LONDON — Choosing your Brexit camp was once the preserve of Britain’s Tories. Now Labour is joining in the fun.  Six years after Britain left the EU, a host of loose — and mostly overlapping — groupings in the U.K.’s ruling party are thinking about precisely how close to try to get to the bloc. They range from customs union enthusiasts to outright skeptics — with plenty of shades of grey in between. There’s a political urgency to all of this too: with Prime Minister Keir Starmer tanking in the polls, the Europhile streak among many Labour MPs and members means Brexit could become a key issue for anyone who would seek to replace him. “The more the screws and pressure have been on Keir around leadership, the more we’ve seen that play to the base,” said one Labour MP, granted anonymity like others quoted in this piece to speak frankly. Indeed, Starmer started the new year explicitly talking up closer alignment with the European Union’s single market. At face value, nothing has changed: Starmer’s comments reflect his existing policy of a “reset” with Brussels. His manifesto red lines on not rejoining the customs union or single market remain. Most of his MPs care more about aligning than how to get there. In short, this is not like the Tory wars of the late 2010s. Well, not yet. POLITICO sketches out Labour’s nascent Brexit tribes. THE CUSTOMS UNIONISTS  It all started with a Christmas walk. Health Secretary Wes Streeting told an interviewer he desires a “deeper trading relationship” with the EU — widely interpreted as hinting at joining a customs union. This had been a whispered topic in Labour circles for a while, discussed privately by figures including Starmer’s economic adviser Minouche Shafik. Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy said last month that rejoining a customs union is not “currently” government policy — which some took as a hint that the position could shift. But Streeting’s leadership ambitions (he denies plotting for the top job) and his willingness to describe Brexit as a problem gave his comments an elevated status among Labour Europhiles.  “This has really come from Wes’s leadership camp,” said one person who talks regularly to No. 10 Downing Street. Naomi Smith, CEO of the pro-EU pressure group Best for Britain, added any Labour leadership contest will be dominated by the Brexit question. MPs and members who would vote in a race “are even further ahead than the public average on all of those issues relating to Europe,” she argued. Joining a customs union would in theory allow smoother trade without returning to free movement of people. But Labour critics of a customs union policy — including Starmer himself — argue it is a non-starter because it would mean tearing up post-Brexit agreements with other countries such as India and the U.S. “It’s just absolutely nonsense,” said a second Labour MP.    Keir Starmer has argued that the customs union route would mean hard conversations with workers in the car industry after Britain secured a U.K.-U.S. tariff deal last summer. | Colin McPherson/Getty Images And since Streeting denies plotting and did not even mention a customs union by name, the identities of the players pushing for one are understandably murky beyond the 13 Labour MPs who backed a Liberal Democrat bill last month requiring the government to begin negotiations on joining a bespoke customs union with the EU. One senior Labour official said “hardly any” MPs back it, while a minister said there was no organized group, only a vague idea. “There are people who don’t really know what it is, but realize Brexit has been painful and the economy needs a stimulus,” they said. “And there are people who do know what this means and they effectively want to rejoin. For people who know about trade, this is an absolute non-starter.” Anand Menon, director of the UK in a Changing Europe think tank, said a full rejoining of the EU customs union would mean negotiating round a suite of “add-ons” — and no nations have secured this without also being in the EU single market. (Turkey has a customs union with the EU, but does not benefit from the EU’s wider trade agreements.) “I’m not convinced the customs union works without the single market,” Menon added.  Starmer has argued that the customs union route would mean hard conversations with workers in the car industry after Britain secured a U.K.-U.S. tariff deal last summer, a person with knowledge of his thinking said. “When you read anything from any economically literate commentator, the customs union is not their go-to,” added the senior Labour official quoted above. “Keir is really strong on it. He fully believes it isn’t a viable route in the national interest or economic interest.” THE SINGLE MARKETEERS (A.K.A. THE GOVERNMENT) Starmer and his allies, then, want to park the customs union and get closer to the single market.  Paymaster General Nick Thomas-Symonds has long led negotiations along these lines through Labour’s existing EU “reset.” He and Starmer recently discussed post-Brexit policy on a walk through the grounds of the PM’s country retreat, Chequers. Working on the detail with Thomas-Symonds is Michael Ellam, the former director of communications for ex-PM Gordon Brown, now a senior civil servant in the Cabinet Office. Ellam is “a really highly regarded, serious guy” and attends regular meetings with Brussels officials, said a second person who speaks regularly to No. 10.   A bill is due to be introduced to the U.K. parliament by summer which will allow “dynamic” alignment with new EU laws in areas of agreement. Two people with knowledge of his role said the bill will be steered through parliament by Cabinet Office Minister Chris Ward, Starmer’s former aide and close ally, who was by his side when Starmer was shadow Brexit secretary during the “Brexit wars” of the late 2010s. Starmer himself talked up this approach in a rare long-form interview this week with BBC host Laura Kuenssberg, saying: “We are better looking to the single market rather than the customs union for our further alignment.” While the PM’s allies insist he simply answered a question, some of his MPs spy a need to seize back the pro-EU narrative. The second person who talks regularly to No. 10 argued a “relatively small … factional leadership challenge group around Wes” is pushing ideas around a customs union, while Starmer wants to “not match that but bypass it, and say actually, we’re doing something more practical and potentially bigger.”  A third Labour MP was blunter about No. 10’s messaging: “They’re terrified and they’re worrying about an internal leadership challenge.” Starmer’s allies argue that their approach is pragmatic and recognizes what the EU will actually be willing to accept. Christabel Cooper, director of research at the pro-Labour think tank Labour Together — which plans polling and focus groups in the coming months to test public opinion on the issue — said: “We’ve talked to a few trade experts and economists, and actually the customs union is not all that helpful. To get a bigger bang for your buck, you do need to go down more of a single market alignment route.”  