LONDON — British businesses trading with Europe face “more red tape, mountains of paperwork, and a bureaucratic burden” if the U.K.’s opposition parties tear up Keir Starmer’s new Brexit reset deal, a government minister will warn Wednesday. In a speech in Westminster, Nick Thomas-Symonds, who has been leading talks with Brussels for improved trade terms, will accuse Nigel Farage’s Euroskeptic Reform UK party of wanting “to take Britain backwards” by tearing up the deal.  Farage and Tory opposition leader Kemi Badenoch have both pledged to junk Starmer’s changes to Boris Johnson’s Brexit settlement if they make it into government at the next election. Reform UK is currently leading Labour in the polls and on course for a majority in the House of Commons.  In extracts of the speech pre-briefed to journalists, Cabinet Office Minister Thomas-Symonds says Reform UK’s pledge means “cutting at least £9 billion from the economy, bringing with it a risk to jobs and a risk of food prices going up.” Reform UK in turn accused Labour of “cosying up” to the EU. Thomas-Symonds will claim that reversing the reset will risk investment in the food and drink sector, make exporting more difficult for farmers and fishers, as well as other small business owners, and see food once again rot in the back of lorries stuck in 16-hour queues.  Senior figures in the Labour government see fast delivery on EU trade as key to their pitch at the next general election. They want the British public to start seeing the benefits of the new agreements through lower supermarket prices before the run-up to the contest.  Key to this is the sanitary and phytosanitary deal, talks on which are set to start in the fall. The agreement has been broadly welcomed across the food and drink and agriculture sectors. But Euroskeptics are angry that it’ll tie the U.K. to Brussels.  Thomas-Symonds is expected to say he wants the SPS agreement to be operational by 2027. He’ll also recommit the government to Labour’s red lines of no return to the EU’s Customs Union or Single Market. On Tuesday the British government published new data which it says illustrates the scale of bureaucracy businesses face and the potential benefits of an SPS agreement: The Animal Health and Plant Agency issued 328,727 export health certificates in 2024. The certificates cost as much as £200 each.  A Reform UK spokesman shot back in a statement: “Cosying up to the EU and leaving us entangled in reams of retained EU law which Kemi Badenoch failed to scrap will not resuscitate Britain’s struggling economy.”

LONDON — When it comes to rebuilding Britain’s post-Brexit relationship with the EU, the course of true love never did run smooth. But a new pact means it may just get a bit less bumpy.  On Monday negotiators unveiled a sweeping agreement on defense and fishing, as well as a pledge to work towards deals in defense, energy, agrifood rules, climate, migration and policing, after years of Brexit bad blood.  While the devil will be in the final details of the deal, the agreement could pave the way for smoother trade and travel between the U.K. and EU, freeing whole sectors from reams of red tape. Britain estimates the deal will be worth around £9 billion a year to the U.K. economy by 2040. ALIGNING ON AGRI-FOOD STANDARDS A key part of the deal is a commitment to “work towards establishing a common sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) area” — also known as a veterinary agreement — which would see the U.K. stay aligned to EU single market rules on plant and animal health. According to a “common understanding” document published on Monday, the deal would enable the “vast majority” of plant and animal products to be able to move between the U.K. and the EU without the certificates or controls that are currently required. These benefits will also apply to the movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the document confirmed. The agreement also states there should include a “short list of limited exceptions to dynamic alignment.” However, these exceptions can only be agreed if they do not lead to “lower standards as compared to European Union rules.” In a move likely to rile up hardline Brexiteers, the agreement will be subject to a “dispute resolution mechanism with an independent arbitration panel that ensures the Court of Justice of the European Union is the ultimate authority for all questions of European Union law.” This may also raise some eyebrows in Labour circles, given Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s insistence that Britain will be a “rule-maker” rather than a “rule-taker.”  Overall, however, the news was greeted positively by U.K. businesses, who have complained of extensive delays, increased costs and paperwork since the introduction of border controls on EU animal and plant products at British ports last year.  “A permanent deal to remove unnecessary checks on food and drink exports in both directions is a huge boost; it will cut costs, reduce waste and increase sales,” said Shevaun Haviland, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce. NFU President Tom Bradshaw said the deal had the potential to deliver a “more mutually beneficial trading environment for U.K. farmers and growers.” However, he said there remained “important questions about what is within the scope of this agreement and, where current rules and regulations do differ, if there will be any exclusions.” “As negotiations in this area continue, it’s vital that our government safeguards the progress we have made in policy areas such as precision [plant] breeding to enable the farming sector to continue to move forward in sustainable, resilient and innovative food production.” News of the agreement will also bring some relief to traders in Northern Ireland, who have voiced frustration over border controls introduced as part of the Windsor Framework imposing checks on GB goods at risk of entering the single market. In addition to the reduction of checks at the border, an SPS deal could remove the need for costly “Not for EU” labels on food at risk of entering the Republic of Ireland.  But news of a potential SPS deal is bitter-sweet for the U.K.’s commercial ports, which invested over £100 million of their own cash into specially designed border control posts to carry out checks on EU animal and plant products entering the U.K. As reported by POLITICO last year, they fear that an SPS deal could render the facilities redundant, and are now demanding compensation.  “This agreement means that many new border control posts that were built at a cost of over £120m to industry to manage checks that never fully materialized are now likely to become obsolete,” said Richard Ballantyne, chief executive of the British Ports Association. “Government should cover the full costs of these white elephants and put this episode behind us.” ENERGY AND CLIMATE COOPERATION In a move likely to be welcomed by carbon-intensive industry in the U.K., both sides have committed to link their respective emissions trading schemes — effectively exempting each from upcoming carbon taxes. Linking the schemes means U.K. firms will avoid sending “£800 million directly to the EU’s budget,” Downing Street said in a statement Monday. The move is designed to sidestep costs associated with the so-called carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM), which is applied when taxes on polluting outside the EU — the carbon price — are lower than inside the bloc. The EU CBAM is set to start kicking in from Jan. 1, 2026, with the U.K.’s own version starting a year later. In documents released alongside the summit, the U.K. and the European Commission agreed to “work towards establishing a link between carbon markets by way of a European Union-United Kingdom agreement.” The commitment is stronger than predicted by some U.K. energy experts, who expected only a promise of future talks on CBAM alignment, although they also warned that aligning carbon tax systems can take many years to implement.  The deal commits the U.K. to a cap on greenhouse gas emissions and an emissions reduction “pathway” under its emissions trading scheme that are “at least as ambitious” as the EU’s. Currently, the U.K.’s climate goals are more ambitious than the EU’s — but future governments may want to change that. The clause was branded a “catastrophic surrender” by Richard Tice, deputy leader of the Reform party, who vowed to “repeal everything” if his party ever gained power. The Conservatives’ Shadow Energy Secretary Andrew Bowie said the clause was “the bit that really concerns me.” It “removes any sovereignty of the U.K. over setting its own caps,” he said. “If we were ever to want to diverge or reduce it to support a specific industry or sector we are now not allowed to under the terms of this deal that has been agreed.” Both sides also agreed to move toward reintegrating their electricity markets, with the U.K. effectively heading back into the single market for the energy sector. Industry has voiced concerns that the weak post-Brexit electricity trading system was holding back green investment in the North Sea and raising prices for electricity consumers.  Brussels has long resisted the idea of letting the U.K. participate in the single market for just some sectors — something it long decried as “cherry picking”. The change will mean more “dynamic alignment” with EU rules for the U.K., with some “decision-shaping” power reserved for London.  VISAS FOR YOUNG PEOPLE Despite some misgivings from the U.K. side on any kind of mobility agreement with the EU, the deal does include tentative commitments targeted at young people and holidaymakers.  Both sides have committed to working towards a “balanced youth experience scheme on terms to be mutually agreed.” While details are yet to come, the scheme would provide a “dedicated visa path,” allowing young people from the EU and U.K. to take part in work, studies, au-pairing, volunteering or traveling for a limited period of time.   In addition, the agreement commits to working towards association of the U.K. to the EU’s Erasmus+ programme.  In another provision targeted at holidaymakers, the agreement could also pave the way for Brits to use eGates in Europe. However, the agreement leaves this at the discretion of national governments. Meanwhile, pets will also be able to travel more easily with the introduction of “pet passports” for U.K. cats and dogs, removing the need for animal health certificates.  Zia Weise contributed to this report.

