The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring financial educator and author Jared Dillian has been released. Listen here.
Viral posts on Facebook make claims about how much a number EU countries “owe”. They have been shared over 20,000 times. The numbers given for how much each country owes seem to relate to the size of government debt in those countries—they are a mixture of accurate and inaccurate.
The posts also says that if the UK leaves the EU, France and Germany’s economies will collapse “under the pressure”, and that Greece has also warned it will “collapse”. There is no evidence for this.
The size of EU countries’ debts
The post overstates the size of Ireland’s debt, which it claims to be “865 billion”. The latest data from the first three months of 2019 shows Ireland’s gross national debt was €215 billion.
The post understates the size of Italy’s debt, which it claims to be “1 trillion”. Italy’s national debt is worth €2.4 trillion.
The post was roughly accurate in its reporting of the other two figures—Greece’s debt is worth €337 billion, and Spain’s is worth €1.2 trillion.
It’s worth noting that these countries are not alone in having debts—as we’ve written before, not necessarily a bad thing that a government has debt, and almost all countries do. The UK’s national debt is worth €2.1 trillion.
It’s also helpful to understand the size of a country’s debt in relation to the overall size of its economy. (A debt of €2 trillion is easier for an economy the size of the UK’s to sustain, than it would be for an economy the size of Luxembourg’s).
The UK’s debt is worth around 85% of its total GDP. That level is higher than Ireland’s (66%), but lower than in Spain (99%), Italy (134%) and Greece (182%).
Britain finds itself on a collision course with France over fishing and access to the EU single market as forms and fees on UK visits to friends and family in France begin to bite
It has been a gloomy week on the sunlit uplands of sovereign Britain as various Brexit chickens continue to come home to roost, before being questioned for several hours at Heathrow, detained at Yarl’s Wood and then deported.
Or should that be Brexit poulets? Many of the key issues seem to involve our ongoing entente with the French, which the B-word has made considerably less cordiale.
Take the UK’s desire to give its massive financial services industry access to the single market, something that was fine in the days before you-know-what. The good news is that our amis over the Channel are ready to help us reclaim that in negotiations with the EU. The bad news is that to do so we will have to allow French fishermen access to Jersey’s fishing grounds, the scene of protests a couple of weeks back.
While Boris Johnson ponders this Catch Vingt-Deux, Brexit zealots now insist that neither fishing nor the single market will matter a jot on the sunlit uplands ahead. Matthew Lynn of the Telegraph called the fishing industry that was supposed to be saved by Brexit “an irrelevance", adding, “Cornwall and St Helier are hardly crucial to the 21st century economy we are meant to be trying to create. He went on to claim the “EU market is no longer worth making any concessions for”, and who can doubt him when financial services are only worth a measly £130billion or so a year, with a third of exports going to the EU?
Meanwhile, the drip of financial services jobs from London to Paris is becoming a threatening trickle. Morgan Stanley will have moved 200 positions there by the end of the year, and aim to have 400 by the end of 2024. JP Morgan is shifting another 200 London staff to the EY this year, mostly to the French capital. Barclays is expanding in Paris too. In total, Brexit has created around 2,500 new financial services jobs in Paris so far, as well as the transfer of €170bn in assets to the French capital. Well done, everyone.
Perhaps the locals will thank us for this unexpected Brexit dividend when we visit friends and family who have relocated to France this summer. As long, that is, as our hosts have remembered that ‘third country rules’ now mean that they need to apply to the maire of their local area at least a month in advance to get an attestation d’accueil for their guests, a tedious and costly process that involves filling out forms, digging out documents and paying a fee before we can travel.
This week, Andrew Maguire targets the crucial stairsteps for gold and silver amidst the current volatile mix of a strong dollar and rising bond yields, and offers a marketwide update heading into a fast-closing Basel III window.
The precious metals expert breaks down the CME’s seemingly counterintuitive decision to reduce margins into a rising gold price, and shares price expectations for gold and silver ahead of next week’s BIS options expiry.
