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.

Police investigating the disappearance of a woman who was last seen leaving work have found her body – as a man has been charged with murder.

Paria Veisi, 37, was reported missing after leaving work in Cardiff at around 3pm on 12 April.

Her disappearance was described by police as “totally out of character” and prompted a widespread search.

Her Mercedes GLC 200 was later found on Dorchester Avenue in the Penylan area of Cardiff on the evening of Tuesday 15 April.

Her body was discovered at an address in Penylan on Saturday, South Wales Police said.

Read more from Sky News:
Sky News uncovers new evidence on aid workers attack
The Godfather-style gang war gripping two cities

A 41-year-old man from Penylan has been charged with murder, preventing lawful and decent burial of a dead body and assaulting a person occasioning them actual bodily harm.

A 48-year-old woman from London has been charged with preventing a lawful and decent burial of a dead body and conspiring to pervert the course of justice.

They both appeared at Cardiff Magistrates’ Court on Saturday.

“This brings our search for Paria to a sad and tragic end,” said Detective Chief Inspector Matt Powell.

“Paria’s family, all those who knew her, and those in her local community, will be deeply saddened and shocked by these latest developments.

“Family liaison officers are continuing to support Paria’s family.”

Thousands of trans rights activists have been demonstrating in central London days after the Supreme Court ruled the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex.

Trans rights groups, trade unions and community organisations came together for what was billed as an “emergency demonstration” in Parliament Square in Westminster.

Activists demanded “trans liberation” and “trans rights now”, with some waving flags and holding banners.

Graffiti was seen on the statues of suffragist leader Millicent Fawcett and South African statesman Jan Christian Smuts in Parliament Square.

The Metropolitan Police said it had launched an investigation after several statues were vandalised and it was investigating the incidents as criminal damage.

Chief Superintendent Stuart Bell said it was “very disappointing to see damage to seven statues and property in the vicinity of the protest”, adding: “We support the public’s right to protest but criminality like this is completely unacceptable.

“We are now investigating this criminal damage and urge anyone with any information to come forward.”

Meanwhile, a rally and march organised by Resisting Transphobia has been taking place in Edinburgh on Saturday afternoon.

In a long-awaited judgment delivered on Wednesday, the UK’s highest court ruled the terms “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 “refer to a biological woman and biological sex”.

It essentially means trans women who hold gender recognition certificates are not women in the eyes of the law.

This means transgender women with one of the certificates can be excluded from single-sex spaces if “proportionate”.

Baroness Kishwer Falkner, chair of the UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), said on Thursday that the ruling means trans women can no longer take part in women’s sport, while single-sex places, such as changing rooms, “must be based on biological sex”.

The UK government said the unanimous decision by five judges brought “clarity and confidence” for women and service providers.

A Labour Party source said Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer had brought the party to a “common sense position” on the subject from an “activist” stance.

Among the groups supporting the London protest were Trans Kids Deserve Better, Pride In Labour, Front For The Liberation Of Intersex Non-binary And Transgender people (Flint) and TransActual.

Keyne Walker, strategy director at TransActual, told Sky News the government needed to put equality laws back on a “sound footing”.

Speaking from Parliament Square, they said: “The mood is jubilant and also angry and also people are anxious… Right now trans people are coming together to demonstrate to the country, and to everybody else, that we’re not going anywhere because we don’t have anywhere to go…

“Queer people have been through worse than this before, and… we’ll suffer through whatever is to come in the next few years.”

Read more:
How Supreme Court decision has immediate real-world consequences

The activist continued: “The government needs to immediately clarify how they are going to protect trans people and what this ruling actually means for spaces.

“It does not bring clarity… businesses and venues at the moment don’t know what they can and can’t do… the government needs to step in and put equalities law back on a sound footing.”

It comes as Bridgerton actress Nicola Coughlan announced she has helped raise more than £100,000 for a trans rights charity following the Supreme Court decision.

Following the ruling, the Irish star said she was “completely horrified” and “disgusted” by the ruling and added she would match donations up to £10,000 to transgender charity Not A Phase.

The fundraiser has since raised £103,018, with a revised target of £110,000.

Why was the case heard in court?

The Supreme Court ruling followed a long-running legal challenge which centred around how sex-based rights are applied through the UK-wide Equality Act 2010.

The appeal case was brought against the Scottish government by campaign group For Women Scotland (FWS) following unsuccessful challenges at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.

FWS called on the court to find sex an “immutable biological state”, arguing sex-based protections should only apply to people born female.

The Scottish government argued the protections should also include transgender people with a gender recognition certificate (GRC).

The Supreme Court judges were asked to rule on what the Equality Act 2010 means by “sex” – whether biological sex or “certificated” sex as legally defined by the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.

Delivering the ruling at the London court on Wednesday, Lord Hodge said: “We counsel against reading this judgment as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another. It is not.

“The Equality Act 2010 gives transgender people protection, not only against discrimination through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment in substance in their acquired gender.”