Minimum Alcohol pricing to be signed into Law

elperello

rubadub wrote: »

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.

Maybe the likes of Aldi and Lidl might be exercised enough to have a go in the courts.

Their business model is retailing less well known brands at a discount price.
A lot of their drink offerings will be badly affected by MUP.

They certainly have deep enough pockets to fund a court case.

They might be wary of this nonsense spreading to other countries in Europe and having a serious effect on their business.

elperello

I should have added to the above that the only politician I have heard attacking MUP because it gives the money to the trade and not the Government is Senator Sean Barrett. Tellingly he is an economist.

rubadub

elperello wrote: »

Maybe the likes of Aldi and Lidl might be exercised enough to have a go in the courts.

Supermarkets could welcome this. I have said before they can still sell other products bundled with alcohol. So they can have meal deals, or product deals. I am not sure if they can blatantly say "buy a bottle of lidl vodka for €21 and get other non alcoholic items up to the value of €8 free". If they can do this then it is the offies who will suffer a lot more.

elperello wrote: »

I should have added to the above that the only politician I have heard attacking MUP because it gives the money to the trade and not the Government is Senator Sean Barrett. Tellingly he is an economist.

On some facebook pro pages they have had polls which are extremely loaded, as is most of their wording about it, as though their is no logical reason anybody could be against it.

Are you for MUP?
Yes -I actually do care about peoples lives
No -I want more alcoholics and deaths.

I see the excise as the biggest reason it should not happen -and this can be openly said to them, since even if you do not support some sort of price increase you can pretend you do -and argue "yes, I think it is great to tackle this problem, but just as long as the government get the revenue rather than the supermarkets". People moaning on social media are constantly calling this a stealth tax, unfair tax etc, it is obvious many if not the vast majority are unaware of the actual plan.

df02169

Has there ever been talk about changing the weights and measures legislation to limit the amount a half pint can be sold for, say 55% of the price of a pint? There's a piece of legislation that would instantly reduce alcohol consumption. I would drink a lot of halves in England but never do here as it a complete ripoff. I'm surprised that it isn't in widespread practice already as the LVA & VFI are apparently concerned with our health first and foremost.

rubadub

df02169 wrote: »

Has there ever been talk about changing the weights and measures legislation to limit the amount a half pint can be sold for, say 55% of the price of a pint?.

Not that I have heard of. In previous media reports the government consider 3 pints of beer in a row to be "binge drinking", if they are not going to ban this amount they should be trying to at least curb it. I wonder if they have a policy against binge drinking in the dail bar.

While searching Irish laws before it did seem max prices were in place before -and half pints had the same limit.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1966/si/131/made/en/print

I think it should be 50% not 55%. In many pubs who do not serve guinness you will see they are 50-55%.

Hotblack Desiato

The idea that three pints is a 'binge' is ridiculous nanny state nonsense.

BeerNut

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The idea that three pints is a 'binge' is ridiculous nanny state nonsense.

The LVA and VFI have been cheerleading minimum unit pricing. If they actually wanted to support government drinking guidelines they would instruct their members to refuse any customer a third pint. Strange that they don't.

elperello

BeerNut wrote: »

The LVA and VFI have been cheerleading minimum unit pricing. If they actually wanted to support government drinking guidelines they would instruct their members to refuse any customer a third pint. Strange that they don't.

The LVA VFI and off licence association could well rue the day they got into bed with the neo-prohibitionists.

BuilderPlumber

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The idea that three pints is a 'binge' is ridiculous nanny state nonsense.

Of course, it is ridiculous and that sort of nonsense needs to be stamped out. So anyone who has 3 or 4 or 5 pints is a binge drinker by the definition of these idiots? It is almost like ISIS law.

So after a hard week of work and I go to the pub for about 5 pints, I am binging and if I sit down and watch a James Bond film with a few cans, I also am binging. The likes of Simon Harris and all the others who are yes men for this nonsense should know better. Reverse MUP and reverse this unit categorisation too. ASAP.

BuilderPlumber

elperello wrote: »

The LVA VFI and off licence association could well rue the day they got into bed with the neo-prohibitionists.

BeerNut wrote: »

The LVA and VFI have been cheerleading minimum unit pricing. If they actually wanted to support government drinking guidelines they would instruct their members to refuse any customer a third pint. Strange that they don't.

