Income rules which stop thousands of British citizens bringing their foreign spouse to the UK are lawful "in principle" the Supreme Court has ruled.
But children's welfare must be promoted in immigration decisions, judges said.
As of 2012, Britons must earn more than £18,600 ($23,140) before a husband or wife from outside the European Economic Area (EEA) can settle in the UK.
Judges rejected an appeal by families who argued that the rules breached their human right to a family life.
Seven Supreme Court justices hearing the case said the minimum income requirement was "acceptable in principle".
But they criticised the rules around it, saying they failed to take "proper account" of the duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children when making decisions which affect them.
And they ruled there should be an amendment to allow alternative sources of funding, other than a salary or benefits, to be considered in a claim.
Taxpayer impact
The rules were introduced by the former coalition government to stop foreign spouses becoming reliant on taxpayers.
The minimum income threshold, which also affects people settled in the UK as refugees, rises to £22,400 ($27,870) if the couple have a child who does not have British citizenship - and then by an additional £2,400 ($2,986) for each subsequent child.
The markers replaced a previous, more general, requirement to show the Home Office that the incoming partner would not be a drain on public resources and that the couple or family could adequately support themselves.
They do not take into account the earnings of the overseas partner - even if they have higher qualifications, or are likely to be employed in higher-paid work than their British spouse.
And the threshold does not apply to spouses from within the EEA.
Visa rules "creating price on love"
"Just because she happens to fall in love with me and I have the wrong passport, she isn't allowed to live with me in her own country," says Spencer Russ, an American who may be deported from the UK, where he lives with his British wife, Laura Segan.
Read more about families split by the rules
Delivering their judgement, the justices said the government's rules had the "legitimate" aim of ensuring "that the couple do not have recourse to benefits and have sufficient resources to play a full part in British life".
But they said the rules fail because they do not treat "the best interests of children as a primary consideration".
Analysis
By BBC Home Affairs correspondent, Dominic Casciani
While the couples in this case have won their appeals it's not much of a victory when the Supreme Court has clearly ruled the system is compatible with human rights.
Campaigners say they are delighted. But the government now knows the principle of the policy has been endorsed by the highest court in the land as a legitimate way to control immigration.
So what does that mean in practical terms?
The Home Office will need to make sure that each decision takes into account the rights of children - and whether a couple have other assets - perhaps a home, savings or substantial financial support from family.
That will benefit some of the families - but it also means that in the long run some of the most affected people from poorer Asian communities may still be unable to get permission to bring their husband or wife to Britain.
The justices heard appeals in February 2016 from a series of test cases.
Two claimants, Abdul Majid and Shabana Javed, are British citizens who have partners who are Pakistani nationals.
The third is a Lebanese refugee who cannot find suitable work in the UK despite his postgraduate qualifications. He says his similarly-qualified wife has high earning potential and speaks fluent English.
A final case concerns another recognised refugee from the Democratic Republic of Congo whose wife has been barred from settling.
In their ruling on Wednesday, the panel, led by Supreme Court deputy president Lady Hale, held that the minimum income requirement (MIR) "is acceptable in principle", but that the rules and instructions "unlawfully fail to take proper account" of the Home Secretary's duty under the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children when making decisions which affect them.
The court ruled on the "instructions also require amendment to allow consideration of alternative sources of funding when evaluating a claim" under Article 8 (right to private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
'Heartless' rules
Satbir Singh is a British citizen who is unable to bring his wife to the UK from India, because his more than £60,000 a year income comes from more than one source.
He said the vast majority of those affected "won't get any respite from this ruling, don't have the resources to visit each other, who might have children who are growing up without parents".
"It's terribly frustrating to find that very important components of the quality of your life are dictated by a very heartlessly thought out set of rules which seem targeted at nothing apart from achieving a certain set of numbers that the government has set for itself," he said.
'Significant victory'
A Home Office spokesman said the court had endorsed its approach in setting an income threshold for family migration that prevents burdens on the taxpayer and ensures migrant families can integrate into our communities.
"This is central to building an immigration system that works in the national interest," they said.
