Agrégateur de flux

Responsibility for tax expenditures: In the United Kingdom (UK) government ministers introduce and amend tax reliefs including tax expenditures. They are a joint responsibility: HM Treasury takes strategic oversight while HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) administers them, including their monitoring, maintenance and evaluation.
Their number and scale: Tax expenditures in the United Kingdom result in a considerable release of fiscal resources by central government, little known and off-budget. The official estimated cost comes to 7.6 per cent of GDP in 2023-24, equivalent to a quarter of total tax revenue collected, although that cost is only based on the generally larger 107 of the 344 tax expenditures identified where costs were estimated for that year. Since 2020 significantly fuller listings of tax expenditures with many more estimated costs and explanations have been released annually.
Benchmarking: This term is not used in UK official documents. Tax expenditures are generally described as ‘non-structural’ tax reliefs as opposed to ‘structural’ ones. They make up about one-third of all acknowledged tax reliefs. Little is provided on the criteria for distinguishing the two, which do not appear to have greatly changed in many years. The classification is still not sufficiently clearly formulated, especially as it is acknowledged that many tax reliefs contain both structural and non-structural elements.
Transparency: Much more needs to be done to improve the UK’s transparency score with greater openness to public discussion and response given its current ranking of 39th out of 105 assessed countries, scoring 51.3 out of 100, in the Global Tax Expenditures Transparency Index (GTETI) (Redonda et al. 2024).
Complex landscape: The plans to provide a fuller accounting of tax expenditures have been markedly ambitious in relation to previous progress. While there has been substantial improvement, their actual implementation has been at best variable. On several issues fuller accounts have been provided in the latest reports. Further analysis needs to be carried out and published assessing the impact of tax expenditures and their interaction with other government interventions instead of keeping them within their own silo.
Evaluation challenges: It is not clear how much systematic evaluation is being carried out within the government. Recent reviews based on published guidelines are improving the extent and quality of fiscal data. The release of the evaluation plans is encouraging, as it signals that further work is likely in this area. The continuing contrast with the regular and published scrutiny of public spending is still emphasised by external analysts.
Distributional and behavioural impact: Regular reporting on the behavioural and distributional impacts of tax expenditures by HM Treasury or HMRC is limited. Official consideration of behavioural responses is generally confined to tackling issues of exploitation and abuse of tax expenditures, and there is less on examining and reporting on their value for money or the broader social, economic, environmental and political impact of reliefs and any options for change. Who gets what and how with what effect on the distribution of resources, individually and across society, is mostly neglected.
Fiscal Sustainability: There appears little government recognition of the fact that tax expenditures effectively have automatic priority because of their pre-distribution before the regular budgetary process allocating public spending. In consequence the government has not given sufficient attention to the workings of tax expenditures and the results of changes in uptake and costs in them. The effects of their interactions with public spending measures and their impacts on the overall economy have also been neglected.
Maintaining momentum for greater openness: How much the momentum for providing greater accountability and openness will be maintained amid continuing staffing cuts, resource constraints and competing policy priorities is unclear. Long-term resistance to opening up the area may not have disappeared. Progress may well depend on how much extra-governmental pressure is maintained by, for example, NAO, with its series of valuable scrutinising reports, and by parliamentary select committees, thinktanks and other groups and individuals. Meanwhile many bodies and groups that benefit from existing tax expenditures are active in defending them and opposing any reduction, especially behind the scenes.
Policy recommendations: There needs to be fuller and open recognition by HM Treasury and HMRC of tax expenditures as policy interventions that merit wider scrutiny and discussion just as other policy measures. Their conjunction with these policies also deserves closer examination.
The strong case for a regular tax expenditure budget is strengthened by the present lack of specific budgetary restraint on tax expenditures. This has resulted in limited control of costs and awareness of other effects, although the increased public accounting annually may now be leading to greater official awareness and closer management.
Such democratic accountability would help to increase knowledge and understanding among a wider and larger audience outside government. That could enable a clearer view of tax expenditures as instruments of policy and encourage a broader debate on their impacts and options for change.

Adrian Sinfield is Professor Emeritus of Social Policy, University of Edinburgh.

