Minimum Alcohol pricing to be signed into Law

Dr Crayfish

I would imagine at least 80% of people would be against this - why is this not being reflected by our government? They are dictating to us ffs.

A Disgrace

Put simply, It's a cynical plot to get people back in pubs - driven entirely by the all-powerful publican lobby groups. This at a time when (in my eyes anyway) our relationship with alcohol has never been better, and is entirely unrecognisable compared to those boozy, puke filled streets of the 80's, 90's and 00's.

Young people don't drink like they used to, couples with kids would rather enjoy a couple of bottles of wine at home with dinner than have to get a babysitter and a taxi to go out. A lot of us would rather go to a friends house, or watch a movie with 4 or 5 nice craft beers. All of this has seen pubs struggle and by punishing the above people, they hope it'll fill the pubs again.

In the end, everyone will suffer from this ridiculous plan, in a country with one of the highest prices for alcohol as it is

No more Dine in for €14 deals at M & S (at least with a bottle of wine)
No more price reductions of short date stock
Price increases due to the extra costs of installing and staffing 'Beer Caves'
Off-licence closures, leading to decreased competition
No more Christmas specials

Pretty grim stuff.

rubadub

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

I would imagine at least 80% of people would be against this

If it was fully explained to them I think that figure would be correct. Many people I spoke to about it are unaware the money is not going to the government (well a small amount in the form of added VAT would). People thought I was taking the piss and refused to believe it, saying "but why the hell would they let the supermarkets take the bulk of the profit, that's just stupid".

Any campaingers in support of it typically keep very quiet about this point. Many think it something along the lines of increased excise duty which is not going to effect them.

If I was a stanuch non drinker and thought alcohol should be illegal I would certainly not be in support of this, creating a "sin tax" but not bothering to collect it, utter madness.

Dr Crayfish

Also, no way will this get me to go to the pub more often. I'm not in my 20s any more and don't go out as often. I probably wont change any of my habits, I'll just be out of pocket more.

rubadub

A Disgrace wrote: »

No more Dine in for €14 deals at M & S (at least with a bottle of wine)

Was this explicitly said?

I had been wondering if we would see more deals, and bottle of coke for free with spirits etc. I also wondered about offies being able to sell bundles. Buy 2 bottles of budvar and a can of bavaria for €6, so really its €2.50 each for the budvar and €1 for the can.

http://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/PHAB-2015-as-published.pdf

Unless I misunderstand it this sound like both could happen.

(7) Where an alcohol product is supplied or offered for sale together with another product (other than an alcohol product) or service, for a single price, this section shall apply as if the alcohol product concerned is supplied or offered for sale on its own for that price.

(8) Subject to any regulations under section 21, where an alcohol product is supplied or offered for sale together with another alcohol product for a single price, the quantity in grams of alcohol contained in each of the alcohol products concerned shall be included when calculating the minimum price of the first mentioned alcohol product.

L1011

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

I know, it's bloody embarrassing.
There'll be no more slabs of Guinness and Carlsberg at Christmas for €24, if it was introduced before Christmas, which is unlikely, I would imagine a lot of people would do their entire Christmas shop up North. It's a ridiculous hair brained scheme, and it wont lead to drinking less. If anything people with an alcohol problem will have bigger problems with less money to spend on other things like their kids etc...

The first time this came up, they said they'd wait until NI introduced the same before doing it

Two issues:

1: NI hasn't got a government
2: I doubt any other UK goverment will be silly enough to do it after Scotland's troubles.

So it appears they're blasting ahead regardless....

Hotblack Desiato

Dumbest government policy in years and if Leo backs this, he needs to go.

He's a bit of a wrong 'un anyway and I don't trust him. Enda Kenny in a less hick wrapper but still a conservative at heart.

Wanderer78

Hotblack Desiato wrote:

Dumbest government policy in years and if Leo backs this, he needs to go.

Alcohol pricing is a critical problem that should cause Leo to go! Now that is scary!

Hotblack Desiato

If he's willing to impose something this stupid and unworkable and unjustified, in spite of the evidence, and illegal under European law, then yes he is not fit for office.

Wanderer78

Hotblack Desiato wrote:

If he's willing to impose something this stupid and unworkable and unjustified, in spite of the evidence, and illegal under European law, then yes he is not fit for office.

