This article is presented by EFPIA with the support of AbbVie I made a trip back to Europe recently, where I spent the vast majority of my pharmaceutical career, to share my perspectives on competitiveness at the European Health Summit. Now that I work in a role responsible for supporting patient access to medicine globally, I view Europe, and how it compares internationally, through a new lens, and I have been reflecting further on why the choices made today will have such a critical impact on where medicines are developed tomorrow. Today, many patients around the world benefit from medicines built on European science and breakthroughs of the last 20 years. Europeans, like me, can be proud of this contribution. As I look forward, my concern is that we may not be able to make the same claim in the next 20 years. It’s clear that Europe has a choice. Investing in sustainable medicines growth and other enabling policies will, I believe, bring significant benefits. Not doing so risks diminishing global influence. > Today, many patients around the world benefit from medicines built on European > science and breakthroughs of the last 20 years I reflect on three important points: 1) investment in healthcare benefits individuals, healthcare and society, but the scale of this benefit remains underappreciated; 2) connected to this, the underpinning science for future innovation is increasingly happening elsewhere; and 3) this means the choices we make today must address both of these trends. First, let’s use the example of migraine. As I have heard a patient say, “Migraine will not kill you but neither [will they] let you live.”[1] Individuals can face being under a migraine attack for more than half of every month, unable to leave home, maintain a job and engage in society.[2] It is the second biggest cause of disability globally and the first among young women.[3] It affects the quality of life of millions of Europeans.[4] From 2011-21 the economic burden of migraine in Europe due to the loss of working days ranged from €35-557 billion, depending on the country, representing 1-2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).[5]   Overall socioeconomic burden of migraine as percentage of the country’s GDP in 2021 Source: WifOR, The socioeconomic burden of migraine. The case of 6 European Countries.5 Access to effective therapies could radically improve individuals’ lives and their ability to return to work.[6] Yet, despite the staggering economic and personal impacts, in some member states the latest medicines are either not reimbursed or only available after several treatment failures.[7] Imagine if Europe shifted its perspective on these conditions, investing to improve not only health but unlocking the potential for workforce and economic productivity? Moving to my second point, against this backdrop of underinvestment, where are scientific advances now happening in our sector? In recent years it is impressive to see China has become the second-largest drug developer in the world,[8] and within five years it may lead the innovative antibodies therapeutics sector,[9] which is particularly promising for complex areas like oncology. Cancer is projected to become the leading cause of death in Europe by 2035,[10] yet the continent’s share of the number of oncology trials dropped from 41 percent in 2013 to 21 percent in 2023.10 Today, antibody-drug conjugates are bringing new hope in hard-to-treat tumor types,[11] like ovarian,[12] lung[13] and colorectal[14] cancer, and we hope to see more of these advances in the future. Unfortunately, Europe is no longer at the forefront of the development of these innovations. This geographical shift could impact high-quality jobs, the vitality of Europe’s biotech sector and, most importantly, patients’ outcomes. [15] > This is why I encourage choices to be made that clearly signal the value > Europe attaches to medicines This is why I encourage choices to be made that clearly signal the value Europe attaches to medicines. This can be done by removing national cost-containment measures, like clawbacks, that are increasingly eroding the ability of companies to invest in European R&D. To provide a sense of their impact, between 2012 and 2023, clawbacks and price controls reduced manufacturer revenues by over €1.2 billion across five major EU markets, corresponding to a loss of 4.7 percent in countries like Spain.[16] Moreover, we should address health technology assessment approaches in Europe, or mandatory discount policies, which are simply not adequately accounting for the wider societal value of medicines, such as in the migraine example, and promoting a short-term approach to investment. By broadening horizons and choosing a long-term investment strategy for medicines and the life science sector, Europe will not only enable this strategic industry to drive global competitiveness but, more importantly, bring hope to Europeans suffering from health conditions. AbbVie SA/NV – BE-ABBV-250177 (V1.0) – December 2025 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] The Parliament Magazine, https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/partner/article/unmet-medical-needs-and-migraine-assessing-the-added-value-for-patients-and-society, Last accessed December 2025. [2] The Migraine Trust; https://migrainetrust.org/understand-migraine/types-of-migraine/chronic-migraine/, Last accessed December 2025. [3] Steiner TJ, et al; Lifting The Burden: the Global Campaign against Headache. Migraine remains second among the world’s causes of disability, and first among young women: findings from GBD2019. J Headache Pain. 2020 Dec 2;21(1):137 [4] Coppola G, Brown JD, Mercadante AR, Drakeley S, Sternbach N, Jenkins A, Blakeman KH, Gendolla A. The epidemiology and unmet need of migraine in five european countries: results from the national health and wellness survey. BMC Public Health. 2025 Jan 21;25(1):254. doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-21244-8. [5] WifOR. Calculating the Socioeconomic Burden of Migraine: The Case of 6 European Countries. Available at: [https://www.wifor.com/en/download/the-socioeconomic-burden-of-migraine-the-case-of-6-eu­ropean-countries/?wpdmdl=358249&refresh=687823f915e751752703993]. Accessed June 2025. [6] Seddik AH, Schiener C, Ostwald DA, Schramm S, Huels J, Katsarava Z. Social Impact of Prophylactic Migraine Treatments in Germany: A State-Transition and Open Cohort Approach. Value Health. 2021 Oct;24(10):1446-1453. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2021.04.1281 [7] Moisset X, Demarquay G, et al., Migraine treatment: Position paper of the French Headache Society. Rev Neurol (Paris). 2024 Dec;180(10):1087-1099. doi: 10.1016/j.neurol.2024.09.008. [8] The Economist, https://www.economist.com/china/2025/11/23/chinese-pharma-is-on-the-cusp-of-going-global, Last accessed December 2025. [9] Crescioli S, Reichert JM. Innovative antibody therapeutic development in China compared with the USA and Europe. Nat Rev Drug Discov. Published online November 7, 2025. [10] Manzano A., Svedman C., Hofmarcher T., Wilking N.. Comparator Report on Cancer in Europe 2025 – Disease Burden, Costs and Access to Medicines and Molecular Diagnostics. EFPIA, 2025. [IHE REPORT 2025:2, page 20] [11] Armstrong GB, Graham H, Cheung A, Montaseri H, Burley GA, Karagiannis SN, Rattray Z. Antibody-drug conjugates as multimodal therapies against hard-to-treat cancers. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2025 Sep;224:115648. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2025.115648. Epub 2025 Jul 11. PMID: 40653109.. [12] Narayana, R.V.L., Gupta, R. Exploring the therapeutic use and outcome of antibody-drug conjugates in ovarian cancer treatment. Oncogene 44, 2343–2356 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41388-025-03448-3 [13] Coleman, N., Yap, T.A., Heymach, J.V. et al. Antibody-drug conjugates in lung cancer: dawn of a new era?. npj Precis. Onc. 7, 5 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41698-022-00338-9 [14] Wang Y, Lu K, Xu Y, Xu S, Chu H, Fang X. Antibody-drug conjugates as immuno-oncology agents in colorectal cancer: targets, payloads, and therapeutic synergies. Front Immunol. 2025 Nov 3;16:1678907. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2025.1678907. PMID: 41256852; PMCID: PMC12620403. [15] EFPIA, Improving EU Clinical Trials: Proposals to Overcome Current Challenges and Strengthen the Ecosystem, efpias-list-of-proposals-clinical-trials-15-apr-2025.pdf, Last accessed December 2025. [16] The EU General Pharmaceutical Legislation & Clawbacks, © Vital Transformation BVBA, 2024.

