Preliminary results - replacement announcement

Like-for-like sales increased by 4.0% (2016: 3.4%), with total sales of £1,660.8m, an increase of 4.1% (2016: 5.4%). Like-for-like bar sales increased by 3.1% (2016: 3.3%), food sales by 5.7% (2016: 3.5%) and slot/fruit machine sales decreased by 1.2% (2016: decreased by 2.2%). Like-for-like hotel room sales increased by 9.9% (2016: 9.7%) - although they continue to be a small percentage of overall sales.

 

Operating profit before exceptional items

increased by 17.1% to £128.5m (2016: £109.7m). The operating margin, before exceptional items, increased to 7.7% (2016: 6.9%). The overall performance was helped by improved sales, lower utility and interest costs, and the sale of some lower-margin pubs. These factors helped to counter cost increases in labour of 4.5%, as well as in other areas, including repairs and taxes.

 

Profit before tax and exceptional items increased

by 27.6% to £102.8m (2016: £80.6m), with a contribution from property profits of £2.8m (2016: £5.3m). Earnings per share (including shares held in trust by the employee share scheme), before exceptional items, were 69.2p (2016: 48.3p). Net interest was covered 4.6 times by operating profit before interest, tax and exceptional items (2016: 3.3 times). Total capital investment was £187.5m in the period (2016: £124.8m), with £46.9m invested in new pubs and extensions to existing pubs (2016: £55.2m), £65.9m on existing pubs and IT infrastructure (2016: £33.5m) and £88.6m on the acquisition of freehold 'reversions', pubs where Wetherspoon was already a tenant (2016: £36.1m). The capital expenditure numbers differ slightly from the cash outflows, owing to changes in working capital.

 

Exceptional items totalled £20.9m (2016: £5.7m). These included an £18.4m loss on disposal and an impairment charge of £8.4m for closed sites, underperforming pubs and onerous leases. During the year, the company received £0.4m in compensation in respect of a transfer of interest-rate swaps between two financial institutions, which has been treated as an exceptional item.

 

In addition, there were £5.5m of exceptional tax credits, mainly as a result of a reduction in the UK average corporation tax rate, which has the effect of creating an exceptional tax credit for future years. The total cash effect of these exceptional items resulted in a cash inflow of £12.2m, owing to the proceeds from pub disposals.

 

Free cash flow, after an outflow of £58.6m on existing pubs (2016: £33.5m), £10.4m in respect of share purchases for employees (2016: £6.9m) and payments of tax and interest, increased by £17.4m to £107.9m (2016: £90.5m). The increase resulted from a working capital inflow of £11.2m in the year compared with an outflow of £9.6m in 2016. Free cash flow per share was 97.0p (2016: 76.7p).

 

Dividends and return of capital

The board proposes, subject to shareholders' approval, to pay a final dividend of 8.0p per share (2016: 8.0p per share), on 30 November 2017, to those shareholders on the register on 27 October 2017, giving a total dividend for the year of 12.0p per share (2016: 12.0p per share). The dividend is covered 4.2 times (2016: 3.6 times).

 

In view of the high level of capital expenditure and the potential for advantageous investments, the board has decided to maintain the dividend at its current level for the time being.

 

During the year, 4,656,300 shares (representing 4.1% of the issued share capital) were purchased by the company for cancellation, at a total cost of £43.9m, including stamp duty, representing an average cost per share of 943p.

 

Over the last 11 years, my shareholding has increased from 21.2% to 31.7%, as a results of the company's share buybacks. As with last year, the company is again considering seeking a rule 9 'whitewash', under UK City Code on Takeover and Mergers, allowing further buybacks.

 

Financing

As at 30 July 2017, the company's total net debt, including bank borrowings and finance leases, but excluding derivatives, was £696.3m (2016: £650.8m), an increase of £45.5m. Factors which have led to the increase in debt are expenditure on new pubs and extensions of £40.3m, expenditure on existing pubs of £58.6m, the acquisition of freeholds of £88.6m, share buybacks of £28.4m (excluding £15.5m in respect of shares purchased at the end of the financial year and settled post year-end) and dividend payments of £13.4m. Year-end net-debt-to-EBITDA was 3.39 times (2016: 3.47 times).