The current rules remained in force, they said, "but we are carefully considering what the court has said in relation to exceptional cases where the income threshold has not been met, particularly where the case involves a child".
Saira Grant, chief executive at campaigning charity the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, also welcomed the ruling - as a "real victory for families".
She said the rules had been "tearing families apart and significantly harming children".
The ruling on considering alternative funding sources was "a significant victory" and the government must now "take immediate steps to protect the welfare of children in accordance with their legal duty".
Wednesday, February 22, 2017
Airlines told to compensate passengers for flight delays
Five major airlines have been criticised by the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) for failing to compensate passengers for flight delays.
American Airlines, Emirates, Etihad, Singapore Airlines and Turkish Airlines confirmed to the CAA they do not pay out when customers miss connecting flights in Europe and arrive at their final destination more than three hours late due to delays on the first leg of a journey.
But under EU consumer rules, passengers are legally entitled to compensation unless the delay is due to extraordinary circumstances - and a number of legal cases against airlines have narrowed the number of situations in which that designation can apply.
The regulations apply to any flight departing from a European airport, regardless of the nationality of the airline or whether the journey is a leg of a longer trip.
Passengers can claim €250 (£211) for delays of more than three hours on short-haul flights, €400 (£338) for medium-haul journeys and up to €600 (£506) for long-haul flights depending on the length of the delay.
Richard Moriarty, director of consumers and markets at the CAA, said that delays which impact connecting flights "have a particularly damaging effect on people's travel plans".
"That's why there are clear laws in place to make sure passengers that experience this type of disruption are looked after by their airline and compensated when the disruption was in the airline's control," he said.
"Airlines' first responsibility should be looking after their passengers, not finding ways in which they can prevent passengers upholding their rights.
"So it's disappointing to see a small number of airlines continuing to let a number of their passengers down by refusing to pay them the compensation they are entitled to.
"Where we see evidence of passengers systematically being denied their rights, we will not hesitate to take the necessary action to ensure airlines change their policies and their customers get the assistance they are entitled to."
The CAA has now launched enforcement action against the airlines and has pledged to take the companies to court if they do not start obeying EU law.
The airlines could face unlimited fines if the crackdown ends up in court.
American Airlines, Emirates, Etihad, Singapore Airlines and Turkish Airlines confirmed to the CAA they do not pay out when customers miss connecting flights in Europe and arrive at their final destination more than three hours late due to delays on the first leg of a journey.
But under EU consumer rules, passengers are legally entitled to compensation unless the delay is due to extraordinary circumstances - and a number of legal cases against airlines have narrowed the number of situations in which that designation can apply.
The regulations apply to any flight departing from a European airport, regardless of the nationality of the airline or whether the journey is a leg of a longer trip.
Passengers can claim €250 (£211) for delays of more than three hours on short-haul flights, €400 (£338) for medium-haul journeys and up to €600 (£506) for long-haul flights depending on the length of the delay.
Richard Moriarty, director of consumers and markets at the CAA, said that delays which impact connecting flights "have a particularly damaging effect on people's travel plans".
"That's why there are clear laws in place to make sure passengers that experience this type of disruption are looked after by their airline and compensated when the disruption was in the airline's control," he said.
"Airlines' first responsibility should be looking after their passengers, not finding ways in which they can prevent passengers upholding their rights.
"So it's disappointing to see a small number of airlines continuing to let a number of their passengers down by refusing to pay them the compensation they are entitled to.
"Where we see evidence of passengers systematically being denied their rights, we will not hesitate to take the necessary action to ensure airlines change their policies and their customers get the assistance they are entitled to."
The CAA has now launched enforcement action against the airlines and has pledged to take the companies to court if they do not start obeying EU law.
The airlines could face unlimited fines if the crackdown ends up in court.
Coca-Cola in u-turn over plastic bottle deposit scheme
Coca-Cola has reversed its opposition to a deposit return scheme for drinks bottles following a Greenpeace investigation.
Internal Coca-Cola documents, requested by Greenpeace and given exclusively to Sky News, revealed that the company had resolved to "fight back" against an introduction of a scheme whereby customers would return drinks bottles and cans in return for a deposit.
