LONDON — Prime Minister Keir Starmer usually goes out of his way not to annoy Donald Trump. So he better hope the windmill-hating U.S. president doesn’t notice what the U.K. just did. In a fillip for the global offshore wind industry, Starmer’s government on Wednesday announced its biggest-ever down payment on the technology. It agreed to price guarantees, funded by billpayers to the tune of up to £1.8 billion (€2.08 billion) a year, for eight major projects in England, Scotland and Wales. The schemes have the capacity to generate 8.4 gigawatts of electricity, the U.K. energy department said — enough to power 12 million homes. It represented the biggest “wind auction in Europe to date,” said industry group WindEurope. It’s also an energy strategy that could have been tailor-made to rankle Trump. The U.S. president has repeatedly expressed a profound loathing for wind turbines and has tried to use his powers to halt construction on projects already underway in the U.S. — sending shockwaves across the global industry. Even when appearing alongside Starmer at press conferences, Trump has been unable to hide his disgust at the very sight of windmills. “You are paying in Scotland and in the U.K. … to have these ugly monsters all over the place,” he said, sitting next to Starmer during a visit to his Turnberry golf course last year. The spinning blades, Trump complained, would “kill all your birds.” At the time, the prime minister explained meekly that the U.K. was seeking a “mix” of energy sources. But this week’s investments speak far louder about his government’s priorities. The U.K.’s strategy — part of a plan to run the British power grid on 95 percent clean electricity by 2030 — is a clear signal that for all Starmer’s attempts to appease Trump, the U.K. will not heed Washington’s assertions that fossil fuels are the only way to deliver affordable bills and secure supply. “With these results, Britain is taking back control of our energy sovereignty,” said Starmer’s Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, a former leader of the Labour party. “With these results, Britain is taking back control of our energy sovereignty,” said Energy Secretary Ed Miliband. | Pool photo by Justin Tallis via Getty Images While not mentioning Trump or the U.S., he said the U.K. wanted to “stand on our two feet” and not depend on “markets controlled by petrostates and dictators.” WIND VS. GAS The goal of the U.K.’s offshore wind drive is to reduce reliance on gas for electricity generation. One of the most gas-dependent countries in Europe, the U.K. was hit hard in 2022 by the regional gas price spike that followed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The government ended up spending tens of billions of pounds to pay a portion of every household energy bill in the country to fend off widespread hardship. It’s a scenario that Miliband and Starmer want to avoid in future by focusing on producing electricity from domestic sources like offshore wind that are not subject to the ups and downs of global fossil fuel markets. Trump, by contrast, wants to keep Europe hooked on gas — specifically, American gas. The U.S. National Security Strategy, updated late last year, states Trump’s desire to use American fossil fuel exports to “project power.” Trump has already strong-armed the European Union into committing to buy $750 billion worth of American liquefied natural gas (LNG) as a quid pro quo for tariff relief. No one in Starmer’s government explicitly named Trump or the U.S. on Wednesday. But Chris Stark, a senior official in Miliband’s energy department tasked with delivering the 2030 goal, noted that “every megawatt of offshore wind that we’re bringing on is a few more metric tons of LNG that we don’t need to import.” The U.K.’s investment in offshore wind also provides welcome relief to a global industry that has been seriously shaken both by soaring inflation and interest rates — and more recently by a Trump-inspired backlash against net zero and clean energy. “It’s a relief for the offshore sector … It’s a relief generally, that the U.K. government is able to lean into very large positive investment stories in U.K. infrastructure,” said Tom Glover, U.K. country chair of the German energy firm RWE, which was the biggest winner in the latest offshore wind investment, securing contracts for 6.9 gigawatts of capacity. A second energy industry figure, granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the record, said the U.K.’s plans were a “great signal for the global offshore wind sector” after a difficult few years — “not least the stuff in the U.S.” The other big winner was British firm SSE, which has plans to build one of the world’s largest-ever offshore wind projects, Berwick Bank — off the coast of Donald Trump’s beloved Scotland.

LONDON — Dorian Gerhold already had his doubts about plans for a Holocaust memorial in the heart of Westminster when he discovered something unexpected. “I spent a morning at the London archives, and it was very easy to find that there was actually an act of Parliament that said that the southern part of Victoria Tower gardens could not be built on,” he recalled. The retired parliamentary clerk, who for 33 years walked to work through the small strip of green on the north side of the River Thames, had begun researching the proposals for a memorial out of curiosity about how the site was chosen. His discovery in 2018 proved a serious setback to an initiative begun four years earlier under David Cameron’s government, which set up a commission to plan a monument to ensure that “in 50 years’ time the memory and lessons of the Holocaust will be as strong and as vibrant as today.” Twelve years and several changes of prime minister later, construction on the site, on the north side of the River Thames, has not yet begun. Ministers were forced to legislate to repeal the building ban discovered by Gerhold — and that bill is still crawling its way through parliament. Far from commanding national consensus, the endeavor has driven a wedge between politicians, local residents and Jews in Britain. Supporters believe the project has already been delayed for too long. They say its completion is all the more urgent because the Holocaust is receding further from living memory. But its vociferous critics fear the memorial will oversimplify the U.K.’s relationship with its past, and fudge questions about present-day antisemitism.  Martin Stern, who survived concentration camps at Westerbork and Theresienstadt, told POLITICO there is “parochialism” to the way the Holocaust is remembered today. “I narrowly survived because, for some reason, my name and my sister’s name were not on the list when children were being loaded for the train to Auschwitz. It’s very close to me, but that doesn’t mean I want everybody just to be deeply immersed in only about me.” ‘STRIKING AND PROMINENT’ There is almost no aspect of the memorial, which will feature 23 large bronze fin structures and an underground learning center in the park next to the Palace of Westminster, which isn’t contested. Most hotly debated of all is the location. A site was not specified in the original Commission report, which stated only that the new memorial should be “striking and prominent.” A year after the report, Cameron announced it would be built in Victoria Tower Gardens to “show the importance Britain places on preserving the memory of the Holocaust.” The choice sparked consternation among local residents and users of the park, who complained it would dominate the space and detract from its existing monuments, the Burghers of Calais and a memorial to the anti-slavery campaigner Richard Buxton. There is almost no aspect of the memorial, which will feature 23 large bronze fin structures and an underground learning center in the park next to the Palace of Westminster, which isn’t contested. | Vuk Valcic/Sopa/Images/LightRocket via Getty Images After the government threw its weight behind the Westminster location, it was subject to several legal challenges, which were decided against the site and eventually necessitated legislation to override the relevant statute.  Others have criticised the placement on security grounds. Alex Carlile, a lawyer, crossbench peer and former reviewer of counter-terror legislation, has argued that placing it so close to parliament is a “lure to terrorists.” The design and cost of the memorial have attracted further criticism. The fin-like structure was devised by David Adjaye, a renowned British-Ghanaian architect who has since faced allegations of sexual harassment, which he denies.  Ruth Deech, a crossbench peer whose father arrived in Britain after fleeing Poland at the start of the Second World War, said: “As soon I saw the design and the concept, I felt instinctively it did not do honor to my grandparents, my family, because the design is meaningless.” “The Jewish tradition of remembering departed souls would be a light,” she added. “That’s what you do for people who die. You don’t build something that looks like a dinosaur’s rib cage.” The memorial, which will be partly funded by the taxpayer with additional money from donations, has ballooned in cost from an estimated £50 million at its inception to £138.8 million in 2023. HOW TO REMEMBER The concept of a “learning center” has also proved to be a fraught one.  