Category Archives: Brexit

1. After Brexit: the UK and EU risk a state of 'permanent alert'  Financial Times
2. Northern Ireland firms optimistic Brexit barriers will be eased  The Guardian
3. Daily Brexit Update - 17 February 2021  Lexology
4. Brexit: NI Protocol is 'only solution' despite challenges  BBC News
5. Brexit forces Northern Ireland buyers to cancel orders for 100,000 trees  The Guardian
6. View Full Coverage on Google News

Original post:

After Brexit: the UK and EU risk a state of 'permanent alert' - Financial Times

Press play to listen to this article

The appointment ofone-time chief Brexit negotiator David Frostas minister for Brexit Britain as some officials are informally calling him is the latest attempt to match up a multifaceted policy like Brexit with the hierarchical and tribal structures of Whitehall government.

Its an endeavor with a long and not always glorious history. The first attempt way back in summer 2016 involved the perhaps obvious (but nonetheless flawed) approach of simply creating a new government department the Department for Exiting the European Union (DExEU), with its own secretary of state.

The problem was that Brexit was so integral to Theresa Mays governing agenda that it quickly became apparent that No. 10 itself needed to retain grip. Which is why although David Davis (Brexit secretary from 2016 to 2018) was ostensibly Mr. Brexit, civil servant Olly Robbins because of a dual role as top official in the Brexit department and also Mays chief adviser on Brexit was the real power holder.

Creating a department for Brexit also caused tensions with other parts of Whitehall most notably the Foreign Office which wanted more power over the relationship with the EU.

The key change under Boris Johnson in 2019 was a probably sensible recognition that Brexit was too all-encompassing to be farmed out to a separate ministry. DExEU still existed until the U.K.s departure in January 2020, but it became largely a delivery organization; strategic direction now came clearly from two people at the top: Cabinet Office Minister Michael Gove, for the domestic delivery of Brexit; and David Frost, for the negotiation of the Withdrawal Agreement and then the future relationship.

Since the U.K. left the EU, that clear distinction between Gove and Frost has been muddied slightly by the fact that while Frost was in charge of the trade negotiations, Gove has also had direct talks with Brussels as chair of the Joint Committee overseeing the implementation of the exit deal.

Meanwhile, the various other ways Brexit impacted the U.K. government, be it in terms of new domestic regulations or new trade deals overseas, was left to relevant government departments without an obvious guiding hand at the center.

Frosts new role changes that.

He has sweeping responsibilities: Hes the point person for the relationship with the EU (both the Partnership Council set up by the Trade and Cooperation Agreement and the Joint Committee set up by the Withdrawal Agreement); he will work on domestic reforms to maximize the opportunities of Brexit; and he will lead coordination of international trade policy.

Hes basically David Davis, Olly Robbins and Michael Gove all rolled into one. And hes in Cabinet. A Super Brexit Minister.

That makes sense when you assess how previous structures have been flawed, but it does raise another risk. So sweeping are his responsibilities that the departments hes working with in particular the Foreign Office and the Department for International Trade might well feel sidelined.

One thing you can guarantee about Whitehall is that turf wars are never far away. This new type of Brexit minister might be about to start a few.

This insight is from POLITICOs Brexit Files newsletter, a daily afternoon digest of the best coverage and analysis of Britains decision to leave the EU available to Brexit Transition Pro subscribers. To request a trial, email [emailprotected].

More here:

Has the UK finally figured out what a Brexit minister does? - POLITICO.eu

I wasnt taken by surprise, exactly. I run a small perfume business, and in mid-December we stopped sending deliveries to European Union countries because we wanted to ensure nothing was caught in the rush to beat any new trading rules. In some ways, I had been preparing for such issues ever since the Brexit referendum was called several years ago. I always feared there would be difficulties for small businesses.

