BRUSSELS — The European Union and Australia are expected to conclude talks on a long-awaited trade deal early next week, with Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on Wednesday announcing she would visit from March 23-25.  Von der Leyen will meet Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in Canberra, according to a Commission statement. Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič is also expected to join the trip, although planning might yet change due to flight disruptions in the Middle East. Albanese confirmed the visit, saying in a statement that he would meet both von der Leyen and Šefčovič on March 24. Brussels and Canberra relaunched trade negotiations after Donald Trump’s return to the White House last year. They had collapsed amid acrimony at the end of 2023 amid disagreements over quotas on beef and lamb. The breakthrough comes as the EU looks to get closer to the Pacific-centered CPTPP trade bloc through its deepening bonds with Australia. In a letter to EU leaders shared Monday, von der Leyen said the EU and Australia were in “the final stretch towards concluding” their trade agreement.  “In addition to removing trade barriers, it will also facilitate access to critical raw materials — such as lithium, cobalt, rare earth elements, and hydrogen — and strengthen Europe’s presence in one of the world’s most dynamic economic regions,” she wrote, as part of a list on the Commission’s efforts to boost competitiveness. Negotiators had grappled in the home stretch to close the gap on access for Australian beef and lamb to the European market; EU trade protections on specialty foods; critical minerals; and an Australian tax on luxury cars. Canberra and Brussels are also looking to seal a security and defense partnership, which is finalized.  The EU top diplomat Kaja Kallas, who would be signing the defense deal, known as Security and Defense Partnership, is however not expected to be part of the trip. The pace would come on the heels of similar partnerships signed with the U.K., Canada and most recently India. Speaking last week at at the annual gathering of diplomats with the External Action Service, the EU’s diplomatic body, Kallas said that the deal was coming as she announced that “later this week, I will sign the tenth [SDP] with Australia and subsequent ones with Iceland and Ghana in the coming days.”     James Panichi, Zoya Sheftalovich, Sebastian Starcevic and Nette Nöstlinger contributed reporting.

BRUSSELS — The European Union’s anti-deforestation law will put United States producers off exporting to the European market, harming EU competitiveness, a senior official with the U.S. Department of Agriculture told reporters in Brussels Friday. The law, also called EUDR, is “going to discourage us from looking at the European market” and from “paying attention to any European rules [linked to deforestation],” the official said. The law as it stands would affect $9 billion of U.S. trade to the EU annually, added the official, who spoke to journalists on condition that he was not named. A delegation of U.S. government representatives is finishing a tour of EU capitals — including Madrid, Rome, Paris, Berlin and Brussels — to lobby governments to simplify the EUDR ahead of an upcoming review of the rules next month. One example of a sector that could be affected is livestock farming, the official said, arguing these farmers depend on soybeans to feed their animals, and Europe does not produce enough protein feed. “It needs to import from countries that are better at it, like us,” he said, warning that the U.S. stopping that export “will drive up their costs, hurt their competitiveness.” The EU’s anti-deforestation law requires that companies police their supply chains to ensure that any commodities they use, such as palm oil, beef or coffee, have not contributed to deforestation. After complaints from industry groups and trade partners, EU institutions in December agreed to put off implementation of the law by a year — until Dec. 2026 — and mandated the Commission to present a review of the rules by April. “It’s particularly difficult for us because these [compliance] costs will be borne by our producers,” said the official. U.S. farmers also don’t want to share information on their farms with foreign governments, he said. Washington’s main qualms with the law include the fact that there’s no category of “negligible” risk in the EU’s ranking of countries by risk of deforestation. The U.S. — like all EU member countries as well as China, Canada, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ghana, Kenya, Vietnam and others — has been labeled “low risk” under the EU’s deforestation classification system. Members of the European Parliament in the center-right European People’s Party have also backed the introduction of a “no risk” category, “for countries with stable or expanding forest areas.” The senior official also complained about a stipulation in the law that if the level of deforestation in any country exceeds 70,000 hectares annually, that country cannot be considered “low risk.” That standard “just doesn’t work for us,” they said. “It’s not fair.” Representatives from the European Commission are meeting with members of the delegation on Friday “at technical level” to discuss the law, a spokesperson for the European Commission confirmed to POLITICO. European Environment Commissioner Jessika Roswall told reporters in January that there would be no new legislative proposal come April, saying businesses need “predictability.” A 2024 report from the U.S. Congressional Research Service estimated that, in 2023, U.S. exports of the seven commodities under the EUDR accounted for approximately 3 percent of the value of U.S. exports to the EU, “so overall the EUDR may not significantly affect U.S. trade.” European Environment Commissioner Jessika Roswall told reporters in January that there would be no new legislative proposal come April, saying businesses need “predictability.” | Gabriel Luengas/Europa Press via Getty Images Still, the authors wrote, the law could affect U.S. producers of specific commodities covered by the law. In 2023, the highest value of covered commodities exported to the EU from the U.S. were wood and wood products ($4.5 billion), soybeans ($4 billion), rubber ($1.1 billion), and cattle, such as beef and related products ($409 million). Environmental groups are calling on EU governments and the Commission to stick by the EUDR and keep the rules intact. “Misleading and self-serving foreign pressure on the EU should not distract policy-makers from staying focused on facts,” said Anke Schulmeister-Oldenhove, manager for forests at WWF EU, in an emailed statement. “Every year the EUDR is postponed results in the loss of nearly 50 million trees and the release of 16.8 million tonnes of CO₂ into the atmosphere.”

