German foreign and European politicians have expressed their relief at the surprising victory of the left-wing alliance in the parliamentary elections in France. “The worst has been avoided,” says Nils Schmid, foreign policy spokesman for the SPD parliamentary group in the Bundestag. He is of course pleased about the good result of the left-wing alliance. Macron is gaining leeway, but will also have to contend with uncertainties. According to Schmid, the new prime minister is likely to come from the center-left camp.
Schmid anticipates a “rocky and complicated government formation.” It will not be any easier for Europe. The new parliamentary majority is also unlikely to push for further EU trade agreements and the EU’s Green Deal will hardly receive any additional support from Paris.
Green MEP Sergey Lagodinsky spoke of a “breather”: “This is a good election Sunday for Europe. The coalition will be a first and another test for France’s democracy and for the unpopular president.”
Gunther Krichbaum, European policy spokesman for the CDU/CSU parliamentary group, is less confident. “Marine Le Pen has failed with her goal of an absolute majority.” Nevertheless, “radical right-wing and left-wing forces that reject a common Europe have gained enormous influence.” This worries him “deeply.” Krichbaum continued: “We are facing the most difficult times in France, in Franco-German relations and within European cooperation.” The fact that “the German government has not grasped the many outstretched hands of President Macron in the past” is taking its toll.
NRW European Affairs Minister Nathanael Liminski (CDU), the son of a French woman, was relieved. “It is good news that the nationalists around Marine Le Pen were not able to gain a dominant position in parliament, contrary to what some polls predicted.” Macron had succeeded in bringing the right-wing populists down from the pedestal of their landslide victory in the European elections.
“At the same time, however, the French have not turned the new election into a plebiscite for their president,” says Liminski. The second largest economy in the EU, “the only EU veto power at the UN and the only nuclear power in the EU is becoming more politically unstable and unpredictable.”
Election night in France brought a big surprise: the left-wing alliance Nouveau Front Populaire (NFP) became the strongest force in the National Assembly yesterday (Sunday) and, according to projections, has 172 to 192 seats. The “Ensemble pour la République” coalition, which represents President Emmanuel Macron’s camp, came second with between 150 and 170 MPs.
The Rassemblement National (RN) and its allies are only in third place, with 132 to 152 MPs. Voter turnout was unusually high at over 67 percent, the highest since 1997.
However, none of the major political blocs achieved an absolute majority in the 289-seat National Assembly. This means that the question of the future government remains open.
As expected, the Prime Minister handed in his resignation, clearing the way for the various demands of the parties. “I did not choose this dissolution and I refused to put up with it,” said Gabriel Attal. “True to republican tradition, I will offer my resignation to the President of the Republic tomorrow morning.” The fate of France will be decided “more than ever in parliament,” he said.
The French constitution stipulates that the President of the Republic appoints the Prime Minister. However, for reasons of convention and political legitimacy, the prime minister must be appointed by the political force that has the majority in the National Assembly. “Nobody would understand if Emmanuel Macron refused to appoint the candidate of the Nouveau Front Populaire,” said an NFP MP at the party’s election party in Paris.
The Élysée Palace has announced that Emmanuel Macron will not be appointing a new prime minister in the near future. The head of state intends to wait until the National Assembly has been structured before appointing a new head of government, according to reports. Macron is “currently” planning to travel to the NATO summit in Washington on Wednesday.
Foreign Minister Stéphane Séjourné said that the presidential camp would set “preconditions for any discussion” about a future government. He did not want “Jean-Luc Mélenchon and a number of his allies” to be able to govern France, said the former MEP and head of the Renew Group in the European Parliament on election night.
MEP Raphaël Glucksmann (S&D), whose party Place Publique is part of the Nouveau Front Populaire, was delighted with the election victory, but quickly took a critical tone. Parliament was divided after the election, which is why the MPs had to show discipline and behave “like adults.” “We will have to have a dialog,” said Glucksmann. The election had resulted in a shift of power in favor of parliament. “The core of power has been transferred to the National Assembly. It is a change in political culture that is necessary and will be fundamental.”
It will also be difficult to maintain unity within the left. For the Socialists and their leader Olivier Faure, the aim will be to regain the leading role on the left and get rid of Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the highly controversial leader of the left-wing populist La France Insoumise. Mélenchon had already caused tensions during the election campaign.