Turning to the silver squeeze, the long-time wholesaler runs through the knock-on effect of Reddit -driven physical silver demand forcing discipline on the 500-1 leveraged paper markets!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9uMmBnyZKo
Emerald you have been brainwashed by the Brexit "Jackanory" story put about by liarse Boris & Farage, he latter even claims he never said the UK would be better off or that it would save £325 million per day.
The UK needs the EU far more than hey need the UK as will become very apparent to us all as time goes on
Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson told BBC Radio 4's Today Programme that the UK's trade with the EU had been declining rapidly in the last 10 years and that it had fallen to about 44%.
An hour earlier, Sir Martin Donnelly, who was the most senior civil servant in the Department for International Trade, told the same programme: "If we leave the Customs Union and the single market then we are taking away the equal access that we've got to 60% of our trade - nearly half directly with the EU and another 12% or so through EU preferential trade deals."
So, how do we reconcile these figures? Well, they're talking about different things.
The figure for 44% of UK trade being with the EU was cited a lot during the EU Referendum - it's actually a 2015 figure just for exports of goods and services. The 2016 figure was 43%, worth about £241bn, and it has indeed fallen from about 54% in 2006. (The figures for UK exports to the EU are here - total UK exports are here.)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43212899
https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-eu-trade/
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7851/
This week, Andrew Maguire targets the crucial stairsteps for gold and silver amidst the current volatile mix of a strong dollar and rising bond yields, and offers a marketwide update heading into a fast-closing Basel III window.
The precious metals expert breaks down the CME’s seemingly counterintuitive decision to reduce margins into a rising gold price, and shares price expectations for gold and silver ahead of next week’s BIS options expiry.
Turning to the silver squeeze, the long-time wholesaler runs through the knock-on effect of Reddit -driven physical silver demand forcing discipline on the 500-1 leveraged paper markets!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9uMmBnyZKo
This week, Andrew Maguire targets the crucial stairsteps for gold and silver amidst the current volatile mix of a strong dollar and rising bond yields, and offers a marketwide update heading into a fast-closing Basel III window.
The precious metals expert breaks down the CME’s seemingly counterintuitive decision to reduce margins into a rising gold price, and shares price expectations for gold and silver ahead of next week’s BIS options expiry.
Turning to the silver squeeze, the long-time wholesaler runs through the knock-on effect of Reddit -driven physical silver demand forcing discipline on the 500-1 leveraged paper markets!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9uMmBnyZKo
We are discussing not gold or silver but their derivatives. But there is a problem borne out of the LBMA’s insistence that it involves bullion, albeit unallocated, and not derivatives. The distinction could be important, depending on how the UK regulator applies the NSFR rules. This is because in the calculation of required stable funding, gold consumes 85% of available stable funding while gold liabilities contribute no available stable funding at all. The effect is to impart a negative factor into a bank’s overall net stable funding calculation, making unallocated gold trading hopelessly uneconomic in terms of deployment of total funding capital. The alternative, which does not appear to be under the LBMA’s consideration, is to admit that the whole unallocated gold trading business has nothing to do with gold bullion but is in fact gold derivatives; in which case capital funding penalties under the NSFR would be broadly limited to imbalances between derivative liabilities and derivative assets.
Consequently, it appears that an allocation backstop of 85% of available stable funding (ASF) must be swallowed in the case of gold, which does not appear to be the case if the LBMA confesses to the paper charade.
There are in London, in effect, two markets conflated into one, but they must not be confused. The unallocated market, otherwise known as dealing for forward settlement, is the product of bank credit expansion, not as the LBMA claims, physical metal whose bar origins, weights and fineness are not recorded for convenience’s sake. Perhaps the LBMA would like to let us know where they think it’s all stored; it’s certainly not in LBMA vaults, where after deducting headline figures for custodial gold the float reduces to as little as a few hundred tonnes. Unsurprisingly, the Bank for International Settlements lists these transactions as over-the-counter derivatives for statistical purposes, so we know how they are regarded by the international regulator.
