Category Archives: Brexit

The UK Government has published a policy paper entitled Smarter Regulation to Grow the Economy (10 May 2023) that outlines a series of upcoming employment related regulatory reforms designed, in part, to take advantage of the UKs post-Brexit regulatory freedom. The stated aim is to reduce unnecessary regulation for businesses to ensure economic growth whilst maintaining existing UK labour standards.

What are the proposed changes?

There is no timeframe for this change to come into effect and, until the legislation is papered, the specific scope of this cap is yet unknown. For example, it is not yet known how this may impact non-competes in arrangements contained outside of the employment contract but that are related to employment (e.g. within incentive agreements). Whilst currently employers will still be able to include longer non-competes in employment contracts for now, in light of the proposed change, greater consideration should be given to notice periods, garden leave provisions, the use of non-solicitation and non-poaching provisions, and the wider set of protections available to employers when drafting and negotiating contracts of employment.

[View source.]

Go here to read the rest:

Post-Brexit UK Employment Reform: Three month cap on non ... - JD Supra

Manchester is desperate for workers. There are 40,000 jobs advertised in the city at the moment, at every pay grade. Ann Summers wants a stockroom assistant (10.70 an hour), or you could invigilate exams at 14 an hour or post videos on TikTok for 20 an hour. Sellcheck Chemicals is offering up to 75,000 a year for a sales manager (No biology background needed, no previous experience necessary). Even the army is offering trainee officers 34,000 after their first year. But ask any employer in the city what its like hiring and theyll tell you: its a battle.

Whats strange about this is the fact that though all these jobs are on offer, unemployed Mancunians dont seem to want them. Figures published last week show that 18 per cent of Manchesters adults are claiming out-of-work benefits. Some 120,000 have reported as long-term sick. Welfare dysfunction has created a huge hole in the workforce.

The net migration figure released next week is expected to come in at above 700,000 a year

Its the same story in city after city. Somehow, the UK has managed to combine mass joblessness with a worker shortage. Almost one in five working-age people in Birmingham are on out-of-work benefits, and its the same story in Glasgow and Liverpool. In Blackpool, the number is closer to one in four. This is a huge waste of lives, leaving aside the issue of taxpayers money.

Though Rishi Sunak promises welfare reform, its not clear how he intends to deal with a problem of this size. His officials have warned him that things are set to get much worse. There are 5,000 claims per day for sickness benefits, many on the grounds of poor mental health almost twice thepre-pandemic rate. No one expects that rate to start slowing. Internal government forecasts now envisage the welfare caseload rising for five years, with the number on disability benefits surging by a third to 3.7 million. The Prime Ministers officials are admitting that we wont escape this trap any time soon.

So who will fill the million-plus vacancies? How can we grow the economy? The answer to this question will become clear next week, when figures are released showing that mass immigration is back on a scale that would have been unimaginable not so long ago. And rather than treating it as a problem, Sunaks government seems to regard it as a solution to Britains missing workers.

During the Brexit campaign, much fuss was made of the news that immigration had hit 323,000 a year, making a mockery of David Camerons promise to reduce it to the tens of thousands. Brexiteers and Remainers alike assumed the whole point of leaving the EU and ending free movement was to reduce arrivals. The consensus was that about 130,000 a year was right. We now take that amount of people roughly every ten weeks. The net migration figure released next week is expected to come in at above 700,000 a year: by far the largest in the history of our islands.

While its true that next weeks numbers will be inflated by refugees from Ukraine and Hong Kong, and by students (many of whom arrive with dependants in tow), the underlying trend is clear. The Office for Budget Responsibility has abandoned any idea that Brexit meant cutting back immigration, because there is no evidence that anyone in government is remotely serious about doing so. It now forecasts, long-term, around 250,000 arrivals a year almost twice the post-Brexit projections. A second great wave of migration has begun.

How to address the problems that mass migration brings, without seeming to have betrayed Brexit?

While the first wave of mass immigration in recent decades was an unforeseen consequence of expanding the European Union, this one is planned. The Tories have taken back control and used it to ramp up immigration to a level that New Labour would never have dared attempt.