“French voters have just given the EU a breather,” says Manon Dufour, head of the Brussels office of the think tank E3G. “With a weakened president and a government preoccupied with political divisions and a strong polarization of the electorate, the risk for Europe is that France will be passive and self-centred,” says Dufour. “The next French government would be ill-advised to neglect its European role in a turbulent geopolitical environment.”
France’s influence cannot be dispensed in the upcoming negotiations on the EU budget either. “This budget can help solve the widespread housing crisis, protect citizens from the increasing effects of climate change and ensure food security for future generations,” says Dufour.
Before the summer break in Brussels, the debate on the anti-deforestation regulation has picked up speed. Last week in Portugal, the EPP Group discussed its position on the law, which is to be implemented in a few months. The 5-point plan that MEPs finally adopted talks about postponing the application of the regulation and “solving the problems related to its implementation.” The S&D Group, on the other hand, added to its list of demands for the next Commission during the last votes and now explicitly mentions that the regulation must remain in place.
Under the full title of the regulation for deforestation-free supply chains, companies will have to apply the rules from December 30, and smaller companies from the end of June 2025, when they will only be allowed to sell imports of certain products in the EU – including cocoa, coffee, palm oil, soy and timber – if suppliers have submitted a due diligence declaration. This confirms that a product does not originate from an area deforested after December 31, 2020, and that local legislation was complied with during its manufacture.
Many criticize that the Commission has not yet presented important foundations for implementation, such as certain guidelines and country benchmarking. With this, the Commission wants to assign each country a certain risk level for deforestation. On this basis, certain control quotas will then apply to the individual product groups: For each product group, the national authorities must control one percent of market participants importing from low-risk countries, three percent for standard-risk countries and nine percent for high-risk countries.
In the vote in the EU Parliament in April 2023, most EPP MEPs supported the law. Luxembourg EPP member Christophe Hansen led the negotiations with the Council and Commission as rapporteur. He is relaxed: “If the Commission presents the promised guidelines and the benchmarking method in the next few weeks, there is no reason for a delay.” A delay could also prolong the period of uncertainty for companies.
CDU MEP Peter Liese, environmental spokesman for the EPP group (who abstained at the time), is probably the loudest advocate of a postponement. In a press conference earlier this week, he named 2027 as his preferred deadline. “We can accept the postponement in the short term using the urgent procedure so that all sides have time to breathe and then calmly discuss changes to the text that mean less bureaucracy but still protection against deforestation,” he said. He supports the regulation’s aim, but accuses the Greens, Social Democrats, Left and French Liberals of having created a “bureaucratic monster.”
“We are in regular contact with the EU Commission and know that they are working at full speed on the implementation and that everything is going according to plan,” said Anna Cavazzini (Greens), who was also involved in the negotiations. “To comply with the demands for a postponement would lead to less planning security for the economy and penalize proactive companies.” In the event that the Commission is not finished with the country benchmarking, there are provisions in the law, according to Cavazzini.
If no benchmarking is available on December 30, all countries are initially classified as “standard risk.” This means that even countries with a low risk of deforestation – such as Germany – will initially be classified as higher.
“We cannot be treated like a high-risk country,” said Federal Agriculture Minister Cem Özdemir (Greens) at the Agriculture Council in April. “This will literally drive the last well-meaning people up the trees and destroy acceptance of the law.” The German government supports the EU Commission in its goal, but more flexibility is urgently needed along the way.
Together with ministers from other member states, Özdemir called on the EU Commission in May to quickly create the missing foundations for the law to come into force – or to postpone its implementation. They fear a disproportionately high bureaucratic burden for administration and market participants. The IT system and country benchmarking are key prerequisites for implementation.
The Commission is not commenting on when the benchmarking will be ready. According to information from Table.Briefings, a proposal has already been submitted, but it still has to be approved at the highest level. “The Commission’s work on the benchmarking is still incomplete,” a spokesperson told Table.Briefings. It will take the necessary time to ensure that the assessment is “based on a scientifically and professionally sound methodology.” As soon as the preliminary results are available, the Commission will enter into a dialog with the countries that have been classified (in whole or in part) as particularly high-risk.
