Europe prides itself on being a world leader in animal protection, with legal frameworks requiring member states to pay regard to animal welfare standards when designing and implementing policies. However, under REACH — Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) — the EU’s cornerstone regulation on chemical safety, hundreds of thousands of animals are subjected to painful tests every year, despite the legal requirement that animal testing should be used only as a ‘last resort’. With REACH’s first major revamp in almost 20 years forthcoming, lawmakers now face a once-in-a-generation opportunity to drive a genuine transformation of chemical regulation.  When REACH was introduced nearly a quarter of a century ago, it outlined a bold vision to protect people and the environment from dangerous chemicals, while simultaneously driving a transition toward modern, animal-free testing approaches. In practice, however, companies are still required to generate extensive toxicity data to bring both new chemicals and chemicals with long histories of safe use onto the market. This has resulted in a flood of animal tests that could too often be dispensed, especially when animal-free methods are just as protective (if not more) of human health and the environment.  > Hundreds of thousands of animals are subjected to painful tests every year, > despite the legal requirement that animal testing should be used only as a > ‘last resort’. Despite the last resort requirement, some of the cruelest tests in the books are still expressly required under REACH. For example, ‘lethal dose’ animal tests were developed back in 1927 — the same year as the first solo transatlantic flight — and remain part of the toolbox when regulators demand ‘acute toxicity’ data, despite the availability of animal-free methods. Yet while the aviation industry has advanced significantly over the last century, chemical safety regulations remain stuck in the past.   Today’s science offers fully viable replacement approaches for evaluating oral, skin and fish lethality to irritation, sensitization, aquatic bioconcentration and more. It is time for the European Commission and member states to urgently revise REACH information requirements to align with the proven capabilities of animal-free science.   But this is only the first step. A 2023 review projected that animal testing under REACH will rise in the coming years in the absence of significant reform. With the forthcoming revision of the REACH legal text, lawmakers face a choice: lock Europe into decades of archaic testing requirements or finally bring chemical safety into the 21st century by removing regulatory obstacles that slow the adoption of advanced animal-free science.   If REACH continues to treat animal testing as the default option, it risks eroding its credibility and the values it claims to uphold. However, animal-free science won’t be achieved by stitching together one-for-one replacements for legacy animal tests. A truly modern, European relevant chemicals framework demands deeper shifts in how we think, generate evidence and make safety decisions. Only by embracing next-generation assessment paradigms that leverage both exposure science and innovative approaches to the evaluation of a chemical’s biological activity can we unlock the full power of state-of the-art non-animal approaches and leave the old toolbox behind.  > With the forthcoming revision of the REACH legal text, lawmakers face a > choice: lock Europe into decades of archaic testing requirements or finally > bring chemical safety into the 21st century. The recent endorsement of One Substance, One Assessment regulations aims to drive collaboration across the sector while reducing duplicate testing on animals, helping to ensure transparency and improve data sharing. This is a step in the right direction, and provides the framework to help industry, regulators and other interest-holders to work together and chart a new path forward for chemical safety.   The EU has already demonstrated in the cosmetics sector that phasing out animal testing is not only possible but can spark innovation and build public trust. In 2021, the European Parliament urged the Commission to develop an EU plan to replace animal testing with modern scientific innovation. But momentum has since stalled. In the meantime, more than 1.2 million citizens have backed a European Citizens’ Initiative calling for chemical safety laws that protect people and the environment without adding new animal testing requirements; a clear indication that both science and society are eager for change.   > The EU has already demonstrated in the cosmetics sector that phasing out > animal testing is not only possible but can spark innovation and build public > trust. Jay Ingram, managing director, chemicals, Humane World for Animals (founding member of AFSA Collaboration) states: “Citizens are rightfully concerned about the safety of chemicals that they are exposed to on a daily basis, and are equally invested in phasing out animal testing. Trust and credibility must be built in the systems, structures, and people that are in place to achieve both of those goals.”  The REACH revision can both strengthen health and environmental safeguards while delivering a meaningful, measurable reduction in animal use year on year.  Policymakers need not choose between keeping Europe safe and embracing kinder science; they can and should take advantage of the upcoming REACH revision as an opportunity to do both.  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Humane World for Animals * The ultimate controlling entity is Humane World for Animals More information here.

