Flynn Coleman is an international human rights attorney. She is a visiting scholar in the Women, Peace, and Leadership Program at Columbia University’s Climate School and the author of “A Human Algorithm.” Roman Oleksiv was 11 years old when he stood before the European Parliament and, in a calm voice, described the last time he saw his mother. She was under the rubble of a hospital in Vinnytsia, Ukraine, hit by a Russian missile in July 2022. He could see her hair beneath the stone. He touched it. He said goodbye. That’s when Ievgeniia Razumkova, the interpreter translating his words, stopped mid-sentence. Her eyes filled with tears, she shook her head. “Sorry,” she said. “I’m a bit emotional as well.” A colleague then stepped in to finish, as Ievgeniia, still crying, placed her hand on the boy’s shoulder. He nodded and continued on. That moment is what makes us human. A translation algorithm would not have stopped. It would have rendered Roman’s testimony with perfect fluency and zero hesitation. It would have delivered the words “the last time I saw my mother” just as it would the sentence “hello, my name is Roman.” Same tone. Same rhythm. No recognition. Today, we are building a world that treats translation — and increasingly everything else — as a problem to be solved. Translation apps now handle billions of words a day. Real-time tools let tourists order coffee in any language. Babel, we are told, is finally being fixed. All of this has its place. But translation was never just a technical challenge. It is an act of witnessing. An interpreter does not merely convert words from one language to another. They carry meaning across the chasm between us. They hear what silences say. They make split-second ethical and semantic decisions over which synonym preserves dignity, when a pause holds more truth than a sentence, whether to soften a phrase that would shatter a survivor. When Ievgeniia broke down in Strasbourg, she was not failing. She was doing her job. Her face told a room full of diplomats what no algorithm could: “This matters. This child’s suffering is real. Pay attention.” I have spent years working in international human rights law, war crimes tribunals, genocide prevention — all the imperfect architecture we try to rebuild after atrocity. In these spaces, everything hinges on language. One word can determine whether a survivor is believed. The difference between “I saw” and “I was made to see,” or between “they did this” and “this happened.” Roman Oleksiv has undergone 36 surgeries. Burns cover nearly half his body. He was 7 years old when that missile hit. And when he described touching his dead mother’s hair, he needed someone in that room who could hold the weight of what he was saying — not just linguistically but humanly. Ievgeniia did that. And when she could not continue, another person stepped forward. There is a reason interpreters in trauma proceedings receive psychological support. The best ones describe their work as a sacred burden. They absorb something. They metabolize horror, so it can cross from one language to another without losing its force. Interpreters are not alone in this either. There are moments when trauma surgeons pause before delivering devastating news, journalists choose to lower their cameras, and judges listen longer than procedure requires. These are professions where humanity is not a flaw — it is the point. This is not inefficiency. It is care made visible. Algorithms process language as pattern, not communion. They have no understanding that another mind exists. They do not know that when Roman said goodbye, he was not describing a social gesture — he was performing the final ritual of love he would ever share with his mother, in the rubble of a hospital. Translation apps do serve real purposes, and generative AI is becoming more proficient every day. But we should be honest about the trade we are making. When we treat human interpreters — and any human act of care — as inefficiencies to be optimized away, we lose that pause before “the last time I saw my mother.” We lose the hand on the shoulder. We lose the tears that say: “This child is not a data point. What happened to him is an atrocity.” My work studying crimes against humanity has taught me that some frictions should not be smoothed. Some pauses are how we recognize one another as human. They are echoes in the dark, asking: “I am still here. Are you?” When an interpreter breaks, they are not breaking down. They are breaking open — making room for unbearable truth to enter, and for all of us to see it. Roman deserved someone who could help us stand in his deepest pain, so that we might all lift it together. A machine could not do that. A machine, by design, does not stop.

