It’s no great surprise that members of a Labour MPs’ LGBT+ WhatsApp group would be raising concerns about the impact of this week’s Supreme Court ruling on the trans community.

But the critical contributions reportedly made by some of the group’s higher-profile ministerial members highlight the underlying divisions with the Labour Party over the issue – and point to future tensions once the practical implications of the judgement become clear.

Messages leaked to the Mail on Sunday allegedly include the Home Office minister Dame Angela Eagle writing “the ruling is not as catastrophic at it seems but the EHRC [Equality and Human Rights Commission] guidance might be & there are already signs that some public bodies are overreacting”.

Culture minister Sir Chris Bryant reportedly replied he “agreed” with another MP’s opinion that the EHRC chair Baroness Falkner was “pretty appalling” when she said the ruling would mean trans women could not use single-sex female facilities or compete in women’s sports.

Government sources argue these messages are hardly evidence of any kind of plot or mass revolt against the Supreme Court’s ruling.

But they still raise uncomfortable questions for a party that has been on a tortuous journey over the issue.

Under Jeremy Corbyn, Labour was committed to introducing self-identification – enabling people to change their legal sex without a medical diagnosis – a position dropped in 2023.

Back in 2021, Sir Keir Stamer said the then Labour MP Rosie Duffield was “not right” to say “only women have a cervix”. But three years later he acknowledged that “biologically, she of course is right”.

Duffield, who now sits as an independent, is asking for an apology – but that doesn’t seem to be forthcoming from a government keen to minimise its own role in changing social attitudes to the issue.

The Conservative position on this has also chopped and changed – with Theresa May‘s support for gender self-ID ditched under Boris Johnson.

Read more from Sky News:
School leaders issue warning as free breakfast clubs set to open
Four things to avoid if you’re doing the London Marathon

As the Conservatives’ equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch led the UK government’s fight against Scotland’s efforts to make it easier to change gender – and she’s determined to punch Labour’s bruise on the issue.

This weekend, she’s written to the cabinet secretary calling for an investigation into a possible breach of the ministerial or civil service code over a statement made by the Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson in response to the ruling, which said “we have always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex”.

The Tories claim this is false, because last summer Ms Phillipson herself gave an interview in which she suggested that trans women with penises could use female toilets.

Ms Phillipson has been approached for a response.

Her comments, however, are entirely in keeping with the government’s official statement on the judgement, which claims they have “always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex” and welcomed the ruling as giving “clarity and confidence for women and service providers”.

The government statement added: “Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this government.”

Unwary travellers returning from the EU risk having their sandwiches and local delicacies, such as cheese, confiscated as they enter the UK.

The luggage in which they are carrying their goodies may also be seized and destroyed – and if Border Force catch them trying to smuggle meat or dairy products without a declaration, they could face criminal charges.

The new jeopardy has come about because last weekend, the government quietly “extended” its “ban on personal meat imports to protect farmers from foot and mouth”.

This may or may not be bureaucratic over-reaction.

It’s certainly just another of the barriers EU and UK authorities are busily throwing up between each other and their citizens – at a time when political leaders keep saying the two sides should be drawing together in the face of Donald Trump’s attacks on European trade and security.

The ban on bringing back “cattle, sheep, goat, and pig meat, as well as dairy products, from EU countries into Great Britain for personal use” is meant “to protect the health of British livestock, the security of farmers, and the UK’s food security.”

There are bitter memories of previous outbreaks of foot and mouth disease in this country, in 1967 and 2001.

In 2001, there were more than 2,000 confirmed cases of infection resulting in six million sheep and cattle being destroyed. Footpaths were closed across the nation and the general election had to be delayed.

In the EU this year, there have been five cases confirmed in Slovakia and four in Hungary. There was a single outbreak in Germany in January, though Defra, the UK agriculture department, says that’s “no longer significant”.

The UK imposed bans on personal meat and dairy imports from those countries, and Austria, earlier this year.

Better safe than sorry?