BRUSSELS — Hungary and Slovakia have both suggested that ongoing outbreaks of highly infectious foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) could be linked to bioterrorism — without presenting any supporting scientific evidence. Hungarian authorities detected an FMD case in early March at a cattle farm on the border with Slovakia, in the country’s first outbreak in 50 years. Since then, animals at three more Hungarian farms and six Slovak farms have tested positive for the virus, prompting authorities to vaccinate the herds to reduce any further spread before emergency culling. Slovakia has declared a state of emergency, imposed border restrictions, and set up a surveillance center staffed by police, firefighters and the military from both the ground and air.  “According to my current knowledge, there is no evidence supporting this scenario,” said virologist Jiří Černý from the Czech University of Life Sciences in Prague of the bioterror claims. “This does not mean we should ignore the possibility of alternative explanations, but rather that these should be carefully investigated, not assumed without evidence. It does not mean that a bioterrorist attack is a likely explanation,” he said. FMD is the most feared animal disease in the world. Highly contagious in ruminants like cows, pigs, sheep and goats, it rarely kills livestock but instead causes fever, loss of appetite, and blisters in the hooves and mouth that require the whole herd to be culled — and exclusion zones to be imposed to prevent its spread. The disease has the potential to devastate animal agriculture. An outbreak in the United Kingdom in 2001 caused an agricultural and tourism crisis costing more than €15 billion. Authorities slaughtered more than 6 million animals in efforts to eradicate the disease. Germany also reported an outbreak in January that has since been contained. Germany also reported an outbreak in January that has since been contained. | John Macdougall/AFP via Getty Images Černý added that the virus was likely transmitted by accident and should be treated as such until proven otherwise. “The virus can be carried on contaminated shoes, clothing, equipment, or even bird feathers from migratory species. Similar cases of unintentional introduction have been documented in the past,” he told POLITICO. ‘ENGINEERED ATTACK’ Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s chief of Cabinet, Gergely Gulyás, last Thursday became the first official to suggest the outbreaks could be the result of a biological attack. “At this stage, we can say that it cannot be ruled out that the virus was not of natural origin, we may be dealing with an artificially engineered virus,” Gulyás said at a press briefing, adding that the suspicion was based on verbal information received from a foreign laboratory whose findings have not yet been proven. Gulyás insisted that experts investigate any possibility of an “engineered attack.” Slovak Agriculture Minister Richard Takáč jumped on that bandwagon on Friday when he said in a YouTube interview that Slovakia is considering a similar possibility. “There are various speculations, various questions that we here in Slovakia are asking ourselves. The same questions are being asked by the European Commission as well,” Takáč said. “I can confirm that in official documents following meetings at the European level, bioterrorism is mentioned as one of the possible scenarios. That someone may have brought the virus here with a certain intent. It is the subject of an ongoing investigation,” he said. The Commission declined to comment on Takáč’s claim, but said it is working to figure out where the virus came from. “We have no comment on this. The Commission is working closely with the member states to try to find the origin of the outbreak. Virus isolation and genome sequencing are ongoing at the EU reference laboratory and may help clarify the origin. We cannot speculate on either the timing or the outcome of that work,” a Commission spokesperson told POLITICO. A number of countries are taking precautionary measures, from neighboring Austria and the Czech Republic stepping up border checks, to the United Kingdom banning personal imports of meat and dairy products from the EU.

