BRUSSELS — The European Parliament’s leading trade lawmakers on Wednesday postponed a decision on whether to freeze a U.S. trade deal over Donald Trump’s threat to annex Greenland.  MEPs are due to hold a vote on Jan. 26, laying out the European Parliament’s position on lifting tariffs on U.S. industrial goods — one of the key planks of a deal struck between Brussels and Washington last summer. But some MEPs, angry at Trump’s behavior, don’t want the vote to go ahead, thereby freezing the decision on lifting the tariffs.  But at a meeting of lawmakers leading on the topic, they decided to delay taking a decision on whether to postpone or go ahead with the vote, awaiting the outcome of high-stakes meetings between Washington, Nuuk and Copenhagen taking place later Wednesday. “We are not in a position to move the agreement to a vote today,” lead trade lawmaker Karin Karlsbro, of the liberal Renew Europe, told POLITICO, adding that clarity from the U.S. on Greenland was essential.  Discussions will continue next Wednesday, the chair of the international trade committee, Bernd Lange, told POLITICO as he left the room. Political groups are divided over what to do in response to Trump’s threats to annex European territory. The Socialists and Democrats, of which Lange is a member, are leaning toward freezing the vote on the trade agreement. “One camp is more like, OK, let’s cooperate with the U.S. in order to get the maximum out, and there’s the other camp that says, OK we also need to show teeth and not give in on everything,” explained Green lawmaker Anna Cavazzini, who is also the chair of the internal market committee.  Cavazzini, who is in favor of freezing the deal, added that lawmakers agreed to delay the decision to “observe the global situation,” adding that the groups also need to agree on specific clauses in the final Parliament text.  The U.S. deal “will not be postponed,” assured EPP lawmaker Željana Zovko, telling POLITICO on Wednesday that any delay would hurt businesses as it would bring instability to transatlantic relations, while only Russia and China would benefit from it.  Under the deal struck in July, the EU committed itself to legislation lifting tariffs on U.S. industrial goods and lobsters, in exchange for Washington reducing tariffs on European cars. The deal is seen as lopsided in favor of Washington across party lines, but lawmakers were willing to put up with it in exchange for having Trump commit to protecting European security. As Greenland annexation threats continue, some no longer see the point of the deal. While the U.S. has upheld its end of the bargain on the car tariffs; the EU, so far, has not, because its institutions must still approve their positions on the Commission’s proposal. The lengthy process has already tested Washington’s patience, with Trade Representative Jamieson Greer telling POLITICO in December that the U.S. wouldn’t grant further tariff exemptions unless the EU keeps its end of the bargain. After the Council of the EU agreed on its position in late November, pressure is rising on the European Parliament to vote on its own stance.

LONDON — The U.K. government must “dare to have principles” and help Greenland repel threats by Donald Trump, a senior minister in Greenland’s government told lawmakers in London.  Speaking after a briefing with MPs in the U.K. parliament Tuesday, Greenland’s Business and Energy Minister Naaja Nathanielsen said: “Dialogue is really, really what is needed at this point. And … even though problems in this world [are] complex, this should not be a reason not to go into these complex dialogues. They can be solved through dialogue instead of violence and force.”  Nathanielsen held the meetings amid growing pressure from the White House, where Trump is ramping up his threats to take control of Greenland — a minerals-rich, semi-autonomous territory within Denmark — including by military force.  The region is essential to securing U.S. security against threats from Russia and China, Trump claims. The U.S. will take over Greenland “the easy way” or “the hard way,” he said last week.  Nathanielsen said: “We feel betrayed. We feel that the rhetoric is offensive, as we have stated many times before — but also bewildering, because we have done nothing but support the notion that Greenland is a part of the American national self-interest.”  Nathanielsen made her plea to politicians in London after Denmark warned U.S. aggression would cripple the NATO military alliance. The leaders of Denmark and Greenland both say Greenland is “not for sale”.  DEAR KEIR Asked about the message she was bringing to U.K. politicians and Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Nathanielsen said: “To insist on having the dialogue, even though it’s difficult, to dare to have principles and belief in international law. I think we will all be asked about that in the next couple of years.”  She said she would “like to repeat my gratitude” for Starmer’s support of Greenland, and said the U.K. must “insist upon the global community upholding international law” and “stress the relevance of NATO as a relevant and important alliance.” Starmer has warned Trump that Greenland’s future must be decided by Denmark and Greenland alone. Danish PM Mette Frederiksen has told the U.S. it has no right to the Arctic territory.  But the U.K. leader is also keen not to get into fights with Trump on too many fronts, at a time when his government is trying to both secure a favorable U.S. trade deal and influence the White House’s approach to striking peace between Russia and Ukraine.  Trump says that securing Greenland is essential for bolstering U.S. security. But Nordic governments have rejected his claims that Chinese and Russian vessels are operating in waters near Greenland.   Nathanielsen said Greenland did not “detect an actual threat” but was “quite content” with increased monitoring around the Arctic.  Leaders in Greenland are clear that “we have no intention of becoming American” and are “quite happy with being part of the Kingdom of Denmark,” she stressed.   She would not be drawn on whether Greenland would expect backing from NATO allies, including the U.K. if the U.S. were to invade Greenland.  Keir Starmer has warned Trump that Greenland’s future must be decided by Denmark and Greenland alone. | Pool Photo by Ludovic Marin via EPA “If this scenario was to happen, I think everybody in this room and everybody in your countries would have to figure out: What is this new world order about?” she said.   In that scenario “we would all be under attack,” she added.  END OF APPEASEMENT One British MP who helped organized Nathanielsen’s visit said it was time for the U.K. government to take a firmer line on Trump’s aggression in the region.  “I have a huge sympathy, because I know and I can understand it. If you’re sitting in a foreign office right now, then this is a problem which would keep you awake at night,” said Brendan O’Hara, a Scottish National Party MP and chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Greenland.   But the time for “trying to keep this guy [Trump] on board” has gone, O’Hara added.  “I don’t blame them for trying. But when you appease somebody to this extent, and then they still openly talk about invading a NATO ally — it’s incredible,” he said.   Dywne Ryan Menezes, founder of the Polar Research and Policy Initiative think tank, which also helped organize Tuesday’s briefing, said the U.K. could do more to show its support for Greenland.   “I’ve been saying for years now: With Greenland, we can’t see it as a small country. 