Its often said that the United Kingdom is an immigrant country. This is not quite true. Until the mid-1980s, we were a net exporter of human beings. In 1948, parliament passed a law giving all 800 million citizens of the Commonwealth the right to live and work in Britain, the assumption being that hardly anyone would want to come to these rain-battered islands. Waves of migration made the news, but they barely dented the demographics. When more people started to arrive in the 1990s, the numbers were modest. So the EUs borderless future was designed at a time when no one imagined the level of mass migration to come, because it had never happened before. Tony Blair had no idea that he was about to preside over a new economic model. He didnt plan for it, because he just didnt see it coming.

The problems are becoming obvious. The mass movement of migrants meant that employers preferred cheaper, foreign-born workers over investing in training locals. The consequent increased pressure on housing, schools and hospitals are what led, in part, to the Brexit vote. People wanted their politicians to make a better job of managing globalisation.

Boris Johnson talked about controlling migration to force companies to pay decent salaries: if that meant higher prices, so be it. He saw the national shortage of truck drivers as a wake-up call: such people should be valued and paid properly. This wasnt just Brexiteer bravado. Sir Stuart Rose, the ex-M&S chairman and a Remain campaign chief, argued the same: the end of free movement would push up wages for low-skilled workers, he said though he thought this was not necessarily a good thing. Both sides agreed Brexit would mean lower migration and higher salaries. Not many would make that case now. Rather than rising, real-term incomes are midway through their sharpest fall since postwar records began.

A milestone was passed this week when it emerged that 20 per cent of the UK workforce is foreign-born making us more of an immigrant country than even the United States. Brexit has brought in a different mix of migrants. India has supplanted Poland as the biggest source country for new workers: followed by the Philippines, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Australia and the United States. Interestingly, post-Covid sickness and mental health issues havent seemed to afflict Britains immigrant community in the same way as they have its natives.

But while the US regards itself proudly as an immigration nation, our Prime Ministers strategy is to act as if nothing is happening. There is no Statue of Liberty at Victoria Coach Station in London, though a quarter of all UK schoolchildren have an immigrant mother. In London its just over half.

Brexit Britain can claim to be one of the most welcoming countries in the world with a work visa approval rate of about 96 per cent. Its almost 100 per cent for Americans (12,382 applied and just 47 were refused). Non-EU citizens are no longer treated as second class: in fact someone from Kyrgyzstan is more likely to get a work visa than someone from Germany. Before Brexit, just seven people from Tajikistan were granted visas a year. Now, its about seven a day. Visas for people from India have doubled since the Brexit vote. Zimbabwe is up 20-fold, Uzbekistan 100-fold.

Britain is now the country where workers of the world unite. So far, all this is being done with success and harmony that would astonish the rest of the world. There is virtually no anti-migrant backlash: indeed, a recent poll showed Britain to be one of the most pro-immigrant countries in the world. Were also about the only country in Europe not to have a serious anti-immigrant populist party in parliament or with any significant showing in the opinion polls. Concern about migration is far lower than it was pre-Brexit, even if the numbers are higher, which is in part because the government has taken control of who arrives.

To enter Britain there is a list of conditions: you need to be an English speaker with a sponsor, a job offer and a minimum salary, and in an approved profession. Perhaps this has made the influx less controversial its immigration but with greater democratic consent. But its also easy to see how this could begin to sour. We still need many more workers and they will all keep coming. There will be ever more pressure on hospitals and schools. This is the problem Sunak faces now. How to address the problems that mass migration brings, without seeming to have betrayed Brexit?

Perhaps every new worker is vital to the economy but the fact remains that the government is issuing visas equivalent to a city the size of Southampton every year and there are certainly no plans to build a new Southampton every year. He needs to ask: where will the newcomers live? Who will build their houses, teach their children, tend to their sick? To dodge these questions, to pretend its not all happening, guarantees big problems in the future.

Being honest about mass migration also means being honest about the trajectory of British welfare. Yes, Sunak would like reform. But if his own officials are predicting a massive increase in mental health caseloads, on the assumption that the problem is going to get far worse, then its time to talk about this too. Why do we think a million more people are going to end up on disability benefits? Why in Britain, not anywhere else? The reason this question is so difficult to discuss is that tough-love welfare reform is fraught with political danger. No politician wants to be accused of being heartless.

Subscribe and get your first month of online and app access for free. After that its just 1 a week.

