Buying a beer abroad ‘nearly 50p more expensive typically since Brexit vote’
The cost of buying a beer abroad could be around 16% or nearly 50p more expensive now than three years ago due to the weakened pound, according to analysis. Foreign exchange firm Caxton FX compiled a “Brexit beer index” by looking at the average cost of a beer now in various countries. It compared currency exchange rates now with those in June 2016, when the EU referendum was held, to show the impact of currency movements over the past three years.
So that will be 50p cheaper than buying a Beer in Cornwall, £1 cheaper than in London and at least £2 cheaper than buying one at Manchester Airport
EDIT: except for buying a Pint in Mr Brexit's WETHERSPOONS of course!
Taking back control of our beer then?
Yes for sure. Mr WETHERSPOONS is selling British Beer at £1.99 a pint in many of his Pubs
Wouldn't be seen dead in one of his pubs.
Some of us can only afford to drink in his pubs. Always good to look for Value..... and I can assure you, they aren't half busy!
No-deal Brexit: Documents on food and medicine shortages should be kept secret to avoid scaring public, minister says
Documents warning of food, fuel and medicine shortages after a no-deal Brexit should be kept secret because they will scare people, a government minister says. Andrea Leadsom, the business secretary, signalled Boris Johnson will defy parliament’s order to release the Operation Yellowhammer dossier – arguing the public was better left in the dark. “I actually do not think that it serves people well to see what is the absolutely worst thing that can happen,” Ms Leadsom said.
The Yellowhammer file also warned that efforts to avoid the return of a hard border in Ireland are likely to prove “unsustainable”, with “significant economic, legal and biosecurity risks” that would require checks. “Disruption to key sectors and job losses are likely to result in protests and direct action with road blockages,” it concluded. Ministers were forced to acknowledge that, far from being “out of date" as they initially claimed, the dossier had been put together at the start of August. The 11pm deadline also applies to WhatsApp, Facebook, text messages and personal emails from No 10 advisers, in a bid to prove Mr Johnson prorogued parliament because of Brexit, despite his denials. That controversy has been given a rocket boost today by the shock decision, by the Court of Sessions in Scotland, that the prime minister misled the Queen over the true reason. Downing Street sources have said that “under no circumstances” would aides hand over their personal correspondence to MPs.
Buying a beer abroad ‘nearly 50p more expensive typically since Brexit vote’
The cost of buying a beer abroad could be around 16% or nearly 50p more expensive now than three years ago due to the weakened pound, according to analysis. Foreign exchange firm Caxton FX compiled a “Brexit beer index” by looking at the average cost of a beer now in various countries. It compared currency exchange rates now with those in June 2016, when the EU referendum was held, to show the impact of currency movements over the past three years.
So that will be 50p cheaper than buying a Beer in Cornwall, £1 cheaper than in London and at least £2 cheaper than buying one at Manchester Airport
EDIT: except for buying a Pint in Mr Brexit's WETHERSPOONS of course!
Andy Capp breaks his 62 year political silence to give his views on Brexit After today's comic showed Andy Capp joining an anti-Brexit march, we went straight to the man himself to clear up what he really thinks about the biggest issue in British politics
Buying a beer abroad ‘nearly 50p more expensive typically since Brexit vote’
The cost of buying a beer abroad could be around 16% or nearly 50p more expensive now than three years ago due to the weakened pound, according to analysis. Foreign exchange firm Caxton FX compiled a “Brexit beer index” by looking at the average cost of a beer now in various countries. It compared currency exchange rates now with those in June 2016, when the EU referendum was held, to show the impact of currency movements over the past three years.
So that will be 50p cheaper than buying a Beer in Cornwall, £1 cheaper than in London and at least £2 cheaper than buying one at Manchester Airport
EDIT: except for buying a Pint in Mr Brexit's WETHERSPOONS of course!
Andy Capp breaks his 62 year political silence to give his views on Brexit After today's comic showed Andy Capp joining an anti-Brexit march, we went straight to the man himself to clear up what he really thinks about the biggest issue in British politics
Really??
....... you're scraping the bottom of the barrel now, to help get Brexit stopped
I'm looking forward to the General Election, and The Brexit Party putting candidates up in Labour strongholds, where they voted to LEAVE ...... should be a FUN evening
Buying a beer abroad ‘nearly 50p more expensive typically since Brexit vote’
The cost of buying a beer abroad could be around 16% or nearly 50p more expensive now than three years ago due to the weakened pound, according to analysis. Foreign exchange firm Caxton FX compiled a “Brexit beer index” by looking at the average cost of a beer now in various countries. It compared currency exchange rates now with those in June 2016, when the EU referendum was held, to show the impact of currency movements over the past three years.
So that will be 50p cheaper than buying a Beer in Cornwall, £1 cheaper than in London and at least £2 cheaper than buying one at Manchester Airport
EDIT: except for buying a Pint in Mr Brexit's WETHERSPOONS of course!
