Britain’s gold-plated public sector pensions bill is on course to hit a record £60bn next year, yet is almost entirely ignored in favour of calls to cut the state pension on which many low income retired people depend.
The post Public Sector Pensions Bill to Hit Record £60 Billion appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
The Council adopted its position on 21st October, proposing an exemption from the obligation to appoint an authorised representative in another EU country when the amount of packaging placed on that country’s market remains below one tonne per calendar year.
The measure addresses complaints from small and medium-sized enterprises that the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation, which became applicable on 12th August 2026, creates unnecessary expenses for companies engaged in relatively modest volumes of cross-border commerce.
The proposal forms part of the EU’s eighth legislative simplification package and will now be negotiated with the European Parliament.
Under the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation, businesses placing packaging or packaged products on the European market are subject to obligations concerning waste management and extended producer responsibility.
The extended producer responsibility system requires producers to contribute to the management of waste generated by products and packaging placed on the market.
For businesses operating across borders, the framework also includes requirements concerning authorised representatives in member states where producers are not established.
These representatives perform specified compliance functions and provide a point of contact for national authorities.
The system can create substantial administrative obligations for businesses trading in several countries, particularly when the quantity of packaging supplied to individual markets is limited.
A small Belgian retailer, for example, may sell products to customers in Germany, France and the Netherlands without maintaining physical operations in those countries.
The requirement to arrange representation separately across different markets can add compliance costs regardless of whether the volume of trade justifies them.
Under the Council’s proposal, eligible EU-based producers placing less than one tonne of packaging annually on another member state’s market could be exempted from appointing a representative there.
The threshold would be assessed by reference to the quantity placed on the market of the member state concerned.
However, the proposed exemption would not abolish the wider principle of extended producer responsibility or automatically release businesses from their other environmental obligations.
The regulatory changes come only two months after the EU’s revised packaging framework began applying across the single market.
The legislation, Regulation (EU) 2025/40, is intended to reduce packaging waste, improve recyclability and establish more consistent requirements for products and packaging materials.
It covers an extensive range of commercial activities, including manufacturing, retail, food distribution, transport packaging and online sales.
As EU Today reported when the regulation began applying in August, the legislation introduces new requirements affecting packaging design, materials and waste prevention.
However, the practical implications for smaller firms have generated pressure for modifications.
In September, EU Today examined the emerging campaign for simplification, as business organisations questioned whether the compliance system adequately reflected the circumstances of smaller producers.
The Council’s latest agreement represents a further legislative step, replacing general calls for administrative relief with a specific negotiating position.
The Commission also issued detailed implementation guidance in June 2026 after receiving numerous questions from member states and businesses about how the regulation should be interpreted.
The proposed exemption would not apply without conditions.
The Council’s negotiating mandate includes a safeguard allowing the relevant authorities to respond when a producer fails to comply with extended producer responsibility obligations.
It also provides for the European Commission to review the duration of the temporary suspension by 31st December 2030, ahead of its scheduled expiry in 2032.
The timetable reflects the possibility that broader reform of producer responsibility arrangements could replace the temporary measure.
The Commission is preparing a Circular Economy Act intended to address additional problems affecting Europe’s recycling and secondary raw materials markets.
That initiative could provide a more comprehensive framework for the administration of producer responsibility systems across member states.
For now, the Council has opted for a narrower intervention designed to reduce the immediate burden on smaller companies without reopening the entire packaging regulation.
The proposal also reflects a broader problem with European regulatory integration.
Although companies can sell goods throughout the single market, compliance requirements often remain administered through national systems, requiring businesses to deal with separate authorities and procedures.
For multinational corporations, such costs can be distributed across substantial commercial operations. For smaller exporters and online retailers, similar administrative requirements can consume a much greater proportion of turnover.
The Council argues that removing unnecessary representation requirements would support cross-border trade while preserving the objectives of European environmental legislation.
The Irish presidency will now seek agreement with the European Parliament on the proposed amendment.
Until that legislation is adopted and becomes applicable, businesses must continue to comply with the existing rules, including relevant national producer responsibility requirements.
Sadiq Khan's Culture Team has blocked Charlotte Gill on X after she flagged their bonkers £500,000 woke grants – funding queer birding, doll workshops and a solarpunk festival. Your money at work.
The post Why Was I Blocked on X by the Mayor of London’s Culture Team? appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
As the Trump administration's short-lived Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) project implemented its plan to downsize the federal workforce, there was much wailing from the liberal institutions in Washington, D.C.