Politically, its easier to write the cheque and forget about the long-term sick. Its astonishingly easy to do so. When figures were released this week showing 5.3 million on out-of-work benefits, up from 5.2 million already a staggering figure it was given no coverage at all. Its amazing how recategorisation of benefits can make millions disappear: politically, at least.

Sunak embodies the quiet success of British integration, but theres a risk in getting too carried away. The industrious Zimbabwean and Australian immigrants can hardly be blamed for welfare dysfunction. But if they are being used to cover it up, then its worth discussing.

Is it possible to give up on welfare reform and use mass immigration to build post-Brexit Britain? Absolutely. Is it desirable? Thats another question. And its one the Prime Minister should really get around to answering before too long.

Visit link:

Migration nation: Brexit has meant more immigration than ever - The Spectator

Dive Brief:

England, Scotland and Wales, collectively known as Great Britain, never adopted the European Unions Medical Devices Regulation (MDR) because its delayed date of application happened after the end of the Brexit transition period. Northern Ireland, which along with Great Britain makes up the United Kingdom, is subject to MDR under the terms of the Brexit deal.

As such, Great Britain needs its own regulatory regime for medical devices and in vitro diagnostics (IVDs). The government outlined its plans last year, at which time it was targeting a 2023 implementation date for the new regulations. Last year, officials extended the transitional arrangements out to July 2024.

The new plan gives the industry even more time to adapt. Officials are now aiming for core aspects of the future regime for medical devices to apply from July 1, 2025. Manufacturers will still be able to sell CE-marked devices in Great Britain for years after that date.

Under legislation that the government plans to introduce soon, CE-marked general medical devices that comply with the outgoing EU directives can be sold in Great Britain until June 30, 2028. The transition period for IVDs placed on the market under the outgoing directive, and for all medical devices that comply with MDR, will end on June 30,2030.

The transition period applies to CE marks granted before Great Britain fully establishes its own medtech regulatory regime in July 2025, according to a statement issued by the Medicines & Healthcare productsRegulatory Agency.

Manufacturers with CE marks that expire after that date will need to get certified under the new Great Britain system. The agency said it plans to adopt new, stronger postmarketing requirements in mid-2024.

See original here:

Great Britain proposes allowing CE marks until 2030 to minimize ... - MedTech Dive

Food inflation in the UK is running at 19.1% a year, the highest level in 45 years. The average family is having to find a fifth more to feed themselves every week, compared with the same time last year. It is a huge burden on people and especially the poor, who spend a much higher proportion of their incomes on essentials.

The first thing to say is that although Britain currently has western Europes worst overall inflation rate (10.1%, compared with 7.8% in Germany, 6.6% in France and a tiny 3.1% in Spain), it is far from the only country with food inflation problems. Italy, France, Spain and the Netherlands all have lower food inflation rates, but our 19.1% is actually 0.1% better than the EU average. However, that average is distorted by Hungarys rate of 44.5% and high rates among many of its closest neighbours, who are also suffering from their proximity to the war in Ukraine, but do not have the added drag of a chaotic government run by the despotic Viktor Orbn.

But Britain has its own Orbn factor something that is helping to make our inflation worse than the rest of Europes and our food inflation higher than it should be.

We all know that Brexit has added to the burden. It has disrupted supply, undermined the road haulage industry, and added piles of expensive red tape to every lorry load of food that crosses the border into the UK, pushing up prices by 6%. That is on top of the massive increase in energy, commodity and fuel prices caused by the war in Ukraine and helps explain why UK inflation, and especially food inflation, is so high.

But now Brexit has another gift for the hard-pressed and the desperate because Brexit is not finished. The government may have forgotten to remind you, but it has stopped checking the quality, safety and origins of the food that enters the UK; it just wasnt ready for Brexit and so, unlike the EU, it has just been waving through thousands of trucks a day without checking them. It has delayed introducing those tests four times, because it failed to plan for Brexit and because it knows it will hike food prices in the UK again.

We know this because last year the minister for Brexit opportunities at the time, Jacob Rees-Mogg, travelled to Dover to delay their introduction once again. He said that introducing the checks would have been an act of self-harm because they would have cost 1bn a year and increased peoples food bills. But what wasnt so widely reported is that he went on to say that for some costs it would be quite significant If you look at small deliveries like cheese, you are talking about a 71% increase maximum level on the retail price and frankly at that level the goods would just not have come in. Well, I couldnt have put it better myself massive hikes in prices and many foods not even making it into the UK.