 

As at 30 July 2017, the company had £163.9m (2016: £189.6m) of unutilised banking facilities and cash balances, with total facilities of £860m (2016: £840.0m). The company's existing interest-rate swap arrangements remain in place.

 

It is anticipated that interest costs in the current year will be approximately the same as those of last year.

 

Corporation tax

The overall tax charge (including deferred tax and excluding the one-off benefit of the tax rate change) on profit before exceptional items is 25.1% (2016: 29.4%). This fall is due mainly to a decrease in the deferred tax liability, resulting from accelerated capital allowances on fixed-asset expenditure.

 

VAT equality

As we have previously stated, we believe that pubs are taxed excessively and that the government would generate more tax revenue and jobs, if it were to create tax equality among supermarkets, pubs and restaurants. Supermarkets pay virtually no VAT in respect of food sales, whereas pubs pay 20%. This has enabled supermarkets to subsidise the price of alcoholic drinks, widening the price gap between the on and off trade, to the detriment of pubs and restaurants.

 

Pubs have lost 50% of their beer sales to supermarkets since the 1970s as VAT has climbed from 8% to 20%.

 

It makes no sense for the government to treat supermarkets more leniently than pubs, since pubs generate far more jobs per pint or meal than supermarkets do, as well as far higher levels of tax. Pubs also make an important contribution to the social life of many communities and create better visibility and control of consumers of alcoholic drinks.

 

The campaign for tax equality with supermarkets has particular significance for MPs and residents of less affluent areas, since the tax differential is more important there. Where people can less afford to pay the difference in prices between the on and off trade, there are fewer pubs, coffee shops and restaurants, with a corresponding reduction in employment and an increase in high-street dereliction.

 

The government is actively considering ideas for generating jobs and economic activity, especially in areas outside the affluent south of the country - VAT equality, as the trade organisations BBPA and ALMR have demonstrated, is a very efficient and sensible method of helping to achieve these objectives. Tax equality also accords with the underlying principle of fairness in applying taxes to different businesses.

 

Contribution to the economy

Wetherspoon is proud to pay its share of tax and, in this respect, is a major contributor to the economy. In the year under review, we paid total taxes of £694.6m, an increase of £22.3m, compared with the previous year, which equates to approximately 41.8% of our sales.

 

This equates to an average payment per pub of £768,400 per annum or £14,500 per week.

 

	2017	2016
	£m	£m
VAT	323.4	311.7
Alcohol duty	167.2	164.4
PAYE and NIC	96.2	95.1
Business rates	53.0	50.2
Corporation tax	20.7	19.9
Machine duty	10.5	11.0
Climate change levy	9.7	8.7
Stamp duty	5.1	2.6
Carbon tax	3.4	3.6
Landfill tax	2.5	2.2
Fuel duty	2.1	2.1
Premise licence and TV licences	0.8	0.8
Total tax	694.6	672.3
Pre-exceptional profit after tax	77.0	56.9
Tax per pub (£000)	768.4	705.0
Tax as % of sales	41.8%	42.1%
Profit after tax as % of sales	4.6%	3.6%

 

Corporate governance

Last year, this statement contained a summary of criticisms of corporate governance guidelines. Similar views have been expressed in Wetherspoon's annual reports for several years and there have been almost no objections or dissent from shareholders, or other interested parties.

 

As it stands today, one danger of these faulty guidelines is that many quoted businesses have no board directors who were present in the company during the last financial crisis - an undesirable and dangerous state of affairs.