A year after the report, Cameron announced it would be built in Victoria Tower Gardens to “show the importance Britain places on preserving the memory of the Holocaust.” | Dan Kitwood/Getty Images Stern balked at the term, arguing: “The concept of education is much deeper than the concept of learning… If you’re having a center in London that is intended to teach people about these things, to provide a national resource, it needs to be much bigger.” Deech warned that it will give “a very, very limited, almost misleading account of Britain and the Holocaust when what we really need is an overall exposition of a whole of Jewish life in Britain over 1,000 years.” There was until recently a Jewish Museum based in north London, which closed its doors two years ago due to lack of funds. Opponents have raised concerns about the contents and focus of the learning center — in particular, the prospect that it could become a more generalized exhibit about genocides, which does not treat the Holocaust as distinct. Members of the House of Lords recently passed an amendment designed to ensure it would specifically commemorate the mass slaughter of Jews by the Nazis. Discussions about how to enact this requirement are ongoing, according to one person working on the bill, granted anonymity to speak freely — part of the reason it has not yet been scheduled to return to parliament. But Deech’s more fundamental fear is that the effect of the Westminster memorial will be to “package the Holocaust in an airtight box — it was 80 years ago. It was German. It was nothing to do with us. Much better today. And that is simply not working anymore.” At this point, the memorial’s historical focus smashes up against the present. Some argue it will make present-day antisemitism worse, locating it conveniently in the past while acting as a physical lightning rod for anti-Jewish hatred. One lawyer, who has carried out research on legal challenges to the site and asked to remain anonymous due to his other public duties, claimed it would “protect the dead but not the living.” URGENT CASE Yet those who have been involved with the project from the beginning insist it is all the more needed in light of the October 7, 2022 attacks on Israel and the war in Gaza. Eric Pickles, a Tory peer who until recently served as the U.K.’s special envoy for post-Holocaust issues, said that the objection the memorial would not engage with wider antisemitism “has no basis in reality.” He told POLITICO the site would have “a great importance in terms of getting out a very solid message against antisemitism” and would “ensure that the narrative after the last survivor is gone is one that’s going to be built on truth and honesty and verifiable fact.” Pickles defended Victoria Tower Gardens as “exactly the right location, right next to Parliament, because ultimately, the Holocaust shows you what happens when governments decide to use all the resources of the state to kill their citizens.” He also stressed that opposition was not universal among local residents, and mostly amounted to “special pleading” by people “who didn’t want this memorial to be near their property.” Olivia Marks-Woldman, chief executive of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, highlighted the link between the function of the memorial and its location. She said that “to have a physical, tangible memorial in the heart of London will be a focal point for a lot of the learning and the commemorations and a reminder of how the Holocaust impacted in Britain.” Marks-Woldman resisted the idea that it will paint Britain’s wartime record in a wholly positive light, pointing out that “while Kindertransportees have rebuilt their lives here… their parents weren’t allowed in, and mostly their parents were murdered.” The long-running debate over the monument has perhaps touched on something wider about the British fondness for raising objections, particularly over building projects. As Danny Finkelstein, a Conservative peer who has recently taken on American far-right commentator Nick Fuentes, has written: “Really you can find some sort of case against everything. Even against creating a small exhibition centre for people to learn how bad the Nazis were.” Barring a massive volte-face, plans for the memorial will clear their legal hurdles this year and work will begin — but deep skepticism about the wisdom of the project is unlikely to fade.

HOW DO BULGARIANS FEEL ABOUT JOINING THE EURO? The Balkan nation is sharply divided about bidding farewell to the lev.  Text by BORYANA DZHAMBAZOVA Photos by DOBRIN KASHAVELOV in Pernik, Bulgaria Bulgaria is set to adopt the EU’s single currency on Jan. 1, but polling shows the Balkan nation is sharply divided on whether it’s a good thing. POLITICO spoke to some Bulgarians about their fears and hopes, as they say goodbye to their national currency, the lev. Their comments have been edited for length. ANTON TEOFILOV, 73 Vendor at the open-air market in Pernik, a small city 100 kilometers from Sofia What do you think about Bulgaria joining the eurozone? We are a different generation, but we support the euro. We’ll benefit hugely from joining the eurozone. It will make paying anywhere in the EU easy and hassle-free. It would be great for both the economy and the nation. You can travel, do business, do whatever you want using a single currency — no more hassle or currency exchanges. You can go to Greece and buy a bottle of ouzo with the same currency. What do you think will change in your everyday life once the euro replaces the lev? I don’t expect any turbulence — from January on we would just pay in euros. No one is complaining about the price tags in euros, and in lev at the moment. Are you more hopeful or worried about the economic impact of switching to the euro? Why? The lev is a wonderful thing, but its time has passed; that’s just how life works. It will be much better for the economy to adopt the euro. It will be so much easier to share a common currency with the other EU countries. Now, if you go to Greece, as many Bulgarians do, you need to exchange money. After January – wherever you need to make a payment – either going to the store, or to buy produce for our business, it would be one and the same. What would you like politicians and institutions to do to make the transition easier for ordinary people? The state needs to explain things more clearly to those who are confused. We are a people who often need a lot of convincing, and on top of that, we’re a divided nation. If you ask me, we need to get rid of half the MPs in Parliament – they receive hefty salaries and are a burden to taxpayers, like parasites, without doing any meaningful work. Do you think joining the eurozone will bring Bulgaria closer to Europe culturally or politically? There are 27 member states, and we will become one with them. There will be no difference between Germany and us—we’ll be much closer to Europe. I remember the 1990s, when you needed to fill out endless paperwork just to travel, let alone to work abroad. I spent a year working in construction in Germany, and getting all the permits and visas was a major headache. Now things are completely different, and joining the eurozone is another step toward that openness. Advertisement PETYA SPASOVA, 55 Orthopedic doctor in Sofia What do you think about Bulgaria joining the eurozone? It worries me a lot. I don’t think this is the right moment for Bulgaria to join the eurozone. First, the country is politically very unstable, and the eurozone itself faces serious problems. As the poorest EU member state, we won’t be immune to those issues. On the contrary, they will only deepen the crisis here. The war in Ukraine, the growing debt in Germany and France … now we’d be sharing the debts of the whole of Europe. We are adopting the euro at a time when economies are strained, and that will lead to serious disruptions and a higher cost of living. I don’t understand why the state insists so strongly on joining the eurozone. I don’t think we’re ready. What do you think will change in your everyday life once the euro replaces the lev? Even now, when you go to the store and look at the price of bread or other basic foods, we see prices climbing. I’m afraid many people will end up living in extreme poverty. We barely produce anything; we’re a country built on services. When people get poorer, they naturally start consuming less. I’m not worried about myself or my family. We live in Sofia, where there are more job opportunities and higher salaries. I’m worried about people in general. Every day I see patients who can’t even afford the travel costs to come to Sofia for medical check-ups. Are you more hopeful or worried about the economic impact of switching to the euro? Why? I’m extremely worried. I don’t want to relive the economic crisis of the 90s, when the country was on the verge of bankruptcy. What would you like politicians and institutions to do to make the transition easier for ordinary people? No one cares what people think. Many countries held referendums and decided not to join the eurozone. I don’t believe our politicians can do anything at this point. I’m not even sure they know what needs to be done. Do you think joining the eurozone will bring Bulgaria closer to Europe culturally or politically? I feel offended when I hear this question. We’ve been part of Europe for a very long time, long before many others. We can exchange best practices in culture, science, education, and more, but that has nothing to do with the eurozone. Joining can only bring trouble. I remember years ago when I actually hoped Bulgaria would enter the eurozone. But that was a different Europe. Now things are deteriorating; the spirit of a united Europe is gone. I don’t want to be part of this Europe. Advertisement SVETOSLAV BONINSKI, 53 Truck driver from Gabrovo, a small city in central Bulgaria What do you think about Bulgaria joining the eurozone? I’m against Bulgaria joining the eurozone. We saw how Croatia and Greece sank into debt once they adopted the euro. I don’t want Bulgaria to go down the same path. Greece had to take a huge loan to bail out its economy. When they still had the drachma, their economy was strong and stable. After entering the eurozone, many big companies were forced to shut down and inflation went through the roof. Even the German economy is experiencing a downturn.. What do you think will change in your everyday life once the euro replaces the lev? I worry that there will be speculation and rising inflation. Five years ago, I used to buy cigarettes in Slovakia at prices similar to Bulgaria. Now I can’t find anything cheaper than €5 per pack. They saw their prices rise after the introduction of the euro. We’ll repeat the Slovakia scenario. Are you more hopeful or worried about the economic impact of switching to the euro? Why? We can already feel that things won’t end well — prices have gone up significantly, just like in Croatia. I’m afraid that even in the first year wages won’t be able to compensate for the rise in prices, and people will become even more impoverished. I expect the financial situation to worsen. Our government isn’t taking any responsibility for that. What would you like politicians and institutions to do to make the transition easier for ordinary people? I hope they will make