But the checks will have to be introduced sometime. Food safety organisations, vets, retailers and food manufacturers know full well that the UK is playing Russian roulette over this issue. No checks mean that a repeat of the horsemeat scandal, or another foot and mouth outbreak are increasingly likely, and the farming industry is terrified of what might happen.

Meanwhile, food safety and standards are under threat. With no checks the UK is the go-to destination for every dodgy dealer trying to offload rotten meat, infected eggs, counterfeit cheese, adulterated olive oil and stinking fish.

At the time of the last delay, Minette Batters, president of the National Farmers Union, said: It is astounding that the government is taking such an unacceptable approach to critical checks for agri-food imports from the EU.

These checks are absolutely crucial to the nations biosecurity, animal health and food safety and without them we really do leave ourselves at risk.

Not only that but since British food exporters face all the correct and necessary checks when selling into the EU, the industry is at a huge disadvantage. It is being undercut by EU rivals who sail through the border.

But the ex-minister is now hardening his position. When grilled on this very subject of border checks on his own TV show, Rees-Mogg said this week: I stopped them. There is no reason to bring them in. They should be stopped again. If the government wishes to put those controls on, that is the act of a democratic government. Do I think they are foolish? Yes, I do. That is why I succeeded in stopping them last year.

Which just reeks of desperation. He stopped them because they would have increased food inflation even more, and they will do that again but without them the whole food sector is under threat. It is inevitable that they will be introduced. Shane Brennan of the Cold Chain Federation told the New European earlier this year that when these new controls were expected to be introduced last year: We were clear at that time that this would have collapsed a significant part of the food supply chain into the UK.

Now Brennan has written an explanation of just how messy it is going to be for Britain in a changing Europe. Take a producer of buffalo mozzarella in Italy. As of October 31 they will for the first time possibly ever have to: learn the new UK rules; find a vet to certify goods on site, at a cost of 200 to 700 a time; find a specialist haulier; employ an agent to ensure the data gets onto the UKs food import IT system, alongside customs declarations, at maybe 50 to 200 a time; and pay a new border inspection charge of up to 43 on every consignment.

These new rules will add billions to food import costs and many small EU exporters will decide it is not worth selling in the UK. We know this because a third of British exporters stopped exporting when the EU introduced the exact same checks in 2021. The UK imports 30% of its food from the EU; serious shortages will start very quickly if the system collapses.

All of this will happen just as food inflation should be improving, as the huge price rises we have seen in recent months drop out of the calculations. No other country will be introducing new expensive self-imposed border controls and checks, meaning that food inflation is likely to fall faster and further elsewhere.

In short, someone is going to have to pay for this mess, and it will be you every time you go to the shops.

See the original post:

Britain, the Brexit basket case - The New European

The Scottish Tories cannot be trusted on rural affairs issues as long as they fail to recognise the impact of Brexit on the sector, an SNP MSP has said.

Jim Fairlie, who was a prominent backer of Kate Forbes during the recent SNP leadership contest, attacked the Scottish Conservatives over their shameful betrayal of Scottish farmers.

At the Scottish Tory conference in Glasgow, party leader Douglas Ross announced a members bill from Rachael Hamilton MSP which would seek to better protect farm equipment from theft, and said his party would introduce a rural development bank to help boost local rural economies.

The party also plans to propose ring-fencing funding from the rural affairs and islands budget to support farmers and crofters and introducing a version of the UK Governments controversial Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding Bill).

However, Mr Fairlie said Brexit had been an unmitigated disaster for Scotlands farmers due to the lack of a equal replacement for EU subsidies, the impact of Brexit on immigration, and allowing cheap imports of lesser quality meat from other countries.

This, he said, demonstrated the party could not be trusted to stand up for Scottish farmers and crofters.

The MSP for Perthshire South and Kinross-shire said: Amidst all of this, theyve chosen to short-changed Scotlands farmers and crofters by failing to provide our food producers with any additional help to meet inflationary pressures, including energy costs.

The deafening silence from the Scottish Tories on the impact of Brexit is nothing short of a shameful betrayal of Scotlands farmers.