Physical gold held on behalf of customers is never recorded on bank balance sheets. If a bank owns physical gold in its own vault, an independent vault, or allocated to it by another bank acting as custodian with its own vaulting facilities then that appears as an asset on its balance sheet. In that case, it can hedge out the price risk with a matching liability for a zero price-haircut within Basel 3 rules. But this has nothing to do with the NSFR calculation.
Clearly, unless the NSFR calculation is amended at the last moment, following its introduction the character of bullion markets will become markedly different. Gone will be roughly $600bn of paper gold[iii], while presumably some of the paper demand released will migrate to physical metal. There is also the question of how outstanding imbalances will be resolved. This article https:assesses the consequences.
https://www.goldmoney.com/research/goldmoney-insights/the-end-of-paper-gold-and-silver-markets
This article looks at the likely consequences of the Bank for International Settlements’ introduction of the net stable funding requirement (NSFR) for bank balance sheets, insofar as they apply to their positions in gold, silver and other commodity markets.
If they are introduced as proposed, banks will face significant financing penalties for taking trading positions in derivatives. The problem is particularly important for the London gold market, as described in last week’s article on this subject. Therefore they are likely to withdraw from providing derivative liquidity and associated services.
This article delves into the consequences of the NSFR leading to the end of the London forward markets in gold and silver. Replacement demand for physical metal appears bound to rise, and an assessment is therefore made of available gold not tied up in jewellery and industrial uses. An analysis of gold leasing by central banks, leading to double ownership of physical gold, is included.
The conclusion is that unless the BIS has an ulterior motive to trigger a chaotic financial reset of some sort, it is a case of regulators not understanding the market consequences of their actions.
Introduction
Last week I explained why as they stand the new Basel 3 regulations will make it uneconomic for banks to continue to run bullion trading desks. The introduction of the net stable funding requirement (NSFR) means that mainland European banks, of which ten are LBMA members including the Swiss, will have to comply with the new regulations from the end of June, and all UK banks, in effect the entire banking membership of the London Bullion Market Association (LBMA) will have to comply by the year-end. There are 43 LBMA members listed as banks, and on Comex there are currently 17 with long and 27 with short positions in the Swaps category, which represent bullion bank trading desks in the dominant futures contracts. So being similar, the Comex numbers must broadly replicate those operating in London. It is therefore reasonable to assume that if the LBMA’s banking membership ceases dealings in unallocated bullion, then very few will continue to deal on Comex — the LBMA crowd having ceased taking trading positions.
We are discussing not gold or silver but their derivatives. But there is a problem borne out of the LBMA’s insistence that it involves bullion, albeit unallocated, and not derivatives. The distinction could be important, depending on how the UK regulator applies the NSFR rules. This is because in the calculation of required stable funding, gold consumes 85% of available stable funding while gold liabilities contribute no available stable funding at all. The effect is to impart a negative factor into a bank’s overall net stable funding calculation, making unallocated gold trading hopelessly uneconomic in terms of deployment of total funding capital. The alternative, which does not appear to be under the LBMA’s consideration, is to admit that the w
This article delves into the consequences of the NSFR leading to the end of the London forward markets in gold and silver. Replacement demand for physical metal appears bound to rise, and an assessment is therefore made of available gold not tied up in jewellery and industrial uses. An analysis of gold leasing by central banks, leading to double ownership of physical gold, is included.
The conclusion is that unless the BIS has an ulterior motive to trigger a chaotic financial reset of some sort, it is a case of regulators not understanding the market consequences of their actions.
Introduction
Last week I explained why as they stand the new Basel 3 regulations will make it uneconomic for banks to continue to run bullion trading desks. The introduction of the net stable funding requirement (NSFR) means that mainland European banks, of which ten are LBMA members including the Swiss, will have to comply with the new regulations from the end of June, and all UK banks, in effect the entire banking membership of the London Bullion Market Association (LBMA) will have to comply by the year-end. There are 43 LBMA members listed as banks, and on Comex there are currently 17 with long and 27 with short positions in the Swaps category, which represent bullion bank trading desks in the dominant futures contracts. So being similar, the Comex numbers must broadly replicate those operating in London. It is therefore reasonable to assume that if the LBMA’s banking membership ceases dealings in unallocated bullion, then very few will continue to deal on Comex — the LBMA crowd having ceased taking trading positions.