Wow that's kinna scary. I'm sorry but this is not a critical issue for our country right now

Hotblack Desiato

I am seeing deflection but no argument. Politicians who support bad policies should be removed from office by the electorate. This is a bad policy.

Wanderer78

Hotblack Desiato wrote:

I am seeing deflection but no argument. Politicians who support bad policies should be removed from office by the electorate. This is a bad policy.

= no government

Dr Crayfish

Hi Dr Crayfish

Thank you for your email. The need to respond to the problems of alcohol have been carefully evaluated and debated for many years.

This legislation appears to have a broad level of consensus across all parties. I respect your right to oppose it.

Regards.

Richard Bruton, TD
Constituency Office



This is the type of reply I got from my TDs. So it doesn't matter what their constituents think, only what they in their Leinster House bubble think. They know best for us plebians.

www.whoismytd.com get on it

rubadub

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Alcohol pricing is a critical problem that should cause Leo to go! Now that is scary!

it is not just the alcohol side of things. They have pissed away presumably 10s or hundereds of thousands so far, could be millions for all I know the way they squander money on legal fees etc, -all this on a proposed law which is seemingly illegal. Scotland were left very redfaced, we will be even worse, "once bitten twice shy", not in Leo's case.

If this was a proposed illegal law on some item I have zero interest in, a minimum pricing law on tiddlywinks sets I would be rightly pissed off too, even though it might only effect a couple of people in the country.

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

This legislation appears to have a broad level of consensus across all parties.

I don't think I have seen any politician with a reasonable reason as to why the supermarkets should get the bulk of the profit.

A Disgrace

I wonder will this crackdown on Alcohol ever extend to pubs and the general tourism industry.

I mean if it's so evil and such a scourge to our society, surely we should stop sending every foreign dignitary that visits the country to the Guinness Storehouse.

And as for pubs, if supermarkets are being forced to hide their boozy products behind a curtain of shame, then surely we should force pubs to remove brewery signage from outside their premises, and block up windows? I mean it's just sooo tempting.

While I'm at it, no pubs with 5 miles of a school. Kids these days are terrible alcos.

Dr Crayfish

rubadub wrote: »

it is not just the alcohol side of things. They have pissed away presumably 10s or hundereds of thousands so far, could be millions for all I know the way they squander money on legal fees etc, -all this on a proposed law which is seemingly illegal. Scotland were left very redfaced, we will be even worse, "once bitten twice shy", not in Leo's case.

so are you saying the bill couldn't be enacted due to EU laws? If that's the case why are they bothering with all this?

rubadub

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

so are you saying the bill couldn't be enacted due to EU laws? If that's the case why are they bothering with all this?

They can, if they can prove there is no other way to go about it.
I posted this before.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/heard-the-one-about-eu-law-and-irish-minimum-alcohol-prices-1.2522678

The only way minimum price rules can be saved is if member states can demonstrate that in a given case minimum pricing is somehow more effective than taxation. Judging by his December all-guns-blazing reaction to the Court’s ruling, Leo Varadkar has clung to the hope of doing this in order to save the draft Irish minimum pricing arrangements. He has claimed that taxation cannot be used in Ireland because retailers here sell alcohol for prices lower than excise and VAT rates (apparently thus demonstrating immunity to all efforts to control them using tax law). Such reasoning seems most unlikely to be accepted by the Court of Justice. If retailers really are selling alcohol at prices lower than the tax rates charged by

the Government, then that problem can be sorted out by enforcing below-cost selling rules against them. Thus taxation remains an option. There is no need to get into minimum pricing rules at all.

This is not just a one off journo in the times saying this, the same was said of Scotland and others said it about Ireland too.

Increasing excise is the obvious sensible way to go about it (which I would not agree with but far better than this suggestion), then the "sin tax" goes to the goverment rather than tesco. They will not openly say it, but they would be dead against increasing excise as prices go up across the board, so their publican mates will suffer a price hike too, also the wealthy alcos who drink more expensive beer will also be hit. So overall in health terms, (which the bill is even named after Public Health (Alcohol) Bill 2015), more people would be effected if excise went up -so that should be a good thing, so not only is there an alternative it is arguably the better option anyway.