Ms Hamilton responded: Jim Fairlie should look closer to home when it comes to failing our farmers and crofters. The SNP are continuing to dither and delay over what future support for the agriculture sector will look like and they have let down our rural communities constantly during their 16 years in power.

SNP MSPs would prefer to pick fights with the UK Government rather than giving the green light to gene editing technology, which would help keep food prices affordable and assist farmers in making a living.

The Scottish Conservatives recently produced policy paper on Scotlands food future will help to meet our ambitious net zero targets, with detailed plans to support more products being grown locally, which will be better for our environment.

Read more:

SNP MSP attacks 'deafening silence' of Tories on Brexit who fail to ... - The Scotsman

What is included in my trial?

During your trial you will have complete digital access to FT.com with everything in both of our Standard Digital and Premium Digital packages.

Standard Digital includes access to a wealth of global news, analysis and expert opinion. Premium Digital includes access to our premier business column, Lex, as well as 15 curated newsletters covering key business themes with original, in-depth reporting. For a full comparison of Standard and Premium Digital, click here.

Change the plan you will roll onto at any time during your trial by visiting the Settings & Account section.

If you do nothing, you will be auto-enrolled in our premium digital monthly subscription plan and retain complete access for $69 per month.

For cost savings, you can change your plan at any time online in the Settings & Account section. If youd like to retain your premium access and save 20%, you can opt to pay annually at the end of the trial.

You may also opt to downgrade to Standard Digital, a robust journalistic offering that fulfils many users needs. Compare Standard and Premium Digital here.

Any changes made can be done at any time and will become effective at the end of the trial period, allowing you to retain full access for 4 weeks, even if you downgrade or cancel.

You may change or cancel your subscription or trial at any time online. Simply log into Settings & Account and select "Cancel" on the right-hand side.

You can still enjoy your subscription until the end of your current billing period.

We support credit card, debit card and PayPal payments.

See the original post here:

Britain's 'Brexit capital' shows signs of disillusionment with Tories - Financial Times

Consumer affairs

Experts say it is vital to check you meet EU requirements, or you could risk losing your holiday

Sat 29 Apr 2023 02.00 EDT

Travellers who have not used their passport for a while were this week being urged to dig it out and check it conforms to the post-Brexit rules for entering the EU because if it doesnt, you will almost certainly be denied boarding this summer.

Despite previous warnings in Guardian Money and some other publicity, UK travellers trying to enter the Schengen zone are being turned away on a daily basis by airline staff at boarding gates in most cases because their UK passport was issued more than 10 years ago.

Rosi Simpson, a teacher from Brighton, is one of the latest to be caught up in the confusion. She says she was left mortified and in tears after easyJet staff refused to allow her to board a flight to Paris to see her son, who is studying there, because her UK passport had been issued 10 years and one day previously.

I had no idea of the 10-year rule, she says. Id checked the expiry date, and my passport had eight months remaining. What happened at the boarding gate was absolutely awful. I lost the cost of the flight and the accommodation Id booked Id been so looking forward to seeing my son. What I dont understand is why this [rule change] hasnt had more publicity an information campaign. I wasnt the only one who this had happened to at the airport that day, she says.

In terms of flights and ferries to mainland Europe, passengers will also be denied boarding if their passport expires less than three months after their return date. Previously, it was thought that UK travellers needed at least six months left, although the EU has since clarified the three-month requirement.

Prior to Brexit, UK passport holders could travel in and out of the EU as long as they held a valid passport, even one that expired the day after their return.

The more onerous rules, which came into effect in 2021, apply to UK passport holders travelling to any EU country (except Ireland), plus the others in the Schengen zone: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, the Vatican and Switzerland.

The over 10-year problem came about because, for many years, those renewing their passport before the previous one expired were able to add any remaining time left. Prior to September 2018, you could have up to nine months added to the replacements 10-year length meaning their passport could be valid for as long as 10 years and nine months.

Passengers may look at their passport, see that it does not expire until well after their return, and conclude that all is well. However, they need to check the date of issue. If the passport will be more than 10 years old on the day of entry, they will not be allowed in.

The change has caught out a great many passengers who were unaware of the change. Last year, Guardian Money featured the case of Pat Cerely and her husband, Peter, who were refused permission to board their plane to Madeira on the grounds that Pats passport was not valid even though it had another nine months remaining.

