Tuesday, 29 January 2019

Preaching to the converted


Just over a week ago, a publication dropped through my letter box and I imagine the same situation would have occurred in many households up and down the country. The publication in question was a copy of “Wetherspoon News”, the quarterly house magazine of the ubiquitous chain of JDW pubs.

In the past I have often picked up a copy of the magazine, especially whilst having a coffee or some breakfast on my own. It’s a glossed up version of the folded news sheet type of publication which Shepherd Neame used to produce for their tied estate, but unlike the Shep’s version which is aimed primarily at the licensed trade, Wetherspoon News is much more a magazine for the casual reader. In other words its readership is drawn largely from Spoon’s own customers.

So far so good, and whilst much of publication’s content is given over to news about particular JDW outlets, and the events (charity-related or otherwise) they might have been running, there was usually at least one brewing-related article about a particular brewery or perhaps a certain  style of  beer. These were the articles which I found most appealing, and were primarily the reason for me picking up the magazine in the first place.

The Winter 2018/19 edition which dropped onto my door mat the other week, does contain a one page article about the South Wales brewery of Evan Evans, along with the usual splashes about various pub-inspired charity events, but a substantial chunk of the publication is taken up with page after page of pro-Brexit /anti-EU propaganda emanating from the pen of Wetherspoon’s chairman, Tim Martin.

Including amongst Tim’s often crazed rants is an instruction to boycott goods from France and Germany; two countries which tousle-haired Tim reserves particular ire for, with a warning that the UK public must take steps to drop imports from the above nations, to zero. He goes on to tell readers that, “A world of taste awaits as we scrap EU brands”.

Martin boasts that “JDW have scoured the world to banish drink brands purchased from within the European Union”. For example, Spoon’s no longer stock Jägermerister; instead they sell an English herbal concoction called Strika, and offer their "discerning" customers Strikabombs, rather than Jägerbombs. French Champagne has been replaced by sparkling wines from Britain and Australia, and German wheat beers have been replaced by home-grown varieties.

Martin seems especially proud of this small-minded,  pettiness, but if you scratch beneath the surface, you’ll soon discover that Guinness and Stella, both of which are produced in the EU, are not included in this boycott., so clearly Tim isn’t really putting his money where his mouth is.

If further proof were needed, Kopparberg cider is also excluded from the ban; the excuse being that Kopparberg have told JDW that they will be producing their cider in the UK, post-Brexit. In effect this is just empty gesture politics, especially as most Wetherspoon’s customers won’t notice the difference, but there’s nothing like a bit of publicity where good old Tim Martin takes up his cudgel, against the evil EU, on behalf of the poor oppressed Brits.

But Martin isn’t finished yet, as he follows in the footsteps of gormless Michael Gove, by berating “experts” . What do these captains of industry know, compared to Tim and his loyal, Brexit-supporting customers? We then see the JDW chairman lionising Boris Johnson; surely the biggest charlatan behind the whole sorry Brexit fiasco.

Obviously Mr Martin, as both founder and chairman of Wetherspoon’s, can express his views in whatever way he likes, although it is worth noting he has always been vehemently opposed to the European Union. However, Martin fails to take account of a referendum result that was much narrower than many Brexiteers would have us believe, and by bombarding customers with his political views in both his house magazine and with pro-Brexit beer mats (remember them?), he risks alienating a large chunk of his potential customer base.

Perhaps Tim is merely preaching to the converted, given the preponderance of over 60, stereo-typical male “gammons” amongst his clientele; that and the terminally work-shy all-day drinker.
 
Now there's no denying that Tim Martin is a successful businessman, and I'm certain that deep down he's a decent sort of bloke as well. But as a businessman he goes against the majority of his peers not just with his support of Brexit per se,  but for his advocacy of a disastrous, no-deal Brexit.