an effort. We are completely ill-equipped to adopt the euro—all the stats and figures the government presents are lies. We must wait until the country is ready to manage the euro as a currency. We’re doing fine with the lev. We should wait for the economy to grow and for wages to catch up with the rest of Europe. The only thing the state could do to ease the process is to step down. The current government is interested in entering the eurozone only to receive large amounts of funding, most of which they will probably pocket themselves. The Bulgarian lev is very stable, unlike the euro, which is quite an unstable currency. All the eurozone countries are burdened with trillions in debt, while those outside it are doing quite well. Do you think joining the eurozone will bring Bulgaria closer to Europe culturally or politically? I don’t think so. We’ve been part of Europe for a long time. The only difference now will be that Brussels will tell us what to do and will control our budget and spending. Brussels will be in charge from now on. No good awaits us. Elderly people won’t receive decent pensions and will work until we drop dead. Advertisement NATALI ILIEVA, 20 Political science student from Pernik What do you think about Bulgaria joining the eurozone? I see it as a step forward for us. It’s a positive development for both society and the country. I expect that joining the eurozone will help the economy grow and position Bulgaria more firmly within Europe. For ordinary people, it will make things easier, especially when traveling, since we’ll be using the same currency. What do you think will change in your everyday life once the euro replaces the lev? The transition period might be difficult at first. I don’t think the change of currency will dramatically affect people’s daily lives – after all, under the currency board, the lev has been pegged to the euro for years. Some people are worried that prices might rise, and this is where the state must step in to monitor the situation, prevent abuse, and make the transition as smooth as possible. As part of my job at the youth center, I travel a lot in Europe. Being part of the eurozone would make travel much more convenient. My life would be so much easier! I wouldn’t have to worry about carrying euros in cash or paying additional fees when withdrawing money abroad, or wondering: Did I take the right debit card in euros? Are you more hopeful or worried about the economic impact of switching to the euro? Why? I’m more concerned that the issue will be politicized by certain parties to further polarize society. Joining the eurozone is a logical next step – we agreed to it by default when we joined the bloc in 2007. There is so much disinformation circulating on social media that it’s hard for some people to see the real facts and distinguish what’s true from what’s not. What would you like politicians and institutions to do to make the transition easier for ordinary people? The state needs to launch an information campaign to make the transition as smooth as possible. Authorities should explain what the change of currency means for people in a clear and accessible way. You don’t need elaborate language to communicate what’s coming, especially when some radical parties are aggressively spreading anti-euro and anti-EU rhetoric. Do you think joining the eurozone will bring Bulgaria closer to Europe culturally or politically? Yes, I think it will help the country become better integrated into Europe. In the end, I believe people will realize that joining the eurozone will be worth it. Advertisement YANA TANKOVSKA, 47 Jewelry artist based in Sofia What do you think about Bulgaria joining the eurozone? If you ask me, the eurozone is on the verge of collapse, and now we have decided to join? I don’t think it’s a good idea. In theory, just like communism, the idea of a common currency union might sound good, but in practice it doesn’t really work out. I have friends working and living abroad [in eurozone countries], and things are not looking up for regular people, even in Germany. We all thought we would live happily as members of the bloc, but that’s not the reality. What do you think will change in your everyday life once the euro replaces the lev? I expect the first half of next year to be turbulent. But we are used to surviving, so we will adapt yet again. Personally, we might have to trim some expenses, go out less, and make sure the family budget holds. I make jewelry, so I’m afraid I’ll have fewer clients, since they will also have to cut back. Are you more hopeful or worried about the economic impact of switching to the euro? Why? I’m terribly worried. The state promises there won’t be a jump in prices and that joining the eurozone won’t negatively affect the economy. But over the past two years the cost of living has risen significantly, and I don’t see that trend reversing. For example, in the last three years real estate prices have doubled. There isn’t a single person who isn’t complaining about rising costs. What would you like politicians and institutions to do to make the transition easier for ordinary people? There is nothing they can do at this point. Politicians do not really protect Bulgaria’s interests on this matter. The issue is not only about joining the eurozone but about protecting our national interests. I just want them to have people’s well-being at heart. Maybe we need to hit rock bottom to finally see meaningful change. Do you think joining the eurozone will bring Bulgaria closer to Europe culturally or politically? Not really. That’s up to us, not to Europe. I just want Bulgarian politicians to finally start creating policies for the sake of society, not just enriching themselves, to act in a way that would improve life for everyone. Advertisement KATARINA NIKOLIC, 49, AND METODI METODIEV, 53 Business partners at a ‘gelateria’ in Sofia What do you think about Bulgaria joining the eurozone? Metodi: For a small business like ours, I don’t think it will make much difference, as long as the transition to the new currency is managed smoothly. I can only see a positive impact on the economy if things are done right. I’m a bit saddened to say farewell to the Bulgarian lev — it’s an old currency with its own history — but times are changing, and this is a natural step for an EU member. Katarina: I have lived in Italy which adopted the euro a long time ago. Based on my experience there, I don’t expect any worrying developments related to price increases or inflation. On the contrary, joining the eurozone in January can only be interpreted as a sign of trust from the European Commission and could bring more economic stability to Bulgaria. I also think it will increase transparency, improve financial supervision, and provide access to cheaper loans. What do you think will change in your everyday life once the euro replaces the lev? Metodi:  I don’t think there will be any difference for our business whether we’re paying in euros or in leva. We’ve been an EU member state for a while now and we’re used to working with both local and international suppliers. It will just take some getting used to switching to one currency for another. But we are already veterans — Bulgarian businesses are very adaptive — from dealing with renominations and all sorts of economic reforms. I’m just concerned that it might be challenging for some elderly people to adapt to the new currency and they might need some support and more information. Katarina: For many people, it will take time to get used to seeing a new currency, but they will adapt. For me, it’s nothing new. Since I lived in Italy, where the euro is used, I automatically convert to euros whenever Metodi and I discuss business. Are you more hopeful or worried about the economic impact of switching to the euro? Why? Metodi: The decision has already been taken, so let’s make the best of it and ensure a smooth transition. I haven’t exchanged money when traveling in at least 10 years. I just use my bank card to pay or withdraw cash if I need any. Katarina: I remember that some people in Italy also predicted disaster when the euro was introduced, and many were nostalgic about the lira. But years later, Italy is still a stable economy. I think our international partners will look at us differently once we are part of the eurozone. Advertisement What would you like politicians and institutions to do to make the transition easier for ordinary people? Metodi: I think the authorities are already taking measures to make sure prices don’t rise and that businesses don’t round conversions upward unfairly. For example, we may have to slightly increase the price of our ice cream in January. I feel a bit awkward about it because I don’t want people to say, “Look, they’re taking advantage of the euro adoption to raise prices.” But honestly, we haven’t adjusted our prices since we opened three years ago. I’m actually very impressed by how quickly and smoothly small businesses and market sellers have adopted double pricing [marking prices in lev and euros]. I know how much work that requires, especially if you’re a small business owner. Katarina: It’s crucial that the state doesn’t choke small businesses with excessive demands but instead supports them. I believe that helping small businesses grow should be a key focus of the government, not just supervising the currency swap. My hope is that the euro will help the Bulgarian economy thrive. I love Bulgaria and want to see it flourish. I’m a bit more optimistic than Metodi, I think the best is yet to come. Do you think joining the eurozone will bring Bulgaria closer to Europe culturally or politically? Metodi: I think so. Despite some criticism, good things are happening in the country, no matter who is in power. We need this closeness to truly feel part of Europe. Katarina: The euro is a financial and economic instrument. Adopting it won’t change national cultural identity, Bulgarians will keep their culture. I’m a true believer in Europe, and I think it’s more important than ever to have a united continent. As an Italian and Serbian citizen, I really appreciate that borders are open and that our children can choose where to study and work. In fact, our gelateria is a great example of international collaboration: we have people from several different countries in the team.