In the meantime, the Commission has set up an interface in the “Traces” IT system. This is to be used to connect trading systems in the industry directly to the system to provide individual proof that no deforestation occurs. A spokesperson for the Federal Ministry of Agriculture (BMEL) told Table.Briefings that the Commission had also promised to simplify the submission of the due diligence declaration. This should be possible “with just a few clicks.” “This is a big step towards a practicable application of the regulation,” said the spokesperson.
The EU’s trading partners are now also speaking their mind. The Financial Times recently reported on a letter from the end of May in which the US government also called on the EU Commission to postpone implementation. According to the letter, the requirements and penalties would hit the US wood, paper and pulp industry particularly hard. The American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA) considers it impossible to comply with the EU law, as paper and pulp are partly produced from mixed waste.
With the victory of Keir Starmer’s Labour Party in the UK general election, a long series of political misjudgments and personal shortcomings by the British Tories were harshly punished after 14 years in power. An absolute majority of 172 is reminiscent of Tony Blair in 1997, while on the Conservative side 11 cabinet members lost their constituencies, including both former Prime Minister Liz Truss and future hopefuls like Penny Mordaunt.
Labour’s victory in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales was greatly aided by a majority voting system designed for a two-party-system. The share of the vote is only slightly higher than in Labour’s defeat in 2019, and victory is therefore also the result of divisive forces such as the populist Reform Party, the renaissance of the Liberal Democrats and a highly strategic election campaign by Labour.
Above all, however, it is an expression of the irrepressible anger of British voters at the slow economic decline of the last 15 years. British real wages in 2023 were lower than in 2008 and the average middle-income British household is now 20% poorer than its counterpart in Germany. The most important driver is a productivity gap that has tripled since 2008 compared to countries such as Germany and France.
Leaving the EU exacerbated long-standing and deep-rooted problems, particularly a toxic combination of low growth and high regional inequality. In contrast to Blair, Keir Starmer now faces a financial legacy that is more comparable to that of Clemence Atlee’s Labour government after the Second World War.
Against this background, it is easy to forget that the UK remains one of the richest and most resourceful countries in the world. The sixth-largest economy produces world-leading companies in future sectors such as financial services, aerospace, life sciences, creative industries and education. In addition, it has advantages in the production of renewable energy. Labour’s focus is therefore on reviving the British economy.
However, British soft power, diplomatic influence and military resources (including its position as a nuclear power) also make the country a relevant player in European security. Labour’s desire for a security pact with the EU will be met with openness in Brussels. The new EU- and Germany-sceptical government in France is also creating new space for a stronger British-German axis, and both countries are indeed on the verge of a new bilateral security agreement.
But if Labour’s cautious reorientation towards Europe is to lead to tangible results, movement on both sides is required. Since the conclusion of Brexit negotiations in 2020, the EU has not expressed a discernible political position on its relations with the United Kingdom that take into account the geopolitical developments since then. The EU’s own ambition for a new European security order, through increased economic security, EU enlargement and strategic cooperation with “like-minded allies”, now offer new opportunities for cooperation with a Europe-oriented UK.
To redesign EU-UK relations, both sides should quickly set common strategic priorities and strengthen the institutional backbone of cooperation. Summit meetings (such as those the EU holds with Norway, Switzerland or Canada) would underline a new era of improved cooperation. In addition, foreign and security policy cooperation can be pushed forward even without Britain’s EU membership through specially established structures.
The gradual deepening and expansion of current trade and investment relations should be carried out in a parallel but intertwined process. This requires a new level of pragmatism, flexibility and political coherence on the part of the EU, which often struggles to think of security and economics as two sides of the same coin. Progress would certainly underpin Brussels’ aspirations to become a more coherent geopolitical actor.
However, the UK’s domestic political dynamics remain relevant despite Labour’s majority. On the one hand, new voices from the Labour large new parliamentary party could put pressure on the leadership to be more ambitious when it comes to the EU. The strong performance of the pro-European Liberal Democrats, who gained 72 seats, would further increase such pressure.
On the other hand, the populist, ideologically empty Reform Party received 14% of votes cast by the British people. This remarkable result is undoubtedly a reminder of the volatile political climate of this decade. And party leader Nigel Farage, an extremely effective political operator, has gained a new political platform by entering Parliament, which he will not leave unused.
Jake Benford is an expert on European politics at Bertelsmann Stiftung. His new publication “Eyes on the Prize: Shifts in EU interests require a reassessment of relations with the United Kingdom” (co-authoredwith Daniela Schwarzer) can be found here.