 

'It's a people thing'

As in previous years, the company has tried to improve as many areas of the business as possible, on a week-to-week basis, invariably in mundane areas of our operations. This concentration on the 'nuts and bolts' is far more important than issues such as 'strategy', with which most boards are preoccupied. Frequent calls on pubs by senior executives, the encouragement of ideas and criticisms from pub staff and customers, and the involvement of pub and area managers, among others, in weekly decisions, are the keys to success. An example of the success of this approach is that we have 818 pubs rated on the Food Standards Agency's website. The average score is 4.89, with 91.8% of the pubs achieving a top rating of five and 6.2% receiving a rating of four. We believe this to be the highest average rating for any substantial pub company. In the separate Scottish scheme, which records either a 'pass' or a 'fail', all of our 66 pubs have passed. We continue to emphasise the importance of training. For some years, we have run a three-week catering academy for kitchen managers, with 1,371 people having completed these courses. We have recently started a similar academy for cellar and coffee training, so that we can improve quality in these areas.

 

We paid £43.7m to employees in the year in respect of bonuses and free shares, an increase of £10.7m compared with the previous year, of which 96% was paid to staff below board level and 74% was paid to staff working in our pubs.

 

The company has been recognised as a Top Employer UK (2017) for the 14th consecutive year. The Top Employers Institute said:

 

"Our comprehensive independent research revealed that J D Wetherspoon provides exceptional employee conditions, nurtures and develops talent throughout all levels of the organisation and has demonstrated its leadership status in the HR environment, always striving to optimise its employment practices and to develop its employees."

 

In the field of charity, thanks to the generosity and work of our dedicated customers, pub and head-office teams, we continue to raise record amounts of money for CLIC Sargent, supporting young cancer patients and their families. In the last year, we raised approximately £1.8m, bringing the total raised to over £14m - more than any other corporate partner has raised for this charity.

 

 

Property

The company opened 10 pubs during the year, with 41 closed, resulting in a trading estate of 895 pubs at the financial year end.The average development cost for a new pub (excluding the cost of freeholds) was £2.3m, compared with £2.5m a year ago. The full-year depreciation charge was £73.9m (2016: £72.2m). We currently intend to open about 10-15 pubs in the year ending July 2018.

 

We have sold, or terminated the leases of, 76 pubs in the last 2 years, at a loss of approximately £45m, including previously reported impairments. Some mistakes are inevitable in site selection, but we hope to learn from these experiences, in order to try to avoid similar mistakes in the future.

 

Property litigation

As previously reported, Wetherspoon agreed on an out-of-court settlement with developer Anthony Lyons, formerly of property leisure agent Davis Coffer Lyons, in 2013, and received approximately £1.25m from Mr Lyons.

 

The payment relates to litigation in which Wetherspoon claimed that Mr Lyons had been an accessory to frauds committed by Wetherspoon's former retained agent Van de Berg and its directors Christian Braun, George Aldridge and Richard Harvey. Mr Lyons denied the claim - and the litigation was contested.

 

The claim related to properties in Portsmouth, Leytonstone and Newbury. The Portsmouth property was involved in the 2008/9 Van de Berg case itself.

 

In that case, Mr Justice Peter Smith found that Van de Berg, but not Mr Lyons (who was not a party to the case), fraudulently diverted the freehold from Wetherspoon to Moorstown Properties Limited, a company owned by Simon Conway. Moorstown leased the premises to Wetherspoon. Wetherspoon is still a leaseholder of this property - a pub called The Isambard Kingdom Brunel.

 

The properties in Leytonstone and Newbury (the other properties in the case against Mr Lyons) were not pleaded in the 2008/9 Van de Berg case. Leytonstone was leased to Wetherspoon and trades today as The Walnut Tree public house. Newbury was leased to Pelican plc and became Café Rouge.

 

As we have also reported, the company agreed to settle its final claim in this series of cases and accepted £400,000 from property investor Jason Harris, formerly of First London and now of First Urban Group. Wetherspoon alleged that Harris was an accessory to frauds committed by Van de Berg. Harris contested the claim and has not admitted liability

 

Before the conclusion of the above cases, Wetherspoon also agreed on a settlement with Paul Ferrari, of London estate agent Ferrari Dewe & Co, in respect of properties referred to as the 'Ferrari Five' by Mr Justice Peter Smith.