Ursula von der Leyen’s decision to provisionally implement the EU-Mercosur trade deal has unleashed a wave of outrage in Paris. It has also shown the European Commission president is increasingly prepared to take decisions without factoring France into the equation, with the end of French President Emmanuel Macron’s term at the Elysée only 14 months away. Von der Leyen announced Friday that the EU would provisionally implement its trade deal with the South American Mercosur bloc, even after the European Parliament voted last month to send the accord for review by the Court of Justice of the European Union, effectively freezing its final ratification for up to two years. The Commission chief said she consulted widely with countries and lawmakers. However, shortly after the announcement, Macron said that “for France, it’s a surprise, and an unpleasant one.” A chorus of French ministers and lawmakers also slammed the decision, accusing officials in Brussels of ignoring the will of EU citizens. Two French officials confirmed to POLITICO that the government in Paris was not informed in advance of von der Leyen’s decision to force through a deal that France has been fighting against for years, amid an overwhelming backlash from the country’s political parties, influential farmers and public opinion. Diplomats and officials from other EU members, who were granted anonymity to speak candidly on a sensitive issue, were quick to draw the conclusion that France’s influence in Brussels is fading and that the European Commission chief now thinks she can deliberately ignore the opposition of a French president who will leave power next year. “I don’t know which of the two is worse for the French: not having been informed or not having been able to block the Commission. I think the former,” said one EU government official. “Macron must have been the only person in Europe to be surprised,” joked one EU diplomat. While von der Leyen had long made clear that she wanted the deal to enter into force soon, uncertainty loomed over whether the Commission was ready to sideline the European Parliament and go for an early implementation of an agreement that would create a free-trade area among between the EU and Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay, spanning 720 million people. “French officials were confident this would not happen,” said a second EU diplomat. TRADE TENSIONS French Trade Minister Nicolas Forissier, in an interview with POLITICO on Thursday, said France was aiming to use the time of the judicial review to obtain reassurances from the Commission on French requests to protect farmers. Forissier vowed “to use the additional time granted by the European Court of Justice to continue discussions with the Commission and arrive at specific answers on all issues, particularly on the question of mirror measures and [sanitary] checks.” But things went differently as von der Leyen decided there was no need to wait for the court verdict. Von der Leyen had already raised tensions with Macron in January, when she signed the Mercosur trade deal in Paraguay after a majority of EU countries backed it against France, Poland, Austria, Ireland and Hungary. Political instability at home and the rise of transatlantic trade tensions hindered French efforts to block or to substantially change the deal during years-long negotiations with the Commission. The EU executive received the go-ahead from EU countries to implement the deal once Mercosur countries complete their own approvals. Both Argentina and Uruguay ratified the agreement Thursday. To become final, after the court review the agreement still needs the final nod of the Parliament, which might now be harder to get after the European Commission skirted EU lawmakers. Von der Leyen didn’t want to waste time. She announced the provisional application the following day, ignoring once again the French call to wait until the end of the judicial review. In return Macron, who cannot run for a third consecutive term and is set to leave the Elysée in spring 2027, slammed von der Leyen’s Commission, saying “European citizens and their representatives [had] not been duly respected.” The dispute marks an unprecedented clash between the two. “I will never defend an agreement that is lax on imports and tough on domestic production, because it is inconsistent for European consumers and criminal for European sovereignty,” Macron said.

