starting line. A shock poll from OpinionWay landed last month and predicted that Philippe could be squeezed out by the far right and far left in the second round of the contest in Le Havre. Philippe was seen winning only 40 percent, pipped by the Communist Jean-Paul Lecoq on 42 percent. Franck Keller, backed by the RN, was set to win 18 percent. The center-right politician has said that will mean he won’t run in the 2027 election against the candidate from the far-right National Rally (RN) party — either Marine Le Pen or Jordan Bardella. | Adnan Farzat/NurPhoto via Getty Images On Friday, POLITICO caught up with 55-year-old Philippe on the campaign train. He was dashing between events but still keen to grab a beer, drop the formalities and chat with voters — in true retail politician style. “Elections are always tight here,” he said in an interview with POLITICO between two campaign stops on Friday. “Le Havre is a working-class city where the Communist Party is very rooted and very strong.” While the Communist Party is no longer the national force it used to be, many of the issues close to the hearts of its voters are the same as those driving the National Rally vote in other parts of the country. Here in Le Havre, blue-collar voters stress job protection, early retirement and a strong welfare state. In the 2027 presidential race, Philippe would have to convince voters, disaffected after a decade under Macron, that his brand of center-right politics is what France needs. A SHAKY STRONGHOLD The man who might bring Philippe down is hardly a political big gun. Jean-Paul Lecoq is a 67-year-old electrician who spent much of his life repairing typewriters in Le Havre. Unlike Philippe, who was educated in France’s elite schools, Lecoq had a long career in local politics before becoming a member of parliament in 2017. Here in Le Havre, blue-collar voters stress job protection, early retirement and a strong welfare state. | Lou Benoist/AFP via Getty Images Lecoq’s team has been buoyed by the OpinionWay poll — the only one available on Le Havre — which showed Philippe leading in the first round with 37 percent, but Lecoq winning the runoff. In a market in the Sanvic neighbourhood of Le Havre, Lecoq lampooned Philippe for using the local election as a stepping stone for his presidential ambitions. “He wanted to link the local and the presidential election,” he said. “With Philippe, it’s me, me, me. I know best.” Le Havre’s incumbent mayor “has done some beautiful brand-new projects in Le Havre, turned it into a showcase. But he hasn’t taken care of the city property … the schools, the sports clubs,” Lecoq said. The idea he has one eye on the Élysée is getting some traction with voters. “If he’s elected, and then launches into a presidential campaign, who is going take over here?” asked Cédric Perisbeau, a former company manager and stay-at-home father. “If the person is not up to the job, it could all fall apart here.” While the political forces in Le Havre are different from the national dynamics, where the far-right National Rally is tipped to win the presidency, Le Havre is a testing ground for the type of politics Philippe wants to offer France: debt reduction, long-term investments, and fewer hand-outs. He describes himself as “offering very ambitious projects for Le Havre.” The man who might bring Philippe down is hardly a political big gun. Jean-Paul Lecoq is a 67-year-old electrician who spent much of his life repairing typewriters in Le Havre. | Lou Benoist/AFP via Getty Images “There are few freebies in our campaign, whether it’s free water or transport,” he told a group of voters. If you stop investing in the city, he argued, eventually “it hurts a lot.” But retiree Linda Deloge wanted him to put more resources into childcare and housing. “I’m fed up with all the road works,” complained Deloge, who voted for Philippe in the last election but is undecided this time. Deloge said Phillippe’s track record was “pretty good,” particularly on rehabilitating run-down neighborhoods, but added she wanted a greater focus on welfare. DOUBLE OR NOTHING The National Rally is relishing its position as potential kingmaker in Le Havre. In the 2020 municipal election the RN failed to make the second round, but this time it could do so, challenging Philippe to his right. The RN has betrayed no willingness to step back in the second round to help Philippe. “We’ll never pull out,” said one adviser to National Rally leader Marine Le Pen, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about party strategy. Even if it lets the Communists in? “We don’t care,” he said. Philippe, one of President Emmanuel Macron’s most popular former lieutenants, has been mayor of this city in Normandy since 2020. | Pool photo by Benoit Tessier/AFP via Getty Images A poll published late last year showed that far-right leader Bardella would win in most second-round scenarios against mainstream candidates, but that Philippe posed the biggest threat, securing 47 percent to Bardella’s 53 percent. Indeed, Philippe’s supporters say the far right is deliberately exploiting local politics to wipe him out ahead of the presidential election. “The National Rally candidate is such a caricature of the outsider who has been parachuted in to stir things up,” said a former adviser from Philippe’s Horizons party, a reference to Keller, who was a councilor in the upscale Paris neighborhood of Neuilly-sur-Seine. “The National Rally isn’t going to win this election, so all they are going to do is favor a Communist candidate.” Although polls have repeatedly shown Philippe as having the best shot against the far right in 2027, he is being challenged within his own camp by a glut of presidential hopefuls including former Prime Minister Gabriel Attal, conservative former Interior Minister Bruno Retailleau, former Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin and many others. A hard-earned victory in a dockers’ city would propel Philippe ahead of his rivals, his supporters argue, and cement him as a locally-rooted politician who can appeal to voters beyond the center right. “It’s like a party primary for him,” said Gilles Boyer, an MEP and longtime ally of Philippe. “The Havre is a difficult city. If he wins this election … it’ll give him a boost.” Philippe also tells his electorate that his national ambitions could help them too. “I tell the people here, that if by an extraordinary chance, someone from Le Havre became president of France, it wouldn’t be a bad thing for Le Havre,” he said. Sarah Paillou contributed reporting.