Stella Creasy argued that promising a Swiss-style deal in Labour’s next election manifesto (likely in 2029) would benefit the economy — far more than the “reset” currently on the table. | Nicola Tree/Getty Images Nick Harvey, CEO of the pro-EU pressure group European Movement UK, concurred: “The fact that they’re now talking about a fuller alignment towards the single market is very good news, and shows that to make progress economically and to make progress politically, they simply have to do this.”  But critics point out there are still big questions about what alignment will look like — or more importantly, what the EU will go for.  The bill will include areas such as food standards, animal welfare, pesticide use, the EU’s electricity market and carbon emissions trading, but talks on all of these remain ongoing. Negotiations to join the EU’s defense framework, SAFE, stalled over the costs to Britain. Menon said: “I just don’t see what [Starmer] is spelling out being practically possible. Even at the highest levels there has been, under the Labour Party, quite a degree of ignorance, I think, about how the EU works and what the EU wants.   “I’ve heard Labour MPs say, well, they’ve got a veterinary deal with New Zealand, so how hard can it be? And you want to say, I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but New Zealand doesn’t have a land border with the EU.”  THE SWISS BANKERS Then there are Europhile MPs, peers and campaigners who back aligning with the single market — but going much further than Starmer.  For some this takes the form of a “Swiss-style” deal, which would allow single market access for some sectors without rejoining the customs union.   This would plough through Starmer’s red lines by reintroducing EU freedom of movement, along with substantial payments to Brussels.  But Stella Creasy, chair of the Labour Movement for Europe (LME), argued that promising a Swiss-style deal in Labour’s next election manifesto (likely in 2029) would benefit the economy — far more than the “reset” currently on the table. She said: “If you could get a Swiss-style deal and put it in the manifesto … that would be enough for businesses to invest.”  Creasy said LME has around 150 MPs as members and holds regular briefings for them. While few Labour MPs back a Swiss deal — and various colleagues see Creasy as an outlier — she said MPs and peers, including herself, plan to put forward amendments to the dynamic alignment bill when it goes through parliament.  Tom Baldwin, Starmer’s biographer and the former communications director of the People’s Vote campaign (which called for a second referendum on Brexit), also suggests Labour could go further in 2029. “Keir Starmer’s comments at the weekend about aligning with — and gaining access to — the single market open up a whole range of possibilities,” he said. “At the low end, this is a pragmatic choice by a PM who doesn’t want to be forced to choose between Europe and America.   “At the upper end, it suggests Labour may seek a second term mandate at the next election by which the U.K. would get very close to rejoining the single market. That would be worth a lot more in terms of economic growth and national prosperity than the customs union deal favoured by the Lib Dems.”  A third person who speaks regularly to No. 10 called it a “boil the frog strategy.” They added: “You get closer and closer and then maybe … you go into the election saying ‘we’ll try to negotiate something more single markety or customs uniony.’”  THE REJOINERS? Labour’s political enemies (and some of its supporters) argue this could all lead even further — to rejoining the EU one day. “Genuinely, I am not advocating rejoin now in any sense because it’s a 10-year process,” said Creasy, who is about as Europhile as they come in Labour. “Our European counterparts would say ‘hang on a minute, could you actually win a referendum, given [Reform UK Leader and Brexiteer Nigel] Farage is doing so well?’”  With Prime Minister Keir Starmer tanking in the polls, the Europhile streak among many Labour MPs and members means Brexit could become a key issue for anyone who would seek to replace him. | Tom Nicholson/Getty Images Simon Opher, an MP and member of the Mainstream Labour group closely aligned with Burnham, said rejoining was “probably for a future generation” as “the difficulty is, would they want us back?” But look into the soul of many Labour politicians, and they would love to still be in the bloc — even if they insist rejoining is not on the table now. Andy Burnham — the Greater Manchester mayor who has flirted with the leadership — remarked last year that he would like to rejoin the EU in his lifetime (he’s 56). London Mayor Sadiq Khan said “in the medium to long term, yes, of course, I would like to see us rejoining.” In the meantime Khan backs membership of the single market and customs union, which would still go far beyond No. 10’s red lines.  THE ISSUES-LED MPS Then there are the disparate — yet overlapping — groups of MPs whose views on Europe are guided by their politics, their constituencies or their professional interests. To Starmer’s left, backbench rebels including Richard Burgon and Dawn Butler backed the push toward a customs union by the opposition Lib Dems. The members of the left-wing Socialist Campaign Group frame their argument around fears Labour will lose voters to other progressive parties, namely the Lib Dems, Greens and SNP, if they fail to show adequate bonds with Europe. Some other, more centrist MPs fear similar. Labour MPs with a military background or in military-heavy seats also want the U.K. and EU to cooperate further. London MP Calvin Bailey, who spent more than two decades in the Royal Air Force, endorsed closer security relations between Britain and France through greater intelligence sharing and possibly permanent infrastructure. Alex Baker, whose Aldershot constituency is known as the home of the British Army, backed British involvement in a global Defense, Security and Resilience Bank, arguing it could be key to a U.K.-EU Defence and Security Pact. The government opted against joining such a scheme.   Parliamentarians keen for young people to bag more traveling rights were buoyed by a breakthrough on Erasmus+ membership for British students at the end of last year. More than 60 Labour MPs earlier signed a letter calling for a youth mobility scheme allowing 18 to 30-year-olds expanded travel opportunities on time limited visas. It was organized by Andrew Lewin, the Welywn Hatfield MP, and signatories included future Home Office Minister Mike Tapp (then a backbencher).  Labour also has an influential group of rural MPs, most elected in 2024, who are keen to boost cooperation and cut red tape for farmers. Rural MP Steve Witherden, on the party’s left, said: “Three quarters of Welsh food and drink exports go straight to the EU … regulatory alignment is a top priority for rural Labour MPs. Success here could point the way towards closer ties with Europe in other sectors.”  