None of the cases of infection are in the three most popular countries for UK visitors – Spain, France, and Italy – now joining the ban. Places from which travellers are most likely to bring back a bit of cheese, salami, or chorizo.

Could the government be putting on a show to farmers that it’s on their side at the price of the public’s inconvenience, when its own measures on inheritance tax and failure to match lost EU subsidies are really doing the farming community harm?

Many will say it’s better to be safe than sorry, but the question remains whether the ban is proportionate or even well targeted on likely sources of infection.

Read more: The products you can’t bring into Britain from the EU

A ‘Brexit benefit’? Don’t be fooled

The EU has already introduced emergency measures to contain the disease where it has been found. Several thousand cattle in Hungary and Slovenia have been vaccinated or destroyed.

The UK’s ability to impose the ban is not “a benefit of Brexit”. Member nations including the UK were perfectly able to ban the movement of animals and animal products during the “mad cow disease” outbreak in the 1990s, much to the annoyance of the British government of the day.

Since leaving the EU, England, Scotland and Wales are no longer under EU veterinary regulation.

Northern Ireland still is because of its open border with the Republic. The latest ban does not cover people coming into Northern Ireland, Jersey, Guernsey, or the Isle of Man.

Rather than introducing further red tape of its own, the British government is supposed to be seeking closer “alignment” with the EU on animal and vegetable trade – SPS or “sanitary and phytosanitary” measures, in the jargon.

UK can’t shake ties to EU

The reasons for this are obvious and potentially make or break for food producers in this country.

The EU is the recipient of 67% of UK agri-food exports, even though this has declined by more than 5% since Brexit.

The introduction of full, cumbersome, SPS checks has been delayed five times but are due to come in this October. The government estimates the cost to the industry will be £330m, food producers say it will be more like £2bn.

With Brexit, the UK became a “third country” to the EU, just like the US or China or any other nation. The UK’s ties to the European bloc, however, are much greater.

Half of the UK’s imports come from the EU and 41% of its exports go there. The US is the UK’s single largest national trading partner, but still only accounts for around 17% of trade, in or out.

The difference in the statistics for travellers are even starker – 77% of trips abroad from the UK, for business, leisure or personal reasons, are to EU countries. That is 66.7 million visits a year, compared to 4.5 million or 5% to the US.

And that was in 2023, before Donald Trump and JD Vance’s hostile words and actions put foreign visitors off.

More bureaucratic botheration

Meanwhile, the UK and the EU are making travel between them more bothersome for their citizens and businesses.

This October, the EU’s much-delayed EES or Entry Exit System is due to come into force. Every foreigner will be required to provide biometric information – including fingerprints and scans – every time they enter or leave the Schengen area.

From October next year, visitors from countries including the UK will have to be authorised in advance by ETIAS, the European Travel and Authorisation System. Applications will cost seven euros and will be valid for three years.

Since the beginning of this month, European visitors to the UK have been subject to similar reciprocal measures. They must apply for an ETA, an Electronic Travel Authorisation. This lasts for two years or until a passport expires and costs £16.

The days of freedom of movement for people, goods, and services between the UK and its neighbours are long gone.

The British economy has lost out and British citizens and businesses suffer from greater bureaucratic botheration.

Nor has immigration into the UK gone down since leaving the EU. The numbers have actually gone up, with people from Commonwealth countries, including India, Pakistan and Nigeria, more than compensating for EU citizens who used to come and go.

Will European reset pay off?

The government is talking loudly about the possible benefits of a trade “deal” with Trump’s America.

Meanwhile, minister Nick Thomas Symonds and the civil servant Mike Ellam are engaged in low-profile negotiations with Europe – which could be of far greater economic and social significance.

The public will have to wait to see what progress is being made at least until the first-ever EU-UK summit, due to take place on 19 May this year.

Hard-pressed British food producers and travellers – not to mention young people shut out of educational opportunities in Europe – can only hope that Sir Keir Starmer considers their interests as positively as he does sucking up to the Trump administration.