High energy prices, risks on CBAM enforcement and promotion of lead markets, as well as increasing carbon costs are hampering domestic and export competitiveness with non-EU producers. The cement industry is fundamental to Europe’s construction value chain, which represents about 9 percent of the EU’s GDP. Its hard-to-abate production processes are also currently responsible for 4 percent of EU emissions, and it is investing heavily in measures aimed at achieving full climate neutrality by 2050, in line with the European Green Deal. Marcel Cobuz, CEO, TITAN Group  “We should take a longer view and ensure that the cement industry in EU stays competitive domestically and its export market shares are maintained.” However, the industry’s efforts to comply with EU environmental regulations, along with other factors, make it less competitive than more carbon-intensive producers from outside Europe. Industry body Cement Europe recently stated that, “without a competitive business model, the very viability of the cement industry and its prospects for industrial decarbonization are at risk.” Marcel Cobuz, member of the Board of the Global Cement and Concrete Association and CEO of TITAN Group, one of Europe’s leading producers, spoke with POLITICO Studio about the vital need for a clear policy partnership with Brussels to establish a predictable regulatory and financing framework to match the industry’s decarbonization ambitions and investment efforts to stay competitive in the long-term. POLITICO Studio: Why is the cement industry important to the EU economy?  Marcel Cobuz: Just look around and you will see how important it is. Cement helped to build the homes that we live in and the hospitals that care for us. It’s critical for our transport and energy infrastructure, for defense and increasingly for the physical assets supporting the digital economy. There are more than 200 cement plants across Europe, supporting nearby communities with high-quality jobs. The cement industry is also key to the wider construction industry, which employs 14.5 million people across the EU. At the same time, cement manufacturers from nine countries compete in the international export markets. PS: What differentiates Titan within the industry?  MC: We have very strong European roots, with a presence in 10 European countries. Sustainability is very much part of our DNA, so decarbonizing profitably is a key objective for us. We’ve reduced our CO2 footprint by nearly 25 percent since 1990, and we recently announced that we are targeting a similar reduction by 2030 compared to 2020. We are picking up pace in reducing emissions both by using conventional methods, like the use of alternative sources of low-carbon energy and raw materials, and advanced technologies. TITAN/photo© Nikos Daniilidis We have a large plant in Europe where we are exploring building one of the largest carbon capture projects on the continent, with support from the Innovation Fund, capturing close to two million tons of CO2 and producing close to three million tons of zero-carbon cement for the benefit of all European markets. On top of that, we have a corporate venture capital fund, which partners with startups from Europe to produce the materials of tomorrow with  very low or zero carbon. That will help not only TITAN but the whole industry to accelerate its way towards the use of new high-performance materials with a smaller carbon footprint. PS: What are the main challenges for the EU cement industry today?  MC: Several factors are making us less competitive than companies from outside the EU. Firstly, Europe is an expensive place when it comes to energy prices. Since 2021, prices have risen by close to 65 percent, and this has a huge impact on cement producers, 60 percent of whose costs are energy-related. And this level of costs is two to three times higher than those of our neighbors. We also face regulatory complexity compared to our outside competitors, and the cost of compliance is high. The EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) cost for the cement sector is estimated at €97 billion to €162 billion between 2023 and 2034. Then there is the need for low-carbon products to be promoted ― uptake is still at a very low level, which leads to an investment risk around new decarbonization technologies. > We should take a longer view and ensure that the cement industry in the EU > stays competitive domestically and its export market shares are maintained.” All in all, the playing field is far from level. Imports of cement into the EU have increased by 500 percent since 2016. Exports have halved ― a loss of value of one billion euros. The industry is reducing its cost to manufacture and to replace fossil fuels, using the waste of other industries, digitalizing its operations, and premiumizing its offers. But this is not always enough. Friendly policies and the predictability of a regulatory framework should accompany the effort. PS: In January 2026, the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism will be fully implemented, aimed at ensuring that importers pay the same carbon price as domestic producers. Will this not help to level the playing field? MC: This move is crucial, and it can help in dealing with the increasing carbon cost. However, I believe we already see a couple of challenges regarding the CBAM. One is around self-declaration: importers declare the carbon footprint of their materials, so how do we avoid errors or misrepresentations? In time there should be audits of the importers’ industrial installations and co-operation with the authorities at source to ensure the data flow is accurate and constant. It really needs to be watertight, and the authorities need to be fully mobilized to make sure the real cost of carbon is charged to the importers. Also, and very importantly, we need to ensure that CBAM does not apply to exports from the EU to third countries, as carbon costs are increasingly a major factor making us uncompetitive outside the EU, in markets where we were present for more than 20 years. > CBAM really needs to be watertight, and the authorities need to be fully > mobilized to make sure the real cost of carbon is charged to the importers.” PS: In what ways can the EU support the European cement industry and help it to be more competitive? MC: By simplifying legislation and making it more predictable so we can plan our investments for the long term. More specifically, I’m talking about the revamping of the ETS, which in its current form implies a phase-down of CO2 rights over the next decade. First, we should take a longer view and ensure that the cement industry stays competitive and its export market shares are maintained, so a policy of more for longer should accompany the new ETS. > In export markets, the policy needs to ensure a level playing field for > European suppliers competing in international destination markets, through a > system of free allowances or CBAM certificates, which will enable exports to > continue.” We should look at it as a way of funding decarbonization. We could front-load part of ETS revenues in a fund that would support the development of technologies such as low-carbon materials development and CCS. The roll-out of Infrastructure for carbon capture projects such as transport or storage should also be accelerated, and the uptake of low-carbon products should be incentivized. More specifically on export markets, the policy needs to ensure a level playing field for European suppliers competing in international destination markets, through a system of free allowances or CBAM certificates, which will enable exports to continue. PS: Are you optimistic about the future of your industry in Europe?  MC: I think with the current system of phasing out CO2 rights, and if the CBAM is not watertight, and if energy prices remain several times higher than in neighboring countries, and if investment costs, particularly for innovating new technologies, are not going to be financed through ETS revenues, then there is an existential risk for at least part of the industry. Having said that, I’m optimistic that, working together with the European Commission we can identify the right policy making solutions to ensure our viability as a strategic industry for Europe. And if we are successful, it will benefit everyone in Europe, not least by guaranteeing more high-quality jobs and affordable and more energy-efficient materials for housing ― and a more sustainable and durable infrastructure in the decades ahead. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Titan Group * The advertisement is linked to policy advocacy around industrial competitiveness, carbon pricing, and decarbonization in the EU cement and construction sectors, including the EU’s CBAM legislation, the Green Deal, and the proposed revision of the ETS. More information here.