A little more than a month into the new regime, and its clear that with every new hurdle, there are extra fees to pay. Whether its importing raw materials or sending our products around the EU, additional forms need filling in and costs are nudged up. Our perfumery is dealing with new customs rules and new VAT regulations, and losing access to the EU cosmetics market. At midnight on 31 December, all our perfume products automatically became illegal in the EU.

I could make them legal again. To do that, I would need a representative based in the EU a legally appointed responsible person (RP) but to set this up, companies offering the service are quoting up to 1,000 a year per product, and weve got 60 different items to sell. Thats an additional 60,000 of annual expenditure we dont have. Well find a way to make it all work eventually, but until we understand the VAT issues, theres no point.

One of my friends in the industry thought he understood the new system: last year he confidently said it would only require one extra piece of paper and that there was no need to worry. In January, though, one of his EU-based customers was charged an additional fee of 130 by a delivery company. He still doesnt know why. For many of us in the independent cosmetics sector a world away from the multinational brands we have to pause our sales to customers in the EU until we can figure out these problems. The losses for our businesses are mounting.

Another friend has a wholesale order destined for Germany, but its stuck in customs somewhere. A second order set off for Spain, but only got as far as Middlesbrough because the shop owner there now has to be a registered importer. It will take about three months to be registered on the Spanish system because of the sudden post-Brexit rush combined with a Covid-19 backlog.

Until Brexit was finalised, cosmetics companies all followed EU regulations designed to make sure every product used on peoples skin and hair was safe. When things changed, some of our British customers were delighted for us, imagining that we would be free from EU constraints, and suddenly permitted to use lavish amounts of previously restricted materials such as jasmine, rose and carnation. But what really happened was that in 2019 the government copied and pasted the EU regulations straight into UK law. I watched official announcements about how we would all be free from EU bureaucracy , knowing that it wasnt quite true. We have shiny new UK regulations that are exactly the same as what was there before so what was the point?

In late January the Department for International Trade ran an online talk advising on trading with the EU and the rest of the world. It opened with a man telling us, Weve cut the red tape and left the EU. He spoke of the red tape as if it were a single shiny ribbon that Boris Johnson had cut with huge scissors unleashing us to take on the world, like the start of the Great North Run. Next, he proudly told us that 5,000 businesses were taking part in this DIT talk, as if that was a good thing rather than because thousands of small business owners were desperately trying to figure out the new rules having a drastic impact on their livelihoods.

Meanwhile, there are hundreds of tiny cosmetics businesses in Britain selling at local markets at home and on Etsy for orders further afield. The soap and lip-balm makers I know used to get their cosmetics safety assessed, then just put orders in the post whether their customers were in the UK, Ireland or the rest of the EU. To continue to do so now, theyd have to register for VAT and appoint an RP at great expense. With local markets closed because of Covid-19 restrictions, effectively taking away access to online EU customers is a terrible blow. Without this source of income, many businesses wont be viable.

When Britain finally settled its trade deal with the EU at the end of December, it hardly seemed sensible to rush everything through while the world struggled with the pandemic. Even tax-return deadlines have been extended. What small businesses needed was to stay in the single market and customs union while we recover from the shock of lockdown. But we arent, and weve got to get on with it however, we really needed time to absorb all the new rules we face to sell our products outside Britain. Our politicians wave this away as teething problems, or worth it for some amazing benefits which have yet to materialise. Theyre not listening to us.

Follow this link:

I thought Brexit would be hard for small businesses like mine but not this hard | Sarah McCartney - The Guardian

Personally, I've had enough of these backstabbing politicians "feathering their nests" under the guise of fealty to the U.S. Constitution.

Does anyone seriously believe Bill Cassidy, this newly reelected U.S. senator, would have dared cast this vote if his term in office were expiring two years from now? Of course not, which only makes his siding with the Democrats' impeachment "show trial" that much more hypocritical.

Meanwhile, by currying favor with the Left's "billionaire business class" in this manner, he's sending an obvious signal he's "open for business" to the highest bidder whenever their issues come before a now equally divided U.S. Senate.