Leaving the European Union without some kind of a deal was not something contemplated at the time of the referendum, and neither was it advocated by the majority of Brexiteers. Yet somehow the crazy idea of crashing out of the EU without any kind of arrangements in place to deal with the ensuing chaos which would ensue, has crept into the debate over the past few months, and one of its biggest supporters is none other than Timbo himself.

Only the craziest of die-hard Brexiteers back such a scenario, but Mr Martin is one of them, and he is using his pubs and his house magazine to back such a move. As well as pushing the country off the Brexit cliff, Tim even claims the UK could withhold the £39 billion settlement, which has already been agreed with our European partners.

He conveniently forgets that withholding this money would put us in breach of our current treaty obligations, under international law, thereby demonstrating, at a time when our standing in the world is at an all time low, that the UK is a country which cannot be trusted to  keep its word. If we want all these magic, still to be negotiated “free trade” agreements, that our little pip-squeak of an International Trade Secretary has been clocking up the air-miles to secure (so far with little success),  Britain  is going to need all the friends it can get.

So as a direct result of "Little Englander" Tim Martin’s  xenophobic, anti-European rhetoric,  I will no longer be spending any of my hard-earned cash in any of Tim’s establishments. I have already destroyed my Spoon’s vouchers, and after 45 years membership, I will also seriously consider whether I wish to remain a member of CAMRA.

Instead I will spread my custom around independently-owned pubs and bars; places that are run by local people for the benefit of local people, rather than a multi-millionaire who, whilst berating what he calls the “urban elite”, conveniently forgets his fortune places him firmly within that exact same camp,

I know these are small gestures, but two can play at the boycott game. Wetherspoon’s recently reported a profit warning, blaming rising labour costs, higher utility bills and interest charges, so things are already not looking as rosy as Mr Martin might wish, and by continuing to back a no-deal Brexit, he is likely to find things getting  a lot worse.

Footnote: It seems that a growing number of Tim Martin's staff do not share his enthusiasm for a damaging, no-deal Brexit, and many are blatantly unhappy about having to dish out copies of  his biased magazine.


19 comments:

Etu said...

No-deal EU exit "good for business", says owner of pubco for skint no-hopers.

Grizwald said...

Etu...
After working my whole life and being cheated out of a pension which I contributed AVCs to - I now find myself skint. I would love to frequent my local craft bars and micro-pubs and be able to afford £5 gose and saissons. I cannot.
I voted remain BUT obviously I am a "skint no hoper". Thank you for reminding me of my place in the pecking order.

John Lamb said...

I believe that Wetherspoon News,by providing equal space for differing viewpoints regarding the exit from the EU provides a useful public service by helping people come to a more informed decision. The obligation to pay £39,000,000.00 to the EU is not currently enshrined in international law and will not become so unless a withdrawal agreement is agreed and approved by Parliament,until this happens you are wrong to state that non payment of this, or indeed any sum,would be a breach of international law. I respect your decision to boycott Wetherspoon's premises and/or CAMRA,however,I will not be joining you.

Etu said...

I'm truly sorry Grizwald.

I am utterly disgusted and appalled, by what is happening in this country.

My attempt at irony, in response to Paul's fine piece, was something of a knee-jerk, to salvage some kind of a laugh at least, from the dismal spectacle that we see day after day.

The point of the line, I accept, is a bitter one, and the language used is meant to reflect the cynicism of the exploiter. It is absolutely not my own.

John, could you provide a link to a legal authority on that point? Thanks.


Cnut the Great said...

Aw diddums, did the nasty man with the mullet put a leaflet with hurty words through your letter box?

John Lamb said...

Etu,
I understand that the obligation to pay a settlement sum to the EU is contained within a withdrawal agreement which,subject to ratification by the UK parliament,can be concluded by the UK and the EU in accordance with Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. If no withdrawal agreement is concluded,either because no agreement can be reached or ratification by parliament does not take place, then the obligation to pay the settlement sum no longer exists. Article 50 allows the UK and any other member of the EU,to withdraw without concluding a withdrawal agreement,in such circumstances there may be financial claims existing between the EU and the withdrawing member and vice versa,however such claims would be subject to further agreement or adjudication. It is therefore wrong to say that there is an obligation to pay a settlement sum until the agreement is ratified by both parties.