BRUSSELS — The European Commission has unveiled a new plan to end the dominance of planet-heating fossil fuels in Europe’s economy — and replace them with trees. The so-called Bioeconomy Strategy, released Thursday, aims to replace fossil fuels in products like plastics, building materials, chemicals and fibers with organic materials that regrow, such as trees and crops. “The bioeconomy holds enormous opportunities for our society, economy and industry, for our farmers and foresters and small businesses and for our ecosystem,” EU environment chief Jessika Roswall said on Thursday, in front of a staged backdrop of bio-based products, including a bathtub made of wood composite and clothing from the H&M “Conscious” range. At the center of the strategy is carbon, the fundamental building block of a wide range of manufactured products, not just energy. Almost all plastic, for example, is made from carbon, and currently most of that carbon comes from oil and natural gas. But fossil fuels have two major drawbacks: they pollute the atmosphere with planet-warming CO2, and they are mostly imported from outside the EU, compromising the bloc’s strategic autonomy. The bioeconomy strategy aims to address both drawbacks by using locally produced or recycled carbon-rich biomass rather than imported fossil fuels. It proposes doing this by setting targets in relevant legislation, such as the EU’s packaging waste laws, helping bioeconomy startups access finance, harmonizing the regulatory regime and encouraging new biomass supply. The 23-page strategy is light on legislative or funding promises, mostly piggybacking on existing laws and funds. Still, it was hailed by industries that stand to gain from a bigger market for biological materials. “The forest industry welcomes the Commission’s growth-oriented approach for bioeconomy,” said Viveka Beckeman, director general of the Swedish Forest Industries Federation, stressing the need to “boost the use of biomass as a strategic resource that benefits not only green transition and our joint climate goals but the overall economic security.” HOW RENEWABLE IS IT? But environmentalists worry Brussels may be getting too chainsaw-happy. Trees don’t grow back at the drop of a hat and pressure on natural ecosystems is already unsustainably high. Scientific reports show that the amount of carbon stored in the EU’s forests and soils is decreasing, the bloc’s natural habitats are in poor condition and biodiversity is being lost at unprecedented rates. Protecting the bloc’s forests has also fallen out of fashion among EU lawmakers. The EU’s landmark anti-deforestation law is currently facing a second, year-long delay after a vote in the European Parliament this week. In October, the Parliament also voted to scrap a law to monitor the health of Europe’s forests to reduce paperwork. Environmentalists warn the bloc may simply not have enough biomass to meet the increasing demand. “Instead of setting a strategy that confronts Europe’s excessive demand for resources, the Commission clings to the illusion that we can simply replace our current consumption with bio-based inputs, overlooking the serious and immediate harm this will inflict on people and nature,” said Eva Bille, the European Environmental Bureau’s (EEB) circular economy head, in a statement. TOO WOOD TO BE TRUE Environmental groups want the Commission to prioritize the use of its biological resources in long-lasting products — like construction — rather than lower-value or short-lived uses, like single-use packaging or fuel. A first leak of the proposal, obtained by POLITICO, gave environmental groups hope. It celebrated new opportunities for sustainable bio-based materials while also warning that the “sources of primary biomass must be sustainable and the pressure on ecosystems must be considerably reduced” — to ensure those opportunities are taken up in the longer term. It also said the Commission would work on “disincentivising inefficient biomass combustion” and substituting it with other types of renewable energy. That rankled industry lobbies. Craig Winneker, communications director of ethanol lobby ePURE, complained that the document’s language “continues an unfortunate tradition in some quarters of the Commission of completely ignoring how sustainable biofuels are produced in Europe,” arguing that the energy is “actually a co-product along with food, feed, and biogenic CO2.” Now, those lines pledging to reduce environmental pressures and to disincentivize inefficient biomass combustion are gone. “Bioenergy continues to play a role in energy security, particularly where it uses residues, does not increase water and air pollution, and complements other renewables,” the final text reads. “This is a crucial omission, given that the EU’s unsustainable production and consumption are already massively overshooting ecological boundaries and putting people, nature and businesses at risk,” said the EEB. Delara Burkhardt, a member of the European Parliament with the center-left Socialists and Democrats, said it was “good that the strategy recognizes the need to source biomass sustainably,” but added the proposal did not address sufficiency. “Simply replacing fossil materials with bio-based ones at today’s levels of consumption risks increasing pressure on ecosystems. That shifts problems rather than solving them. We need to reduce overall resource use, not just switch inputs,” she said. Roswall declined to comment on the previous draft at Thursday’s press conference. “I think that we need to increase the resources that we have, and that is what this strategy is trying to do,” she said.