And while some believe the senator's vote is deserving of his recall, to me that's an exercise in futility. I'd far prefer we join our neighboring Texans by taking seriously the idea of a Louisiana "Brexit," as that would rid us of all those "America First" posing pols in one afternoon!

PAUL KILLINGER

retired, home-building industry

Slidell

Read more:

Letters: Better La. 'brexit' than stabbing Trump in the back with cynical vote - The Advocate

As the UK enters new territory following its departure from the EU, legal experts Marie Manley and Chris Boyle from Sidley Austin explore the resultant consequences for biopharma companies and the regulatory opportunities that lie ahead.

FOLLOWING THE UKs departure from the EU on 31 January 2020 and the expiry of the transition period on 31 December 2020, the UK is now being treated as a third country by the EU and new UK legislation has taken effect, crystallising the regulatory legal frameworks applicable to medicines. The recent conclusion of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) has also lifted years of uncertainty regarding the future relationship between the UK and the EU. This is therefore a useful juncture for biopharma companies to take stock and assess the regulatory opportunities and challenges that lie ahead.

In October 2019, the UK and the EU concluded the Withdrawal Agreement, which provided an agreed framework for the UKs departure from the EU. The Withdrawal Agreement included the creation of a transition period for the continued application of EU law in the UK while a trade deal was being negotiated. After months of negotiations, the UK and EU finally concluded a TCA, mere days before the expiry of the transition period, narrowly avoiding a no-deal scenario under which the UK and EU would have to operate on World Trade Organization terms.

At the heart of the regulatory changes for biopharma companies is the fact that the UK has become a third country under EU law

The TCA has limited the immediate disruption to the supply of medicines, particularly by enabling tariff and quota-free trade between the UK and the EU (provided the rules of origin requirements are met). However, while the TCA streamlines some issues for example, by enabling mutual recognition of good manufacturing practice (GMP) inspections and certificates it has not avoided the regulatory consequences of the UK becoming a third country, as described below.

The TCA did not secure agreement on other key issues identified by the industry, such as mutual recognition on batch testing and release. This will lead to duplicative regulatory procedures and costly and time-consuming bureaucracy (with some limited exceptions for countries that have historically been dependent on medicine supplies from Great Britain, namely Ireland, Northern Ireland, Cyprus and Malta provided by a European Commission Notice1).

At the heart of the regulatory changes for biopharma companies is the fact that the UK has become a third country under EU law. This means that in order to commercialise medicinal products in the UK or the EU, companies must now comply with the applicable regulatory legal framework in each jurisdiction. This means that some regulatory activities, such as batch testing and qualified person certification conducted in Great Britain, will no longer be recognised in the EU.

Consequently, biopharma companies had to implement regulatory and, in some cases, structural changes in order to continue to market their products in the EU; for example:

To minimise disruption and prevent the creation of a legal void, the regulatory framework for biosimilars that existed before the end of the transition period has effectively been preserved in UK domestic legislation pursuant to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (EUWA) as retained EU law. By retaining a snapshot of EU legislation at its core, the UK has prevented substantial divergence to the regulation of biosimilars and other medicines at least for the time being.

However, some changes have been immediately necessary,3,4 to enable the retained EU law to operate effectively. Among other things, these amendments enable the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) to function as the UKs standalone medicines regulator. Further amendments5 include the implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol (NIP), pursuant to which the EU pharmaceutical acquis will continue to apply in Northern Ireland (subject to periodic consent of the Northern Ireland Legislative Assembly), adding an extra layer of regulatory complexity.

The UK Government has also signalled its intention to use the new Medicines and Medical Devices Bill to position the UK as a world-leader in innovation and life sciences, which could result in future regulatory divergence within the confines of existing international agreements and standards, as agreed in the TCA.