Etu said...

The Great One.

I'm not in the least "hurt" by the absolute baloney, that Tim Martin spouts re the EU, and I can't speak for him, but I personally doubt that Paul is either.

The emotions are different, they are in my case, as I said, disgust, at the lies that have been peddled, and at the hunger among the bitter either to swallow them, or to affect that, as an excuse for the anger and hatred directed at those against whom they were always prejudiced anyway.

Absolutely no good can come from any of this, it is self-evident.

Thank you John, I'll do some more reading.

Etu said...

John: there are different opinions.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-can-we-avoid-paying-the-39-billion-brexit-divorce-bill

The UK could find The Hague settling the matter, it seems.

Paul Bailey said...

Thank-you all for your contributions so far; I expect there will be quite a few more given the controversial nature of the topic. I am typing this during my lunch-hour – whilst I still have a job, so my responses aren’t as detailed as I would like, but to put it bluntly, a no-deal Brexit would mean my company being unable to sell its products within Europe, as we would lose our right to CE mark them.

We are progressing contingency plans to deal with a managed exit from the world’s largest trading block, but what Tim Martin and his supports are advocating will crucify us, along with many others in the same field. Despite his acumen in running his pub chain, Tim Martin has no idea about the effect of no-deal on other industries, hence my surprise at his ignorance, and my anger at his approach.

Moving swiftly on, I empathise with you regarding pensions Grizwald, and even though I haven’t been shafted in the same manner as you, I was persuaded, as many were, to go down the “money purchase “ route, rather than choosing the “final salary” option. Consequently my reasonably-sized pension pot, will buy me naff all in terms of a pension, when I reach state retirement age in two years’ time.

John Lamb, your are correct with regard to Wetherspoon News printing viewpoints from the “Remain” side of the fence, but above each piece was a stern rebuff from Tim Martin, making it blindingly obvious (as if we didn’t know already), which side of the fence he stood. What I was attempting to do in my piece, was to counteract some of Martin’s more preposterous claims. I also wanted to keep my article as brief as possible.

You are correct Etu, in assuming that I am not in the least bit “hurt” by the fantasies and falsehoods pedalled by Tim Martin and his ilk, but if enough people follow my lead and boycott his dreary and dire establishments, we can perhaps hit him where it will hurt most – in his pocket!

Cnut, surely the irony of your pseudonym’s anagram is not lost on you? However, just because you talk like one, there’s no need to act like one!

Bradshaw's Ghost said...

"I am utterly disgusted and appalled, by what is happening in this country."

Yes, what is utterly disgusting and appalling is the way a group of arrogant, élitist snobs have sought to undermine a democratic verdict. That, and only that, is what has caused the poison and division in the country.

We had a referendum, which was supported by a large majority in Parliament, and we were promised that the government would implement what we decided. If that doesn't happen, it shows complete contempt for democracy and has potentially grievous consequences.

Anyway, given the result of last night's votes, it looks more likely that we will be leaving as planned on March 29th, deal or no deal :-)

Etu said...

Just for clarity, I think that the EU needs the UK to leave ASAP. It is poisoning the whole project, and the end of its spanners-in -the-works approach would be very welcome.

However, the UK desperately needs the necessary arrangements to enable companies like Paul's to continue as normal.

It appalls me that Parliament failed to guarantee that yesterday.

Doing that would not in the slightest have undermined the referendum. There was no question on the ballot paper as to what the UK's post-exit relationship with the EU should be, and the good people working for a sensible one absolutely do not deserve the reprehensible abuse that has been directed at them.

Paul Bailey said...

Sadly I think you are right Etu, and the European Union will be glad to see the back of Britain; especially following the behaviour of the UK government throughout the last two years of negotiations.