Andy Capp breaks his 62 year political silence to give his views on Brexit After today's comic showed Andy Capp joining an anti-Brexit march, we went straight to the man himself to clear up what he really thinks about the biggest issue in British politics
Really??
....... you're scraping the bottom of the barrel now, to help get Brexit stopped
I'm looking forward to the General Election, and The Brexit Party putting candidates up in Labour strongholds, where they voted to LEAVE ...... should be a FUN evening
I was really surprised, as I expected him to be a leave voter.
Buying a beer abroad ‘nearly 50p more expensive typically since Brexit vote’
The cost of buying a beer abroad could be around 16% or nearly 50p more expensive now than three years ago due to the weakened pound, according to analysis. Foreign exchange firm Caxton FX compiled a “Brexit beer index” by looking at the average cost of a beer now in various countries. It compared currency exchange rates now with those in June 2016, when the EU referendum was held, to show the impact of currency movements over the past three years.
So that will be 50p cheaper than buying a Beer in Cornwall, £1 cheaper than in London and at least £2 cheaper than buying one at Manchester Airport
EDIT: except for buying a Pint in Mr Brexit's WETHERSPOONS of course!
Andy Capp breaks his 62 year political silence to give his views on Brexit After today's comic showed Andy Capp joining an anti-Brexit march, we went straight to the man himself to clear up what he really thinks about the biggest issue in British politics
Really??
....... you're scraping the bottom of the barrel now, to help get Brexit stopped
I'm looking forward to the General Election, and The Brexit Party putting candidates up in Labour strongholds, where they voted to LEAVE ...... should be a FUN evening
Around 25% of Labour voters supported leave, in total.
Buying a beer abroad ‘nearly 50p more expensive typically since Brexit vote’
The cost of buying a beer abroad could be around 16% or nearly 50p more expensive now than three years ago due to the weakened pound, according to analysis. Foreign exchange firm Caxton FX compiled a “Brexit beer index” by looking at the average cost of a beer now in various countries. It compared currency exchange rates now with those in June 2016, when the EU referendum was held, to show the impact of currency movements over the past three years.
So that will be 50p cheaper than buying a Beer in Cornwall, £1 cheaper than in London and at least £2 cheaper than buying one at Manchester Airport
EDIT: except for buying a Pint in Mr Brexit's WETHERSPOONS of course!
Andy Capp breaks his 62 year political silence to give his views on Brexit After today's comic showed Andy Capp joining an anti-Brexit march, we went straight to the man himself to clear up what he really thinks about the biggest issue in British politics
Really??
....... you're scraping the bottom of the barrel now, to help get Brexit stopped
I'm looking forward to the General Election, and The Brexit Party putting candidates up in Labour strongholds, where they voted to LEAVE ...... should be a FUN evening
I was really surprised, as I expected him to be a leave voter.
He probably didn't like the Yellowhammer report.
An October deal kills them off.
Will we then see Corbyn revert back to demanding an election at every opportunity.
Buying a beer abroad ‘nearly 50p more expensive typically since Brexit vote’
The cost of buying a beer abroad could be around 16% or nearly 50p more expensive now than three years ago due to the weakened pound, according to analysis. Foreign exchange firm Caxton FX compiled a “Brexit beer index” by looking at the average cost of a beer now in various countries. It compared currency exchange rates now with those in June 2016, when the EU referendum was held, to show the impact of currency movements over the past three years.
So that will be 50p cheaper than buying a Beer in Cornwall, £1 cheaper than in London and at least £2 cheaper than buying one at Manchester Airport
EDIT: except for buying a Pint in Mr Brexit's WETHERSPOONS of course!
Andy Capp breaks his 62 year political silence to give his views on Brexit After today's comic showed Andy Capp joining an anti-Brexit march, we went straight to the man himself to clear up what he really thinks about the biggest issue in British politics
Really??
....... you're scraping the bottom of the barrel now, to help get Brexit stopped
I'm looking forward to the General Election, and The Brexit Party putting candidates up in Labour strongholds, where they voted to LEAVE ...... should be a FUN evening
I was really surprised, as I expected him to be a leave voter.
He probably didn't like the Yellowhammer report.
An October deal kills them off.
Will we then see Corbyn revert back to demanding an election at every opportunity.
I think it is blatantly obvious that the reason why the opposition parties have not agreed to an election is that Boris is untrustworthy, they want to secure an extension prior to having an election, and stop no deal. It would be interesting if they used the intervening time to reach an agreement to oust Boris via a no confidence vote, form an alternative Government, and secure another referendum. The opposition parties now have a majority in the House of Commons.
Has Labour actually revealed it's position yet or are they still trying to appease everyone by upsetting no-one?