Where possible, the UK has taken a pragmatic approach to the post-transition regulation of medicines, to minimise disruption following its change in status to a third country while taking advantage of the opportunity to improve existing regulatory pathways and create regulatory flexibilities; for example:

As part of its programme to make the UK a world leader in life sciences innovation while reducing the time to patient access for new medicines and technologies, the MHRA has introduced new MA procedures to prioritise access to new medicines and create new routes of evaluation for novel products and biotechnological products in the UK. This may enable expedited regulatory approvals for biosimilars in the UK under a new 150-day accelerated assessment procedure or a new rolling review route that involves a process of ongoing regulatory input and feedback designed to enable applicants to get it right first time. Rolling regulatory reviews have already performed an important role in enabling expedited access to COVID-19 vaccinations.

The UK has prevented substantial divergence to the regulation of biosimilars and other medicines at least for the time being

The MHRA has also consulted6 on further changes to its guidance that may streamline the licensing of biosimilars in the UK. Significantly, the consultation proposes that in most cases a comparative efficacy trial will not be considered necessary, provided that well-argued justification is provided, in contrast with the EMAs approach. Additionally, no in vivo studies from animals are requested as the draft guidance states these are not relevant for showing comparability between a biosimilar candidate and its reference product. Furthermore, the MHRA has indicated that it may be willing to accept real-world evidence (RWE) in support of regulatory submissions.

Overall, companies now have greater certainty of the key regulatory foundations for biosimilars and a clearer view of the new normal for operating in the UK and the EU. However, the UKs desire for nimble, forward-looking regulation may lead to greater divergence in the future. Equally, it remains unclear whether the UK would adopt any changes that follow from the EUs new Pharmaceutical Strategy,7 which is considering targeted policies that support greater biosimilar competition and clarification of the conduct of trials on patented products (the so-called Bolar-type provision). No doubt, industry stakeholders will be desirous of regulatory alignment where possible and there is still hope that further mutual recognition agreements with the EU can be secured. Biopharma companies will need to continue to horizon-scan for new opportunities and challenges that will emerge from the evolving regulatory landscape.

Marie Manley is a partner and leads Sidleys Life Sciences team in London. Marie is a distinguished thought leader and represents companies before the UK and EU court as well as before the regulatory authorities (eg, EMA, MHRA and NICE). She has previously worked in Switzerland, New York and Brussels.

Chris Boyle is a senior life sciences lawyer at Sidley who advises and litigates in the highly regulated fields of human medicines, veterinary medicines and medical devices. Chris has a strong legal and scientific background and is a qualified veterinarian.

This article has been prepared for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. This information is not intended to create, and the receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this without seeking advice from professional advisers. The content therein does not reflect the views of the firm.

Originally posted here:

New regulatory landscape for biosimilars in the post Brexit transition period - European Pharmaceutical Review

Dutch diplomat and Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation, Sigrid Kaag, demanded member states realise the importance of the EU despite Brexit. While speaking for think tank Centre for European Reform in a webinar, she insisted the threats were greater outside of the EU. She also claimed Britain was discovering what it meant to be isolated and alone out of the EU and added she wanted this message to be clearer to members.

She added the EU had no choice but to become more unified and thus stronger to compete in the global world.

Ms Kaag said: "The message is not heard.

"A stronger and more unified Europe is extremely important.

"As I mentioned before, I truly hope that most other countries may have been dreaming of their own Brexit, whatever letter of the country comes ahead of exit.

DON'T MISS:MEP rips into anti-Brexit colleagues wanting to spend funds on Brits

"I hope they have seen the reality of what it means to be on your own, in a global world, where competition is tough and the threats are even bigger.

"We have no choice.

"Europe is not only a moral imperative but it is a smart choice and we need to make it work"

With the completion of Brexit, fears that the EU could push for more nations to adopt the Euro have been reignited.

They will be faced with a choice between fast-track adoption of the euro or political and economic marginalisation."

