British wine is a distinct and very different product to English wine. If you have tried ‘British’ wine it tends to be sweet, sickly and (even to a wine philistine like me) quite clearly a poor quality product. By contrast, English wine is now being hailed as some of the finest being produced in the world and the sparkling wine is being seen to consistently outstrip Champagne in international competitions.

I was reading an article this morning from a New Zealand news site with the headline ‘The ‘British’ wine made from imported grapes’. It took the view that there is widespread confusion between the two products, especially in the international market. I tend to agree but would go further and say that this confusion, as the popularity of English wine grows,  is likely to be extremely damaging.

British wine is made from imported grapes, or worse, a sort of grape syrup, which is then fermented in the UK, it is not made from the grapes that are grown in British vineyards.  The practice is legal and widespread in the £240m discount wine industry, and cheap wine brands have become increasingly popular in recent years.

Tesco, Asda and Lidl are among those selling ‘British’ wines made from cheap grapes grown and pressed abroad. They are then labeled as being a British product. I suppose, in reality, this process is no different to importing cotton and making a T-shirt in the UK so it is hard to call this labeling disingenuous, as some suggest. However, the result is that English wine is very likely to get tarred with the same brush as British wine in the minds of many.

So, in short, the English wine industry, in my opinion face a ticking time bomb of a PR problem here. My advice to the English wine industry would not be at attacking the ‘British’ wine makers, as some have taken to doing. But rather attempting to rebrand their own product to make it clearly more distinct. They should get together and as a collective invest in the future of thier industry.

– James

George Osborne certainly has a lot to answer for – UK manufacturing has shrunk twice as fast as other other developed nations since 2000, with more than 100,000 jobs lost.

In a wake of a further budget, a report by the respected think-tank, the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) exposed the steep decline of UK manufacturing by announcing that Britain’s manufacturing base is one of the worst performing of the world’s developed countries.

Output in our once world leading Steel and chemical industries have stagnated during the economic recovery and have seen at least 100,000 jobs disappear in recent years.

The stagnation of ‘foundation industries’ like basic metals, chemicals, wood and pharmaceuticals also threatens the success of the governments plans for a ‘Northern Powerhouse’, with many of those sectors are concentrated in the North, Midlands and Wales.

Some 90% of domestic demand for chemicals and metals come from imports – some of them subsidised by the British taxpayer, up from 40% in the 1990s.

The report suggests that an increase in these core manufacturing sectors of just 1% in UK production would add an extra £2.3 billion to gross output and create 19,000 jobs. So it is clear that there needs to be renewed calls for government action to stop the dumping of steel and other metals on British and European markets by China and Russia.

The report goes on to suggest a number of, seemingly sensible, options to help recovery; The provision of reduced energy costs for steel-makers and other firms, a regional growth fund underspend should be used to boost struggling industries such as aerospace, automobile and pharmaceutical manufacturing and a new ‘right to buy’ for employees to take over firms that are about to close or be sold off.

The later, to my mind, is perhaps the most interesting of these.

You can read the full report here.

In the Victorian era, Britain was responsible for 40% of the global supply of steel. It may soon produce nearly none at all.

Should Tata sell off its sites in Scunthorpe or Port Talbot, following the closure of their Redcar plant last year, Britain would become the only member of the G7 no longer making steel.

British steelmaking has been in decline for more than a century. By the start of World War I our industry was overshadowed by the USA and was quickly followed by Germany.  By the 1980’s we produced less than 10 million tons, slipping below France, Italy and Belgium.  China is currently by far the biggest producer making 1.67 billion tons of steel, equal to about half of the worlds supply.

But it does beg the question, in a country fueled majoritively by financial services, whether a major industrial economy needs to produce steel at all?

The two sides of the story

It seems that there are two opinions regarding Britain’s need to produce steel.

It is clear that, for the foreseeable future, steel production in the UK is unprofitable. If we engage in a bailout, as many are calling for, we a likely locking both capital and labour into unproductive work. It could be tantamount to giving up on Capitalism all together.

However, as the British automotive industry is currently churning out 1.6 million new vehicles each year. The government has plans to produce, in the short-term, a new high speed rail network, invest Billions in the Trident nuclear program and build a new power station at Hinckley. All of these projects will require hundreds of tons of steel.