The Trump administration is lashing out at foreign laws aimed at clamping down on online platforms that have gained outsized influence on people’s attention — while trying to avoid launching new trade wars that could threaten the U.S. economy. Over the past month, U.S. officials have paused talks on a tech pact with the United Kingdom, canceled a trade meeting with South Korean officials and issued veiled threats at European companies over policies they believe unfairly penalize U.S. tech giants. Several tech policy professionals and people close to the White House say the recent actions amount to a “negotiating tactic,” in the words of one former U.S. trade official. As talks continue with London, Brussels and Seoul, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is pressing partners to roll back digital taxes on large online platforms and rules aimed at boosting online privacy protections — measures U.S. officials argue disproportionately target America’s tech behemoths. “It’s telegraphing that we’ve looked at this deeply, we think there’s a problem, we’re looking at tools to address it and we’re looking at remedies if we don’t come to an agreement,” said Everett Eissenstat, who served as the director of the National Economic Council in Trump’s first term. “It’s not an unprecedented move, but naming companies like that and telegraphing that we have targets, we have tools, is definitely meaningful.” But so far, the administration has shied away from new tariffs or other aggressive actions that could upend tentative trade agreements or upset financial markets. And the new tough talk may not be enough to placate some American tech companies, who are pressing for action. One possible action, floated by U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, would be launching investigations into unfair digital trade practices, which would allow the administration to take action against countries that impose digital regulations on U.S. companies. “I would just say that’s the next level of escalation. I think that’s what people are waiting for and looking for,” said a representative from a major tech company, granted anonymity to speak candidly and discuss industry expectations. “What folks are looking for is like action over the tweets, which, we love the tweets. Everyone loves the tweets.” Trump used similar investigations to justify raising tariffs on hundreds of Chinese imports in his first term. But those investigations take time, and it can be years before any increases would go into effect. Greer has also been careful to hedge threats of new trade probes, stressing they are not meant to spiral into a broader conflict. Speaking on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” last week, he floated launching a trade investigation into the EU’s digital policies, but said the goal would be a “negotiated outcome,” not an automatic path to higher tariffs. “I don’t think we’re in a world where we want to have some renewed trade fight or something with the EU — that’s not what we’re talking about,” Greer said. “We want to finish off our deal and implement it,” he continued, referring to the trade pact the partners struck over the summer. Greer also raised the prospect of a trade probe in private talks with South Korea earlier this fall, saying the U.S. might have to resort to such action if the country continues to pursue legislation the administration views as harmful to U.S. tech firms. But a White House official clarified that the U.S. was not yet considering such a “heavy-handed approach.” Even industry officials aren’t certain how aggressive they want the Trump administration to be, acknowledging that if the U.S. escalated its fight with the EU over their tech regulations, it could spark a digital trade war that would ultimately end up harming all of the companies involved, according to a former USTR official, granted anonymity to speak candidly. President Donald Trump has long criticized the tech regulations — pioneered by the European Union and now proliferating around the globe. But he’s made the issue a much more central part of his second-term trade agenda, with mixed results. While Trump’s threat to cut off trade talks with Canada got Prime Minister Mark Carney to rescind their three percent tax on revenue earned by large online platforms, his administration has struggled to make headway with the EU, UK and South Korea in the broader trade negotiations over tariffs. The tentative trade deal the administration reached with the EU over the summer included a commitment from the bloc to address “unjustified digital trade barriers” and a pledge not to impose network usage fees, but left the scope and direction of future discussions largely undefined. The agreement fleshed out with South Korea this fall appeared to go even further, spelling out commitments that regulations governing online platforms and cross-border data flows won’t disadvantage American companies. But none of those governments have so far caved to U.S. pressure to abandon their digital regulations entirely, and the canceled talks and threatening social media posts are a sign of Trump’s growing frustration. “You won’t be surprised to know that what we think is fair treatment and what they think is fair treatment is quite different and I’ve been quite frankly disappointed over the past few months to see zero moderation by the EU,” Greer said Dec. 10 at an event at the Atlantic Council. Last week, Greer’s office amped up the rhetoric further, threatening to take action against major European companies like Spotify, German automation company Siemens and Mistral AI, the French artificial intelligence firm, if the EU doesn’t back off enforcement of its digital rules. The threat came a week after the EU fined X, the company formerly known as Twitter, $140 million for failing to meet EU transparency rules. Greer’s office also canceled a meeting planned for last Thursday with South Korean officials, as South Korean lawmakers introduced new digital legislation and held an explosive hearing on a data breach at Coupang, an American-headquartered e-commerce company whose largest market is in South Korea. The South Korean Embassy denied any relationship between the Coupang hearing and the cancellation of the recent meeting. “Neither Coupang’s data breach, the subsequent investigation by the Korean government, nor the National Assembly’s hearing played a role in the scheduling of the KORUS Joint Committee,” said an embassy official. The canceled meetings and frozen talks are significant — delaying implementation of bare bones trade agreements and investment pledges inked in recent months. But the Trump administration has shown little interest in blowing up the deals its reached and reapplying the steep tariffs it threatened over the summer, which could trigger significant retaliation and, as concerns about affordability and inflation continue to simmer in the U.S., prove politically dicey. Launching trade investigations at USTR or fining specific foreign companies could be a less inflammatory move. “What is happening is that these issues are starting to come to a head,” said Dirk Auer, a Director of Competition Policy International Center for Law & Economics, who focuses on antitrust issues and recently testified before Congress on digital services laws. “At some point the administration has to put up or shut up. They need to put their money where their mouth is. And I think that’s what’s happening right now.” Gabby Miller contributed to this report.