Tony Barber also wrote for the World Economic Forum in 2016 about the growing concerns regarding the balance of power in Europe.

He said: "The non-euro nations are worried that, without the UK, the EU balance of power will swing strongly in favour of eurozone governments.

"That could make it more difficult for the interests of those outside the single currency to gain a proper hearing."

The rest is here:

Dutch diplomat issues Brexit threat in desperate bid to convince other EU members to stay - Daily Express

The UK government has conceded that some non-tariff trading barriers have emerged due to the post-Brexit trade deal with the EU.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson insisted that there would be no such barriers as he detailed his deal brokered with Brussels, which came into force when the transition period ended on December 31st.

But on Thursday the UK government acknowledged some had emerged as well as supply-chain challenges.

Labour said ministers were admitting what has been clear for weeks and urged them to reduce the bureaucracy to prevent costs being driven up for British exporters.

The admission came in a overseas business risk document, giving businesses guidance on trading with Ireland.

Some supply-chain challenges and non-tariff trading barriers have also emerged during the transition to UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement terms in early 2021. Respected sources forecast that the Consumer Price Index may increase by up to 2% as a result, it read.

The Consumer Prices Index (CPI) measure of inflation looks at the prices of thousands of items consumers commonly spend money on, including food, energy bills and fuel.

In a joint statement, shadow international trade secretary Emily Thornberry and shadow Cabinet Office minister Rachel Reeves said: This Government has left British businesses high and dry, not just by giving them barely any time to prepare for the end of the transition period, but by wrapping them in reams of costly new red tape and bureaucracy.

Now theyve admitted what has been clear for weeks that there are in fact non-tariff barriers to trade with Europe, holding back exporters already under huge strain from the pandemic.

The Government must urgently listen to our businesses, cut the red tape and plug the gaps in the deal to stop holding back our economic recovery.

In December, after brokering the trade deal with Brussels, the prime minister said there will be no non-tariff barriers to trade.

A spokesman said: The UK Government has always said there would be additional processes as we leave the EU and has been running extensive awareness campaigns.

The Brexit Business Taskforce led by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been set up to help businesses prepare.

Read more here:

Brexit: UK Government acknowledges non-tariff trading barriers have emerged - BreakingNews.ie

Highlights

EVs must largely originate from UK to avoid customs tariffs

UK gigafactories can assist by shortening supply chain

UK government support needed for more gigafactories

The UK's new rules of origin standards, following Brexit, have become a hot topic for the battery industry business in recent weeks, with increasing calls for homegrown electric vehicle (EV) production and investment in battery gigafactories to keep the UK auto sector alive.

Receive daily email alerts, subscriber notes & personalize your experience.

Under the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, the two parties have agreed on nil or preferential customs duties, or tariffs, for goods that comply with the rules of origin, which means that most goods imported between the two regions have no customs duties as long as they largely originate from the respective countries.

This means that car manufacturers will need to prove that at least 40% of the value of the parts in a finished vehicle originate in the UK, or face paying export fees.

UK battery start-up Britishvolt Chief Technology Officer Allan Paterson told S&P Global Platts that, while the recent Brexit agreement had provided some clarity for the automotive and battery technology sectors, it also included increasingly challenging requirements on the rules of origin.

"For full battery electric vehicles (BEVs), where typically around 50% of the value of the vehicle is the battery pack, of which the cathode active material is the single largest individual price tag item, the supply chains and OEMs must take note," Paterson said.

He added that the rules of origin offered an opportunity to Britishvolt to "consolidate the supply chain, produce cathode and anode active materials alongside gigafactory cell manufacturing facilities and to directly support those automotive OEM customers."

Grant Thornton head of automotive Oliver Bridge said in an emailed statement that the rules of origin could drive additional tariff costs in parts of the automotive supply chain if components did not qualify for preferential status.