OTTAWA — Canada’s ambassador to the United States and its chief trade negotiator with the Trump administration said she is stepping down in the new year. “I have advised Prime Minister [Mark] Carney that I will be ending my tenure in the United States in the New Year. It has been the greatest privilege of my professional life to have served and represented Canada and Canadians during this critical period in Canada-U.S. relations,” Kirsten Hillman said in her resignation letter posted on X on Tuesday afternoon. Hillman’s departure comes after eight years in Washington, as the Carney government navigates President Donald Trump’s abrupt cancellation of bilateral trade talks in October and prepares for next year’s review of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. Hillman, a trade lawyer and career diplomat, was a key member of the Canadian negotiating team that faced off against Trump’s first administration during the talks that led to the creation of the USMCA. “While there will never be a perfect time to leave, this is the right time to put a team in place that will see the CUSMA Review through to its conclusion,” she wrote, using the Canadian acronym for the new North American trade pact. Despite the current trade disruptions and the aftermath of navigating the Covid-19 pandemic, Hillman said her greatest accomplishment was working to secure the release of two Canadian men who spent more than 1,000 days arbitrarily imprisoned in China from 2018 to 2021. “In a relationship as deep and complex as ours, pressing and consequential issues arise almost daily,” she wrote. “Yet none was more personal to me than the hundreds of hours I spent with U.S. and Chinese counterparts working for the release of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor.”

EINDHOVEN, The Netherlands — “You don’t see me lash out against other parties that often.” Henri Bontenbal, leader of the center-right Dutch Christian Democratic Appeal, has just finished a two-hour event at the High Tech Campus in Eindhoven when reporters asked why he avoids sparring with far-right leader Geert Wilders ahead of this month’s national elections. Bontenbal, a former energy consultant and a relative newcomer to politics, is sitting on the stage where he has nerdily lectured an audience about the importance of collaboration and trust in the political realm. “Other parties occasionally give us a slap,” he admits. “But we continue to tell our own story.”  Bontenbal entered the political arena in an era defined by characters such as Wilders and Donald Trump. It’s also a time when politicians continuously attack each other and make outlandish claims in a snackable format on social media. But Bontenbal has taken a different approach. “Bontenbal is in many views the anti-populist,” wrote Simon Van Teutem, a Dutch columnist at news site The Correspondent, in a September profile. The approach is fitting for the 42-year-old, raised as one of eight in a Protestant family in Rotterdam, who takes pride in sharing that he still reads the Bible daily. After two chaotic years, Bontenbal’s message of decency, stability and trust is suddenly resonating with voters.  Dutch voters head back to the polling booths on Oct. 29, after the last government fell barely a year into office. The CDA is neck and neck for second in the polls alongside a joint Socialist-Greens ticket, at around 24 seats, behind Wilders’ far-right PVV at 31 seats. That’s set to make the party one of the election’s big winners and Bontenbal a potential kingmaker in government negotiations. Bontenbal’s political career began unexpectedly in 2021, when he became a temporary member of parliament, filling in for the illustrious former politician Pieter Omtzigt. In the November 2023 elections, CDA’s support crumbled to five seats shortly after Bontenbal had taken over — in part because of the success of Omtzigt’s new rival party. Back then, Bontenbal’s leadership of the center-right seemed doomed. Fast forward two years and the mood in Eindhoven, a breeding ground for top companies including ASML and Philips, is bright. The venue in the Netherlands’ “smartest square km” is packed for an event in honor of a local candidate. But Bontenbal — known to voters as Henri — is top of the ticket. Beer mats read “Henri, one more round?” On the tables are copies of his new book, It Really Can Be Different. On stage in Eindhoven, Botenbal lists four priorities for the election, “which we all know are top of the list”: housing shortages, how to handle asylum seekers, the country’s nitrogen crisis and investments in the economy of the future.  He also doubles down on the Netherlands’ longing for political calm, as the country nears the third election in under five years. He champions “stability,” “decency,” and “trust” and wears being boring as a badge of pride.  Addressing a venue packed with entrepreneurs, he promises them a “reliable government” and a long-term investment agenda. “If I speak to entrepreneurs, the first they ask for is not to lower taxes, but what they ask for is: can you please keep things stable in the next few years?” Bontenbal’s spiel is geared toward welcoming the centrist Christian Democratic voters back, as much through style as substance. “The country is longing for a stable government,” he told a candidates’ TV debate Thursday — adding that while Wilders is “the best megaphone for dissatisfaction and anger,” he feels that politicians can do better. “Politics is not a theatre, not a circus,” Bontenbal told the talk show RTL Tonight recently after an analyst said that TV viewers had perceived him as decent yet boring in the first televised debate.  “I’m not ordered to be the funniest or to make the craziest remarks,” Bontenbal added. Being boring is a quality, the analyst agreed.