Every day, others are falling foul of the rule and if it happens to you, it can be a financial disaster. Travel insurers will not pay out for a lost holiday if you tried to travel with an invalid passport.

Jo Rhodes, the deputy travel editor at Which?, says: Recently, some travellers have been caught out by EU passport rules, meaning they havent been able to go on holiday as planned.

Your passport must have been issued in the past 10 years at the time of entering the EU. Legally, youre also required to have at least three months left on your passport at the time you plan on exiting the EU. If you have a holiday planned this summer, check your passport now to make sure it meets all the requirements for your destination, so you dont risk being turned away at the airport.

She says Which? advises travelling with at least six months validity to be on the safe side.

She adds: Despite the legal requirement being three months, UK travellers are strongly advised by the European Commission and the UK government to have no less than six months on the end of their passports. This is because some border guards believe that people tend to stay in the EU for longer than they say and so theyre reluctant to grant you entry if you have less than six months.

Countries such as Romania, which is in Europe but outside the Schengen zone, stipulate that UK passport holders are required to have at least six months on their passports to enter the country. It is by no means alone.

To add extra excitement to the story, Passport Office workers, who process applications, are approaching the end of a five-week strike. It is thought that up to a quarter of the agencys 4,000 employees are not in work as normal.

However, while the Passport Office says users should currently allow 10 weeks for their application to be processed, most applications are being sorted out a lot more quickly than that. The 10-week advice includes every kind of application, including those for new passports or where the renewal requires a change of name after a marriage or similar.

If you have a straightforward renewal of an existing passport and your details are all the same name and address and so on then people are reporting getting their replacements in days rather than weeks.

The most recent postings on the Passportwaitingtime.co.uk website which tells you how long it is likely to take to get your UK passport suggested that simple adult renewals were being processed in an average of 12 days, and often more quickly than that. Adult first passport applications were typically being processed in 17 days (29 days with an interview) while one-week fast-track applications were being dealt with in 5.7 days, it said this week.

Guardian Money has heard similar reports. The online process is the quickest and cheapest way to apply.

A Passport Office spokesperson told us it remains well positioned to deal with this industrial action, and there is no change in our guidance People are receiving their passports in good time, with 99.7% of applications processed within the published 10-week timeframe.

The final sting in the tail is that the passport fees all rose for the first time in five years in February. The fee for a standard online application made from within the UK rose from 75.50 to 82.50 for adults, and from 49 to 53.50 for children. Postal applications went up from 85 to 93 for adults and from 58.50 to 64 for children. If you were born on or before 2 September 1929, it is free.

This article was amended on 30 April 2023. Passengers will be denied boarding if their passport expires less than three months after their return date, not three months before their return date as an earlier version said. And part of a quote was removed at the request of an interviewee.

{{topLeft}}

{{bottomLeft}}

{{topRight}}

{{bottomRight}}

{{.}}

Read the original:

I was in tears: Briton with valid passport barred from flight over Brexit rules - The Guardian

Denmark has decided to extend the deadline for submitting residence applications for Britons who resided in the country before December 31, 2022, and who submitted their applications after the original deadline expired on December 31, 2021.

According to the Danish Agency for International Recruitment and Integration (SIRI), based on the Withdrawal Agreement, all those who submitted their application after the deadline expired and received a rejection to have their residence application processed will be able to submit a new application until December 31, 2023.

Moreover, the same stressed that the extension of the deadline also applies to Britons who have not submitted an application yet and noted that the authorities would start processing pending applications that were put on hold previously, SchengenVisaInfo.com reports.

The deadline for submitting an application for residence based on the Withdrawal Agreement between the EU and the United Kingdom is being extended until December 31, 2023. The extension will take effect on May 1, 2023. SIRI will reopen the processing of pending applications that previously were put on hold, the statement of SIRI reads.

On the contrary, SIRI highlighted that the extended deadline during which residence applications can be submitted would not apply to Britons who had their application processed and received a refusal due to not meeting the conditions of the Withdrawal Agreement. This group of individuals will not be able to have their applications processed again.

In addition to the above-mentioned, it has been explained that those who received a rejection to have their application processed by SIRI and have a pending appeal will be contacted by the Immigration Appeals Board.