 

Current trading and outlook

Most 'PLCs' are expected to comment, in their results' statements, on the UK's prospects outside of the EU and on the likely impact on their individual companies.

 

It is my view that the main risk from the current Brexit negotiations is not to Wetherspoon, but to our excellent EU suppliers - and to EU economies.

 

As the public instinctively understands, but few academics, economists, boardrooms and City institutions grasp, democracy is the strongest economic steroid - hence the astonishing rise of countries like Japan, Singapore and South Korea, after its adoption. A fascinating insight into the thought processes of many pro-Remain 'elites' can be found in an article in The Spectator (appendix 2 below) by Professor Robert Tombs of Cambridge University.

 

In the current negotiations, democratically-elected politicians from the UK are dealing with unelected oligarchs from the EU. Since the oligarchs are not subject to judgement at the ballot box, their approach is dictated by more sectarian factors - the interests and ideology of EU apparatchiks like them, rather than residents or businesses from EU countries.

 

As a result of their current posturing and threats,

EU negotiators are inevitably encouraging importers like Wetherspoon to look elsewhere for supplies. This process is unlikely to have adverse effects on the UK economy, as companies will be able to switch to suppliers representing the 93% of the world's population which is not in the EU, but this evolution will eventually be highly damaging to the economy of the EU.

 

Wetherspoon is extremely confident that it can switch from EU suppliers, if required, although we would be very reluctant to initiate such actions.

 

It is my view that Juncker, Barnier, Selmayr, Verhofstadt and others need to take a wise-up pill in order to avoid causing further economic damage to struggling economies like Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy - where youth unemployment, in particular, is at epidemic levels.

 

There seems to be little genuine appetite for a free-trade deal from the Brussels bureaucracy, so EU companies are, paradoxically, reliant on the goodwill of UK consumers, who are likely to prefer tariff-free goods in the future from non-EU countries, which are generally in favour of free trade, rather than deals with companies which are subject to the diktat of those who wish to punish the UK.

 

I have written an article dealing with several issues related to Brexit, which can be found in the latest edition of Wetherspoon News - and is included below in appendix 1.

 

 

Since the year end, Wetherspoon's like-for-like sales have continued to be encouraging and have increased by 6.1%. This is a positive start, but is for a few weeks only - and is very unlikely to continue for the rest of the year. Comparisons will become more stretching - and sales, which were very strong in the summer holidays, are likely to return to more modest levels. It is anticipated that like-for-like sales of around 3-4% will be required in order to match last year's profit before tax. We will provide updates as we progress through the year. We currently anticipate a trading outcome for the current financial year in line with our expectations.

 

 

Tim Martin

Chairman

14 September 2017

 

Appendix 1 - Tim's Viewpoint, Wetherspoon News, Autumn 2017

 

"Democracy is the key to prosperity and freedom

 

Do economists at the CBI, The Times and the FT model themselves on Edmund Blackadder, asks Tim Martin

 

In the last edition of Wetherspoon News, I quoted Cambridge professor Simon Baron-Cohen, who correctly said that "each example of the erosion of democracy leads to an even greater erosion of human rights".

 

Like the great majority of Oxbridge graduates - albeit with many notable exceptions - the professor is an ardent EU supporter, even so. He appears, subconsciously, to exempt the undemocratic EU from criticism. I also quoted Financial Times journalist Edward Luce, who criticised the last two American presidents for failing to support the 'democracy promoting creed' in their conduct of foreign relations.

 

Unelected

Yet the Financial Times fails to apply the same criteria to the EU, with its unelected presidents, its court which is not subject to democratic control and its pseudoparliament, whose MPs cannot even initiate legislation. In a previous edition of Wetherspoon News, we quoted in full a Financial Times article by Peter Mandelson, which appeared shortly after the referendum. The article explained that Mandelson, Cameron and Osborne, the architects of the Remain campaign, Oxbridge graduates all, decided not to deal directly with questions about issues such as the absence of democracy in the EU. Instead, when asked, they decided to avoid the question by 'pivoting' to the economy, with support from discredited organisations such as the IMF, the OECD, the Treasury and their ilk. This blindness to, or evasion of, the EU's evident democratic shortfalls recalled the strange events of Britain's debate about the euro 15 years or so ago.