They say they are definitely a remain party.
They support a referendum on any deal, with the choice being a reasonable leave option or remain.
The silly bits are if they won an election before Brexit was sorted, they say they would negotiate a better deal, have a referendum on the better deal or remain, but campaign for remain.
Some of them say that they would campaign for remain, others say the would leave it up to individual MPs as to which side they campaigned for.
It seems stupid to negotiate a deal, then campaign against it.
Equally stupid to claim to be a remain party with many of their MPs campaigning to leave.
One thing that has become absolutely evident is that those parties that have put forward a clear message, have done much better in the polls than those that haven't.
Corbyn is by no means a leader.
Labours so called democratic decisions seem to make a clear message impossible.
In the light of the fact that 75% of labour voters are remainers, you wouldn't have thought that it would have taken them over 3 years since the referendum to become a remain party. Well sort of, unless they allow their MPs to do what they want.
The only good thing that they have done is helped to unite the opposition parties in their quest to stop no deal.
Yet Boris was more responsible for this than Corbyn.
Assuming the DUP continued to support the Tories, then the opposition parties would require around 13 of the independant MPs to support them in forming a new Government. A couple of the Tory rebels came out yesterday in favour of a referendum, and some were already in favour of one. I think the only thing stopping this is Corbyns insistence that he should be in charge.
Party Seats Conservative 288 Labour 247 Independent 35 Scottish National Party 35 Liberal Democrat 17 Democratic Unionist Party 10 Sinn Féin 7 The Independent Group for Change 5 Plaid Cymru 4 Green Party 1 Speaker 1 Total number of seats 650
Has Labour actually revealed it's position yet or are they still trying to appease everyone by upsetting no-one?
They say they are definitely a remain party.
They support a referendum on any deal, with the choice being a reasonable leave option or remain.
The silly bits are if they won an election before Brexit was sorted, they say they would negotiate a better deal, have a referendum on the better deal or remain, but campaign for remain.
Some of them say that they would campaign for remain, others say the would leave it up to individual MPs as to which side they campaigned for.
It seems stupid to negotiate a deal, then campaign against it.
Equally stupid to claim to be a remain party with many of their MPs campaigning to leave.
One thing that has become absolutely evident is that those parties that have put forward a clear message, have done much better in the polls than those that haven't.
Corbyn is by no means a leader.
Labours so called democratic decisions seem to make a clear message impossible.
In the light of the fact that 75% of labour voters are remainers, you wouldn't have thought that it would have taken them over 3 years since the referendum to become a remain party. Well sort of, unless they allow their MPs to do what they want.
The only good thing that they have done is helped to unite the opposition parties in their quest to stop no deal.
Yet Boris was more responsible for this than Corbyn.
So pretty much the same old confused Labour Party. Corbyn in power or No Deal, what would harm the country most... .
Has Labour actually revealed it's position yet or are they still trying to appease everyone by upsetting no-one?
They say they are definitely a remain party.
They support a referendum on any deal, with the choice being a reasonable leave option or remain.
The silly bits are if they won an election before Brexit was sorted, they say they would negotiate a better deal, have a referendum on the better deal or remain, but campaign for remain.
Some of them say that they would campaign for remain, others say the would leave it up to individual MPs as to which side they campaigned for.
It seems stupid to negotiate a deal, then campaign against it.
Equally stupid to claim to be a remain party with many of their MPs campaigning to leave.
One thing that has become absolutely evident is that those parties that have put forward a clear message, have done much better in the polls than those that haven't.
Corbyn is by no means a leader.
Labours so called democratic decisions seem to make a clear message impossible.
In the light of the fact that 75% of labour voters are remainers, you wouldn't have thought that it would have taken them over 3 years since the referendum to become a remain party. Well sort of, unless they allow their MPs to do what they want.
The only good thing that they have done is helped to unite the opposition parties in their quest to stop no deal.
Yet Boris was more responsible for this than Corbyn.
So pretty much the same old confused Labour Party. Corbyn in power or No Deal, what would harm the country most... .
If Boris was removed via a vote of no confidence, there would be a 14 day period in which the opposition parties could form a Government. At which time they could agree amongst themselves, that they wont introduce legislation, and just deal with Brexit. They could then get a 6 month extension. This would allow enough time for a referendum. A general election would be held straight after. This would solve Brexit, and give us a new Government. The new Government would implement the referendum result. The choice would be either the agreed deal, or remain. The end.
The major stumbling block is Corbyn agreeing to someone else being the leader. If he wont then it will not happen.
Boris is toast if he cant get a deal before the end of October.
This is difficult to see happening, as it still seems like there is little consensus, and sacking the rebels, means he has completely lost his majority.
No election until the opposition parties decide to have one.
The alternative seems to be extension after extension, and Parliament only agreeing on the fact that it doesn't want no deal.