Responsibility for tax expenditures: In the United Kingdom (UK) government ministers introduce and amend tax reliefs including tax expenditures. They are a joint responsibility: HM Treasury takes strategic oversight while HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) administers them, including their monitoring, maintenance and evaluation.
Their number and scale: Tax expenditures in the United Kingdom result in a considerable release of fiscal resources by central government, little known and off-budget. The official estimated cost comes to 7.6 per cent of GDP in 2023-24, equivalent to a quarter of total tax revenue collected, although that cost is only based on the generally larger 107 of the 344 tax expenditures identified where costs were estimated for that year. Since 2020 significantly fuller listings of tax expenditures with many more estimated costs and explanations have been released annually.
Benchmarking: This term is not used in UK official documents. Tax expenditures are generally described as ‘non-structural’ tax reliefs as opposed to ‘structural’ ones. They make up about one-third of all acknowledged tax reliefs. Little is provided on the criteria for distinguishing the two, which do not appear to have greatly changed in many years. The classification is still not sufficiently clearly formulated, especially as it is acknowledged that many tax reliefs contain both structural and non-structural elements.
Transparency: Much more needs to be done to improve the UK’s transparency score with greater openness to public discussion and response given its current ranking of 39th out of 105 assessed countries, scoring 51.3 out of 100, in the Global Tax Expenditures Transparency Index (GTETI) (Redonda et al. 2024).
Complex landscape: The plans to provide a fuller accounting of tax expenditures have been markedly ambitious in relation to previous progress. While there has been substantial improvement, their actual implementation has been at best variable. On several issues fuller accounts have been provided in the latest reports. Further analysis needs to be carried out and published assessing the impact of tax expenditures and their interaction with other government interventions instead of keeping them within their own silo.
Evaluation challenges: It is not clear how much systematic evaluation is being carried out within the government. Recent reviews based on published guidelines are improving the extent and quality of fiscal data. The release of the evaluation plans is encouraging, as it signals that further work is likely in this area. The continuing contrast with the regular and published scrutiny of public spending is still emphasised by external analysts.
Distributional and behavioural impact: Regular reporting on the behavioural and distributional impacts of tax expenditures by HM Treasury or HMRC is limited. Official consideration of behavioural responses is generally confined to tackling issues of exploitation and abuse of tax expenditures, and there is less on examining and reporting on their value for money or the broader social, economic, environmental and political impact of reliefs and any options for change. Who gets what and how with what effect on the distribution of resources, individually and across society, is mostly neglected.
Fiscal Sustainability: There appears little government recognition of the fact that tax expenditures effectively have automatic priority because of their pre-distribution before the regular budgetary process allocating public spending. In consequence the government has not given sufficient attention to the workings of tax expenditures and the results of changes in uptake and costs in them. The effects of their interactions with public spending measures and their impacts on the overall economy have also been neglected.
Maintaining momentum for greater openness: How much the momentum for providing greater accountability and openness will be maintained amid continuing staffing cuts, resource constraints and competing policy priorities is unclear. Long-term resistance to opening up the area may not have disappeared. Progress may well depend on how much extra-governmental pressure is maintained by, for example, NAO, with its series of valuable scrutinising reports, and by parliamentary select committees, thinktanks and other groups and individuals. Meanwhile many bodies and groups that benefit from existing tax expenditures are active in defending them and opposing any reduction, especially behind the scenes.
Policy recommendations: There needs to be fuller and open recognition by HM Treasury and HMRC of tax expenditures as policy interventions that merit wider scrutiny and discussion just as other policy measures. Their conjunction with these policies also deserves closer examination.
The strong case for a regular tax expenditure budget is strengthened by the present lack of specific budgetary restraint on tax expenditures. This has resulted in limited control of costs and awareness of other effects, although the increased public accounting annually may now be leading to greater official awareness and closer management.
Such democratic accountability would help to increase knowledge and understanding among a wider and larger audience outside government. That could enable a clearer view of tax expenditures as instruments of policy and encourage a broader debate on their impacts and options for change.

Adrian Sinfield is Professor Emeritus of Social Policy, University of Edinburgh.

Positive Group v Council
Common foreign and security policy
War in Ukraine: the General Court upholds the restrictive measures against Positive Group PAO, an entity operating in the Russian IT sector with a license issued by Russia’s domestic intelligence services

Positive Group kontra Tanács
Közös kül- és biztonságpolitika
War in Ukraine: the General Court upholds the restrictive measures against Positive Group PAO, an entity operating in the Russian IT sector with a license issued by Russia’s domestic intelligence services

Positive Group / Conseil
Politique étrangère et de sécurité commune
Guerre en Ukraine : le Tribunal confirme les mesures restrictives contre Positive Group PAO, une entité active dans le secteur russe des technologies de l’information et titulaire d’une licence délivrée par les services de renseignement intérieurs russes