EU parliamentarians, capitals and policymakers agreed on new rules on the treatment of cats and dogs on Tuesday, dodging the political limbo plaguing other laws on animal welfare. The new rules create uniform standards for how cats and dogs can be treated and housed in the EU, and introduce measures to trace them to combat illegal trade.  Proposed by the Commission in 2023, the new standards have now been provisionally agreed after political negotiations with the European Parliament and the Council — the EU’s co-legislators. In contrast, rules to update animal welfare standards during their transport, proposed in the same year, have not yet reached political negotiations between the institutions. Instead the file is drowning under thousands of amendments in the Parliament while member countries struggle to reach an agreement in the Council.  Nonetheless, Danish Agriculture Minister Jacob Jensen celebrated Tuesday’s agreement as “the first of its kind” and “an important step in the right direction for animal welfare in Europe.”  Similarly, European Conservatives and Reformists MEP Veronika Vrecionová, the Parliament’s lead negotiator, said the rules will “make it harder for abusive and illegal operators to hide” and will push back against “those who see animals as a means of quick profit.” MEP Tilly Metz, the Greens negotiator for the Parliament on the new rules, said the EU is now “finally reversing the trend of growing illegal trade and taking an important step forward.”  But getting to this point was not free of political dysfunction. Last-minute amendments made changes to the committee position on the new rules before it was put to a full vote in the legislature. While a huge majority of MEPs then voted in favor of the Parliament’s negotiating position, the lead negotiator’s own political group questioned how realistic the approach was going into talks. EU parliamentarians, capitals and policymakers agreed on new rules on the treatment of cats and dogs today, dodging the political limbo plaguing other laws on animal welfare. | Neill HallEPA Plans to make microchipping and registration mandatory for all dogs and cats across the bloc then ran into legal troubles in the Council — although the proposal eventually made it into the final agreement with minor caveats. Regardless, animal welfare activists are taking the win and lauding what Georgia Diamantopoulou, head of the European policy office of the Four Paws animal welfare organization, described as the “beginning of the end of the illegal trade in dogs and cats in the EU.”

BRUSSELS — The Danish farm minister is determined to spend some of his remaining political capital on the plight of millions of piglets rumbling across the continent packed into semitrucks. The European Commission’s 2023 plan to ease the suffering of farm animals on the move started out as the ultimate feel-good proposal. But two years later, the ambition for stricter limits on travel times, more space in trucks and a ban on long journeys in extreme heat is stuck in the slow lane. After years of farmer unrest and mounting pressure to boost Europe’s competitiveness, politicians have grown wary of new costs or constraints on industry. Across the bloc, social and environmental rules are being softened, delayed or quietly dropped. The animal transport reform, which would not only raise costs but upend much of Europe’s livestock trade, is now on a collision course with the deregulatory drive. Few in Brussels believe it can be saved. But Danish Agriculture Minister Jacob Jensen, now chairing capitals’ negotiations for a few more months, is determined to try. OVERDUE UPDATE Every year, around 1.6 billion farm animals, mainly pigs, cows and sheep, are loaded onto trucks and shipped across the EU for fattening or slaughter, in a trade worth some €8.6 billion for the livestock industry. Animal welfare barely registered in EU politics two decades ago, when Brussels last updated its rules for livestock transport. Yet amid recurring reports of animals collapsing from exhaustion or drowning in their own waste, the Commission floated more protections in December 2023. Since then, they’ve been buried under thousands of amendments in the European Parliament. Romanian conservative Daniel Buda, one of the lead negotiators, has made arguments that flatly contradict scientific evidence, claiming that packing animals closer together makes them safer or that giving them more space would undermine the EU’s climate goals. In the Council of the EU, most governments would rather see the file disappear altogether. Member countries have been at odds over how to handle transport in hot weather, the movement of young calves and — most explosively — journey time limits. Animal welfare barely registered in EU politics two decades ago, when Brussels last updated its rules for livestock transport. | Arnaud