A deposit return scheme (DRS) is supported by a range of environmental campaigners, who believe it will reduce littering and increase recycling.
They have accused Coca-Cola of resisting its introduction because of increased costs and logistics.
A DRS is currently being examined by the Scottish Government with a view to its re-introduction.
So far, Coca-Cola has been joined in its opposition to it by a number of big drinks companies.
However, in a major policy shift, Coca-Cola in the UK says it now supports the introduction of a DRS in Scotland.
A Coca-Cola spokesperson told Sky News: "Our sustainable packaging review is ongoing, but it's already clear from our conversations with experts that the time is right to trial new interventions such as a well-designed deposit return scheme for drinks containers, starting in Scotland where conversations are underway.
"We've also been talking to and listening to our consumers and know two thirds (63%) of them support the introduction of a deposit return system in the UK, and half (51%) say they'd be more likely to recycle as a result.
"From our experience elsewhere in Europe, we know that deposit schemes can work if they are developed as part of an overall strategy on the circular economy, in collaboration with all industry stakeholders.
"We are open to exploring any well-thought-through initiative that has the potential to increase recycling and reduce litter.
"We expect to publish the results of the review and our new sustainable packaging strategy in the summer and remain fully committed to finding new ways to minimise the materials we use; reduce waste; and work with others to improve recycling rates across Great Britain."
Louise Edge, senior oceans campaigner at Greenpeace UK, said:
"Following Greenpeace's investigation into Coca-Cola's lobbying against bottle deposit schemes, we absolutely welcome this change of heart. Deposit schemes, which have growing support amongst the public, politicians and industry, can play a key role in reducing the amount of plastic which ends up in our oceans and in landfill.
"But with up to 12 million tonnes of plastic entering the sea every year, the bigger challenge which companies need to step up to, especially leading brands like Coke, is drastically reducing their plastic footprint.
"Companies like Coca-Cola must have ambitious plans for 100% recycled content and move away from the era of single-use, disposable, plastic. Only by these companies taking responsibility for the end life of the bottles they sell, will we close the loop on the 16 million plastic bottles which are dumped every day in the UK, and go on to pollute our beaches, land and sea".
The announcement has been welcomed by Richard Lochhead MSP, who until recently was Scotland's Environment Secretary overseeing the DRS debate.
He said: "This change of heart by the world's biggest soft drink company is a very welcome and highly significant development in the campaign to introduce deposit and return schemes for drinks containers to improve recycling and tackle litter.
"It is refreshing that such a major player in the industry is willing to change its mind after looking at how such schemes work in countries around the world.
"This injects momentum and credibility into the debate in Scotland and we can lead the UK on this issue and this helps brings the introduction of such a transformative policy a big step closer.
"The Scottish Government and indeed Governments throughout the UK and beyond will no doubt sit up and take notice.
"Now that Coca Cola accept that deposit and return schemes are the real thing hopefully other drinks companies will follow their example."
Internal Coca-Cola documents, requested by Greenpeace and given exclusively to Sky News, revealed that the company had resolved to "fight back" against an introduction of a scheme whereby customers would return drinks bottles and cans in return for a deposit.
A deposit return scheme (DRS) is supported by a range of environmental campaigners, who believe it will reduce littering and increase recycling.
They have accused Coca-Cola of resisting its introduction because of increased costs and logistics.
A DRS is currently being examined by the Scottish Government with a view to its re-introduction.
So far, Coca-Cola has been joined in its opposition to it by a number of big drinks companies.
However, in a major policy shift, Coca-Cola in the UK says it now supports the introduction of a DRS in Scotland.
A Coca-Cola spokesperson told Sky News: "Our sustainable packaging review is ongoing, but it's already clear from our conversations with experts that the time is right to trial new interventions such as a well-designed deposit return scheme for drinks containers, starting in Scotland where conversations are underway.
"We've also been talking to and listening to our consumers and know two thirds (63%) of them support the introduction of a deposit return system in the UK, and half (51%) say they'd be more likely to recycle as a result.
