Minimum Alcohol pricing to be signed into Law

syklops

neris wrote: »

was in one of the regular pubs id go to on a a night out a few weeks back and was leaving just before 10 so knew i wouldnt make the local lidl to get cans. asked the barman if they sold cans of heineken. they did, at €24 for 6 cans no thanks. places will sell you bottles of whiskey or wine but rather then charge for the bottle they,ll charge you what the bottle would sell for if it had been sold in measures behind the bar

Shot of whiskey = ~4 euros. 20 shots in a standard 700ml bottle. so Bottle of Jameson would be 80 euro. Its currently 25 in Dunnes.

And they wonder why peole prefer to go to off-licenses / supermarkets.

BuilderPlumber

In response to above 3 posts: I know some places that still operate an off licence and pub and they will still sell the off licence drink after 10 but at pub prices! €80 for a bottle of Jameson would be what they'd charge at 10.15 but would charge you around €30 for it at 9.30!!

We hear in all these drink debates about drinking at home being bad. We see all these vintners come out and say things like 'the proper measures are in pubs so people will be drinking more responsibly than at home'. Another argument they have is people will be chatting in pubs more and therefore drink less. The healthocracy brigade stay silent on drinking in pubs meanwhile and it seems a united front against a common enemy: home drinking. Another argument is drink is available 24/7 at home and the temptation is there to drink all day. Now, as a type here, there is loads of beer and wine in my press just feet away and I have no intention to drink any of it until night time Christmas Eve. I expect the stock will last until early February.

The arguments for price increases are wearing a little thin at this stage. The arguments as to why pubs are a better place to be after they downing home drinking in favor of pub drinking are nonexistent. From my perspective, 90% of pubs are dirt-coated dives where sourpuss bar personnel, nonexistent or poor entertainment, puking drunkards, extremes of no one in them to out of control parties, and overpriced beer are the norm. There are some lovely pubs too where the owners make an effort but most of them are not nice places.

thesandeman

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

There was no music playing there apart from the awful drivel on the radio. Many people including myself looked in and went off again as it was not worth supporting.

So your alternate form of entertainment was standing outside watching the 'many' other people looking in and going off again?
I'd have put up with the crap music and have a pint inside while I was formatting my rant. It might even have given me a chance to have a chat with the bar person.

oblivious

OK lads and ladies, there are a few poster who continue to bring the thread off topic. We are hear to discuss the MUP not the different entertainment values of various establishment. Last warning

rubadub

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

We see all these vintners come out and say things like 'the proper measures are in pubs so people will be drinking more responsibly than at home'.

Meanwhile you have the publicans serving these gangs doing the 12 pubs of christmas. I was wondering if any pub has gotten in trouble over that yet?

They officially call binge drinking 3 pints, so this is 4 binges in one. Not that I agree with this ludicrous definition.

syklops

rubadub wrote: »

Meanwhile you have the publicans serving these gangs doing the 12 pubs of christmas. I was wondering if any pub has gotten in trouble over that yet?

They officially call binge drinking 3 pints, so this is 4 binges in one. Not that I agree with this ludicrous definition.

I was pleased to see the one or two pubs I would frequent in Dublin had signs up saying they werent allowing groups doing the 12 pubs of Christmas.

the beer revolu

rubadub wrote: »

Meanwhile you have the publicans serving these gangs doing the 12 pubs of christmas. I was wondering if any pub has gotten in trouble over that yet?

They officially call binge drinking 3 pints, so this is 4 binges in one. Not that I agree with this ludicrous definition.

But those people are drinking 12 pints responsibly in a safe environment under the supervision of trained professionals, therefore none of them will engage in antisocial behaviour afterwards unlike the yobbos drinking evil cheap booze in the lethal home environment!

Sleepy

Could this be a good thing for the craft brewers?