Finistre/Getty Images Copenhagen, which took over the rotating Council presidency in July, says it’s found a pragmatic way to keep the reform alive. Jensen, the farm minister, told POLITICO he sees “good progress” in technical negotiations, including on how animals are handled, watered and fed during transport, even as the journey time limits debate remains frozen. “It’s not correct to say there’s no progress,” Jensen said in a telephone interview. “If the conditions are good, if animals have ventilation, water and trained handlers, it matters less whether it’s one or two hours longer.” AN UNLIKELY CHAMPION It’s a message that captures Denmark’s paradox. The Nordic country is one of Europe’s largest exporters of live animals, sending some 13 million piglets a year to other EU states. Yet it has also been among the bloc’s loudest voices for tougher welfare rules, even calling for a full ban on live exports to third countries ahead of the Commission’s proposal. Now, isolated on that front, it is trying to salvage the weaker Commission draft by making it workable enough to pass. That instinct for compromise isn’t new. Last year, Denmark became the first country to agree a tax on greenhouse gas emissions from farming — with farmers’ backing. For Jensen, who helped broker that deal, the lesson is that even the most sensitive agricultural reforms can stick if they’re built on pragmatism rather than punishment. That balancing act has turned Denmark into the unlikely custodian of one of Europe’s most moral — and most toxic — legislative files. At home, hauliers call the reform “pure nonsense” and “detached from reality.” Farmers complain their standards already exceed those of many peers. Yet Copenhagen hasn’t flinched, arguing that harmonized EU rules could finally level the playing field. “We need to find the right balance,” Jensen said. “It has to improve animal welfare, but it cannot be so burdensome that cross-border transport becomes impossible.” The Commission’s draft would cap journeys for slaughter animals at nine hours, ban daytime travel during heat waves and tighten space allowances. Welfare advocates say even that falls short of what animal health research shows is needed to prevent suffering. But after years of stalemate, Denmark’s incrementalism may be the only path left. Jensen insists that simply enforcing the bloc’s existing rules, as the reform’s critics propose, wouldn’t be enough to improve conditions for transported animals. “If this negotiation does not improve animal welfare,” he said, “there’s no need to have it at all.” Whether his slow-and-steady strategy works will depend on how much patience Europe has left. The Parliament remains gridlocked and a new round of protests could easily bury the file again. The reform is by no means “home safe,” Jensen admitted. Denmark just wants to “come as far as we can” before handing it off to Cyprus, which takes over the EU presidency in January and hasn’t exactly been among the vocal champions of tougher transport rules. “Hopefully they can do the final job,” he said. Lucia Mackenzie contributed to this report.

The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled Thursday that pets can be considered “baggage,” dealing a setback to pet owners seeking higher compensation for animals lost during international flights. The decision comes from a case in which a dog escaped from its pet-carrier at Buenos Aires airport in October 2019 and was never recovered. Its owner had sought €5,000 in compensation from Iberia airlines, which admitted the loss but argued that liability is limited under EU rules for checked baggage. The high court concluded that the 1999 Montreal Convention, which governs airline liability for baggage, applies to all items transported in the hold, including pets. While EU and Spanish laws recognize animals as sentient beings, the Luxembourg-based court emphasized that the Montreal Convention’s framework is focused on material compensation for lost or damaged items. Airlines are therefore not obligated to pay amounts exceeding the compensation caps set under the Montreal Convention unless passengers declare a “special interest” in the item, a mechanism designed for inanimate belongings. “The court finds that pets are not excluded from the concept of ‘baggage’. Even though the ordinary meaning of the word ‘baggage’ refers to objects, this alone does not lead to the conclusion that pets fall outside that concept,” the court said in a statement. Thursday’s ruling reaffirms the current framework, limiting airlines’ liability for lost pets unless passengers make a special declaration to raise coverage. For airlines operating in Europe, it offers legal certainty and shields them from larger claims. The court’s judgment will guide national courts in balancing international air transport law with EU animal welfare standards.

European Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi told European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen he was “not aware” of alleged efforts by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government to recruit spies in Brussels, according to a Commission spokesperson. Várhelyi met with von der Leyen on Sunday, the spokesperson said, days after a report by several media outlets alleged a Hungarian intelligence official disguised as a diplomat had tried to recruit EU staffers as spies during the time Várhelyi was Hungary’s envoy to Brussels. Last Thursday, the European Commission said it would set up a working group to investigate the claims. In comments to Brussels Playbook, Renew Europe President Valerie Hayer said von der Leyen had “both the responsibility and the power to act” on the reports about Várhelyi, who is now the European commissioner for health and animal welfare. “From the very beginning, Renew Europe warned against Mr. Várhelyi’s nomination and his close ties to Viktor Orbán’s government,” Hayer said. “His record has consistently shown loyalty to pro-Orbán, not European interests.”  “The latest findings only deepen the concerns … These allegations are extremely serious and must be fully investigated,” Hayer added. Cristiano Sebastiani, president of Renouveau & Démocratie staff union at the Commission, said that while Várhelyi should be presumed innocent, the institution’s leadership had a responsibility to investigate the allegations “properly and fast” to lift any suspicion “as soon as possible” given the risk of reputational damage. “We cannot have this kind of suspicion,” Sebastiani said. Várhelyi’s Cabinet did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

What do you do when one of your party’s lawmakers is accused of trying to hire a hitman to kill her ex-husband’s new girlfriend’s dog — but you still want to be prime minister? Andrej Babiš, the Czech election front-runner and a seasoned scandal dodger, has a plan: Show the pooches some love. And do it before parliamentary elections take place in early October. The uproar sparked by MP Margita Balaštíková, who was rumored to be in the frame for agriculture minister in a future Babiš government, strikes a particularly sensitive chord in a country where at least 42 percent of households own a dog, one of the highest rates in the EU. Balaštíková was dropped from an election candidate list after Czech news outlet Seznam Zprávy published recordings in which she appeared to discuss using her connections to destroy her ex-husband’s company and hire someone to kill the dog belonging to his new partner. Before deleting her profile, Balaštíková said on Facebook that the recordings had been manipulated, stating she had done no such thing. The dog in question is alive. “The fact that all these lies have surfaced right now is, to me, a clear sign that it’s an attempt to damage the ANO movement [that Babiš leads] ahead of the elections, and perhaps also to distract from a number of government scandals. I truly don’t want to harm the ANO movement, and I won’t — which is why I’ve decided to immediately suspend my membership,” Balaštíková wrote. The Czech police said in a post on X that they are looking into the matter. Babiš later criticized Balaštíková, saying “we can’t have people like that in the movement.” “Of course Balaštíková messed up. You just can’t talk like that … Unfortunately, it’s her mistake and I dealt with it right away, because we all love animals,” Babiš told voters at one of his pre-election meetings. POLITICO contacted both ANO and Balaštíková for comment, but did not receive a response. Babiš and his right-wing populist ANO party lead in the latest polls carried out by the Prague-based STEM research institute with 32.5 percent support, while the ruling Spolu (Together) coalition lags behind on 20 percent. The far-right Freedom and Direct Democracy (SPD) is in third spot with 12.5 percent. To keep it that way, Babiš brought out the big dogs. On Friday, just a few days after the scandal erupted, Babiš gathered some of his supporters —several of whom brought dogs — in sweltering heat to climb Lysá hora, the highest mountain in the Moravian-Silesian Beskids in eastern Czechia. Photos and videos from the hike then filled the politician’s Facebook page. Another photo, from a pre-election meeting with voters in Kolín, saw Babiš petting a dog; a separate post showed a dog drinking from a bowl attached to an ANO campaign banner that read: “Take a sip with Betyna.” Betyna is a dog that belongs to Babiš’ right-hand man and ANO Vice Chair Karel Havlíček, who called the scandal unacceptable and said “it affects” him “all the more” as he is “a big fan of dogs.” The Balaštíková story contains faint echoes of the 2024 confession of Kristi Noem, now the U.S. secretary of homeland security, that she had once shot dead a misbehaving dog. The admission sparked a major backlash in the country. The publicity maneuvers are an integral part of Babiš’ PR, according to Otto Eibl, a political scientist at Masaryk University in Brno. “Babiš regularly surrounds himself with animals; it’s nothing new for him, nothing suddenly staged ‘for effect.’ Of course, it can also serve as damage control, but it doesn’t feel forced—there’s authenticity in it,” Eibl said, adding that animals are an important part of politics as they humanize politicians. “It would be different if voters didn’t like those particular animals. In that case, they wouldn’t play such a role and politicians wouldn’t show them. But Czechs are a nation of dog and cat lovers, so it makes sense to show and use animals,” he added. The Civic Democratic Party (ODS), headed by current Prime Minister Petr Fiala and part of the Spolu coalition, used the dog-killing plot as an opportunity to attack Babiš and his party. “Will your dogs be safe … if ANO comes to power?” ODS asked darkly in one social media post. But Babiš will likely remain confident ahead of October’s vote, having escaped Houdini-like from far bigger scandals such as allegations of kidnapping his own son and an ongoing €2 million EU subsidy fraud saga.