"From our experience elsewhere in Europe, we know that deposit schemes can work if they are developed as part of an overall strategy on the circular economy, in collaboration with all industry stakeholders.
"We are open to exploring any well-thought-through initiative that has the potential to increase recycling and reduce litter.
"We expect to publish the results of the review and our new sustainable packaging strategy in the summer and remain fully committed to finding new ways to minimise the materials we use; reduce waste; and work with others to improve recycling rates across Great Britain."
Louise Edge, senior oceans campaigner at Greenpeace UK, said:
"Following Greenpeace's investigation into Coca-Cola's lobbying against bottle deposit schemes, we absolutely welcome this change of heart. Deposit schemes, which have growing support amongst the public, politicians and industry, can play a key role in reducing the amount of plastic which ends up in our oceans and in landfill.
"But with up to 12 million tonnes of plastic entering the sea every year, the bigger challenge which companies need to step up to, especially leading brands like Coke, is drastically reducing their plastic footprint.
"Companies like Coca-Cola must have ambitious plans for 100% recycled content and move away from the era of single-use, disposable, plastic. Only by these companies taking responsibility for the end life of the bottles they sell, will we close the loop on the 16 million plastic bottles which are dumped every day in the UK, and go on to pollute our beaches, land and sea".
The announcement has been welcomed by Richard Lochhead MSP, who until recently was Scotland's Environment Secretary overseeing the DRS debate.
He said: "This change of heart by the world's biggest soft drink company is a very welcome and highly significant development in the campaign to introduce deposit and return schemes for drinks containers to improve recycling and tackle litter.
"It is refreshing that such a major player in the industry is willing to change its mind after looking at how such schemes work in countries around the world.
"This injects momentum and credibility into the debate in Scotland and we can lead the UK on this issue and this helps brings the introduction of such a transformative policy a big step closer.
"The Scottish Government and indeed Governments throughout the UK and beyond will no doubt sit up and take notice.
"Now that Coca Cola accept that deposit and return schemes are the real thing hopefully other drinks companies will follow their example."
Tuesday, February 21, 2017
UK's £200m aid pledge to famine-threatened Somalia and South Sudan
South Sudan and Somalia are going to receive £100m each in UK aid, the Government has announced.
The Department for International Development (DFID) says both countries are facing a "real threat of famine" - with millions of people going hungry.
It is hoped the funding for food, water and emergency healthcare will help to save more than one million lives.
International Development Secretary Priti Patel has warned there is also a credible risk of famines in Yemen and North East Nigeria - with conflict and drought in some parts of Africa creating a "series of unprecedented humanitarian crises".
Sam Kiley: Kindness isn't always the solution to famines
She said: "Our commitment to UK aid means that when people are at risk of dying from drought and disaster, we have the tools and expertise to avoid catastrophe.
"While we step up our support for emergency food, water and life-saving care to those in need, our message to the world is clear: we must act now to help innocent people who are starving to death."
According to DFID, more than six million people in Somalia have no reliable access to food - and 360,000 children are acutely malnourished.
There are fears Somalia is going to face a famine as bad - or worse - than one in 2011 which killed an estimated 260,000 people.
DFID said the UK's aid package for Somalia will provide emergency food and safe drinking water for up to a million people, as well as nutritional support for more than 600,000 starving children, pregnant women and breastfeeding mothers.
The department explained that famine has been declared in several parts of South Sudan, and more than half of the population is now in desperate need.
Almost five million people face the daily threat of going without enough food and water, and three million people have been forced to flee their homes because of violence and widespread rape.
Mike Noyes, who works for the poverty charity ActionAid, described the UK's contribution to South Sudan and Somalia as "vital".
He added: "The need is huge and countless lives are at stake. Today, in parts of Africa, children are dying of hunger whilst their mothers watch in despair.
"The world cannot stand by and let this continue. The Government is right to be sounding the alarm."
The Department for International Development (DFID) says both countries are facing a "real threat of famine" - with millions of people going hungry.
It is hoped the funding for food, water and emergency healthcare will help to save more than one million lives.