LONDON — Britain’s graduates helped Keir Starmer’s Labour Party win power. Now they’re on the warpath. Soaring interest rates have left a cohort of voters in their 20s and early 30s — the first to be hit by an early 2010s overhaul of university funding — with spiraling student loan debts, and frustrated at sizable monthly repayments not touching the sides of what they owe. Chancellor Rachel Reeves delivers a tricky economic update Tuesday under pressure to act, and with opposition politicians — aware of bubbling rage among young professionals seeing their pay vanish — jumping on the bandwagon to offer friendlier options. Labour MPs are nervous too.  They are facing a real electoral threat from the left-wing populist Green Party, which has backed the complete abolition of university of tuition fees, and is open to student debt forgiveness. This generation of graduates is “the bedrock of Labour support,” Labour MP Chris Curtis, a former pollster and graduate on the controversial loan plan, said. He chairs the Labour Growth Group, which is campaigning on the issue. “There’s a worry about losing them” if financial pressures remain, he said. With Starmer’s place as prime minister under pressure, the row could also become a talking point in a future leadership contest. Wes Streeting, Starmer’s ambitious health secretary, said the “clearly rumbling” debate is “worth having.” In a sign of growing recognition of the problem, Starmer last week told MPs he would “look at ways” to make the student loans system in England “fairer.” Labour’s landslide majority in 2024 was built on support from graduates. A YouGov mega poll conducted after the 2024 general election found 42 percent of people with a degree or higher qualification backed Labour — compared to 18 percent for the rival Tories.  “It’s a ticking time bomb waiting to happen,” said Toby Whelton, a senior researcher at the Intergenerational Foundation, added. Graduates have been picked on “as the path of the least political resistance” by politicians, he argued. LEARN THE HARD WAY  This specific student loan problem dates back to 2012, when university tuition fees — introduced just a few years prior — soared to £9,000-a-year under the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition. The move was aimed at compensating for huge cuts to state funding for academic institutions. Maintenance grants for the poorest students were replaced with repayable loans in 2016.  Wes Streeting, Starmer’s ambitious health secretary, said the “clearly rumbling” debate is “worth having.” | Ian Forsyth/Getty Images Under the terms of these loans — known as “plan two,” and issued between 2012 and 2023 — students agreed to repay 9 percent of their salary over a threshold set by the Treasury. The terms of the deal last 30 years before any remaining arrears are wiped. (A different plan has been put in place since 2023.) With the interest rate on the loan tied to the retail price index (RPI) —seen as a poor measure of inflation by some analysts— graduate debts have been climbing at a time when wage growth has slowed and living costs are shooting up. Reeves’ decision last fall to keep the repayment threshold frozen at £29,385 for three years until 2030 was the final straw, and appears to have mobilized influential campaigners behind the plight of graduates. The Times newspaper launched an End the Graduate Rip-Off campaign, and the popular consumer finance journalist Martin Lewis has made it a cause, questioning the morality of the freeze. “It’s a complete mess,” said National Union of Students (NUS) Vice President for Higher Education Alex Stanley, whose members recently held a protest outside parliament dressed as sharks. “The fault initially may not be theirs, but the responsibility is absolutely now theirs,” he said of the Labour government, arguing the backlash poses an “opportunity as much as it is a threat” to Starmer.  “We’ve got a system that is costing students so much money that it risks putting off prospective students,” he warned.  “This is a very real burden on young people when it comes to the cost of living,” says Curtis. The repayments are a “deep cause of the economic insecurity that many younger graduates are facing” as they try buying their first home, he adds. Curtis supports a graduate tax, where university leavers would pay extra tax when they start earning with lower repayments, but in the near-term at least wants ministers to increase the threshold for loan repayments. ALTERNATIVE GRAD SCHEME Labour’s opponents on the right and left of British politics spy an opportunity. Green leader Zack Polanski — whose party won a seismic by-election in Greater Manchester last Thursday — said the system is “deeply unjust,” and treats “the costs of education as a private debt rather than a public investment.” Reeves’ decision last fall to keep the repayment threshold frozen at £29,385 for three years until 2030 was the final straw. | Jack Taylor/Getty Images He backs abolishing tuition fees and reversing repayment freezes, claiming “young people have been let down time and time again by governments who have chased the votes of older voters.”  Polanski told POLITICO in a statement he is open to debt forgiveness in the longer term, but admits “it’s a really complex issue, and we’d need to look carefully at how it would be funded.” Labour’s Curtis is skeptical the rival Greens have the answer, however. “People in this country aren’t idiots,” he said. “When these populist parties try to make arguments that one side of the balance sheet doesn’t have to add up to the other, voters … will realize that promises are being made that can’t be kept.”  A U-turn would not be cost-free for taxpayers. Last month, the Institute for Fiscal Studies calculated that increasing the repayment threshold in line with average earnings growth each year (as the centrist Lib Dems have proposed) would cost taxpayers around £3 billion just for graduates who started courses in 2022/23. Totally writing off existing student debts would cost tens of billions of pounds. Starmer has moved away from former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair’s ambition for 50 percent of young people to attend university, pivoting to a target of two-thirds doing apprenticeships, higher training or going to university.  