NORWICH, England — Keir Starmer broke the Conservatives’ monopoly on Britain’s rural heartlands. Nigel Farage reckons he can seize it next. Voters ditched their decades-old loyalty to the center-right Conservative Party at last year’s general election, voting in a wave of Labour MPs to represent their constituencies — in some places for the first time. It followed a charm offensive from the U.K. prime minister, who waxed lyrical in the bucolic bible Country Life about his own upbringing on the “edge of rural England.” But, with Labour in the political doldrums, the flat-cap, wax-jacket-loving Farage hopes voters will turn to him next. Rural constituencies will be a “massive” target for Reform, Farage’s deputy Richard Tice told POLITICO in an interview. In regional elections in May, the right-wing upstart party seized control of large rural county councils — including in Derbyshire, Lincolnshire and Kent — from the Conservatives. “The rural vote traditionally was a Conservative vote, and if you look at the places where we won control of the county council, it’s a massive rural vote. It’s a very traditional old English vote,” he said. “As we move towards the elections next May, I think that will be the ongoing battleground.” But Farage’s political opponents are not relinquishing the countryside just yet. The Conservatives are on a drive to win back their lost rural vote. Incumbent Labour MPs are battling to push rural issues up the agenda in parliament. And the Liberal Democrat and Green parties spy an opening too. “The countryside is being fought over now by four parties in England, and then in Wales and Scotland you could throw in the nationalists as well. It’s a real battleground,” Tim Bonner, chief executive of pressure group the Countryside Alliance, said. BATTLE OF THE WAX JACKETS Controversial Labour inheritance tax changes, which will hit some farmers, have offered Starmer’s political adversaries an easy opening. Tractor protests coursed through Whitehall, the center of British power, earlier this year and Conservative Leader Kemi Badenoch donned a wax jacket while Farage put on his flat cap to try to seize the agenda. Tice argues that Starmer’s embrace of renewables, and his party’s push for net zero greenhouse gas emissions, presents another opportunity for Reform to endear itself to rural voters. “We’re the strongest on getting rid of the net zero madness and all of the renewable eyesores that we are beginning to see,” he argued. Opposition to huge solar farms in Lincolnshire helped Reform do well in local government elections there earlier this year. “In Lincolnshire alone, there’s plans for 140 square miles of solar farms. So we’re going to be pushing against that very hard over the coming months,” Tice said.  Keir Starmer broke the Conservatives’ monopoly on Britain’s rural heartlands. | Pool Photo by Jose Sarmento Matos via EPA Reform is also building up its branch infrastructure in rural communities “fast,” Tice added. But Reform’s critics think the party could have misjudged rural communities with its muscular opposition to net zero. Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat rural affairs spokesman and a member of parliament for a rural constituency in Cumbria, says “wonderfully wise” rural communities have “managed the landscape for generations.” “There’s no part of our economy more badly hit by climate change than farming, drought and flooding,” he warned. “The fact you have a bunch of people at Reform who think they know better than farmers, who are experts in this because they see the seasons changing, is mad,” Farron added. Farron admitted he is also opposed to putting solar panels on productive agricultural land.  Farage’s close association with Brexit could also work against him, Labour strategists hope. A government official, granted anonymity to discuss strategy, said Reform’s “entire trade strategy” created “huge dividing lines for us to exploit against Reform going into the next election.” Farage has criticized the government’s reset deal with the European Union struck earlier this year, and has leaned into the idea of the U.K accepting chlorinated chicken from the U.S. ON THE HUNT Another flashpoint in the battle for the countryside could come if ministers push ahead with their election manifesto pledge to ban the controversial practise of trail hunting. The government official quoted above said Labour is committed to “delivering it this parliament,” although they would not say when a new law would be put forward. Fox hunting became a hot political issue when Labour banned the practice in 2004. In the run-up to the vote, almost half a million people joined a Countryside Alliance march through central London opposing the ban, which was championed by then Prime Minister Tony Blair. Blair got the ban through parliament with a compromise allowing rural communities to continue to meet and trail hunt — a pursuit which sees hounds follow a pre-laid scent without chasing a live animal. Some Labour MPs, and animal rights activists, argue trail hunting has been a “smokescreen” for continued fox hunting and Starmer has pledged to ban that too as part of a wider package of animal welfare improvements. Ministers said in parliamentary debate in April they would consult on plans later this year. “We will wait and see what they do on this because I’m not going to create policy on the hoof,” Victoria Atkins, Conservative shadow rural affairs secretary, said. | Neil Hall/EPA Tice says Reform would “strongly oppose” plans to ban trail hunting. It is “part of the bond of rural communities,” he said, warning ministers will have “completely lost the plot if they think that’s a good use of time and debate.”  