A new £24m border control post may have to be demolished because repeated changes to post-Brexit border arrangements have left it commercially unviable.
The facility at Portsmouth International Port is due to begin physical checks on food and plant imports from the EU at the end of next month, but changes to border protocols since it was built mean half of the building will never be used.
Built with a £17m central government grant and £7m from Portsmouth City Council, which owns the port, it is designed to carry out checks on up to 80 truck loads of produce a day. The port now expects to process only four or five daily.
As a consequence, half of the 14 loading bays will never be used, and annual running costs of £800,000 a year will not be covered by the fees charged to importers for carrying out checks.
Portsmouth is not alone, with ports across the country puzzling over how to make the over-sized, over-specified buildings commissioned by the government pay for themselves with far less traffic.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs says it spent £200m part-funding new facilities to cope with post-Brexit border controls at 41 ports. It acknowledges that fewer checks will now be required and says ports are free to use spare capacity as they wish.
The problem in Portsmouth is that the facility, built for a very specific purpose inside a secure area, has no obvious commercial use, so the port is considering building a new, smaller facility, and decommissioning or even demolishing the existing building to make space for a commercially viable project.
Image: The new border control post in Portsmouth
“This was built to a Defra [Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs] specification when the border operating model was announced and it’s been mothballed for two years while the checks were delayed,” Mike Sellers, director of Portsmouth International Port and chairman of the British Ports Association, told Sky News.
“Now the border will be operating with far fewer checks, we are going to struggle to cover the running costs of around £800,000 a year.
Advertisement
“So we have to look to the future and work out what strategically is the best way to minimise the impact to the port and to the council.
“I know it sounds ironic, but that could be building another border control post much smaller than this facility, and looking to find commercial ways to get income either through this facility or to demolish it and use the operational land for something else.”
Electoral Dysfunction
Listen to Beth Rigby, Jess Phillips and Ruth Davidson as they unravel the spin in a new weekly podcast from Sky News
Port owner Portsmouth City Council meanwhile wants its £7m share of the £24m build cost reimbursed by the government.
“We as a council had to find £7m to help build this facility and now we’re on the fifth change of mind about how much inspection there will be. Half of this building is going to be left empty, idle, unused, and yet it’s costing council taxpayers of Portsmouth a great deal of money,” said councillor Gerald Vernon-Jones, transport lead for the council.
Were the Portsmouth facility to close it could impact the security of UK food imports, as the port is the main alternative route to Dover, providing much-needed resilience to a supply chain heavily reliant on the Short Straits route.
“It’s a total and absolute mess, we have an enormous white elephant here,” Mr Vernon-Jones said.
“If we can’t afford to keep port health people here all day, every day, to do those examinations then everything will have to come through Dover, and that’s enormously risky for this country. If Dover is closed for some reason, industrial action or whatever, then the whole country’s food is at ransom.”
Image: Portsmouth is the UK’s second busiest cross-Channel port
The British Ports Association meanwhile has raised concerns with ministers about the preparedness of the new inspection regime at new border control posts (BCPs), due to be enforced in less than six weeks.
The trade body says ports have still not been told what hours BCPs will be required to open, or how many staff from two state inspection agencies will be required on site.
Crucially, they also do not know how much they will be able to charge importers for inspections because the government has not revealed what price it will levy at the wholly state-owned and run BCP at Sevington in Kent, 20 miles inland from Dover.
Given the dominance of Dover in UK food imports, the so-called common user charge will set the price for the rest of the market, but other ports still have no idea where to set fees.
Defra says it will inform the industry shortly of the fees it has determined following consultation.
The fate of the Portsmouth facility, obsolete before it has even opened, symbolises the delay and indecision around import controls since the Brexit deal came into force in January 2021.
While UK exports to the EU have faced border and customs controls since 1 January 2021, the UK government has delayed similar checks on EU imports five times and changed the control regime.