Has Labour actually revealed it's position yet or are they still trying to appease everyone by upsetting no-one?
They say they are definitely a remain party.
They support a referendum on any deal, with the choice being a reasonable leave option or remain.
The silly bits are if they won an election before Brexit was sorted, they say they would negotiate a better deal, have a referendum on the better deal or remain, but campaign for remain.
Some of them say that they would campaign for remain, others say the would leave it up to individual MPs as to which side they campaigned for.
It seems stupid to negotiate a deal, then campaign against it.
Equally stupid to claim to be a remain party with many of their MPs campaigning to leave.
One thing that has become absolutely evident is that those parties that have put forward a clear message, have done much better in the polls than those that haven't.
Corbyn is by no means a leader.
Labours so called democratic decisions seem to make a clear message impossible.
In the light of the fact that 75% of labour voters are remainers, you wouldn't have thought that it would have taken them over 3 years since the referendum to become a remain party. Well sort of, unless they allow their MPs to do what they want.
The only good thing that they have done is helped to unite the opposition parties in their quest to stop no deal.
Yet Boris was more responsible for this than Corbyn.
So pretty much the same old confused Labour Party. Corbyn in power or No Deal, what would harm the country most... .
If Boris was removed via a vote of no confidence, there would be a 14 day period in which the opposition parties could form a Government. At which time they could agree amongst themselves, that they wont introduce legislation, and just deal with Brexit. They could then get a 6 month extension. This would allow enough time for a referendum. A general election would be held straight after. This would solve Brexit, and give us a new Government. The new Government would implement the referendum result. The choice would be either the agreed deal, or remain. The end.
The major stumbling block is Corbyn agreeing to someone else being the leader. If he wont then it will not happen.
Boris is toast if he cant get a deal before the end of October.
This is difficult to see happening, as it still seems like there is little consensus, and sacking the rebels, means he has completely lost his majority.
No election until the opposition parties decide to have one.
The alternative seems to be extension after extension, and Parliament only agreeing on the fact that it doesn't want no deal.
But what about those (MP's & public) who want a no deal Brexit,where would that leave them? Will the whole process not just carry on & on?
Has Labour actually revealed it's position yet or are they still trying to appease everyone by upsetting no-one?
They say they are definitely a remain party.
They support a referendum on any deal, with the choice being a reasonable leave option or remain.
The silly bits are if they won an election before Brexit was sorted, they say they would negotiate a better deal, have a referendum on the better deal or remain, but campaign for remain.
Some of them say that they would campaign for remain, others say the would leave it up to individual MPs as to which side they campaigned for.
It seems stupid to negotiate a deal, then campaign against it.
Equally stupid to claim to be a remain party with many of their MPs campaigning to leave.
One thing that has become absolutely evident is that those parties that have put forward a clear message, have done much better in the polls than those that haven't.
Corbyn is by no means a leader.
Labours so called democratic decisions seem to make a clear message impossible.
In the light of the fact that 75% of labour voters are remainers, you wouldn't have thought that it would have taken them over 3 years since the referendum to become a remain party. Well sort of, unless they allow their MPs to do what they want.
The only good thing that they have done is helped to unite the opposition parties in their quest to stop no deal.
Yet Boris was more responsible for this than Corbyn.
So pretty much the same old confused Labour Party. Corbyn in power or No Deal, what would harm the country most... .
If Boris was removed via a vote of no confidence, there would be a 14 day period in which the opposition parties could form a Government. At which time they could agree amongst themselves, that they wont introduce legislation, and just deal with Brexit. They could then get a 6 month extension. This would allow enough time for a referendum. A general election would be held straight after. This would solve Brexit, and give us a new Government. The new Government would implement the referendum result. The choice would be either the agreed deal, or remain. The end.
The major stumbling block is Corbyn agreeing to someone else being the leader. If he wont then it will not happen.
Boris is toast if he cant get a deal before the end of October.
This is difficult to see happening, as it still seems like there is little consensus, and sacking the rebels, means he has completely lost his majority.
No election until the opposition parties decide to have one.
The alternative seems to be extension after extension, and Parliament only agreeing on the fact that it doesn't want no deal.
But what about those (MP's & public) who want a no deal Brexit,where would that leave them? Will the whole process not just carry on & on?
There is not a majority in Parliament, or amongst the public that are in favour of no deal.
Each time we apply for an extension, the EU has to agree.
Just one country has to veto it, and it wont happen.
I think that Parliament has voted against no deal 4 times now.
Boris has to ask for an extension until January.
During the current 7 month extension, we don't appear to have moved forward.
The EU have said that they have received no new proposals.
Extensions cost £1billion per month.
No deal planning has cost billions, yet while Parliament keep voting against, it is a waste of money.
Plenty of MPs wont vote for the backstop, and plenty wont vote for a deal, even with the backstop removed.