Federal employee unions filed lawsuits to block the effort. NPR ran profiles of federal workers who, for the first time, faced the prospect of potentially not having absolute job security forever. The Brookings Institution wondered how many jobs the federal government could shed before it crashes.
The answer: plenty. The Trump administration has cut more than 10 percent of the federal workforce, and the government hasn't crashed. Indeed, it hasn't even shrunk—if you're counting by dollars spent instead of people employed.
In a new article for City Journal, Manhattan Institute senior fellow Judge Glock highlights the tremendous gap between the dire predictions about DOGE's cuts and the reality that has emerged, more than a year after DOGE was shut down. Despite having only a modest impact on spending, Glock writes, DOGE "had a massive impact on the federal civil service."
This is true—to a point, more on that in a moment—and notable. Aside from a modest downsizing in the 1990s, the number of people employed by the federal government has been steadily growing for decades. Reversing that trend is one of the few genuinely libertarian accomplishments by the Trump administration.
The cuts to the federal workforce prove that "DOGE worked," argues Glock.
Well, hold on.
Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy (who departed the DOGE project before Trump's inauguration and is now running for governor of Ohio) set some very ambitious goals after being appointed DOGE co-chairs in late 2024. In an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal in November 2024 where they promised "we won't just write reports or cut ribbons. We'll cut costs."
Musk repeatedly attached some rather absurd numbers to that promise. He said DOGE would cut $1 trillion or even $2 trillion in federal spending. In the end, it didn't come close. By DOGE's own (questionable) accounting, it cut $170 billion. Meanwhile, overall federal spending has increased in each of Trump's first two years in office, and the budget deficit has widened as well.
Yes, Musk and Ramaswamy also said they would reduce the federal workforce. But that was presented as a natural consequence of cutting spending, not as the primary goal.
Think about it like this. If I spent months promising my friends and family that I would lose 50 pounds on a new diet, and then didn't lose any weight, would it be fair to say the diet worked?
What if I reduced the number of donuts I eat every day, but still didn't lose any weight? Sure, that might be good for my health in some way—just like reducing unnecessary workers in the federal government is good for America's fiscal health—but it certainly wouldn't mean I had achieved the goal of losing weight.
Finally, even the claim that DOGE cut the federal workforce requires an asterisk. As Glock also notes in his report, the decline in federal workers has been offset by an increase in federal contractors.
It's not a one-for-one trade, of course. The new contractors are overwhelmingly concentrated in places like the Department of Homeland Security and the Pentagon, while the cuts mostly targeted other areas, like the Department of Health and Human Services.
"Most of that increase came from the buildup in homeland-security and defense contracting, including purchases such as surveillance aircraft and tanks, rather than substitutes for government workers," Glock writes. "DOGE achieved real contract savings, but these were more than offset by higher spending elsewhere, reflecting a shift in priorities rather than an overall reduction in contracting."
So, the government is eating fewer donuts but more pizza.
There might be libertarian reasons to prefer contractors over government employees. They are less likely to hold those jobs for life, for one. But there's nothing inherently good about a government policy that cuts jobs in some areas just to create more room in the budget for poorly trained immigration enforcement agents and defense contractors. That may even be a negative outcome for liberty.
In the end, the DOGE project looks less like a meaningful attempt at cutting government spending or employment levels and more like a way to purge parts of the federal workforce likely to get in Trump's way during his second term. "As long as [Trump's] larger commitment is to extending his power rather than rolling back power itself, you shouldn't expect the government to stop growing," as Reason's Jesse Walker wrote last year in comparing DOGE to President Richard Nixon's attempted purge of the civil service.
Did DOGE work? Only if you grade it on a pretty dramatic curve.
Yes, it proved that a president can slash bureaucratic jobs—particularly the bloated managerial and administrative types—without doing much damage to the government's core responsibilities. That's a lesson future administrations should remember.
Maybe, someday, a president will try applying the same logic to government spending too.
The post DOGE Worked? Only If You Grade on a Curve. appeared first on Reason Magazine.
British taxpayers have already paid for nearly 1,000 free hijabs for Channel migrants this year, with the total likely to hit 1,500.
The post UK Hands Out More Than 1,000 Free Hijabs to Channel Migrants at Taxpayer Expense appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Five more charities in receipt of three quarters of a million pounds of public funds have been added to Charlotte Gill's list of taxpayer-funded asylum charities which are assisting illegal migration to the UK.
The post Five Examples of Taxpayer-Funded Asylum and Migration Charities appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Login