Starmer’s handling of trail hunting “could not be more explosive politically in terms of the rural vote,” Tim Bonner, the Countryside Alliance lobby group chief, warned, cautioning the prime minister’s approach will have a huge impact on “how Labour is viewed when we get to the next election.”   Starmer made great strides in the run up to the last election “moving away from the culture war politics of the countryside, which was so damaging at the back end of the Blair administration,” Bonner argued. DIFFERENT TIMES But Labour MPs are skeptical the issue would really be as contentious as it was in the Blair era. Perran Moon, Labour MP for Camborne and Redruth, a rural coastal constituency in Cornwall in the south-west of England, said it’s a “myth that people who live in rural areas like or are tolerant of fox hunting.” A second Labour MP, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said they were dubious Labour votes had ever come from pro-hunt voters in the first place.  “Animal welfare is a big win for us, even beyond trail hunting. No politician has got into trouble by being pro-animal welfare,” they added. The Conservatives appear cautious about joining Reform on the hunting barricades. “We will wait and see what they do on this because I’m not going to create policy on the hoof,” Victoria Atkins, Conservative shadow rural affairs secretary, said when asked about the Conservative position, though said it would show “a real lack of priorities” if a ban was brought forward. After suffering a kicking at the 2017 election, then-Prime Minister Theresa May dropped a pledge to hold a vote on repealing Blair’s fox hunting ban. She told the BBC at the time there had been a “clear message” against it from the public. PUTTING IN THE FACE TIME Bonner said the Conservatives are “still some way from understanding quite how far they drifted from the path of common sense, during especially the post-Brexit period.” He cited anti-cruelty legislation on animal sentience — which transferred EU legislation recognizing animal sentience into U.K. law — as a “complete and utter horror” under the Tories, and blasted a lack of delivery on a “post-Brexit settlement” for farmers. After suffering a kicking at the 2017 election, then-Prime Minister Theresa May dropped a pledge to hold a vote on repealing Blair’s fox hunting ban. | Adam Vaughan/EPA Atkins insisted the Tories are “doing a lot of thinking” about why they took a “hell of a kicking last summer.” But she told POLITICO Labour inherited “a good farming policy that had the ability to build and progress, and we were intending to do that iteratively.” The Conservatives are, she said, putting in the face time with rural communities, “going around the country listening to people about farming, but also about animal welfare, about nature and the environment” as part of an ongoing policy renewal program. She hoped the Tories will be able to present a “really interesting set of ideas from countryside to the coast in the years to come.” HOPE SPRINGS ETERNAL  Labour MPs fighting to hold onto their seats are now getting organized too — and hoping incumbency can give them an edge over their many rivals. A like-minded group of rural Labour MPs set up the Labour Rural Research Group (LRRG) earlier this year to raise issues important to their constituencies. Environment Secretary Steve Reed — a close ally of Starmer who was seen as a key figure in the strategy to win over rural voters last year — has been engaging with the Rural PLP of backbench MPs. Headlines about the changes to agricultural property relief had been “concerning,” a third Labour MP, who is in the LRRG, said. But they were more optimistic the party could win again on “bread and butter issues” like the National Health Service, housing and jobs — which are actually what most of their voters care about. That sentiment was echoed by the government official quoted above. Britain’s current political volatility could mean their seats — some of which were not even on target lists at the last election — will be more winnable than those held by more urban colleagues, the third MP said. “You look at areas like Bristol, Peterborough and Norwich —there is much more volatility over particular issues like Gaza, and much stronger campaigns from independents and left-wing candidates,” the MP said. 