International Development Secretary Priti Patel has warned there is also a credible risk of famines in Yemen and North East Nigeria - with conflict and drought in some parts of Africa creating a "series of unprecedented humanitarian crises".
Sam Kiley: Kindness isn't always the solution to famines
She said: "Our commitment to UK aid means that when people are at risk of dying from drought and disaster, we have the tools and expertise to avoid catastrophe.
"While we step up our support for emergency food, water and life-saving care to those in need, our message to the world is clear: we must act now to help innocent people who are starving to death."
According to DFID, more than six million people in Somalia have no reliable access to food - and 360,000 children are acutely malnourished.
There are fears Somalia is going to face a famine as bad - or worse - than one in 2011 which killed an estimated 260,000 people.
DFID said the UK's aid package for Somalia will provide emergency food and safe drinking water for up to a million people, as well as nutritional support for more than 600,000 starving children, pregnant women and breastfeeding mothers.
The department explained that famine has been declared in several parts of South Sudan, and more than half of the population is now in desperate need.
Almost five million people face the daily threat of going without enough food and water, and three million people have been forced to flee their homes because of violence and widespread rape.
Mike Noyes, who works for the poverty charity ActionAid, described the UK's contribution to South Sudan and Somalia as "vital".
He added: "The need is huge and countless lives are at stake. Today, in parts of Africa, children are dying of hunger whilst their mothers watch in despair.
"The world cannot stand by and let this continue. The Government is right to be sounding the alarm."
Israeli soldier jailed for 18 months for killing wounded Palestinian attacker
An Israeli soldier who shot dead a wounded Palestinian attacker as he was lying on the floor has been sentenced to 18 months in jail.
Sergeant Elor Azaria was convicted of manslaughter last month after he was filmed killing the Palestinian in the West Bank city of Hebron.
The 20-year-old conscript medic could be seen in the footage cocking his rifle and then shooting 21-year-old Palestinian Abdul Fatah al-Sharif in the head.
The Palestinian man had already been shot after he attacked another Israeli soldier.
Prosecutors alleged that the sergeant had shot dead Abdul Fatah al-Sharif out of revenge.
However, Azaria's defence had sought a full acquittal, claiming he fired further shots because he believed the man still posed a threat and had a hidden bomb.
Captured footage showed the knife was not within the wounded soldier's reach, and no bomb was found.
The incident, which took place on 24 March and followed a wave of Palestinian street attacks on Israelis, sparked national debate in Israel about how the military should conduct itself.
The military's top brass condemned his behaviour, insisting that the military code of ethics should be upheld and pointing to the rule which states that soldiers can open fire only in life-threatening situations.
However, several politicians, including Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, spoke out in support of the soldier.
Popular support for Azaria was also high, with thousands attending a rally last year and tens of thousands of people signing an online petition demanding he receive military honours for heroism.
The court heard how Azaria told another soldier "He deserves to die" after pulling the trigger.
His army record had been unblemished until the shooting.
The judge said the soldier "took it upon himself to be both judge and executioner".
The father of the fatally wounded soldier has condemned the year-and-a-half sentence, saying: "If one of us killed an animal they would have put him in jail for God knows how long, they are only making fun of us."
Azaria will appeal his conviction.
Sergeant Elor Azaria was convicted of manslaughter last month after he was filmed killing the Palestinian in the West Bank city of Hebron.
The 20-year-old conscript medic could be seen in the footage cocking his rifle and then shooting 21-year-old Palestinian Abdul Fatah al-Sharif in the head.
The Palestinian man had already been shot after he attacked another Israeli soldier.
Prosecutors alleged that the sergeant had shot dead Abdul Fatah al-Sharif out of revenge.
However, Azaria's defence had sought a full acquittal, claiming he fired further shots because he believed the man still posed a threat and had a hidden bomb.
Captured footage showed the knife was not within the wounded soldier's reach, and no bomb was found.
The incident, which took place on 24 March and followed a wave of Palestinian street attacks on Israelis, sparked national debate in Israel about how the military should conduct itself.