The original July 2021 deadline for physical checks of plant and animal produce was postponed because the BCPs were not ready, and further delays followed, with the government citing the impact on the food supply chain and the cost of living crisis.
In April 2022 the government announced a wholesale revision of its plans for the border, introducing a new risk-based approach that limits checks to certain high and medium-risk food and plant categories.
This was then delayed again, with a staged introduction finally beginning in January, with medium-risk food and plant imports requiring health certificates signed off by vets or plant health inspectors, followed by physical checks from 30 April.
Even with reduced checks on importsm the government’s own analysis suggests border controls will add £330m a year to the cost of trading with the continent and increase food inflation.
A spokesperson for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: “Our border control posts have sufficient capacity and capability, including for temperature controlled consignments, to handle the volume and type of expected checks and the authorities will be working to minimise disruption as these checks are introduced.”
An official from the Bank of Russia suggested easing restrictions on cryptocurrencies in response to the sweeping sanctions imposed on the country.
According to a Monday report by local news outlet Kommersant, Bank of Russia First Deputy Governor Vladimir Chistyukhin said the regulator is discussing easing regulations for cryptocurrencies. He explicitly linked the rationale for this effort to the sanctions imposed on Russia by Western countries following its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
Chistyukhin said that easing the crypto rules is particularly relevant when Russia and Russians are subject to restrictions “on the use of normal currencies for making payments abroad.”
Chistyukhin said he expects Russia’s central bank to reach an agreement with the Ministry of Finance on this issue by the end of this month. The central issue being discussed is the removal of the requirement to meet the “super-qualified investor” criteria for buying and selling crypto with actual delivery. The requirement was introduced in late April when Russia’s finance ministry and central bank were launching a crypto exchange.
The super-qualified investor classification, created earlier this year, is defined by wealth and income thresholds of over 100 million rubles ($1.3 million) or an annual income of at least 50 million rubles.
This limits access to cryptocurrencies for transactions or investment to only the wealthiest few in Russian society. “We are discussing the feasibility of using ‘superquals’ in the new regulation of crypto assets,” Chistyukhin said, in an apparent shifting approach to the restrictive regulation.
Russia has been hit with sweeping Western sanctions for years, and regulators in the United States and Europe have increasingly targeted crypto-based efforts to evade those measures.
In late October, the European Union adopted its 19th sanctions package against Russia, including restrictions on cryptocurrency platforms. This also included sanctions against the A7A5 ruble-backed stablecoin, which EU authorities described as “a prominent tool for financing activities supporting the war of aggression.”
Bitcoin’s latest pullback may already be bottoming out, with asset manager Grayscale arguing that the market is on track to break the traditional four-year halving cycle and potentially set new all-time highs in 2026.
Some indicators are already pointing to a local bottom, not a prolonged drawdown, including Bitcoin’s (BTC) elevated option skew rising above 4, which signals that investors have already hedged “extensively” for downside exposure.
Despite a 32% decline, Bitcoin is on track to disrupt the traditional four-year halving cycle, wrote Grayscale in a Monday research report. “Although the outlook is uncertain, we believe the four-year cycle thesis will prove to be incorrect, and that Bitcoin’s price will potentially make new highs next year,” the report said.
Bitcoin pullback, compared to previous drawdowns. Source: research.grayscale.com
Still, Bitcoin’s short-term recovery remains limited until some of the main flow indicators stage a reversal, including futures open interest, exchange-traded fund (ETF) inflows and selling from long-term Bitcoin holders.
US spot Bitcoin ETFs, one of the main drivers of Bitcoin’s momentum in 2025, added significant downside pressure in November, racking up $3.48 billion in net negative outflows in their second-worst month on record, according to Farside Investors.
Bitcoin ETF Flow, in USD, million. Source: Farside Investors
More recently, though, the tide has started to turn. The funds have now logged four consecutive days of inflows, including a modest $8.5 million on Monday, suggesting ETF buyer appetite is slowly returning after the sell-off.