BRUSSELS — The EU will provisionally implement its trade deal with the South American Mercosur bloc, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced Friday, in a move that is likely to trigger a major backlash from European capitals and lawmakers opposed to the deal. The deal, to create a free-trade area spanning 720 million people, is controversial because it hasn’t yet been officially blessed by the European Parliament. Lawmakers voted last month to send it for review by the Court of Justice of the European Union, effectively freezing its final ratification for up to two years. Implementation could harden opposition in the European Parliament, antagonize skeptical countries led by France and Poland, and potentially sink the agreement when it comes to a final consent vote later. The European Commission received the go-head from EU countries in January to implement the deal once Mercosur countries complete their own approvals. Both Argentina and Uruguay ratified the agreement on Thursday. This is a developing story.

BRUSSELS — Next up on Ursula von der Leyen’s trade to-do list: Australia. The EU’s ally Down Under is ready to tango again as Donald Trump’s tariffs push the rest of the world closer together. Both Brussels and Canberra worry about China. And they already see eye-to-eye on issues, ranging from research funding to defense cooperation. The EU and Australia came close to a deal in October 2023, on the sidelines of a G7 meeting in Osaka, Japan. But Aussie Trade Minister Don Farrell pulled out at the last minute under pressure from the beef lobby back home. Sticking points remain: access for Australian beef and lamb to the European market; EU trade protections on specialty foods; critical minerals; and an Australian tax on luxury cars. Farrell visits Brussels on Thursday to meet the EU’s trade and agriculture commissioners, Maroš Šefčovič and Christoph Hansen. Only if they resolve those differences would the Commission chief get to fly to Australia to finally conclude a formal agreement. “I don’t do bad deals,” Farrell said before heading to Brussels. Here are five issues that need to be sorted out for a good deal to happen: ANGRY FARMERS The biggest obstacle is whether the EU will grant more access to Australian farm produce, chiefly beef and lamb. Farrell needs a deal he can sell to vocal farmers back home who effectively blocked the deal just over two years ago. It’s not only meat but also sugar, rice and dairy — even though quotas for those are less sensitive. The Australian National Farmers’ Federation said this week that it’s still looking for “significantly increased access” on all of those fields. The crux here: Australia might want more, but if the EU gives more it risks the ire of European farmers ready to protest on the doorstep of the Berlaymont. The European Parliament’s referral of the EU’s agri-heavy deal with the Latin American Mercosur bloc for judicial review adds to the uncertainty. PROTECTING PARMIGIANO While the matter of protected European products on the market down under was all but solved in 2023, it’s likely this chapter will return to haunt negotiators. Australia knows very well how to use anything the EU says against it: Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, after all. Canberra signaled it was ready to set up its own version of Europe’s system of geographical indications. These, for instance, denote that Champagne can only be called that when it’s made in the eponymous region of France. They are also some non-Greek supermarkets that have to resort to calling their feta imitations “white cheese.” Australia might want more, but if the EU gives more it risks the ire of European farmers ready to protest on the doorstep of the Berlaymont. | Geoffroy van der Hasselt/AFP via Getty Images Australia is a peculiar case because, for example, Italian-heritage farmers have made parmesan cheese for generations in the same way as around Parma. They could now face limits on what they can call their product — but probably not Parmigiano Reggiano. A likely solution would allow established brands to continue to use product names for a grace period. This is why prosecco, pecorino, parmesan and feta are still under discussion, the Australian Associated Press reports. On the flip side, the EU usually offers to protect some of the other side’s products on its own market. Let’s hope they don’t come after our flat whites. RAW MATERIALS (AND THEIR PRICE) Australia holds the world’s largest lithium reserves but lacks the refining capacity to monetize them. As a result, China processes virtually all of the raw lithium