"UK businesses are likely to react to these potential tariffs by sourcing more UK origin for materials and components; companies like Britishvolt, that are investing in the UK, are expected to be well placed to supply UK origin batteries for UK- and EU-built electric vehicles," Bridge said.

Cornish Lithium CEO Jeremy Wrathall told S&P Global Platts: "Personally, from my point of view, the rules of origin are the biggest motivator for more to be spent on battery plants here in the UK. If we can source lithium in the UK then it turns the whole argument about Europe on its head and makes the UK by far the most attractive place to build batteries."

Cornish Lithium is one of two lithium exploration and development companies looking to extract lithium in the UK, the other being Northern Lithium.

In January, former Aston Martin CEO Andy Palmer wrote an open letter to UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson calling for the government to step up its efforts to create homegrown EV battery production and establish a sector taskforce or face the possible consequences of losing its auto industry.

He urged the UK government to urgently establish a plan to build four gigafactories in the UK over the next five years, warning that the Brexit trade deal dictated that by 2026 EV batteries assembled by UK firms would only be allowed to contain 50% international content or face crippling tariffs on EV exports.

Currently, only Britishvolt is planning a gigaplant in the UK, with construction in Blythe, Northumberland set to start on the GBP2.6 billion ($3.6 billion) plant in summer 2021, with initial production of 30 GWh/year scheduled for 2023 and construction of further phases out to 2027.

Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) CEO Mike Hawes has also repeatedly called for UK investment in battery gigafactories.

When calling for the draft EU-UK Brexit agreement to be ratified at the end of 2020, he said that the tariff-free, quota-free trade that industry had called for had been secured in principle.

"However, the six-year phase-in period and special provisions for EVs and batteries now make it imperative that the UK secures at pace investment in battery gigafactories and electrified supply chains to create the world-leading battery production infrastructure to maintain our international competitiveness," Hawes said at the time.

He echoed the same sentiment on Feb. 15 in a statement on the future of UK's largest automotive business, saying that that the UK government needed to provide advanced manufacturing its full support, with a policy framework and plan for growth that reduced costs, accelerated domestic battery production and electrified supply chains.

Traditionally, the majority of lithium ion battery cells have been manufactured in Asia, which has led to long supply chains and high battery and EV costs.

There has a been a big push in the UK and Europe to build battery gigafactories to meet rising EV demands and lower battery, and therefore EV, costs to promote e-mobility and the green revolution.

As part of its 10-point climate change plan, the UK government is targeting the end of sales of new gasoline and diesel cars and vans by 2030, 10 years earlier than planned.

See the rest here:

More UK gigafactories required to assist auto sector to meet Brexit's rules of origin - S&P Global

Mike Bennett runs a small firm called Bennett Silks in Stockport, Greater Manchester, which has been in his family since his great-grandfather set it up in 1904.

The company employs 15 people, and has, in normal times, an annual turnover of about 2.5m. It operates in what Bennett describes as a niche market at the top end of fashion. The silk is produced in a region of China that has precisely the right climate for the mulberry tree to prosper. Silk worms feed on mulberry leaves.

The company imports the silk, then sells to a wide range of industries, from the makers of wedding dresses to film-makers, theatres, high-end boutiques, firms that manufacture clothes for jockeys to wear at race meetings, and people who want special garments made for parties.

Covid-19 was a disaster for sales, but then came Brexit. Having spent the last 25 years developing a successful sales operation throughout the EU, which until recently accounted for about 50% of our sales, we are now facing the prospect of our EU business being wiped out due to the complications of the Brexit deal, says Bennett.

Feedback from our clients on the continent is that they will not accept the extra customs charges and duties, and will simply switch to our competitors who remain in the EU. Who can blame them? I would do the same.

Like many other UK small businesses the British Chambers of Commerce said last week that half of small businesses that export to the EU from the UK were struggling with Brexit rules, regulations and costs Bennett says he has no option but to shift part of his company from Stockport to France, so it is back inside the EUs single market.