The military's top brass condemned his behaviour, insisting that the military code of ethics should be upheld and pointing to the rule which states that soldiers can open fire only in life-threatening situations.
However, several politicians, including Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, spoke out in support of the soldier.
Popular support for Azaria was also high, with thousands attending a rally last year and tens of thousands of people signing an online petition demanding he receive military honours for heroism.
The court heard how Azaria told another soldier "He deserves to die" after pulling the trigger.
His army record had been unblemished until the shooting.
The judge said the soldier "took it upon himself to be both judge and executioner".
The father of the fatally wounded soldier has condemned the year-and-a-half sentence, saying: "If one of us killed an animal they would have put him in jail for God knows how long, they are only making fun of us."
Azaria will appeal his conviction.
Donald Trump publicly condemns anti-Semitic threats
Donald Trump has publicly condemned for the first time recent anti-Semitic threats in the US as "horrible and painful".
The President said more needed to be done to "root out hate and prejudice and evil".
Up to 200 headstones were damaged or toppled over at a Jewish cemetery in St Louis, Missouri, on Sunday.
A day later, 11 Jewish community centres across the country received hoax bomb threats, forcing people to be evacuated.
There was a spate of similar fake calls last month.
When a reporter asked about anti-Semitic incidents at a White House news conference last week, Mr Trump did not explicitly condemn them.
Instead he spoke more generally about his hopes of making the nation less "divided" as he denounced "hatred and hate-motivated violence".
The President also said the reporter's question was "not fair", and he added he was the "least anti-Semitic person you have ever seen in your entire life".
At the end of a tour of the National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington on Tuesday, he said: "The anti-Semitic threats targeting our Jewish community and community centres are horrible and are painful.
"And a very sad reminder of the work that still must be done to root out hate and prejudice and evil."
However, Mr Trump, whose daughter Ivanka is a convert to Judaism, did not outline what that work might include.
Michele Jawando, from think-tank the Centre for American Progress, told Sky News she thought Mr Trump should have spoken up earlier.
She said: "If you take this long to speak about something that affects so many of our fellow Americans, then you are not really doing a service as the American president.
"Donald Trump should know there have been almost 64 incidents against Jewish brothers and sisters since his election."
She added: "And this was the first time we have heard him affirmatively saying something and speak out. I think that is problematic."
Sky's Siobhan Robbins said: "He's been under pressure to take a stand especially as last week in a press conference when he was asked about attacks on the Jewish community he seemed to dodge the question."
She added: "I think many agreed that that was not very well handled.
"Today's statement was the first public condemnation of the threats to Jews and it will be widely welcomed by the community."
The President said more needed to be done to "root out hate and prejudice and evil".
Up to 200 headstones were damaged or toppled over at a Jewish cemetery in St Louis, Missouri, on Sunday.
A day later, 11 Jewish community centres across the country received hoax bomb threats, forcing people to be evacuated.
There was a spate of similar fake calls last month.
When a reporter asked about anti-Semitic incidents at a White House news conference last week, Mr Trump did not explicitly condemn them.
Instead he spoke more generally about his hopes of making the nation less "divided" as he denounced "hatred and hate-motivated violence".
The President also said the reporter's question was "not fair", and he added he was the "least anti-Semitic person you have ever seen in your entire life".
At the end of a tour of the National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington on Tuesday, he said: "The anti-Semitic threats targeting our Jewish community and community centres are horrible and are painful.
"And a very sad reminder of the work that still must be done to root out hate and prejudice and evil."
However, Mr Trump, whose daughter Ivanka is a convert to Judaism, did not outline what that work might include.
Michele Jawando, from think-tank the Centre for American Progress, told Sky News she thought Mr Trump should have spoken up earlier.
She said: "If you take this long to speak about something that affects so many of our fellow Americans, then you are not really doing a service as the American president.
"Donald Trump should know there have been almost 64 incidents against Jewish brothers and sisters since his election."
She added: "And this was the first time we have heard him affirmatively saying something and speak out. I think that is problematic."
Sky's Siobhan Robbins said: "He's been under pressure to take a stand especially as last week in a press conference when he was asked about attacks on the Jewish community he seemed to dodge the question."
