Scotland is heading towards independence from the UK. That's the inevitable conclusion to be drawn from the latest opinion polls that show a surge in support for Scottish nationalism.

The polls, which now show a consistent lead for independence, have followed a bleak year for the United Kingdom in which it has suffered one of the highest coronavirus death tolls and worst recessions of any country.

It has also coincided with Britain's exit from the European Union, which a clear majority of Scots voted against.

The combination of anger at Brexit, distrust of UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson (who has a long record of offending Scots), and the British government's shambolic handling of the coronavirus pandemic have all conspired to create the perfect environment for the independence movement.

With Scottish fishermen reporting severe problems caused by Brexit and wider trade with the EU under serious strain because of new restrictions created by Brexit, the fate of the union has perhaps never looked so poor.

Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who is Scottish, warned on Monday that the situation risked pushing the UK into becoming a "failed state" because of the growing dissatisfaction with the Westminster government in both Scotland and Northern Ireland.

On Sunday, Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon moved to capitalise on the rising public dissatisfaction among Scots by publishing an 11-point plan for independence.

Crucially Sturgeon pledged to push ahead with a referendum after the coronavirus pandemic, regardless of whether permission is granted by Johnson.

whatscotlandthinks.org Johnson has so far refused to consider any such vote, pointing instead to the decisive victory for the union in 2014, when the most recent independence referendum took place.

Yet in the intervening years Brexit and the election of Johnson, who is deeply unpopular in Scotland, have massively boosted the prospects for independence.

And with the coming Scottish Parliament elections capable of delivering Sturgeon with an absolute majority on a pro-independence ticket, it will become increasingly difficult for Johnson to resist another vote.

Sturgeon on Sunday accused Johnson of being "frightened of democracy."

In a language that appeared to use Johnson's own campaign messages in the Brexit campaign against him, Sturgeon told the BBC that the prime minister "fears the verdict and the will of the Scottish people."

She pledged to push ahead with a "legal referendum" once the pandemic had passed and said the Scottish government would fight any attempt to stop it in court.

Johnson would most likely win such a legal fight, given that powers to call referendums are legally reserved by the UK government.

Any attempt by Johnson to defy "the will of the people," however, would only serve to put a fire under the campaign for independence and make Johnson's resistance to another referendum even more difficult to maintain long term.

And even if Johnson's legal fight were successful, Sturgeon could push ahead with a Catalan-style wildcat referendum, which she would most likely win, making Johnson's position even more untenable.

Acceptance of this reality appears to be creeping in inside Downing Street with the journalist James Forsyth, who is the husband of Johnson's press secretary and a close insider of Johnson's administration, writing last week that Johnson would most likely be able only to delay rather than completely prevent another referendum.

"There's a growing realisation that Johnson can't just say no," Forsyth wrote in The Times.

Instead Forsyth writes that Downing Street is warming to the idea of resisting an immediate referendum, while promising a reform of the relationship between England and Scotland. Details of the offer could be unveiled by the prime minister as early this week when he is reportedly set to visit Scotland.

Such promises will be familiar to anyone who has followed recent British political history.

In 2013, Prime Minister David Cameron sought to squash the desire for Brexit within his own party by promising to reform the relationship between the EU and the UK before holding a referendum.

Back then, Cameron believed his reforms would put an end to the desire for independence from the EU and help him win a majority for staying inside Europe.

The reality was quite the opposite. Cameron's reforms were dismissed as meaningless by both sides, and the anti-EU movement went on to take Britain out of Europe for good.

Johnson is likely to find his own attempts to prevent Scottish independence have a very similar ending.

More:

Scotland is heading towards independence from the UK thanks to Boris Johnson and Brexit - Business Insider - Business Insider

UK driving licences and number plates have been given a makeover to signify the beginning of a new chapter for the UK.

To mark the UKs exit from the EU, the EU flag has been removed from all UK driving licences and number plate designs, with the first batches issued from 1 January 2021.

While existing licences and number plates will still be valid, the new versions will be issued to everyone renewing a licence or getting one for the first time.

The new designs coincide with the beginning of a number of agreements recently made between the UK and member states for British drivers, making it easier for Britons to drive in the EU when existing restrictions end.

Thanks to these agreements, UK drivers who hold photocard licences will not need an international driving permit to drive in any of the 27 EU member states, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland or Liechtenstein. UK drivers wont need to display a GB sticker in most EU countries if their number plate has GB or GB with a Union Flag on it.

Although national restrictions are still in place, and people should not be travelling internationally unless for work or other legally permitted reasons, these new arrangements mean that Britons can easily drive in the EU for years to come

Transport Secretary Grant Shapps said:

Changing the designs of our driving licences and number plates is a historic moment for British motorists, and a reassertion of our independence from the EU one year on from our departure.

Looking to the future, whether its for work or for holidays abroad, these changes mean that those who want to drive in the EU can continue to do so with ease.

Driving licences and number plates can be renewed online.

Read the original post:

New-style driving licences and number plates mark one-year anniversary of Brexit as EU flag is removed - GOV.UK

LONDON (Reuters) - Prime Minister Boris Johnson said there were lots of teething problems with the countrys adjustment to life outside the European Unions single market and business groups warned things might get worse soon.

Britain's Prime Minister Boris Johnson leads a virtual news conference on the COVID-19 pandemic inside 10 Downing Street in London, Britain January 27, 2021. Geoff Pugh/Pool via REUTERS

Of course there are there are teething problems in lots of areas and thats inevitable because this is a big change, Johnson said when asked about the problems faced by the fishing sector on a visit to Scotland on Thursday.

But be in no doubt, over the medium term and much more over the long term, the changes are very, very beneficial for Scottish fishing, he said, adding that eventually Britain would be able to fish all the stocks in its territorial waters.

Scotlands fishing industry has been hit hard by delays in getting shellfish and other fresh produce to markets in the EU since the introduction of post-Brexit checks on Jan. 1.

Britains government has promised an extra 23 million pounds ($31.6 million) of funding to compensate the sector.

Other industries have also felt the impact of longer delivery times and tax changes.

The government said businesses overall had adapted well to the new trading relationship with border traffic increasing daily and no longer any disruption at British ports.

Compliance was very high with vehicles turned back at the border - for failing to meet customs requirements or lack of a negative coronavirus test - accounting for less than 5% of traffic.

Michael Gove, a senior minister in Johnsons cabinet, pledged to work hand in hand with businesses.

But after a meeting with Gove, the heads of five big employers groups issued a joint statement highlighting the range and scale of the challenges for business caused by Brexit and they said the disruption might intensify soon.

It was recognised by all parties that the level of activity remained low post-Christmas and that further problems might appear as volumes begin to increase once stockpiled supplies were exhausted, the statement said.

Concerns were also raised on further disruption to trade flows when grace periods fall away in the coming months.

Last month, Britain and the EU struck a deal which avoided the imposition of tariffs and quotas, but Londons decision to leave the blocs customs union and single market has led to more paperwork and other hindrances to exports and imports.

Brexit supporters say the new barriers to business with the EU will be offset by trade deals that London wants to strike with other countries around the world.

But the governments economics forecasters have estimated that Britains economy will be 4% smaller in 15 years time than it would have been had it stayed in the EU.

Reporting by William Schomberg in London; Additional reporting by Guy Faulconbridge; editing by Grant McCool

Read the original here:

Johnson: lots of Brexit teething problems, but fishing will gain - Reuters

The United Kingdom became the first country to legally and constitutionally leave the European Union at the end of January 2021, commencing an 11-month transition period to negotiate a deal before December 2020. Days before the end of this period, a deal was struck with a new agreement that came to force beginning this year.

Beginning January 1, the UK left the EU Single Market and Customs Union, all bloc policies and multilateral agreements stopping the free movement of goods, people, services and making them two separate market entities.

As the UK continues to remain a popular destination for overseas education among Indian students, The Indian Express talked to Dattatraya Kadikar, an immigration expert and founder of HSMP Services UK, on how Brexit will affect education and work opportunities for Indians aspiring to go to the country.

Experts from the interview:

How has the likelihood of getting student visas / work visas changed after Brexit?

This is a very important question for students and skilled workers from India. However, Brexit and the UKs new Immigration Rules will present more opportunities for UK students and work visas for Indians.