that Australia produces, enabling Beijing to dominate global supply. Brussels and Canberra continued talking on this topic after the Osaka debacle, concluding a memorandum of understanding in early 2024. Australia is also a partner in Europe’s RESourceEU program to reduce dependencies on a subset of critical raw materials. And the European Investment Bank is teaming up with Australia. Ideally, a trade deal would unlock exports from Australia to Europe and also boost the confidence of European companies to invest in local refining capacity. This is true not only for lithium, but also uranium, silver, bauxite used for aluminum, and a host of others. It cuts both ways: One example of an existing project getting a boost is the Australian-owned lithium producer Vulcan Energy in Germany. So is this really a hurdle? There’s a technical one: Europe wants to avoid a dual pricing system for critical raw materials (and energy sources like natural gas) that favors domestic customers. Australia hasn’t signaled it’s ready to end the practice, however. TAXING LUXURY CARS Australia still taxes luxury vehicle imports — a relic of a bygone era when it still had a car industry of its own. The tax is a 33 percent charge on models above a certain price threshold. There’s also a 5 percent import duty on all foreign cars. Trading partners that have deals with Canberra — like Korea and Japan — saw that removed but are still charged the luxury car tax. The potential is there: Japan sold $8 billion worth of vehicles to Australia in 2024, with German only in fifth position at $2 billion. While the EU would love to pave the way for more high-end German autos to be sold Down Under, the tax is domestic legislation and not formally part of the talks. Australia was rumored in 2023 to be willing to get rid of the tax, and Albanese hinted at it again late last year. That could be a sweetener for the EU to stomach a slightly higher beef quota. THE POLITICS OF IT ALL The EU is on a roll with new trade agreements: it has signed the Mercosur deal, closed talks with India and an Australian win is close. The streak serves von der Leyen’s geopolitical agenda for Europe to stand on its own two feet economically. On the other side of the world, Albanese is in more dire need of a win. He’s under pressure over his response to the Bondi Beach terror attack in December. And even though Trump only hit Australia with a 10 percent tariff, the country needs strong alliances if it wants to weather both Chinese and American pressure. The same is true for Europe, which sees the deal as underlining its cultural and historic ties with Australia, lifting an already-strong working relationship to the next level, as with Canada. And Australia is a key member of “the West” in the Indo-Pacific where Europe needs and wants to expand its attraction and influence. Zoya Sheftalovich contributed to this report.

BRUSSELS — European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is planning to travel to Australia this month to clinch a security and trade deal, according to a person familiar with the talks. Her trip will follow a meeting next week between European Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič and his Australian counterpart Don Farrell in Brussels, a second person said. Both people were granted anonymity because the schedules are still tentative. The EU and Canberra are moving to revive trade negotiations that collapsed at the end of 2023 amid disagreements over quotas of beef and lamb. The quotas are still being negotiated between Canberra and Brussels, the first person familiar with the talks said. Von der Leyen will take the 20-hour-plus flight to Australia directly after she attends the Munich Security Conference, which takes place in the German city on Feb. 13-15, according to Australian digital newspaper The Nightly, which broke the news of the Commission chief’s four-day trip. EU countries last December allowed the Commission to negotiate a defense deal with Australia. Sealing such a deal would come on the heels of security and defense partnerships signed with the U.K., Canada and most recently India. An agreement with Australia would represent a win for the EU, as it would open access to the country’s vast reserves of strategic minerals. Australia is the world’s largest producer of lithium and also holds the world’s second-largest copper reserves. Coming after the EU’s fraught Mercosur deal with South American countries — criticized by farmers, France and skeptical lawmakers — the pact with Canberra is expected to also trigger pushback due to its significant agricultural component.