If the LVA/VFI had their way, drink would only be available at the lowest of the high prices in pubs and offlicences attached to them. Drink elsewhere would have to be more expensive than in pubs.

This nonsense legislation on MUP and related issues is people unfriendly but of course supports a lot of stakeholders who have clear benefits from it. They can be grouped into the pro and anti alcohol brigades:

The pro alcohol ones are the pubs (ultimate aim is to restrict drink availability elsewhere and to make drink elsewhere more expensive), wellknown branded beverages, the craft beer industry.

The more sinister anti-alcohol crowd includes ex alcoholics, doctors with stupid correlated books, the fitness industry and sports organisations not benefiting from alcohol.

elperello

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Of course, it is ridiculous and that sort of nonsense needs to be stamped out. So anyone who has 3 or 4 or 5 pints is a binge drinker by the definition of these idiots? It is almost like ISIS law.

So after a hard week of work and I go to the pub for about 5 pints, I am binging and if I sit down and watch a James Bond film with a few cans, I also am binging. The likes of Simon Harris and all the others who are yes men for this nonsense should know better. Reverse MUP and reverse this unit categorisation too. ASAP.

The trouble is that FG FF SF LAB and just about everyone else in the Dail support this stupid Bill.

BuilderPlumber

elperello wrote: »

The trouble is that FG FF SF LAB and just about everyone else in the Dail support this stupid Bill.

And one has to ask why? Why are these parties all of who normally oppose each other and all whose members for the most part take a drink not opposing this. I emailed some politicians and they agreed with me that it was a stupid, unnecessary piece of legislation and even agreed with me that it was not of benefit to the majority and only beneficial to less than .001% of the population who are involved in the making of craft beers. It does not even benefit the pubs.

elperello

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

And one has to ask why? Why are these parties all of who normally oppose each other and all whose members for the most part take a drink not opposing this. I emailed some politicians and they agreed with me that it was a stupid, unnecessary piece of legislation and even agreed with me that it was not of benefit to the majority and only beneficial to less than .001% of the population who are involved in the making of craft beers. It does not even benefit the pubs.

Blame it on the whip system. They are being told what to think by a small unrepresentative section of their parties. They are prepared to vote against the interests of their constituents to please Leo, Micheal, Gerry, Brendan etc.

There is a petition here -http://petitions.ie/view-petitions/ireland/NoMin

Please sign and circulate.

BeerNut

The bill completed its passage through the Oireachtas yesterday. Minimum unit pricing was originally supposed to be implemented simultaneously with Northern Ireland, but there's no Executive there. Harris will be asking the government for permission to go ahead anyway, so we could have minimum unit pricing in place in the next few weeks.

brick tamland

BeerNut wrote: »

The bill completed its passage through the Oireachtas yesterday. Minimum unit pricing was originally supposed to be implemented simultaneously with Northern Ireland, but there's no Executive there. Harris will be asking the government for permission to go ahead anyway, so we could have minimum unit pricing in place in the next few weeks.

Between that and weak sterling you can imagine the amount of money going over the border on beer runs before Xmas.

rubadub

brick tamland wrote: »

Between that and weak sterling you can imagine the amount of money going over the border on beer runs before Xmas.

The apparent lack of foresight is amazing. They are going to end up a red faced laughing stock. I can't wait to see them exposed for the idiots they are. There will be numerous unintended consequences. There will also be exploits and various ways to get around it, I have spoke about some before like the "meal deals". I also talked about how small offies will be importing beer if the breweries and wholesalers here do try an increase their prices to make their products appear "premium".

L1011

Wonder who'll challenge it - as it will be either overturned or forced to be a term-limited trial by the EU due to no taxation attempt or below-cost bans having been tried. In Scotland it was a trade body that sold some of the dirt cheap products; here I could see it being one of the discount retailers.

A below cost ban is entirely legit and I don't think anyone would object. This will force prices up across the board as "premium" brands decide they need to retain their margin over the discounter own brands. And I could see pubs putting up prices as people are now used to home drinking being vastly cheaper than pubs and try to maintain that ratio.

I've inflation-plus salary increases so the inevitable CPI rise from this and the hospitality VAT rate changes will be nice come next June :pac:

Brendan Bendar

Lookit, it’s obvious the publicans were screwing us.