We are discussing not gold or silver but their derivatives. But there is a problem borne out of the LBMA’s insistence that it involves bullion, albeit unallocated, and not derivatives. The distinction could be important, depending on how the UK regulator applies the NSFR rules. This is because in the calculation of required stable funding, gold consumes 85% of available stable funding while gold liabilities contribute no available stable funding at all. The effect is to impart a negative factor into a bank’s overall net stable funding calculation, making unallocated gold trading hopelessly uneconomic in terms of deployment of total funding capital. The alternative, which does not appear to be under the LBMA’s consideration, is to admit that the whole unallocated gold trading business has nothing to do with gold bullion but is in fact gold derivatives; in which case capital funding penalties under the NSFR would be broadly limited to imbalances between derivative liabilities and derivative assets.
Consequently, it appears that an allocation backstop of 85% of available stable funding (ASF) must be swallowed in the case of gold, which does not appear to be the case if the LBMA confesses to the paper charade.
https://www.goldmoney.com/research/goldmoney-insights/the-end-of-paper-gold-and-silver-markets
Boris Johnson’s government is ready to offer Australia a zero-tariff, zero-quota trade deal, it is understood – despite opposition from cabinet ministers and British farmers’ fears of ruin from cheap meat imports.
The prime minister is believed to have given his international trade secretary Liz Truss the go-ahead for a free trade agreement, with the goal of inking a deal in time for next month’s G7 summit in Cornwall.
22 minutes ago
It comes as ministers were accused of a “shocking” lack of knowledge about Northern Ireland following the UK’s Brexit agreement with the EU.
Labour claimed the government had failed to understand protocol arrangements contained in Mr Johnson’s deal. It follows an admission by Brexit minister David Frost that No 10 had failed to secure the agreement it wanted for Northern Ireland.
Australia trade deal would cause animal cruelty, warns RSPCA
UK failed to get Brexit deal it wanted for NI, David Frost admits
Would zero-tariff deal with Australia put UK farmers out of business?
KEY POINTS
Boris Johnson ‘wants Australia deal for G7 summit’
Ministers accused of ‘shocking lack of knowledge’ on protocol
Government will consider ‘reforms’ at the BBC, says culture secretary
22 minutes ago
Beef exports from Australia ‘could rise tenfold’
Australia’s biggest cattle merchant has said the country’s beef exports to the UK could rise tenfold if the two countries strike a zero-tariff free-trade deal.
Hugh Killen, chief executive of the Australian Agricultural Company, said: “We are looking forward to the conclusion of free-trade negotiations with the UK.”
He told the FT the deal could see Australian beef exports doubling or tripling – or even rising tenfold.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-news-live-boris-johnson-b1851256.html
Adam Forrest21 May 2021 11:13
1 hour ago
No 10: Australia negotiations ‘still ongoing’
Downing Street has said “negotiations are still ongoing” amid reports that Boris Johnson has decided on a planned trade deal with Australia.
The prime minister is ready offer Australia a 15-year transition to a zero-tariff, zero-quota trade pact, according to The Sun. Johnson is understood to have sided with international trade secretary Liz Truss on the need to get a deal done soon.
Downing Street insisted on Friday that farmers would be protected in any deal struck with Australia. “Any agreement would include protections for our agriculture industry and won’t undercut UK farmers,” the PM’s official spokesman said.
“We want a deal that is good for the British public and any agreement would have protection for the agriculture industry.”
The UK is to offer Australia a trade deal under which both countries would phase out import taxes over 15 years.
The cabinet was reportedly split on what terms to propose, amid concerns UK beef and lamb farmers could be undercut by larger Australian producers.
But Boris Johnson pushed for unity at a senior ministers' meeting on Thursday.