It might be a small country population-wise, but it is a geopolitical giant that’s getting hotter by the day,” he said.  Menezes urged ministers to prioritize free trade talks with Greenland. “It’s one thing we can do to demonstrate that, you know, we take it seriously. It is action, and not just words.”  Nathanielsen said she was meeting a trade minister from the Labour government, Chris Bryant, later on Tuesday, as part of “very early discussions” on a possible free trade agreement between the two countries.  “Of course, when hopefully all of this cools down a bit, that you continue your collaboration investments in Greenland, we are quite happy about your partnerships,” she added.  BIG DAYS But the future of Greenland, she acknowledged, may not lie in its own hands. Foreign ministers from Greenland and Denmark are set to meet U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Washington Wednesday. Greenland officials hope the meeting will allow them a better understanding of the “actual wishes from the American side,” Nathanielsen said.   Asked whether a deal proposing U.S. control should be put to a vote inside Greenland, she agreed this was essential.   “I think we should be able to have a say ourselves in the future of our lives. For others, this might be a piece of land, but for us it’s home.” 

President Donald Trump has set his sights on several targets in the Western Hemisphere beyond Venezuela — from Mexico with its drug cartels to the political cause célèbre of Cuba. But one place is oddly missing from Trump’s list: Nicaragua. This is a country led not by one, but two dictators. A place where the opposition has been exiled, imprisoned or otherwise stifled so much the word “totalitarian” comes to mind. A place the first Trump administration named alongside Cuba and Venezuela as part of a “troika of tyranny.” Yet it’s barely been mentioned by the second Trump administration. That could change any moment, of course, but right now Nicaragua is in an enviable position in the region. That got me wondering: What is the regime in Managua doing right to avoid Trump’s wrath? What does it have that others don’t? Or, maybe, what does it not have? And what does Nicaragua’s absence from the conversation say about Trump’s bigger motives? Current and former government officials and activists gave me a range of explanations, including that the regime is making smart moves on battling drug trafficking, that it’s benefiting from a lack of natural resources for Trump to covet and that it doesn’t have a slew of migrants in the U.S. Taken together, their answers offer one of the strongest arguments yet that Trump’s actions in the Western Hemisphere or beyond are rarely about helping oppressed people and more about U.S. material interests. “The lesson from Nicaragua is: Don’t matter too much, don’t embarrass Washington and don’t become a domestic political issue,” said Juan Gonzalez, a former Latin America aide to then-President Joe Biden. “For an administration that doesn’t care about democracy or human rights, that’s an effective survival strategy for authoritarians.” Some Nicaraguan opposition leaders say they remain optimistic, and I can’t blame them. Trump is rarely consistent about anything. He’s threatening to bomb Iran right now because, he says, he stands with protesters fighting an unjust regime (albeit one with oil). So maybe he might direct some fury toward Nicaragua? “The fact that Nicaragua is not at the center of the current conversation doesn’t mean that Nicaragua is irrelevant,” Felix Maradiaga, a Nicaraguan politician in exile, told me. “It means that the geopolitical interests of the U.S. right now are at a different place.” Nicaragua is run by Daniel Ortega and Rosario Murillo, a husband and wife who take the term “power couple” somewhat literally. They are now co-presidents of the Central American nation of 7 million. Over the years, they’ve rigged elections, wrested control over other branches of the government and crushed the opposition, while apparently grooming their children to succeed them. It has been a strange and circular journey for a pair of one-time Sandinista revolutionaries who previously fought to bring down a dynastic dictatorship. Hundreds of thousands of Nicaraguans have fled the impoverished country, some to the United States. Meanwhile, the regime has enhanced ties to Russia, China and other U.S. adversaries, while having rocky relations with Washington. Nicaragua is part of a free trade agreement with Washington, but it has also faced U.S. sanctions, tariffs and other penalties for oppressing its people, eroding democracy and having ties to Russia. Even the current Trump administration has used such measures against it, but the regime hasn’t buckled. Nicaraguan officials I reached out to didn’t respond with a comment. Several factors appear to make Nicaragua a lower priority for Trump. Unlike Venezuela, Nicaragua isn’t a major source of oil, the natural resource Trump covets most. It has gold, but not enough of that or other minerals to truly stand out. (Although yes, I know, Trump loves gold.) It’s also not a major source of migrants to the U.S. Besides, Trump has largely shut down the border. Unlike Panama, another country Trump has previously threatened, it doesn’t have a canal key to global commerce, although there’s occasional talk of building one. Nicaragua may be placating the president and his team by taking moves to curb drug trafficking. At least, that’s what a White House official told me when I sought comment from the administration on why Nicaragua has not been a focus. “Nicaragua is cooperating with us to stop drug trafficking and fight criminal elements in their territory,” the official said. I granted the White House official anonymity to discuss