BRUSSELS ― European governments and corporations are racing to reduce their exposure to U.S. technology, military hardware and energy resources as transatlantic relations sour.  For decades, the EU relied on NATO guarantees to ensure security in the bloc, and on American technology to power its business. Donald Trump’s threats to take over Greenland, and aggressive comments about Europe by members of his administration, have given fresh impetus to European leaders’ call for “independence.” “If we want to be taken seriously again, we will have to learn the language of power politics,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said last week. From orders banning civil servants from using U.S.-based videoconferencing tools to trade deals with countries like India to a push to diversify Europe’s energy suppliers, efforts to minimize European dependence on the U.S. are gathering pace. EU leaders warn that transatlantic relations are unlikely to return to the pre-Trump status quo. EU officials stress that such measures amount to “de-risking” Europe’s relationship with the U.S., rather than “decoupling” — a term that implies a clean break in economic and strategic ties. Until recently, both expressions were mainly applied to European efforts to reduce dependence on China. Now, they are coming up in relation to the U.S., Europe’s main trade partner and security benefactor. The decoupling drive is in its infancy. The U.S. remains by far the largest trading partner for Europe, and it will take years for the bloc to wean itself off American tech and military support, according to Jean-Luc Demarty, who was in charge of the European Commission’s trade department under the body’s former president, Jean-Claude Juncker. Donald Trump’s threats to take over Greenland, and aggressive comments about Europe by members of his administration, have given fresh impetus to European leaders’ call for “independence.” | Kristian Tuxen Ladegaard Berg/NurPhoto via Getty Images “In terms of trade, they [the U.S.] represent a significant share of our exports,” said Demarty. “So it’s a lot, but it’s not a matter of life and death.” The push to diversify away from the U.S. has seen Brussels strike trade deals with the Mercosur bloc of Latin American countries, India and Indonesia in recent months. The Commission also revamped its deal with Mexico, and revived stalled negotiations with Australia. DEFENDING EUROPE: FROM NATO TO THE EU Since the continent emerged from the ashes of World War II, Europe has relied for its security on NATO — which the U.S. contributes the bulk of funding to. At a weekend retreat in Zagreb, Croatia, conservative European leaders including Merz said it was time for the bloc to beef up its homegrown mutual-defense clause, which binds EU countries to an agreement to defend any EU country that comes under attack. While it has existed since 2009, the EU’s Article 42.7 mutual defense clause was rarely seen as necessary because NATO’s Article 5 served a similar purpose. But Europe’s governments have started to doubt whether the U.S. really would come to Europe’s rescue. In Zagreb, the leaders embraced the EU’s new role as a security actor, tasking two leaders, as yet unnamed, with rapidly cooking up plans to turn the EU clause from words to an ironclad security guarantee. “For decades, some countries said ‘We have NATO, why should we have parallel structures?’” said a senior EU diplomat who was granted anonymity to talk about confidential summit preparations. After Trump’s Greenland saber-rattling, “we are faced with the necessity, we have to set up military command structures within the EU.” At a weekend retreat in Zagreb, Croatia, conservative European leaders including Merz said it was time for the bloc to beef up its homegrown mutual-defense clause, which binds EU countries to an agreement to defend any EU country that comes under attack. | Marko Perkov/AFP via Getty Images In comments to EU lawmakers last week, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said that anyone who believes Europe can defend itself without the U.S. should “keep on dreaming.” Europe remains heavily reliant on U.S. military capabilities, most notably in its support for Ukraine’s fight against Russia. But some Europeans are now openly talking about the price of reducing exposure to the U.S. — and saying it’s manageable. TECHNOLOGY: TEAMS OUT, VISIO IN The mood shift is clearest when it comes to technology, where European reliance on platforms such as X, Meta and Google has long troubled EU voters, as evidenced by broad support for the bloc’s tech legislation. French President Emmanuel Macron’s government is planning to ban officials from using U.S.-based videoconferencing tools. Other countries like Germany are contemplating similar moves. “It’s very clear that Europe is having our independence moment,” EU tech czar Henna Virkkunen told a POLITICO conference last week. “During the last year, everybody has really realized how important it is that we are not dependent on one country or one company when it comes to some very critical technologies.” France is moving to ban public officials from using American platforms including Google Meet, Zoom and Teams, a government spokesperson told POLITICO. Officials will soon make the switch to Visio, a videoconferencing tool that runs on infrastructure provided by French firm Outscale. In the European Parliament, lawmakers are urging its president, Roberta Metsola, to ditch U.S. software and hardware, as well as a U.S.