The new post Brexit Immigration Rules include important changes. The Graduate Route (similar to the old post-study work visa) will now allow two years unsponsored stay in the UK after completing a bachelors or three years after completing a Phd. This time will allow students to gain international experience and career prospects and ensure a smooth transition to skilled worker visas in the UK.

Read |Indian students continue to fly abroad despite COVID; smaller, less-impacted countries get a boost

The work visa route, which replaced Tier 2 General Visa, will also offer better opportunities to IT, Healthcare, Legal and R&D professionals from India. There will be better opportunities as the salary thresholds are lowered and the annual cap is removed.

Will Brexit impact the student fees for international students?

As of now, we do not think there will be any increases in fees for international students. The UK has opted out of the Erasmus Programme with the EU for student exchange but has announced a new 100 million fund to help UK students study overseas.

Has Brexit impacted the popularity of the UK as a study destination for Indian students? Consequently, has it increased the demand to study in other popular destinations like Canada or the United States?

Students from India will have better opportunities for studies in the UK and the country continues to be a very attractive destination for international students too. If you look at the statistics, around 250,000 to 300,000 students come to the UK every year, from all over the world, for higher education. As per the Government statistics, during the year ending March 2020, a total of 257,000 international students arrived in the UK for formal study. This compares well to 2018, when a total of 2.9 million visas were granted, out of which 8% i.e. 232,000 were for long-term studies.

Read |Fee-waivers, IELTS relaxation: What are foreign universities offering to enroll international students

I am not sure if Brexit has impacted the students choice to go to other countries instead of the UK. However, announcing the Graduate Route will definitely have a positive impact on increasing the footfall of international students in 2021.

Has Brexit created more job opportunities for Indians going to the UK, and in what sectors?

The free movement with the EU has ended so the workers from the EU cannot walk in to work in the UK, they will need to have the same sponsorship and visas as required by skilled workers from India.

Till the UK was part of the EU, anyone could come to the UK and start working as they did not need to meet the minimum salary levels of knowledge of the English language.

After Brexit, all the EU, EEA, and Swiss nationals are now in the same position as other non-EEA nationals. This means they do not have the right to free movement and they will need to get the visa, pay the visa fees and other immigration surcharges in the same way as applicants from India.This puts Indian workers on the same level of UK immigration with EU citizens.

How is Brexit likely to impact Indians already working in the UK?

Brexit will not have any adverse impact on Indians already working in the UK. However, there is one change in the UK immigration rules that will offer the exciting possibility of settling permanently in the UK.

Read | Engineering, diverse cultural experience attract foreign students to India

Thousands of Indian workers, who are in the UK under Tier 2 Intra-company transfer could not switch to Tier 2 General or apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain i.e. Permanent Settlement, can now switch to skilled worker visa and settle permanently.

Many British employers do not offer jobs to international students, despite them having a work permit. Any particular reasons behind this?

In the pre-Brexit era, British employers were reluctant to be on the Sponsor Register which meant added duties of immigration compliance. Having said that most UK employers have set recruitment processes involving 5-6 steps for skilled jobs and so long as students work hard to pass this process, they get good employment opportunities.

I would like to clarify the legal requirements here. The British employers must sponsor the skilled workers and monitor them so if the employee does not report for work, the employer is responsible to inform the Home Office and cancel the Certificate of Sponsorship. The civil penalties are very high in case of default.

In video | Study Abroad: How and when to plan

On the other hand, International students can work a fixed number of hours during term time and full-time work is allowed during the off-term time and they do not need any separate work permit from the employers. If one wants to gain entry and work in the UK, one must understand the recruitment system, work ethics and different steps involved to succeed.

Will Brexit in any way impact economic opportunities for Indian job seekers in the rest of Europe?

Brexit has opened up opportunities not only for Indian students and skilled workforce but also for Indian businesses. In the same way, there will be better opportunities for Indian students and workers in EU and EEA countries.

Do you think it will take more time to fully understand the impact of this transition on Indian students/ professionals in the UK?

On the contrary, the UK Government has demonstrated an urgency to implement the changes by launching a new student route in October 2020 and a skilled worker route from 1 December 2020 , ahead of the announced date of January 1, 2021, to ensure that the Home Office, employers, and education providers hit the ground running.

See more here:

Brexit and its impact on studying or working in the UK: An expert answers all your questions - The Indian Express

European stocks pushed higher on Monday, with Germany's main stock index striking a record high, buoyed by a pandemic recovery package agreed in the US and Britain's Brexit deal with the EU.

Having been closed since December 23, the blue-chip DAX index bounced 1.7%, reaching 13 819 points at the open, topping the previous high set in February before the coronavirus pandemic forced Europe into lockdown.

The index later pared some of its gains, but still showed a gain of 1.5% in afternoon trading. In Paris, the CAC 40 was up 1.1%.

The stock market in London was closed for a holiday.

The jump came after US President Donald Trump signed a $900 billion (735 billion) stimulus bill late Sunday, averting a government shutdown and removing considerable uncertainty for the world's largest economy.

The US leader had previously refused to sign the relief package, arguing that it included wasteful spending.

On December 24, Britain and the European Union agreed a post-Brexit deal that ended the potentially destructive possibility of its disorderly exit from the bloc.

The Brexit deal and the US aid package were pushing the DAX to "a new high", said Jochen Stanzl, an analyst at CMC Markets.

The market is "breathing a sigh of relief" after the Brexit deal, independent analyst Timo Emden added.

Several EU nations including France, Germany, Italy and Spain began rolling out their first Covid-19 vaccinations on Sunday, although the supply is limited.

"For the markets, it remains crucial to get Covid-19 under control as soon as possible," Emden said.

The DAX's previous high was 13 795 points in February, but it plunged to 8 255 points in March as the pandemic shutdowns battered Europe's economy.

Markets recovered as restrictions on the economy were lifted in the summer and after central banks pumped billions in monetary stimulus into the economy, including 1.85 trillion by the European Central Bank.

US shutdown avoided

The emergency US package is part of a larger spending bill that, with Trump's signature, will avoid a government shutdown on Tuesday.

The president's turnaround came after a day marked by calls from across the political spectrum for action to avert a financial and social disaster in the world's largest economy, especially among the most vulnerable.

"For Americans that have been endlessly checking their mailboxes for a stimulus check, this is the best holiday present anyone could ask for," said Axi strategist Stephen Innes.

"The stimulus balloon will allow the markets to navigate better the number of new air pockets... due to the virus's latest variant," he added.

Markets have recently been shaken by the news of the emergence of a new variant of the coronavirus that authorities believe may spread more easily.

Asian markets traded mixed on Monday. Tokyo closed 0.7% higher on Monday, with Jakarta, Mumbai and Bangkok also in positive territory.

Shanghai, Seoul and Singapore were flat, while Hong Kong closed down 0.3% and Manila slid 1.1%.

Sydney and Wellington were closed for a holiday.

Oil prices rose as the US stimulus measures should help boost demand for energy.

Read this article:

http://www.news24.com

CHERBOURG, France/DUBLIN (Reuters) - From his office overlooking Cherbourg docks, general manager Yannick Millet points to trailers destined for Ireland that belong to Amazon and FedEx, new customers and a signal of a potential big shift in post-Brexit trade.

Confronted by red tape and delays after Britains messy exit from the European Union, Irish traders are shipping goods directly to and from European ports, shunning the once-speedier route through Britain.

You see the shift in supply chains right here, he said.

All five operators connecting Ireland to mainland Europe have increased ferry services in the past nine months, with some bringing forward planned sailings and others moving larger ships away from quieter British routes to meet new demand.

Millet forecast Cherbourg would handle 9,000 trucks in January, equivalent to almost a quarter of what passed through the French port annually before the COVID-19 crisis.

For decades, the land bridge offered Irish traders the swiftest, most reliable route to continental Europe. It involves a short sea crossing between Dublin and Holyhead in Wales and then a hop between Dover and Calais. Every year 150,000 lorries would use the route.

But post-Brexit paperwork and delays in customs clearance are snarling up the process, adding hours or days to journeys and ratcheting up costs. Many companies are switching routes.

This is a game-changer, said Chris Smyth, commercial director at Irelands Perennial Freight. Demand was huge for freight space to ship to Cherbourg, Dunkirk, Rotterdam and Zeebrugge, he added.

Cherbourgs business before Brexit had been evenly split between Ireland and Britain. Now, the port would orient itself towards Ireland, Millet said.