a sensitive national security issue. It’s difficult to establish how this cooperation is happening, and the White House official didn’t offer details. In fact, there were reports last year of tensions between the two countries over the issue. A federal report in March said the U.S. “will terminate its Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) operations in Nicaragua in 2025, partly due to the lack of cooperation from Nicaragua’s agencies.” The DEA didn’t reply when I asked if it had followed up with that plan, but it’s possible the regime has become more helpful recently. The U.S. and Nicaragua’s cooperation on drugs has waxed and waned over the years. In any case, although drug runners use Nicaraguan territory, it’s not a major cartel hub compared to some other countries facing Trump’s ire, such as Mexico. Some Nicaraguan opposition activists have been hoping that U.S. legal moves against Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro would expose narcotrafficking links between Managua and Caracas, providing a reason for the U.S. to come down harder on the regime. They’ve pointed to a 2020 U.S. criminal indictment of Maduro that mentioned Nicaragua. But the latest indictment, unveiled upon Maduro’s Jan. 3 capture, doesn’t mention Nicaragua. When I asked the White House official why the newer indictment doesn’t mention Nicaragua, the person merely insisted that “both indictments are valid.” A spokesperson for the Department of Justice declined to comment. Nicaraguan opposition leaders say that although the new indictment doesn’t mention the country, they still hope it will come up during Maduro’s trial. My sense, though, is that Ortega and Murillo are cooperating just enough with the U.S. that the administration is willing to go easy on them for now. It probably also doesn’t hurt that, despite railing frequently against Washington, Ortega and Murillo don’t openly antagonize Trump himself. They may have learned a lesson from watching how hard Trump has come down on Colombia’s president for taunting him. Another reason Nicaragua isn’t getting much Trump attention? It is not a domestic political flashpoint in the U.S. Not, for example, the way Cuba has been for decades. The Cuban American community can move far more votes than the Nicaraguan American one. Plus, none of the aides closest to Trump are known to be too obsessed with Nicaragua. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has long denounced the Nicaraguan regime, but he’s of Cuban descent and more focused on that island’s fate. Cuba’s regime also is more dependent on Venezuela than Nicaragua’s, making it an easier target. Ortega and Murillo aren’t sucking up to Trump and striking deals with him like another area strongman, El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele. But, especially since the U.S. capture of Maduro, the pair seem bent on proving their anti-imperialist credentials without angering Trump. The results can be head-scratching. For example, in recent days, the regime is reported to have detained around 60 people for celebrating Maduro’s capture. But around the same time, the regime also reportedly freed “tens” of prisoners, at least some of whom were critics of Ortega and Murillo. Those people were released after the U.S. embassy in the country called on Nicaragua to follow in Venezuela’s recent footsteps and release political prisoners. However, the regime is reported to have described the releases as a way to commemorate 19 years of its rule. Alex Gray, a former senior National Security Council official in the first Trump administration, argued that one reason the president and his current team should care more about Nicaragua is its ties to U.S. adversaries such as Russia and China — ties that could grow if the U.S. ignores the Latin American country. Russia in particular has a strong security relationship with the regime in Managua. China has significantly expanded its ties in recent years, though more in the economic space. Iran also has warm relations with Managua. Nicaragua is the “poster child” for what Trump’s own National Security Strategy called the Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, which warns the U.S. will deny its adversaries the ability to meddle in the Western Hemisphere, Gray said. The White House official said the administration is “very closely” monitoring Nicaragua’s cooperation with U.S. rivals. But even that may not be enough for Trump to prioritize Nicaragua. Regardless of what his National Security Strategy says, Trump has a mixed record of standing up to Russia and China, and Nicaragua’s cooperation with them may not be as worrisome as that of a more strategically important country. With Trump, who himself often acts authoritarian, many things must fall in place at the right moment for him to care or act, and Nicaraguan opposition activists haven’t solved that Rubik’s Cube. Many are operating in exile. (In 2023, Ortega and Murillo put 222 imprisoned opposition activists on a plane to the U.S., then stripped them of their Nicaraguan citizenship. Many are now effectively stateless but vulnerable to Trump’s immigration crackdown.) It’s not lost on these activists that Trump has left much of Maduro’s regime in place in Venezuela. It suggests Trump values stability over democracy, human rights or justice. Some hope Ortega and Murillo will be weakened by the fall of their friend, Maduro. The two surely noticed how little Russia, China and others did to help the former leader. Maybe Nicaragua’s co-dictators will ease up on internal repression as one reaction. “When you get this kind of pressure, there are things that get in motion,” said Juan Sebastian Chamorro, a Nicaraguan politician forced out of the country. “They are feeling the heat.”