Having said that, it was extremely naïve of those backing “Leave” to think that the integration, trading arrangements and pooled resources which have built up between the UK and the EU over the past 40 years, could be dismantled overnight and replaced with something else.

It’s interesting that none of the Brexiteers have been able to come up with anything that remotely resembles a plan, apart from some half-baked ideas about turning the UK into a North Sea version of Singapore. I’m no fan of Jeremy Corbyn, but his remark about “Bargain basement Britain” was not wide of the mark.

What we are experiencing is a right-wing coup, from a Tory party which has morphed into UKIP, and where decency, compassion and respect for one’s fellow human beings are being thrown out of the window. The rights we currently enjoy as citizens of the European Union are about to be jettisoned anyway, so why not go a stage further, and rule the county by decree?

If proof were needed of this, following the decision to deploy the army in the event of a no-deal Brexit, some government ministers are now openly talking about declaring martial law. This would provide the perfect excuse to bring in an “Enabling Act” , similar to that enacted in Germany, during the 1930’s, by a certain Austrian corporal.

Both Hitler and Mussolini were firm believers in referendums, as means of pushing through divisive, but populist measures, in the name of democracy; often with disastrous consequences for anyone who dared to disagree with them. Personally, I prefer the term, “Plebiscite” because the clue is in the name, but people like our friend Bradshaw, above seem to think that a simple yes/no answer on a ballot paper, is “democracy”, and that it can solve an extremely complex issue, such as leaving the EU.

Bradshaw goes on to talk about elitist snobs, conveniently forgetting that many backers of Brexit are members of a very select “elite” group. People like Johnson, Gove, Rees-Mogg, Farage, Dyson, Banks, Bamford et al, are not your average man in the street, but instead members of a super rich group who stand to benefit enormously from Britain leaving the EU.

Any pretext that this group care about the average “Joe” is pure fantasy, but what is more ironic is the people who voted for Brexit, are those most likely to be adversely affected by it. The Germans call this “Schadenfreude”, although it is perhaps a little unfair to wish ill of a group who didn’t really know what they were voting for.

The “poison and division” BG refers to has come about because the Prime Minister completely ignored the narrowness of the referendum result, by ignoring completely the 16 million + citizens who voted to “Remain”. A “Norway-Style” Brexit would have been a satisfactory solution, which would have respected the referendum result, whilst ensuring disruption to business and the economy was kept to a minimum.

Instead Theresa may has pursued the hardest of Brexits possible by ruling out the UK remaining in both the Customs Union and the Single Market – ignorant of the fact that the latter was a British idea in the first place.

This is why people are angry Mr Bradshaw, and this is why there will continue to be division and mistrust in the country. I continued to be appalled by what is happening to Britain now that the genie of populism has been let out of the bottle, with no-one having any idea of how to put it back.

Etu said...

I'm fed up with namby-pamby, wet-lettuce, PC terms Paul.

When is a politician going to have the guts and call things what they are?

Take this word "populism". That really just means mass cretinism, of the most vicious and cynical kind, doesn't it?

Where is the one with the morality, to stand up before the country and say this simple truth out loud? Because until someone does, things can only get worse.

That was an excellent post, and I admire your patience and fluency. Thank you.

John Lamb said...

There is real concern throughout Europe regarding the EU's project which lacks substantial public support. The President of France has said that if a referendum/plebiscite/peoples vote was held in France it would result in a vote to leave the EU. A desire to preserve a nation's sovereignty and way of life cannot be put down to 'mass cretinism'.Perhaps if the EU had stuck to being 'the worlds largest trading block' then it would not,perhaps, be facing the same level of opposition to its project,which,like all empires, is ultimately doomed to failure.

Etu said...

John, there is a range of public opinion across Europe on all EU issues, as there is anywhere on their own.

One thing is for sure though. Support for it, since the UK's vote to leave, has measurably increased, notably in Austria.