They could also increase exicse on spirits a lot more, as I was predicting this "health" bill might have the opposite effect, encrouage the dipsos to change to spirits.

Dr Crayfish

So do you think this will actually happen?

A Disgrace

rubadub wrote: »

They can, if they can prove there is no other way to go about it.
I posted this before.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/heard-the-one-about-eu-law-and-irish-minimum-alcohol-prices-1.2522678


This is not just a one off journo in the times saying this, the same was said of Scotland and others said it about Ireland too.

Increasing excise is the obvious sensible way to go about it (which I would not agree with but far better than this suggestion), then the "sin tax" goes to the goverment rather than tesco. They will not openly say it, but they would be dead against increasing excise as prices go up across the board, so their publican mates will suffer a price hike too, also the wealthy alcos who drink more expensive beer will also be hit. So overall in health terms, (which the bill is even named after Public Health (Alcohol) Bill 2015), more people would be effected if excise went up -so that should be a good thing, so not only is there an alternative it is arguably the better option anyway.

They could also increase exicse on spirits a lot more, as I was predicting this "health" bill might have the opposite effect, encrouage the dipsos to change to spirits.

So in a nutshell, it's a promise made to publicans during election time (a hugely influential group) - to hit the off-licences and supermarkets and get more people into their pubs, masquerading as a health bill.

Christ, this country.

Blut2

A Disgrace wrote: »

So in a nutshell, it's a promise made to publicans during election time (a hugely influential group) - to hit the off-licences and supermarkets and get more people into their pubs, masquerading as a health bill.

Christ, this country.

This is the whole thing pretty much summed up.

Legally - it will almost certainly fail, as shown in Scotland
Financially - increasing excise duty would increase government revenue, instead of Tescos
Morally/Health Based - if the goal is to reduce consumption of alcohol, an excise duty than increases price across the board is the way to go. That way spirits, and sales in pubs, also get more expensive.

There is absolutely no reason to attempt to implement this bizarre form of minimum pricing, other than to to try to appeal to publicans. That TDs are talking of a "broad based consensus" is nonsense. Not one of them has addressed why this has been brought in instead of an excise duty increase.

Ipso

Blut2 wrote: »

This is the whole thing pretty much summed up.

Legally - it will almost certainly fail, as shown in Scotland
Financially - increasing excise duty would increase government revenue, instead of Tescos
Morally/Health Based - if the goal is to reduce consumption of alcohol, an excise duty than increases price across the board is the way to go. That way spirits, and sales in pubs, also get more expensive.

There is absolutely no reason to attempt to implement this bizarre form of minimum pricing, other than to to try to appeal to publicans. That TDs are talking of a "broad based consensus" is nonsense. Not one of them has addressed why this has been brought in instead of an excise duty increase.

In fairness there may be a "broad based consensus" of publicans.

rubadub

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

So do you think this will actually happen?

I don't think so, I cannot imagine what they could have up their sleeve that would convince the EU that some form of taxation is not a viable alternative. It is clear to me what they are attempting to do and who their target is, any attempt to say why taxation will not work that I could think of would blatantly expose this and I could not see the EU thinking its acceptable.

We used to have laws against below cost selling, so they could be re-introduced. Studies were done in the UK a good few years ago when there were loads of claims of below cost selling and they only found a handful of obscure non-mainstream brands being sold below cost.

Tesco and others certainly sell vodka below cost, the excise and VAT are more than what it is sold for. But I imagine it is only a few euro less. They sell a bottle for 12.99 which has excise duty of 11.17, this is before the VAT too. So they well sell for a few euro below cost, but if excise is jacked up by €8 this would bring the €13 bottle to €21, which is what their plan was with min pricing. There is no way in hell tesco could continue selling for €13, if the excise alone was now €19.17.

There is no real secret they want to protect pubs as an alternative they spoke about was an off-sales levy.