German foreign and European politicians have expressed their relief at the surprising victory of the left-wing alliance in the parliamentary elections in France. “The worst has been avoided,” says Nils Schmid, foreign policy spokesman for the SPD parliamentary group in the Bundestag. He is of course pleased about the good result of the left-wing alliance. Macron is gaining leeway, but will also have to contend with uncertainties. According to Schmid, the new prime minister is likely to come from the center-left camp.
Schmid anticipates a “rocky and complicated government formation.” It will not be any easier for Europe. The new parliamentary majority is also unlikely to push for further EU trade agreements and the EU’s Green Deal will hardly receive any additional support from Paris.
Green MEP Sergey Lagodinsky spoke of a “breather”: “This is a good election Sunday for Europe. The coalition will be a first and another test for France’s democracy and for the unpopular president.”
Gunther Krichbaum, European policy spokesman for the CDU/CSU parliamentary group, is less confident. “Marine Le Pen has failed with her goal of an absolute majority.” Nevertheless, “radical right-wing and left-wing forces that reject a common Europe have gained enormous influence.” This worries him “deeply.” Krichbaum continued: “We are facing the most difficult times in France, in Franco-German relations and within European cooperation.” The fact that “the German government has not grasped the many outstretched hands of President Macron in the past” is taking its toll.
NRW European Affairs Minister Nathanael Liminski (CDU), the son of a French woman, was relieved. “It is good news that the nationalists around Marine Le Pen were not able to gain a dominant position in parliament, contrary to what some polls predicted.” Macron had succeeded in bringing the right-wing populists down from the pedestal of their landslide victory in the European elections.
“At the same time, however, the French have not turned the new election into a plebiscite for their president,” says Liminski. The second largest economy in the EU, “the only EU veto power at the UN and the only nuclear power in the EU is becoming more politically unstable and unpredictable.”
Election night in France brought a big surprise: the left-wing alliance Nouveau Front Populaire (NFP) became the strongest force in the National Assembly yesterday (Sunday) and, according to projections, has 172 to 192 seats. The “Ensemble pour la République” coalition, which represents President Emmanuel Macron’s camp, came second with between 150 and 170 MPs.
The Rassemblement National (RN) and its allies are only in third place, with 132 to 152 MPs. Voter turnout was unusually high at over 67 percent, the highest since 1997.
However, none of the major political blocs achieved an absolute majority in the 289-seat National Assembly. This means that the question of the future government remains open.
As expected, the Prime Minister handed in his resignation, clearing the way for the various demands of the parties. “I did not choose this dissolution and I refused to put up with it,” said Gabriel Attal. “True to republican tradition, I will offer my resignation to the President of the Republic tomorrow morning.” The fate of France will be decided “more than ever in parliament,” he said.
The French constitution stipulates that the President of the Republic appoints the Prime Minister. However, for reasons of convention and political legitimacy, the prime minister must be appointed by the political force that has the majority in the National Assembly. “Nobody would understand if Emmanuel Macron refused to appoint the candidate of the Nouveau Front Populaire,” said an NFP MP at the party’s election party in Paris.
The Élysée Palace has announced that Emmanuel Macron will not be appointing a new prime minister in the near future. The head of state intends to wait until the National Assembly has been structured before appointing a new head of government, according to reports. Macron is “currently” planning to travel to the NATO summit in Washington on Wednesday.
Foreign Minister Stéphane Séjourné said that the presidential camp would set “preconditions for any discussion” about a future government. He did not want “Jean-Luc Mélenchon and a number of his allies” to be able to govern France, said the former MEP and head of the Renew Group in the European Parliament on election night.
MEP Raphaël Glucksmann (S&D), whose party Place Publique is part of the Nouveau Front Populaire, was delighted with the election victory, but quickly took a critical tone. Parliament was divided after the election, which is why the MPs had to show discipline and behave “like adults.” “We will have to have a dialog,” said Glucksmann. The election had resulted in a shift of power in favor of parliament. “The core of power has been transferred to the National Assembly. It is a change in political culture that is necessary and will be fundamental.”
It will also be difficult to maintain unity within the left. For the Socialists and their leader Olivier Faure, the aim will be to regain the leading role on the left and get rid of Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the highly controversial leader of the left-wing populist La France Insoumise. Mélenchon had already caused tensions during the election campaign.