I thought traffic would double but it has tripled, he said. The question now is whether the traffic volumes we see today will hold in the months to come.

Stena Line, the largest Irish Sea operator, has doubled its services on the booming Rosslare-Cherbourg route, temporarily cancelling some sailings to Britain after freight volumes fell 60% in the first half of January.

Irish Ferries has deployed a larger vessel out of Dublin and planned to add more weekly rotations next month, the Port of Cherbourg said. Brittany Ferries also brought forward a planned sailing linking France and Ireland.

Danish operator DFDS said the freight ferries plying its new 23-hour crossing from Rosslare to Dunkirk six days a week were pretty much full. Route director Aidan Coffey said capturing 30% of land bridge traffic would make the route viable and DFDS might soon add up to two more sailings per week.

Were blown away by the demand, Coffey said.

No one knows if the shift is permanent.

The Irish Maritime Development Office, a government shipping promotion body, said a return to pre-Brexit logistic chains would depend on the speed of customs formalities along the land bridge and that ferries linking Ireland and mainland Europe could not replicate its volumes.

Eddie Burke, a senior official at Irelands transport department, said the route through Britain would undoubtedly come back into play again.

Ferry operators were taking decisions on capacity week by week, said Ole Bockmann, Stenas operations chief in Cherbourg. Reverting to land bridge routes was simple, he said. We just take the ships off and go back to the old system.

It gives ports like Cherbourg and Irelands Rosslare a narrow window to persuade traders that the longer sea crossing between Ireland and mainland Europe is commercially viable for just-in-time logistics.

Eighteen months ago, Rosslare on the southeastern tip of Ireland was struggling. Its traffic volumes were stagnant while rivals were enjoying a 10-year run of growth.

Now its general manager, Glenn Carr, is fending off complaints about the number trucks passing through after freight traffic increased 500% in the first half of January.

Carr said the old perception that direct crossings from Ireland were too long for fresh food and just-in-time supply chains was changing. Many of the companies that had switched from the land bridge would remain, he forecast.

I was talking to some multinationals only this week and the question they asked me was, Glenn, are you putting on more services?

An 18-hour ferry ride away, Cherbourg ports Millet said his immediate priority was responding to shipping companies demands for better restaurants and washrooms for truckers and ironing out quayside glitches in the loading of extra vessels.

Brexit has for us been an opportunity to rethink our port, he said.

Reporting by Richard Lough in Cherbourg and Padraic Halpin in Dublin; Writing by Richard Lough; Editing by Giles Elgood

Go here to read the rest:

After Brexit, Ireland and France cut out the middleman - Britain - Reuters

Among the various grievances that led to Britains departure from the European Union, resentment of worker protections was not dominant for most voters. But it was a point of urgency among many Conservative MPs, for whom freedom to deregulate was the purpose of Brexit.

That is what they meant by regaining sovereignty: emancipation from rules that, in Eurosceptic demonology, suffocate enterprise and limit prosperity. In that ideological conception, a successful Brexit is one that casts off the bureaucratic shackles as soon as possible.

But Boris Johnson has reasons to hesitate. His parliamentary majority is dependent on former Labour voters who do not embrace classical Tory faith in the free market free-for-all. On the contrary, many of those red wall voters are driven by insecurity that pushes in the opposite direction against the sink-or-swim ethos of globalised capitalism. They want protection.

There is a contradiction between the demands of Mr Johnsons new electoral base and his partys most cherished beliefs. That tension has emerged this week in government contortions around a review being conducted by the business department into labour laws. Kwasi Kwarteng, the business secretary, denies that the review will lead to lower standards, insisting that the governments ambition is enhancement of rights. The policy focus of the review is reported to be the regulation of hours (the working time directive much despised by Eurosceptics), holidays and rest breaks. As a committed Thatcherite from the enterprise group of MPs, Mr Kwartengs instinct towards those rules is unlikely to be to tighten. Mr Kwarteng has played down the departure from the EU working time model on the grounds that many member states exercise their right to opt out.

In so doing, he unwittingly underlined one of the futilities of Brexit. EU membership did not prevent the UK from having the continents most liberal labour market. The idea that new vistas of prosperity open up with yet more aggressive deregulation is a symptom of ideological monomania. It will do nothing to boost productivity, upgrade skills or cultivate long-term investment in the workforce and innovation, which most experts see as the central challenges for Britains economy.

Post-Brexit, a familiar path beckons for Britain, wooing foreign capital with tax breaks and cheap labour, but that is not a model to deliver any of what was promised to Mr Johnsons newly recruited voters. Too drastic a movement away from EU standards would also provoke retaliation from Brussels under level playing field provisions in the Brexit deal. But with access to European markets already curtailed by the deal, the reflex to chase a competitive advantage at the expense of standards will be hard for many Conservatives to resist.

The real tangle of red tape is now at the EU border, where Brexit imposes cumbersome new procedures. The cost is already being paid, as fish and other animal products rot before they can be cleared for continental markets. The drag on growth is inevitable. There were warnings, but leavers dismissed them as scaremongering. Ministers now hardly dare admit that such problems exist. The tragedy and the absurdity of the situation is that Mr Johnson will feel compelled to indulge the rhetoric of releasing business from a burden of imagined bureaucracy to avoid taking responsibility for the real burden, imposed by him. The prime minister will indulge policies based on ideological fiction, because he turned his back on economic facts several years ago.

Link:

The Guardian view on Brexit and bureaucracy: the cost of absurdity - The Guardian

For nearly a century the firm of Teal & Mackrill in the port city of Hull in northeast England has made paints for special applications, like fishing trawlers and factory floors. It produces marine paint, for example, with ingredients to prevent barnacles from encrusting hulls.

Now in a little-noticed consequence of the new Brexit trade deal, the company is facing real concerns about its future. Geoff Mackrill, the third member of his family to helm the company, said that growing British regulatory burdens on chemicals may mean that eventually he wont be able to obtain some of the additives that make his paints distinctive.

The worry is that some of those materials that we use, he said, may become unavailable because of those costs.

It is a concern that is spread across Britains 33 billion (or about $45 billion) a year chemical industry.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson, when he announced the trade deal on Dec. 24, said Britain would now be free to set our own standards, to innovate in the way that we want. Business people like Mr. Mackrill were relieved that Britain had avoided a chaotic exit and that goods made in Britain could continue to cross over to Europe free of tariffs.

But some companies, notably in the chemical industry, are finding that business has become more complex rather than easier. The European Unions elaborate and burdensome regulations may no longer apply inside Britain, but they remain a fact of life for British firms like Mr. Mackrills that wish to continue selling their goods in Europe.

Adding to the burden, the British government is creating its own demanding set of chemical regulations, a mirror of the E.U. laws. An industry group said the cost to chemical businesses of recreating the European regulations, which requires extensive documentation, could reach as much as 1 billion, potentially a major burden on small firms and those with thin earnings margins.

The regulatory changes, plus the fact that chemicals can have long supply chains, have led some businesses to rethink their activities in Britain.

Before Brexit, Aston Chemicals, a firm based in Aylesbury, about 50 miles northwest of London, imported chemicals from around the globe, performed the necessary paperwork, paid any import duty, and then dispatched them by the truckload to European makers of moisturizers or dandruff shampoos.

Using Britain as a hub worked incredibly well, said Dani Loughran, the companys managing director. But after Brexit, it doesnt.

Trucks in Britain bound for Europe now face lengthy customs procedures at the border. And while British-made goods can still enter the European Union duty free, thats not the case for goods that originated elsewhere.

So, an importer like Aston Chemicals needs to pay tariffs on products made in the United States or Asia, and then again when it distributes them to the European Union, effectively doubling the rates, Ms. Loughran said.

Consequently, the company will now instead supply Europe from a base in Poland, a member of the European Union. It has cut its British warehouse staff from three to one.

These new obstacles arent just a drag for the chemical industry.

I think everyone who has been using the U.K. as a distribution center for Europe is going to be affected in the same way, Ms. Loughran said. They are going to find it very difficult from now on.

The shift will leave Ms. Loughrans British arm mainly catering to the local market but even that prospect has a regulatory cloud hanging over it.

She is accustomed to working with the European Unions chemical regulation system known as REACH, which has a reputation for strictness. Companies are required to submit lengthy files on each chemical substance that they supply inside the European Union, detailing its properties and uses as well as the potential risks and hazards, to the European Chemical Agency, based in Helsinki. Ms. Loughran said REACH was a headache, which we dreaded and cursed, but at least it covered the whole trading bloc including Britain.