Boris has to get a deal to stick to his do or die leave at the end of October.
I don't think the public will forgive him in an election if he fails to leave.
The Brexit Party will hurt the Tory vote if we haven't left before the election.
It would be no surprise to me if we went through the same process in January, with Parliament voting against no deal, and forcing the PM into another extension.
I am not sure that it could go on forever as the EU will probably get fed up of us at some point.
Although they don't want us to leave, so who knows.
Buying a beer abroad ‘nearly 50p more expensive typically since Brexit vote’
The cost of buying a beer abroad could be around 16% or nearly 50p more expensive now than three years ago due to the weakened pound, according to analysis. Foreign exchange firm Caxton FX compiled a “Brexit beer index” by looking at the average cost of a beer now in various countries. It compared currency exchange rates now with those in June 2016, when the EU referendum was held, to show the impact of currency movements over the past three years.
So that will be 50p cheaper than buying a Beer in Cornwall, £1 cheaper than in London and at least £2 cheaper than buying one at Manchester Airport
EDIT: except for buying a Pint in Mr Brexit's WETHERSPOONS of course!
The Fool.
Wetherspoons boss rubbishes ‘amateur’ Sky News host over Brexit - ‘prices will go DOWN’ BREXITEER Tim Martin clashed with Sky News host Samatha Washington over his decision to reduce the price of pints in his pubs by 20p. The heated debate culminated with Mr Martin branding the TV presenter an "amateur" for her questions.
The Wetherspoon founder first appeared annoyed during his interview with the Sky News host when Ms Washington referred to his business decision as an "advertising campaign". Mr Martin announced on Friday that the price of a pint of beer in his pubs will be cut by an average of 20p in an attempt to show consumers the benefits of Brexit. He told the Sky News host: “To call it an advertising campaign when there is a very important economic issue in which most of the media, including yourself just now, have implied that prices would go up, is pejorative.
“And I’m not going to say what 20p a pint is going to cost us. “Overall we do okay.” Adamant to find out how much the bullish decision will cost his company, the Sky News host insisted: “But it is going to have a cost and you are effectively making a political point. “And as a plc, I’m wondering, have you had approval from your board, from your shareholders to be taking this cost hit to make this political point?”
At this point, the prominent Brexiteer lost it and accused the news presenter of making "amateur" economic observations. He blasted: “That’s a very amateur economics point. We are investing money, if you like, in trying to illustrate the fact - contrary to most of the views which are perpetrated in the media - that prices in the shops will go down if the UK eliminates tariffs upon leaving the protectionist customs union.” Mr Martin has announced beer prices will be slashed to show how leaving the customs union can reduce costs. The staunch Brexiteer said leaving the customs union on October 31 would allow the Government to end “protectionist tariffs”, which he maintained would reduce prices in pubs and supermarkets. From today, one of Wetherspoons best-sold drinks, a pint of Ruddles, will be sold for as cheaply as £1.39 a pint.
The beer brand will be sold at the cheapest price of £1.39 in 36 stores, while 160 branches will see the drink for £1.59. The majority of pubs, more than 600 of them, will sell the beer for £1.69. Where Ruddles is unavailable, Greene King IPA or Caledonian Deuchars will be included at the reduced price. It is the latest Brexit-related move by Wetherspoon, which has shown its commitment to leaving the EU by selling more English and Australian wines over European brands.
In his announcement, Tim Martin said: “At the current time customers and businesses pay tariffs on thousands of products which are imported from outside the EU. “These tariffs are collected by the UK Government and sent to Brussels. "Provided we leave the customs union on October 31, the Government can end these protectionist tariffs, which will reduce prices in supermarkets and pubs. “In order to illustrate this point, Wetherspoon has decided to reduce the price of Ruddles bitter, brewed by Greene King. “A lot of politicians have misled the public by suggesting leaving the customs union would be a ‘cliff-edge’ or ‘disaster’. “This is the reverse of the truth. Ending tariffs will reduce prices.”
Tim Martin rages at ‘pro-EU Oxbridge MPs’ over Brexit block - 'Voters will resent this!' JD WETHERSPOONS boss Tim Martin has launched another savage attack against ‘elite Remainers’ and ‘pro-EU Oxbridge MPs’ after the pub chain suffered a slump in annual profits.
In the year to July 28, revenues increased 7.4 percent to £1.8billion but pre-tax profits fell 4.5 percent to £102.5million
Brexit latest news: 'UK's NOT LIABLE for £39bn!' Wetherspoon boss’s defiant message to EU WETHERSPOONS founder and Brexiteer Tim Martin has delivered a stark message to the European Union in the face of the bloc’s “pay up or else” message with respect to the £39billion it claims the UK owes in the wake of a no deal Brexit, insisting: “We owe them nothing”.