THE NOT-SO-SECRET EUROPHILES (A.K.A. ALL OF THE ABOVE) Many Labour figures argue that all of the above are actually just one mega-group — Labour MPs who want to be closer to Brussels, regardless of the mechanism. Menon agreed Labour camps are not formalized because most Labour MPs agree on working closely with Brussels. “I think it’s a mishmash,” he said. But he added: “I think these tribes will emerge or develop because there’s an intra-party fight looming, and Brexit is one of the issues people use to signal where they stand.” A fourth Labour MP agreed: “I didn’t think there was much of a distinction between the camps of people who want to get closer to the EU. The first I heard of that was over the weekend.”  The senior Labour official quoted above added: “I don’t think it cuts across tribes in such a clear way … a broader group of people just want us to move faster in terms of closeness into the EU, in terms of a whole load of things. I don’t think it fits neatly.” For years MPs were bound by a strategy of talking little about Brexit because it was so divisive with Labour’s voter base. That shifted over 2025. Labour advisers were buoyed by polls showing a rise in “Bregret” among some who voted for Brexit in 2016, as well as changing demographics (bluntly, young voters come of age while older voters die).  No. 10 aides also noted last summer that Farage, the leader of the right-wing populist party Reform UK, was making Brexit less central to his campaigning. Some aides (though others dispute this) credit individual advisers such as Tim Allan, No. 10’s director of communications, as helping a more openly EU-friendly media strategy into being. For all the talk of tribes and camps, Labour doesn’t have warring Brexit factions in the same way that the Tories did at the height of the EU divorce in the 2010s. | Jakub Porzycki/Getty Images THE BLUE LABOUR HOLDOUTS  Not everyone in Labour wants to hug Brussels tight.  A small but significant rump of Labour MPs, largely from the socially conservative Blue Labour tribe, is anxious that pursuing closer ties could be seen as a rejection of the Brexit referendum — and a betrayal of voters in Leave-backing seats who are looking to Reform. One of them, Liverpool MP Dan Carden, said the failure of both London and Brussels to strike a recent deal on defense funding, even amid threats from Russia, showed Brussels is not serious.   “Any Labour MP who thinks that the U.K. can get closer to the single market or the customs union without giving up freedoms and taking instruction from an EU that we’re not a part of is living in cloud cuckoo land,” he said. A similar skepticism of the EU’s authority is echoed by the Tony Blair Institute (TBI), led by one of the most pro-European prime ministers in Britain’s history. The TBI has been meeting politicians in Brussels and published a paper translated into French, German and Italian in a bid to shape the EU’s future from within.   Ryan Wain, the TBI’s senior director for policy and politics, argued: “We live in a G2 world where there are two superpowers, China and the U.S. By the middle of this century there will likely be three, with India. To me, it’s just abysmal that Europe isn’t mentioned in that at all. It has massive potential to adapt and reclaim its influence, but that opportunity needs to be unlocked.”  Such holdouts enjoy a strange alliance with left-wing Euroskeptics (“Lexiteers”), who believe the EU does not have the interests of workers at its heart. But few of these were ever in Labour and few remain; former Leader Jeremy Corbyn has long since been cast out. At the same time many Labour MPs in Leave-voting areas, who opposed efforts to stop Brexit in the late 2010s, now support closer alignment with Brussels to help their local car and chemical industries. As such, there are now 20 or fewer MPs holding their noses on closer alignment. Just three Labour MPs, including fellow Blue Labour supporter Jonathan Brash, voted against a bill supporting a customs union proposed by the centrist, pro-Europe Lib Dems last month.  WHERE WILL IT ALL END?  For all the talk of tribes and camps, Labour doesn’t have warring Brexit factions in the same way that the Tories did at the height of the EU divorce in the 2010s. Most MPs agree on closer alignment with the EU; the question is how they get there.  Even so, Menon has a warning from the last Brexit wars. Back in the late 2010s, Conservative MPs would jostle to set out their positions — workable or otherwise. The crowded field just made negotiations with Brussels harder. “We end up with absolutely batshit stupid positions when viewed from the EU,” said Menon, “because they’re being derived as a function of the need to position yourself in a British political party.” But few of these were ever in Labour and few remain; former Leader Jeremy Corbyn has long since been cast out. | Seiya Tanase/Getty Images The saving grace could be that most Labour MPs are united by a deeper gut feeling about the EU — one that, Baldwin argues, is reflected in Starmer himself. The PM’s biographer said: “At heart, Keir Starmer is an outward-looking internationalist whose pro-European beliefs are derived from what he calls the ‘blood-bond’ of 1945 and shared values, rather than the more transactional trade benefits of 1973,” when Britain joined the European Economic Community.  All that remains is to turn a “blood-bond” into hard policy. Simple, right?

LONDON — The government is preparing a bill that will give overarching powers to allow the U.K. to align with the EU over a wide suite of areas to give legal shape to their “reset” deal with the bloc. One U.K. official said a bill is due to be introduced to parliament this spring or summer, establishing a legal framework for U.K.-EU alignment. These potential areas include food standards, animal welfare, pesticide use, the EU’s electricity market and carbon emissions trading, according to the official, who was granted anonymity to speak freely about the plans. The bill would create a new framework for the U.K. government and devolved administrations to adopt new EU laws when they are passed in Brussels. It raises the prospect that new EU laws in agreed areas will effectively transfer to the U.K. statute book automatically, with Britain retaining the power to veto them in specific cases. U.K. officials stress that the exact form the powers will take has not yet been decided. The U.K. is currently negotiating a Brexit “reset” agreement with the bloc, including an agrifood deal, plans to link its emissions trading system with the EU’s and reintegrating electricity markets. Britain is still seeking carve-outs as part of these deals, the official said, making it too early to say exactly where alignment will happen and what it will look like. News of the scope of the bill comes after EU Relations Minister Nick Thomas-Symonds said in August last year that parliament would “rightly have a say” on alignment with new EU rules in a speech delivered to The Spectator. He has insisted that the U.K. will still “have decision-shaping rights when new EU policies are made.” The U.K. government has been approached for comment.

