The Pub trade is dying - Minimum price for Alcohol?

suicide_circus

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Don't celebrate yet. Department of Health have already released a statement welcoming the result and restating their commitment to the plan.

They would say that. It'll delay them significantly if nothing else

jobbridge4life

suicide_circus wrote: »

They would say that. It'll delay them significantly if nothing else

You'd be surprised. Also declared intention to introduce the Public Health (Aclohol) Bill in the next few weeks.

senordingdong

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Don't celebrate yet. Department of Health have already released a statement welcoming the result and restating their commitment to the plan.

We will see a price hike. That's a certainty.

All the might change is the banner under which the increase is carried, our the mechanism for collecting it.

awec

murphyaii wrote: »

Was in oliver st john gogartys last sunday after the game about 11pm.
7.30 for a carlsberg, i nearly keeled over when i heard the price.
Extortionate prices in temple bar but i always knew that.
If the publicans want the public to come back they need to reduce prices which in turn landlords need to reduce the rents for their pub :mad:premises which is the root cause.
:mad:

Why do people drink in Temple Bar? It's rubbish.

If you know the prices are ridiculous (which they are) then vote with your feet and go elsewhere.

rubadub

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Don't celebrate yet. Department of Health have already released a statement welcoming the result and restating their commitment to the plan.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

You'd be surprised. Also declared intention to introduce the Public Health (Aclohol) Bill in the next few weeks.

Links?

hatrickpatrick

senordingdong wrote: »

We will see a price hike. That's a certainty.

All the might change is the banner under which the increase is carried, our the mechanism for collecting it.

How do you suppose they'll be able to do that now, though? The only way they can show that taxation won't work is if they explain to the ECJ that they're trying to protect their vinter friends and their absolutely extortionate prices from competition. There's no way the ECJ will accept that as a valid argument.

hatrickpatrick

rubadub wrote: »

Links?

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/varadkar-to-press-ahead-with-minimum-alcohol-pricing-plan-1.2338829

Sounds like bullsh!t to me, TBH. I can't see any way they can convince the ECJ that this measure is acceptable on protectionist grounds.

rubadub

Can't see how they could argue it at all.

The ruling indicated minimum unit pricing for alcohol was not precluded by EU law if it was considered to be a better measure than taxation for reducing alcohol harm, the group said.

Minimum pricing had distinct advantages over taxation, primarily in that it can effectively target the heaviest drinkers in society, while having little or no impact on those who drink in a low-risk manner, she said.

Increasing excise so a €1 can now costs €2, or a €3 can costs €4 means it hits both the wealthy and poor heavy drinkers. So I cannot see how min pricing could be better for reducing "alcohol harm" overall.

And "little or no impact" on infrequent drinkers? it was posted before how someone having I think a bottle of week would be paying a higher increase than the water charges are.

It has little or no impact on wealthy drinkers, bingers or occasional sippers.

An increase in excise means the money goes to the government not lining the pockets even more of those selling the drug.

I wondered how much Varadkar had already squandered in admin with this nonsense, knowing fine well the outcome of scottish case could have been looked at and was unlikely to go through. But the fact he is pressing on with squandering even more taxpayers money beggars belief.

VinLieger

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/varadkar-to-press-ahead-with-minimum-alcohol-pricing-plan-1.2338829

Sounds like bullsh!t to me, TBH. I can't see any way they can convince the ECJ that this measure is acceptable on protectionist grounds.

Pubowners expressed disappointment with the ruling. The Licensed Vintners Association, reprenting Dublin publicans, said it represented a lost opportunity for public health policy and was a blow for the ontrade.

Lost opportunity to try to force people back into their overpriced premises more like

VinLieger

rubadub wrote: »

Can't see how they could argue it at all.




Increasing excise so a €1 can now costs €2, or a €3 can costs €4 means it hits both the wealthy and poor heavy drinkers. So I cannot see how min pricing could be better for reducing "alcohol harm" overall.

And "little or no impact" on infrequent drinkers? it was posted before how someone having I think a bottle of week would be paying a higher increase than the water charges are.

It has little or no impact on wealthy drinkers, bingers or occasional sippers.