“French voters have just given the EU a breather,” says Manon Dufour, head of the Brussels office of the think tank E3G. “With a weakened president and a government preoccupied with political divisions and a strong polarization of the electorate, the risk for Europe is that France will be passive and self-centred,” says Dufour. “The next French government would be ill-advised to neglect its European role in a turbulent geopolitical environment.”
France’s influence cannot be dispensed in the upcoming negotiations on the EU budget either. “This budget can help solve the widespread housing crisis, protect citizens from the increasing effects of climate change and ensure food security for future generations,” says Dufour.
Before the summer break in Brussels, the debate on the anti-deforestation regulation has picked up speed. Last week in Portugal, the EPP Group discussed its position on the law, which is to be implemented in a few months. The 5-point plan that MEPs finally adopted talks about postponing the application of the regulation and “solving the problems related to its implementation.” The S&D Group, on the other hand, added to its list of demands for the next Commission during the last votes and now explicitly mentions that the regulation must remain in place.
Under the full title of the regulation for deforestation-free supply chains, companies will have to apply the rules from December 30, and smaller companies from the end of June 2025, when they will only be allowed to sell imports of certain products in the EU – including cocoa, coffee, palm oil, soy and timber – if suppliers have submitted a due diligence declaration. This confirms that a product does not originate from an area deforested after December 31, 2020, and that local legislation was complied with during its manufacture.
Many criticize that the Commission has not yet presented important foundations for implementation, such as certain guidelines and country benchmarking. With this, the Commission wants to assign each country a certain risk level for deforestation. On this basis, certain control quotas will then apply to the individual product groups: For each product group, the national authorities must control one percent of market participants importing from low-risk countries, three percent for standard-risk countries and nine percent for high-risk countries.
In the vote in the EU Parliament in April 2023, most EPP MEPs supported the law. Luxembourg EPP member Christophe Hansen led the negotiations with the Council and Commission as rapporteur. He is relaxed: “If the Commission presents the promised guidelines and the benchmarking method in the next few weeks, there is no reason for a delay.” A delay could also prolong the period of uncertainty for companies.
CDU MEP Peter Liese, environmental spokesman for the EPP group (who abstained at the time), is probably the loudest advocate of a postponement. In a press conference earlier this week, he named 2027 as his preferred deadline. “We can accept the postponement in the short term using the urgent procedure so that all sides have time to breathe and then calmly discuss changes to the text that mean less bureaucracy but still protection against deforestation,” he said. He supports the regulation’s aim, but accuses the Greens, Social Democrats, Left and French Liberals of having created a “bureaucratic monster.”
“We are in regular contact with the EU Commission and know that they are working at full speed on the implementation and that everything is going according to plan,” said Anna Cavazzini (Greens), who was also involved in the negotiations. “To comply with the demands for a postponement would lead to less planning security for the economy and penalize proactive companies.” In the event that the Commission is not finished with the country benchmarking, there are provisions in the law, according to Cavazzini.
If no benchmarking is available on December 30, all countries are initially classified as “standard risk.” This means that even countries with a low risk of deforestation – such as Germany – will initially be classified as higher.
“We cannot be treated like a high-risk country,” said Federal Agriculture Minister Cem Özdemir (Greens) at the Agriculture Council in April. “This will literally drive the last well-meaning people up the trees and destroy acceptance of the law.” The German government supports the EU Commission in its goal, but more flexibility is urgently needed along the way.
Together with ministers from other member states, Özdemir called on the EU Commission in May to quickly create the missing foundations for the law to come into force – or to postpone its implementation. They fear a disproportionately high bureaucratic burden for administration and market participants. The IT system and country benchmarking are key prerequisites for implementation.
The Commission is not commenting on when the benchmarking will be ready. According to information from Table.Briefings, a proposal has already been submitted, but it still has to be approved at the highest level. “The Commission’s work on the benchmarking is still incomplete,” a spokesperson told Table.Briefings. It will take the necessary time to ensure that the assessment is “based on a scientifically and professionally sound methodology.” As soon as the preliminary results are available, the Commission will enter into a dialog with the countries that have been classified (in whole or in part) as particularly high-risk.