Brussels is about to get another reminder that tractors don’t run on promises. Despite a flood of legislative goodies and concessions, some 10,000 farmers from all 27 EU countries are expected to descend on the EU quarter for what the bloc’s main farm lobby Copa-Cogeca says will be the biggest farm protests Brussels has seen this century. Tractors are expected. Speeches are planned. As for manure or burning hay? That, apparently, depends on who shows up. “We’ve told everyone to behave,” said Peter Meedendorp, the head of Europe’s young farmers group CEJA. “But maybe the group from northern France — they are more radical — we can’t say what they’ll do.” Even the EU’s agriculture commissioner admits the protest defies a single explanation. Some farmers are coming over trade. Others over the next EU budget. Others over animal diseases or green rules.  “It’s difficult to say they are coming for one or the other reason,” Christophe Hansen told POLITICO. “There are several reasons — and they are not the same depending on where the farmers are coming from.” That helps explain why farmers are back in Brussels — again — even as the European Commission insists it has bent over backward to meet their demands. From shielding farm payments in the next EU budget, to rewriting pesticide rules and slowing down trade deals, Brussels says it’s trying. Farmers say it’s still not enough. Below, we break down the main grievances driving Thursday’s march — and rate both the EU’s response and the farmers’ level of anger using our highly scientific pen-and-poop scale: Five pens for a robust policy response; a five-manure rating for peak anger.  BUDGET ANXIETY The complaint: Farmers fear their slice of the EU budget will be trimmed to fund other priorities. EU answer: Keeping roughly €300 billion in EU payments flowing to farmers after 2027. Policy response rating: Tough manure rating: As Brussels braces for a brutal fight over the next EU budget, agriculture has — for the most part — escaped the axe. While other policy areas are being told to expect trade-offs, farming has won rare protections. Hansen has locked in long-term guarantees for direct payments to farmers and added new targets aimed at keeping rural areas economically viable, just months after the proposal was unveiled. Officials note no other sector enjoys that kind of treatment. It didn’t come easily. The Commission’s budget officials had eyed agriculture as one of the few pots big enough to help bankroll other, more strategic priorities. Hansen drew the line. Farmers, however, say that after decades of the Common Agricultural Policy being a given, guarantees on paper don’t settle what their share of the EU budget will look like once negotiations begin in earnest. TRADE TENSIONS The complaint: Free-trade deals flooding the EU market with unfair foreign competition.  EU answer: Refusing to adopt the Mercosur trade agreement until backstops are inked into law — potentially delaying the whole deal. Policy response rating: Tough manure rating: The Commission is determined to sign a deal with the Mercosur countries by the end of the year that would make it easier for a limited amount of beef, poultry and other agricultural goods to enter the bloc. That’s sparking outrage among farmers in major producing countries like France and Poland. The EU is in the process of finalizing “safeguard” measures to protect these sectors that could be activated if prices or import volumes change drastically as a result of the agreement — but farmers aren’t convinced.  “It’s the cumulative effect,” said Francie Gorman, president of the Irish Farmers’ Association who is driving his tractor to Brussels all the way from Dublin. “Every time a trade deal is done, it seems to us like farming becomes a bargaining chip and that farmers are sold out.” Sure enough, the farmers’ trade demands go beyond stopping the Mercosur agreement. They want other trading partners to be forced to meet EU production standards to export their products to the bloc, and are calling for “balanced” imports from Ukraine to avoid undercutting producers within the bloc. ENVIRONMENTAL RULES The complaint: EU regulations make life more difficult for Europeans farmers, especially compared with the competition abroad. EU answer: Environment tape-cutting and new rules making it easier to access pesticides in Europe and harder to use them abroad. Policy response rating: Tough manure rating: No one can say the Commission isn’t trying to win over farmers on pesticides. Over the past week, they’ve announced bills that would introduce unlimited approvals for many pesticides and give farmers an extra year to phase out toxic substances. “I appreciate they are making necessary steps,” said Meedendorp, conceding that yes, on some issues, the Commission is doubling over backward to appease farm groups. But “being happy on one file … doesn’t mean we don’t have other problems.” A slew of proposals on trade, particularly a plan that would essentially force farmers in third countries to stop using pesticides banned in the EU, are also a play to even the field for European farmers.  Those too are welcome, though farmers are skeptical that border checks will actually stop imports of, say, Brazilian sugar beets grown with neonicotinoids.  And they argue the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism for fertilizers, set to go into force on Jan. 1, should be postponed because of its “drastic impact” on fertilizer prices.  Other Commission efforts have fallen flat. The farm lobby Copa-Cogeca dismissed a recent environmental simplification bill as only “cosmetic changes.” NATIONAL GRIEVANCES  The complaint: In France, par exemple, they’re culling the cows to fight the spread of disease.  EU answer: Paris is responding to lumpy skin disease by taking an even harder line against Mercosur. Policy response rating: Tough manure rating: French farmers are among the fiercest opponents of Mercosur. But like most in the tractor convoy, they’ve got plenty of ire for their own capital.  Paris is fighting the spread of lumpy skin disease, a cattle plague that spreads rapidly and causes major production losses, by mandating the systematic culling of infected herds. In opposition to that protocol, several French farmers — who argue that only infected animals, not entire herds, should be culled — have once again begun blocking highways with their tractors to draw public attention. The movement has been driven by the hard-line Coordination Rurale, the country’s second-largest farmers’ union, which is often associated with the far right. The largest union, the FNSEA, has also warned that protests would become “much more significant” if the Mercosur trade deal is signed. Wary of a prolonged standoff with a profession that enjoys broad public sympathy, the government has sought to show it is working around the clock to bring the situation under control. In addition to pushing to postpone Mercosur, Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu is holding daily meetings to address the lumpy skin disease outbreak and has made the rapid delivery of vaccines to farms across France a top priority. GENERAL DISCONTENT  The complaint: It’s a hard life for farmers and EU is making it worse EU answer: Sympathy, simplification pledges and tweaks around the edges. Policy response rating: Tough manure rating: For many farmers, Thursday’s protest isn’t really about one regulation or one trade deal. It’s about everything. It’s about 14-hour days, seven days a week. About animals that don’t care if it’s a weekend or a holiday. About paperwork done late at night, after the milking is finished, written in a language that can feel like it comes from another planet. About being told to “diversify” or “innovate” while barely breaking even. It’s about isolation. Rural communities emptying out. Neighbors retiring with no one to take over. Mental health strains that Brussels rarely talks about — and struggles farmers say few outsiders understand. It’s also about money. Farmers are price-takers in global markets they don’t control, squeezed between supermarket buying power, volatile commodity prices and rising costs for fuel, fertilizer and feed. When prices spike, the gains rarely reach the farm. When they crash, farmers absorb the hit. Then come the animal diseases. The forced culls. The climate blame. And the feeling that decisions shaping livelihoods are taken far away, by people who have never set foot in a barn. That anger hardens into resentment. This is the one grievance Brussels can’t legislate away. And it’s why, even when the Commission bends, farmers keep coming back.