LONDON — Brexit Britain wants to become an offshore haven: not for low taxes or deregulation, but for animals. In May, Keir Starmer announced plans to align with EU rules on agriculture and food standards — in a bid to smooth trade with the U.K.’s largest neighbor. But behind the scenes, London wants an exception to the rules: keeping the stricter animal welfare standards brought in since Brexit. The U.K. last year prompted cheers from NGOs by banning the export of live animals for slaughter. Ministers said the practice — legal in the EU — “causes animals unnecessary stress.” London has also swooped in to protect sea birds and sand eels from rapacious EU fishermen and has signaled plans to legislate foie gras off British menus. It’s all a bit of a departure from EU rules, when alignment — to protect the integrity of the bloc’s single market — is the price of lifting the troublesome border checks. Two people familiar with preparations for U.K.-EU talks told POLITICO that London was keen for an explicit carve-out on animal welfare in the U.K.-EU Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement. One of the people, a British official who was granted anonymity to discuss the talks, said the government did not want the negotiations to become “a race to the bottom on standards.” PRECEDENTS The roadmap for negotiations agreed by Starmer and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen at a summit in the spring already concedes that the SPS deal will “include a short list of limited exceptions.” As POLITICO has previously reported, the U.K. is expected to push for a carve-out for selective-bred crops to be on this list. But it’s also seen as a vehicle for London’s animal welfare aspirations. It wouldn’t be the first time Brussels has indulged a third country on the matter. The SPS agreement the EU has with Switzerland — seen as a model for the upcoming British accord — also includes its own carve-out on animal welfare. It’s all a bit of a departure from EU rules, when alignment — to protect the integrity of the bloc’s single market — is the price of lifting the troublesome border checks. | Matt Cardy/Getty Images “Switzerland was able to maintain some of its animal welfare standards, which are higher,” Professor Emily Lydgate from the U.K. Trade Policy Observatory told the House of Lords European Affairs Committee last month. Politically, such an exemption would also make things much easier for the British government. Starmer’s EU reset plans have so far faced little substantial political opposition — even from hardline Brexiteers. But throw in a bit of animal cruelty, and voters might start to take a rather dimmer view of the whole exercise. The British prime minister, who once purchased a field in the leafy English county of Surrey so his mum could look after rescue donkeys, probably knows better than to mess with Britain’s animals. “One of the main platforms those who wanted to leave the EU stood on when campaigning for Brexit was that we would be able to improve animal welfare standards, it is therefore essential that any agreement that is entered into still allows the UK to have higher animal welfare laws,” Edie Bowles, executive director at The Animal Law Foundation said. “Not only that, we should ensure that those animal welfare standards are robust and not undermined by lower welfare imports. The U.K. public cares deeply about animal welfare and wants to see it paid more than just lip service.” TWO-WAY STREET It’s possible the SPS deal might not end up being just a one-way street on animal welfare. Bowles said the U.K. had just lowered legal protections for chickens by “legalizing the practice of handling chickens by their legs, which causes significant welfare issues and is currently prohibited in the EU.” She added that it was also “essential that along with not accepting lower welfare imports the U.K. does not fall behind the EU … what the public want is an agreement in place that encourages a race to the top between the two parties, rather than a race to the bottom.” There may end up being some compromises. Ahead of last year’s general election Labour’s environment chief Steve Reed said his party would “ban the commercial import of foie gras, where ducks and geese are aggressively force-fed.” Some commentators have since noted that ministers are yet to re-state this plan in government. Asked about plans for a carve-out, a U.K. government spokesperson said: “Following the UK-EU Summit we will be finalising the details of our SPS agreement, which will make trade with our biggest market cheaper and easier. We won’t get ahead of those negotiations but we have been clear about the importance of setting high animal welfare standards.”

LONDON — Much like cricket, trade talks with India have been a long game, with plenty of sticky wickets along the way. As India’s cricket team goes head-to-head with England at Old Trafford on Thursday, Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his Indian counterpart Narendra Modi flaunted their newly inked free trade agreement at Chequers, Starmer’s country residence. The parallel did not go unnoticed by the two leaders. “For both of us cricket is not just a game but a passion — and also a great metaphor for our partnership,” Modi told reporters shortly after the deal was signed. “There may be a swing and a miss at times, but we always play with a straight bat. We are committed to building a high-scoring, solid partnership.” The ceremony marked the symbolic end to three years of sometimes fraught head-to-head negotiations between India and Britain’s trade teams. While far from what British negotiators envisaged when they began the talks, the U.K. has managed to chalk up a fair few wins, with some stand-out sectors emerging triumphant. Indian negotiators can also boast of a few victories. From Scotch whisky to business mobility, we’ve set out the biggest wins on either side in our FTA scoreboard. UK WINNERS Scotch whisky producers One of the biggest wins on the U.K. side is reduced tariffs for Scotch whisky. Under the FTA, Indian tariffs on the tipple will be slashed in half, from 150 percent to 75 percent, then dropped even further to 40 percent over the next decade.  