Romania’s Defense Minister Ionuț Moșteanu resigned Friday over false claims on his resume, marking the second time in recent weeks that a NATO country close to Russia has had to change its defense leadership. “Romania and Europe are under attack from Russia. Our national security must be defended at all costs. I do not want discussions about my education and the mistakes I made many years ago to distract those who are now leading the country from their difficult mission,” he said. According to local media, Moșteanu wrote in his official resume that he graduated from Athenaeum University in Bucharest even though he never attended the school. He also added the Faculty of Automation at the Polytechnic University of Bucharest to his CV despite dropping out. Moșteanu’s resignation just months into the job follows the ousting of Dovilė Šakalienė as Lithuania’s defense minister over a dispute about the Baltic country’s defense budget — and as Europe mulls how to respond to intensifying Russian hybrid attacks. Romania’s Economy Minister Radu Miruță is expected to take over the defense portfolio on an interim basis, the government said. Moșteanu’s departure comes with Romania facing regular Russian drone incursions. Bucharest is also 48 hours away from a deadline for EU countries to submit a plan to the European Commission for how they will spend money from the EU’s loans-for-weapons SAFE program. Romania is set to be the second-largest beneficiary of the scheme, in line for a €16.6 billion pot of cash.

At New York Climate Week in September, opinion leaders voiced concern that high-profile events often gloss over the deep inequalities exposed by climate change, especially how poorer populations suffer disproportionately and struggle to access mitigation or adaptation resources. The message was clear: climate policies should better reflect social justice concerns, ensuring they are inclusive and do not unintentionally favor those already privileged.  We believe access to food sits at the heart of this call for inclusion, because everything starts with food: it is a fundamental human right and a foundation for health, education and opportunity. It is also a lever for climate, economic and social resilience.  > We believe access to food sits at the heart of this call for inclusion, > because everything starts with food This makes the global conversation around food systems transformation more urgent than ever. Food systems are under unprecedented strain. Without urgent, coordinated action, billions of people face heightened risks of malnutrition, displacement and social unrest.   Delivering systemic transformation requires coordinated cross-sector action, not fragmented solutions. Food systems are deeply interconnected, and isolated interventions cannot solve systemic problems. The Food and Agriculture Organization’s recent Transforming Food and Agriculture Through a Systems Approach report calls for systems thinking and collaboration across the value chain to address overlapping food, health and environmental challenges.   Now, with COP30 on the horizon, unified and equitable solutions are needed to benefit entire value chains and communities. This is where a systems approach becomes essential.  A systems approach to transforming food and agriculture  Food systems transformation must serve both people and planet. We must ensure everyone has access to safe, nutritious food while protecting human rights and supporting a just transition.   At Tetra Pak, we support food and beverage companies throughout the journey of food production, from processing raw ingredients like milk and fruit to packaging and distribution. This end-to-end perspective gives us a unique view into the interconnected challenges within the food system, and how an integrated approach can help manufacturers reduce food loss and waste, improve energy and water efficiency, and deliver food where it is needed most.   Meaningful reductions to emissions require expanding the use of renewable and carbon-free energy sources. As outlined in our Food Systems 2040 whitepaper,1 the integration of low-carbon fuels like biofuels and green hydrogen, alongside electrification supported by advanced energy storage technologies, will be critical to driving the transition in factories, farms and food production and processing facilities.   Digitalization also plays a key role. Through advanced automation and data-driven insights, solutions like Tetra Pak® PlantMaster enable food and beverage companies to run fully automated plants with a single point of control for their production, helping them improve operational efficiency, minimize production downtime and reduce their environmental footprint.  The “hidden middle”: A critical gap in food systems policy  Today, much of the focus on transforming food systems is placed on farming and on promoting healthy diets. Both are important, but they risk overlooking the many and varied processes that get food from the farmer to the end consumer. In 2015 Dr Thomas Reardon coined the term the “hidden middle” to describe this midstream segment of global agricultural value chains.2   This hidden middle includes processing, logistics, storage, packaging and handling, and it is pivotal. It accounts for approximately 22 percent of food-based emissions and between 40-60 percent of the total costs and value added in food systems.3 Yet despite its huge economic value, it receives only 2.5 to 4 percent of climate finance.4  Policymakers need to recognize the full journey from farm to fork as a lynchpin priority. Strategic enablers such as packaging that protects perishable food and extends shelf life, along with climate-resilient processing technologies, can maximize yield and minimize loss and waste across the value chain. In addition, they demonstrate how sustainability and competitiveness can go hand in hand.  