She added: "I think many agreed that that was not very well handled.
"Today's statement was the first public condemnation of the threats to Jews and it will be widely welcomed by the community."
French presidential hopeful Macron wants UK talent to move to France after Brexit
A leading contender in France's presidential race stood outside 10 Downing Street and said he wanted "banks, talents, researchers, academics" to move across the Channel after Brexit.
Emmanuel Macron, who is among the favourites to win in the election in May, launched his appeal after meeting the Prime Minister on a visit to London for a rally of expat voters.
The centrist candidate said his actions as leader would include "a series of initiatives to get talented people in research and lots of fields working here to come to France".
:: French presidential election: Who is Emmanuel Macron
:: What you need to know about the French elections, and why
"I was very happy to see that some academics and researchers in the UK because of Brexit are considering coming to France to work," he said.
"It will be part of my programme to be attractive for these kinds of people.
"I want banks, talents, researchers, academics and so on.
"I think that France and the European Union are a very attractive space now so in my programme I will do everything I can to make it attractive and successful."
:: UK warned it faces 'hefty' Brexit bill
He said that he had spoken to Theresa May to assure he was open to a "fair execution of Brexit" which would protect French and European interests.
The 39-year-old later addressed 3,000 French voters in Westminster's Central Hall.
Mr Macron, who only started his En Marche movement in April after leaving the ruling Socialist party, has come from behind and led polls in recent weeks. But his chances of victory could be slipping.
The National Front's Marine Le Pen is favourite to win the first round on 23 April.
However, polls suggest she would lose to Mr Macron or Republican candidate Francois Fillon in the second and final round on 7 May.
Mr Fillon's campaign has been hit by a "fake jobs" scandal, but in a new poll he is favourite while in two other surveys he is joint favourite with Mr Macron.
Mr Fillon is accused of paying his British wife and other family members for work they did not do. He insists the jobs they had were "real".
Mr Macron is the only candidate to request a meeting with Mrs May, although Downing Street made clear there was a long-standing Government policy not to engage with the far-right National Front party.
A spokesman said the meeting was not unprecedented and added that Tony Blair had met Nicolas Sarkozy at Number 10 when he was running for the presidency in 2007.
Emmanuel Macron, who is among the favourites to win in the election in May, launched his appeal after meeting the Prime Minister on a visit to London for a rally of expat voters.
The centrist candidate said his actions as leader would include "a series of initiatives to get talented people in research and lots of fields working here to come to France".
:: French presidential election: Who is Emmanuel Macron
:: What you need to know about the French elections, and why
"I was very happy to see that some academics and researchers in the UK because of Brexit are considering coming to France to work," he said.
"It will be part of my programme to be attractive for these kinds of people.
"I want banks, talents, researchers, academics and so on.
"I think that France and the European Union are a very attractive space now so in my programme I will do everything I can to make it attractive and successful."
:: UK warned it faces 'hefty' Brexit bill
He said that he had spoken to Theresa May to assure he was open to a "fair execution of Brexit" which would protect French and European interests.
The 39-year-old later addressed 3,000 French voters in Westminster's Central Hall.
Mr Macron, who only started his En Marche movement in April after leaving the ruling Socialist party, has come from behind and led polls in recent weeks. But his chances of victory could be slipping.
The National Front's Marine Le Pen is favourite to win the first round on 23 April.
However, polls suggest she would lose to Mr Macron or Republican candidate Francois Fillon in the second and final round on 7 May.
Mr Fillon's campaign has been hit by a "fake jobs" scandal, but in a new poll he is favourite while in two other surveys he is joint favourite with Mr Macron.
Mr Fillon is accused of paying his British wife and other family members for work they did not do. He insists the jobs they had were "real".
Mr Macron is the only candidate to request a meeting with Mrs May, although Downing Street made clear there was a long-standing Government policy not to engage with the far-right National Front party.
A spokesman said the meeting was not unprecedented and added that Tony Blair had met Nicolas Sarkozy at Number 10 when he was running for the presidency in 2007.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)