 

Overwhelming

Then, the Financial Times the CBI, most boardrooms, the majority of MPs, Blair, Mandelson, Heseltine, Clarke and the overwhelming majority of economists, supported the UK's euro application with religious fervour, even though its predecessor, the Exchange Rate Mechanism, had caused economic mayhem only a few years before. The same paradox was evident then. The most highly educated lent support to a currency which lacked a basic ingredient: a government. The new currency could only work by transferring normal democratic powers over interest rates, budgets and taxation to unelected bureaucrats. Or perhaps autocrats is a better word. Charlie Munger, a partner of the world's greatest investor, Warren Buffet, may have an answer. Munger's view, which explains the often idiotic behaviour of financial markets, is that intelligent people suffer from extremely poor judgement when they become ideological, whether through religion or other deep beliefs. And, for some people, the EU is a semi-religious project. Gillian Tett, a Financial Times journalist, reached a similar conclusion in trying to assess why so many in the tightknit circle of business, media and academia got it so badly wrong over the euro. 'Groupthink' was her explanation, which is perhaps not too different from Munger's analysis.

 

Referendum

Leaving aside these theories, the fact is that the UK voted to leave the EU in the referendum, article 50 was triggered by an overwhelming majority of MPs and 85 per cent of MPs were recently elected on the basis of manifestos which accepted the referendum result. However, the gloom and disruption of the diehard Remainers in the media, parliament and boardrooms have reached epidemic proportions. The CBI, representing big British business, is one of the worst offenders. Its boss, Carolyn 'we're all doomed' Fairbairn, set the tone with her Blackadder-style warning, before the referendum, that "a dark cloud of uncertainty is looming over global growth … particularly around the outcome of the EU referendum". Closet Remainer David Smith of the Sunday Times is not to be outdone in apocalyptic prose: "Slower growth has been staring us in the face since sterling's post-referendum plunge guaranteed a squeeze on household real incomes and a cloud of renewed uncertainty descended on business." Well, David, it hasn't descended on our business, nor on most businesses, from what I can tell.

 

Economy

Since the referendum, the economy has generated a stunning 300,000 new jobs, employment is at its highest ever level, the stock market has risen by around 20 per cent and household incomes, as at the end of the first quarter of this year, were at a record high. The Financial Times is the epicentre of gloom. The first sentence of a July editorial reads: "The uncertainty surrounding Brexit means the UK economy is set on a journey with no compass." Surely, this was written by Edmund Blackadder. If the editor of the FT is Blackadder, Baldrick is the FT's economist Martin Wolf, who darkly prophesied that "Britain is incapable of managing Brexit and calamity will follow". Not to be outdone, the Remain- supporting Times is full of predictions of doom and despair. The doyen of doomsters is Matthew Parris, a former conservative MP. In a bleak and doom-laden article on his return from holidays, he said: "I left Spain feeling ashamed to be British. I returned to England ashamed to be a conservative." Stroll on, Matthew. Take it easy, old chap. The sun will still rise in the east tomorrow morning. Perhaps the most comic aspect of gloomy media reports on Brexit negotiations is the constant reference to 'cliff-edges'. A recent edition of the FT had more examples of cliff-edges than the Cornish coastal path.