And he stressed the question of arrangements for Northern Ireland’s border with the Irish Republic was lower down the list of priorities. Mr Martin explained: “The order of priority for most sensible people is firstly saving ourselves £39billion, and secondly getting out of the customs union so we can eliminated tariffs with the rest of the world.
“Boris Johnson has to do that on October 31. “The Irish backstop is of more concern to lawyers and MPs than it is to the general public. “Obviously there has to be some sort of arrangement but most people believe that we can use common sense here.
“I think the idea of walking away with a deal has grown a sort of mythical status now. “In fact what’s more important is the mini-deals which are being negotiated by businesses and in some cases individuals. “To me all of this feels a bit like the Millennium Bug - planes were going to fall out of the sky, all that sort of thing. In the end, it was alright.”
Can we avoid paying the £39 billion Brexit divorce bill?
Emily Reid, Professor of International Economic Law at Southampton, told FactCheck that “as a matter of international law [she cites the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties] whether we leave the EU with or without a deal, the UK bears those liabilities and commitments, and resultant financial obligations, and legally is required to execute them.”
Are we legally required to pay up? Professor Iain Begg, Research Fellow at the London School of Economics, describes the House of Lords report as “contentious”. He told FactCheck that the conclusion “was based on an opinion, but when you read the report it’s a lot more nuanced.” “The logic goes that when you leave an entity you no longer have a financial commitment” he says. But “the contrary view is that we signed a regulation in 2013 that sets the Medium-Term Budgetary Framework that ends in 2020.” Hang on, “Medium-Term Budgetary Framework”? EU member states commit to fund projects (like infrastructure investment) in seven-year cycles. We are trying to leave the EU before the end of the current one.
The £39 billion divorce bill is the figure Westminster and Brussels have arrived at to cover the outstanding budget contributions we committed to paying in 2013, and which we would have been paying in 2019 and 2020 were we not leaving the EU. There are also some commitments (like pension contributions) that go beyond 2020, which will be settled in the divorce bill. Professor Begg says that because the UK signed the 2014-2020 Framework, “you could argue we’re bound to that.”
FactCheck verdict David Davis and others have suggested the UK could leave the EU without paying the £39 billion “divorce bill” designed to cover our outstanding financial commitments to Brussels. A House of Lords report from 2017 says that we won’t be bound by EU law after Brexit, and so we could get out of paying the bill. But that report is contentious. Irrespective of our membership of the EU, we are still bound to our financial commitments under international law. And it’s worth remembering that even beyond the legal issues, reneging on our financial obligations is likely to make any free trade deal with Europe, or other potential partners, politically impossible.
Comments
Documents warning of food, fuel and medicine shortages after a no-deal Brexit should be kept secret because they will scare people, a government minister says.
Andrea Leadsom, the business secretary, signalled Boris Johnson will defy parliament’s order to release the Operation Yellowhammer dossier – arguing the public was better left in the dark.
“I actually do not think that it serves people well to see what is the absolutely worst thing that can happen,” Ms Leadsom said.
The Yellowhammer file also warned that efforts to avoid the return of a hard border in Ireland are likely to prove “unsustainable”, with “significant economic, legal and biosecurity risks” that would require checks.
“Disruption to key sectors and job losses are likely to result in protests and direct action with road blockages,” it concluded.
Ministers were forced to acknowledge that, far from being “out of date" as they initially claimed, the dossier had been put together at the start of August.
The 11pm deadline also applies to WhatsApp, Facebook, text messages and personal emails from No 10 advisers, in a bid to prove Mr Johnson prorogued parliament because of Brexit, despite his denials.
That controversy has been given a rocket boost today by the shock decision, by the Court of Sessions in Scotland, that the prime minister misled the Queen over the true reason.
Downing Street sources have said that “under no circumstances” would aides hand over their personal correspondence to MPs.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexit/no-deal-brexit-documents-on-food-and-medicine-shortages-should-be-kept-secret-to-avoid-scaring-public-minister-says/ar-AAH8p8D?ocid=spartanntp
After today's comic showed Andy Capp joining an anti-Brexit march, we went straight to the man himself to clear up what he really thinks about the biggest issue in British politics
....... you're scraping the bottom of the barrel now, to help get Brexit stopped
I'm looking forward to the General Election, and The Brexit Party putting candidates up in Labour strongholds, where they voted to LEAVE ...... should be a FUN evening
He probably didn't like the Yellowhammer report.
An October deal kills them off.
It would be interesting if they used the intervening time to reach an agreement to oust Boris via a no confidence vote, form an alternative Government, and secure another referendum.
The opposition parties now have a majority in the House of Commons.
They support a referendum on any deal, with the choice being a reasonable leave option or remain.
The silly bits are if they won an election before Brexit was sorted, they say they would negotiate a better deal, have a referendum on the better deal or remain, but campaign for remain.