But the chemical industry had hoped that, after Brexit, Britain and the European Union would continue sharing data filed under REACH, but that language did not make it into Decembers deal.

Companies now face the prospect of making voluminous and largely duplicate filings on the chemicals they want to sell in Britain with a newly created British agency, UK REACH. The fees charged and the work required in reconstructing data on product safety and other matters, which is expected to take several years, could eventually add up to 1 billion, according to estimates from the Chemical Industries Association, a British trade body.

A company cant simply cut and paste statements and files that have been previously lodged with the European regulator because, in many cases, the filings are full of commercially sensitive intellectual property belonging to other firms.

Stephen Elliott, the industry groups chief executive, said chemical firms operating in Britain could be forced to replicate almost word for word the submissions they have already made to the European regulator.

That is a pointless use of resource, he said.

Mr. Elliott said that the industry continued to lobby the government to agree to accept the filings it has already made under REACH, but said that at this point such an outcome looked like a tall order because of the governments aversion to relying on European regulation.

Executives say it makes little sense for chemical companies to incur similar regulatory costs to those of the European Union to sell products in Britain, whose economy is around one-seventh the size of that of the European Union. Industry executives also doubt that the British chemical agency will have sufficient staff and resources to measure up to its European counterpart, which employs around 600 people.

The combination of Brexit and UK REACH regulations isnt very helpful when companies are considering where to site new investment, said Paul Hodges, chairman of New Normal Consulting, a firm that focuses on chemicals. In other words, new investment may go elsewhere.

A souring of the chemical industry on Britain would be a blow to the post-Brexit economy. Chemicals may not be as visible as some other industries, but these substances are integral to a wide range of products, including cars and shampoo. It is a major business in Britain that accounts for a hefty 9 percent of exports, with almost 60 percent going to the European Union, and employs about 94,000 people, according to government statistics.

One worry is that firms will decide that supplying some chemicals that earn low profit margins or sell in small quantities, like the ingredients Mr. Mackrill buys for his paints, is no longer worthwhile. So far the leaders of the industry are taking a wait-and-see approach, though they look askance at new red tape and costs in Britain.

BASF, the German chemical giant, which sells around 1,200 substances in Britain, estimates that UK REACH could cost the company 70 million.

If the costs of bringing products to the U.K. market rise to make them uneconomic, we are not going to do it and make a loss, said Geoff Mackey, director of communications and sustainability at BASF in Britain.

Smaller British companies, though, are more likely to feel the impact. If they want to continue to be serious players, they need to sell to Europe and stay in line with European regulation, they say.

Mr. Mackrill has already felt obligated to set up a company in the Netherlands to comply with the rules of the European Union, where he sends around 10 percent of his products. He also has up to two people working full time on the regulatory implications of Brexit, a drain on the resources of a firm with 70 employees.

Mr. Mackrill, who is now executive chairman of his company, seems confident that a company that has been around since the early 20th century can navigate the Brexit shoals, but he says others may judge that the easiest course is to move their operations to the giant market next door.

Some of the manufacturers will probably look at it and go, Why dont we manufacture that in Europe?, Mr. Mackrill said. Thats not good for U.K. PLC, he said, meaning British business.

See more here:

For Britain's Chemical Industry, Brexits Red Tape Is Just Beginning - The New York Times

The government must quadruple the number of customs agents in the UK to ensure businesses struggling with mountains of Brexit red tape do not buckle under the strain, Labour has said in a letter to Michael Gove.

The shadow chancellor for the duchy of Lancaster, Rachel Reeves, put it to Gove that industry figures showing that only 12,000 customs agents have been trained fell far short of the 50,000 the government accepted last February would be necessary to cope with Brexit.

Can you please inform me what the government is doing to address this shortfall as swiftly as possible, so that businesses dont have to deal with even more disruption? she wrote.

Reeves letter comes as hauliers, freight forwarders and existing customs agents say businesses are struggling with the new trading regime.

Customs agents are the private operators who are contracted to do the paperwork for businesses and are separate to the army of officials recruited by HMRC to check the documents are in order.

Last February, Gove told the Commons he would stand by his pledge to recruit the estimated 50,000 agents needed within six months.

But in December, Bloomberg reported () that the 84m fund to train the agents was running dry despite the need for them at the end of the Brexit transition period.

What steps are the government taking to address this, and how will it support businesses as they grapple with huge amounts of new red tape and disruption? Reeves wrote.

It is in the interests of us all for British business to thrive under the new UK-EU trading relationship. As hauliers and the industries they support buckle under unprecedented red tape through no fault of their own, they need a plan of practical support from the government urgently.

In the past, the government has estimated 147,000 businesses who trade internationally have no prior experience of customs because they have only sold goods to EU states.

Several businesses told the Guardian they have had to wait days for a response from HMRC to customs queries. Others have told how businesses went into Brexit with little clue as to how complicated the new customs declarations, regulatory and transit certification and VAT rules would be.

Colin Jeffries, a freight forwarder, said it was absolute carnage, with customers not knowing what they needed to do to trade and EU hauliers rejecting UK deliveries because of new requirements for financial guarantees for lorry-loads of goods.

A Conservative party source said: Rachel Reeves is being misleading, because as she knows the government made no such promise. Labour under Sir Keir Starmer spent the last four years seeking to overturn the 2016 referendum result, and trying to block Brexit, opposing our plans to take back control of our borders and arguing we were spending too much money on preparations.

See original here:

Labour calls for more customs agents to cope with Brexit red tape - The Guardian

The European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom (UK) finally came to an agreement on 24 December 2020 (EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, the Agreement), less than ten days after the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) published astatementon the consequences a no-deal situation would have on the flows of personal data between the EU and the UK (for previous coverage of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and Brexit, please see our alerthere). This statement has since beenupdatedon 13 January 2021.

According to this Agreement, until 30 June 2021, any transfer of personal data to the UK will be made under the current framework and will not be considered as a transfer of data to a third-party country. Nevertheless, at the end of this six-month grace period, and unless a compromise is found through an adequacy decision, the UK will become a third-party country in the eyes of theGeneral Data Protection Regulation no.2016/679. Consequently, all personal data from the EU to the UK will be considered a transfer of personal data outside of the EU, to a country not offering an adequate level of data protection from an EU point of view, despite the regulatory framework of the UK remaining the same as it was.

All UK-based companies which would be exchanging data with EU-based companies will need to thoroughly identify such transfers to ensure compliance, as well as on which basis they can be maintained from 30 June 2021 onward.

While the EDPB is currently evaluating whether the UKs regulatory framework could be considered as adequate (as per the minute of its43rd plenary session), suchadequacy decisionwhich would allow the free transfer of data between the two blocks is unlikely to be adopted before the Spring of 2021 at the earliest.

In the event where no adequacy decision is taken, the UKs supervisory authority (ICO) recommends all UK-based companies receiving data from the European Economic Area (EEA) to put alternative safeguards in place before the end of April. The possible alternative mechanisms would include:

Standard Contractual Clauses (SCC), which would remain the most flexible and less time-consuming solution.

However, the recent decision from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in theFacebook Ireland Ltd. v. Maximillian Schrems case, dated 16 July 2020 (Schrems II, see our alerthere) has called for an update to these clauses, and neither the EDPBs recommendations for additional organizational, contractual, and technical measures (here) nor the EU Commissions updated draft SCC will be finalized before 2021.

Companies wishing to rely on the SCC will therefore need to adopt a flexible and risk-based approach and supplement the now-current SCC with the expected requirements to be finalized.

Binding Corporate Rules (BCR), which are internal rules that facilitate cross-border data transfers within a multinational group of companies and international organizations.

This solution generally requires substantial investment in time and resources for its implementation and only addresses data transfers within an organization, excluding relationships with service providers, for example. They are, however, strongly advised for multi-national companies to streamline the data exchange relating to their internal organization.

Codes of Conduct, which may be adopted by professional and trade organizations to self-regulate an ecosystem (see our alerthere).

Just as for BCR, this mechanism would require time and resources. However, this sectoral approach is likely to become more prevalent in the coming years.