 

Phenomena

Similar phenomena occurred during the battle to save the country from the euro. In almost every debate I had during that period, euro proponents said "the euro train is leaving the station and the UK is not on it" or intoned similar metaphors. When critics start talking of cliff-edges and compasses, it usually means that rational arguments are running short. The most melodramatic recent requests have come from business organisations like the CBI and the Institute of Directors. They want the government to clarify and publish its objectives in the current EU negotiations. The obvious problem with this approach is that manifesting a clear desire for a particular outcome will result in the EU upping the price - or vetoing the proposal. Necessity never made a good bargain, as Benjamin Franklin said. People like Carolyn Fairbairn, and the majority of economists, who insist on a 'deal' are, in effect, sabotaging the UK's negotiating position. As Mervyn King, the former governor of the Bank of England, has recently pointed out: "If you're going to have any success in this negotiation, you need to have a fallback position which the other side understands and thinks is credible. It's not the first choice, but we have to have an option, otherwise the other side won't listen. This ought to be something people can agree on… whether they voted for Brexit or not." Mr King understands that the government needs to be able to say: "We're happy to agree a free trade deal, if the European negotiators are agreeable, but we are more than happy to trade using World Trade Organisation rules, if we can't agree."

 

Successfully

That's the basis on which we trade successfully with 93 per cent of the world which is not in the EU. Our most successful engineer, James Dyson, adopts a similar approach to Mervyn King's and states that relying on WTO rules would be "no big deal". In any event, as we did in the pre-referendum edition of Wetherspoon News, we have included a section from pages 50 to 58 with four articles from optimistic Brexiteers and four from gloomy Remainers. Once you've digested their views, you can make up your own mind as to how we'll do. I think democracy is the key to prosperity and freedom, and a lot of the other points which have been made are hogwash. But you can decide. Indeed, in a democracy, you WILL decide."

 

Tim Martin

 

 

Appendix 2 - Cambridge University professor, Robert Tombs, Writing in The Spectator, says:

 

"The myth of Britain's decline

 

Our glory days are not over - they're in full swing

 

On the anniversary of Britain voting to leave the European Union, the Principal of Hertford College, Oxford, found some words to sum it up. 'An entire society crucified by the delusional ambitions of Brexiteers chasing moonshine,' wrote Will Hutton. 'An anniversary to mourn.' One might agree or disagree with his position on the European Union, but has British society really committed suicide? It's a theme we have heard rather a lot recently: that Britain is a mess, an international laughing stock, leader-less and futureless. The case is normally made by Brits.

 

Rapid shocks - terrorism, the surprising election result, the Grenfell Tower disaster - have inspired forebodings just as the Brexit negotiations are beginning. This is not just the cry of shell-shocked Tories or traumatised Remainers; it goes deeper. We're seeing the revival of an old and familiar malady: declinism', a periodic fear that the nation has declined and is declining from some earlier time of strength, cohesion and success. Declinism is a syndrome: it assumes a combination of moral, political and economic failures. Britain suffered a bout of it in the 1880s when German competition in manufactured goods was first felt. It came back in the 1960s and 1970s, coloured by economic worries, rapid decolonisation and a perception of dwindling power and influence in every field.

 

Today, it has re-emerged as a core anti-Brexit sentiment. With a familiar mixture of despair (from the right) and glee (from the left), we are being told that we must eschew 'nostalgia' and 'post-imperial delusions', and 'wake up to reality' as 'a small offshore island', while the big strong powers of the European Union put us in our place, leaving us a stark choice between accepting the terms they dictate or facing economic and political disaster. Some germ of declinism has been bred into all of us. Who would deny that Britain is no longer the great power it once was? Well, speaking as a historian, I would. Declinism is at best a distortion of reality, and mostly mere illusion. But so important is it in shaping our view of ourselves and our relations with the world that it demands sceptical scrutiny. It rests, above all, on two assumptions. First, that we have long been failing economically. Second, that we have suffered a loss of sheer power and hence influence in the world.

 

In the context of the Brexit debate, the conclusions are that the EU, 'our largest market', is our economic crutch; and that outside the EU club our feeble power and influence will dwindle to insignificance. We will be comparable, declinists scoff, to Albania or North Korea.