As it stands, there is almost always a "5 for €10" offer in my local off-licence (McHughs in Kilbarrack) so could this drag the generics into that price range, forcing them to compete with the craft brewers on product quality rather than marketing budget?

dr.fuzzenstein

Sleepy wrote: »

Could this be a good thing for the craft brewers?

As it stands, there is almost always a "5 for €10" offer in my local off-licence (McHughs in Kilbarrack) so could this drag the generics into that price range, forcing them to compete with the craft brewers on product quality rather than marketing budget?

In a word, no. People will either continue to buy the "budget" brand or switch to mainstream filth like Heineken and Budweiser. If your main consideration for buying beer is price, taste is not high up the agenda. So now they will simply buy the "proper"* brands, rather than the cheap knockoff.
Few people will be swayed to buy craft beer.
I might be, or I just buy a lot more Becks or Krombacher.

*
just as bad or even worse than budget beer, but it's a recognizable brand, doncherknow!

Sleepy

I dunno, I drink craft beer when I can afford to but as payday draws near I'd often buy budget brands (Perlenbacher usually but sometimes Heineken / Tuborg if there's a good deal on and I'm skint). If it gets to a point where there's little or no price difference between them there'd be no reason to drop the standards.

rubadub

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

mainstream filth like Heineken and Budweiser. If your main consideration for buying beer is price, taste is not high up the agenda.

Taste is a priority for many drinking heineken & bud, but its that they want it devoid of taste. Many do not like the taste of beer, only drinking it to get drunk/tipsy and its one they can tolerate. I had a colleague look at me funny when I said I would have a beer with a curry, and admitted he went for bud as it had so little flavour. I have heard other "mainstream" drinkers try stuff in pubs and complain that it had an aftertaste, i.e. had taste at all, not even saying it was bad, just that it had an aftertaste.

I was saying if cheese went to have a minimum price I would not expect the easi single and mild cheddar crowd to switch to more flavoursome ones you might get in a good cheese mongers. There may be other cheeses/beers which are better quality and mild in flavour but many would not want to risk switching. And now its going to be seemingly against the law for bars to give out free tasters. This is coupled with the fact that most "mainstream beer drinkers" I know would not dream of buying a half pint for fear of damaging their oh so macho image, so they would not risk the cash on a full pint, so are more likely to stick with what they know.

the beer revolu

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

In a word, no. People will either continue to buy the "budget" brand or switch to mainstream filth like Heineken and Budweiser
!

You don't think you're being just a tad over dramatic?

dr.fuzzenstein

the beer revolu wrote: »

You don't think you're being just a tad over dramatic?

No, not really. People who buy budget brands will not switch to high end, gourmet, artisan craft beer. They'll switch to Bud, Heineken, Carling, Wifebeater, sorry, Stella and so on.
Of course some might suddenly discover superior taste, but most just want to get hammered.
Five bucks and my left nut. Of course we will have to wait if this hateful piece of sh*t law will ever see the light of day.

edit
Hope we won't have to find out.
One more possibility: people will buy more smuggled, counterfeit booze, such as turpentine in a Smirnoff bottle, courtesy of your friendly local criminal whose branching out from counterfeit Chinese fags.

the beer revolu

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

No, not really. People who buy budget brands will not switch to high end, gourmet, artisan craft beer. They'll switch to Bud, Heineken, Carling, Wifebeater, sorry, Stella and so on.
Of course some might suddenly discover superior taste, but most just want to get hammered.
Five bucks and my left nut. Of course we will have to wait if this hateful piece of sh*t law will ever see the light of day.

I thought it was pretty obvious that I was referring to your "mainstream filth" hyperbole.

I didn't really take anything seriously after that.

dr.fuzzenstein

the beer revolu wrote: »

I thought it was pretty obvious that I was referring to your "mainstream filth" hyperbole.

I didn't really take anything seriously after that.