Alongside this, climate and development finance must be redirected to increase investment in the hidden middle, with a particular focus on small and medium-sized enterprises, which make up most of the sector.   Collaboration in action  Investment is just the start. Change depends on collaboration between stakeholders across the value chain: farmers, food manufacturers, brands, retailers, governments, financiers and civil society.  In practice, a systems approach means joining up actors and incentives at every stage.5 The dairy sector provides a perfect example of the possibilities of connecting. We work with our customers and with development partners to establish dairy hubs in countries around the world. These hubs connect smallholder farmers with local processors, providing chilling infrastructure, veterinary support, training and reliable routes to market.6 This helps drive higher milk quality, more stable incomes and safer nutrition for local communities.  Our strategic partnership with UNIDO* is a powerful example of this collaboration in action. Together, we are scaling Dairy Hub projects in Kenya, building on the success of earlier initiatives with our customer Githunguri Dairy. UNIDO plays a key role in securing donor funding and aligning public-private efforts to expand local dairy production and improve livelihoods. This model demonstrates how collaborations can unlock changes in food systems.  COP30 and beyond  Strategic investment can strengthen local supply chains, extend social protections and open economic opportunity, particularly in vulnerable regions. Lasting progress will require a systems approach, with policymakers helping to mitigate transition costs and backing sustainable business models that build resilience across global food systems for generations to come.   As COP30 approaches, we urge policymakers to consider food systems as part of all decision-making, to prevent unintended trade-offs between climate and nutrition goals. We also recommend that COP30 negotiators ensure the Global Goal on Adaptation include priorities indicators that enable countries to collect, monitor and report data on the adoption of climate-resilient technologies and practices by food processors. This would reinforce the importance of the hidden middle and help unlock targeted adaptation finance across the food value chain.  When every actor plays their part, from policymakers to producers, and from farmers to financiers, the whole system moves forward. Only then can food systems be truly equitable, resilient and sustainable, protecting what matters most: food, people and the planet.  * UNIDO (United Nations Industrial Development Organization)  Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Tetra Pak * The ultimate controlling entity is Brands2Life Ltd * The advertisement is linked to policy advocacy regarding food systems and climate policy More information here. https://www.politico.eu/7449678-2

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen wants the EU to help front-line countries monitor and defend their borders against potential Russian aggression — backing a long-standing request from Poland and Baltic nations. “There is no doubt: Europe’s eastern flank keeps all of Europe safe. From the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. This is why we must invest in supporting it through an Eastern Flank Watch,” she told European lawmakers in her State of the Union address Wednesday morning. “This means giving Europe independent strategic capabilities. We must invest in real-time space surveillance so that no movement of forces goes unseen. We must heed the call of our Baltic friends and build a drone wall,” the German politician added. Von der Leyen’s comments came only a few hours after Poland scrambled fighter jets to shoot down Russian drones that entered its airspace. Back in June, Romania also sent warplanes to monitor Russian drones approaching its border. Wednesday’s incident over Poland has been perceived by Western allies as a way for Russian President Vladimir Putin to test NATO’s defenses. Front-line countries — especially Poland, Estonia and Lithuania — have long called for the EU to contribute financially to the defense of their borders. They argue their efforts will protect the bloc as a whole against any attack from Russia, as military and intelligence top brass have warned in the past that Putin could target Baltic nations or Poland to test NATO’s mettle. They have successfully pushed for money from the EU’s loans-for-weapons SAFE scheme to be easily available for items including drones and anti-drone systems. Warsaw launched a project last year dubbed East Shield that aims to strengthen the Polish border with Russia and Belarus, while Baltic nations are starting to teach children to build and fly drones. Countries such as Lithuania are also behind the idea of a “drone wall,” which they see as a permanent presence of unmanned aerial vehicles on their borders to monitor threats. A few days before giving her State of the Union address, von der Leyen went on a front-line state tour that took her to countries including Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and Poland. “Last week, I saw this for myself when I visited front-line member states. They know best the threat Russia poses,” she told European lawmakers on Wednesday. Von der Leyen also announced the EU will enter into a so-called Drone Alliance with Ukraine and front-load €6 billion from the G7-led Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration (ERA). Russia’s war in Ukraine has highlighted the importance of drones in warfare — they can be used for surveillance purposes and as lethal weapons to reach remote or dangerous areas. Ukraine is widely perceived as being innovative with the technology, namely through the use of AI and automation. Von der Leyen gave few details about the defense road map she has to present to EU leaders in October, but did say she wants to launch a so-called European Semester of Defence to monitor capitals’ progress in military buildup.