 

The belief in economic decline is a mixture of illusion and misunderstanding. Britain has been relatively wealthy at least since the Middle Ages, and industrial pioneers gave us a temporary dominance in manufacturing during the mid 19th century. This was a brief and unique episode. Naturally, other countries adopted British technology - helped by British capital and expertise - and began to catch up. This was desirable, as well as natural, because it provided richer markets for British goods and services and valuable investment opportunities for British savers.

 

Since the 1880s, pessimists have always tended to compare British economic performance at any moment with those most rapidly catching up. When postwar European integration began in the 1950s, Italy, France and Germany were the most spectacular catchers-up, recovering from their wartime devastation and shifting their large and relatively unproductive agricultural sectors into industry. This gave temporary 'windfall growth' that Britain could not equal, having no large agricultural sector to modernise. But an uncritical comparison of growth rates was mistaken for evidence of British economic failure. As early as 1953, an official report warned of 'relegation of the UK to the second division'. This was the prime cause of our desperate pleas to join the Common Market in the 1960s and 1970s: Britain was 'the sinking Titanic', as one of Edward Heath's advisors put it, and Europe the lifeboat.

 

Ironically, just as Britain joined in the early 1970s, European catching-up ended, and so did its seemingly superior economic prowess. In short, Britain's long-term economic decline in relation to Europe never happened. Supporters of the EU nevertheless still maintain that membership rescued the British economy in the 1970s and remains vital to shoring it up today.

 

In fact, British economic performance was never significantly affected by EU membership. Growth did not increase after joining the Common Market, essentially because trade was diverted from other markets to Europe just as Europe's own postwar growth went into long-term deceleration. Despite the hopes and political efforts expended on creating the single market (not least by Margaret Thatcher), it has not proved very successful in increasing internal EU trade, and has never been fully extended into services, Britain's main strength. Due to both the greater dynamism of global markets and the problems of the EU itself, Britain's trade with Europe has been declining sharply in importance for two decades. This was predicted to continue even if Britain had stayed in the EU. The recent overdue depreciation of an overvalued pound will provide some stimulus to our exports both inside and outside Europe, whatever the nature of the post-Brexit deal, and would more than compensate for possible tariffs.

 

Over the long term, membership (or not) of the EU has made no discernible difference to our economic performance. Britain's increase in prosperity (growth in per capita GDP using purchasing power parity) has almost exactly kept pace with that of the United States ever since 1945, whether outside or inside 'Europe'. The belief that leaving the EU must mean long-term economic decline therefore has no rational basis, just as the economic reports predicting that a vote for Brexit would mean immediate financial misery had no rational basis either.

 

The second element of declinism concerns the loss of sheer power and importance in the world. This seems as obvious to the stoutest Tory as to the most mocking Guardianista. After all, Churchill himself was haunted by it. Yet this too is largely, if not wholly, an illusion based on comparing a pessimistic view of our current state (whenever that might be - probably any time since the 1890s) with a highly inflated view of past power: usually the High Victorian age, or else round about the time of the battle of El Alamein.

 

The story of Britain being on a long slide to irrelevance always revolves round decolonisation. It's quite true that the British empire is 'one with Nineveh and Tyre' - but so are all the other empires. No state has replaced Britain as the great global imperial power: empires are no longer possible or desirable, as Britain realised in the 1960s. Though a source of prestige (and of constant trouble - 'a millstone round our necks,' said Disraeli), it's doubtful whether the empire was a source of wealth or power to Britain. Overall, it cost more than it brought in, especially after Britain turned to universal free trade in the 1840s, and colonies ceased to be an exclusive economic domain.

The empire's power was used up in defending itself: it was, as one historian aptly puts it, 'a brontosaurus with huge, vulnerable limbs which the central nervous system had little capacity to protect, direct or control.' Throughout its imperial heyday, Britain had naval power, but on land was no match for Europe's great powers or even its smaller ones. It was constantly worried by threats from France, Russia, Germany and even the USA to its economy, its empire and its home islands.