As for those who have received a rejection by SIRI and the Immigration Appeals Board to have their application processed but have not appealed the rejection, it has been explained that they can require SIRI to have their cases reopened.

Britons who submit their residence applications will continue to be required to meet the conditions for residence based on the Withdrawal Agreement. Among others, they must prove that they have resided in Denmark before December 31, 2020, according to the EU regulations on free movement.

Previously, SchengenVisaInfo.com reported that fewer Brits moved to Denmark in 2021, with the country recording a significant drop compared to the last 15 years.

Data provided by Denmark Statistics show that 854 citizens of the UK moved to Denmark in 2021. This is a sharp decline compared to 2020 and 2019, when the country registered 1,406 and 1,584 Britons who moved to the country, respectively.

The rest is here:

Brexit: Britons to Be Able to Submit Residence Applications in ... - SchengenVisaInfo.com

By Tim Baker, Political reporter

Friday 28 April 2023 09:47, UK

The "bonfire" of EU legislation by the government is to scrap less than a quarter of the estimated European laws on statute books, MPs have been told.

Sky News understands Eurosceptic Tory MPs were told by Business and Trade Secretary Kemi Badenoch just 800 of roughly 4,000 laws are expected to be ditched by the end of this year.

Brexiteer Conservatives - including the European Research Group - will be angered by what they will see as a watering down of a promised "bonfire" of EU "red tape".

Rishi Sunak said at his agenda-setting New Year's speech that a "big part" of increasing growth in the country was "seizing the opportunities of Brexit", which includes making sure that "regulations are agile" and support "innovation".

"We have new opportunities and freedoms to do that, and we are absolutely going to seize them to deliver for the country," he added at the time.

Jacob Rees-Mogg was the Brexit opportunities minister who was shepherding the Retained EU Law Bill through parliament before he left government when Mr Sunak took office.

This law would revoke EU laws by the end of this year which are judged not to be essential.

Mr Rees-Mogg branded the update from Downing Street as "thin gruel".

And one Eurosceptic MP told Sky News: "I'm extremely disappointed.

"It goes against all the assurances we have had from the prime minister.

"In fact, I'd be very surprised if he supported it."

But a person previously involved in Brexit discussions welcomed the move - and highlighted its pragmatic nature.

Raoul Ruparel, who advised Theresa May on Brexit, said that this was "surely how the process was meant to work" - and that removing laws "for the sake of it" would be "nonsense".

He also pointed out that the ERG's failure to muster a large rebellion over the government's new agreement with the EU on Northern Ireland may have emboldened Downing Street.

Naomi Smith, the chief executive of the anti-Brexit campaign group Best for Britain, said: "Unless it is scrapped entirely, this bill will automatically remove workers' rights, food standards and environmental protections by the end of the year while unleashing economic chaos in the UK."

Sources close to Ms Badenoch did not deny she made the remarks.

This is a limited version of the story so unfortunately this content is not available. Open the full version

A government spokesman said ministers continue to support the bill and removing "unnecessary" EU laws - but did not commit to completing the removal by the start of 2024.

He said: "We remain committed to ensuring the Retained EU Law Bill receives royal assent and that the supremacy of EU law ends with unnecessary and burdensome EU laws removed by the end of this year.

"Once passed, the bill will enable the country to further seize the opportunities of Brexit by ensuring regulations fit the needs of the UK, helping to grow our economy and drive innovation."

Continue reading here:

Brexit: Just 800 of estimated 4,000 EU laws to be scrapped by year's end, MPs told by minister - Sky News

Political biographer Anthony Seldon has said Boris Johnson absolutely did not believe in Brexit but backed the project for his own political gain.

Speaking to Sky News, the prominent author reflected on what he learned about the former prime minister whilst writing his book, Johnson at 10: The Inside Story.

He said, at his heart, Johnson is an extraordinarily empty character, and dismissed any claim that he truly believed the UKs exit from the European Union would be in the interests of the country.

The evidence is absolutely clear, Seldon says.

From the beginning it was striking that he believed that there was a cause far higher than Britains economic interests, than Britains relationship with Europe, than Britains place in the world, than the strength of the union. That cause was his own advancement.

Watch the Sky News clip below:

Related: Brits asked to pledge allegiance by law to King Charles during Coronation

Read the original:

Political biographer says Johnson 'absolutely did not' believe in Brexit - The London Economic