European Plastics Converters (EuPC) is the EU-level trade association representing the European plastics converting industry. Plastics converters use plastics raw materials and recycled polymers to manufacture new products. EuPC totals about 45 national as well as European plastics converting industry associations and represents more than 50,000 companies, producing over 50 million tons of plastic products every year. More than 1.6 million people are working in EU converting companies (mainly SMEs) to create a turnover in excess of € 260 billion per year.  > The results are clear: imposing blanket reuse targets for pallet packaging > will do more harm than good — both environmentally and economically.   As part of the EU’s new Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR), policymakers have introduced mandatory reuse targets for plastic pallet packaging — like stretch wrap and hoods — under Article 29. To understand the real-world impact of this proposal, EuPC commissioned two independent studies:  * A life cycle environmental assessment by IFEU (Germany)1  * An economic impact analysis by RDC Environment (Belgium)2  The results are clear: imposing blanket reuse targets for pallet packaging will do more harm than good — both environmentally and economically.  What the environmental study found   IFEU’s life cycle assessment shows that switching from single-use plastic wrap and hood to reusable systems could actually increase CO2 emissions from 35 percent to up to 1,700 percent, depending on the specific use case. In every application studied, single-use solutions performed better than reusable alternatives across all environmental impact categories — from emissions to resource use.  What the economic study found   RDC’s economic analysis looked at eight key industrial sectors — including retail, agriculture, cement and glass — and found that mandatory reuse systems could result in up to €4.9 billion in additional annual costs just for these eight sectors alone.  Some sectors would be hit particularly hard, seeing potential increased production costs of:  * Retail: up to €400 million   * Glass: up to €780 million  To clarify, these figures refer exclusively to the eight industrial sectors analyzed in the study, which represent only a portion of the product categories transported on pallets in the EU. Since other sectors are not included, the overall EU-wide impact would exceed the €4.9 billion estimated for this limited sample.  Enterprises are likely to face the greatest challenges under mandatory reuse systems. Many lack the reverse logistics or automation needed for reuse systems. For exporters, the burden is even greater, as they would be forced to operate two parallel packaging systems: one compliant with EU reuse requirements and another for non-EU markets. Currently, there are no large-scale reusable packaging systems in place, meaning an entirely new infrastructure would need to be developed within an extremely short timeframe. This raises serious legal, operational and economic concerns, especially for the most vulnerable segments of the market.   What it all means  Both studies agree that replacing recyclable single-use pallet wrap with reusable alternatives is neither greener nor cheaper. If enforced, the proposed reuse targets could undermine PPWR’s goals of creating a truly circular and efficient packaging economy.  That’s why EuPC is calling for the exclusion of pallet wrap and straps from Article 29, using the flexibility allowed through delegated acts under Article 29(18a) and 29(18c).  > If enforced, the proposed reuse targets could undermine PPWR’s goals of > creating a truly circular and efficient packaging economy. The smarter way forward  Single-use, recyclable plastic pallet packaging is already a reality aligned with Europe’s sustainability goals. Solutions that truly work in real-world logistics that are efficient, scalable and sustainable are already an economic reality.  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes Disclaimer: This document reflects EuPC’s independent position and communication. The data and analysis cited are based on studies commissioned by EuPC. 1 Comparative life cycle assessment of various single use and reuse transport packaging  2 Economic impact of switching to reusable options for pallet wrapping 

LONDON — For a politician who spent the last year warning of a “black hole” in the public finances and doling out misery, Rachel Reeves was practically popping corks. The U.K.’s finance minister promised nothing less than “the renewal of Britain” in her review of government spending Wednesday, which set the framework until the next general election in 2029. Her narrative (along with £113 billion of capital investment) was aimed squarely at countering the threat of Reform UK, the upstart populist party now leading opinion polls. During her speech in parliament, Reeves took time out to poke fun at Reform leader Nigel Farage, who was sitting across the Commons chamber, laughing with his colleagues. But Reeves also admitted many voters feel a “sense that something has been lost” as she pledged to redirect cash beyond London to poorer areas where Farage poses a significant political threat. “The renewal of Britain must be felt everywhere,” Reeves said. Overall, she sought to strike a far more positive tone than she had done in the past. Reeves said “we are starting to see the results” of fiscal rectitude, with interest rate cuts and growth in GDP and real wages. It felt like an election pitch, four years early. The question is whether this is as good as it will get. For one thing, the Chancellor’s buoyant mood was at odds with the scale of her spending plans, and the pain they will inflict on some areas of the state. In truth, she is unable to put much taxpayers’ money where her mouth is because there’s not enough to go around: Reeves is hemmed in by a key election pledge not to raise major tax rates, her own fiscal rules and Britain’s vast public sector debt. Her plan contained tight spending