An increase in excise means the money goes to the government not lining the pockets even more of those selling the drug.

Those numbers add up though, also its not gonna solve the problem it claims to be aiming at which is problem drinkers who are gonna continue paying whatever the cost cus you know ..... they have a drinking problem.

This is literally only punishing those of us responsible enough to drink sensibly for those who cant control themselves.

All its gonna do is put more money in the governments pockets and not actually solve any problem

suicide_circus

VinLieger wrote: »

Lost opportunity to try to force people back into their overpriced premises more like

They must think the people are utterly brain dead. A publican cares about public health the same way as a pornographer cares about public morality.

jobbridge4life

suicide_circus wrote: »

They must think the people are utterly brain dead. A publican cares about public health the same way as a pornographer cares about public morality.

Ah now... pornographers never peddled people a substance till they died from it.

hatrickpatrick

suicide_circus wrote: »

A publican cares about public health the same way as a pornographer cares about public morality.

This needs to become a meme. Seriously.

rubadub

VinLieger wrote: »

All its gonna do is put more money in the governments pockets and not actually solve any problem

+1, I think the whole idea is nonsense, but its utter madness to be lining the pockets of offies even more instead of going into the government. So if I am paying €1 extra either way I certainly would not want it to be via minimum pricing.

dr.fuzzenstein

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Ah now... pornographers never peddled people a substance till they died from it.

Only dims your eyesight and gives you hairy palms.

Reiver

"It's good news for drinkers. They look set to continue to enjoy Ireland's famously good value booze as the European Court of Justice finds Government plans to introduce minimum pricing for alcohol would infringe EU rules on free trade." Irish Times Facebook

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/varadkar-to-press-ahead-with-minimum-alcohol-pricing-plan-1.2338829

Are they living in an alternate dimension?! I paid about a euro something for a nice Estrella in Spain but here if I get a pint for less than 4e, it's seen like some sort of divine visitation!

Sh1tbag OToole

Finnerbots will be out in force soon, telling us how their €2.00 beer cans are going to cure alcoholism

humanji

MOD: Threads merged.

jobbridge4life

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

Finnerbots will be out in force soon, telling us how their €2.00 beer cans are going to cure alcoholism

If by Finnerbots you are referring to Fine Gael apparently it isn't exactly an FG demand but rather a Labour party one. Leo is just anxious to get as much passed as he can in order to make himself look great.

Banjo String

jobbridge4life wrote: »

If by Finnerbots you are referring to Fine Gael apparently it isn't exactly an FG demand but rather a Labour party one. Leo is just anxious to get as much passed as he can in order to make himself look great.

FG Manifesto , 2011.

FG Manifesto wrote:

Supporting Irish Pubs: 
Fine Gael recognises the importance of the Irish pub for tourism, rural jobs and as a social outlet in communities across the country.
We will support the local pub by banning the practice of below cost selling on alcohol, particularly by large supermarkets and the impact this has had on alcohol consumption and the viability of pubs.

Purely coincidental lots of TDs are publicans obviously.

Adapt your business model, or fail lads.

jobbridge4life

Banjo String wrote: »

FG Manifesto , 2011.



Purely coincidental lots of TDs are publicans obviously.

Adapt your business model, or fail lads.

There is a significant difference between banning below cost selling and introducing a minimum unit price and the other prohibitions advertising/promotional activities being suggested. It is interesting to note that Varadkar was on the record before becoming Minister for health as opposing the ban on sports sponsorship.

Banjo String

jobbridge4life wrote: »

There is a significant difference between banning below cost selling and introducing a minimum unit price and the other prohibitions advertising/promotional activities being suggested. It is interesting to note that Varadkar was on the record before becoming Minister for health as opposing the ban on sports sponsorship.

Eh. No there's not.

Also, has there ever been any indisputable evidence some of the big players are even indulging in below cost selling?

How would a business such as an off license survive, considering alcohol is their core product

I can buy 5 x smithwicks pale ale in O'Briens = €10

Same bottles in my local pub, = €27.50.

You'd imagine the pub and off license are using the same supplier, if not, why not.

jobbridge4life

Banjo String wrote: »

Eh. No there's not.

Also, has there ever been any indisputable evidence some of the big players are even indulging in below cost selling?