Specific exceptions provided for underArticle 49 GDPR, which would only be relevant for certain situations and not the day-to-day management, as they require the transfer to be:

Not repetitive;

Relating to a limited number of data subjects'

Necessary for the purposes of compelling legitimate interests pursued by the exporting company, not overridden by the interests or rights and freedoms of the data subject;

Documented by the exporting organization, with an assessment of all the circumstances surrounding the data transfer and has on the basis of that assessment provided suitable safeguards with regard to the protection of personal data;

Notified to the relevant supervisory authority; and

Notified in detail, including the above mentioned legitimate interest, to the data subjects.

Another solution which should be considered would be the joint-controller relationship that would bind the EU-based exporting entity and the UK-based importing entity. Indeed, in such a situation, GDPR should be deemed to apply directly to all the stakeholders involved and the data flows between these entities may not be construed as a data transfer per se. While not requiring a specific transfer mechanism, this relationship will need to be governed by a dedicated joint controllership agreement, and the parties thereto will be jointly and severally liable.

Meanwhile, and as of the time of this writing, the UK Government has stated that they would recognize the EU as an importing destination offering an adequate level of protection. Therefore, companies who data is only being transferred from the UK to the EU would have no additional requirements.

The One-Stop-Shop mechanism (OSS), which establishes one EU supervisory authority as competent for administering situations involving the processing of personal data over several EU Member States, has not been included in the Agreement. As a consequence, as of 1 January 2021, UK entities not otherwise subject to GDPR will no longer benefit from this mechanism. This will notably impact the management of personal data breach notification (see our analysis of the impact on personal data breachhere).

Both the EDPB and its UK counterpart, the ICO, have stated they would be working in close cooperation to ensure a transition as seamless as possible to all affected stakeholders, including for cases which are currently being investigated.

UK companies must now consider whether another supervisory authority may have jurisdiction over their data processing operations in the EU. Such jurisdiction may result from:

Their establishment within the EU, e.g. through a branch, subsidiary, or any other stable arrangement, as perArticle 3.1 GDPR.

To be considered an establishment under GDPR, however, the EU-based corporate offshoots from a UK company would need to be directly involved in the data processing operations at stakes, or inextricably linked to the activities of the UK company. A case-by-case review will therefore be required.

Where no such establishment exists, their activities, i.e. (i) the offering of products and services to EU data subjects per (ii) the monitoring of their behavior taking place in the EU, as perArticle 3.2 GDPR.

In that situation, the oft-overlookedArticle 27 GDPRrequires UK companies to appoint a representative in the EU as of 1 January 2021. This representative may be addressed by supervisory authorities and data subjects alike on all issues related to processing activities in order to ensure compliance with GDPR. It remains unclear at this stage whether this representative could be expose to a subsidiary liability for the entity they represent, as Recital 80 GDPR provides that The designated representative should be subject to enforcement proceedings in the event of non-compliance by the controller or processor, but such situation is not detailed within the articles of GDPR.

Note that the designation of such a representative would still be required for the joint-controller not established within the EU as detailed above.

Original post:

Brexit, GDPR, AND The Timeline for Data Breaches - The National Law Review

The whole social security section in the Brexit future relationship deal including pension and healthcare protections could be cancelled in future, the deal says.

The Connexion picked up on this issue while reading the full deal which is 1,449 pages long. The British in Europe campaign group coalition also says it has raised the point with the UK government in recent days.

The deal says the social security protocol comes to an end after 15 years unless renewed before then on mutual agreement of the UK and EU. If this is not to happen, either the EU or UK should notify the other of the wish to enter negotiations for an updated protocol, not less than one year before the 15-year termination date.

The deal also states that either party can cancel the protocol at any time in writing at which point it ends from the first day of the ninth month after the date of notification.

It states however that any rights of people covered by the protocol regarding entitlements which are based on periods completed or facts or events that occurred before [it] ceases to apply shall be retained.

The protocol covers items such as the fact that the UK state pensions of Britons moving to France from January 1, 2021 are uprated annually and not frozen, that UK state pensioners moving from that date may have their healthcare paid for by the UK, and that certain UK benefits remain exportable.

It also includes the fact that people resident in the UK may continue to participate in the Ehic visitors health card scheme or an equivalent.

BiE co-chair Fiona Godfrey said they have pointed this issue out to the UK government and it is on our radar. We noted that it could give rise to future difficulties for Britons, she said.

She added: Our feeling is that this section appears to have been one of the easier and smoother ones to negotiate.

However we saw the need for renewal and the potential for suspension whereas under the Withdrawal Agreement deal [covering rights of Britons living in the EU before 2021] the citizens rights section cannot be suspended by either side whatever happens.

We would hope neither side would want to suspend it but it's Brexit and we never know what's going to happen."

View original post here:

Brexit deal allows ending of pension, healthcare protection - The Connexion

FILE PHOTO: Irish Foreign Minister Simon Coveney and his German counterpart Heiko Maas attend a news conference in Berlin, Germany, December 11, 2020. REUTERS/Fabrizio Bensch/Pool

LONDON (Reuters) - Food supply problems in Northern Ireland are due to Brexit because there are now a certain amount of checks on goods going between Britain and Northern Ireland, Irish Foreign Minister Simon Coveney said.

British ministers have sought to play down the disruption of Brexit in recent days.

The supermarket shelves were full before Christmas and there are some issues now in terms of supply chains and so thats clearly a Brexit issue, Coveney told ITV.

The Northern Irish protocol means there are a certain amount of checks on goods coming from GB into Northern Ireland and that involves some disruption, he said.

Reporting by Guy Faulconbridge; Editing by Tom Hogue

See more here:

Brexit responsible for food supply problems in Northern Ireland, Ireland says - Reuters

Key takeaways

In the area of merger control, companies will need to factor in interactions with the UKs Competition and Market Authorities (CMA) as well as the European Commission (Commission) on deals that would otherwise have just been dealt with by the Commission alone. The UK has already been seeking to take jurisdiction over EU deals due to Brexit. The CMA sent a successful, strong and reasoned request for it to have jurisdiction in relation to the Liberty Global (Virgin Media/Mobile)/Telefnica (O2) merger then fast tracked it into Phase 2 in the UK. The two regimes have different timetables and different standards despite, on their face, having what was previously understood to be a similarly worded substantive test (contrast the draft CMA Merger Assessment Guidelines with the judgment of the court in relation toCK Telecoms UK Investments v. Commission). The CMA is developing a reputation for being increasingly interventionist (tougher on mergers) and the risk of a deal being cleared by the Commission but blocked by the CMA (similar to Sabre/Farelogix, which was cleared in the US but blocked by the CMA) is material.

In relation to the competition enforcement landscape, it is clear that the CMA has the ambition of being viewed as a top-tier authority for global issues and investigations. We will start to see the same issue or transactions giving rise to parallel investigations by the Commission and the CMA.

With regard to antitrust litigation, separate EU Member State and English litigation regimes already exist. However, various jurisdictional and related issues will no doubt arise. In relation to mergers, challenging a decision of the CMA is likely to be quicker even if substantively more difficult than a challenge, say, to the EUs General Court in relation to a Commission merger decision. One can expect an uptick in challenges to UK merger decisions before the specialist appellate court, the Competition Appeal Tribunal.

The creation of the CMA as an enhanced force on the international competition scene will undoubtedly shape UK competition law and merger control enforcement, but is likely to have wider effects.

1. Merger control

From 1 January 2021 (de facto, anything not formally notified by 23 December 2020 to the EU Commission), mergers will no longer be subject to the EU Merger Regulations (EUMR) one-stop shop principle in relation to the UK. UK turnover will no longer be relevant for determining whether a merger satisfies the EUMR jurisdictional thresholds. The CMA has demonstrated its intention to strengthen enforcement in the area of merger control. This intention can be witnessed in a variety of ways, including through its increasing proactivity in asserting UK jurisdiction over transactions. Indeed, the CMA has blocked deals where other authorities have not been able to do so for example, see Sabres proposed acquisition of Farelogix, blocked two days after the deal was cleared in the US.

In cases where a merger satisfies the UK and EU jurisdictional thresholds of the EUMR, the CMA and the Commission may conduct parallel assessments of the same merger. This will result in an additional burden for the businesses involved in a merger or acquisition, given the fact that the CMA is not a light touch authority when it considers there is a possible issue.