 

What of today? Britain is more secure from major external threat than for half a millennium. Taking a long view (say the last three centuries) it remains what it always has been - one of the half-dozen or so strongest states in the world, and one of the most global in its attachments, its vision, and its trade. Within this leading group of states, Britain has not declined but has actually advanced, being now more powerful than its ancient rivals France, Germany and Russia. The Cambridge international relations specialist Brendan Simms puts Britain even higher. Taking into account economic and military potential, population, 'soft power', diplomatic influence, political resilience and self-determination, he judges it the world's third great power after the USA and China, and Europe's only truly independent force.

 

Power is also based on intangibles such as self-confidence, a clear strategy and determination, and here we may be lacking. Russia, with an economy the same size as Spain's, behaves like a superpower in the Middle East and is treated as one. But we fear we cannot even negotiate a mutually beneficial trade agreement with the EU. At least as much as by age and education, our attitudes seem to be determined by the division between confidence and self-doubt.

 

Declinism has always been a form of insularity, obsessed with Britain's failings, but ignorant of those elsewhere. Today, unemployment is lower here than among most of our neighbours. Crime is falling. Schools are improving. We have evident problems too. But to see only weaknesses, and to diagnose them as part of a syndrome of decline, is to cling to a distorted view of the world and of our place within it. At worst, this undermines our position, and risks bringing about the very outcome it fears.

 

Brexit was a vote of confidence in our ability to shape our future as an independent democratic nation - a choice that few of our European neighbours feel they still have. We should not allow declinist panics to confuse the outcome."

 

 

 

Robert Tombs, Cambridge University professor

The Spectator 8 July 2017

INCOME STATEMENT for the 53 weeks ended 30 July 2017

 

J D Wetherspoon plc, company number: 1709784
	Notes	53 weeks		53 weeks		53 weeks	52 weeks	52 weeks	52 weeks
		ended		ended		ended	ended	ended	ended
		30 July 2017		30 July 2017		30 July 2017	24 July 2016	24 July 2016	24 July 2016
		Before		Exceptional		After	Before	Exceptional	After
		exceptional		items		exceptional	exceptional	items	exceptional
		items		(note 4)		items	items	(note 4)	items
		£000		£000		£000	£000	£000	£000
Revenue	1	1,660,750		-		1,660,750	1,595,197	-	1,595,197
Operating costs		(1,532,242)		-		(1,532,242)	(1,485,470)	-	(1,485,470)
Operating profit	2	128,508		-		128,508	109,727	-	109,727
Property gains/(losses)	3	2,807		(26,868)		(24,061)	5,335	(14,561)	(9,226)
Finance income	6	72		402		474	116	-	116
Finance costs	6	(28,557)		-		(28,557)	(34,568)	-	(34,568)
Profit before tax		102,830		(26,466)		76,364	80,610	(14,561)	66,049
Income tax expense	7	(25,846)		5,541		(20,305)	(23,689)	8,846	(14,843)
Profit for the year		76,984		(20,925)		56,059	56,921	(5,715)	51,206
Earnings per share (p)
- Basic1	8	70.8		(19.3)		51.5	49.5	(5.0)	44.5
- Diluted2	8	69.2		(18.8)		50.4	48.3	(4.9)	43.4
Operating profit per share (p)
- Diluted2	8	115.5		-		115.5	93.1	-	93.1

 

 

 

STATEMENT OF COMPRAHENSIVE INCOME for the 53 weeks ended 30 July 2017

 

		Notes	53 weeks	52 weeks
			ended	ended
			30 July 2017	24 July 2016
			£000	£000
Items which may be reclassified subsequently to profit or loss:
Interest-rate swaps: gain/(loss) taken to other comprehensive income			24,581	(23,504)
Tax on items taken directly to other comprehensive income		7	(4,814)	3,432
Currency translation differences			2,104	4,265
Net gain/(loss) recognised directly in other comprehensive income			21,871	(15,807)
Profit for the year			56,059	51,206
Total comprehensive income for the year			77,930	35,399

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 Calculated excluding shares held in trust.

2 Calculated using issued share capital which includes shares held in trust.