Downing Street said the cabinet was now in agreement, but a farmers' union said ending taxes on meat imports would lead to the "demise" of many UK farms.
Ministers are keen to strike as many trade deals as possible following Brexit, and International Trade Secretary Liz Truss wants one in place with Australia by early June.
But she had reportedly been at odds with Environment Secretary George Eustice over the possible impact on farmers.
Why is an Australia trade deal controversial?
How many trade deals has the UK done?
Speaking on a visit to a bakery in north London, Home Secretary Priti Patel said: "The government is united on every single level. We are working at every level to secure the best outcome for our country."
She added that "the government will work with everybody - everyone - to ensure that the right sort of support and measures are in place".
Under the deal set to be offered to Australia, tariffs - taxes on imports - will be phased out over 15 years, with quotas - limits - on sales between the two countries going over the same period.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57198607
The government wants to finalise negotiations over a free-trade agreement with Australia by early June.
It has long argued the UK's ability to strike its own trade deals around the world is one of the big benefits of Brexit.
But British farmers fear it could threaten their livelihood.
How would the deal work?
As part of an overall free-trade deal, Australia wants access to the UK food market - without tariffs (taxes on imports) or quotas (limits on the amounts that can be traded).
This would make it easier and cheaper for big Australian farms to export products such as lamb and beef to the UK.
In return, British farmers (and other companies) would enjoy the same access to the Australian market - that's what free trade is all about.
A deal with Australia would also be an important stepping-stone, the government says, towards joining a wider Asia Pacific free-trade agreement - the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) - which could provide British farmers with huge opportunities.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/57173498
A long overdue change!
This article looks at the likely consequences of the Bank for International Settlements’ introduction of the net stable funding requirement (NSFR) for bank balance sheets, insofar as they apply to their positions in gold, silver and other commodity markets.
If they are introduced as proposed, banks will face significant financing penalties for taking trading positions in derivatives. The problem is particularly important for the London gold market, as described in last week’s article on this subject. Therefore they are likely to withdraw from providing derivative liquidity and associated services.
This article delves into the consequences of the NSFR leading to the end of the London forward markets in gold and silver. Replacement demand for physical metal appears bound to rise, and an assessment is therefore made of available gold not tied up in jewellery and industrial uses. An analysis of gold leasing by central banks, leading to double ownership of physical gold, is included.
The conclusion is that unless the BIS has an ulterior motive to trigger a chaotic financial reset of some sort, it is a case of regulators not understanding the market consequences of their actions.
Introduction
Last week I explained why as they stand the new Basel 3 regulations will make it uneconomic for banks to continue to run bullion trading desks. The introduction of the net stable funding requirement (NSFR) means that mainland European banks, of which ten are LBMA members including the Swiss, will have to comply with the new regulations from the end of June, and all UK banks, in effect the entire banking membership of the London Bullion Market Association (LBMA) will have to comply by the year-end. There are 43 LBMA members listed as banks, and on Comex there are currently 17 with long and 27 with short positions in the Swaps category, which represent bullion bank trading desks in the dominant futures contracts. So being similar, the Comex numbers must broadly replicate those operating in London. It is therefore reasonable to assume that if the LBMA’s banking membership ceases dealings in unallocated bullion, then very few will continue to deal on Comex — the LBMA crowd having ceased taking trading positions.
https://www.goldmoney.com/research/goldmoney-insights/the-end-of-paper-gold-and-silver-markets
A long overdue change!
This article looks at the likely consequences of the Bank for International Settlements’ introduction of the net stable funding requirement (NSFR) for bank balance sheets, insofar as they apply to their positions in gold, silver and other commodity markets.
If they are introduced as proposed, banks will face significant financing penalties for taking trading positions in derivatives. The problem is particularly important for the London gold market, as described in last week’s article on this subject. Therefore they are likely to withdraw from providing derivative liquidity and associated services.
This article delves into the consequences of the NSFR leading to the end of the London forward markets in gold and silver. Replacement demand for physical metal appears bound to rise, and an assessment is therefore made of available gold not tied up in jewellery and industrial uses. An analysis of gold leasing by central banks, leading to double ownership of physical gold, is included.