In its draft CMA 2021/2022 Annual Plan (Annual Plan), the CMA has stated that it is expecting a significant increase in its workload from January 2021 as it acquires jurisdiction over cases that were previously subject to the Commissions exclusive review. The CMA states:

We are ready to launch complex cartel and antitrust cases and merger investigations with a global dimension that would have previously been reserved to the European Commission. We have engaged in pre-notification discussions with parties from early autumn 2020. We already have experience of working with other competition authorities on cases with a potential impact on UK consumers. Recent examples include the investigation of the Atlantic Joint Business Agreement between American Airlines, members of International Consolidated Airlines Group and Finnair, as well as the Sabre/Farelogix airline booking merger which the CMA investigated alongside the US Department of Justice before blocking it. The CMA worked alongside other national competition authorities on the Prosafe/Floatel and McGraw Hill/Cengage mergers, both of which were abandoned.

Dual reviews by the Commission and CMA could have an impact on the deal timetable, as the UK review period is longer than that of the EU (for Phase 1: 40 working days for the CMA, compared to 25 working days under EU rules; and at Phase 2: 24 weeks for the CMA, compared to 90 working days (around 18 weeks) under EU rules (excluding extensions and stopping of the clock)). Even more important is the diverging approach to the substantive threshold for intervention not only at Phase 1 but, given recent judgments in the EU, more generally with respect to complex theories of harm.

Companies are going to have to get used to the often nuanced decision on whether, when and how to approach the CMA, given the scope for mischievous complainants to trigger a CMA investigation at a point when the merging parties can also be tied up by the UKs worldwide freezing order the initial enforcement order (IEO) which is generally imposed on completed deals. A cold reading of the draft CMA Merger Assessment Guidelines will not give merging parties much confidence, given the amount of discretion these give to the CMA.

2. Antitrust investigations

From 1 January, the CMA (and the UK concurrent sectoral regulators) will only investigate suspected infringements of UK domestic competition law (i.e., the Chapter I and Chapter II prohibitions in the Competition Act 1998), and will not have the power to investigate infringements of EU competition law. The EU Commission will look at EU issues in relation to new investigations Of course, conduct in one jurisdiction can breach the competition rules in the other as has always been the case.

The CMA has been making preparations to take on more complex cartel and enforcement cases post-Brexit, which previously fell within the remit of the Commission. In the 2020/21 Annual Plan, Andrea Coscelli, the CMAs chief executive, expressed his determination to turn the CMA into a robust champion for competition and for UK consumers. The draft 2021/22 annual plan (above) also clearly states the CMAs intention in this regard.

The risk that companies will face parallel scrutiny at the hands of both the Commission and the CMA is high. The CMA and concurrent sectoral regulators may well request information from companies where they consider that they may have jurisdiction to review UK elements of Commission proceedings, even where these have been formally initiated before the end of the Transition Period.

The leniency regimes of the Commission, the CMA and national competition authorities of Member States will remain separate. However, as there will likely be parallel proceedings and ultimately fines companies should bear in mind that a leniency application to the Commission alone, whether before or after the Transition Period, will not grant immunity from fines with regard to an investigation carried out in the UK. It will also not provide any protection for relevant employees and directors from prosecution under the UKs criminal cartel offence and/or director disqualification proceedings in relation to cartel activity in the UK.

In light of the above, companies should consider the following:

3. Antitrust litigation

The UK courts reserve the right to depart from EU law and may well seize the opportunity post-Brexit on many occasions. From 1 January, a UK court or tribunal will not be bound by any decisions made, on or after [the end of the Transition period] by the European Court (European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, section 6), but it may have regard to them.

Nevertheless, after the end of the Transition Period, Continued Competence Cases (i.e., antitrust cases initiated by the Commission before the end of the Transition Period) will continue to be binding evidence of a breach of competition law under the Competition Act 1998. This means that we can still have follow-on damages cases for Commission matters initiated before 31 December 2020. This may potentially give rise to a long tail of litigation rather than a sharp cut-off in January 2021. In any event, the Commission decisions are going to be persuasive evidence of a breach and will be treated as such in the UK courts.

It will also be interesting to see how courts and Member States will view proceedings brought in the UK, as the UK will be a third country from 1 January 2021.

We expect that the UK (more specifically, England and Wales) will remain an attractive jurisdiction for litigation as a result of its numerous benefits, including the form of access, disclosure and litigation funding.

Follow this link:

United Kingdom: Brexit The wholly parallel UK antitrust regime is here - GlobalComplianceNews

Jacob Rees-Moggs star has waned since his glory days leading backbench rebellions against Theresa May. He is on TV less, playing to smaller crowds. I caught him the other week on the BBC Parliament channel telling the Commons that fish unable to reach EU markets were better and happier because Brexit makes them more British.

Watching his performance, I recalled the perennially startling fact about Rees-Mogg: he is younger than Kylie Minogue (also Noel Gallagher and Damon Albarn, but Minogue is the more arresting comparator for some reason).

No one expects politicians and pop stars from the same generation to sound and dress alike, but how many people realise that the artist known to fans as Moggy is of Kylies generation? His style implies something ancient, but that is the point. It is a look, tailored for an audience just like any theatrical costume. Except his stage is parliament.

That is not to accuse Rees-Mogg of fakery. He hams up the fogeyism, but he plays it with conviction. He is an authentic adherent to a fashion subculture. Tory anachronism was his lifestyle choice, its uniform worn as sincerely as those of the punks, new romantics and goths who were around in his formative years. All are valid modes of Britishness, but not all include the hint at having sprung from some antique source of nationhood.

Costumes, like pageantry, have an important function in public life. The Queens speech, the ermine-clad Lords and bewigged clerks are all parts of the mechanism that excludes the masses while drawing them into complicity with their exclusion. They fence off politics as a spectacle for consumption, not an activity for participation. They promote a sentimental, passive detachment from power. The veneration of British democracys lineage is meant to demonstrate how archaism provides security through stability.

There is truth in that idea, and much fiction. Every modern country tells stories about its origins that impose a narrative of continuity over messy reality. For England (different in this respect to other nations of the UK) the tendency is taken to extreme lengths. The greatest myth a backdrop stretched so wide we hardly notice its there is the succession of monarchs that links Elizabeth II to William the Conqueror.

Generations have grown up thinking of 1066 as the origin of a line that, after some zig and zag, joins up with now. That long, casual stroke of the pen glides over savage occupation, butchery, usurpation, religious massacre, civil war, regicide, chaos, theocracy, military coup, foreign intervention, mass migrations, colonial genocides, and a constant cycle of rebellions and repressions. The treacherous, blood-drenched landscape has been covered with the polished parquet of National Trust houses, skated over effortlessly in period drama balls.

The English cast themselves as a peaceful people, occasionally provoked to war by foreigners (Germans, mostly). We are no more or less bellicose than human nature dictates. There is a credible claim to have been world leaders in adherence to law. Magna Carta was truly a landmark on the road to civilisation. But it is also a monument built to disproportionate height, admired at an angle that lets us avoid seeing uglier sights closer at hand.

But nothing matches victory over the Third Reich as a resource for making us feel better about ourselves. It was indeed a magnificent thing that Britain did (in alliance with others), but not the only significant thing that happened in modern times, as its compulsive dramatisation sometimes implies. The attachment to the collective endeavour of blitz spirit speaks to insecurity about national cohesion. We idealise the time we stuck together, from fear that the glue is thinly applied.

Solidarity is a defence against trauma, which is why war metaphors abound in the struggle against Covid. But there is dishonesty in the claim that unity and patience are solutions to problems of government. The pandemic affects everyone, but not equally. There are limited resources and places to assign in the queue for help. Appeals to stoical togetherness camouflage the exercise of political priorities.

A functional democracy recognises that societies contain competing interests. Parties represent those forces and mediate between them. Conflicts are managed without recourse to actual fighting. But British democracy has a subtly different mechanism. The ruling class defuses social grievance by selectively recruiting from the ranks of the aggrieved.

The Conservative party is a brilliant machine for adapting to social pressure from below, remaking itself to absorb new supporters without the established elite having to surrender power. It happened in the early 1980s, with the sale of council houses. It happened with Brexit and the co-opting of working-class red wall voters. It is a pattern predating the modern party, going back to the 19th-century reform acts and selective extension of voting rights.

Societys upper echelons have been historically permeable, by European standards, admitting individuals from lowly backgrounds if they have the right education, wear the right clothes, speak with the right accent. That flexibility is one of the ways England avoided violent revolution on the French model.

