Saturday 6 February 2021

The thin gruel of Brexit.

Brexit supporting businessmen are beginning to push back against the tide of bad news and claiming things are not that bad. In Sheffield, one Brexiteer and CEO of GRI Group says Brexit has "caused zero issues" and  he is critical of "whingeing" exporters who he says failed to prepare as his group did. GRI import and export to the EU apparently and "ship and/or receive lorries from Europe literally every day."

I had a quick look at GRI Group's accounts and they are not as far as I can see a £75 million turnover group and more like £10 million, still substantial but not quite the giant business reported by the Sheffield Star. They file accounts for a small company which means turnover can't exceed £10.2 million and they must employ fewer than 50 people. They seem to deal in chemicals and it's not clear if their market is here or in the EU. If they import mainly to serve the UK market they may not have noticed too much of a change. Imports are being waived through at the moment.

If they export significant amounts of chemicals I confess I'm surprised he hasn't had any problems. But we might conclude as a Brexit supporter 'he would say that wouldn't he?'

Next, Lance Forman, former UKIP MEP and owner of a seafood business himself, tweeted that he had despatched his first box of smoked salmon to the EU and it all went without a hitch: 

His tweet got a lot of replies. One reminded him he had made exactly the same claim about two weeks ago, others pointed to a message on his website saying deliveries to the EU were suspended in January. Another, claimed Forman's company was losing contracts left right and centre. He doesn't reveal the cost of the certificate and said, "The customer is happy to pay." Well, that's alright then - I can't image why he didn't jack up his prices before, can you?  Only he knows the truth but sceptics might also think he would also say that wouldn't he? 

I wonder what his reaction would have been had Brexit never happened and the EU suddenly insisted on an export health certificate for every box of smoked salmon sold in the EU?  I assume he would have been shouting the odds in the European Parliament and spouting a lot of rubbish via the pages of The Sun or The Telegraph. But because it's a result of Brexit, burdening yourself with a lot of extra paperwork and costs is fine and dandy - a great success in fact.  Funny that.

I must say whenever I hear this sort of stuff, my first inclination is to suspect they don't understand the problem. I noticed a tweet linking to a post by John Redwood on his blog in November 2018. He declared that leaving the EU in March 2019 would provide a "huge boost" to the fishing industry:


In it he painted a bright picture and says "If we landed in the UK twice the amount currently landed, that would add £900 m of raw fish value.  This becomes £3.5bn of total value for the UK once the fish have been processed and sold on to final customers. We would develop more fish processing industries, often in coastal communities that need more jobs and more value added processing."

The problem with Redwoods plan is that a lot of the industry have no "final customers" any more. Just a detail of course to the mad monk of Wokingham.

Finally, Politicshome reveals that Environment Secretary George Eustice was expected to send a letter yesterday to the EU expressing dismay with the shellfish ban, which the EU says has been in law for all third countries for a number of years, as the government tries to stop affected businesses going under.

The report is by Adam Payne who told us last week that DEFRA were advising shellfish businesses that exporting to the EU live catch from class B waters — which is most UK waters — was not possible after Brexit. I wonder if George Eustice has heard from John Redwood?  Or if the shell fisherman who read Redwood's blog post in 2018 have been in touch with him?

The CEO of Barclays Bank got an item on BBC news and a report in The Daily Mail by suggesting the impact of Brexit would be "more than likely on the positive side than on the negative side."  There has been a shift of ten thousand jobs into the EU and probably $2 trillion in funds. How this is 'positive' I'm not sure. He thinks the UK should 'take on' New York and Singapore and says:

"Brexit gives the UK the opportunity to define its own agenda, and in defining that agenda around financial services, staying competitive with other markets outside of Europe is really what the Government here should be focused on, and I think that's what they're focusing on."

The EU are absolutely focused on expanding their banking sector. The US is never going to allow London to displace New York. Singapore will be the main focus for the growing Asian Market. Where will London be?  How can Brexit possibly be positive?

Polling by YouGov for LBC seems to show only 25% think Brexit has gone very or fairly well so far compared to 42% who think it's gone very or fairly badly. In the middle 21% think the outcome has been neither good nor bad while another 13% don't know.

I am amazed that 5% of people think it has gone "very well" - who are they?  

Whichever way you look at it, it's hardly a ringing endorsement of Brexit is it?

Posted by at