The offies/supermarkets gave the normal Joe a chance to have a few cans at a reasonable price.

Unfortunately some scrotes took ‘advantage’ of this situation.

Why do you penalize those who abuse this to the detriment of those who do not abuse the issue?

rubadub

L1011 wrote: »

I could see it being one of the discount retailers.

Could be likes of OBriens wines, or the off licence association. Supermarkets may even welcome this as they can give far better package deals than any off-licence could. Case of beer and a box of washing powder, toilet rolls and a chicken for the same price it is now.

The offies can do deals too but will simply not have the variety a supermarket could offer.

brick tamland

rubadub wrote: »

Could be likes of OBriens wines, or the off licence association. Supermarkets may even welcome this as they can give far better package deals than any off-licence could. Case of beer and a box of washing powder, toilet rolls and a chicken for the same price it is now.

The offies can do deals too but will simply not have the variety a supermarket could offer.

Id imagine it'll be retailers in border areas. This will finish off loads of them and push money over the border

BeerNut

rubadub wrote: »

they can give far better package deals than any off-licence could. Case of beer and a box of washing powder, toilet rolls and a chicken for the same price it is now.

Alcohol cannot be advertised in the space where groceries are sold*. The chicken and washing powder can be stored in the off licence partition as long as they're also available outside**, but I'll go out on a limb and suggest there will be very little chicken or washing powder in the off licence areas. 23(1)(a)(ii) would make the whole thing illegal anyway, but there was no mention of commencing that section.

*22(1)(a)(i)(I)
**22(1)(a)(i)(II)

L1011

Mentioning bit that may or may not be commenced, maybe don't hold a big points balance on O'Briens cards as there is uncommenced legislation to ban loyalty points and redemption on alcohol from some years ago that I could easily see being resurrected.

rubadub

BeerNut wrote: »

The chicken and washing powder can be stored in the off licence partition as long as they're also available outside**

Then instead of the traditional meal deal offers it would simply be a bundle. If bundled it does not have to be available elsewhere. e.g. I am presuming it would be legal for them to sell a boxset of a bottle of whiskey and a glass. The glass will not be available elsewhere for sale.

So instead of the usual meal deal tesco have they could have a bottle of tesco vodka bundled with a glass or washing powder.

BeerNut wrote: »

23(1)(a)(ii) would make the whole thing illegal anyway, but there was no mention of commencing that section.

The bundling would also seem to get around this.

A big supermarket may not want to appear to be circumventing the intention of the law. I bet some enterprising independent offie owner up for a scam would have no bother doing it.

(bills can be downloaded here https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2015/120/ )

mikeecho

What was the outcome of the Scottish appeal to the Euro High Court re: Min alcohol pricing ?

Or has it not been finalised yet.

BeerNut

mikeecho wrote: »

What was the outcome of the Scottish appeal to the Euro High Court re: Min alcohol pricing ?

They bounced it back to the UK, where the Supreme Court said it was fine.

Quackster

brick tamland wrote: »

Between that and weak sterling you can imagine the amount of money going over the border on beer runs before Xmas.

Folk better make the most of it this Christmas cos in the ever-growing likelihood of a no-deal Brexit, there won't be any more legal cross-border beer/wine/spirit runs come next April!

Quackster

Also, a previous minister for health a few years ago committed to only introduce MUP in tandem with Northern Ireland (whether the Government is still bound by this commitment though is debatable).

But with a hard border in the event of a no-deal Brexit, the rationale for coordinating MUP with NI will no longer exist (due to the end of legal cross-border alcohol shopping) so come next April it could be all-bets-off as to when MUP is commence. Wearing my cynical cap, I would expect it not to be until after the next general election though.

BeerNut

Quackster wrote: »

Also, a previous minister for health a few years ago committed to only introduce MUP in tandem with Northern Ireland (whether the Government is still bound by this commitment though is debatable).

In short, yes, but they're going to work around it.

BeerNut wrote: »

Minimum unit pricing was originally supposed to be implemented simultaneously with Northern Ireland, but there's no Executive there. Harris will be asking the government for permission to go ahead anyway

elperello

BeerNut wrote: »

In short, yes, but they're going to work around it.

They can't wait to make us better people

BeerNut

elperello wrote: »

They can't wait to make us better people

CS Lewis wrote:

Of all the tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under the omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.