BRUSSELS — Even after most member countries backed the EU’s landmark trade accord with Latin America, opponents of the deal in France, Poland and the European Parliament are still determined to derail or delay it. As a result, even after European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen flies to Paraguay this Saturday to sign the accord with the Mercosur bloc after over 25 years of talks, it could still take months before we finally find out when, or even whether, it will finally take effect. The culprit is the EU’s tortuous decision-making process: After the curtain came down on Friday on deliberations in the Council, the intergovernmental branch of the bloc, a new act will now play out in the European Parliament. Ratification by lawmakers later this year is the most likely outcome — but there will be high drama along the way. “It has become irrational,” said an EU diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity. “If the European Parliament refuses, we will have a European crisis.” Proponents argue that the deal with Mercosur — which groups Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay — is the bloc’s best shot at rallying friends across the world as the EU tries to counter Donald Trump’s aggressive moves (the latest being the U.S. president’s threats to annex Greenland). But more than 140 lawmakers are already questioning the legal basis of the agreement, concerned that it breaches the EU treaties. They want it sent to the Court of Justice of the EU for a legal review, which could delay it for as long as two years. Political group leaders agreed before the Christmas break to submit this referral to a vote as soon as governments signed off on the deal. That vote is now expected at next week’s plenary, a official with the Parliament said.  Yet while the rebel MEPs have enough votes to call a floor debate, they likely lack the majority needed in the 720-seat Parliament to pass the resolution itself.  “I don’t think that the substance of the legal challenge is going anywhere. This is fabricated, it’s a lot of hot air — both in terms of environmental [and] health provisions, in terms of national parliaments. All of this has been tried and tested,” said David Kleimann, a senior trade expert at the ODI Europe think tank in Brussels. LEGAL ROADBLOCKS  The challenge in the Parliament is only one front. The deal’s biggest opponents, Poland and France, are also fighting back. Polish Agriculture Minister Stefan Krajewski said Friday he would push for the government to also submit a complaint to the Court of Justice.   “We will not let the deal go any further,” he said, adding that Poland would ask the court to assess whether the Mercosur pact is legally sound. On the same day, protesting farmers spilled manure in front of his house. “We will not let the deal go any further,” said Polish Agriculture Minister Stefan Krajewski. | Olivier Matthys/EPA Polish MEP Krzysztof Hetman, a member of the center-right European People’s Party and a political ally of Krajewski, said the referrals of the Parliament and of member states would play out separately with the same aim in mind. “If one succeeds, the other might not be necessary,” he said, adding that while the court considers the complaint, the deal would effectively be on ice. French President Emmanuel Macron, meanwhile, is under huge pressure from his political opponents to do more to stall the deal. France, Poland, Austria, Ireland and Hungary voted against the deal last week while Belgium abstained. That left the anti-Mercosur camp shy of the blocking minority needed to kill the deal. On Wednesday, the National Assembly will vote on two separate no-confidence motions submitted by the far-right National Rally and the far-left France Unbowed. Even if opposition to the Mercosur deal remains unanimous, the two motions have little to no chance of toppling the French government: The left is unlikely to back the National Rally text, while the center-left Socialists are withholding support for the France Unbowed motion. But nothing can be ruled out in France’s fragmented parliament.  REALITY CHECK Even some of the rebel MEPs admit their challenge is unlikely to succeed — and that the Parliament might still back the overall deal in a vote later this year.  “It will be very difficult now that the Council has approved it,” said Hetman, the Polish MEP. “The supporters of the agreement know this, which is why they sabotaged the vote on the referral in November and December.” Others opponents still see a chance to topple it, and are optimistic that the legal challenge can gather enough support.  “We want to delay the Mercosur adoption process as long as possible,” Manon Aubry, co-chair of The Left group, told POLITICO before the Christmas break. She also saw signs that a majority of MEPs could come out against the deal: “I bet there are even more MEPs willing to make sure that the agreement is fully in line with the treaties.” If the judicial review is rejected, the Parliament would hold a yes-no vote to ratify the trade agreement, without being able to modify its terms.  Such a vote could be scheduled in the May plenary at the earliest, Bernd Lange, the chair of the chamber’s trade committee, told POLITICO. Lange, a German Social Democrat, said he was confident of a “sufficient” majority to pass the deal.  Pedro López de Pablo, a spokesperson for the EPP — von der Leyen’s own political family and the EU’s largest party — vowed there was a majority for the agreement in the EPP and dismissed the legal maneuvering.  “It is clear that such a move is politically motivated to delay the implementation of the deal rather than the product of a legal analysis,” he said.  Giorgio Leali contributed to this report. 