-based travel booking tool. In Germany, politicians want a potential German or European substitute for software made by U.S. data analysis firm Palantir. “Such dependencies on key technologies are naturally a major problem,” Sebastian Fiedler, an SPD lawmaker and expert on policing, told POLITICO. Even in the Netherlands, among Europe’s more pro-American countries, there are growing calls from lawmakers and voters to ring-fence sensitive technologies from U.S. influence. Dutch lawmakers are reviewing a petition signed by 140,000 people calling on the state to block the acquisition of a state identity verification tool by a U.S. company. At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in late January, German entrepreneur Anna Zeiter announced the launch of a Europe-based social media platform called W that could rival Elon Musk’s X, which has faced fines for breaching the EU’s content moderation rules. W plans to host its data on “European servers owned by European companies” and limits its investors to Europeans, Zeiter told Euronews. So far, Brussels has yet to codify any such moves into law. But upcoming legislation on cloud and AI services are expected to send signals about the need to Europeanize the bloc’s tech offerings. ENERGY: TIME TO DIVERSIFY On energy, the same trend is apparent. The United States provides more than a quarter of the EU’s gas, a share set to rise further as a full ban on Russian imports takes effect. But EU officials warn about the risk of increasing Europe’s dependency on the U.S. in yet another area. Trump’s claims on Greenland were a “clear wake-up call” for the EU, showing that energy can no longer be seen in isolation from geopolitical trends, EU Energy Commissioner Dan Jørgensen said last Wednesday. The Greenland crisis reinforced concerns that the bloc risks “replacing one dependency with another,” said Jørgensen, adding that as a result, Brussels is stepping up efforts to diversify, deepening talks with alternative suppliers including Canada, Qatar and North African countries such as Algeria. FINANCE: MOVING TO EUROPEAN PAYMENTS Payment systems are also drawing scrutiny, with lawmakers warning about over-reliance on U.S. payment systems such as Mastercard and Visa. The digital euro, a digital version of cash that the European Central Bank is preparing to issue in 2029, aims to cut these dependencies and provide a pan-European sovereign means of payment. “With the digital euro, Europeans would remain in control of their money, their choices and their future,” ECB President Christine Lagarde said last year. In Germany, some politicians are sounding the alarm about 1,236 tons of gold reserves that Germany keeps in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. “In a time of growing global uncertainty and under President Trump’s unpredictable U.S. policy, it’s no longer acceptable” to have that much in gold reserves in the U.S., Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, the German politician from the liberal Free Democratic Party, who chairs the Parliament’s defense committee, told Der Spiegel. Several European countries are pushing the EU to privilege European manufacturers when it comes to spending EU public money via “Buy European” clauses. Until a few years ago, countries like Poland, the Netherlands or the Baltic states would never have agreed on such “Buy European” clauses. But even those countries are now backing calls to prioritize purchases from EU-based companies. MILITARY INVESTMENT: BOOSTING OWN CAPACITY A €150 billion EU program to help countries boost their defense investments, finalized in May of last year, states that no more than 35 percent of the components in a given purchase, by cost, should originate from outside the EU and partner states like Norway and Ukraine. The U.S. is not considered a partner country under the scheme. For now, European countries rely heavily on the U.S. for military enablers including surveillance and reconnaissance, intelligence, strategic lift, missile defense and space-based assets. But the powerful conservative umbrella group, the European People Party, says these are precisely the areas where Europe needs to ramp up its own capacities. When EU leaders from the EPP agreed on their 2026 roadmap in Zagreb, they stated that the “Buy European” principle should apply to an upcoming Commission proposal on joint procurement. The title of the EPP’s 2026 roadmap? “Time for independence.” Camille Gijs, Jacopo Barigazzi, Mathieu Pollet, Giovanna Faggionato, Eliza Gkritsi, Elena Giordano, Ben Munster and Sam Clark contributed reporting from Brussels. James Angelos contributed reporting from Berlin.

STRASBOURG — In a vote that could delay the European Union’s trade deal with Mercosur by up to two years, the European Parliament on Wednesday sent the Latin American accord for a judicial review. By a majority of just 10 votes, MEPs backed a resolution to seek an opinion from the Court of Justice of the EU on whether the texts of the EU-Mercosur agreement comply with the EU treaties. The motion was carried — to applause and cheers from its backers — with 334 votes in favor, 324 against, and 11 abstentions. The Parliament won’t be able to vote on the deal itself until the court has issued its opinion — a process that typically takes between 18 to 24 months.  The delay now raises the question of whether the EU executive will provisionally apply the agreement while waiting for the court to rule — putting the two institutions on a collision course over democratic accountability. The outcome represents a major defeat for the European Commission and countries backing the deal, which want to deepen ties with the Mercosur countries — Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay — and see the accord as the perfect opportunity to stand strong against U.S. President Donald Trump’s erratic tariffs.  “The more trading partners we have world-wide, the more independent we are. And that is exactly what we need now,” the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in a last-minute appeal to lawmakers earlier on Wednesday.  Bernd Lange, the chair of the Parliament’s international trade committee, condemned the outcome of the vote. “Absolutely irresponsible. This is an own goal,” Lange posted on X. “Those against #EU #Mercosur should vote against in consent procedure instead of using delaying tactics under the guise of legal review. Very harmful for our economic interests and standing. Team Europe putting itself offside.” This story has been updated.