LONDON — Angela Rayner left the corridors of power under a cloud. On Wednesday, she finally inched out from the shadows. Keir Starmer’s ex-deputy PM and deputy Labour leader gave a personal statement from the House of Commons backbenches after resigning last month.  In her first public comments, Rayner said she would continue to “bring determination, commitment and my socialist values” to parliament. Rayner stepped down as the PM’s second in command after failing to pay the correct amount of tax — known as stamp duty — on the purchase of a second property. In the immediate aftermath of her exit, she retreated from the public eye by skipping Labour’s conference in Liverpool, giving no interviews and posting just two tweets. Her silence after years in the political trenches was notable.  The MP for Ashton-under-Lyne was undoubtedly bruised by quitting such a high-profile role. “The last few weeks have been incredibly tough on my family with my personal life so much in the public eye,” Rayner admitted. “All of us in public life know all too well the toll of the intense scrutiny we face places on our loved ones.” Her speech signals a tentative first attempt to influence from the outside — though it could be a hard journey ahead. “My title may have changed, but the strength and the character of the people of my constituency have not.” CRITICAL FRIEND  Since entering parliament in 2015, Rayner has virtually only known life on the front benches. She was appointed shadow education secretary in 2016, following mass resignations from hard-left Leader Jeremy Corbyn’s Shadow Cabinet, where she remained until Starmer took charge in 2020. “I knew that Angela would make quite an impression in parliament and so she did,” said former Environment Minister Daniel Zeichner, who became an MP at the same time as Rayner. One former colleague, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said Rayner was “a company politician and has literally not had any time away from frontline politics in over nine years.” “I don’t think anyone would ever accuse her of bending in the wind, whoever the leader was,” said a second former minister. “People are frightened of Angela Rayner because she’s the genuine politician,” argued one left-wing Labour MP. “She wears her heart on her sleeve. She sees things the way that she sees them. She doesn’t sugarcoat issues.” Some see an obvious berth for Rayner as a voice on the soft left of the governing party. Both leadership contenders battling to replace Rayner — Lucy Powell and Bridget Phillipson — have called for the two-child benefit cap, which limits some social security payments for families with more than two kids, to be lifted. The ex-deputy PM could play an influential role should she choose to join that cause.  “If Angela came to the fore, she would bring that support from other members of the PLP [Parliamentary Labour Party] who perhaps would be wavering,” the MP above said. “That would be extremely, extremely important.”  “I’m really looking forward to hearing what she has to say with her new voice,” said MP Rachael Maskell, who was suspended from Labour over her own rebellion on welfare reform. “Where our paths cross, she’ll be a huge asset,” Maskell said.  Rayner has spoken movingly about her son’s lifelong disabilities and juggling a blended family. “If there is one good thing that can come out of this, I hope that other families in this situation may now be aware of that and avoid getting into the position that I am now in,” said Rayner. “You need to have stability for your kids and maintain all parental relationships,” said another Labour MP about balancing politics with familial responsibilities. “It’s a bloody nightmare!” Labour looks set to reform support for young people with learning difficulties and disabilities. Rayner’s personal experience could help make her a leading voice, should she choose to step forward. LONG WALK BACK  The first former colleague quoted above said it was likely to have been a “really difficult” transition for Rayner to move to the backbenches, but that the former deputy had been able to “see what she had missed — family, friends — and savor that for a while.” Some hope Rayner’s dramatic exit won’t overshadow her abilities for long. Her working-class background was seen as a rare antidote in Labour’s ranks to Nigel Farage’s populist Reform UK, which consistently leads the government in the opinion polls.  “She’s got a very good common touch which cuts through to people,” said Zeichner, arguing her “life story is clearly of interest way beyond the normal political discourse.”  He added, “I would be surprised if she doesn’t find her way back to the top of politics.”  The left-wing Labour MP quoted above concurred, calling her “too popular just to basically wither away on the vine.”  The second former minister quoted above suggested Rayner could be a good corrective to “one small clique … running the whole show” at the top of government — and said many MP colleagues would still like to see her as party leader at some point in the future. However, that consensus was not universal. Rayner “made a big mistake which she ought to have avoided,” decried a second left-wing Labour MP. “She needs to be out of the front line for the foreseeable future.” Ultimately, there’s no guarantee a top-table return will happen, regardless of Rayner’s ambition. Tory MP Andrew Mitchell endured a decade in the wilderness between resigning as chief whip in 2012 and making a comeback in a senior Foreign Office job in 2022. “It’s true that in politics you should never say never about almost anything,” he reflected. “Always remember that the two irreducible qualities required for success are boundless energy and a skin as thick as a rhinoceros!” “Backbench or frontbench, elected office is not about us, but about our chance to change the lives of others,” Rayner concluded. “From wherever I sit on these benches, I will fight with everything I have to do exactly that.” Esther Webber contributed to this report.

The European Central Bank’s staff union is taking the bank to court, accusing ECB management of trying to silence and intimidate its representatives in violation of the principles of European democracy. The case, lodged with the European Court of Justice on Oct. 13, marks the latest escalation in a battle between union representatives and management, where relations have deteriorated since Christine Lagarde took over as ECB president in 2019. The action contests a series of letters the bank addressed to the International and European Public Services Organization (IPSO) union and one of its senior representatives “restricting staff and union representatives from speaking publicly about workplace concerns, such as favoritism and the ‘culture of fear’ at the ECB,” the union said in a statement. These letters constitute “an unlawful interference” with basic freedoms guaranteed by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, the union said. “Freedom of expression and association are not privileges; they are the foundation of the European project.” An ECB spokesperson said the bank does not comment on court cases, but that it “is firmly committed to the freedom of expression and the rule of law, operating within a clear employment framework that is closely aligned with EU Staff Regulations and is subject to European Court of Justice scrutiny.” The first letter, signed by the ECB’s Chief Services Officer Myriam Moufakkir, came in response to an interview given by union spokesperson Carlos Bowles to Germany’s Boersen-Zeitung daily paper, published May 7. In it, Bowles had warned that a culture of fear may contribute to self-censorship, groupthink and poor policy decisions. The interview came at a time when the ECB’s failure to anticipate the worst bout of inflation in half a century had provoked widespread and public soul-searching by policymakers. It also followed a union survey in which around two-thirds of respondents said being in the good graces of powerful figures was the key to career advancement at the ECB, rather than job performance.   