Some of them say that they would campaign for remain, others say the would leave it up to individual MPs as to which side they campaigned for.
It seems stupid to negotiate a deal, then campaign against it.
Equally stupid to claim to be a remain party with many of their MPs campaigning to leave.
One thing that has become absolutely evident is that those parties that have put forward a clear message, have done much better in the polls than those that haven't.
Corbyn is by no means a leader.
Labours so called democratic decisions seem to make a clear message impossible.
In the light of the fact that 75% of labour voters are remainers, you wouldn't have thought that it would have taken them over 3 years since the referendum to become a remain party. Well sort of, unless they allow their MPs to do what they want.
The only good thing that they have done is helped to unite the opposition parties in their quest to stop no deal.
Yet Boris was more responsible for this than Corbyn.
A couple of the Tory rebels came out yesterday in favour of a referendum, and some were already in favour of one.
I think the only thing stopping this is Corbyns insistence that he should be in charge.
Party
Seats
Conservative
288
Labour
247
Independent
35
Scottish National Party
35
Liberal Democrat
17
Democratic Unionist Party
10
Sinn Féin
7
The Independent Group for Change
5
Plaid Cymru
4
Green Party
1
Speaker
1
Total number of seats
650
At which time they could agree amongst themselves, that they wont introduce legislation, and just deal with Brexit.
They could then get a 6 month extension.
This would allow enough time for a referendum.
A general election would be held straight after.
This would solve Brexit, and give us a new Government.
The new Government would implement the referendum result.
The choice would be either the agreed deal, or remain.
The end.
The major stumbling block is Corbyn agreeing to someone else being the leader. If he wont then it will not happen.
Boris is toast if he cant get a deal before the end of October.
This is difficult to see happening, as it still seems like there is little consensus, and sacking the rebels, means he has completely lost his majority.
No election until the opposition parties decide to have one.
The alternative seems to be extension after extension, and Parliament only agreeing on the fact that it doesn't want no deal.
Each time we apply for an extension, the EU has to agree.
Just one country has to veto it, and it wont happen.
I think that Parliament has voted against no deal 4 times now.
Boris has to ask for an extension until January.
During the current 7 month extension, we don't appear to have moved forward.
The EU have said that they have received no new proposals.
Extensions cost £1billion per month.
No deal planning has cost billions, yet while Parliament keep voting against, it is a waste of money.
Plenty of MPs wont vote for the backstop, and plenty wont vote for a deal, even with the backstop removed.
Boris has to get a deal to stick to his do or die leave at the end of October.
I don't think the public will forgive him in an election if he fails to leave.
The Brexit Party will hurt the Tory vote if we haven't left before the election.
It would be no surprise to me if we went through the same process in January, with Parliament voting against no deal, and forcing the PM into another extension.
I am not sure that it could go on forever as the EU will probably get fed up of us at some point.
Although they don't want us to leave, so who knows.
A general election is unlikely to solve anything.
Sam Gyimah is worth a bet to be the first one tonight.
The Fool.
Wetherspoons boss rubbishes ‘amateur’ Sky News host over Brexit - ‘prices will go DOWN’
BREXITEER Tim Martin clashed with Sky News host Samatha Washington over his decision to reduce the price of pints in his pubs by 20p. The heated debate culminated with Mr Martin branding the TV presenter an "amateur" for her questions.
The Wetherspoon founder first appeared annoyed during his interview with the Sky News host when Ms Washington referred to his business decision as an "advertising campaign". Mr Martin announced on Friday that the price of a pint of beer in his pubs will be cut by an average of 20p in an attempt to show consumers the benefits of Brexit. He told the Sky News host: “To call it an advertising campaign when there is a very important economic issue in which most of the media, including yourself just now, have implied that prices would go up, is pejorative.
“And I’m not going to say what 20p a pint is going to cost us.
“Overall we do okay.”
Adamant to find out how much the bullish decision will cost his company, the Sky News host insisted: “But it is going to have a cost and you are effectively making a political point.
“And as a plc, I’m wondering, have you had approval from your board, from your shareholders to be taking this cost hit to make this political point?”
At this point, the prominent Brexiteer lost it and accused the news presenter of making "amateur" economic observations.
He blasted: “That’s a very amateur economics point. We are investing money, if you like, in trying to illustrate the fact - contrary to most of the views which are perpetrated in the media - that prices in the shops will go down if the UK eliminates tariffs upon leaving the protectionist customs union.”
Mr Martin has announced beer prices will be slashed to show how leaving the customs union can reduce costs.
The staunch Brexiteer said leaving the customs union on October 31 would allow the Government to end “protectionist tariffs”, which he maintained would reduce prices in pubs and supermarkets.
From today, one of Wetherspoons best-sold drinks, a pint of Ruddles, will be sold for as cheaply as £1.39 a pint.