LONDON — U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade negotiators are pushing for the U.K. to adopt American standards in a move that would derail Britain’s post-Brexit relationship with the European Union, two people familiar with the talks have told POLITICO. The U.S. is also pushing hard for the recognition of American accreditation bodies in the U.K., three other people with knowledge of the demands confirmed. The joint moves would have knock-on effects for safety-critical sectors like food, forensics, manufacturing and NHS testing, experts fear. “It’s this invisible infrastructure that no one really knows about but which keeps everyone safe — and that’s now under threat,” a person briefed on the talks told POLITICO. They, like others cited in this piece, were granted anonymity to speak freely. American negotiators have turned up the heat in trade talks with the recent suspension of the Technology Prosperity Deal, amid frustration over the pace of wider negotiations. U.K. negotiating asks on steel and Scotch whisky tariffs have also gone unanswered. Trump threatened a fresh wedge in the relationship over the weekend, vowing to impose tariffs on Britain and other European allies pushing back at his desire for the United States to own Greenland. The standards push comes as the Trump administration hollows out American watchdogs, with sweeping cuts to the Food and Drug Administration and the dismantling of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. While food standards remain a red line for the U.K. government, some figures familiar with the talks fear the U.K. could cave in on other U.S. demands. “My concern is that these red lines that have been red lines from the outset and for years are under increasing threat of being breached,” the person cited above said.   British negotiators have so far refused to back down, but U.S. negotiators “keep circling back” on these issues, another person who was briefed on the talks by both governments said. Peter Holmes, an expert on standards from the UK Trade Policy Observatory at the University of Sussex, warned that accepting U.S. demands could lead to a “race to the bottom” with the U.K. regarded as a “wild west market” internationally. A U.K. government spokesperson said: “Our historic agreement with the U.S. has already delivered for the pharma, aerospace and auto sectors, while our deal with the EU will see the removal of trade barriers including SPS, saving hundreds of millions on U.K. exports.” “We have and always will be clear that we will uphold our high food, animal welfare and environmental standards in trade deals, and negotiations will continue with both the EU and U.S. on strengthening our trading relationship,” the spokesperson added. The U.K. says it will uphold its high food, animal welfare and environmental standards in trade deals. | Geography Photos/Universal Images Group via Getty Images A spokesperson for the United States Trade Representative said the claims came from “anonymous and irrelevant sources” with “no insight into the trade discussions between the U.S. and U.K.”  The spokesperson did not contest any specific aspects of this report. They added that the two nations had successfully implemented “numerous aspects of the U.S.-U.K. EPD,” including “mutually expanding access of U.S. and U.K. beef in each other’s markets.”  “The U.S. and U.K. continue to work together constructively on finalizing remaining aspects of the EPD, including the U.K. commitment to ‘improve market access for agricultural products’ from the United States,” the spokesperson said. IMPACT ON BREXIT RESET TALKS Giving in to the U.S. demands would upset Britain’s ability to trade more closely with the EU as part of ongoing Brexit “reset” negotiations with the bloc that include alignment on food standards and carbon emissions in manufacturing. The U.K. government has “very clear red lines around all of this because they are going to do certain things with the EU,” the second person quoted above explained. “You would have thought these matters had already been well ventilated and resolved,” the person added, explaining that in talks the U.S. side “keep saying ‘why can’t you do more food standards? Why aren’t you coming closer on our side of it? Are you really sure what you’re doing with the EU is the right thing to do?’” Negotiations with the U.S. are “pretty much [in] stasis at the moment,” the same person continued. As London’s Brexit reset talks with the EU progress this year, “the possibility to have the kinds of changes that the U.S. is putting forward become much diminished when those agreements with the EU start to get over the line.” RECOGNITION OF ACCREDITATION BODIES Multiple people briefed on the trade talks claim the U.S. proposals go beyond the terms of the original U.K.-U.S. Economic Prosperity Deal agreed last May between U.S. President Donald Trump and Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer.  In addition to headline commitments to cut tariffs on cars, steel and pharmaceuticals, the wide-ranging deal included a promise to address “non-tariff barriers,” including a pledge to treat conformity assessment bodies — such as testing labs and certification groups from the other nation — in a way that is “no less favorable” than the treatment of its own.  This is an increasingly common commitment in U.K. trade deals and typically means that accreditation bodies would have the power to accredit a whole range of certification and testing providers from the other country. However, U.S. negotiators are now pushing for the recognition of disparate American accreditation bodies, which would give them the authority to approve certification, testing and verification organizations in the U.K., three people briefed on the talks confirmed. Accepting this demand would mean that the U.K.’s national accreditation body, UKAS, would no longer meet the basic requirements of membership in the European Co-operation for Accreditation, under which national accreditation bodies recognize each other’s accreditations.  