How would a business such as an off license survive, considering alcohol is their core product

I can buy 5 x smithwicks pale ale in O'Briens = €10

Same bottles in my local pub, = €27.50.

You'd imagine the pub and off license are using the same supplier, if not, why not.

Eh yes there is. One prohibits the selling of alcohol at a loss the other installs an artificial floor.

Regardless I don't support either.

custard gannet

Reiver wrote: »

"It's good news for drinkers. They look set to continue to enjoy Ireland's famously good value booze as the European Court of Justice finds Government plans to introduce minimum pricing for alcohol would infringe EU rules on free trade." Irish Times Facebook

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/varadkar-to-press-ahead-with-minimum-alcohol-pricing-plan-1.2338829

Are they living in an alternate dimension?! I paid about a euro something for a nice Estrella in Spain but here if I get a pint for less than 4e, it's seen like some sort of divine visitation!

The headline is positive, yet the finer points of the ruling seem to side with the government. From what I can see they can't order every off licence to sell at a minimum cost per unit, but can increase taxes which would force the off licences to increase their pricing to maintain their profit.


The ironic thing is, if I have to make a few trips per year to the north to buy, I don't know, 500 cans per time in order to avoid this robbery, the fact that the cans are lying around my house seven nights per week would mean that I would likely be drinking more regularly than if, as now, I had to make the effort to go down the offo and buy them once I've run out, which apart from at the weekend or when I'm watching some champions league or internationals, I wouldn't currently bother doing. I've no idea how many cans I drink per year, but one thing seems likely, if the government brings this in I'll end up drinking more than I did already, only the Irish exchequer won't be getting any of it.

Sh1tbag OToole

jobbridge4life wrote: »

If by Finnerbots you are referring to Fine Gael apparently it isn't exactly an FG demand but rather a Labour party one. Leo is just anxious to get as much passed as he can in order to make himself look great.

I'd be very skeptical of that. Fine Gael has effectively been able to dump the blame for a lot of the bad things they did on Phil Hogan, who they probably knew from day 1 he had a cushy number as a Eurocrat waiting for him and the rest on labour so they'll get a few seats off them after the election. Good chance there are Fine Gaelers pulling the strings behind a lot of this but not coming out in public and accepting responsibility

Banjo String

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Eh yes there is. One prohibits the selling of alcohol at a loss the other installs an artificial floor.

Fair enough.

Regardless I don't support either.

Good.

Few naggins?

jobbridge4life

Banjo String wrote: »

Fair enough.

Good.

Few naggins?

Many many naggins until the b&stards make cost 50 euro.

syklops

Reiver wrote: »

"It's good news for drinkers. They look set to continue to enjoy Ireland's famously good value booze as the European Court of Justice finds Government plans to introduce minimum pricing for alcohol would infringe EU rules on free trade." Irish Times Facebook

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/varadkar-to-press-ahead-with-minimum-alcohol-pricing-plan-1.2338829

Are they living in an alternate dimension?! I paid about a euro something for a nice Estrella in Spain but here if I get a pint for less than 4e, it's seen like some sort of divine visitation!

That link says the government intends to continue with its plans to implement the bill. So how is that good news?

Reiver

syklops wrote: »

That link says the government intends to continue with its plans to implement the bill. So how is that good news?

Exactly. The Irish Times. Typical.

ArmaniJeanss

custard gannet wrote: »

The headline is positive, yet the finer points of the ruling seem to side with the government. From what I can see they can't order every off licence to sell at a minimum cost per unit, but can increase taxes which would force the off licences to increase their pricing to maintain their profit.

They can obviously increase excise duty anytime they want, but any such increase in excise also affects the dearer end of the market (pubs, clubs, hotels, corporate hospitality, tourism) as well as offlicenses. The beauty of a min price (from their pov) is that it only impacts the offlicense/supermarket trade.

syklops wrote: »

That link says the government intends to continue with its plans to implement the bill. So how is that good news?

Government is on holidays so thats just nonsense soundbites from whoever is left manning the desks imo. I can't see any way the ruling could be considered as a go-ahead for their plan, and presumably wiser heads will prevail in the next few weeks.