The conclusion is that unless the BIS has an ulterior motive to trigger a chaotic financial reset of some sort, it is a case of regulators not understanding the market consequences of their actions.
Introduction
Last week I explained why as they stand the new Basel 3 regulations will make it uneconomic for banks to continue to run bullion trading desks. The introduction of the net stable funding requirement (NSFR) means that mainland European banks, of which ten are LBMA members including the Swiss, will have to comply with the new regulations from the end of June, and all UK banks, in effect the entire banking membership of the London Bullion Market Association (LBMA) will have to comply by the year-end. There are 43 LBMA members listed as banks, and on Comex there are currently 17 with long and 27 with short positions in the Swaps category, which represent bullion bank trading desks in the dominant futures contracts. So being similar, the Comex numbers must broadly replicate those operating in London. It is therefore reasonable to assume that if the LBMA’s banking membership ceases dealings in unallocated bullion, then very few will continue to deal on Comex — the LBMA crowd having ceased taking trading positions.
https://www.goldmoney.com/research/goldmoney-insights/the-end-of-paper-gold-and-silver-markets
The sound of us Remainers crying over spilled milk has been replaced by everyone crying over unsold milk
It has been another gloomy week on the sunlit uplands of sovereign Britain.
The dairy industry has been among the biggest losers of Brexit so far, with milk and cream exports to the EU down 96.4% year on year in February. Just £900,000 of the stuff made it out to our former partners, compared with over £24m in February 2020.
Meanwhile, cheese exports were down 65% year-on-year - and although that represented an improvement on the disastrous 85% drop in January, it’s hardly reassuring for firms like County Milk, the UK’s largest privately owned dairy ingredients business.
For although the trade body Dairy UK claims that “normal patterns of trade are resuming as the market smooths itself out”, County Milk’s Phil Langslow told the Guardian it doesn’t yet know the “true cost of Brexit”. “What we are seeing is, it is substantially different and significant enough to just not make [exporting] viable in a number of cases,” he said.
With chicken and beef sales to the EU also down by nearly 80% year on year, the Food and Drink Federation says Brexit has cost British exporters more than £1.1bn since the start of the year, a figure that didn’t appear on any red buses during the referendum campaign.
The trade body has urged Boris Johnson to sort it by reopening talks with the EU, with Dominic Goudie, the FDF’s head of international trade, saying: “Exports to our biggest market, Ireland, have also dropped more than two thirds. UK businesses continue to struggle with inconsistent and incorrect demands at EU borders, and small businesses have been hardest hit.
The results in Scotland and Wales shows voters turned their backs on Boris Johnson, so why not in England?
Why can so many English people not see through Boris Johnson? The Scots and Welsh clearly can - it was as heartening to see the election results north and west of Little England as it was disheartening to see the latter turn increasingly blue.
Sadly it seems some of the English are very happy to support a pompous, privileged, entitled, blustering liar who promises much but delivers very little - where is that much-vaunted plan for social care, where are all the promised benefits from Brexit?
When will there be an unrigged inquiry into the failings of his management of Covid? Why are there still fires in blocks of flats with illegal cladding?
The Scots and Welsh obviously prefer honest politicians who at least try to act with integrity and believe in a progressive social policy. The contrast between Johnson and serious, sincere politicians could not be greater. No wonder he does not dare to show his face north of the border.
So why do so many people vote for him and his party? Do you want a bragging arrogant chancer who operates in a values-free bubble and gets away with it as your leader, or would you rather have someone competent?
The results in Scotland and Wales shows voters turned their backs on Boris Johnson, so why not in England?
Why can so many English people not see through Boris Johnson? The Scots and Welsh clearly can - it was as heartening to see the election results north and west of Little England as it was disheartening to see the latter turn increasingly blue.
An increasing majority of the English are very happy to support a pompous, privileged, entitled, blustering liar who promises much but delivers very little - where is that much-vaunted plan for social care, where are all the promised benefits from Brexit?
