Minimum Alcohol pricing to be signed into Law

gctest50

BeerNut wrote: »

Yes. A private sector contractor runs it and is subject to public procurement rules and procedures. It (catering services in Leinster House; there's no such thing as the "Dáil bar") .......

.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/about/freedomofinformation/routinelypublishedinformation/barinformation/

gctest50

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

...........

The French may stick to a glass of wine with their dinner, but we Irish do the bottle.

nope


litres / 2015 :

France 11.6

Ireland 10.9

.

L1011

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

* The minimum price for wine is no cheaper than any bottle in my local Centra
* Naggins of Vodka unchanged.

Branded products will maintain their margin over the cheapest stuff, so both will rocket

Also, the total alcohol consumption per head has been falling here for years, falling far beyond the affordability level as I proved earlier in this thread when someone ran for cover for their argument that pricing reduced consumption - alcohol got cheaper here after Lenihan's second last budget and consumption still fell; and it has continued to fall.

Reputable Rog wrote: »

Carry Out originated from the Galvins Off licence group in Cork City which lost control of the chain and is now part of the Barry Group in Mallow.

Its another one of the chains then - will dig to find out which one. They don't run it anymore though.

edit: Cheers Take Home. And actually they might still run it

oceanman

I wouldn't worry too much, when and if this minimum pricing comes in it will leave the door wide open for huge amounts of smuggled booze, look whats happened with cigarettes when the priced them too high for people!
this is not a bad thing...its a very good thing.

L1011

oceanman wrote: »

I wouldn't worry too much, when and if this minimum pricing comes in it will leave the door wide open for huge amounts of smuggled booze, look whats happened with cigarettes when the priced them too high for people!
this is not a bad thing...its a very good thing.

Alcohol is significantly heavier, and more importantly not allowed in cabin baggage. Cigarette smuggling is primarily done by people on €19.98 return Ryanair fares filling a cabinmax bag with cartons. Plenty enough profit in that to cover costs and a nice margin.

Profit on smuggling in a checked bag of spirits would barely cover the cost of checking in the bag!

Blut2

L1011 wrote: »

Alcohol is significantly heavier, and more importantly not allowed in cabin baggage. Cigarette smuggling is primarily done by people on €19.98 return Ryanair fares filling a cabinmax bag with cartons. Plenty enough profit in that to cover costs and a nice margin.

Profit on smuggling in a checked bag of spirits would barely cover the cost of checking in the bag!

Lots more likely to end up with a bag full of broken glass and alcohol soaked clothes that way, too. Speaking from experience

BuilderPlumber

Simon Harris: do you want to side with the people or with speculators who want to up the price of alcohol to be rich or with pubs who want to charge what they like? Or Simon Harris: are you thick and follow failed doctors with their stupid diet books or do you know enough to reject correlated drivel? Simon Harris: do you want to be poor and unelected or rich and elected? It is up to you. Drop this MUP drivel or face the consequences.

BeerNut

gctest50 wrote: »

The Houses of the Oireachtas catering facilities consist of a Members’ Restaurant, a self-service restaurant, a coffee dock and two bars (Members' and Visitors').

Exactly. No Dáil bar. The Members' and Visitors' Bars back on to each other and both serve both Houses.

rubadub

Checkmate19 wrote: »

Sugar tax. Coffee cup tax next in the pipe line. Gtd after that takeaway tax..

At least those are taxes.

Checkmate19 wrote: »

I don't drink much and this won't effect me

It will effect you in the sense that the government will not be getting this "sin (non)tax" and so will be taxing you in other ways. Esp. when excise take drops.

This could possibly also backfire against the publicans. People are "predrinking" before going to pubs as they cannot afford the overpriced alcohol in pubs they go later on and have just a few pints. Many cannot afford to drink their entire desired amount in the pub so will not go.

An increase in off sale prices could lead to them not being able to afford to go to the pub at all, and just stick to having drink sessions in each others houses. More knacker drinking for younger people, who I also said I predict will switch to spirits, soft drinks can be bundled with the for free with the proposed law, so will appear much better value. They might just turn to other cheaper recreational drugs too.