Meta Platforms Ireland v Commission
Approximation of laws
Digital Services Act: the General Court annuls the Commission’s decisions setting the supervisory fee applicable to Facebook, Instagram and TikTok

Meta Platforms Ireland kontra Bizottság
Jogszabályok közelítése
Digital Services Act: the General Court annuls the Commission’s decisions setting the supervisory fee applicable to Facebook, Instagram and TikTok

Meta Platforms Ireland / Commission
Rapprochement des législations
Règlement sur les services numériques : le Tribunal annule les décisions de la Commission fixant la redevance de surveillance applicable à Facebook, Instagram et TikTok

Austria v Commission
Austria’s action against the inclusion of nuclear energy and fossil gas in the sustainable investment scheme dismissed

Ausztria kontra Bizottság
Austria’s action against the inclusion of nuclear energy and fossil gas in the sustainable investment scheme dismissed

Autriche / Commission
Le recours de l’Autriche contre l’inclusion de l’énergie nucléaire et du gaz fossile dans le régime des investissements durables est rejeté

Wednesday 10 September

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Wednesday 10 September

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Wednesday 10 September

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Wednesday 10 September

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Wednesday 10 September

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

En Slovénie, Milorad Dodik n'a que des amis, à commencer par le maire de Ljubljana, Zoran Janković. Il a aussi beaucoup d'intérêts économiques dans la petite république, qui hésite à mettre sous sanctions l'homme fort des Serbes de Bosnie-Herzégovine.

- Articles / Une - Diaporama, Slovénie, Bosnie-Herzégovine, Economie, Relations régionales, RS sécession, Courrier des Balkans

En Slovénie, Milorad Dodik n'a que des amis, à commencer par le maire de Ljubljana, Zoran Janković. Il a aussi beaucoup d'intérêts économiques dans la petite république, qui hésite à mettre sous sanctions l'homme fort des Serbes de Bosnie-Herzégovine.

- Articles / Une - Diaporama, Slovénie, Bosnie-Herzégovine, Economie, Relations régionales, RS sécession, Courrier des Balkans

Le fabricant néerlandais d'équipements de semi-conducteurs ASML et le développeur français de modèles de base revêtent tous deux une importance stratégique pour les entreprises technologiques européennes.

The post Mistral AI, la startup française spécialisée dans l’IA, lève 1,7 milliard d’euros et booste la tech européenne  appeared first on Euractiv FR.

Abu Amer Al-Sharif and his family in Gaza City remove their belongings and household items from their home, preparing for yet another displacement. Credit: UN News
 
One million people being forced towards unlivable, so called “humanitarian area” in mass forced displacement.

By Oxfam International
MEXICO CITY, Mexico, Sep 10 2025 (IPS)

Israel’s intent to displace around 1 million civilians, half of whom are living in famine, is impossible and illegal Oxfam said, while the Israeli military continued to flatten Gaza City building by building as its mass forced displacement of civilians in the city gains terrifying momentum.

Displacement orders, on leaflets thrown from the sky, or posted on social media, signal grave next steps, a scene all too familiar in Gaza where every order has preceded new waves of destruction and mass casualties. This is the latest chapter in the genocide that Israel is committing in Gaza and part of a broader campaign of ethnic cleansing engulfing the entire
Gaza Strip, where nothing and no one has been spared.

Israel’s plan to concentrate around 1 million people into tiny slivers of already overcrowded and ill-equipped “camps” has no basis in reality, with just 42.8 square kilometres (under 12% of the Gaza Strip) allocated to this so-called “humanitarian area” for people to move to.

That would mean an additional 1 million people are expected to live in under–resourced spaces located in the Southern part of the Gaza Strip, whilst most of the remaining humanitarian and emergency infrastructure is currently located in the middle area of the Strip, further limiting access to support.

The plan is not only inhumane it is physically impossible and would compound disease and hunger and be a flagrant breach of international humanitarian law (IHL).

These orders cannot be carried out in a way in which Israel can meet its IHL obligations, or the terms of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Mass forced displacement is not a pressure tool to replace negotiations and amounts to collective punishment.

Under IHL, there must be guarantees of support to ensure Palestinians forced to flee Gaza City can do so in safety and safely return. There also needs to be guaranteed provision of accommodation, hygiene, health, nutrition, water and non-separation of families. Without these supports in place, it amounts to forcible transfer, which in current circumstances amount to war crimes and a crime against humanity.