Labour will also be well aware of the problems former U.S. President Joe Biden encountered in Republican states and the Supreme Court over his student loan relief program, which would have canceled hundreds of billions of dollars in student loans. AGE OLD PROBLEM  The opposition Conservatives are backing changes too. “It’s an infuriating situation,” Tory leader Kemi Badenoch wrote in the Sunday Telegraph. “You’re paying money back, but every time you look at the outstanding amount, it’s rising. It just isn’t fair.”  The Tories have pledged to scrap additional interest applied to some student loans, and fund it by scrapping “dead end university courses.”   Tory MP David Reed, who is also in the graduate cohort hit by the student loan trap, argues women are being particularly hard hit when they temporarily leave the workplace. They are unable to make repayments, but the high interest rates mean their loan balance continues to rise. “The rules are technically the same for everyone,” Reed said. “But because women are still far more likely to take time out to raise children, the impact falls disproportionately on them.” “It’s an infuriating situation,” Tory leader Kemi Badenoch wrote in the Sunday Telegraph. “You’re paying money back, but every time you look at the outstanding amount, it’s rising. It just isn’t fair.” | Jeff J. Mitchell/Getty Images Nigel Farage’s Reform UK will address the issue at a press conference Wednesday. The party’s Treasury spokesperson Robert Jenrick has previously said interest rates are far too high. A U.K. government spokesperson said: “The student finance system protects lower-earning graduates, with repayments determined by incomes and outstanding loans and interest being cancelled at the end of repayment terms.” The spokeperson pointed out ministers are reintroducing targeted maintenance grants. Reeves argues government efforts to lower inflation will lower Bank of England interest rates, helping graduates. But with a powerful constituency calling for action, that position may struggle to hold. It is unacceptable for governments to “milk young people dry” to fund older generations’ benefits, Whelton, the Intergenerational Foundation researcher, argues. “As graduates on plan two systems get older [and] go into positions of influence and power, we will see more of a backlash,” he adds. “They will be [an] increasing voting constituency that can sway elections.”

Andrej Babiš built his fortune making fertilizer. But another, lesser-known arm of his business empire has helped bring more than 170,000 children into the world across Europe. The Czech prime minister’s name is rarely attached to FutureLife, one of Europe’s largest IVF clinic networks, spanning 60 clinics in 16 countries from Prague to Madrid to Dublin. But is just one part of a commercial empire that spans nitrogen-based fertilizers and industrial farms, assisted reproduction, online lingerie stores and more. And the Czech leader holds this portfolio while sitting at the table negotiating EU budgets, health rules and industrial policy. Yet in Brussels, nobody can answer a deceptively simple question: Which of the companies associated with Babiš receives EU money — and how much? “We might be giving him money and we don’t even know,” said Daniel Freund, a German Green lawmaker who led the European Parliament’s inquiries into Babiš during his first term as Czechia’s prime minister from 2017 to 2021. In 2021, the Parliament overwhelmingly adopted a resolution condemning Babiš over conflicts of interest involving EU subsidies and companies he founded. Under EU rules, member countries are responsible for checking conflicts of interest and reporting on who ultimately benefits from EU funds. But there is no single EU-wide register linking ultimate beneficial owners to all EU payments — making cross-border oversight difficult. The issue has resurfaced as Babiš returns to power and once again takes a seat among other EU heads of state and government in the European Council. In that exclusive body, he helps negotiate the bloc’s long-term budget, agricultural subsidies and other funding frameworks that shape the sectors in which his companies might operate. For years, debates over Babiš’s conflicts of interest have revolved around a single name — Agrofert, the agro-industrial empire that EU and Czech auditors found had improperly received over €200 million in EU and national agricultural subsidies. The payment suspensions and repayment demands continue: This week, Czech authorities halted some agricultural subsidies to Agrofert pending a fresh legal review of the company’s compliance with conflict-of-interest rules. Babiš has consistently rejected accusations of wrongdoing. His office said he “follows all binding rules” and that “there is no conflict of interests at the moment,” adding that Agrofert shares are managed by independent experts and that he “is not and will never be the owner of Agrofert shares.” In a parliamentary debate earlier this month, he dismissed the controversy as politically motivated, accusing opponents of having “invented” the conflict-of-interest issue because they were unable to defeat him at the ballot box. But critics argue that the renewed focus on Agrofert obscures a far broader commercial footprint. “Agrofert is only half of the problem,” said Petr Bartoň, chief economist at Natland, a private investment group based in Prague. “The law does not say ‘thou shalt not benefit from companies called Agrofert.’ It says you must not benefit from any companies subsidized by or receiving public money.” The concern, critics argue, arises from the sheer number of companies and sectors with which Babiš remains associated. THE INVISIBLE PILLAR Separate from Agrofert sits Hartenberg Holding, a private-equity vehicle Babiš co-founded with financier Jozef Janov in 2013. He holds a majority stake in the fund through SynBiol, a company he fully owns and which, unlike Agrofert, has not been transferred into any trust arrangement. With assets worth around €600 million, Hartenberg invests in health care, retail, aviation and real estate. Yet it has attracted only a fraction of the scrutiny directed at the agricultural holding, according to Lenka Stryalová of the Czech public-spending watchdog Hlídač státu. “Alongside Agrofert, there is a second, less visible pillar of Babiš’s business activities that is not currently intended to be placed into blind trusts,” she said. That pillar includes FutureLife, whose 2,100 specialists help individuals and couples conceive across Czechia, Slovakia, the U.K., Ireland, Romania, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy and Estonia. The clinics operate in a policy-sensitive space shaped primarily by national health reimbursement systems and insurance rules, rather than decisions taken directly in Brussels. Those systems, however, function within a broader EU regulatory framework governing cross-border care and state aid. Hartenberg owns 50.1 percent of FutureLife. The company said in a statement that Babiš has no operational role, no board seat and no decision-making authority. It added that FutureLife clinics operate like other health care providers and, where applicable, are reimbursed by national public health insurance systems under the same rules as other providers. Like thousands of other companies, some FutureLife entities received pandemic-era wage support under Czechia’s Covid relief programs. There is no evidence of any irregularity in those payments.  But health care is only one corner of the portfolio. Through Hartenberg, Babiš-linked capital also flows into everyday retail life. Astratex, a Czech-founded online lingerie retailer that began as a catalogue business before moving fully online in 2005, now operates localized e-shops across roughly 10 European markets and generates tens of millions of euros in annual revenue. Hartenberg acquired a controlling stake in 2018, marking one of the fund’s early expansions into cross-border digital retail. In Czechia, shoppers may also encounter Flamengo florist stands, a network of around 200 outlets selling bouquets, potted plants and funeral flower arrangements inside supermarkets and shopping malls. Hartenberg acquired a majority stake in the chain in 2019, backing its expansion and push into online delivery. Other online businesses linked to Babiš include sports equipment, and wool and textile retailers. Through Hartenberg, Babiš has also invested in urban development and real estate. Hartenberg was an early majority investor in the project company behind Prague’s Císařská vinice, a premium hillside development of villas and apartments near Ladronka park, partnering with developer JRD to finance construction. JRD Development Group said the project company is now 100 percent owned by JRD and that neither Babiš nor companies linked to him hold any direct or indirect ownership interest. The firm added that the development has not received EU funds or other public financial support. None of the Hartenberg businesses have ever been accused of misusing EU subsidies. But the long-running “Stork’s Nest” case, first investigated more than a decade ago and still unresolved, shows how difficult it can be to follow Babiš’s business web. The alleged fraud involved a €2 million EU subsidy provided in 2008 to the 31-room Čapí Hnízdo (Stork’s Nest) recreational and conference center in central Czechia, then part of Babiš’s Agrofert conglomerate. Prosecutors have accused Babiš and his associates of manipulating the center’s ownership and concealing his control of the business in order to obtain the subsidy. Babiš has always denied wrongdoing, telling POLITICO in 2019 that the case was politically motivated. He was acquitted in 2023, but an appeals court later overturned that verdict and ordered a retrial, which remains pending. Today, the resort itself is no longer part of Agrofert. It is owned by Imoba, a company fully controlled by Babiš’s SynBiol, the same holding that controls Hartenberg. Hartenberg itself holds no stake in Stork’s Nest. Taken together, Babis’ non-Agrofert portfolio spans health care reimbursement systems, online retail regulation, aviation safety oversight, real estate and city-planning decisions across multiple EU jurisdictions. In theory, a Czech consumer could encounter Babiš-linked companies at nearly every stage of life: the fertilizer on the fields that grow the wheat, the bread on the supermarket shelf, the bouquet for the wedding, the apartment in Prague and even the clinic that helps bring the next generation into the world. And at the end, perhaps, the flowers once more. WHY BRUSSELS CAN’T KEEP TRACK During Babiš’s previous term, the European Commission concluded that trust arrangements he put in place did not eliminate his effective control over Agrofert. A leaked legal document reported by POLITICO this month has since renewed accusations that his latest trust setup does not fully address those concerns either. Babiš rejects that interpretation, saying the arrangement complies with Czech and EU law and insisting he has done “much more than the law required” to distance himself from the company. The Commission said it does not maintain a consolidated list of companies ultimately owned or controlled by Babiš across member countries. Nor does it hold a comprehensive accounting of EU funds received by companies linked to him beyond Agrofert. Instead, responsibility for collecting beneficial ownership data lies primarily with national authorities implementing EU funds. The Commission can audit how member countries manage conflicts of interest and take measures to protect the EU budget if needed, but it does not itself aggregate that information across borders. The Commission confirmed to POLITICO that it has asked Czech authorities to explain how conflicts of interest are being prevented in relation to companies under Babiš’s control beyond Agrofert. Czech Regional Development Minister Zuzana Mrázová on Thursday acknowledged receiving the Commission’s letter earlier this month, saying it will be answered in line with applicable legislation and adding that, in her view, the prime minister has done everything necessary to comply with Czech and EU law. “From my perspective, there is no conflict of interest,” she said. Freund argues that the corporate complexity has become a problem in its own right. “The tracking of beneficial owners or beneficial recipients of EU funds is at the moment very difficult or sometimes even impossible,” said the EU lawmaker. Part of the difficulty lies in Europe’s fragmented ownership registers, which exist on paper across the EU but don’t speak the same language or even list the same owners. Freund described them as “inconsistent,” with some national databases