LONDON — Britain’s technocratic ministers aren’t the most obvious candidates to don MAGA-style red caps and belt out punchy slogans. But Britain’s housing secretary has a real fight on his hands, and he’s not afraid to channel Donald Trump in waging it. Steve Reed took office in early September with a colorful promise to “build, baby, build.” Britain is in the midst of a housing crisis. The availability of affordable housing has plummeted, Brits are getting on the housing ladder later in life, and many families and renters are living in overcrowded, substandard and insecure homes. To try to fix this, the government came to power promising to build 1.5 million new homes over the course of the parliament. Reed and his team went into this fall’s Labour conference wearing hats emblazoned with the Trump-style three-word phrase, a rabble-rousing address and a social media strategy to match. But his MPs are already worried that the tradeoffs Reed and the U.K. Treasury are pushing to get shovels in the ground ride roughshod over the environmental protections that Brits cherish — and put some vulnerable Labour seats at risk. The three-word slogan is “completely counterproductive,” said one Labour MP who was granted anonymity to speak candidly like others quoted in this piece. The government must acknowledge “that nature is something that people genuinely love, [which] improves health and wellbeing.” PLANNING BATTLE Front of their minds are a host of changes to the U.K.’s planning bill, which is snaking its way through parliament. The bill aims to cut red tape to fast-track planning decisions, unlock more land for development, and create a building boom.  The legislation is on a journey through the U.K.’s House of Lords, and has been tweaked with a slew of government amendments on its way. In October, Reed introduced further amendments to try to speed up planning decisions and overrule councils who attempt to block new developments.  But the first MP quoted above said they are concerned Reed’s “build, baby, build” drive will only see Labour shed votes to both Zack Polanski’s left-wing Green Party and Nigel Farage’s populist Reform. The government announced that the quotas for affordable housing in new London developments would be slashed from 35 percent to 20 percent. | Richard Baker/Getty Images “Making tough decisions about how we use our land for important purposes, such as energy, food, security, housing and nature, is what government is about,” the first MP said. But they added: “We need to make sure that we are making the right decisions, but also telling a story about why we’re making those decisions, and dismissing nature as inconvenient is going against the grain of the British public.” They added: “Nobody disagrees with [building more homes] as a principle, but ending up with a narrative that basically sounds like you’re speaking in support of the [housing] developers, rather than in support of the communities that we represent, is just weird.” MAKING CHANGES Last week, Reed opened up another front in his battle. The government announced that the quotas for affordable housing in new London developments would be slashed from 35 percent to 20 percent. City Hall said the measures would help speed up planning decisions and incentivize developers to actually build more houses. But cutting social housing targets is an uncomfortable prospect for many in the Labour party.   The government’s message is “build, baby build — but not for poor people,” a Labour aide complained.  Reed firmly defended the change, telling Sky News last week: “There were only 4,000 starts in London last year for social and affordable housing. That is nothing like the scale of the crisis that we have.” He added of the quota: “35 percent of nothing is nothing. We need to make schemes viable for developers so they’ll get spades in the ground.” BLOCKING THE BLOCKERS NARRATIVE Reed has the backing of the U.K.’s powerful Treasury in waging his battle. Chancellor Rachel Reeves has said the government wants to back the “builders not the blockers,” language a second Labour MP, this one in a rural seat, described as “terrible” and an approach that “needs to stop.” Such rhetoric will fail to persuade constituents worried about new developments that trample nature to support new housing. “You catch more flies with honey than vinegar,” they warned. “It’s all vinegar.” The government has already shown that it’s willing to take the fight to pro-environment MPs — sometimes dismissed in the U.K. as “NIMBYs,” short for “not in my backyard.” Chancellor Rachel Reeves has said the government wants to back the “builders not the blockers.” | Pool Photo by Joe Giddens via Getty Images 2024 intake MP Chris Hinchliff was stripped of the Labour whip in July after proposing a series of rebel amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and attacking the legislation for having a “narrow focus on increasing housing supply.” While there is vocal opposition to the “build, baby, build” strategy within Labour, there are also MPs who align themselves with the general message, if not the exact wording. “I would not go out to my constituents who are concerned about the Green Belt wearing a [build, baby, build] cap,” said a third Labour MP, also in a rural seat, “but at the same time, you have to be honest with people about the trade-offs.” They accused the opposition to Reed of “fear-mongering” and stoking the idea that England’s green belt — a designated area of British countryside protected from most development — risks being “destroyed.”  “That has killed off responsible discussions on development,” they argued. “Do I love the slogan? No. Am I going to lose sleep over it? No, because as a constituency MP you can have reasonable conversations.” THE RED HAT BRIGADE Reed also has a cohort of willing warriors on his side. The 2024 intake of Labour MPs brought with it some highly vocal, pro-growth Labour factions. The Labour YIMBY group and Labour Growth Group have been shouting from the rooftops about building more. Labour Growth Group chair and MP Chris Curtis says: “We have some of the oldest and therefore coldest homes of any developed country. We have outdated, carbon intensive energy infrastructure, hardly any water storage, pipes that leak, old sewage infrastructure that dumps raw sewage into our rivers, and car dependency because we can’t build proper public transport.  “Anybody who thinks blocks on building has been good for nature is simply wrong,” he added. “Protecting our environment literally depends on us building well, and building quickly.” Labour MP Mike Reader, who worked in the construction and infrastructure sector before becoming an MP and is part of the pro-building caucus, was sanguine about Reed’s message. “The U.K. is the most nature-depleted country in Western Europe,” he said. “So to argue for the status quo … is arguing for us to destroy nature in its very essence. The legislation that we [currently] have does not protect nature.” As for concern that the government is too close to housing developers, Reader shot back: “Who do they think builds the houses?” Steve Reed introduced further amendments to try to speed up planning decisions and overrule councils who attempt to block new developments. | Aaron Chown/Getty Images “I want each [MP who rejects the ‘build, baby, build’ message] to tell the thousands of young families in temporary accommodation that they don’t deserve a safe secure home,” he said. “If they can’t do that they need to grow a pair and do difficult things. That’s why we’re in government. To change lives. And build, baby, build.” A fourth unnamed Labour MP said the slogan is “a bit cringe and Trumpian,” but added: “I’m not really arsed about what slogans they’re using if they’re delivering on that as an objective.” There’s also unlikely praise for the effort from the other side of the U.K. political divide. Jack Airey, a former No. 10 special adviser who tried to get a planning and infrastructure bill through under the last Conservative government, said “people that oppose house building often have the loudest voice, and they use it … and yet, the people that support house building generally don’t really say it, because why would they? They’ve got better things to do.” “I think it’s really positive for the government to have a pro-house building and pro-development message out there, and, more importantly, a pro-development caucus in parliament and beyond,” he said. In a bid to steady the nerves of anxious MPs, Reed told the parliamentary Labour Party last week that his Trump-style slogan is a “bit of fun” that hides a serious point — that there simply aren’t enough houses being built in the U.K. And an aide to Reed rejected concerns from Labour MPs that nature is not being sufficiently considered, saying “nobody understands [nature concerns] more than Steve. “We reject this kind of binary choice between nature and building,” they said. “We think that you can do both. It just requires imaginative, ultimately sensible and pragmatic policy-making, and that’s what we’re doing. “We’re not ashamed to campaign in primary colors,” the Reed aide said. Noah Keate contributed reporting.

BRUSSELS ― The European Union’s €140 billion loan for Ukraine remains in doubt ― and looks set to be for at least another two months ― after the prime minister of Belgium dug his heels in over using confiscated Russian assets to pay for it. Belgium ― one of the EU’s founding six members and renowned for its love of the art of the classic European compromise ― succeeded in massively watering down language published at a summit in Brussels. The result does little besides postponing the decision over whether to go ahead with the plan until the next time leaders meet. And it renews concerns over the bloc’s commitment to Ukraine. The prime minister in question, Bart De Wever, is a right-wing Flemish nationalist who is under pressure over the plan at home because he says the operation carries huge financial and legal risks for Belgium, where most of the Russian assets are kept. EU chiefs say they understand his concerns ― but they couldn’t find a way to reassure him. “It’s a bit sour for me that we are finger-pointed, now, as the unwilling country,” De Wever told reporters. He described the idea of Belgian taxpayers ending up on the hook as “completely insane.” Donald Trump’s ambiguous attitude to how to deal with Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine, despite this week sanctioning Russia’s two biggest oil companies, has put the onus on Europe to bolster its support. While Europe’s governments and the European Central Bank long considered unthinkable using Russian assets to arm and rebuild Ukraine over fears it would break international law, it emerged as a real prospect in the past few months as the war has dragged on. The EU on Thursday was hoping to give the European Commission a firm mandate to make a legal proposal outlining the loan as early as next week. De Wever ensured that didn’t happen. ‘SUFFICIENTLY BALANCED’ A full day of frantic negotiations saw talks break up without agreement at one point ― only for leaders to return later in the evening after their advisers worked on compromise language. De Wever allowed the final summit statement to say that he wouldn’t stand in the way of the Commission further exploring the assets confiscation idea. That was hardly the stuff Kyiv dreamed of. It is “a sufficiently balanced text to allow interpretations that respond to all needs and sensibilities so everyone will then give a certain interpretation that’s good for themselves,” said an EU diplomat briefed on the discussions, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the talks were in private. Few were able to conceal the fact that the outcome raises renewed questions about the EU’s fragile support for Ukraine with the conflict nearing its four-year anniversary.  