TOURNAI, Belgium — Back in 2016, a freak storm destroyed the entire strawberry crop on Hugues Falys’ farm in the province of Hainaut in west Belgium. It was one of a long string of unusual natural calamities that have ravaged his farm, and which he says are becoming more frequent because of climate change. Falys now wants those responsible for the climate crisis to pay him for the damage done — and he’s chosen as his target one of the world’s biggest oil companies: TotalEnergies. In a packed courtroom in the local town of Tournai, backed by a group of NGOs and a team of lawyers, Falys last week made his case to the judges that the French fossil fuel giant should be held responsible for the climate disasters that have decimated his yields. It’s likely to be a tricky case to make. TotalEnergies, which has yet to present its side of the case in court, told POLITICO in a statement that making a single producer responsible for the collective impact of centuries of fossil fuel use “makes no sense.” But the stakes are undeniably high: If Falys is successful, it could create a massive legal precedent and open a floodgate for similar litigation against other fossil fuel companies across Europe and beyond. “It’s a historic day,” Falys told a crowd outside the courtroom. “The courts could force multinationals to change their practices.” A TOUGH ROW TO HOE While burning fossil fuels is almost universally accepted as the chief cause of global warming, the impact is cumulative and global, the responsibility of innumerable groups over more than two centuries. Pinning the blame on one company — even one as huge as TotalEnergies, which emits as much CO2 every year as the whole of the U.K. combined — is difficult, and most legal attempts to do so have failed. Citing these arguments, TotalEnergies denies it’s responsible for worsening the droughts and storms that Falys has experienced on his farm in recent years. The case is part of a broader movement of strategic litigation that aims to test the courts and their ability to enforce changes on the oil and gas industry. More than 2,900 climate litigation cases have been filed globally to date. “It’s the first time that a court, at least in Belgium, can recognize the legal responsibility, the accountability of one of those carbon polluters in the climate damages that citizens, and also farmers like Hugues, are suffering and have already suffered in the previous decade,” Joeri Thijs, a spokesperson for Greenpeace Belgium, told POLITICO in front of the courtroom. MAKING HISTORY Previous attempts to pin the effects of climate change on a single emitter have mostly failed, like when a Peruvian farmer sued German energy company RWE arguing its emissions contributed to melting glaciers putting his village at risk of flooding. But Thijs said that “the legal context internationally has changed over the past year” and pointed to the recent “game-changer” legal opinion of the International Court of Justice, which establishes the obligations of countries in the fight against climate change. TotalEnergies, which has yet to present its side of the case in court. | Gregoire Campione/Getty Images “There have been several … opinions that clearly give this accountability to companies and to governments; and so we really hope that the judge will also take this into account in his judgment,” he said. Because “there are various actors who maintain this status quo of a fossil-based economy … it is important that there are different lawsuits in different parts of the world, for different victims, against different companies,” said Matthias Petel, a member of the environment committee of the Human Rights League, an NGO that is also one of the plaintiffs in the case. Falys’ lawsuit is “building on the successes” of recent cases like the one pitting Friends of the Earth Netherlands against oil giant Shell, he told POLITICO. But it’s also trying to go “one step further” by not only looking backward at the historical contribution of private actors to climate change to seek financial compensation, he explained, but also looking forward to force these companies to change their investment policies and align them with the goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. “We are not just asking them to compensate the victim, we are asking them to transform their entire investment model in the years to come,” Petel said. DIRECT IMPACTS In recent years, Falys, who has been a cattle farmer for more than 35 years, has had to put up with more frequent extreme weather events. The 2016 storm that decimated his strawberry crop also destroyed most of his potatoes. In 2018, 2020 and 2022, heat waves and droughts affected his yields and his cows, preventing him from harvesting enough fodder for his animals and forcing him to buy feed from elsewhere. These events also started affecting his mental health on top of his finances, he told POLITICO. “I have experienced climate change first-hand,” he said. “It impacted my farm, but also my everyday life and even my morale.” Falys says he’s tried to adapt to the changing climate. He transitioned to organic farming, stopped using chemical pesticides and fertilizers on his farm, and even had to reduce the size of his herd to keep it sustainable. Yet he feels that his efforts are being “undermined by the fact that carbon majors like TotalEnergies continue to explore for new [fossil fuel] fields, further increasing their harmful impact on the climate.” FIVE FAULTS Falys’ lawyers spent more than six hours last Wednesday quoting scientific reports and climate studies aimed at showing the judges the direct link between TotalEnergies’ fossil fuel production, the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from their use, and their contribution to climate change and the extreme weather events that hit Falys’ farm. They want TotalEnergies to pay reparations for the damages Falys suffered. But they’re also asking the court to order the company to stop investing in new fossil fuel projects, to drastically reduce its emissions, and to adopt a transition plan that is in line with the 2015 Paris climate agreement. Falys’ lawsuit is “building on the successes” of recent cases like the one pitting Friends of the Earth Netherlands against oil giant Shell, he told POLITICO. | Klaudia Radecka/Getty Images TotalEnergies’ culpability derives from five main faults, the lawyers argued. They claimed the French oil giant continued to exploit fossil fuels despite knowing the impact of their related emissions on climate change; it fabricated doubt about scientific findings establishing this connection; it lobbied against stricter measures to tackle global warming; it adopted a transition strategy that is not aligned with the goals of the Paris agreement; and it engaged in greenwashing, misleading its customers when promoting its activities in Belgium. “Every ton [of CO2 emissions] counts, every fraction of warming matters” to stop climate change, the lawyers hammered all day on Wednesday. “Imposing these orders would have direct impacts on alleviating Mr. Falys’ climate anxiety,” lawyer Marie Doutrepont told the court, urging the judges “to be brave,” follow through on their responsibilities to protect human rights, and ensure that if polluters don’t want to change their practices voluntarily, “one must force them to.” TOTAL’S RESPONSE But the French oil major retorted that Falys’ action “is not legitimate” and has “no legal basis.” In a statement shared with POLITICO, TotalEnergies said that trying to “make a single, long-standing oil and gas producer (which accounts for just under 2 percent of the oil and gas sector and is not active in coal) bear a responsibility that would be associated with the way in which the European and global energy system has been built over more than a century … makes no sense.” Because climate change is a global issue and multiple actors contribute to it, TotalEnergies cannot hold individual responsibility for it, the fossil fuel giant argues. It also said that the company is reducing its emissions and investing in renewable energy, and that targeted, sector-specific regulations would be a more appropriate way to advance the energy transition rather than legal action. The French company challenges the assertion that it committed any faults, saying its activities “are perfectly lawful” and that the firm “strictly complies with the applicable national and European regulations in this area.” TotalEnergies’ legal counsel will have six hours to present their arguments during a second round of hearings on Nov. 26 in Tournai. The court is expected to rule in the first half of next year.