listing Babiš in connection with certain companies while others do not. Babiš’s defenders argue that his steps regarding Agrofert go beyond what Czech law strictly requires. Critics counter that the law was never written with billionaires running multi-sector empires in mind and that resolving the conflict of interest identified by auditors in relation to Agrofert does not settle the wider concerns raised by the scale of his business interests. “For some reason, the perception has been created that once Agrofert is resolved, that resolves the conflict of interest,” Bartoň said. “As if the president were the arbiter of what needs and needs not be dealt with.” In reality, many companies owned through Hartenberg and Synbiol structures continue to operate in areas shaped by public spending, regulation and political decisions without being part of any divestment or trust arrangement. Those assets “still not only [pose] conflict of interest,” said Bartoň, but they are “not even in the process of being dealt with.” From fertilizer to fertility to funeral flowers, the structure is easy enough to trace in everyday life. It is far harder to trace on paper. Ketrin Jochecová contributed to this report.

The risk of infants in Europe being exposed to cereulide in formula is now low following widespread recalls earlier this month, the European Food Safety Authority and European Centre for Disease Control concluded in a joint rapid outbreak assessment published today. Thanks to “large-scale control measures implemented in the EU,” the agencies said in a press release, “the likelihood of exposure to contaminated products has decreased and is considered low.” While risk of encountering the toxin is low, the impact of exposure to cereulide is “low to moderate,” depending on the age of the baby, the assessment said. Seven countries in Europe — Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Luxembourg, Spain and the U.K. — have reported gastrointestinal issues in infants that had consumed formula. However, investigations are still ongoing to establish whether these cases are linked to the formula products. The agencies cautioned that linking common symptoms to the toxin “can be challenging.” The assessment comes after large scale recalls began in December of last year, when cereulide was found in formula products containing an ingredient supplied by a Chinese based producer. Even more products were pulled off shelves in February following an EFSA assessment on safe levels of cereulide.

Prime minister’s questions: a shouty, jeery, very occasionally useful advert for British politics. Here’s what you need to know from the latest session in POLITICO’s weekly run-through. What they sparred about: Keir Starmer escaped from all his domestic troubles by jetting off to China, so Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy was left to fend off questions from disgruntled MPs both in front of (and behind) him. Tory Leader Kemi Badenoch carried on rotating which frontbencher batted for the Conservatives, handing that dubious honor to Shadow Business Secretary Andrew Griffith. Given his brief, er, business rates dominated. Hold my beer: Griffith led on the government’s U-turn watering down business rate costs for pubs, asking Lammy to confirm that more than 90 percent of “retail, hospitality and leisure businesses will get nothing.” The deputy PM, you may not be surprised to read, swerved that interrogation and said it is “always a pleasure to hear from the co-author of the mini-budget” — Liz Truss’ economic proposals, which led to her swift departure from No 10. Drink: The PM may be out of the country, but it wouldn’t be PMQs without a mention of Britain’s shortest serving prime minister — the person Labour thinks is still the Tories’ biggest electoral liability nearly three-and-a-half years after she left office. Last orders: The shadow business secretary bigged up his experience, unsurprisingly, in business, contrasting that with Lammy’s 25 years “manufacturing grievance.” Nonetheless, Griffith claimed the help is “too little, too late” with striking visual imagery, arguing “our high streets are bleeding out and the chancellor’s handing out a box of sticking plasters.” Out of the till: Lammy may have had little notice that Griffith was stepping into the blue hot seat, but his aides did their homework. The deputy PM ripped into Griffith opposing the minimum wage. Best of enemies: Griffith had plenty of barbs up his sleeve too, labeling his opposite number “left behind Lammy” for not getting a cushty trip to Beijing. But the already depleted Tory benches were even quieter than usual, making it harder for the PMQs novice’s lines to land. That said: He managed a good line about “Andy from Manchester having his dreams crushed by Labour,” a reference to the Greater Manchester mayor getting blocked from standing in the Gorton and Denton by-election over fears he might challenge Starmer for the top job (though, of course, Labour would deny that). “It is our party that is getting stronger,” Griffith cried unironically to shrieks of laughter from the government benches. Indeed, the polls beg to differ. Crossing the line: As usual with these exchanges, the substance of support (or lack thereof) for businesses was lost after about question two. Lammy concluded his responses by highlighting that Badenoch praised the art of queuing during her appearance on the long-running BBC “Desert Island Discs” radio program. It was too easy for Lammy to argue Tory MPs took her at her word after three defections just this month. Helpful backbench intervention of the week: Rugby MP John Slinger continued meeting his ultra-loyalist stereotype by commending Labour’s record on the NHS and slipping in criticism of Reform’s health policies. Lammy couldn’t have been happier, joyously reiterating the point made by every Labour politician that the NHS is only safe under them. Totally unscientific scores on the doors: Lammy 8/10. Griffith 6/10. It was unsurprising for the Tories to lead on a U-turn, given there were many to choose from. However, despite business rates being Griffith’s area of expertise, he did not make his point land. Good lines from both sides meant the session became a battle of which voices could shout the loudest. Given the government’s parliamentary majority, there could only be one winner.