The price is dilution of the reforming spirit, coupled with a weird aristo-centric populism that conflates meritocracy and social climbing. Our version of the American dream is a perverse heritage myth that the lives of a tiny, rich minority can tell a shared national story. It is the fantasy that we all dressed in finery once upon a time. The servants and peasants who were chopped to bits to settle obscure vendettas between noble families must have been someone elses great-great-great-grandparents.

The genius of this system is its ability to contain violent upheavals behind the veneer of continuity. Brexit is just the latest iteration: upsetting the established order while somehow leaving the established order untroubled, a rebellion that succeeds by inflicting the highest economic cost on the places that rebelled.

It is typically English: a revolution without emancipation. It ends with Jacob Rees-Mogg, in fancy dress, strutting the parliamentary stage as if he has been there for centuries, although he was born a year after Kylie Minogue. Take back control? We should be so lucky.

More:

Brexit was a typically English revolution one that left the elites unharmed - The Guardian

LONDON (Reuters) - British manufacturers concerns about shortages of low-wage workers and supplies have risen the most in almost 50 years, a survey showed on Thursday, as they wrestle with COVID-19 disruptions and new customs rules after leaving the European Union.

FILE PHOTO: A staff member works at PALLITE, a designer and manufacturer of social distancing screens and desks from recyclable paper board, amid the outbreak of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), in Wellingborough, Britain July 20, 2020. REUTERS/Andrew Boyers

A measure of how manufacturers feel about their competitiveness relative to EU rivals deteriorated at the fastest pace on record, meanwhile, and companies expected output and orders to decline, the Confederation of British Industry said of its survey results.

Manufacturers across the board are continuing to battle major headwinds, CBI chief economist Rain Newton-Smith said.

A monthly index of new orders for January dropped to -38 from -25 in December, and a quarterly measure of optimism sank to -22 from zero in October.

However, export orders bucked the broader trend, with this balance rising to its least negative since March, though it was still below its long-run average.

(This) suggests that EU firms are not hesitating to source goods from the UK, despite the extra red tape and rise in haulage costs, Samuel Tombs of Pantheon Macroeconomics said.

The survey adds to signs that Britains economy will contract in early 2021, hit by a surge in coronavirus cases and restrictions, and new bureaucracy for trade with the EU.

Manufacturing accounts for about 10% of Britains economy.

The much bigger services sector has been hit far harder by social-distancing measures and is also facing new barriers to trade with the EU.

Separately, a new experimental measure of consumer spending indicated that credit and debit card spending in early January slumped to 35% below its level last February, before the pandemic.

The figures - published by the Office for National Statistics using Bank of England data - are not seasonally adjusted, so part of the fall probably reflects a normal drop in spending after Christmas, on top of the impact of new COVID restrictions which closed non-essential retailers this month.

The CBI figures showed many manufacturers reported a rush to build up stocks and complete EU orders in December, before the new customs rules took effect on Jan. 1.

British goods are not subject to tariffs or quotas as they enter the EU, but do face significant new paperwork, adding to costs and delays.

Concern about shortages of materials and components rose by the most since January 1975, which the CBI linked to COVID disruption to international trade and Brexit-linked customs delays.

Concerns about a lack of unskilled workers rose by the most since April 1974. New immigration rules since Jan. 1 limit employers ability to hire low-paid workers from the EU, at a time when COVID has led to increased staff absence.

Additional reporting by Andy Bruce

Go here to see the original:

UK factories fear shortage of materials and workers as COVID and Brexit hit - Reuters

The Bank of Frances governor has said that Britains withdrawal from the European Union has driven almost 2,500 jobs and at least 170bn in assets to France.

London remains the continents foremost financial centre but Amsterdam, Dublin, Frankfurt and Paris have all scrambled to attract businesses that wanted to remain active in the 19-nation eurozone.

The coronavirus pandemic made it even more important to boost business activity, given its severe economic effects.

In spite of the pandemic, almost 2,500 jobs have already been transferred and around 50 British entities have authorised the relocation of at least 170bn (150bn) in assets to France at the end of 2020, bank governor Francois Villeroy de Galhau told a press briefing.

Other relocations are expected and should increase over the course of this year, he added.

In particular, Brexit has forced Europe to develop its financial autonomy, de Galhau said.

The EU will allow London clearinghouses to operate across the continent for 18 months, because the union does not have comparable institutions of its own.

Once that deadline has expired, however, financial transactions in euros are in theory going to have to be settled within the EU.

In addition, a true financing union must allow us to better mobilise surplus savings de Galhau said.

He urged that the opportunity provided by Brexit be used to create a functional union of capital markets in the EU.

Boris Johnson admitted in December that the Brexit deal with the EU does not go as far as we would like in allowing access to EU markets for financial services, although UK chancellor, Rishi Sunak, later offered the prospect of improved access.

See the article here:

Brexit has driven 2,500 finance jobs and 170bn to France, says bank governor - The Guardian

In Short

The Situation: As of the close of the Brexit transition period ending on December 31, 2020 ("Withdrawal Date"), UK banks, UK investment firms, and UK electronic money institutions ("UK Financial Institutions") can no longer operate in Italy under the principle of mutual recognition.

The Action: Article 22 of Italian Law Decree No. 183 of December 31, 2020 ("Milleproroghe Decree")as further explained by the press releases issued by Bank of Italy and Consob on January 2, 2021provides for a "grace period" until June 30, 2021, for UK Financial Institutions, provided that a request to operate in Italy had been submitted to the relevant Italian competent authority by the Withdrawal Date.

Looking Ahead: UK Financial Institutions are required to inform Italy-based clients of the effects of the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union.

Article 22 introduced measures applicable to UK Financial Institutions regulating the transition from the regime based on the principle of mutual recognition at European Union level to that applicable to third-country intermediaries.

Grace Period Provided for UK Financial Institutions Under Article 22 and the Press Releases

The measures provided for by Article 22 enable UK Financial Institutions to continue to operate in Italy subject to the following:

If an authorization is refused after the Withdrawal Date, the activities for which the authorization has not been obtained must be terminated in a way and within a time frame that do not prejudice the UK Financial Institutions' Italy-based clients. The orderly termination of the existing agreements should not be compromised, but it should be done by no later than three months from the date the Italian competent authority communicated its denial of authorization.

However, as a general principle, if a UK Financial Institution did not file its application before the Withdrawal Date or had its application denied before the Withdrawal Date ("Non-Authorized UK Financial Institutions"), it may no longer carry out reserved financial activities in Italy as of the Withdrawal Date.

Entry into Force of the Milleproroghe Decree

The Milleproroghe Decree was published in the Italian Official Gazette and entered into force on December 31, 2020. It may be subject to amendments by the Italian Parliament during its conversion into law, provided that if any provision does not become law within 60 calendar days from the Milleproroghe Decree's publication in the Italian Official Gazette (i.e., by March 1, 2021), then it will be deemed to have had no force or effect at all.

Read the original here:

Temporary Post-Brexit Regime Applies to UK Financial Institutions Operating in Italy - JD Supra

21 January 2021

lus Laboris

To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

The EU and UK reached a Trade and Co-operation Agreement('Brexit Agreement') on 24 December 2020 bringing clarityto many complex issues following the end of the Brexit transitionperiod, including transfers of personal data. Transfers of personaldata to the UK may continue as normal for up to six months afterthe Brexit transition period ended on 31 December 2020 until the EUCommission makes an adequacy decision concerning the UK.

Brexit means that the UK will no longer benefit from the freeflow of personal data between EU and EEA countries. Any transfer ofpersonal data from the EU to the UK will, therefore, have to complywith the hefty restrictions on international transfers under theGDPR, recently upgraded by theSchremsIIjudgement.

The Brexit Agreement, however, provides an extension for thebenefit of EU-UK data transfers, referred to asthe'bridge', meaning that the free flow of personaldata between the EU and UK may continue for another four months(until 1 May 2021) extendable for another two months (until 1 July2021) unless objected to by either the EU or UK. The bridge isconditional on the UK not amending its data protection laws duringthe period. The period will terminate if the EU Commission confirmsbefore the end of the period that the UK provides adequateprotection for personal data (a so-called'adequacydecision').