GENEVA — When yet another round of global plastic treaty talks fell apart in Switzerland last month, many negotiators and civil society groups were plunged into despair. “We’ve just wasted money, wasted time,” said Heni Unwin, a Māori marine scientist with the Aotearoa Plastic Pollution Alliance, just after talks to halt the environmental crisis collapsed. “We are the ones who get impacted with all of the trash left by all of the world [that] turns up on our shores.” But through the gloom of yet another failed summit, some saw a glimmer of hope emanating from an unlikely source: China. In its closing speech, the Asian superpower and world’s biggest plastic producer subtly changed its language on tackling the plastic crisis, admitting the problem has to do with the entire life cycle of plastic and thus raising hopes of a breakthrough at a next round of talks. It comes as Beijing moves to fill a vacuum left by the United States’ withdrawal from global engagement under President Donald Trump and his “America First” agenda. “They don’t go back when they make shifts like this,” said Dennis Clare, a legal adviser for Micronesia with nearly 20 years of experience in U.N. environment treaty negotiations, referring to China. He added that the country “has a lot of gravity, so things start to blow the way they flow.” The stakes are high. The plastics industry currently accounts for 3.4 percent of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions — that’s more than aviation — and plastic production is on track to almost triple by 2060. Plastic waste is flowing into the world’s oceans at a rate of around 10 million metric tons per year, and increasing. In its efforts to tackle the problem, the United Nations has now hosted six rounds of talks since 2022. The European Union has been among those pushing for an ambitious treaty that puts limits on plastic production — while oil-producing countries, which see plastic as among the remaining growing markets for fossil fuels, have bitterly opposed any such measures. THE CHINESE WILD CARD Countries in the self-named High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution — which backs a “comprehensive” approach addressing the full lifecycle of plastic — have long targeted China as a powerful potential ally. They face strong resistance from major oil-producing countries including Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran — and, most recently, the U.S. under the Trump administration’s “drill, baby, drill” ethos (oil is the main raw material from which plastic is made). While China is the world’s top consumer and producer of plastic, the country has also ushered in several restrictions on the production, sale and consumption of single-use plastics in a bid to stem a national pollution crisis. This has made it more aligned with high-ambition countries than some other major plastic producers. The Asian superpower and world’s biggest plastic producer subtly changed its language on tackling the plastic crisis. | Adek Berry/Getty Images Observers also see the country looking to expand its global influence via the U.N. — especially in the wake of the U.S. retreat from multilateralism. “We should firmly safeguard the status and authority of the U.N., and ensure its irreplaceable, key role in global governance,” President Xi Jinping said in a speech at a meeting of Asian leaders near Beijing on Sept. 1, attended by Russian President Vladimir Putin and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. “My sense is that, of course, they’re also seeing that space opening, generally around environment,” said David Azoulay of the Center for International Environmental Law. “And the U.S. retreating creates a vacuum that China will probably want to fill in their own way.” That could work out well for high-ambition countries. China is an “important partner for the EU” in the talks, European Environment Commissioner Jessika Roswall told POLITICO during the Geneva negotiations. “Our strategy since Busan has always been to break China away from Saudi [Arabia] and the U.S.,” said one negotiator from a country within the High Ambition Coalition, granted anonymity to discuss closed-door talks. With China on board, they added, the assumption is that other major players including Russia and India, as well as Southeast Asian countries, will “become more comfortable” with a comprehensive plastic treaty. Several delegates and observers noted more openness from China on several measures in Geneva, including those aimed at phasing out problematic plastic products — culminating in a public statement that many see as a seemingly subtle yet seismic shift. “Plastic pollution is far more complex than we expected,” said Chinese representative Haijun Chen at the closing plenary session. “It runs through the entire chain of production, consumption and recycling and waste management, as well as relates to the transition of development models of over 190 U.N. countries.” China’s assertion that plastic pollution stems from the full lifecycle of plastic — and is not solely a waste management issue, as claimed by the likes of Saudi Arabia and Iran — reflects a “break” from other, more reluctant plastic-producing countries, said the high-ambition negotiator. It follows a compromise made among some key delegations “hours before that plenary statement.” “The question for us now is how to protect that understanding that was made that last night into a new meeting,” they added. ISOLATE AND ATTACK The broad contours of a compromise could include moving away from attempting to enforce a percentage reduction on plastic production — a red line for several countries, including China — and instead looking at other measures tackling the full plastic lifecycle, like global restrictions on certain kinds of “problematic” products. That’s the gist of a draft treaty text released on the final day of plastic treaty talks last month — which garnered support from many high-ambition countries, but was knocked down by oil and plastic producers. Some countries are “trying to block us from working on that text right now,” complained Danish Environment Minister Magnus Heunicke in a closing press conference. That could work out well for high-ambition countries. China is an “important partner for the EU” in the talks, European Environment Commissioner Jessika Roswall said. | Dursun Aydemir/Getty Images Countries are insisting on “unrealistic elements,” countered Iran’s Massoud Rezvanian Rahaghi at the closing plenary, and employing “unfair and restricting tactics to exclude a large number of parties in very undemocratic ways.” The hope, the anonymous high-ambition negotiator said, is that China’s shifting position will help to “isolate” the ringleaders of the oil producers’ group — namely the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. “Hopefully you will see some of the countries in their group also isolate or move away from them. Like Egypt potentially, maybe others in North Africa,” they added. IF ALL ELSE FAILS But the talks cannot continue indefinitely. The patience of smaller, poorer countries — increasingly resentful of having to pile resources into fruitless talks — is wearing thin, and financial support for the talks coming from countries that have been supporting the negotiations has a limit. While China’s shift and some elements of the most recent draft text encouraged some governments, there’s no guarantee the talks won’t collapse again. At least one country that has been financially supporting the negotiations is looking into how the treaty talks have been run, checking for evidence of a “mismanaged process,” said the high-ambition negotiator, though they were not able to name the country. That could result in requests for changes to the process in hopes of moving forward more efficiently at a next round of meetings, the date for which has not yet been set. Should the deadlock continue, though, there’s also the possibility of taking the process outside the current framework, explained Clare, the Micronesia adviser. That could entail countries adding a specific plastic treaty protocol to other existing and adjacent agreements, like the Basel Convention — designed to control the movements of hazardous waste between nations — or the Rotterdam Convention, another global treaty aimed at managing hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade. “The value of the process is that we all know where countries stand, so it wouldn’t take long to consummate an agreement among those who have similar positions,” said Clare. “The question would be, to what extent does that agreement have the scope to turn the tables on this problem?”