The assets plan “hasn’t been buried,” French President Emmanuel Macron told reporters. “We were able to discuss technical details.” No other funding options were on the table for Ukraine aid, he said. ECB President Christine Lagarde, told leaders that the risks associated to the loan are “manageable.” With Belgium signaling that it felt uncomfortable with the plan, national and EU diplomats spent many days in the runup to the summit trying to find legal language to reassure De Wever and still give the Commission the instructions it would need to plow ahead with the idea. ECB President Christine Lagarde, told leaders that the risks associated to the loan are “manageable.” | Will Oliver/EPA But while those previous drafts of the summit statement, even as late as the morning of the summit, explicitly called on officials to put forward a legal proposal ― effectively a signal that the plan was likely to become a reality ― the wording leaders ended up with merely “invites the Commission to present, as soon as possible, options for financial support,” and punting the issue to the next summit. That’s scheduled for December, but officials didn’t rule out an earlier meeting.  ‘NEGOTIATING FOR WEEKS’ The stakes seemed too high for De Wever given that the bulk of Russia’s immobilized assets in Europe are held by the financial firm Euroclear, which is registered in Belgium, the diplomats said.  He repeatedly told his counterparts that the operation carried huge financial and legal risks for Belgium, they said. A clue to De Wever’s stubbornness is that he is embroiled in inconclusive talks to agree on a budget to bring Belgium’s finances back in balance.  De Wever rejected an 11th-hour compromise that would have envisaged stronger language in favor of the loan, according to four EU officials.  “We agreed on the what, now we have to work on the how,” Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told reporters. Faced with the Commission’s reassurances that the financial operation carried little risk, Belgian diplomats replied in internal EU meetings that a plane had little chance of crashing — but if that happens, tens of people still lose their lives, said two diplomats with knowledge of the talks.  COMPLEXITIES During the past weeks, Belgian officials have repeatedly called on the Commission to paper over the most sensitive aspects of the loan together bilaterally — and were left incensed when EU officials refused to do so.  “My feeling is that the friends from the Commission underrated the complexities of this very sophisticated financial construction,” said one of the EU diplomats. “This underrating is the reason why Belgium is worried.” The EU’s late-night compromise allows everyone to save face ― and leaves De Wever with the power to veto any future actions if they don’t meet his red lines.  If “Russia can actually claim the money for whatever reason … the cash needs to be there immediately,” De Wever said, adding “trust in the entire financial system of Europe” would be at stake. “Who’s going to give that guarantee. I asked my colleagues, ‘Is it you? Is it the member states?’ … This question was not answered with a tsunami of enthusiasm around the table.” Gerardo Fortuna contributed reporting.

Danish wind power giant Ørsted is suing the the Trump administration for its order to halt work on the nearly completed Revolution Wind project off the coast of New England. Ørsted and its joint venture partner Skyborn Renewables filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Thursday seeking to vacate the stop-work order from Trump’s Interior Department, arguing that the administration lacked the legal authority for the decision. “The Project has spent billions of dollars in reliance on these valid approvals,” the filing said. “The Stop Work Order is invalid and must be set aside because it was issued without statutory authority, in violation of agency regulations and procedures and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, and is arbitrary and capricious.” The stop-work order was among several actions taken under President Donald Trump — a longtime wind critic — to impede development of the nascent U.S. offshore wind industry. Since the stop-work order, his administration has withdrawn grants for offshore wind-related infrastructure projects and signaled in legal proceedings that it intends to revoke permits for numerous projects approved under former President Joe Biden. The Interior Department last month ordered the halt to construction of the massive Revolution Wind project off the coasts of Rhode Island and Connecticut until the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management could assess the national security risks and concern about its interference with reasonable uses of the surrounding waters. State and federal officials, labor unions and clean energy advocates have pounced on the decision, arguing it will have a chilling effect on investments across the country while also costing the region some 1,000 union jobs. ISO New England, the region’s power grid operator, also warned that delaying the project “will increase risks” to reliability. The filing from the Revolution Wind project on Thursday noted that the Defense Department had previously cleared the project to proceed. Revolution Wind — which is 80 percent complete — received federal and state permits in 2023 and had been expected to begin operations next year. Its 65 turbines would have a production capacity of 704 megawatts, which could provide clean energy to power more than 350,000 homes in Connecticut and Rhode Island. The filing said that if unabated, the stop-work order “will inflict devastating and irreparable harm” on Revolution Wind, which has already spent or committed about $5 billion on the project and will incur more than $1 billion in costs if the project is canceled. A person close to the decision to sue the administration said Thursday that the “important” legal step is part of a multitrack approach, but noted that conversations with stakeholders, including at state and federal levels, continue to seek a resolution. The Interior Department said Thursday that it does not have comment on litigation. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

BRUSSELS — The European Union’s dream of fending off U.S. attacks on its tech rules was short-lived.  Just days after the bloc’s officials boasted they had kept their landmark rules on content moderation and digital competition out of an EU-U.S. trade deal, President Donald Trump brought them back into play through a post on his social network Truth Social.   “I will stand up to Countries that attack our incredible American Tech Companies,” he posted. Digital taxes and rules on digital services or markets were “designed to harm” U.S. technology, he said, and threatened to impose tariffs on countries that have them. Without a hitch, a now-familiar playbook unfolded: The European Commission stood by its “sovereign right to regulate,” European lawmakers urged the EU executive not to give in, and experts quipped that the EU might have to relinquish the very right to regulate it had claimed as a big win in the trade deal.  “We must stand firm on our principles and react if words actually become action,” said Italian Social Democrat lawmaker Brando Benifei, chair of the European Parliament’s EU-U.S. delegation.   The back-and-forth is the umpteenth episode of a saga that started right after Trump took office. The U.S. has tried every possible trick in the book to undermine the EU’s tech rule books, the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act, claiming they censor Americans and unfairly target American companies. Meanwhile, Brussels is clinging to its right to regulate the digital space and U.S. tech companies.   Just when Brussels thought it had won some relief, its biggest headache — the enforcement of its landmark tech rules — is back. The Commission’s tech and competition departments, DG Connect and DG Comp, are overseeing several open probes under the DSA and the DMA, while one against Elon Musk’s X is being closely watched.   Last Thursday, the European Commission’s trade chief Maroš Šefčovič said both rule books had been kept out of the trade talks, but that the door had been left open for later talks.   Trump didn’t wait long to restart that discussion. NO TO BLACKMAIL Just before Trump’s threats, a Reuters report said the U.S. was considering visa restrictions against EU officials over the DSA. European Parliament lawmakers expressed alarm.   “Europe will not rewrite its laws under threat,” said Valérie Hayer, chair of the Parliament’s liberal Renew group, vowing to “block any weakening of our rules.” Hayer added: “Threats of tariffs or blackmail will not change EU law.”   Just days after the bloc’s officials boasted they had kept their landmark rules on content moderation and digital competition out of an EU-U.S. trade deal, President Donald Trump brought them back into play through a post on his social network Truth Social. | Pool photo by Aaron Schwartz via EPA “All EU legislation must be implemented,” agreed Manfred Weber, chair of the conservative European People’s Party.   Yet the Parliament’s lead on the DSA, Danish Social Democrat Christel Schaldemose, said she was “more worried now” than before the summer break.   “The not-very-balanced trade deal was accepted to protect the EU from a trade war and to appease Trump to keep on supporting Ukraine,” she said. Why would Trump not use his bargaining position to get the EU to capitulate once again, she asked.  Greens European Parliament lawmaker Kim Van Sparrentak expressed hope that this would be a “lesson for the Commission” as “bullies don’t speak diplomacy.” The Parliament’s DMA lead, German Andreas Schwab, brushed the threat aside, saying: “We should not let ourselves be driven every week by individual posts on Truth Social.” WHAT DISCRIMINATION? Trump’s threat also took aim at a group of countries that already have some sort of digital services tax in place. Among them are France, Italy and Spain — while Poland and Belgium have announced their intention to do the same.   “The digital services tax is not aimed at entities from any specific country, it is intended to apply to all relevant market participants,” a spokesperson from the Polish Digital Ministry said in written remarks shared with POLITICO when asked about Trump’s remarks.   These countries could face equal pressure to reconsider those taxes. Earlier, Canada rescinded its tech tax as part of trade talks with the U.S.  Trump also threatened to leverage the EU’s heavy reliance on U.S. technology, as countries that have tech rules or taxes in place could face export restrictions on “highly protected technology and chips.” The EU had just promised last week to buy “at least” €40 billion worth of U.S. artificial intelligence chips.   The bloc aims to ramp up the construction of large-scale computer and data storage facilities that can help with training the most complex AI models. For that it is entirely reliant on U.S. chips, since it has no production capacity of its own.   Experts see it as another argument for Europe to reduce its reliance on the U.S.   “This development makes one thing crystal clear: The risk of technological coercion and weaponisation is here to stay,” said Giorgos Verdi, policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank. “The most important thing then is that the EU starts charting a course toward building its independent stack of technologies.”  