If the bridge ends without an adequacy decision, companies inthe EU would have to have appropriate safeguards in place or relyon derogations as required under the GDPR to justify transfers ofpersonal data to the UK. This would be a considerable and priceycompliance burden for the many organisations operating across thenewly adjusted EU border including, for example, EU-based corporategroups with UK entities.

The daunting complexities surrounding international transfersand Brexit have been postponed, but not solved. Stakeholders onboth sides of the Channel now face the task of preparing for twoopposite scenarios simultaneously. In the absence of an adequacydecision, EU companies would have to have all necessary measures inplace (such as standard contractual clauses or other safeguards) toensure that transfers of personal data to the UK comply with therequirements for international transfers under the GDPR.

At the same time, it is highly desirable and likely that UKadequacy will be confirmed, thus rendering any further safeguardsor measures unnecessary. Nevertheless, organisations have to bemindful of both potential outcomes. For example, the UK InformationCommissioner's Office has recommended putting alternativesafeguards in place before the end of April.

With this in mind, any EU company potentially transferringpersonal data to the UK (including providing access to personaldata) should carry out the following measures to prepare for anon-adequate scenario:

A confirmation of UK adequacy will be highly anticipated duringthe following months. Although the UK has now regained autonomyover its data protection law, the requirements of the GDPR havebeen converted into domestic UK law. This means that GDPR standardswill, for now, remain part and parcel of UK data protection law,favouring a finding of adequacy by the EU Commission. After all,the Brexit Agreement and the bridgeitestablishesaimprecisely at allowing sufficient time todecide on adequacy.

However, the EU Commission will have to carry out an intricateanalysis of the UK's broader relevant legislation, notably theUK's surveillance regime, which has been said to cast doubts onadequacy. The recentSchrems IIjudgement, inwhich theEuropean Court of Justiceinvalidated thepartial adequacy arrangement for the US (Privacy Shield),specifically boiled down to excessive surveillance powers of localauthorities. Interestingly, the compliance of the UK'ssurveillance regime with EU lawwaschallenged bytheEuropean Court of Justiceonly a few months ago, on 6October 2020 (case C-623/17,'PrivacyInternational'). Therefore, the risk of non-adequacycannot be ruled out and a confirmation of adequacy bears the riskof privacy campaigners subsequently challenging the adequacydecision, as demonstrated by theSchremscaselaw.

The content of this article is intended to provide a generalguide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be soughtabout your specific circumstances.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Privacy from Finland

Go here to read the rest:

The Brexit Agreement And Data Flows: A View From Finland - Privacy - Finland - Mondaq News Alerts

On December 31, 2020, the Brexit transition period ended and the United Kingdoms (UK) domestic implementation of the GDPR, the UK Data Protection Act 2018, as amended (UK GDPR), now governs the processing of personal data in the UK.

As if the UKs separation from the European Union (EU) was not enough to muddle the privacy compliance landscape for U.S. companies doing business in the EU and the UK, the mid-yearSchrems IIdecision by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) that invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield also ushered in a round of regulatory guidance from both the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) and the European Commission (EC).

On November 10, 2020, the EDPB released recommendations on what theSchrems IIcourt referred to as supplemental measures to be taken by entities relying on Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs) as a valid data transfer mechanism. Just one day after the EDPB released its guidance, the EC published drafts of new versions of the SCCs aimed at replacing the existing form SCCs for data transfer outside the EU, as well as wholly new form SCCs to be entered into between all controllers and processors under GDPR Article 28. And most recently, on January 15, 2021, the EDPB and the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) adopted joint opinions on the proposed draft SCCs, concluding that the drafts presented a reinforced level of protection that was intended to address some of the main data privacy and security issues identified in theSchrems IIdecision.

These significant developments at the close of 2020 and turn of the year charted a course in privacy compliance for companies doing business in Europe to take in early 2021. In this two-part Client Alert, the Lowenstein privacy team will explore this compliance to do list in more detailstarting with this first installment,Part I: Brexit, the GDPR, and a UK Adequacy Decision.

Part I: Brexit, the GDPR, and a UK Adequacy Decision

Data protection in the UK is now regulated by the UK GDPR and the GDPR no longer applies. The good news is that the UK GDPR is essentially identical to the GDPR, although differences are inevitable over time as the UK Information Commissioners Office (ICO) and courts interpret and enforce the regulation. However, companies that implemented GDPR compliance programs will need to update their privacy policies, privacy disclosures and other GDPR-related processes to ensure compliance under the UK GDPR. If nothing else, companies will need to update references to the EU and the GDPR to explicitly address the UK and the UK GDPR. Another particularly important requirement under the UK GDPR for companies without a physical presence in the UK is the engagement of a UK representative that is separate from the EU representative named under the GDPR.

The most anticipated post-Brexit consideration in the privacy sphere has been whether the EU will determine that the UK provides an adequate level of data protection. This adequacy designation, held by very few countries worldwide including Israel, Canada and South Korea, would eliminate any need for companies transferring personal data between the UK and EU member countries to rely on the SCCs or any other approved data transfer mechanism for the valid transfer of data.

Although that adequacy decision is still pending, the trade negotiations between the UK and the EU that began shortly after Brexit formally ended on December 24, 2020 with theEU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA)being approved in principle. While the TCA has not yet been ratified by the parties and in any case does not provide an adequacy decision on the UK, it does implement transition measures that allow data flows to continue unimpeded between the EU and the UK for the time being. This is a welcome, albeit temporary, reprieve for companies with data flows between the UK and the EU, but certainly a matter to keep a close eye on.

Next week we will circulatePart II: Draft SCCs and Post-Schrems II Regulatory Guidance, which will focus on the draft SCCs and the impact on U.S. companies of the EDPB and EDPS opinions.

See the rest here:

Post-Brexit, Schrems II, And The GDPR: Privacy Compliance Priorities In Early 2021 - JD Supra

A British freight company director with more than 20 years experience has told how EU hauliers and transport companies are turning their backs on UK business because they are being asked to provide tens of thousands of pounds in guarantees to cover VAT or potential tariffs on arrival in Britain.

The financial guarantee requirement did not exist before Brexit and EU transport companies who previously provided a shipping service for small and medium-sized firms have decided they do not want the extra financial burden, according to Colin Jeffries, who runs Key Cargo International in Manchester.

Weve got people that are trying to bring textiles in from Italy but we are being told there is no haulage availability on that. Nobodys willing to touch anything because of these guarantees. In Poland, were trying to get masks in for PPE in the workplace and we cant get anyone to bring them over.

Jeffries, who has been in the freight forwarding business for 24 years, said his business nearly came to a standstill last week because of the sudden trade barriers erected on 1 January.

He said it was absolute carnage out there trying to get EU hauliers to come to Britain, because they underestimated the gravity of the financial guarantees, known as T1s, that now apply to goods being exported to the UK.

A truck with a 200,000 cargo would need cash or a T1 financial guarantee document for 40,000 in VAT alone, he said, a significant burden for transport companies with multiple trucks going to the UK.

Before Brexit these guarantees were not required for goods coming from the EU.

Many agents who are completing T1s have run out of guarantee funds, which they need to have in place, he added.

He spoke as data showed that an increasing number of freight groups rejected contracts to move goods from France to Britain in the second week of January.

Transporeon, a German software company that works with 100,000 logistics service providers, said freight forwarders had rejected jobs to move goods from Germany, Italy and Poland into Britain.

In the second week of January the rejection rate for transport to the UK was up 168% on the third quarter of 2020 and had doubled in the first calendar week of the year.

Jeffries said one of the problems was how complicated exporting to the UK had become.

While goods could sail through British ports before Brexit, now EU suppliers, like the UK exporters, had to provide a panoply of paperwork before export in addition to the T1 financial guarantee.

Apart from the customs declaration and the T1 financial guarantee they have to provide a Rex (registered exporter system) document to certify the origin of the product, which will determine whether tariffs will apply on entry to the UK or whether they are subject to preferential treatment.

Jeffries also hit out at the government for its repeated refrain to businesses instructing them to go to freight forwarders or customs agents to prepare them for Brexit.

They havent issued freight forwarders with a magic book, he said. A lot of people think we have inside knowledge because the government says go to a freight forwarder or customs agent. But we havent been given any insight. We are researching this like everyone else and like everyone you can only gain access to some systems from 1 January so you had no time to test systems until it went live.

Continued here:

'Absolute carnage': EU hauliers reject UK jobs over Brexit rules - The Guardian