France’s constitutional court on Thursday rejected the reintroduction of a controversial insecticide in a significant blow to the government and major farming lobbies that had supported its return. The court’s judges ruled that allowing the use of acetamiprid, an insecticide currently banned in France, would violate the “Charter of the Environment,” a French constitutional text. Acetamiprid’s proposed reintroduction was part of a new French law aiming to make life easier for farmers by allowing the use of some pesticides as well as by cutting red tape and easing permit approval for new breeding and water storage facilities. The judges stressed that neonicotinoids — a class of insecticide that includes acetamiprid and that works by obstructing the nervous systems of insects — can be allowed in exceptional situations but only for a limited time and for well-defined crops. These conditions were not respected in the text of the law, the judges found. The law, which was dubbed “Loi Duplomb” after the conservative senator who introduced it, was a response to the massive farmer protests of 2024. It had already been approved in the parliament. The law is backed by the government and by major farming lobbies but is strongly opposed by left-wing parties, which have flagged its negative impact on biodiversity. More than 2 million French citizens signed a petition launched last month by a 23-year-old student to repeal the law, putting additional pressure on the government. The law polarized French public opinion between the country’s powerful farming lobbies and its more ecologically minded citizens worried about the harm done by pesticides to pollinators and human health. Its opponents urged French President Emmanuel Macron not to sign the law into effect. Macron’s office said Thursday that the president had “taken note” of the ruling and will enact the Duplomb law “as soon as possible” in its modified version per the constitutional court’s ruling. Acetamiprid, in other words, will remain banned. Left-wing opposition figures celebrated the news, with the agriculture ministry expected to comment on the decision later Thursday evening. Farming lobby FNSEA, however, slammed the ruling. “This decision marks the pure and simple abandonment of certain sectors of French agriculture, at a time when our dependence on imports is increasing to the detriment of our social and environmental requirements,” FNSEA President Arnaud Rousseau wrote in a social media post.

PARIS — Even from his seaside holiday retreat at the Fort de Brégançon, President Emmanuel Macron will be closely watching a key court ruling on a controversial pesticide on Thursday. The question of whether French farmers will be allowed to protect their crops with a chemical called acetamiprid is far from being an obscure technical matter. In fact, it lays bare a major fault line in French politics between the powerful agricultural sector and more ecologically minded citizens worried about pesticides harming pollinators and human health. Macron’s challenge is that he is being squeezed politically between green-minded voters — often concentrated in metropolitan areas — and influential farmers from rural heartlands, while his liberal centrists falter and Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally eyes the presidency in 2027. France’s top constitutional court is set to decide Thursday whether a bill that includes the reauthorization of acetamiprid — under scrutiny for its effects on the nervous systems of both bees and humans — is constitutionally sound. This is a routine review for every piece of legislation, but it is drawing unusual attention in this case after an online petition calling for the law’s repeal went viral. As of Tuesday, more than 2 million French citizens had signed a petition launched by a 23-year-old student in Bordeaux, Eléonore Pattery, calling for the “immediate repeal” of the so-called Loi Duplomb, named after the conservative senator who introduced the legislation. The petition, hosted on a government portal, can spur parliamentary debate but doesn’t bind lawmakers to act. The Loi Duplomb reflects that shift toward siding with farmers’ demands. | Jerome Gilles/NurPhoto via Getty Images The debate around acetamiprid has put France — and Macron — in a bind. In 2018, the European Union banned three neonicotinoids, a group of insecticides that includes acetamiprid, over the threat they pose to pollinators such as bees. It did not, however, ban acetamiprid itself, which is considered less toxic to bees and breaks down faster in soil. Paris, seeking environmental leadership of the EU, went further than its neighbors and banned acetamiprid anyway. Then the political calculus changed. Like many other countries in Europe, France has faced surging dissent from farmers across the country. They decry what they see as excessive taxation and regulation, and argue that bans like the one on acetamiprid left them at a competitive disadvantage. With a European election looming last year, the French government sought to appear sympathetic to the farmers’ cause. “The goal of reducing pesticide use should not leave our farmers helpless and without solutions. In the end, no one would benefit — not the environment, not health and not agriculture,” then-Prime Minister Gabriel Attal, now head of Macron’s Renaissance party, said at the time. Farmers from the Coordination Rurale offload manure outside the Europe Ecologie Les Verts (EELV) ecology party headquarters as they protest in reaction to opposition to the Duplomb law. | Ed Jones/AFP via Getty Images The Loi Duplomb reflects that shift toward siding with farmers’ demands. The bill aims to ease their burden not only by reintroducing acetamiprid but also by loosening rules on the construction and expansion of large livestock buildings. It is backed by the government and by major French farming lobbies FNSEA and Jeunes Agriculteurs, who played an important role in shaping the legislation. During the protests, farmers were widely expected to receive public support — they are often viewed as crucial to France’s core interests and one of the last holdouts of rural life in an urbanized country. POPULAR BACKLASH This time, however, public opinion appears to have shifted. The historic success of the petition against the Loi Duplomb was fueled by high-profile opposition from celebrities, movie stars and influencers. Signatories must log in through a secure government platform used for taxes or health services, ensuring each person signs only once. A poll released last month by French polling institute Cluster17 showed 61 percent of respondents opposed the bill — 41 percent strongly. Just 33 percent said they were either “somewhat in favor” or “strongly in favor.” The science behind acetamiprid’s toxicity is contested. In 2024, the European Food Safety Authority proposed drastically lowering recommended daily intake doses, citing “major uncertainties” about the substance’s effect on the nervous system’s development — while stopping short of calling for a ban. France’s National Order of Physicians has come out against the Loi