While market positioning suggests a “leverage reset rather than a sentiment break,” the key question is whether Bitcoin can “reclaim the low-$90,000s to avoid sliding toward mid-to-low-$80,000 support,” Iliya Kalchev, dispatch analyst at digital asset platform Nexo, told Cointelegraph.
Fed policy and US crypto bill loom as 2026 catalysts
Crypto market watchers now await the largest “swing factor,” the US Federal Reserve’s interest rate decision on Dec. 10. The Fed’s decision and monetary policy guidance will serve as a significant catalyst for 2026, according to Grayscale.
Markets are pricing in an 87% chance of a 25 basis point interest rate cut, up from 63% a month ago, according to the CME Group’s FedWatch tool.
Later in 2026, Grayscale said continued progress toward the Digital Asset Market Structure bill may act as another catalyst for driving “institutional investment in the industry.” However, for more progress to be made, crypto needs to remain a “bipartisan issue,” and not turn into a partisan topic for the midterm US elections.
That effort effectively began with the passage of the CLARITY Act in the House of Representatives, which moved forward in July as part of the Republicans’ “crypto week” agenda. Senate leaders have said they plan to “build on” the House bill under the banner of the Responsible Financial Innovation Act, aiming to set a broader framework for digital asset markets.
The bill is currently under consideration in the Republican-led Senate Agriculture Committee and the Senate Banking Committee. Senate Banking Chair Tim Scott said in November that the committee planned to have the bill ready for signing into law by early 2026.
Poland’s President Karol Nawrocki declined to sign a bill imposing strict regulations on the crypto asset market, drawing praise from the crypto community and sharp criticism from others in the government.
Nawrocki vetoed Poland’s Crypto-Asset Market Act, saying its provisions “genuinely threaten the freedoms of Poles, their property, and the stability of the state,” according to a statement by the president’s press office on Monday.
Introduced in June, the bill has drawn criticism from industry advocates such as Polish politician Tomasz Mentzen, who had anticipated the president’s refusal to sign it as it cleared parliamentary approval.
Although crypto advocates welcomed the veto as a win for the market, several government officials condemned the move, claiming the president had “chosen chaos” and must bear full responsibility for the outcome.
Why the president vetoed the bill
One of the main reasons cited for the veto was a provision allowing authorities to easily block websites operating in the crypto market.
“Domain blocking laws are opaque and can lead to abuse,” the president’s office said in an official news release.
The president’s office also cited the bill’s widely criticized length, saying its complexity reduces transparency and would lead to “overregulation,” especially when compared with simpler frameworks in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary.
Source: Press office of Polish President Karol Nawrocki (post translated by X)
“Overregulation is an easy way to drive companies to the Czech Republic, Lithuania or Malta, rather than create conditions for them to operate and pay taxes in Poland,” the president said.
Nawrocki also highlighted the excessive amount of supervisory fees, which may prevent startup activity and favor foreign corporations and banks.
“This is a reversal of logic, killing off a competitive market and a serious threat to innovation,” he said.
Critics jump in: “The president chose chaos”
Nawrocki’s veto has triggered a strong backlash from top Polish officials, including Finance Minister Andrzej Domański and Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Radosław Sikorski.
Domański warned on X that “already now 20% of clients are losing their money as a result of abuses in this market,” accusing the president of having “chosen chaos” and saying he bears full responsibility for the fallout.
Sikorski echoed the concern, saying that the bill was supposed to regulate the crypto market. “When the bubble bursts and thousands of Poles lose their savings, at least they will know who to thank,” Sikorski argued on X.
Source: Finance Minister Andrzej Domański (posts translated by X)
Crypto advocates, including Polish economist Krzysztof Piech, quickly pushed back, arguing that the president cannot be held responsible for authorities failing to pursue scammers.
He also noted that the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) is set to provide investor protections across all EU member states starting July 1, 2026.