settlements for many U.K. government departments, including the Foreign Office and the Home Office, especially from next year. Nervous ministers believe these could force a reality check on Labour’s mission to rebuild the state. In these seven takeaways, POLITICO examines the reality of Reeves’ spending review: 1) DON’T CALL IT AUSTERITY: THE MONEY IS REAL This is no throwback to the Conservative austerity of the early 2010s, when almost every department underwent steep real-terms cuts — several by more than 20 percent. Reeves and her aides boast that total “departmental expenditure limits” will grow by 2.3 percent a year in real terms between 2023/24 and 2028/29. (Though this rise is only 1.2 percent for day-to-day revenue spending from 2025/26. More on that spin shortly.) “Austerity was a destructive choice for the fabric of our society,” Reeves told MPs. “My choices are different.” In an age of trade and land war, Reeves even harked back to her Bidenomics-inspired mantra of “securonomics” — using the state’s heft to kickstart homegrown manufacturing. The Chancellor’s critics thought she had parked that idea while seeking economic ties with China. 2) BUT IT’S NO SPLURGE EITHER: WHERE THE KNIFE FALLS Revenue spending in several departments will fall sharply in real terms by 2028/29. Some of these seem to have easy explanations. Government officials say a 5 percent real-terms cut in day-to-day Department for Transport spending is due to scaling back post-Covid railway subsidies. A real-terms cut of 1.7 percent a year for the Home Office is mostly down to a pledge to end spending on hotels for asylum seekers by 2029, officials say. But ministers are being forced to tighten their belts. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs faces a real-terms cut of 2.7 percent a year, while Business and Trade spending is cut by 1.8 percent and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport by 1.2 percent. The U.K. Foreign Office faces steep cuts of 6.9 percent per year, largely in the form of February’s decision to slash foreign aid spending. Day-to-day spending in the Department for Education will rise by 0.7 percent a year — yet most of this is accounted for by a big expansion of free school meals, said Paul Johnson, director of the nonpartisan Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) think tank. 3) WHITEHALL GETS A HAIRCUT: CIVIL SERVICE JOBS Starmer’s Cabinet cheerleaders have made a big deal of “efficiency” in government. The review puts (some) flesh on what that’ll mean. Government departments (known collectively as Whitehall after the street in Westminster where many are based) are expected to cut their administration budgets by 10 percent by 2028/29, and 15 percent (£2.2 billion a year) by 2029/30.  Departments also need to find “efficiency gains” averaging 4 percent by 2028/29, a total of £13.8 billion per year. HM Revenue and Customs plans to save 13.1 percent of its spending through “AI and automation” and basing 85 percent of staff outside London, while the Department for Work and Pensions will use artificial intelligence to review jobseekers’ CVs.  Eleven central London government offices will be closed, including 102 Petty France (currently home to the Ministry of Justice) and 39 Victoria Street (used by the Department of Health), while overseas allowances for British diplomats are — hold on to your canapés — “being reviewed and revised.” Some of the precise calculations behind these efficiency savings still lack detail, though — and officials have declined to say exactly how many civil service jobs will be lost as a result. 4) THE SMALL PRINT HURTS: BUILDING HOMES The chancellor rattled off big numbers (often shorn of context) to prove she is opening the spending taps. As always, the devil is in the detail.  Many figures in the spending review are measured from the start of “phase one,” 2023/24 — when the Conservatives were still in power. Spending becomes far tighter in “phase two,” which starts from next year. Real-terms increases in day-to-day spending will slow from 2.7 percent in 2024/25 to just 1 percent a year from 2027/28. Some headline numbers are also spread over long periods. Reeves promised to deliver Labour’s manifesto pledge to build 1.5 million homes by 2029 with a £39 billion Affordable Homes Programme. Yet this is spread over a decade, and will only hit its stride (£4 billion a year) by 2029/30, around the time of the next election. Labour MPs will want to see houses built, and voters moving in, ASAP. Some sums are not all provided by central government. Reeves said she was raising “spending power” for police forces and councils — subject to tense last-minute negotiations — but this is based on individual councils deciding to hit voters with above-inflation rises in council tax. A £113 billion rise in capital investment by 2029 looks generous. But the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR), a nonpartisan think tank, argued it is a figure that Reeves has measured against past plans for cuts that were “implausible.” 5) BIGGER ISN’T BIG ENOUGH: HEALTH AND DEFENSE Britain’s plans for defense spending will soon butt up against reality.  Defense spending will meet the U.K.’s target of 2.6 percent of GDP (including intelligence agencies) from 2027 onwards, but the review has no firm plans to raise it further. This is despite Labour’s “ambition” to hit 3 percent by 2034. More pressingly, NATO is holding talks with allies about raising their commitments to 3.5 percent. Discussions will reach a crunch point at the alliance’s summit later this month. The jewel in Reeves’ announcement was a 3 percent-per-year rise in spending on Britain’s ailing National Health Service. But this is less than what has been the average annual rise since the 1970s, of 3.8 percent. Johnson, the IFS boss, said Labour’s target to reduce treatment waiting times below 18 weeks will be “enormously ambitious – an NHS funding settlement below the long-run average might not measure up.” 6) PETER PAYS PAUL: ENERGY The budget of the U.K.’s new publicly-owned power company, Great British Energy, has been raided to fund a longstanding government commitment to develop mini nuclear reactors. Labour’s manifesto committed to £8.3 billion over five years for GB Energy to “deliver clean power” projects across the country. But Wednesday’s review assigned £2.5 billion of its funding package to a deal with Rolls Royce to develop small modular reactors (SMRs) — small-scale nuclear plants that will be relatively quick to build. Two government officials denied that the decision amounted to a cut to GB Energy’s budget, though a third government official said the decision had come “very last minute.” 