The discussion surrounding the digital euro is strategically important to Europe. On Dec. 12, the EU finance ministers are aiming to agree on a general approach regarding the dossier. This sets out the European Council’s official position and thus represents a major political milestone for the European Council ahead of the trilogue negotiations. We want to be sure that, in this process, the project will be subject to critical analysis that is objective and nuanced and takes account of the long-term interests of Europe and its people. > We do not want the debate to fundamentally call the digital euro into question > but rather to refine the specific details in such a way that opportunities can > be seized. We regard the following points as particularly important: * maintaining European sovereignty at the customer interface; * avoiding a parallel infrastructure that inhibits innovation; and * safeguarding the stability of the financial markets by imposing clear holding limits. We do not want the debate to fundamentally call the digital euro into question but rather to refine the specific details in such a way that opportunities can be seized and, at the same time, risks can be avoided. Opportunities of the digital euro:  1. European resilience and sovereignty in payments processing: as a public-sector means of payment that is accepted across Europe, the digital euro can reduce reliance on non-European card systems and big-tech wallets, provided that a firmly European design is adopted and it is embedded in the existing structures of banks and savings banks and can thus be directly linked to customers’ existing accounts. 2. Supplement to cash and private-sector digital payments: as a central bank digital currency, the digital euro can offer an additional, state-backed payment option, especially when it is held in a digital wallet and can also be used for e-commerce use cases (a compromise proposed by the European Parliament’s main rapporteur for the digital euro, Fernando Navarrete). This would further strengthen people’s freedom of choice in the payment sphere. 3. Catalyst for innovation in the European market: if integrated into banking apps and designed in accordance with the compromises proposed by Navarrete (see point 2), the digital euro can promote innovation in retail payments, support new European payment ecosystems, and simplify cross-border payments. > The burden of investment and the risk resulting from introducing the digital > euro will be disproportionately borne by banks and savings banks. Risks of the current configuration: 1. Risk of creating a gateway for US providers: in the configuration currently planned, the digital euro provides US and other non-European tech and payment companies with access to the customer interface, customer data and payment infrastructure without any of the regulatory obligations and costs that only European providers face. This goes against the objective of digital sovereignty. 2. State parallel infrastructures weaken the market and innovation: the European Central Bank (ECB) is planning not just two new sets of infrastructure but also its own product for end customers (through an app). An administrative body has neither the market experience nor the customer access that banks and payment providers do. At the same time, the ECB is removing the tried-and-tested allocation of roles between the central bank and private sector. Furthermore, the Eurosystem’s digital euro project will tie up urgently required development capacity for many years and thereby further exacerbate Europe’s competitive disadvantage. The burden of investment and the risk resulting from introducing the digital euro will be disproportionately borne by banks and savings banks. In any case, the banks and savings banks have already developed a European market solution, Wero, which is currently coming onto the market. The digital euro needs to strengthen rather than weaken this European-led payment method. 3. Risks for financial stability and lending: without clear holding limits, there is a risk of uncontrolled transfers of deposits from banks and savings banks into holdings of digital euros. Deposits are the backbone of lending; large-scale outflows would weaken both the funding of the real economy – especially small and medium-sized enterprises – and the stability of the system. Holding limits must therefore be based on usual payment needs and be subject to binding regulations. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Bundesverband der Deutschen Volksbanken und Raiffeisenbanken e.V. , Schellingstraße 4, 10785 Berlin, Germany * The ultimate controlling entity is Bundesverband der Deutschen Volksbanken und Raiffeisenbanken e.V. , Schellingstraße 4, 10785 Berlin, Germany More information here.