IPSO IS A FOUR-LETTER WORD According to the IPSO union, Moufakkir responded with a letter stressing that staff and union representatives must not make public claims of a “culture of fear” within the institution or its possible effects on ECB operations — including its forecasting work, which had come under especially intense scrutiny. It also accused Bowles of breaching his duty of loyalty under the ECB’s internal code of conduct, and instructed him to refrain from public statements that could “damage the ECB’s reputation.” A later letter by Moufakkir, addressed to IPSO dated Aug. 1 and seen by POLITICO, spells out the thinking. In it she stresses that the right of “staff representatives … to address the media without prior approval … applies exclusively to ‘matters falling within their mandate’. It does not apply to the ECB’s conduct of monetary policy, including its response to inflation.” In his interview, Bowles made no reference to current or future policy but rather to a work environment that he said fostered groupthink. Lagarde herself had warned against such risks, denouncing economists the previous year in Davos as a “tribal clique” and arguing that a diversity of views leads to better outcomes. Bowles had made similar statements to the media before, such as in an interview with the Handelsblatt daily paper published in January 2016, without eliciting any reaction from the bank’s management. Contacted by POLITICO for this story, the ECB said it had “stringent measures to ensure analytical work meets the highest standards of academic rigor and objectivity, which are essential to the ECB’s mandate of price stability and banking supervision.” Moufakkir suggested that Bowles’ comments undermine trust in the ECB and that this trust is crucial if the ECB is to deliver on its mandate. “Freedom of expression, which constitutes a fundamental right, does not override the duty of loyalty to which all ECB staff are bound,” she argued. Bowles rejected that framing, arguing in a letter to Moufakkir that he had a “professional obligation” to address such issues and their impact on the ECB’s capacity to fulfil its mission. PAPER TRAIL The trouble, according to the union, is that Moufakkir addressed the first two letters to an individual union representative (Bowles) who was speaking on its behalf, effectively undermining the union’s collective voice.  In her email, the union said, Moufakkir also “heavily misrepresented” Bowles’s comments and accused him of misconduct without affording him a hearing. In her letter from Aug. 1, Moufakkir maintained that her original letter to Bowles “was not a formal decision” to be recorded in his personal file, but rather a “reminder and clarification of applicable rules.”  “Its purpose was not to intimidate or silence Mr Bowles but to highlight to him the importance of prudence and external communications about ECB matters,” she wrote. The union said it sees this framing as an effort by the ECB to shield itself from judicial review: the letter addressed to Bowles was marked ECB-CONFIDENTIAL and Personal, conveying the impression of an official document. According to a person familiar with the matter, a special appeal launched by Bowles to the executive board to retract Moufakkir’s instruction has since been dismissed — without addressing its substance — because the letters had no binding legal effect and were therefore inadmissible. That has now prompted the union to turn to the ECJ; a response to a second appeal by Bowles remains outstanding. The union said that what it perceived as attempts by the ECB to silence union representatives have succeeded: Previously scheduled media interviews have been “cancelled due to fear of retaliation.” When contacted for comment, Bowles declined, citing the same reason. WHAT COMES NEXT? The ECB will have two months to submit its defense to the court. As an EU institution, the ECB is neither subject to German labor laws nor to similar rules in other EU member states and instead enjoys extensive scope to set and interpret its own rules. Out of 91 employment-related court cases since the bank’s inception, the ECB has won 71. Regardless of the legal implications, the union warned that the ECB’s approach undermines its institutional integrity and damages its credibility.  “Silencing staff representatives or whistleblowers prevents legitimate issues from being addressed and erodes trust in the institution,” it said. “Reputation cannot be protected by censorship — it must be earned through sound governance, transparency and open dialogue.” It sees the letter as part of a broader pattern in which the ECB has sought to restrict trade union activity and control staff representation, including planned changes to a representation framework that would limit the participation of union members in the ECB staff committee. IPSO is the sole trade union recognized by the ECB and holds seven out of the nine seats on the ECB’s staff committee, which is elected by all ECB staff. The ECB, for its part, has rejected much of the criticism emerging from survey organized by the union and the staff committee, which showed widespread distrust of leadership, surging burnout levels, and complaints about favoritism. The ECB has called the surveys methodologically flawed and unreliable.

LONDON — It was June 2019, and the president of the United States was taking tea with the future British king.  The meeting between Donald Trump and then Prince Charles was scheduled to last 15 minutes. It stretched to an hour and a half.   Trump could barely get a word in edgeways. Charles did “most of the talking,” the president told a TV interviewer the day after they met.   One topic dominated. “He is …” Trump said, hesitating momentarily, “… he is really into climate change.”  Without global action on the climate, Charles wrote back in 2010, the world is on “the brink of potential disaster.” At the London royal residence Clarence House during Trump’s first U.K. state visit, face-to-face with its most powerful inhabitant, Charles decided to speak on behalf of the planet.  It was tea with a side of climate catastrophe.   Six years on, the stage is set for Charles — now king — to try to sway the president again. A second term Trump — bolder, brasher, and no less destructive to global efforts to tackle climate change — is heading back to the U.K. for an unprecedented second state visit and to another meeting with the king. They meet at Windsor Castle on Wednesday.  In the years between the two visits — with extreme weather events, wildfires and flooding increasingly attributed to a changing climate — Charles’ convictions have only strengthened, say those who know him well.  “His views have not changed and will not change. If anything I think he feels it, probably, more strongly than ever,” said the broadcaster Jonathan Dimbleby, a friend and biographer of the king. “It seems self-evident to me, therefore, that he would regard President Trump’s attitude towards climate change and the environment as potentially calamitous.”   But stakes are higher for the king in 2025 than in 2019. The meeting represents an extraordinary influencing opportunity for a monarch who has spent his life deploying “soft power” in the service of cherished environmental causes. But now he is head of state, any overtly political conversation about climate change risks stress-testing the U.K.’s constitutional settlement between government and monarch.  Charles has a duty, says constitutional expert Craig Prescott, to “support the [elected] government of the day in what they want to achieve in foreign relations.”  And “in a broad sense,” he added, “that means ‘getting on the good side of Trump.’”  The meeting between Donald Trump and then Prince Charles was scheduled to last 15 minutes. It stretched to an hour and a half. | Pool Photo by Toby Melville via Getty Images Labour’s focus on an ambitious green transition, though, gives the king some leeway to speak in favor of international climate action.  Both Dimbleby and Ian Skelly, a former speechwriter for Charles who co-wrote his 2010 book Harmony, expect him to do exactly that.  “I would be astonished if in this meeting, as at the last meeting , he does not raise the issue of climate change and biodiversity in any chance he has to speak privately to Trump,” said Dimbleby.   The king will be “diplomatic,” Dimbleby added, and would heed his “constitutional duty,” avoiding “saying anything that will allow Trump to think there is a bus ticket between him and the British government. … But he won’t avoid the issue. He cares about it too much.”  “He knows exactly where the limits are,” said Skelly. “He’s not going to start banging the table or anything. … He will outline his concerns in general terms, I have no doubt about that — and perhaps warn the most powerful person in the world about the dangers of doing nothing.”  Buckingham Palace and Downing Street declined to comment when asked whether the king would raise climate with Trump, or whether this has been discussed in preparations for the state visit.  HAVE YOU READ MY BOOK, MR. PRESIDENT?  In the time since that tea at Clarence House, the President has shown no sign that Charles’ entreaties on the part of the planet had any impact. (And they didn’t have much effect at the time, by one insider’s account. Trump complained the conversation “had been terrible,” wrote former White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham in her memoir.  “‘Nothing but climate change,’ he groused, rolling his eyes.”)  The U.S. has once again withdrawn from the Paris climate accords. Trump’s Department of Energy has rejected established climate science. America’s fossil fuel firms and investors — some of whom helped Trump get elected — have been invited to “Drill, baby, drill.”  With America out of the fight, the world’s chances of avoiding the direst consequences of climate change have taken a serious blow.  Charles, on the other hand, has only grown more convinced that climate change, unchecked, will cause “inevitable catastrophes,” as he put it in Harmony, his cri-de-coeur on saving the planet.  Dimbleby predicted that, this time around, one subtle way allowing the king to make his point would be to gift Trump a copy of that book — a treatise on environmentalism, traditional wisdom and sustainability that diagnoses “a spiritual void” in modern societies, a void which has “opened the way for what many people see as an excessive personal focus.”  “I’m sure [the king] won’t let [Trump] out of his sight before giving him a copy,” said Dimbleby. Chinese Premier (and Trump’s main geopolitical rival) Xi Jinping already has a copy, said Skelly.  But the meeting comes at a time when Prime Minister Keir Starmer — boxed in politically by the need to keep the U.S. on side for the sake of trade, Ukraine and European security — has avoided openly criticizing the Trump administration’s attacks on climate science or its embrace of fossil fuels.  His government will not want the king to say or do anything that upsets transatlantic relations. Even when the president, sitting next to Starmer, trashed wind energy ­— the main pillar of U.K. decarbonization plans — on a July visit to his Turnberry golf course in Scotland, the prime minister mustered no defense beyond quietly insisting the U.K. was pursuing a “mix” of energy sources.  If Trump starts railing against windmills again in his chat to the king, he might get a (slightly) more robust response, predicted Skelly. “The response to that will be: ‘What else are we going to do without destroying the Earth?’ That’s the question he’ll come back with, I’d imagine.”  HOW TO TALK TO TRUMP ABOUT CLIMATE  Some who have worked with Trump think that, because of the unique place Britain and the royals occupy in his worldview, Charles stands a better chance than most in getting the president to listen.  “President Trump isn’t going to become an environmentalist over a cup of tea with the king. But I think he’ll definitely hear him out — in a way that maybe he wouldn’t with other folks,” said Michael Martins, founder of the firm Overton Advisory, who was a political and economic specialist at the U.S. embassy in London during the last state visit.  “He likes the pageantry. He likes the optics of it. … Engaging with a king, Trump will feel he’s on the same footing. He will give him more of a hearing than if it was, I don’t know … Ed Miliband.”  Trump has even declared his “love” for Charles.  The royal admiration comes from Trump’s mother. Scottish-born Mary Anne Trump “loved the Queen,” Trump said in July. The ratings-obsessed president appears to consider the late monarch the ultimate TV star. “Whenever the queen was on television, [my mother] wanted to watch,” he said during July’s Turnberry visit.    The king could benefit from an emotional link to First Lady Melania Trump, too. She was present at the 2019 meeting and sat next to Charles at the state banquet that year. In her 2024 memoir, Melania says they “engaged in an interesting conversation about his deep-rooted commitment to environmental conservation.”  She and Trump “exchange letters with King Charles to this day,” Melania wrote. TAKING TEA AT THE END OF THE WORLD  The king will have plenty of chances to make his case.   A state visit provides “quite a lot of time to talk” for monarch and president, said one former senior British government official, granted anonymity to discuss the royals and their relationship with government.  There will be a state banquet plus at least one private meeting in between, they said. Charles may also be able to sneak some choice phrases into any speech he gives at the banquet. Trump’s chief U.K. political ally is Nigel Farage, whose anti-net-zero Reform UK currently lead opinion polls. | John Keeble/Getty Images The king receives regular briefing papers from the Foreign Office. As the meeting looms, the same person suggested, he may be preparing thoughts on how to combine a lifetime’s campaigning and reading with those briefings, to shape the opportunity to lobby a president.  “He will be reading his foreign policy material with even more interest than normal. He will probably be thinking about whether there is any way in which he can pitch his arguments to Trump that will shift him — a little bit — toward putting his shoulder to the climate change wheel,” the former senior official said.    “He won’t say: ‘You, America, should be doing stuff.’ He will say, ‘Internationally I think it is important we make progress on this and we need to be more ambitious.’ Or he might express concern about some of the impacts of climate change on global weather and all these extreme weather events.”  However he approaches it, 2019 showed how tough it is to move the dial.  After that conversation, Trump told broadcaster Piers Morgan that he thought Charles’ views were “great” and that he had “totally listened to him.” But then he demonstrated that — on the crucial points of how fossil fuels, carbon emissions and climate change are affecting the planet — he totally hadn’t.    “He wants to make sure future generations have climate that is good climate, as opposed to a disaster,” Trump said. “And I agree,” he added, before promptly pivoting to an apparent non-sequitur about the U.S. having “crystal clean” water. It was a typically Trumpian obfuscation. Asked about the king’s views during the Turnberry visit, Trump said: “Every time I met with him, he talked about the environment, how important it is. I’m all for it. I think that’s great.”  In nearly the same breath, he ranted about wind energy being “a disaster.”  GOOD LUCK, CHARLIE  “It is difficult, if not impossible, to see [Trump] change his views on climate change, because they’re not informed by his understanding of the science or consequences, but rather by naked politics,” said leading U.S. climate scientist Michael Mann in emailed remarks.   And Trump will come to the meeting prepared, said Martins, the former U.S. Embassy official. “Trump will receive the full briefing on the king’s views on environment. He won’t be going into that blind. He’ll know exactly what the king has said over his career and what his views are on it and how it affects American interests. I don’t anticipate him being surprised by anything the king says.”   He added: “Bashing net zero and President Biden … gets [Trump] political wins.”    To Charles’ long-standing domestic critics, it all highlights the pointlessness of his position.  Donald Trump has even declared his “love” for King Charles III. | Pool Photo by Richard Pohle via Getty Images “He is bound by these constitutional expectations that he does nothing that will upset the apple cart [in U.K./U.S. relations],” said Graham Smith, chief executive of campaign group Republic, which calls for the abolition of the monarchy. “If he was elected, he’d have a lot more freedom to say what he actually wants.”  “Soft power is a highly questionable concept,” added Smith. It’s only useful, he argued, when backed by something Charles lacks and Trump has by the bucket-load: “Hard power.”  And time may be running out for Charles to deploy even soft power in the climate fight.   Trump’s chief U.K. political ally is Nigel Farage, whose anti-net-zero Reform UK currently lead opinion polls. If British voters pick Reform at the next election, Charles’ potential advocacy would be restrained by a government opposed to action on climate change.  So how far will Charles go to seize his moment?  He wrote in Harmony: “If we continue to be deluded by the increasingly irresponsible clamour of sceptical voices that doubt man-made climate change, it will soon be too late to reverse the chaos we have helped to unleash.” He feared “failing in my duty to future generations and to the Earth itself” if he did not speak up.   Skelly, the former speechwriter who co-wrote the book, predicted that Charles would walk a fine diplomatic line — but was “not someone to sit on his hands or to remain silent.”   “He was warning about these things 30 years ago and nobody was listening. … He feels increasingly frustrated that time is running out.   “I’d love to be a fly on the wall — because it will be a fascinating conversation.”