I'm not a hipster, I don't buy artisan craft beer and I'm not a food or drink snob in any way. And that is in no way a negative comment on the above. I just regard Heineken and Budweiser as filth. Perlenbacher is superior to both of those in just about any way. Actually I would say the same about paint thinner. Its kind of like saying a nice steak is superior to eating road kill off the road. Sorry, I get carried away.

matrim

Minimum pricing ruled as illegal by the eu

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/eu-court-rules-against-minimum-pricing-for-alcohol-712743.html

listermint

Thats plan A out the window Leo.

Moron.



Sure we can't be interfering in the free market
.........

L1011

As if it was ever going to be different to the smokes ruling

dr.fuzzenstein

Or will they plough ahead with this anyway, legality be dammed?

listermint

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Or will they plough ahead with this anyway, legality be dammed?

Doubt it.

L1011

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Or will they plough ahead with this anyway, legality be dammed?

Would be very, very politically dangerous particularly as the same Minister has, within the past 18 months, made a point about how the Oireachtas can't pass a law they know is unconstitutional and this is close to the same.

Sleepy

Presumably they'll just whack a duty on all beer instead? That's going to hurt craft brewers the most!

Grolschevik

Minimum pricing would be illegal in cases where a tax could be imposed instead.

So they could still jack up the duty to achieve the same result, but with a monetary benefit direct to the state this time.

L1011

Grolschevik wrote: »

Minimum pricing would be illegal in cases where a tax could be imposed instead.

So they could still jack up the duty to achieve the same result, but with a monetary benefit direct to the state this time.

Hiking duty would hurt the publicans - this entire pathetic charade was a subsidy to publicans as it wasn't going to increase their prices at all.

Grolschevik

Is there any reason they couldn't introduce a distinct "off-sales tax"?

L1011

Grolschevik wrote: »

Is there any reason they couldn't introduce a distinct "off-sales tax"?

Far, far, far too obvious and likely illegal also as a anti-competitive measure

Pro-publican measures have to be hidden as being public health measures, they can't be obvious.

dr.fuzzenstein

L1011 wrote: »

Hiking duty would hurt the publicans - this entire pathetic charade was a subsidy to publicans as it wasn't going to increase their prices at all.

That's great in a way, because now when the Mad Marys scream for higher prices because "think of the children", suddenly the goverment would either have to give in or admit that this was all about their friends and relatives in the pub trade. So I expect the government to suddenly balk at hiking taxes with a lot of "now let's not be hasty here" and "we don't think that a blunt tool like taxes will help in this case" along with a lot of hurt "we got stabbed in the back" rhetoric.

And I can't resist:(again)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aiAdL8yy1Q

L1011

Expect to see a "rising taxes will adversely impact the inflation rate*, would cause requests for pay rises, we can't be doing that now..." back-away clause.

Measure is dead as a dodo now - Varadkar is unlikely to be MfH next time out anyway.



*despite the fact that the current govt. would dearly love a 2% inflation rate

oblivious

Looks like minimum unit pricing (MUP) of alcohol will be a no show.

As of this morning the European Court of Justice, that the effect of the introduction of minimum unit pricing would significantly restrict the market.

BuilderPlumber

L1011 wrote: »

Hiking duty would hurt the publicans - this entire pathetic charade was a subsidy to publicans as it wasn't going to increase their prices at all.

That this is ruled illegal is the best news all week. Nothing is ever proposed by our governments ever that is not pro vintners. Now, perhaps our politicians can legislate on issues of immediate concern like the flooding and reform insurance (and while we are at it, abolish public liability insurance so as the vintners can benefit and all and be able to reduce their prices).

It is time the government legislate based on the main concerns of the people they are happy to meet to discuss major concerns with. Not lobby groups but the people. It is time for the vintners to accept free trade and that alcohol sold elsewhere is a reality. It is up to the vintners to lobby politicians to legislate against things like public liability insurance so as to decrease their price and be more competitive. It is up to the vintners to market their establishments as giving an experience you don't get at home and it is up to each publican to make an effort and not assume a god given right to custom.