In the meantime, the Commission has set up an interface in the “Traces” IT system. This is to be used to connect trading systems in the industry directly to the system to provide individual proof that no deforestation occurs. A spokesperson for the Federal Ministry of Agriculture (BMEL) told Table.Briefings that the Commission had also promised to simplify the submission of the due diligence declaration. This should be possible “with just a few clicks.” “This is a big step towards a practicable application of the regulation,” said the spokesperson.
The EU’s trading partners are now also speaking their mind. The Financial Times recently reported on a letter from the end of May in which the US government also called on the EU Commission to postpone implementation. According to the letter, the requirements and penalties would hit the US wood, paper and pulp industry particularly hard. The American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA) considers it impossible to comply with the EU law, as paper and pulp are partly produced from mixed waste.
With the victory of Keir Starmer’s Labour Party in the UK general election, a long series of political misjudgments and personal shortcomings by the British Tories were harshly punished after 14 years in power. An absolute majority of 172 is reminiscent of Tony Blair in 1997, while on the Conservative side 11 cabinet members lost their constituencies, including both former Prime Minister Liz Truss and future hopefuls like Penny Mordaunt.
Labour’s victory in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales was greatly aided by a majority voting system designed for a two-party-system. The share of the vote is only slightly higher than in Labour’s defeat in 2019, and victory is therefore also the result of divisive forces such as the populist Reform Party, the renaissance of the Liberal Democrats and a highly strategic election campaign by Labour.
Above all, however, it is an expression of the irrepressible anger of British voters at the slow economic decline of the last 15 years. British real wages in 2023 were lower than in 2008 and the average middle-income British household is now 20% poorer than its counterpart in Germany. The most important driver is a productivity gap that has tripled since 2008 compared to countries such as Germany and France.
Leaving the EU exacerbated long-standing and deep-rooted problems, particularly a toxic combination of low growth and high regional inequality. In contrast to Blair, Keir Starmer now faces a financial legacy that is more comparable to that of Clemence Atlee’s Labour government after the Second World War.
Against this background, it is easy to forget that the UK remains one of the richest and most resourceful countries in the world. The sixth-largest economy produces world-leading companies in future sectors such as financial services, aerospace, life sciences, creative industries and education. In addition, it has advantages in the production of renewable energy. Labour’s focus is therefore on reviving the British economy.
However, British soft power, diplomatic influence and military resources (including its position as a nuclear power) also make the country a relevant player in European security. Labour’s desire for a security pact with the EU will be met with openness in Brussels. The new EU- and Germany-sceptical government in France is also creating new space for a stronger British-German axis, and both countries are indeed on the verge of a new bilateral security agreement.
But if Labour’s cautious reorientation towards Europe is to lead to tangible results, movement on both sides is required. Since the conclusion of Brexit negotiations in 2020, the EU has not expressed a discernible political position on its relations with the United Kingdom that take into account the geopolitical developments since then. The EU’s own ambition for a new European security order, through increased economic security, EU enlargement and strategic cooperation with “like-minded allies”, now offer new opportunities for cooperation with a Europe-oriented UK.
To redesign EU-UK relations, both sides should quickly set common strategic priorities and strengthen the institutional backbone of cooperation. Summit meetings (such as those the EU holds with Norway, Switzerland or Canada) would underline a new era of improved cooperation. In addition, foreign and security policy cooperation can be pushed forward even without Britain’s EU membership through specially established structures.
The gradual deepening and expansion of current trade and investment relations should be carried out in a parallel but intertwined process. This requires a new level of pragmatism, flexibility and political coherence on the part of the EU, which often struggles to think of security and economics as two sides of the same coin. Progress would certainly underpin Brussels’ aspirations to become a more coherent geopolitical actor.
However, the UK’s domestic political dynamics remain relevant despite Labour’s majority. On the one hand, new voices from the Labour large new parliamentary party could put pressure on the leadership to be more ambitious when it comes to the EU. The strong performance of the pro-European Liberal Democrats, who gained 72 seats, would further increase such pressure.
On the other hand, the populist, ideologically empty Reform Party received 14% of votes cast by the British people. This remarkable result is undoubtedly a reminder of the volatile political climate of this decade. And party leader Nigel Farage, an extremely effective political operator, has gained a new political platform by entering Parliament, which he will not leave unused.
Jake Benford is an expert on European politics at Bertelsmann Stiftung. His new publication “Eyes on the Prize: Shifts in EU interests require a reassessment of relations with the United Kingdom” (co-authoredwith Daniela Schwarzer) can be found here.