Bird flu poses an increasing pandemic threat as it becomes more adaptive, jumping to humans, pets and zoo animals, Europe’s disease and food agencies warned on Wednesday. They are urging countries to step up their surveillance and containment measures to prevent the virus from continuing to evolve and become more dangerous to people. “In 2024, avian influenza viruses expanded their reach, infecting previously unaffected species. Our work identifies key mutations linked to a potential spread to humans, requiring rapid detection and response,” Bernhard Url, acting executive director at the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), said in a press release. Avian flu has been recorded at high levels among wild birds and farmed species such as chickens in recent years. The virus has also jumped to other species during this time including seals, and — notably in the United States — dairy cattle.  But to date, cases among humans have been low. The U.K. reported its first case of this winter on Monday, while there have been 67 cases in the United States and one death. The risk of infection for the general European population remains low, and low-to-moderate for people routinely exposed to potentially infected animals. But the situation would change if there was any “confirmed human-to-human transmission,” said Edoardo Colzani, head of respiratory viruses at the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). And this risk is increasing. The ECDC and EFSA have identified 34 key genetic mutations that make the virus more likely to jump from animals to humans but also to replicate to allow human-to-human transmission. The fact that the virus now contains all these characteristics is a “sporadic event,” Alessandro Broglia, senior scientific officer at EFSA, told POLITICO. Out of 27,000 virus sequences assessed, 144 contained the characteristics needed to jump and spread among people. “Those were mainly isolated in Asia and Africa and never in Europe,” Broglia added.  However, viruses that had acquired characteristics for spillover to humans were not only the highly pathogenic viruses, but also low pathogenic viruses, “that do not cause very serious disease, but can circulate in the population and slowly can acquire these mutations,” Broglia explained.  This makes surveillance on low pathogenic viruses  “a cornerstone” to spot these mutations and characteristics that can lead to human adaptation, he said. TEST, TEST, TEST Adaptation of avian influenza viruses to mammals can happen through genetic mutations and also through the mixing of genetic material between viruses. The interaction between wildlife, poultry, livestock and people is a driver for spillover.  “Are we creating the condition for this happening? What kind of poultry breeding system are we implementing? Why so many outbreaks in poultry farms in certain areas? And why so many jumps in mammal species?” Broglia asked, urging countries to think about how human activities facilitate the spread of such viruses. The interaction between wildlife, poultry, livestock and people is a driver for spillover. | Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images There were close to 100 human infections last year, said Colzani at the ECDC. Those often happen in occupational settings, where humans are exposed to sick animals. Colzani told POLITICO it would be “good practice” to test people when animal outbreaks occur — even if a person exposed to sick animals doesn’t show any symptoms “to detect if there is any silent transmission.” To avoid “an extremely rare” case of human influenza mixing with avian influenza, Colzani recommends vaccinating occupational animal workers against human seasonal flu to help reduce this risk. Avian influenza is circulating globally and, while there is data from North America, Japan or South Korea, it’s missing in vast swathes of the world due to limited laboratory capability. “In the rest of Asia or the full African continent we know little if anything, and this is the problem,” Broglia said, “we have no clue what is happening there.” He stressed the need for capacity building in these areas outside of the EU. Additionally, he called for harmonizing genetic information and associated metadata, which is “crucial for prevention and preparedness,” Broglia said. 

BRUSSELS — Hungary’s Olivér Várhelyi is hoping to win confirmation on Wednesday for another term as European commissioner. Having seen him in action over the last five years, however, European lawmakers have other ideas. As Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s man in Brussels, Várhelyi has served as enlargement commissioner since 2019 — earning a reputation along the way for unswerving loyalty to his controversial political patron and rudeness toward those who cross him. This time around he’s been nominated as health and animal welfare commissioner — a short straw that reflects Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s personal distrust of Orbán. Not only does Várhelyi represent a government that is isolated in the EU, but he’s also burned bridges with the Parliament after calling MEPs “idiots” in a hot-mic incident last year. The feeling appears to be mutual. On Monday, leaders from the European People’s Party (EPP), Socialists and Democrats (S&D) and Renew held a closed-door meeting to discuss strategy for the hearing on Wednesday evening. While there wasn’t a formal agreement by the mainstream groups to oppose Várhelyi’s confirmation, the odds seemed to be stacked against him. “There are lots of voices suggesting his rejection,” one parliamentary official said. “Our prediction is that there will not be a two-thirds majority in favor for Várhelyi,” added a second. Both were granted anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter. If Várhelyi’s confirmation is derailed, he would be the first of 26 designated commissioners to hit trouble. The hearings held so far this week have all gone smoothly with the candidates quickly winning the support of MEPs. TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY According to the Parliament’s rules, coordinators in the responsible committees will vote in favor or against the commissioner, with a decision requiring a two-thirds majority. In Várhelyi’s case these are the health and environment (ENVI) and agriculture (AGRI) committees. Not all coordinators’ votes carry the same weight — this depends on the size of their political party. However, if Várhelyi is rejected by groups from the center right to the liberals, he would miss the threshold for approval.  