BRUSSELS — The EU and Mercosur will sign their long-awaited trade agreement on Saturday, with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen traveling to Paraguay on Jan. 17 for the signing ceremony. Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier confirmed von der Leyen’s travel plans to POLITICO. She will be joined by European Council President António Costa, his cabinet confirmed. The trip comes after a majority of EU member countries on Friday voted in favor of signing the deal. The EU-Mercosur deal is set to create the world’s largest free-trade area, covering some 700 million people. From Brussels’ perspective, the agreement is a major geopolitical win in light of China’s rising share in trade and influence in Latin America and U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariff policies. Aside from Paraguay, the Mercosur bloc consists of Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay.

When NATO members agreed last summer to increase defense spending, they lavished praise on Donald Trump for forcing the issue, believing that flattery would go a long way to keeping the president committed to the alliance and the cause of transatlantic security. But the takeaway for Trump, it turns out, was something else altogether — that bullying and threats were highly effective means of compelling longtime allies to act. And that’s largely why, when it comes to his pursuit of Greenland, he is returning to the same playbook, starting from a place of outward hostility, believing that’s what it will take to get Denmark to sell the island to the United States. “He got all these countries to pay their fair share into NATO security, and he did it by fear and sheer force of will,” said a senior White House official who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the president’s strategy. “He’s been proven right about that aspect, and he’s going to be proven right about this.” Indeed, Europe has already bent the knee to Trump on multiple fronts. Beyond the defense spending, a European “coalition of the willing” has taken on the entirety of backing Ukraine with billions in defense aid and the European Union swallowed a 15 percent U.S. tariff on most European goods to avoid any further escalation. But Trump’s obsession with taking Greenland is the kind of existential threat to European sovereignty that, in the eyes of some European officials and diplomats who spoke to POLITICO, demands a stronger response. The most they feel they could do to placate him is commit more troops. “Once you start changing borders by caprice or by force, you don’t know where you end up,” said one of the diplomats granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive subject. Trump’s saber rattling about taking Greenland from Denmark, echoed and amplified by a number of top aides, ratcheted up within hours of the successful military operation that removed longtime Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro from power. “It’s a very effective message,” the senior White House official said. “Everyone now knows that America is not playing around, especially now.” Trump, speaking to reporters during an event at the White House on Friday, stated that taking control of Greenland is only a matter of when — and how. “We are going to do something on Greenland, whether they like it or not, because if we don’t do it, Russia or China will take over Greenland, and we’re not going to have Russia or China as a neighbor,” Trump said. “I would like to make a deal the easy way, but if we don’t do it the easy way, we will do it the hard way.” Trump even questioned Denmark’s claim on Greenland. “I’m a fan of Denmark too,” he said. “But you know, the fact that they had a boat land there 500 years ago doesn’t mean that they own the land.” Denmark has controlled Greenland for roughly 300 years and in 1916 the United States formally recognized Denmark’s interests in Greenland in exchange for the Danish West Indies, which became the U.S. Virgin Islands. The president and his top aides have repeatedly emphasized that Trump’s threats should not be dismissed, especially if and when diplomacy runs aground. And the president and his top aides are repeatedly emphasizing that Trump’s threats should not be dismissed, especially if and when diplomacy runs aground. “My advice to European leaders and anybody else would be to take the president seriously,” Vice President JD Vance said on Thursday, calling on Europeans to take more steps to ensure Greenland’s security given the increased presence of China and Russia in Arctic waters. “If they’re not, the United States is going to have to do something about it. What that is, I’ll leave that to the president.” After Trump raised the idea of claiming Greenland at the beginning of his term, Danish officials sought to keep the matter low-profile, hoping it would disappear. Now, with Trump’s interest renewed, they have urged their European counterparts to be more vocal about it. Denmark and six European leaders issued a joint statement saying Denmark and Greenland are the ones who “decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland.” With Secretary of State Marco Rubio expected to meet with his Danish counterpart next Wednesday in Washington, Vance and other administration officials suggested that military force was a long way off. Rubio privately told lawmakers earlier this week that Trump was looking to buy the island from Denmark rather than mount an immediate military operation, according to a person familiar with the matter and granted anonymity to describe the conversation. But senior officials have both publicly and privately refused to rule out taking Greenland by force, which would effectively end NATO altogether — a cost that Trump made clear he’s aware of in an interview with the New York Times, stating that, eventually, “it may be a choice.” Speaking so openly about rupturing a transatlantic alliance that has endured since World War II, however shocking to Europeans, isn’t new for Trump. His push for NATO to increase its defense spending began at the organization’s 2018 summit in Brussels where he threatened to withdraw the U.S. from the alliance if things didn’t change. Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, coupled with a growing belief among NATO countries that he might actually pull America out of the alliance during a second term, finally led member countries to increase their defense spending. Threatening a military takeover of Greenland as a last resort just days after the operation to oust Maduro has forced Europeans — and even some of Trump’s own allies and aides — to ponder just how far he might go. “The messages we hear regarding Greenland are extremely concerning,” EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas told reporters in Cairo on Thursday. “We have had discussions among the Europeans [on] if this is a real threat, and if it is, then what would be our response?” Denmark is trying to find clarity and build relationships in the U.S. The Danish embassy earlier this year hired Mercury Public Affairs, the former home of White House chief of staff Susie Wiles. And this week, Danish representatives met with Republican and Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Danish Ambassador Jesper Møller Sørensen and Jacob Isbosethsen, the head of Greenland representation, “expressed an openness to discuss any measure that would enhance the security of the United States, while respecting the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Denmark” during a Tuesday meeting, Rep. Mike Flood (R-Neb.) said in a statement. At the height of the Cold War, the U.S. had 10,000 troops and operated multiple installations in Greenland. The U.S. pulled back when it ended and now has one base and about 200 troops there. Trump’s administration has rebuffed Danish offers for the U.S. to station more troops in Greenland or open additional bases. His advisers have sent mixed messages about what Washington is looking for in private meetings with European counterparts. And Trump’s comments to the New York Times this week suggested that a more robust defense agreement and joint investment deals may not be enough for the former real estate executive. “Ownership is very important,” he said. “Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success…ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document.”  MOST READ 1. The Supreme Court may leave alone the Voting Rights Act just long enough to keep the GOP from House control in 2026 2. Judge disqualifies US attorney in New York, tosses Letitia James subpoenas 3. The GOP’s Obamacare defectors were more numerous than expected 4. 17 Republicans vote to restore lapsed Obamacare subsidies 5. ‘Uninvestable’: Trump pitch to oil execs yields no promises Some Europeans have left private discussions feeling Trump is resolute about acquiring Greenland one way or another. Others say some of his aides like Rubio appear to be seeking an off ramp, according to two people familiar with the matter and granted anonymity to discuss it. The National Security Council’s director for the Western Hemisphere, Michael Jenner, has been the one to take meetings with diplomats about the Trump effort rather than the Europe director — highlighting the difference in how the U.S. and Europe view the matter. For European officials, Greenland is a European security issue, while for Trump and his team, it is the latest extension of the so-called Donroe Doctrine that envisions U.S. control over its backyard. “They’ve got this intellectual framework for thinking about the whole hemisphere, and they’re going to tie Greenland into that, which makes a lot of sense. So we didn’t have that holistic vision in the first term,” said Alex Gray, who served in the first Trump National Security Council and is now CEO of American Global Strategies. But Europeans have struggled to respond. “Danes and the Europeans at large need to do much better,” said former NATO policy planning director Fabrice Pothier, now CEO of Rasmussen Global, arguing that Trump’s desire for Greenland is not rational, economic or rooted in security concerns. “The problem is that this is not something you can easily address through economic sweeteners or national security arrangements,” he said. NATO, too, is now discussing options to strengthen its Arctic flank, after Trump’s claims that Russian and Chinese ships were swarming Greenland. That new effort is driven by a genuine need to beef up its Arctic presence, according to two NATO diplomats granted anonymity to describe the motivations, as well as a desire to take Trump’s concerns seriously. Some European officials fear that the Trump team might seek to acquire Greenland as part of a grand bargain for Ukraine. That is not something the president is likely to do, the senior White House official said. But, they said, everything is subject to change. “We’re gonna try to exhaust all our diplomatic options and see how, see if we’re moving in positive steps,” the official said. “What we have done with everything is we go along and then we reassess every step of the way. It’s just like a business deal.” Jacopo Barigazzi, Victor Jack and Seb Starcevic in Brussels contributed reporting.