Although I read an article in The Sun this morning and it appears that it may never have been on The Governments agenda to use British steel in these projects in any event. It transpires that many of the large scale steel contracts, since the Conservative government took power, have been going abroad anyway thus reversing a previous ‘buy British’ policy for defense projects. (see the image right for details)

It would seem that our own government is conspiring against us fpr years and is, at least partly, responsible for the current situation.

In the sort-term the closure of the furnaces will affect the people in the communities whose welfare relies on them but in the long-term, it will lessen the integrated capabilities of the UK to do anything. The knock on effect could ultimately decimate Britain’s core manufacturing base.

Ultimately is seems essential that such a primary infrastructure, like steel, is protected in order that it can underpin our already stretched manufacturing sector.

In my humble opinion the only option is re-nationalisation but this option looks to be off the cards for this Government.

On 23rd June 2016, Britain will vote on whether to leave the European Union. Debate abounds as to the advantages of staying in the EU or choosing to ‘Brexit’, with many focusing on the financial advantages/disadvantages of either option. Having weighed up the options here is our view of things.

The death to the City?

To turn a phrase – news of the death of London has been greatly exaggerated. Whatever the decision come June it is clear that there will be both winners and losers, and the City of London, at least in the short-term, is likely to suffer if a split from Europe is decided. The City of London can be perhaps be considered the financial center of the EU and a Brexit is sure to weaken its domination to some extent but it is such a strong financial centre that is it would soon bounce back. And unlike other areas of the UK economy, such as manufacturing, the City is strong enough to take the pain. Ultimately, London does too much business with Asia, the Americas, the Middle East, and the world in general, to lose out entirely to Paris or Frankfurt.

The truth is that effects of the anticipated, if modest, contraction of the City would still have a knock-on effect on the rest of the UK economy in the short-term but would likely offer opportunities to other areas of the UK.

London property bubble to burst

If you own property in London, where house prices are vastly exaggerated over the rest of the country, you might expect to see a decline on your investment. Some analysts predict that your your city apartment might hemorrhage as much three quarters of it’s current value as the foreign investors move out.  Bad news for us some in the short-term but in an economy of wildly inflated, and frankly unsustainable, property prices it could offer a real lifeline for the younger generation. Sure the cash-cow property has been over the last 20 years would be put out for slaughter but it would enable Millennials working in London to buy houses at more reasonable prices and could make it a much more attractive commercial centre in the longer-term.

Pound Plunge

The pound has fallen by 17% against the dollar over the past two years and would likely decline further if Britain were to leave the EU. The net result would likely mean a fall to around 1-to-1 against the U.S. dollar.

However, Britain runs a perpetual balance of payments deficit, so a lower pound would stimulate the British export industries. This is fantastic news for British manufacturing making us far more competitive than we have been in over 30 years.

Now being free to negotiate our own trade deals to the rest of the world we would certainly see a dramatic rise in production outside of financial services.

Scotland

The Scottish independence referendum in 2014 was a vote in favour of staying in Britain, but only just. It is likely that, following a Brexit from Europe, there would be renewed insistence from Scotland to a further referendum to leave Britain with a view to them cementing alternative relations in Europe.

While this issue prompts further debate on the likelihood and effects of a split between Britain and Scotland, it does serve to complicate the current debate at hand.

Bye Bye Brussels Bureaucracy

Being in Europe costs us a around £55 million each and every day and this figure does not include huge amount in regulatory costs.

With those costs gone, taxes reduced, real estate costs slashed, and the exchange rate more competitive, Britain would be well-placed to compete with the Americas, the Far East, Middle East, and Africa – most of which are growing much faster than the EU.

Summary

Following Brexit there would obviously be short-term pain for all but if you take a longer-term view our future outside of the EU seems a lot brighter than in. In the long-term wealth would be spread more equally across all regions of the UK, rather than concentrated on Londoners and the very rich.

As we have said before, it is unlikely that big business would leave the UK in any meaningful way (despite what the papers currently say) and indeed, leaving the EU, might make us a better investment opportunity for other markets, like the USA.

In short, if you want to protect your short-term investment then staying in Europe seems like the option for you. If, however, you are prepared to take a longer-term, more altruistic view, then the 23rd June might be your opportunity to ‘get out of dodge’.

Whatever option you choose it is clear that it is a decision not to be taken lightly. As a nation we will never get this opportunity to shape the face of this country to such an extent again, so our advice is to go to the polls with a clear idea of what you are signing up for.