U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer says he wanted the U.K. to seek “even closer alignment” with the EU. | Leon Neal/Getty Images This would put the proposed U.K.-EU agrifood deal and plans to link U.K. and EU Emissions Trading Schemes “at massive risk,” should those deals require the EU to recognize U.K. emissions verification bodies and food control laboratories, the first person cited above explained. An industry figure familiar with the ETS linkage talks said an acceptance of the changes would amount to a “watering down” of the entire carbon pricing system, adding that “every single company falling under UK ETS” would be “absolutely furious.” It could also jeopardize any future alignment with the EU in other areas such as manufactured goods, a second industry figure briefed on the negotiations said.  The U.K. government has indicated a willingness to go even further in its relationship with the EU, with U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer saying he wanted the U.K. to seek “even closer alignment” with the single market.  Beyond plans outlined in the Common Understanding last May, “there are other areas where we should consider if it’s in our interests to … align with the single market,” he told the BBC in a recent interview. “Now that needs to be considered on an issue-by-issue, sector-by-sector basis, but we’ve already done it with food and agriculture, and that will be implemented this year.” ‘RACE TO THE BOTTOM’ The U.S. operates a decentralized standards system in which accreditation is carried out by a competitive network of organizations, most of which are commercial. This is in direct contrast to the U.K.’s current model of accreditation, whereby a single, non-profit accreditation body, UKAS, oversees certification and product testing in the public interest. The UK Trade Policy Observatory’s Peter Holmes warned that adopting the U.S. system could lead to a “race to the bottom”, with UKAS pitted against American accreditation bodies. “They might have to cut corners and give up their legally-required public service obligations,” he said.  Accepting U.S. accreditation bodies would make the U.K. a “wild west market where you can’t trust anything that’s on sale in the U.K.,” he added. The U.K. government has repeatedly rejected the possibility of changes to British standards, including the possibility of accepting American chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-treated beef.  “We will not compromise on food standards,” Trade Minister Chris Bryant said in an interview with CNBC this month. “That is the beginning and end of everything I have to say on that subject. Food standards are really important. There is no compromise for us to strike there.”

The European Union and the Mercosur bloc on Saturday signed their long-awaited trade agreement, sealing one of the world’s biggest free-trade deals after more than 25 years of negotiations and repeated political standoffs. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa attended the ceremony in Asunción, Paraguay, alongside Mercosur leaders from Argentina, Uruguay and host country Paraguay. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, a key proponent of the pact, did not attend, delegating representation to his foreign minister. “This agreement sends a strong signal to the world,” von der Leyen said at the signing ceremony. “It reflects a clear and deliberate choice. We choose fair trade over tariffs, we choose a productive, long-term partnership.” The signing marks the culmination of a bruising political battle inside the EU that only cleared its final hurdle last week, when member states backed the agreement by a qualified majority following a flurry of last-minute concessions. France, Poland, Austria, Ireland and Hungary opposed the agreement, while Belgium abstained. Attention now turns to ratification. The deal must still be approved by the European Parliament and national legislatures on both sides of the Atlantic, where opposition — particularly from farming groups — is expected to remain fierce. If fully ratified, the agreement would create a free-trade area covering more than 700 million people across Europe and Latin America. More than 90 percent of tariffs on EU exports would be phased out over time, opening new markets for European manufacturers, especially in industrial sectors. Mercosur countries, meanwhile, would gain greater access to the EU market for agricultural products under strict quota systems designed to protect sensitive European sectors such as beef and poultry. Von der Leyen has framed the deal as a strategic victory, arguing it reinforces rules-based trade at a moment of growing geopolitical fragmentation. EU officials see it as a way to reassert influence in Latin America amid intensifying competition from China and rising uncertainty around U.S. trade policy. But the agreement came at a steep political price.  To win over skeptical governments, the Commission pledged €45 billion in additional support for EU farmers, blunting resistance from countries concerned about cheap imports undercutting domestic producers. French President Emmanuel Macron emerged as one of the pact’s most prominent losers. Despite sustained efforts to block or delay the deal — citing pressure from France’s farming sector — Paris failed to assemble a blocking minority. Italy ultimately backed the agreement after extracting safeguards and funding commitments for its own farmers.