L1011 wrote: »

Alcohol is significantly heavier, and more importantly not allowed in cabin baggage. Cigarette smuggling is primarily done by people on €19.98 return Ryanair fares filling a cabinmax bag with cartons.

Smokes come in 40foot containers too. Drink is produced in illegal distilleries and counterfeited. Smuggling of alcohol will be from up North or via trucks. Some gangs just steal industrial spirits and relabel. I have never once saw a poisoning due to fermented and distilled illegal alcohol, I have searched for a long time.

We can expect a hell of a lot more of this.

Fake alcohol warning issued after man becomes seriously ill from drinking methanol -Mar 14th 2017

Counterfeit alcohol seized at Dublin Port -August 22 2017

oceanman

L1011 wrote: »

Alcohol is significantly heavier, and more importantly not allowed in cabin baggage. Cigarette smuggling is primarily done by people on €19.98 return Ryanair fares filling a cabinmax bag with cartons. Plenty enough profit in that to cover costs and a nice margin.

Profit on smuggling in a checked bag of spirits would barely cover the cost of checking in the bag!

I was talking about professional smuggling, 40ft containers ect, the profit margin will make it well worth the risk..

BeerNut

Aaand it's back out of the Seanad, unfinished, again.

The Irish Times wrote:

The legislation passed committee stage in the Seanad last week and was due back this week for the report and final stages but has now been postponed for consultation.
Minister for Health Simon Harris said in the Seanad last week that he would engage in brief discussions with small retailers to discuss and explain how the provisions in the Bill for minimising the visibility of alcohol in smaller shops would work.

How anyone thinks they're going to get a good workable law at the end of all this is unfathomable.

L1011

Easily be another election before it gets to a final vote.

Remember not to vote publican!

elperello

BeerNut wrote: »

Aaand it's back out of the Seanad, unfinished, again.

How anyone thinks they're going to get a good workable law at the end of all this is unfathomable.

And Harris has admitted that even after all that they will have to wait until the DUP and SF complete their mating ritual.

http://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-banning-cheap-alcohol-3694447-Nov2017/

Fingers crossed we might get two more Merry Christmases out of it before we are put on the naughty step.

Blut2

What a waste of time for everyone involved in this, both civil servants and politicians. Surely there are more pressing matters to attend to.

BeerNut

Blut2 wrote: »

Surely there are more pressing matters to attend to.

No, Alcohol Action Ireland says it's essential. Alcohol Action Ireland gets paid €240,000 of government money each year to lobby the government in favour of government policy. It's great value for the tax payer.

elperello

BeerNut wrote: »

No, Alcohol Action Ireland says it's essential. Alcohol Action Ireland gets paid €240,000 of government money each year to lobby the government in favour of government policy. It's great value for the tax payer.

And they appear to be spending it wisely.
Sending the CEO to Estonia to discuss EU policy for instance.

http://alcoholireland.ie/ceo-attends-eu-presidency-conference-cross-border-aspects-alcohol-policy-tackling-harmful-use-alcohol/

They must have got a good laugh when she told them what a stunt our Government are pulling.

BeerNut

"And you want to stop cross-border shopping?"
*blows nose with Finnish €50 note*

TallGlass

I find it extremely funny how the guys are preeching and makes laws so we will relax our drinking. Yet there are fully kitted out bars in there work places. I don't have a bar in my work place.

Really is one law or the elite and one law for the pheasants down below.

What gets me apart from the entire law been a farce is the fact the government are medalling in private companies business. Yet won't touch things like, insurance companies, or transport negotiations. Why the sudden interest in alcohol, sugar and coffee cups. Then we have DCC councilors more interest in the flag of the week, than deal with real issues.

More micromanagement than substance.

elperello

BeerNut wrote: »

"And you want to stop cross-border shopping?"
*blows nose with Finnish €50 note*

The sweet irony.
Sending the CEO of Alcohol Action to the booze cruise capital of Europe.

L1011

elperello wrote: »

The sweet irony.
Sending the CEO of Alcohol Action to the booze cruise capital of Europe.