Europe’s biggest ever trade deal finally got the nod Friday after 25 years of negotiating.  It took blood, sweat, tears and tortured discussions to get there, but EU countries at last backed the deal with the Mercosur bloc — paving the way to create a free trade area that covers more than 700 million people across Europe and Latin America.  The agreement, which awaits approval from the European Parliament, will eliminate more than 90 percent of tariffs on EU exports. European shoppers will be able to dine on grass-fed beef from the Argentinian pampas. Brazilian drivers will see import duties on German motors come down.  As for the accord’s economic impact, well, that pales in comparison with the epic battles over it: The European Commission estimates it will add €77.6 billion (or 0.05 percent) to the EU economy by 2040.  Like in any deal, there are winners and losers. POLITICO takes you through who is uncorking their Malbec, and who, on the other hand, is crying into the Bordeaux. WINNERS Giorgia Meloni Italy’s prime minister has done it again. Giorgia Meloni saw which way the political winds were blowing and skillfully extracted last-minute concessions for Italian farmers after threatening to throw her weight behind French opposition to the deal.  The end result? In exchange for its support, Rome was able to secure farm market safeguards and promises of fresh agriculture funding from the European Commission — wins that the government can trumpet in front of voters back home. It also means that Meloni has picked the winning side once more, coming off as the team player despite the last-minute holdup. All in all, yet another laurel in Rome’s crown.  The German car industry  Das Auto hasn’t had much reason to cheer of late, but Mercosur finally gives reason to celebrate. Germany’s famed automotive sector will have easier access to consumers in LatAm. Lower tariffs mean, all things being equal, more sales and a boost to the bottom line for companies like Volkswagen and BMW. There are a few catches. Tariffs, now at 35 percent, aren’t coming down all at once. At the behest of Brazil, which hosts an auto industry of its own, the removal of trade barriers will be staggered. Electric vehicles will be given preferential treatment, an area that Europe’s been lagging behind on.  Ursula von der Leyen Mercosur is a bittersweet triumph for European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Since shaking hands on the deal with Mercosur leaders more than a year ago, her team has bent over backwards to accommodate the demands of the skeptics and build the all-important qualified majority that finally materialized Friday. Expect a victory lap next week, when the Berlaymont boss travels to Paraguay to sign the agreement. Giorgia Meloni saw which way the political winds were blowing and skillfully extracted last-minute concessions for Italian farmers after threatening to throw her weight behind French opposition to the deal. | Ettore Ferrari/EPA On the international stage, it also helps burnish Brussels’ standing at a time when the bloc looks like a lumbering dinosaur, consistently outmaneuvered by the U.S. and China. A large-scale trade deal shows that the rules-based international order that the EU so cherishes is still alive, even as the U.S. whisked away a South American leader in chains.  But the deal came at a very high cost. Von der Leyen had to promise EU farmers €45 billion in subsidies to win them over, backtracking on efforts to rein in agricultural support in the EU budget and invest more in innovation and growth.   Europe’s farmers  Speaking of farmers, going by the headlines you could be forgiven for thinking that Mercosur is an unmitigated disaster. Surely innumerable tons of South American produce sold at rock-bottom prices are about to drive the hard-working French or Polish plowman off his land, right?  The reality is a little bit more complicated. The deal comes with strict quotas for categories ranging from beef to poultry. In effect, Latin American farmers will be limited to exporting a couple of chicken breasts per European person per year. Meanwhile, the deal recognizes special protections for European producers for specialty products like Italian parmesan or French wine, who stand to benefit from the expanded market. So much for the agri-pocalpyse now.  Mercosur is a bittersweet triumph for European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. | Olivier Matthys/EPA Then there’s the matter of the €45 billion of subsidies going into farmers’ pockets, and it’s hard not to conclude that — despite all the tractor protests and manure fights in downtown Brussels — the deal doesn’t smell too bad after all.  LOSERS Emmanuel Macron  There’s been no one high-ranking politician more steadfast in their opposition to the trade agreement than France’s President Emmanuel Macron who, under enormous domestic political pressure, has consistently opposed the deal. It’s no surprise then that France joined Poland, Austria, Ireland and Hungary to unsuccessfully vote against Mercosur.  The former investment banker might be a free-trading capitalist at heart, but he knows well that, domestically, the deal is seen as a knife in the back of long-suffering Gallic growers. Macron, who is burning through prime ministers at rates previously reserved for political basket cases like Italy, has had precious few wins recently. Torpedoing the free trade agreement, or at least delaying it further, would have been proof that the lame-duck French president still had some sway on the European stage.  Surely innumerable tons of South American produce sold at rock-bottom prices are about to drive the hard-working French or Polish plowman off his land, right? | Darek Delmanowicz/EPA Macron made a valiant attempt to rally the troops for a last-minute counterattack, and at one point it looked like he had a good chance to throw a wrench in the works after wooing Italy’s Meloni. That’s all come to nought. After this latest defeat, expect more lambasting of the French president in the national media, as Macron continues his slow-motion tumble down from the Olympian heights of the Élysée Palace.  Donald Trump Coming within days of the U.S. mission to snatch Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro and put him on trial in New York, the Mercosur deal finally shows that Europe has no shortage of soft power to work constructively with like-minded partners — if it actually has the wit to make use of it smartly.  Any trade deal should be seen as a win-win proposition for both sides, and that is just not the way U.S. President Donald Trump and his art of the geopolitical shakedown works. It also has the incidental benefit of strengthening his adversaries — including Brazilian President and Mercosur head honcho Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva — who showed extraordinary patience as he waited on the EU to get their act together (and nurtured a public bromance with Macron even as the trade talks were deadlocked). China  China has been expanding exports to Latin America, particularly Brazil, during the decades when the EU was negotiating the Mercosur trade deal. The EU-Mercosur deal is an opportunity for Europe to claw back some market share, especially in competitive sectors like automotive, machines and aviation. The deal also strengthens the EU’s hand on staying on top when it comes to direct investments, an area where European companies are still outshining their Chinese competitors. Emmanuel Macron made a valiant attempt to rally the troops for a last-minute counterattack, and at one point it looked like he had a good chance to throw a wrench in the works after wooing Italy’s Meloni. | Pool photo by Ludovic Marin/EPA More politically, China has somewhat succeeded in drawing countries like Brazil away from Western points of view, for instance via the BRICS grouping, consisting of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, and other developing economies. Because the deal is not only about trade but also creates deeper political cooperation, Lula and his Mercosur counterparts become more closely linked to Europe. The Amazon rainforest  Unfortunately, for the world’s ecosystem, Mercosur means one thing: burn, baby, burn. The pastures that feed Brazil’s herds come at the expense of the nation’s once-sprawling, now-shrinking tropical rainforest. Put simply, more beef for Europe means less trees for the world. It’s not all bad news for the climate. The trade deal does include both mandatory safeguards against illegal deforestation, as well as a commitment to the Paris Climate Agreement for its signatories. 