When will there be an unrigged inquiry into the failings of his management of Covid? Why are there still fires in blocks of flats with illegal cladding?
The Scots and Welsh obviously prefer honest politicians who at least try to act with integrity and believe in a progressive social policy. The contrast between Johnson and serious, sincere politicians could not be greater. No wonder he does not dare to show his face north of the border.
So why do so many people vote for him and his party? Do you want a bragging arrogant chancer who operates in a values-free bubble and gets away with it as your leader, or would you rather have someone competent?
The sound of us Remainers crying over spilled milk has been replaced by everyone crying over unsold milk,It has been another gloomy week on the sunlit uplands of sovereign Britain.
The dairy industry has been among the biggest losers of Brexit so far, with milk and cream exports to the EU down 96.4% year on year in February. Just £900,000 of the stuff made it out to our former partners, compared with over £24m in February 2020.
Meanwhile, cheese exports were down 65% year-on-year - and although that represented an improvement on the disastrous 85% drop in January, it’s hardly reassuring for firms like County Milk, the UK’s largest privately owned dairy ingredients business.
For although the trade body Dairy UK claims that “normal patterns of trade are resuming as the market smooths itself out”, County Milk’s Phil Langslow told the Guardian it doesn’t yet know the “true cost of Brexit”. “What we are seeing is, it is substantially different and significant enough to just not make [exporting] viable in a number of cases,” he said.
With chicken and beef sales to the EU also down by nearly 80% year on year, the Food and Drink Federation says Brexit has cost British exporters more than £1.1bn since the start of the year, a figure that didn’t appear on any red buses during the referendum campaign.
The trade body has urged Boris Johnson to sort it by reopening talks with the EU, with Dominic Goudie, the FDF’s head of international trade, saying: “Exports to our biggest market, Ireland, have also dropped more than two thirds. UK businesses continue to struggle with inconsistent and incorrect demands at EU borders, and small businesses have been hardest hit.
“It is essential that the EU-UK partnership council and its trade specialised committees are convened to urgently address problems.”
That’s something Johson has so far been unable to make room for in his busy schedule of asking donors to buy his wallpaper and wrecking the union.
The hope for Brexiteers seems still to be that lost food and drink exports to the EU will be replaced by exports to non-EU countries. At the moment, though, it looks a tall order - exports to the EU were down 40.9% overall in February compared to an 8.7 per cent rise to non-EU countries. That’s a loss of £421m compared to a gain of £56m.
And as Andrew Kuyk, director-general of the Provision Trade Federation, which covers the dairy and pig meat trade, says: “If we are struggling to get it into Calais, how easy is it going to be to get it into Beijing, or Tokyo?”
Alas, while the PM milks his local election victories and looks like the cat that got the cream in Hartlepool, the outlook for the dairy industry is very sour indeed!
HI Red Sparrow,
Re Jim Callaghan saying how could Labour compete in an election when the Conservatives were selling council houses to tenants for £7000 and those people were reselling them for £80000 immediately.
I remember that time very well , our council had a growing waiting list for social housing yet we had queues of people demanding to buy at @ 40% discount, even some of those that had over two years of outstanding rent, they got loans from local money lenders to pay off the arrears so they qualified to buy!
They were required to keep the house for two years before they could sell.
It really was a case of the Tory party buying votes, it always seemed glaringly unfair that Thatcher decided that councils should have to give a 40% discount to tenants and yet the private sector landlords some of whom were screwing their tenants, especially those who could claim their housing benefits from the DSS weren't required to offer their properties for sale to existing tenants at a 40% discount!
Also councils weren't allowed to use the fund's raised from the sale of council houses,Thatcher's government decided that councils were not allowed to acquire capital assets so everything from photo copiers to refuse vehicles and buses had to be leased.
Thatcher realised that because councils are tax except anyway that leasing vehicles and equipment is very much more expensive for them,unlike in the private sector where leasing is tax advantageous!
This was all part of the strategy to portray the public sector as inefficient and costly in order to justify it's destruction and the privatisation of publicly owned utilities.