And to discuss restricting display and advertising somewhere where every newsagent, cafe and kiosk sells beer and often spirits by the measure and every smoking area is covered with A le Coq or Vans Tallinn banners

Quackster

UK Supreme Court has cleared the way for minimum pricing in Scotland.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/nov/15/uk-supreme-court-rules-minimum-alcohol-pricing-is-legal

BeerNut

The judgment mentions that the sunset clause is a significant factor in the Act's legality. It requires the government to show after five years that the Act is actually working. If they can't or don't, the Act comes off the books automatically. Ireland's Public Health (Alcohol) Bill has no sunset clause. If it doesn't work it'll stay on the statute book with all the other restrictive alcohol laws that don't work, and the new ones to come.

elperello

BeerNut wrote: »

The judgment mentions that the sunset clause is a significant factor in the Act's legality. It requires the government to show after five years that the Act is actually working. If they can't or don't, the Act comes off the books automatically. Ireland's Public Health (Alcohol) Bill has no sunset clause. If it doesn't work it'll stay on the statute book with all the other restrictive alcohol laws that don't work, and the new ones to come.

In five years time-

Scenario 1 They say it's working consumption is down less health problems let us increase the MUP and save even more drinkers from themselves.

Scenario 2 They say it's not working consumption is not down still same health problems let us increase the MUP to make it work

Which ever way you look at it we lose!

Quackster

BeerNut wrote: »

The judgment mentions that the sunset clause is a significant factor in the Act's legality. It requires the government to show after five years that the Act is actually working. If they can't or don't, the Act comes off the books automatically. Ireland's Public Health (Alcohol) Bill has no sunset clause. If it doesn't work it'll stay on the statute book with all the other restrictive alcohol laws that don't work, and the new ones to come.

I imagine there'll be a similar court challenge here when the bill finally becomes an act and our own supreme court will ultimately decide.

BeerNut

elperello wrote: »

In five years time-

Scenario 1 They say it's working consumption is down less health problems let us increase the MUP and save even more drinkers from themselves.

Scenario 2 They say it's not working consumption is not down still same health problems let us increase the MUP to make it work

Which ever way you look at it we lose!

Scenario 3 They forget about it and its aims as completely as they forgot about the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003 and Intoxicating Liquor Act 2008, both of which are still in force without any justification.

elperello

Quackster wrote: »

I imagine there'll be a similar court challenge here when the bill finally becomes an act and our own supreme court will ultimately decide.

Who do you think will mount the challenge?

I hope someone will, anything to delay the awful day and all that.

Quackster

elperello wrote: »

Who do you think will mount the challenge?

I hope someone will, anything to delay the awful day and all that.

Drinks industry group such as NOFFLA or maybe an individual business such as an off-licence or group of off-licences near the border that will be particularity impacted.

rubadub

Quackster wrote: »

UK Supreme Court has cleared the way for minimum pricing in Scotland.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/nov/15/uk-supreme-court-rules-minimum-alcohol-pricing-is-legal

After a five-year legal battle against the plans led by the Scotch Whisky Association (SWA), the court ruled on Wednesday that minimum pricing was legal on health grounds under EU law.

The seven judges unanimously agreed it was “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”.

I wonder if this can still be challenged. My understanding was they have to prove to the EU that the MUP is a better alternative than increasing excise, or possibly even more harsher that they have to prove increasing excise is not feasible.

If MUP is such a good idea I wonder why they introduced a sugar tax in the UK & here, instead of a MUP.

Quackster

Even if Northern Ireland follows suit, if they were to apply the same minimum price as Scotland, that would be 6.25p per gram which would be significantly less than our proposed 10c per gram.

A 5% ABV 50cl bottle of beer which will have a minimum price of €1.97 here will have a minimum price of £1.23 in Scotland.

rubadub

elperello wrote: »

Who do you think will mount the challenge?

Producers of cheaper beer or spirits could, as there will be a huge drop in trade, if cars had to cost €60,000 to reduce emmissions nobody would bother with cheaper models anymore.

Politicians who reckon the government should get the increase in price should, I still think it is bizarre how this is not highlighted more, how the supermarkets will benefit and that it is not a tax.