BRUSSELS — Most thumbs were up. Some smiles were uneasy. And, in the middle of it all, the EU’s top trade official, Sabine Weyand, wore the kind of look that told the whole story: The bloc had gotten itself into a tricky spot. The photo, taken as the European Union and the United States sealed a fragile tariff truce at President Donald Trump’s Scottish golf resort on July 27, captured the discomfort on the European side over an agreement that was merely “the best it could get.” > President Trump's historic deal with the European Union reinforces our > strategic partnership with a key while expanding unprecedented market access > for American exporters. > > This colossal deal secures $750 billion in energy purchases and $600 billion > in investments, bolstering… pic.twitter.com/fcF2jdMP1f > > — United States Trade Representative (@USTradeRep) July 28, 2025 The two sides have finally firmed up Trump’s handshake deal with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen into a joint statement that sets a 15 percent baseline U.S. tariff; promises a reduction in tariffs on European cars; caps levies on pharmaceuticals and semiconductors; and fully exempts EU exports of aircraft. Throughout, Europe has been engaged in a delicate dance with Trump — seeking to hold him to his trade promises while its leaders lobby him to commit to security guarantees for Ukraine against Russian aggression. “We’re still hostage to American military and strategic protection with a horribly neuralgic point, which is Ukraine,” said Pascal Lamy, a former EU trade commissioner. “And if we laid into Trump, which we have the economic capacity to do, he would have been able to say: ‘Well, if Europeans are enemies, now I don’t see why I should continue to help Ukraine.’ Nobody wants to take responsibility for that.” A less pressing, yet more awkward, task will be for Brussels to show the world it didn’t break the very rules of international trade that it helped to craft. After all, it has lectured Beijing, Washington and New Delhi for years on the importance of the World Trade Organization as an umpire of rules-based commerce. “We have completely sat on the rules that we helped to create, together with the Americans, and we will be accused of continuing to undermine them in the future if things continue as they are,” said Lamy, who after his stint in Brussels went on to helm the Geneva-based WTO between 2005 and 2013.  Von der Leyen’s admission at Trump’s Turnberry golf club that the EU had a “surplus” with the United States that the deal would help “rebalance” was the last nudge the Trump administration needed to declare victory and bury a system it had long seen as obsolete.  “By using a mix of tariffs and deals for foreign market access and investment, the United States has laid the foundation for a new global trading order,” Trump’s top trade negotiator Jamieson Greer wrote in a newspaper op-ed days after the agreement.  “[T]he Turnberry system is by no means complete, but its construction is well underway,” he added. CREDIBILITY CRUNCH The transatlantic trade accord, say leading trade authorities, risks undermining the very principles that Brussels has long championed at the WTO in a world increasingly shaped by no-holds-barred geopolitical confrontation. “It is going to be very difficult for the EU to say, ‘We are defending the multilateral trading system,’ because they are one of many members that decided to negotiate a bilateral deal with the United States,” said Marco Molina, a trade lawyer and a former senior diplomat who led talks on reforming the WTO’s dispute settlement body until 2024. The core problem of the deal is that it goes against the basic principles of the multilateral trading system: reciprocity and nondiscrimination.  Europe has been engaged in a delicate dance with Donald Trump — seeking to hold him to his trade promises while its leaders lobby him to commit to security guarantees for Ukraine against Russian aggression. | Pool Photo Annabelle Gordon via EPA For one, the two partners need to give each other roughly equivalent concessions — which the framework agreement currently hardly does. Nondiscrimination, set in the WTO’s most-favored nation rule, requires that any benefit granted to one trading partner needs to be immediately extended to all members — unless their agreement covers “substantially all trade.”  So while the EU has agreed to eliminate all tariffs on U.S. industrial goods and on cars, it has to do it under a full-blown trade accord. The Commission insists the agreement will eventually meet that bar.  Because most tariffs are set to be phased out over time, Brussels argues, the deal will ultimately respect the established rules of global trade. A senior Commission official told reporters on Thursday that the opening passage of the joint statement spelled out a “commitment for both sides to make an effort of progressive liberalization.”  They stressed it was “ongoing work that will also help us to meet the standards of the World Trade Organization rules around these issues.” On the record, the Commission’s commitment is unequivocal. “The European Union is and will remain a champion and supporter of WTO and rules-based trade — this will not change,” said Olof Gill, the Commission’s spokesperson for trade.  Yet even former Commission officials aren’t buying it. “The EU’s credibility as a linchpin of the WTO rules-based system would be seriously compromised if it decides to implement tariff reductions on a preferential basis,” said Ignacio García Bercero, who was the Commission’s point person for the transatlantic relationship and was responsible for its WTO policy until 2024.  This was met with enthusiasm from the leader of the bloc’s biggest economy, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. | Filip Singer/EPA “There is zero credibility behind the argument that the EU-U.S. ‘deal’ is a step toward a WTO compatible [free-trade agreement],” added García Bercero, who is now a nonresident fellow at Brussels think tank Bruegel.  OUTBULLYING THE BULLY So what do you do when the biggest kid on the playground stops playing by the rules? For the EU, the response is increasingly: You don’t stand alone — you build a gang.   At first, Brussels resisted the idea of coordinating with other countries hit by Trump’s tariffs, such as Canada or Mexico. But it eventually changed course. “The main criticism that can be made against the Commission is that it did not seriously try to build an international anti-Trump coalition,” former WTO chief Lamy said.  That’s something that Brussels tried to fix in late June, when at a leaders’ summit, von der Leyen floated the idea of a new club in which the EU’s 27 countries would join forces with the members of the Pacific-focused Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP, bloc, which counts the U.K., Canada, Japan, Mexico and Australia among its members. This was met with enthusiasm from the leader of the bloc’s biggest economy, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. “If the WTO is as dysfunctional as it has been for years and apparently remains so, then we, who continue to consider free trade important, must come up with something else,” he told reporters.  Talks between EU and CPTPP negotiators are now expected later this year, with the goal of coordinating efforts to defend rules-based trade in the face of Trump’s tariff offensive, a top New Zealand finance official told POLITICO.  “The only way the EU can rebuild trust in the system is by coordinating with other members, beyond the U.S., to ensure WTO rules are respected,” said Molina, who now heads up his own law firm, Molina & Associates. “That will require leadership and teamwork — and the hope that Washington eventually realizes this trade war hurts American interests and consumers.”