LONDON — The wait is finally over. After weeks of briefings, speculation, and U-turns, Chancellor Rachel Reeves has set out her final tax and spending plans for the year ahead. As expected, there is plenty for policy wonks to chew over. To make your lives easier, we’ve digested the headline budget announcements on energy, financial services, tech, and trade, and dug deep into the documents for things you might have missed.  ENERGY  The government really wants to bring down bills: Rachel Reeves promised it would be a cost-of-living budget, and surprised no one with a big pledge on families’ sky-high energy bills. She unveiled reforms which, the Treasury claims, will cut bills by £150 a year — by scrapping one green scheme currently paid for through bills (the Energy Company Obligation) and moving most of another into general taxation (the Renewables Obligation). The problem is, the changes will kick in next year at the same time bills are set to rise anyway. So will voters actually notice? The North Sea hasn’t escaped its taxes: Fossil fuel lobbyists were desperate to see a cut in the so-called Windfall Tax, which, oil and gas firms say, limits investment and jobs in the North Sea. But Rachel Reeves ultimately decided to keep the tax in place until 2030 (even if North Sea firms did get a sop through rules announced today, which will allow them to explore for new oil and gas in areas linked to existing, licensed sites.) Fossil fuel lobbyists, Offshore Energies UK, were very unimpressed. “The government was warned of the dangers of inaction. They must now own the consequences and reconsider,” it said. FINANCIAL SERVICES Pension tax changes won’t arrive for some time: The widely expected cut in tax breaks for pension salary sacrifice is set to go ahead, but it will be implemented far later than thought. The thresholds for exemption from national insurance taxes on salary sacrifice contributions will be lowered from £60,000 to £2,000 in April 2029, likely to improve forecasts for deficit cuts in the later years of the OBR’s forecasts. The OBR has a markets warning: The U.K.’s fiscal watchdog warned that the price-to-earnings ratio among U.S. equities is reminiscent of the dotcom bubble and post-pandemic rally in 2021, which were both followed by significant market crashes. The OBR estimated a global stock market collapse could cause a £121 billion hike in U.K. government debt by 2030 and slash U.K. growth by 0.6 percent in 2027-28. Even if the U.K. managed to stay isolated from the equity collapse, the OBR reckons the government would still incur £61 billion in Public Sector Net Financial Liabilities. Banks back British investments: British banks and investment houses have signed an agreement with the Treasury to create “invest in Britain” hubs to boost retail investment in U.K. stocks, a plan revealed by POLITICO last week. Reeves also finally tabled a cut to the tax-free cash ISA allowance: £12,000 from spring 2027 (the amount and timings also revealed by POLITICO last week), down from £20,000, with £8,000 slated for investments only. Over-65s will keep the full tax-free subscription amount. Also hidden in the documents was an upcoming consultation to replace the lifetime ISA with a “new, simpler ISA product to support first-time buyers to buy a home.” No bank tax: Banks managed to dodge a hike in their taxes this time, despite calls from the IPPR for a windfall-style tax that could have raised £8 billion. The suggestions (which also came from inside the Labour Party) were met with an intense lobbying effort from the banks, both publicly and privately. By the eve of the budget, City figures told POLITICO they were confident taxes wouldn’t be raised, citing the high rate of tax they already pay and Reeves’ commitment to pushing for growth through the financial services industry. TECH ‘Start, scale, stay’ is the new mantra:  Startup founders and investors were in panic mode ahead of the budget over rumored plans for an “exit tax” on wealthy individuals moving abroad, but instead were handed several wins on Wednesday, with Reeves saying her aim was to “make Britain the best place in the world to start up, to scale up and to stay.” She announced an increase in limits for the Enterprise Manage Scheme, which incentivizes granting employees share options, and an increase to Venture Capital Trust (VCT) and Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) thresholds to facilitate investment in growing startups. A further call for evidence will also consider “how our tax system can better back entrepreneurs,” Reeves announced. The government will also consider banning non-compete clauses — another long-standing request from startups. Big Tech will still have to cough up: A long-standing commitment to review a Digital Services Tax on tech giants was quietly published alongside the budget, confirming it will remain in place despite pressure from the Trump administration. The government will ‘Buy British’ on AI: Most of the government’s AI announcements came ahead of the budget — including plans for two new “AI Growth Zones” in Wales, an expansion of publicly owned compute infrastructure — meaning the only new announcements on the day were a relatively minor “digital adoption package” and a commitment to overhaul procurement processes to benefit innovative tech firms. But the real point of interest on AI came in the OBR’s productivity forecasts, which said that despite the furor over AI, the technology’s impacts on productivity would be smaller than previous waves of technology, providing just a 0.2 percentage point boost by 2030. The government insists digital ID will ultimately lead to cost savings. | Andrea Domeniconi/Getty Images OBR delivers a blow to digital ID: The OBR threw up another curveball, estimating the cost of the government’s digital ID scheme at a whopping £1.8 billion over the next three years and calling out the government for making “no explicit provision” for the expense. The government insists digital ID will ultimately lead to cost savings — but “no specific savings have yet been identified,” the OBR added. TRADE  Shein and Temu face new fees: In a move targeted at online retailers like Shein and Temu, the government launched a consultation on scrapping the de minimis customs loophole, which exempts shipments worth less than £135 from import duties. These changes will take effect from March 2029 “at the latest,” according to a consultation document. Businesses are being consulted on how the tariff should be applied, what data to collect, whether to apply an additional administration fee, as well as potential changes to VAT collection. Reeves said the plans would “support a level-playing field in retail” by stopping online firms from “undercutting our High Street businesses.”  Northern Irish traders get extra support: Also confirmed in the budget is £16.6 million over three years to create a “one-stop shop” support service to help firms in Northern Ireland navigate post-Brexit trading rules. The government said the funding would “unlock opportunities” for trading across the U.K. internal market and encourage Northern Ireland to take advantage of access to EU markets.  There’s a big question mark over drug spending: Conspicuously absent was any mention of NHS drug spending, despite U.K. proposals to raise the cost-effectiveness threshold for new drugs by 25 percent as part of trade negotiations with the U.S., suggesting a deal has not yet been finalized. The lack of funding was noted as a potential risk to health spending in the Office for Budget Responsibility’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook, which was leaked ahead of the budget. 