Duplomb, writing in a statement that “doubt is not reasonable when it comes to substances that may expose the population to major risks: neurodevelopmental disorders, pediatric cancers, chronic diseases.” The historic success of the petition against the Loi Duplomb was fueled by high-profile opposition from celebrities, movie stars and influencers. | Jerome Gilles/NurPhoto via Getty Images Some lab and animal studies suggest acetamiprid may cause DNA damage or act as a hormone disruptor — both potential cancer pathways — but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has concluded it’s “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” Macron has delayed responding to the viral petition until after the Constitutional Council issues its ruling. Two constitutional challenges were filed against the law — one citing environmental rights, the other criticizing the fast-tracked process used to bypass a debate in the National Assembly. If the court green-lights the Loi Duplomb, Macron will be left with few options. Because the petition passed the 500,000-signature threshold, it may trigger a parliamentary debate — though there’s no obligation to hold a new vote, since the law has already passed. Macron could also choose not to enact the bill — an extremely rare move that could open him up to accusations of defying the legislature’s authority. Whatever happens, the controversy is likely to continue dogging the French president. Even within his own ranks, divisions are clear: During the final vote last month, 26 of the 176 MPs in the three-party coalition backing Macron voted against the bill, while 15 abstained.

PARIS — A petition launched by a 23-year-old student to repeal a new French law on farming has garnered more than 549,000 signatures and could therefore be debated in the French parliament — a first in France’s recent history. The French parliament earlier this month adopted a law, dubbed “Loi Duplomb” after the name of one of its proponents, which its supporters say would make life easier for farmers by cutting red tape, but also by temporarily allowing the use of acetamiprid, an insecticide that has been banned in France since 2018. The text is backed by the government and also by major farmer lobbies FNSEA and Jeunes Agriculteurs, while one left-wing farmers union as well as green and left-wing parties oppose it. The petition launched by Eleonore Pattery — an unknown university student from Bordeaux with a focus on environmental rules — calls for repealing the text, arguing that it is “a scientific, ethical, environmental and health aberration.” On Saturday the number of signatures passed the threshold of 500,000. Beyond that threshold, the heads of parliamentary groups or parliamentary committees can propose to organize a parliamentary debate on it. The president of the National Assembly economic affairs committee, Aurélie Trouvé, from the left-wing France Unbowed party, said she will make that proposal in the fall. “It is the first time it happens in the history of the National Assembly,” a jubilant Trouvé told POLITICO over the phone on Saturday. But, for the debate to happen, the proposal has to first get the nod of the National Assembly’s Conference of Presidents, an organ which gathers key lawmakers including the leaders of permanent parliamentary committees like Trouvé. The Conference of Presidents will meet again on Sept. 12. “I hope that we will be able to have this debate,” Trouvé said, warning that ignoring the petition would be a “democratic denial.” While the text can’t be repealed during the parliamentary debate, the success of the petition is a blow for the government and for farmers’ lobbies that have defended the measure on a symbolical level. France’s Constitutional Council is also looking into the text and could censor part of it if the council considers them to be contrary to the constitution.

LONDON — Brexit reset talks took a step forward on Wednesday as the European Commission outlined its negotiating plans on agri-food standards and carbon emissions trading. The Commission published draft proposals for its negotiating position in the two policy areas — which are among a handful set for discussions. The plans will now be scrutinized by EU governments. The publication of the proposals represents the first movement in talks since the May 19 summit, where Keir Starmer pledged to “reset” Britain’s relationship with the EU and set out a slate of negotiating objectives. Under the Commission’s proposals for a sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement, the U.K. would apply “at all times the full body of” relevant EU rules on “sanitary, phytosanitary, food safety and general consumer protection rules applicable” to agri-food products. It would also cover “the regulations of live animals and pesticides, the rules on organic production and labelling of organic products, as well as marketing standards applicable to certain sectors or products.” While London would have no “right to participate in the Union’s decision-making” of those rules, the EU would “consult the United Kingdom at an early stage of policy-making” so it could give its input. The U.K. would have to apply new EU rules within a set deadline or face legal action under the agreement. The British government would also make a financial contribution towards “the functioning of the relevant Union agencies, systems and databases to which the United Kingdom would gain appropriate access” through the proposed agreement. EMISSIONS TRADING The Commission’s proposed plan for linking the EU and U.K. emissions trading systems would also “ensure the dynamic alignment of the United Kingdom with the relevant European Union rules to avoid risks of carbon leakage and competitive distortions.” The plan says that the sectors covered by linked emissions trading should include “electricity generation, industrial heat generation (excluding the individual heating of houses), industry, domestic and international maritime transport and domestic and international aviation.” It would also create a procedure to “further expand the list of sectors” in the future. The agreement would “require that the cap and reduction pathway of the United Kingdom are at least as ambitious as the cap and reduction pathway followed by the Union” but also “not constrain” the EU and U.K. from “pursuing higher environmental ambition, consistent with their international obligations.” Under the Commission’s proposal, the U.K. would get a mutual exemption from the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). In some policy areas, the European Commission must obtain legal mandates from EU member states before it starts negotiating on their behalf. Further mandates are expected in other areas covered by the U.K.-EU reset, for example on electricity trading. Some policy areas do not require mandates, either because they are an EU competence or because one already exists. For example, negotiations about the U.K. joining the Erasmus exchange program are likely to be covered by a provision in the existing trade agreement allowing U.K. participation in EU programs.