HOW DONALD TRUMP BECAME PRESIDENT OF EUROPE The U.S. president describes himself as the European Union’s de facto leader. Is he wrong? By NICHOLAS VINOCUR Illustration by Justin Metz for POLITICO European federalists, rejoice! The European Union finally has a bona fide president. The only problem: He lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C., aka the White House. U.S. President Donald Trump claimed the title during one of his recent off-the-cuff Oval Office banter sessions, asserting that EU leaders refer to him as “the president of Europe.”  The comment provoked knowing snickers in Brussels, where officials assured POLITICO that nobody they knew ever referred to Trump that way. But it also captured an embarrassing reality: EU leaders have effectively offered POTUS a seat at the head of their table. From the NATO summit in June, when Trump revealed a text message in which NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte called him “daddy,” to the EU-U.S. trade accord signed in Scotland where EU leaders consented to a deal so lopsided in Washington’s favor it resembled a surrender, it looks like Trump has a point. Never since the creation of the EU has a U.S. president wielded such direct influence over European affairs. And never have the leaders of the EU’s 27 countries appeared so willing — desperate even — to hold up a U.S. president as a figure of authority to be praised, cajoled, lobbied, courted, but never openly contradicted. In off-the-record briefings, EU officials frame their deference to Trump as a necessary ploy to keep him engaged in European security and Ukraine’s future. But there’s no indication that, having supposedly done what it takes to keep the U.S. on side, Europe’s leaders are now trying to reassert their authority. On the contrary, EU leaders now appear to be offering Trump a role in their affairs even when he hasn’t asked for it. A case in point: When a group of leaders traveled to Washington this summer to urge Trump to apply pressure to Russian President Vladimir Putin (he ignored them), they also asked him to prevail on his “friend,” Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, to lift his block on Ukraine’s eventual membership to the EU, per a Bloomberg report. Trump duly picked up the phone. And while there’s no suggestion Orbán changed his tune on Ukraine, the fact that EU leaders felt compelled to ask the U.S. president to unstick one of their internal conflicts only further secured his status as a de facto European powerbroker. “He may never be Europe’s president, but he can be its godfather,” said one EU diplomat who, like others in this piece, was granted anonymity to speak candidly. “The appropriate analogy is more criminal. We’re dealing with a mafia boss exerting extortionate influence over the businesses he purports to protect.” “BRUSSELS EFFECT” It was not long ago that the EU could describe itself credibly as a trade behemoth and a “regulatory superpower” able to command respect thanks to its vast consumer market and legal reach. EU leaders boasted of a “Brussels effect” that bent the behavior of corporations or foreign governments to European legal standards, even if they weren’t members of the bloc. Anthony Gardner, a former U.S. ambassador to the EU, recalls that when Washington was negotiating a trade deal with the EU known as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership in the 2010s, the U.S. considered Europe to be an equal peer. “Since the founding of the EEC [European Economic Community], America’s position was that we want a strong Europe,” said Gardner. “And we had lots of disagreements with the EU, particularly on trade. But the way to deal with those is not through bullying.” One sign of the EU’s confidence was its willingness to take on the U.S.’s biggest companies, as it did in 2001 when the European Commission blocked a planned $42 billion acquisition of Honeywell by General Electric. That was the beginning of more than a decade of assertive competition policy, with the bloc’s heavyweight officials like former antitrust czar Margrethe Vestager grandstanding in front of the world’s press and threatening to break up Google on antitrust grounds, or forcing Apple to pay back an eye-watering €13 billion over its tax arrangements in Ireland. Compare that to last week, when the Commission was expected to fine Google for its search advertising practices. The decision was at first delayed at the request of EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič, then quietly publicized via a press release and an explanatory video on Friday afternoon that did not feature the commissioner in charge, Teresa Ribera. (Neither move prevented Trump from announcing in a Truth Social post that his “Administration will NOT allow these discriminatory actions to stand.”) “I’ve never seen anything like this in my entire career at the Commission,” said a senior Commission official. “Trump is inside the machine at this point.” Since Trump’s reelection, EU leaders have been exceptionally careful in how they speak about the U.S. president, with two options seemingly available: Silence, or praise. “At this moment, Estonia and many European countries support what Trump is doing,” Estonian President Alar Karis said in a recent POLITICO interview, referring to the U.S. president’s efforts to push Putin toward a peace with Ukraine. Never mind the fact that the Pentagon recently axed security funding for countries like his and is expected to follow up by reducing U.S. troop numbers there too. It became fashionable among the cognoscenti ahead of the NATO summit in June to claim that the U.S. president had done Europe a favor by casting doubt on his commitment to the military alliance. Only by Trump’s cold kiss, the thinking went, would this Sleeping Beauty of a continent ever “wake up.” As for Mark Rutte’s “Daddy” comment — humiliatingly leaked from a private text message exchange by Trump himself — it was a clever ploy to appeal to the U.S. president’s ego. Unfortunately for EU leaders, the pretense that Trump somehow has Europe’s interests in mind and was merely doling out “tough love” was dispelled just a few months later when European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen signed the EU-U.S. trade deal in Turnberry, Scotland. This time, there was no disguising the true nature of what had transpired between Europe and the U.S.  The wolfish grins of Trump White House bigwigs Stephen Miller and Howard Lutnick on the official signing photograph told the whole story: Trump had laid down brutal, humiliating terms. Europe had effectively surrendered. Many in Brussels interpreted the deal in the same way.  “You won’t hear me use that word [negotiation]” to describe what transpired between Europe and the U.S., veteran EU trade negotiator Sabine Weyand told a recent panel. BLAME GAME As EU officials settle in for la rentrée, the shock of these past few months has led to finger-pointing: Does the blame for this double whammy of subjugation lie with the European Commission, or with the EU’s 27 heads of state and government? It’s tempting to point to the Commission, which, after all, has an exclusive mandate to negotiate trade deals on behalf of all EU countries. In the days leading up to Turnberry, von der Leyen and her top trade official, Šefčovič, could theoretically have taken a page from China’s playbook and struck back at the U.S. threat of 15 percent tariffs with tariffs of their own. Indeed, the EU’s trade arsenal is fully stocked with the means to do so, not least via the Anti-Coercion Instrument designed for precisely such situations. But to heap all the blame on the doorstep of the Berlaymont isn’t fair, argues Gardner, the former U.S. ambassador to the EU. The real architects of Europe’s summer of humiliation are the leaders who prevailed on the Commission to go along with Trump’s demands, whatever the cost. “What I am saying is that the member states have shown a lack of solidarity at a crucial moment,” said Gardner. The consequences of this collective failure, he warns, may reverberate for years, if not decades: “The first message here is that the most effective way for big trading blocs to win over Europe is to ruthlessly use leverage to divide the European Union. The second message, which maybe wasn’t fully taken into account: Member states may be asking themselves: What is the EU good for if it can’t provide a shield on trade?” The same goes for regulation: Trump’s repeated threates of tariffs if the bloc dares to test his patience reveal the limits of EU sovereignty when it comes to the so-called “Brussels effect.” And that leaves the bloc in desperate need of a new narrative about its role on the world stage. The reasons why EU leaders decided to fold, rather than fight, are plain to see. They were laid bare in a recent speech by António Costa, who as president of the European Council convenes the EU leaders in their summits. “Escalating tensions with a key ally over tariffs, while our eastern border is under threat, would have been an imprudent risk,” Costa said. But none of this answers the question: What now?  If Europe has already ceded so much to Trump, is the entire bloc condemned to vassalhood or, as some commentators have prophesied, a “century of humiliation” on par with the fate of the Qing dynasty following China’s Opium Wars with Britain? Possibly — though a century seems like a long time.  Among the steaming heaps of garbage, there are a few green shoots. To wit: The fact that polls indicate that the average European wants a tougher, more sovereign Europe and blames leaders rather than “the EU” for failing to deliver faster on benchmarks like a “European Defense Union.” Europe’s current leaders (with a few exceptions, such as Denmark’s Mette Frederiksen) may be united in their embrace of Trump as Europe’s Godfather. But there is one Cassandra-like figure who refuses to let them off the hook for failing to deliver a more sovereign EU — former Italian prime minister and European Central Bank chief Mario Draghi. Author of the “Draghi Report,” a tome of recommendations on how Europe can pull itself back up by the bootstraps, the 78-year-old is refusing to go quietly into retirement. On the contrary, in one speech after another, he’s reminding EU leaders that they were the ones to ask for the report they are now ignoring. Speaking in Rimini, Italy, last month, Europe’s Cassandra summed up the challenge facing the Old World: In the past, he said, “the EU could act primarily as a regulator and arbiter, avoiding the harder question of political integration.” “To face today’s challenges, the European Union must transform itself from a spectator — or at best a supporting actor — into a protagonist.”

LONDON — Westminster’s love of flags shows no sign of … flagging. St George’s Crosses and Union Jacks are flapping across the U.K. following an online campaign dubbed #OperationRaisetheColours. The guerrilla movement has seen flags hung from lampposts, bridges and even painted on roundabouts. It comes after a heated summer of anti-migration protests and amid an ongoing national debate about identity. Now, politicians of all stripes are desperately trying to show that they are true patriots — without endorsing the far right. POLITICO runs through five politicians totally convincingly getting in on the act. An online campaign has seen English and U.K. flags hung from street furniture and even painted on roundabouts, amid a heated summer of protests. | Christopher Furlong/Getty Images KEIR STARMER Buttoned-up, lawyerly Prime Minister Starmer has long wrapped himself in the flag, and told the BBC Monday he was “very encouraging” of people letting the fabric fly. He went one step further, saying he personally always sits “in front of a Union Jack,” and that his family has a “St George’s flag in our flat.” His spokesperson later said they were “limited in how much I can comment on the size of his flag.” A totally normal day. YVETTE COOPER Not to be outdone, Britain’s home secretary effectively declared herself the biggest flag waver ever to have lived. “I have not just the St George’s flag, I have St George’s bunting,” Cooper told Times Radio. “I have also Union Jack bunting which is currently still hanging up in my garden shed.” There was no stopping her after that. “I have Union Jack flags. We have Yorkshire Rose flags and bunting as well. I actually even have some Yorkshire Tea bunting,” the home secretary gleefully added as the interviewers tried to get a word in edgeways. As for where flags should be hung, here was a policy the hardline Cooper had an unashamedly liberal stance on. “Oh put ‘em up anywhere,” she said. Stick that in the next Labour campaign ad! | Andy Rain/EPA ROBERT JENRICK Sure, Labour types can talk the talk, but are they willing to put their lives on the line? Jenrick, the man-of-action shadow justice secretary — talked up as a future Conservative leader — did his duty by erecting a flag halfway up a very tall lamppost. “While Britain-hating councils take down our own flags, we raise them up,” Jenrick thundered. Unwilling to stop at just one lamppost, Jenrick had many flags flying by the end of the day with his little gang of pals. NIGEL FARAGE A long-standing wearer of Union Jack socks, the leader of Britain’s populist-right Reform UK has said national flags “should, and will, fly across the country.” He added: “Reform UK will never shy away from celebrating our nation.” Reform UK leader Nigel Farage’s Union Jack socks. | Erik S. Lesser/EPA Just to show he meant business, Farage posed with a properly massive Union Jack last week as he outlined the party’s migration plans (although one of his councils has had to rein in over-enthusiastic flag-enjoyers from taking matters into their own hands.) BORIS JOHNSON Johnson may be out of the fray these days, but the former British prime minister was a flag-waving trailblazer. As London mayor, Johnson flew the English flag over City Hall in 2009 in a bid to “reclaim” the symbol from the far right. Johnson’s greatest flag moment came when he was left stranded on a 45 meter zip line waving two Union Jacks during the 2012 London Olympics. Makes you proud to be British. BUT BEWARE! Flags can kill (careers.) Labour politician Emily Thornberry faced a furious backlash after she tweeted an image of three England flags hanging outside a house with a white van on its drive while Labour was fighting a crucial by-election in 2014. The post was seized on by critics as a patronizing sign that Labour had lost touch with the country. The van owner demanded an apology. Her boss Ed Miliband said he was “angry.” Thornberry resigned as shadow attorney general soon after, in what was 100 percent a real story that dominated British political discourse for weeks.