Our only chance to retain EU business is to create a distribution centre in France, he said. This, unfortunately, will have the effect of taking jobs and economic activity away from north-west England.

Luckily, back in 2016 Bennett took a majority shareholding in a French weaving factory based between Lyon and Roanne, and which still has spare space. To help cover his costs Bennett will offer joint use of the facility to other UK companies with similar problems.

There must be thousands of companies in exactly the same situation. If they all reduce their UK staff by one-third, the consequences to the UK economy will be massive, he says.

Already the authorities in the Netherlands and Austria are luring hundreds of UK companies into their territories and tax jurisdictions as UK exporters struggle. And now, so too are the French.

Artus Galiay, the representative to the UK for the Hauts-de-France region that extends from the outskirts of Paris to Calais and Dunkirk, says the regional council there is not trying to act as a parasite on the UKs post-Brexit economy but to help.

He is, however, keen to sell what the region offers, and delights in historical allusions. Hauts-de-France offers industrial and logistics sites, what he calls a dynamic commercial real estate market with competitive costs, as well as lawyers and accountants. It also wants a chance to repay past generosity.

We are here to strengthen relations that are centuries old, says Galiay. History fans will remember that around 500 years ago, in 1520, it was Henry VIII who welcomed his rival French King Franois I at the Field of the Cloth of Gold near Calais, at a time when the city was English. Five hundred years later, we are here to return that favour.

Bennett, meanwhile, is glad that after a dismal period, his French investment will help Bennett Silks in a way he had not expected. But he still cant believe the unnecessary problems that have been put in exporters ways. He ridicules the idea that other trade deals with far-off countries will replace being members of the EU single market.

To turn our backs on the worlds largest trading bloc, which is on our doorstep, in favour of trying to create trade deals with countries that couldnt be further away, and have much smaller economies, is total stupidity and beyond comprehension, he says.

Covid has kept the Brexit issues out of the headlines, but to try and get a message across to our single- minded, short-sighted government, it needs to be in the headlines. I cannot think of one single positive benefit from Brexit, only negatives, and all my customers and contacts are of the same opinion.

Britain used to be great but no longer, he says, blaming Tory politicians at the top of government. To adapt a phrase from our most famous leader, Never in the field of British business has so much been destroyed for so many, by so few.

See the article here:

Brexit: as half its sales are wiped out, silk firm joins exodus to Europe - The Guardian

Scotland'shigher education institutions have suffered a 40 per cent plunge in EU applicants.

Statistics published by the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) show there were 10,370 by this years January deadline down from 17,240 in 2020.

Applications fell 51% from 39,730 to 19,480.

READ MORE:EU chief closes door on separate Scottish participation in Erasmus

University representatives said the declines were to be expected now that free tuition for EU students has come to an end following Brexit.

UCAS figures also indicate a sharp rise in applicants from the most disadvantaged backgrounds, with the number increasing by 15%.

The proportion of Scottish 18-year-olds who made an application was up 3.9% to 35.8%.

Richard Lochhead, Further and Higher Education Minister.

And applications from outside the EU surged by 27% the highest jump across the four nations of the UK.

Commenting on the UCAS data, Alastair Sim, Director of Universities Scotland, said: Students clearly see a value at studying in Scotland from across the world all the way to our most deprived areas.

He added: The drop in EU student numbers is not as dramatic as many feared although we dont know how this will impact individual universities and courses.

This makes the need for scholarships for EU students from the Scottish Government even more vital.

READ MORE:University of Edinburgh launches review of buildings linked to slave trade

Describing the decrease in EU applicants as an inevitable consequence of Brexit, Further and Higher Education Minister Richard Lochhead said: We will continue to work with our international partners to strengthen our education and research relationships through scholarships and by promoting Scottish learning and research globally, recognising the ongoing importance of our close relationships with our European neighbours.

See more here:

Brexit: Scottish universities hit by 40 per cent slump in EU applicants - HeraldScotland