Reputable Rog

I don't think the EU actually struck down the Scottish plan, they sent it back to the Scottish courts for a ruling, which in effect deemed MUP lawful.
It is now being challenged in the Supreme Court in London by the Scotch Whisky Association.
The MUP in Scotland is proposed at 50p, which more than likely would be reflected in Norn Iron should they introduce it. €1 is the price propped here, almost 80% more expensive.
With Brexit being delayed until 2021 at the earliest, any alcohol retailer within striking distance of the border will suffer, MUP either side or not.

rubadub

Reputable Rog wrote: »

The MUP in Scotland is proposed at 50p, which more than likely would be reflected in Norn Iron should they introduce it. €1 is the price propped here, almost 80% more expensive..

where did you see this?

their bill can be seen here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2012/4/pdfs/asp_20120004_en.pdf

ours is below

rubadub wrote: »

The maths from the proposed bill is

500(the ml) x 5 (the %) x 0.0789= 197cent

theirs is £1.25 for the same amount, so €1.41 at the moment. Still a significant difference but not 80%, more like 40%..

Reputable Rog

rubadub wrote: »

where did you see this?

their bill can be seen here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2012/4/pdfs/asp_20120004_en.pdf

ours is below


theirs is £1.25 for the same amount, so €1.41 at the moment. Still a significant difference but not 80%, more like 40%..

My reading of it was 50p per unit, apologies if I got it wrong.

elperello

L1011 wrote: »

The provided suggested image in the documentation by the state for the 'curtain' not only made alcohol purchasing furtive, it made it particularly appealing. Area of a supermarket, locked away with "BEER CAVE" written on it and random, non-drink related imagery

Quote from Senator Frances Black in today's Irish Times -

the Bill is "just a small step in changing our relationship with alcohol" and "if it can save one life it will be worth it"

How can you argue with the likes of that from a so-called legislator?

rubadub

Reputable Rog wrote: »

My reading of it was 50p per unit, apologies if I got it wrong.

"Units" vary around the world, this is why I prefer not to use the term. This is probably where the confusion came from.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_drink#Definitions_in_various_countries

500ml 5% is 2 Irish units, and 2.5 UK units. (1.4 in the US, 1.6 in Denmark)

You will often see UK units listed on cans on sale here.

Harry Angstrom

elperello wrote: »

Quote from Senator Frances Black in today's Irish Times -

the Bill is "just a small step in changing our relationship with alcohol" and "if it can save one life it will be worth it"

How can you argue with the likes of that from a so-called legislator?

There's nobody more self-righteous than a reformed drinker. The fact that she's a senator and has zero mandate from the broad electorate makes it even more farcical.

rubadub

I saw some figures pulled out of the air, making out like the increase will be very little.

https://www.kildarestreet.com/sendebates/?id=2015-12-17a.93

It has been alleged that the measures will cause difficulties for people on lower incomes. It is recommended that people should limit the number of units of alcohol they drink weekly to 17 for men and 11 for women. Minimum pricing would result in a weekly increase in costs for a person adhering to this recommendation of approximately 30 cent per week or €1.20 per month. These figures refer to people who are buying alcohol in off-licences.

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/seanad2015121700002

People who drink alcohol purchased in supermarkets and consume it within the safe limits will pay 30 cent a week more, which is €15.70 over a full year, with minimum unit pricing.

now for real figures.
https://www.aldi.ie/galahad-12---pack/p/062226006338400

That is aldis budget beer, 12 x 500ml x 4% for €8.79. This will increase to €18.94. So this is 18.94 units. The increase is €10.15, so 53.6cent per unit.

For a man the limit is 17 units per week (in 2012 it was 21). So the increase is €9.11 per week and €473.82 per year. Over 30 times more than the estimate ministers are quoting.

Of that extra money aldi get €385.22 the government get a mere €88.60 in tax.

Gerrup Outta Dat!

I sometimes drink Tesco lager. Sometimes, all I want is an ice-cold beer, nothing fancy or hipstery. Tesco lager is 440 ml can 3.8% with 12 cans costing 6 Euro.

The new legislation dictates that each gram of ethanol will cost 10 cent. So, 440 ml * 3.8% = 16.72 ml of alcohol. I ml of ethanol is 0.79 grams. This equates to 13.2088 grams of ethanol, meaning €1.32 per can or 15.85 Euro for 12 cans as opposed to 6 Euro .. almost triple the price ! There is also a bottle of Old Samuel Kentucky Bourbon, 70 cl for €15 (40%). This will be 28 Euro.

Will pints of beer in Wetherspoons for E2.79 be affected? I can see this being taken to Luxembourg to ECJ.