The beer brand will be sold at the cheapest price of £1.39 in 36 stores, while 160 branches will see the drink for £1.59.
The majority of pubs, more than 600 of them, will sell the beer for £1.69.
Where Ruddles is unavailable, Greene King IPA or Caledonian Deuchars will be included at the reduced price.
It is the latest Brexit-related move by Wetherspoon, which has shown its commitment to leaving the EU by selling more English and Australian wines over European brands.
In his announcement, Tim Martin said: “At the current time customers and businesses pay tariffs on thousands of products which are imported from outside the EU.
“These tariffs are collected by the UK Government and sent to Brussels.
"Provided we leave the customs union on October 31, the Government can end these protectionist tariffs, which will reduce prices in supermarkets and pubs.
“In order to illustrate this point, Wetherspoon has decided to reduce the price of Ruddles bitter, brewed by Greene King.
“A lot of politicians have misled the public by suggesting leaving the customs union would be a ‘cliff-edge’ or ‘disaster’.
“This is the reverse of the truth. Ending tariffs will reduce prices.”
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1174876/Brexit-news-wetherspoons-tim-martin-sky-news-clash-pint-20p-price-drop-EU-tariffs
JD WETHERSPOONS boss Tim Martin has launched another savage attack against ‘elite Remainers’ and ‘pro-EU Oxbridge MPs’ after the pub chain suffered a slump in annual profits.
In the year to July 28, revenues increased 7.4 percent to £1.8billion but pre-tax profits fell 4.5 percent to £102.5million
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1177661/brexit-news-wetherspoons-tim-martin-remainers-eu-referendum-financial-results
…
Brexit latest news: 'UK's NOT LIABLE for £39bn!' Wetherspoon boss’s defiant message to EU
WETHERSPOONS founder and Brexiteer Tim Martin has delivered a stark message to the European Union in the face of the bloc’s “pay up or else” message with respect to the £39billion it claims the UK owes in the wake of a no deal Brexit, insisting: “We owe them nothing”.
And he stressed the question of arrangements for Northern Ireland’s border with the Irish Republic was lower down the list of priorities.
Mr Martin explained: “The order of priority for most sensible people is firstly saving ourselves £39billion, and secondly getting out of the customs union so we can eliminated tariffs with the rest of the world.
“Boris Johnson has to do that on October 31.
“The Irish backstop is of more concern to lawyers and MPs than it is to the general public.
“Obviously there has to be some sort of arrangement but most people believe that we can use common sense here.
“I think the idea of walking away with a deal has grown a sort of mythical status now.
“In fact what’s more important is the mini-deals which are being negotiated by businesses and in some cases individuals.
“To me all of this feels a bit like the Millennium Bug - planes were going to fall out of the sky, all that sort of thing. In the end, it was alright.”
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1170800/brexit-latest-news-tim-martin-
wetherspoons-brexit-bill-no-deal-boris-johnson-eu-tusk
Can we avoid paying the £39 billion Brexit divorce bill?
Emily Reid, Professor of International Economic Law at Southampton, told FactCheck that “as a matter of international law [she cites the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties] whether we leave the EU with or without a deal, the UK bears those liabilities and commitments, and resultant financial obligations, and legally is required to execute them.”
Are we legally required to pay up?
Professor Iain Begg, Research Fellow at the London School of Economics, describes the House of Lords report as “contentious”. He told FactCheck that the conclusion “was based on an opinion, but when you read the report it’s a lot more nuanced.”
“The logic goes that when you leave an entity you no longer have a financial commitment” he says. But “the contrary view is that we signed a regulation in 2013 that sets the Medium-Term Budgetary Framework that ends in 2020.”
Hang on, “Medium-Term Budgetary Framework”? EU member states commit to fund projects (like infrastructure investment) in seven-year cycles. We are trying to leave the EU before the end of the current one.
The £39 billion divorce bill is the figure Westminster and Brussels have arrived at to cover the outstanding budget contributions we committed to paying in 2013, and which we would have been paying in 2019 and 2020 were we not leaving the EU. There are also some commitments (like pension contributions) that go beyond 2020, which will be settled in the divorce bill.
Professor Begg says that because the UK signed the 2014-2020 Framework, “you could argue we’re bound to that.”
FactCheck verdict
David Davis and others have suggested the UK could leave the EU without paying the £39 billion “divorce bill” designed to cover our outstanding financial commitments to Brussels.
A House of Lords report from 2017 says that we won’t be bound by EU law after Brexit, and so we could get out of paying the bill. But that report is contentious. Irrespective of our membership of the EU, we are still bound to our financial commitments under international law.
And it’s worth remembering that even beyond the legal issues, reneging on our financial obligations is likely to make any free trade deal with Europe, or other potential partners, politically impossible.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-can-we-avoid-paying-the-39-billion-brexit-divorce-bill