François Bayrou, France’s latest embattled prime minister, is blaming the country’s 19 million over-60s for pushing state finances to the brink. Looking likely to be the latest French leader to fall on his sword, Bayrou is going down fighting — albeit fighting old people. The working-age population faces “slavery,” he said, because it’s having to repay “loans that were light-heartedly taken out by previous generations.” Bayrou wants to force through €43.8 billion worth of budget cuts to bring French spending under control. But he faces a largely hostile French parliament, with the left and the right signaling they will vote him down at a confidence vote he’s called on Sept. 8. Where France, Europe’s second-largest economy, is going, the rest of the continent will probably follow. Not only do the country’s unsustainable finances threaten to drag the rest of the EU into a debt crisis of the kind that rocked the eurozone a decade and a half ago, but France’s troubles foreshadow a phenomenon that’s going to hit pretty much every European country sooner rather than later: Populations are getting older, meaning there are fewer workers to pay for an ever greater number of pensioners. How governments tackle that could be the challenge of our age.  NOT OK, BOOMER Bayrou, born in 1951, is blaming his fellow boomers. The over-60s make up over one-quarter of France’s population ― a share that is expected to rise to a third by 2040. They are either drawing a pension or about to, putting increasing pressure on France’s exploding public debt, which now exceeds €3.3 trillion.  The centrist prime minister, allied to President Emmanuel Macron, staked his reputation on insisting there’s no alternative to a path of fiscal rectitude. France’s €400 billion annual pensions bill is equal to 14 percent of national gross domestic product. The costs will increase by €50 billion by 2035, while a decade later the bill will be a cool half a trillion euros. Bayrou, a former justice and education minister who has tried three times to become president, has long been a proponent of putting the national books in order. But going after the oldies in such a blatant way is a new twist.  That’s probably because he knows he’s got little left to lose. As France’s third prime minister in a year, Bayrou has served a little under nine months and doesn’t look likely to make it past that. France’s Socialist party, which Bayrou would once have counted on as an ally, has turned its back on him over pensions reform — an issue that exploded after the government raised the retirement age from 62 to 64. Last week, Bayrou warned that young people will be the biggest victims of the ballooning debt.  The over-60s make up over one-quarter of France’s population ― a share that is expected to rise to a third by 2040. | Patrick Landmann/Getty Images “All this to help … boomers, as they say, who from this point of view consider that everything is just fine,” he said in a televised interview. He has since clarified that he never advocated “targeting boomers” ― technically those born between 1946 and 1964 when the postwar population exploded ― but the message is clear: The older generation needs to do some belt tightening. “There is a risk of cannibalization, whereby we finance the present and the past at the expense of the future, and we are doing this more and more,” said Maxime Sbaihi, a fellow and former director of Institute Montaigne, an economic think tank. “The French are not aware of the demographic situation in France, they think that France is a young country, that we can stop working at 60, there is a kind of collective imagination that is difficult to shake,” he added. This ignorance, he said, is leading France toward a brutal, painful adjustment of its social system. TO THE GUILLOTINE! France’s pensions bill accounts for one-quarter of all government spending; Italy is the only European country paying out a larger share proportionate to its economy. Pensions account for over half of France’s €839 billion increase in public debt between 2018 and 2023, former Treasury official Jean-Pascal Beaufret warned. “For us millennials, Bayrou’s speech about boomers … will be our Robespierre at the Convention of the 8th of Thermidor,” Ronan Planchon, a journalist for the conservative newspaper Le Figaro, wrote on X, a reference to how the French revolutionary leader was sent to the guillotine after denouncing his own compatriots. Bayrou has warned the biggest victims of the ballooning debt will be young people.  | Alain Jocard/AFP via Getty Images Pensions have long been a political taboo, with France nearly always seeing street protests whenever an overhaul is mooted. Fresh demonstrations are planned for Sept. 10.  But given the country’s aging population, politicians are reluctant to challenge a group that represents a big slice of their vote, and that holds the lion’s share of the country’s wealth and savings. Compared to other items on the budget, pensions are particularly hard to adjust, said Hippolyte d’Albis, an economist and professor at the ESSEC Business School. “It’s an expenditure that is binding on society because the parameters that determine it — most notably the annual indexation of basic pensions — are set by law and can only be changed by passing a new law,” he said.  In 2024 the national deficit stood at 6.1 percent of GDP — double the 3 percent allowed under the EU’s fiscal rules. Paris forecasts that the deficit will not fall below 3 percent until 2029.  Economy Minister Eric Lombard suggested things could get bad enough to require the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to bail the country out — treatment usually reserved for financial basket cases like Argentina. He backtracked a few hours later after a large wobble in the stock market.  François Bayrou wants to force through €43.8 billion worth of budget cuts to bring French spending under control. | Christophe Petit Tesson/EPA The markets are already well aware of France’s troubling fiscal trajectory; the country has already had its credit rating cut by the major credit ratings agencies. It’s now a stone’s throw away from seeing its borrowing costs surpass those of Italy, long a byword for reckless spending and unsustainable debt.   France’s pensions system is unbalanced, but in demographic terms the country is actually a lot better off than many of its peers, with the second-highest fertility rate in the EU, at 1.7 births per woman. Italy and Spain, for example, face an even more stark fiscal cliff as the population ages, with only 1.1 to 1.2 births per woman. “France is the developed country where the standard of living in retirement is the highest compared to the average standard of living of working people,” said Thierry Pech, director general of progressive think tank Terra Nova. He said that raising the working age, which France has already done, is in some ways the “most brutal method.” “It wouldn’t be unfair to involve the wealthiest retirees,” he said. “But it would require a bit of political courage and a lot of education.” 

Villa Certosa, the sprawling Sardinian estate of late Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi long associated with his notorious “bunga bunga” parties, is officially on the market. Local daily La Nuova Sardegna reported last week that negotiations are advancing on the property, valued at around €500 million. But Berlusconi’s holding company Fininvest downplayed the claims, saying the group is reviewing “various expressions of interest” and that no deal has been finalized. Now owned by Berlusconi’s five children — the flamboyant former leader having died in 2023 — the villa is being marketed by Sotheby’s International Realty in collaboration with Knight Castle Real Estate. At the reported asking price it could rank among the world’s priciest private homes, according to data from Mansion Global. The estate, once known as Villa Monastero, was acquired by Berlusconi in 1980 and became the late prime minister’s most treasured property, hosting world leaders such as Russian President Vladimir Putin, former U.S. President George W. Bush and former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair. But the 4,500-square-meter seafront residence also gained renown as the backdrop to infamous “bunga bunga” parties, the sex-fueled soirées that dogged Berlusconi’s political career. Located on the exclusive Costa Smeralda, the estate features terraced gardens filled with cacti and faux megaliths, multiple swimming pools, and guest bungalows clustered around a man-made volcano. Its more extravagant touches include a secret sea cave with boat access, a Poseidon-themed pool, a Roman-style amphitheater, and a nuclear-grade underground bunker. By government decree, Berlusconi in 2004 defined the residence as an “alternative location of maximum security for the safety of the Prime Minister,” shielding it under state secrecy laws despite ongoing probes into possible environmental violations. The villa has been rumored to be for sale before, in 2010 and 2015, though Berlusconi at the time denied it. Speculation has swirled again since his passing, with reported (but unconfirmed) interest from the Sultan of Brunei Hassanal Bolkiah and the hotel group Four Seasons.