India is the world’s biggest whisky market by volume and the tariff reduction has been described as a “game changer” by the industry. Announcing the deal, Starmer said it would give U.K. whisky producers “an advantage over international competitors in reaching the Indian market.” India is the world’s biggest whisky market by volume and the tariff reduction has been described as a “game changer” by the industry. | Neil Hall/EPA “The deal will support long term investment and jobs in our distilleries in Speyside and our bottling plant at Kilmalid and help deliver growth in both Scotland and India over the next decade,” said Jean-Etienne Gourgues, CEO at Chivas Brothers.  Automakers There’s also good news for British automakers — which have had quite a ride over the past few months thanks to U.S. President Donald Trump’s punitive tariff regime. Tariffs of up to 110 percent on British cars will drop to 10 percent after five or ten years depending on the type of car. As a result, the government expects exports of U.K. motor vehicles to increase by 310 percent — or £890 million — in the long run.  Mike Hawes, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers & Traders (SMMT), which represents the British automotive industry, said the deal represented a “significant achievement, partially liberalising the Indian automotive market for the first time.”   He called for rapid ratification of the deal and renewed efforts to agree “fair and workable solutions” on the administration of the tariff rate quotas. Lawyers Just days after the deal was first struck on May 6, India’s legal regulator approved new rules permitting foreign legal firms and lawyers to practise there on a reciprocal basis. It was seen by the sector as a key win coming in parallel with the deal.  The Bar Council of India first signaled the move in 2023, but received fierce opposition from domestic legal firms. “This is an important development for our two professions,” said Richard Atkinson, president of the U.K.’s Law Society at the time, although some strict conditions still apply.  Services firms  The deal’s financial services chapter is a first for India. New Delhi promises that Britain’s financial and business services firms can’t be treated differently to Indian companies. It guarantees India cannot impose limitations on investment or the number of British financial services firms that can operate in the country. India’s penchant for data localization — meaning services firms like banks and consultancies need to set up servers in India if they’re processing Indian nationals’ info — isn’t addressed in the deal since the country’s parliament is still working through new data privacy and security laws. Yet there are provisions to allow further negotiations with the U.K. if India moves to liberalize the flow of data in the future. INDIAN WINNERS Workers on secondment to the UK One of the most contentious areas of the trade deal — and most sought after on the Indian side — are new provisions on business mobility. The U.K. has promised that an existing visa route for some temporary workers that’s not currently available to India — and capped at 1,800 people — will now be open to Indian employees (although the cap won’t be lifted). Most controversially for some, the U.K. and India have separately agreed to negotiate a Double Contributions Convention, which means that neither Indian nor British workers will be required to pay national insurance contributions in both their home country and the one they are working in. Details of the agreement are still being ironed out but both sides have agreed to strike the deal in side letters. In promotional material published alongside the deal, the U.K. government insists the measures will have no impact on immigration. “All visa routes that have been locked in through the agreement are only available for temporary stays, and none of the routes provide a path to permanent settlement,” it notes. Farmers The U.K. has agreed to remove tariffs on imports of Indian food, with the exception of sugar, milled rice, pork, chicken and eggs, which will continue to be subject to the current duties in place. In its impact assessment, the government notes that food imports will still have to comply with U.K. food and animal welfare standards. The U.K. has agreed to remove tariffs on imports of Indian food, with the exception of sugar, milled rice, pork, chicken and eggs, which will continue to be subject to the current duties in place. | Farooq Khan/EPA Meanwhile, campaigners welcomed the absence of any intellectual property clause in the agreement that would have limited Indian farmers’ ability to save and exchange their seeds.  Patented, genetically modified seeds and restrictions on their use have been identified as a one of several factors contributing to the high level of farmer suicides in the country. “We hope that following this deal, the U.K. government will commit to safeguarding farmers’ rights in all future trade agreements, as farmer seed systems are vital for smallholder farmers in India and in many other countries across the world,” said Hannah Conway, trade and agriculture policy adviser at Transform Trade. Drugmakers Under the deal, Indian generic medicines and medical devices can be exported duty free to the U.K., in a move welcomed by the country’s officials. Last year the U.K. imported medicinal and pharmaceutical products worth around £667.4 million from India. “Given the U.K.’s shift away from reliance on Chinese imports post-Brexit and Covid-19, Indian manufacturers are poised to emerge as a favoured, cost-effective alternative, especially with zero-duty pricing for medical devices,” a commerce ministry official told the Indian news agency PTI. Meanwhile, India will also welcome the absence of any data exclusivity clauses related to pharmaceuticals in the deal’s intellectual property chapter, which could have posed a threat to the country’s generic drugs sector, the world’s largest by volume. Textiles manufacturers The trade deal removes tariffs on Indian textiles exported to the U.K., with imports expected to rise by around 85 percent to £2.9 billion, according to the government’s impact assessment. The U.K. imported Indian clothing worth £877.3 million last year. As a result, the government projects that the U.K. textiles, apparel and leather goods industry is expected to lose £114 million — the biggest projected decline of any industry. “This in turn is projected to lead to resources shifting away from adversely affected sectors to other sectors that exhibit a larger increase in exports,” it said.