The Greens have also been skeptical of his performance. “It is quite unlikely that we will vote for him,” said Terry Reintke, co-chair of the Greens group in the Parliament, at a press conference on Monday. However, it’s not yet clear what would happen next. If a candidate is rejected in the first round, the coordinators would need to decide whether to send them additional questions or call another hearing. They can also decide to split up the portfolio and relieve the candidate of some responsibilities. “The most likely scenario will be further written questions or a new hearing,” said another official inside the Parliament. “That will also buy time for the political groups to assess the situation.” For a fourth official, “reshuffling [his portfolio] is more likely.”  “We could settle with stripping him of some important competencies,” added a Greens official. POSTAGE-STAMP POLITICS Since Várhelyi’s nomination, lawmakers — along with others in the Brussels health and agriculture policy bubbles — have questioned his expertise on animal welfare issues and noted that his close ties with the Hungarian government could have a negative impact on health policies. “Várhelyi needs to clarify that he’s not exercising Orbán’s health policy in the Commission,” Peter Liese, the EPP coordinator for ENVI, told journalists last week. While he noted that Várhelyi “has background and knowledge on health,” he added that “for animal welfare, that is not the case.” The liberals of Renew are also unhappy to have Várhelyi on health policy. “When we look at his portfolio, there are different responsibilities and the one that is the most concerning for us is on public health policies,” Renew’s ENVI coordinator Pascal Canfin said last week. Animal welfare organizations, meanwhile, mostly welcomed a commissioner dedicated to the issue, but aren’t thrilled by the individual choice. “It is clear by now that Olivér Várhelyi’s cumulative knowledge on animal welfare wouldn’t fill the back of a postage stamp,” NGO Four Paws boss Joe Moran told POLITICO. Animals need “a strong commissioner in a strong DG,” he added. “That isn’t Commissioner-designate Várhelyi, and it’s not DG SANTE. We hope MEPs act accordingly.” Max Griera contributed to this report.

The European Parliament is pondering whether to grill the six executive vice-presidents first or last in next month’s hearings for European commissioners-designate, according to two proposed schedules seen by POLITICO. The hearings will take place from Nov 4. to 12, but the exact timings have yet to be finalized. Under the first proposal, the nominees for executive vice-president — Estonia’s Kaja Kallas, Finland’s Henna Virkkunen, France’s Stéphane Séjourné, Italy’s Raffaele Fitto, Romania’s Roxana Mînzatu and Spain’s Teresa Ribera — would be quizzed on Nov. 11 and 12. The alternative timetable suggests they could all face parliamentary grillings on Nov. 5, before the hearings for the rest of the commissioners. The two options will be presented at the next meeting of the Conference of Presidents (CoP), the Parliament’s top decision-making body, on Thursday in Strasbourg. The CoP has already agreed to limit all hearings to three hours each.

BRUSSELS — Senior MEPs will decide next week whether to start grilling the 26 nominees to become European commissioners on Oct. 14 or Nov. 4, according to two documents seen by POLITICO that circulated internally in the Parliament on Friday. The dates of the confirmation hearings matter because they will determine the start date of the next European Commission, to be led by Ursula von der Leyen. The hearings are also an opportunity for MEPs to question prospective commissioners and even vote to have them removed. According to the first draft timeline, the hearings would take place between Oct. 14 and 18, allowing MEPs to vote on the entire College of Commissioners in Strasbourg on Oct 24., and for the new European Commission to take office on Nov. 1. This is the timetable that von der Leyen has been pushing for. The second draft timeline suggests holding the hearings between Nov. 4 and 12, with the MEPs’ vote coming in the final week of November, and the Commission taking office on Dec. 1. On Tuesday, the Conference of Committee Chairs — led by German Social Democrat Bernd Lange — will recommend one of the two options to the Conference of Presidents, which is chaired by Parliament President Roberta Metsola and brings together the political group leaders. The Conference of Presidents will make a final decision on Wednesday. “I think it’s very unlikely [that we opt for an October start date] because we need also time for proper democratic procedures,” said senior Green MEP Anna Cavazzini. “We will not just rubberstamp the Commission.” “It is indeed the most likely scenario,” agreed a senior Parliament official, granted anonymity to speak freely. “It is basically not possible [for the Parliament to do everything that needs to be done] and hold the hearings by end of October.”