It is the latest result of a deliberate policy of the Government of Israel to use starvation and forced mass displacement, food and water as weapons of war. Mass forced displacement is not a pressure tool to replace negotiations and amounts to collective punishment.

“The ongoing displacement orders and the push of people deeper into “humanitarian zones”- which we know have never been safe at all- mean it becomes almost impossible to deliver aid effectively. Israel’s siege and severe limitations placed on the entry of aid also means people already in these zones lack the most basic of services even before hundreds of thousands more are forced into the same area,” said Ruth James, Oxfam’s Regional Humanitarian Coordinator, speaking from Gaza.

Oxfam’s partner organisations are under attack and facing severe pressure. On Sunday, an Israeli attack near the headquarters of the Aisha Association for Woman and Child Protection in Gaza City, resulted in the killing of one of the employees, a pregnant woman, and a 7-year old boy and critically injuring many others.

The organization plays a leading role in the protection of women and children. Their premises are used as shelters by displaced people.

Dr Umaiyeh Khammash, Director of Juzoor, an Oxfam partner, and working in Gaza City promoting health as a basic human right, said: “While Juzoor’s team continues its humanitarian mission, moving alongside the forcibly displaced population and sharing in their suffering and uprooting, the coming days will inevitably bring more loss of lives and even further deterioration in the health and well-being of the population”.

“Mental health is collapsing under the weight of sustained trauma—people are enduring daily nightmares of fear, shock, and hopelessness, with no sense of safety anywhere, in a crisis that will leave deep scars, not just on this generation, but on generations to come.”

Many of those already ordered to leave their homes are too weak from starvation, cannot afford the exorbitant transport costs to move, or are unwilling to leave for an area already over-crowded and not guaranteed safe.

A recent multi-agency survey found that while 53% of surveyed residents said they would move if they received an official order, only 27% of those said they would move out of Gaza City, with others saying they would move to another area within Gaza City. 14% said they would not move.

This indicates that hundreds of thousands of people will be trapped in the city under increasingly heavy bombardment, with little or no aid reaching them.

“As the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza City deepens by the hour, there must be an end to this violence and deprivation,” said Ruth James. “There must be an urgent halt to all forced displacement operations, and large-scale delivery of food, water, medicine, vital water-infrastructure repair equipment and fuel.”

Oxfam is calling for an immediate and permanent ceasefire and release of all hostages and unlawfully detained prisoners. The unimaginable violence and suffering Palestinians in Gaza have been enduring for over 700 days needs to end now. The moral failure of states to act is palpable. For as long as they are silent and continue to send arms support to Israel, they are complicit in the genocide that continues to unfold.

Customary IHL Rule 129 and Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 explicitly prohibits an occupying power from deporting or forcibly transferring members of the occupied civilian population, regardless of motive. This provision is a cornerstone of the laws of occupation; it is designed to prevent demographic changes being made by the occupying power to the occupied territory, regardless of any ‘justification’ it may provide for such changes.

It underscores the principle that the rights and dignity of the civilian population must be protected, reflecting an occupying power’s obligations to ensure the welfare and security of those under its administration. There are exceptions for evacuation of civilians for their own safety, but only on a temporary basis and where adequate shelter, food, water and access to medical care are provided.

Crimes Against Humanity: The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court states that:

– Article 7(1)(d): Treats deportation or forcible transfer of population, when perpetrated as part of a widespread or systematic attack against civilians, as a crime against humanity. Ohchr+1

– Article 8(2)(a)(vii) and (2)(b)(viii): Make it a war crime to transfer, directly or indirectly, by the occupying power, parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies or to deport or transfer civilians of the occupied territory, in whole or in part, within or outside that territory.

Harvard Dataverse report with mapping and analysis of “humanitarian” zone announcement.

The recently published Intergrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) report determined that Famine (IPC Phase 5) is currently occurring in Gaza Governorate. Furthermore, the FRC projects Famine (IPC Phase 5) thresholds to be crossed in Deir al-Balah and Khan Younis Governorates in the coming weeks.

According to the UN, at least 1.9 million people – or about 90 per cent of the population – across the Gaza Strip have been displaced during the war. Many have been displaced repeatedly, some 10 times or more.

On 6 September, Israeli authorities published a map of the new “humanitarian zone” comprising Al Mawasi, including the western parts of Khan Younis city (mainly Khan Younis Camp and al-Amal district) and excluding the Middle Governorate.

As of 3 September, 86.5 per cent of the Gaza Strip remains within the Israeli-militarized zone, under displacement orders, or where these overlap.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');