7) THIS IS NOT THE END: WILL TAXES HAVE TO RISE? Reeves pitched her plan as a return to “stability,” vowing not to revisit the settlements until the next spending review, in 2027. But with a full budget due this fall, Treasury aides accept speculation about her next move will begin almost immediately. The NIESR said it was “almost inevitable” that taxes will need to rise — a warning leapt on by opposition MPs. Conservative Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride branded Reeves the “spend today, tax tomorrow chancellor.” Key details of the government’s plans are also yet to be unveiled. A 10-year infrastructure strategy and an industrial strategy are each due later in June, with a 10-year plan for the NHS, a national security strategy and audit of Britain’s relations with China all expected to follow in the coming months. Then there are — potentially — holes that departments will need to fill later.  Wednesday’s spending review warns pay rises for Britain’s 6 million public sector workers will need to be funded from departments’ existing budgets until 2029. Departments have estimated what these pay rises might be, but there won’t be certainty for years. At some point, someone will have to pay up. Reeves will be hoping it’s not her. Charlie Cooper contributed reporting.

LONDON — The British government believes its least senior civil servants spend almost two-thirds of their time on routine tasks that could be automated, documents obtained by POLITICO show. Ministers have claimed that public sector digitalization could yield £45 billion in annual productivity savings. That rests on an assumption that 62 percent of the tasks done by the most junior grades of the civil service — administrative assistants — are routine and thus automatable. The methodology was put together by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) and obtained through Freedom of Information requests by POLITICO. It estimates that civil service executive officers, senior executive officers, and higher executive officers spend 48 percent, 43 percent, and 23 percent of their time on routine tasks respectively, while the most senior civil servants dedicate exactly none (zero percent) of their time to routine tasks.  Chancellor Rachel Reeves has said the government plans to cut civil service running costs by 15 percent by the end of this parliament, with 10,000 job cuts factored into that plan. Reeves told the BBC that this cost-cutting was “more than possible” thanks to advances in technology and artificial intelligence. The modelling doesn’t forecast exactly where job losses might fall. It’s difficult to independently tease out what automation potential might mean for workforce reductions since civil service headcounts group some of these grades together, and averaging out percentages supposes an equal breakdown of roles.  Giles Wilkes, a senior fellow at the Institute for Government think tank, said that even if AI takes over some civil service work, it might create new work, too.  “You can’t just take a static analysis, take a whole bunch of tasks, work out how much they can be automated, and let your workings end at that point,” he said. “There’s often some kind of rebound effect, some kind of creation of new demand, that will often create further problems, further layers of management.” “We’ve seen waves and waves of technological change over the years and we haven’t seen administrative budgets fall,” Wilkes added. POLITICO was refused DSIT’s full model used to calculate the £45 billion estimate on the basis that it is “highly complex and forms part of a multi-stage pipeline hosted in AWS [Amazon Web Services],” the provision of which would exceed “cost and resource limits” under the Freedom of Information Act.  DSIT said it is “currently working towards making a more accessible version of the methodology available to support transparency and understanding of the approach used” and plans to open source the model’s code in the future.  Some MPs have argued that the Department of Science, Innovation and Technology — which made a commitment to transparency one point in its six-point blueprint for public sector reform — should have been more open about the methodology from the beginning, before ministers started quoting the £45 billion figure in public.  Only after Select Committee Chair Chi Onwurah wrote to Secretary of State Peter Kyle in April requesting a full breakdown of the modelling did DSIT release a “methodology note” revealing there was no specific timeframe for realizing the touted savings, alongside other caveats including an acknowledgement that it hadn’t assessed whether existing AI could actually automate routine tasks. “DSIT is doing some excellent work to improve government through the use of tech, so it’s a shame ministers are resorting to savings numberwang,” Connected by Data’s Gavin Freeguard, who led the Institute for Government’s flagship Whitehall Monitor, said. “It’s even more disappointing that it’s taken select committee enquiries and FOI requests to get any information about the methodology behind the number,” he added.  Onwurah said the FOI findings underlined her concerns about “questionable assumptions and extrapolations” behind the methodology, and said the committee will “keep pressing ministers to be more transparent” as part of its inquiry into the digital centre of government. 