The next time your favorite veggie burger quietly rebrands itself as a “plant-based patty,” you now know who to thank: Céline Imart. The grain farmer from southern France, now a first-term lawmaker in the European Parliament, slipped a ban on meaty names for plant-based, fermented and lab-grown foods into an otherwise technical measure. Inside the Parliament, it caused a minor earthquake. Her own group leader, German conservative Manfred Weber, publicly dismissed it as “unnecessary.” The group’s veteran agriculture voice, Herbert Dorfmann, voted against it. Diplomats from several capitals shrugged it off as “silly” or “just stupid.” And yet, as negotiations with EU governments begin, the amendment that everyone assumed would die in the first round is still standing — not because it has a powerful constituency behind it, but because almost no one is expending political capital to bury it. That alone says something about where Europe’s food politics are drifting. A FIGHT ABOUT MORE THAN LABELS Imart insists the amendment isn’t an attack on innovation, but a gesture of respect toward the farmers she represents. “A steak is not just a shape,” she told POLITICO in an interview. “People have eaten meat since the Neolithic. These names carry heritage. They belong to farmers.” She argues some shoppers genuinely confuse plant-based and meat products, despite years of EU surveys showing consumers largely understand what a “veggie burger” is. Her view, she argues, is shaped by what she hears at home. “Maybe some very intelligent people never make mistakes at the supermarket,” she said, referring to Weber and Dorfmann. “But a lot of people in my region do. They don’t always see the difference clearly.” In rural France, where livestock farming remains culturally central, Imart’s argument resonates. Across Europe, similar anxieties simmer. Farmers say they feel squeezed by climate targets, rising costs and what they see as moralizing rhetoric about “healthy and sustainable diets.” The EU once flirted with promoting alternative proteins as part of its Green Deal ambitions. Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen has spent most of the year soothing farm anger, not pushing dietary change. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images Today, that political moment has mostly waned. References to “protein diversification” appear in draft strategies only to be scrubbed from the final text. Public support remains dwarfed by the billions the Common Agricultural Policy funnels to animal farming each year. Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen has spent most of the year soothing farm anger, not pushing dietary change. This helps explain why an idea dismissed as fringe suddenly doesn’t feel fringe at all. Imart’s amendment taps directly into a broader mood: Defend the farmer first; innovation can wait. BOOM AND BACKLASH The industry caught in the crossfire is no longer niche. Retail sales of meat and dairy alternatives reached an estimated €6-8 billion last year, with Germany alone accounting for nearly €2 billion. Fermentation-based dairy substitutes are attracting investment, and even though cultivated meat isn’t yet authorized in the EU, it has already become a regulatory flash point. But the sector remains tiny beside the continent’s livestock economy, and is increasingly buffeted by political headwinds. After two years of farmer protests and fatigue over climate and environmental reforms, national governments have closed ranks around traditional agriculture. Countries like Austria, Italy and France have warned that novel foods could undermine “primary farm-based production.” Hungary went even further this week, voting to ban the production and sale of cultivated meat altogether. For alternative protein companies, the irony is hard to miss. They see their products as both a business opportunity and part of the solution to the food system’s climate and environmental footprint, most of which comes from animal farming. Yet they say politics are now moving in the opposite direction. “Policymakers are devoting so much attention to unnecessary restrictions that would harm companies seeking to diversify their business,” said Alex Holst of the Good Food Institute Europe, an interest group for plant-based and cultivated alternatives. He argued that familiar terms like “burger” and “sausage” help consumers understand what they’re buying, not mislead them. WHY THE NAMING BAN WON’T DIE The political climate explains why Imart’s idea suddenly resonates. But Brussels lawmaking procedure explains why it might survive. At the negotiating table, national governments are consumed by the Parliament’s more disruptive ideas on market intervention and supply management, changes they fear could distort markets and limit the authorities’ flexibility to act. Compared with those fights, a naming ban barely registers. Especially in an otherwise technical reform of the EU’s Common Market Organisation, a piece of legislation normally reserved for agricultural specialists focused on crisis reserves and market tools. That gives the amendment unusual space. Several diplomats privately complained it sits awkwardly outside the scope of the original European Commission proposal. But not enough to coordinate a pushback. The Commission, meanwhile, has signaled it can “live with” stricter naming rules, having floated narrower limits in its own post-2027 market plan. That removes what might have been the decisive obstacle. Retail sales of meat and dairy alternatives reached an estimated €6-8 billion last year. | Jens Kalaene/Getty Images Even translation quirks, like the fact that “filet,” “filete” and “fillet” can mean different things across languages, haven’t slowed it. Imart shrugged those off: “It’s normal that texts evolve. That’s the point of negotiation.” Whether the naming ban makes it into the final law will depend on the coming weeks. But the fact it is even in contention, after being mocked, dismissed and rejected inside Imart’s own political family, is telling. In today’s Brussels, appeals to heritage and identity land more softly than calls for food system innovation. In that climate, that’s all even a fringe idea needs to survive.