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is likely to face a motion of censure over the Mercosur trade deal in the coming weeks, according to the far-right Patriots for Europe group. The chair of the Patriots, French heavyweight Jordan Bardella, announced the motion of censure plan on Thursday evening on X. His party, the National Rally, opposes the trade agreement between the EU and the South American Mercosur bloc, which has been championed by von der Leyen. A qualified majority of EU member countries on Friday approved the long-awaited trade deal, which France opposed.  “Hope we file it [the censure motion] for a vote this January session,” a senior Patriots official told POLITICO. Once filed, the Parliament’s legal team will check the motion, and if approved, Parliament President Roberta Metsola will contact all MEPs with the details. If the choreography of previous censure motions is followed, a debate is likely to be held on Monday, Jan. 19, with a vote on Thursday, Jan. 22. Scheduling a motion of censure requires the backing of 72 lawmakers. As the Patriots have 82 MEPs, they do not need the support of other political groups. The motion — which, if successful, would see von der Leyen and all 26 of her commissioners dismissed — is almost certain to fail, as it would require a two-thirds majority of votes cast. There have been three previous attempts to bring down von der Leyen through votes of no-confidence — two brought by the far right and one by the far left. All have failed. Bardella also accused French President Emmanuel Macron of being a hypocrite by pretending to oppose the Mercosur deal and “betraying French farmers” by not doing enough to stop it. Bardella said the National Rally would submit a motion of no confidence against the French government. 

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

The Italian government is satisfied with new funding promised by Brussels to European farmers and is signaling that it may cast its decisive vote in favor of the EU’s huge trade deal with the Latin American Mercosur bloc. Ahead of Friday’s vote by EU member countries, Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani said Rome was happy with the European Commission’s efforts to make the deal more palatable. Agriculture Minister Francesco Lollobrigida also said the accord represented an opportunity — especially for food exporters. “Italy has never changed its position: We have always supported the conclusion of the agreement,” Tajani said on Wednesday evening. Yet they stopped short of saying outright that Italy would vote in favor of the deal. Instead, within sight of the finish line, Rome is pressing to tighten additional safeguards to shield the EU farm market from being destabilized by any potential influx of South American produce. Rome’s endorsement of the accord, which has been a quarter century in the making and would create a free-trade zone spanning more than 700 million people, is crucial. A qualified majority of 15 of the EU’s 27 countries representing 65 percent of the bloc’s population is needed. Italy, with its large population, effectively holds the casting vote. France and Poland are still holding out against a pro-Mercosur majority led by Germany — but they lack the numbers to stall the deal. If it goes through, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen could fly to Paraguay to sign the accord as soon as next week. The bloc’s other members are Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay. ‘AN EXCELLENT OPPORTUNITY’ Italy praised a raft of additional measures proposed by the Commission — including farm market safeguards and fresh budget promises on agriculture funding — as “the most comprehensive system of protections ever included in a free trade agreement signed by the EU.” Tajani, who as deputy prime minister oversees trade policy, has long taken a pro-Mercosur position. He said the deal would help the EU diversify its trade relationships and boost “the strategic autonomy and economic sovereignty of Italy and our continent.” Even Lollobrigida, who has sympathized in the past with farmers’ concerns on the deal, is striking a more positive tone. At a meeting hosted by the Commission in Brussels on Wednesday, Lollobrigida described Mercosur as “an excellent opportunity.” The minister, who is close to Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and is from her Brothers of Italy party, also said its provisions on so-called geographical indications would help Italy promote its world-famous delicacies in South America. It would mean no more ‘Parmesão,’” he said, referring to Italian-sounding knockoffs of the famed hard cheese. ONE MORE THING … Lollobrigida said Italy could back the deal if the farm market safeguards are tightened. The EU institutions agreed in December to require the Commission to investigate surges in imports of beef or poultry from Mercosur if volumes rise by 8 percent from the average, or if those imports undercut comparable EU products by a similar margin. Even Francesco Lollobrigida, who has sympathized in the past with farmers’ concerns on the deal, is striking a more positive tone. | Fabio Cimaglia/EPA “We want to go from 8 percent to 5 percent. And we believe that the conditions are there to also reach this goal,” Lollobrigida told Italian daily IlSole24Ore in an interview on Thursday. Meloni pulled the emergency brake at a pre-Christmas EU summit, forcing the Commission to delay the final vote on the deal while it worked on ways to address her concerns around EU farm funding. In response Von der Leyen proposed this week to offer earlier access to up to €45 billion in agricultural funding under the bloc’s next long-term budget. Giorgio Leali reported from Paris and Gerardo Fortuna from Brussels.