BARCELONA — When it comes to 5G, your smartphone is fooling you. Many Europeans today might see a 5G icon when unlocking their phone, but are most likely still riding on a lower-grade connection of boosted 4G. Europe is lagging behind China and the United States on rolling out top-level mobile internet known as 5G standalone (SA), so much so that some research suggests only 2 percent of Europeans are connecting to it. The lack of full-fledged 5G threatens to stall European innovation, keeping the bloc’s industry stuck in the slow lane while other parts of the world speed ahead. Industry officials warn the lag is aggravating Europe’s competitive decline and the bloc’s ability to attract investment. “At the start of the 5G cycle, vendors and operators put up huge promises about how it is going to enable robotic surgeries, autonomous cars, all this different stuff,” but none of that can be delivered until standalone architecture is in place, said Luke Kehoe, an industry analyst at connectivity intelligence firm Ookla. European companies are missing out on faster speeds and game-changing capabilities that were supposed to take the industry to the next level — making factories smarter and more automated. Ultra-connected, robot-packed plants are still a work in progress, partly because operators haven’t fully upgraded networks, especially right down to the core parts, to the full 5G standard. Trade association Connect Europe estimated that only 40 percent of the European population was covered by 5G standalone by the end of last year, behind North America (91 percent) and Asia-Pacific (45 percent). But Ookla, which is behind the online tool Speedtest, crunched the data and found that fewer than 2 percent of Europeans are actually connecting to it today. “We did see very, very clearly that Europe is markedly behind,” Kehoe said. SIGNAL FOR INVESTMENTS IS WEAK 5G non-standalone (NSA) — which Europeans mostly have today — is like putting a turbo engine in an old car. It boosts the speed but still relies on the previous 4G infrastructure. 5G standalone, on the other hand, is like building a new high-speed train system from scratch. It requires time and money to optimize and upgrade the full network. If anything, the sluggish roll-out “is an indication that we do not have the investment environment to compete,” according to John Giusti, the chief regulatory officer for GSMA, the global association of mobile operators. The bloc’s biggest telcos have warned for years that the regulatory landscape, market fragmentation and restrictive merger policy in Europe have been squeezing profits and stretching their wallets thin. “We don’t have the return on capital coming in to the sector to further invest and strengthen our networks. That is the core issue,” Giusti claimed. Meanwhile, China — with more than twice as many robots in its factories as the EU — has made 5G standalone a policy priority, Kehoe said. The country has a “huge base of enterprises that are using 5G SA in a manufacturing context for very, very low latency,” the critical time that data takes to travel to a server and back. “That’s where I think Europe would miss out now.” India is also thriving, driven by its largest operator Reliance Jio, which leapfrogged the non-standalone phase and rolled out standalone infrastructure from day one. But all hope is not lost for the old continent, as Ookla’s Kehoe underscored. “Fiber is particularly important in terms of competitiveness and, on that matter, Europe is doing very, very well.” CHICKEN AND EGG It’s not just about the money, or lack thereof, going into next-gen infrastructure. “What you see in Europe is actually very rational investors’ behavior,” said Robert Mourik, chair of the BEREC group of European telecom regulators. It’s a classic “chicken-and-egg” problem, he argued. “We are not investing too far ahead of the demand” — noting the industry’s timid appetite for something new — while also recognizing that struggling operators need to focus on clear revenue opportunities. Connect Europe reported nine new commercial launches of 5G SA networks last year. It acknowledged that slow adoption “is largely due to operator concerns that the return on investment is unclear, the technology is immature and the migration from 5G to 5G SA is disruptive.” For manufacturers selling the 5G kits, Europe needs to step on the gas. “I think the risk is we fall even further behind on both the existing industries but also missing out” on the ones “we don’t see yet,” said Jenny Lindqvist, Ericsson’s head of market for Europe. Europe needs to play catch-up, she emphasised. “We have other markets outside of Europe where the infrastructure is there and we start seeing the new use cases.”