But this country is leaving, so whatever people here might think of the EU will no longer make a blind bit of difference to it.

Unless, that is, as I and millions of others intend to do, you take up the offer of Associate Citizenship, as the EU Parliament has in principle agreed to grant.

I look forward to swearing my Oath Of Allegiance and to paying the relevant fee.

Incidentally, I was not asserting that most Leave voters were "populists". Many are nice, decent people. However, it's difficult to live in a climate of endemic fallacy, created by the Murdoch empire, Dacre, the Express and the Telegraph, while the BBC allows the agenda to be set by them, without osmosis having its insidious effect.

Etu said...

John, sorry to nitpick.

But the possibility, that Marr put to Macron was, that if there were a referendum in France then it "could have gone the same way".

Macron said one word, "probably". Logically - as-the French think - this can only mean that he accepted that such a possibility probably existed.

Too much has been made of this, since EU membership is now written into the French Constitution anyway - as in the other twenty-six - and it would require super majorities etc. to change that.

The problem, that would have instantly occurred to Macron, would have been one of creating conflict between some of the people and the Constitution, as has happened here.

Before claiming that there is anything undemocratic about Macron, I'd read the French Constitution, and what it says about referendums, however.

Paul Bailey said...

Thank-you for your comments Etu and John. It is encouraging to get constructive views from both sides of the debate, without the sneering cynicism of the other correspondents (Grizwald excepted).

Without going over all the arguments again, several things stand out. First, a major constitutional change – such as leaving the European Union, should always require a “super majority” of at least 66%. This is a requirement for any changes to the constitution of the United States, but unlike us Brits the Americans have a written constitution.

Cameron was both lazy and arrogant when he failed to stipulate this for the EU Referendum, he also took his eye off the ball and allowed a clause to be inserted in the leaflet stating that the government would act on the result, thereby changing what was supposed to be an advisory referendum.

Second, Tuesday night’s vote in Parliament, proved that politicians from both sides are more interested in their own positions and preserving the unity of their respective parties, than they are in the interests, and indeed the after of the nation as a whole.

The insidious nature of much of the British press, which has kept up a constant drip-drip of anti-EU propaganda over several decades, sealed the result, long before the first votes were cast. Because of the influence men such as Dacre and Murdoch, I knew things would end badly, when Cameron first proposed the referendum, prior to the 2015 General Election.

The European Union is definitely in need of reform, but had we opted to remain a member, we could have been instrumental in driving this. Let’s not forget that the UK has played a major role in the evolution of the EU, with the Single Market being our greatest contribution.

Finally, as I said earlier, May’s government should have adopted a much more conciliatory approach towards the 16 million remain voters; especially given the narrowness of the result. A Norway-style agreement would have been acceptable to many in the remain camp, including me, and I think I’m right in thinking that such a deal was offered by the EU at the start of the negotiations.

May’s elementary mistake was to box herself into a corner, just to please the loony “Kipper” fringe on the far right of her party. By laying down and sticking to her infamous “red lines”, (no custom’s union and no single market), she ties the hands of her negotiating team right from the start, alienated many people both here and in Europe, and allowed any good will which had been there at the start, to evaporate.

Jumping into bed with an ultra-conservative party, like the DUP was her other big mistake. Unfortunately these reactionary loons are the ones calling the shots, and the fate of the nation is in the hands of these bigots.

That’s all for now, although I’m sure there will be more, and I’m sure too that big Tim will have more no-deal Brexit nonsense to spread amongst visitors to his pubs.

Ian Worden said...

You won't get Tim Martin to budge unless the other large shareholders can be persuaded to support change. I've just found the AGM voting figures for the company from November, and with 86% of shares voted, Tim was re-elected with 96% support. Three other directors, led by John Hutson, did get over 99% support, but this certainly puts Tim in a very strong position to carry on as before.

Etu said...

James O'Brien does a similar take, Paul:

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/james-obrien-reads-wetherspoons-brexit-magazine/