Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

odyssey06

Leroy42 wrote: »

Of course not. It is aimed squarely at the lower priced sellers. If the price is the same across all brands then people will always go for the brand they know.

Do you think LIdl would have got a hand in the market is they came in with the same products and the same price? No, people, except for convenience, would have stuck to the old reliables.

To move people off a brand, and Ireland was very brand loyal, you need something to offer. Be that price, quality of something else.

Take the ability to compete on price away, which is what this does, and the sales of NoName Brand will drop.

It is also aimed at driving people back towards the pubs, but the double benefit for the likes of Diageo is that they win either way.

Well I meant the pricing of branded products in terms of consumer impact but yes for the Diageos you are right it is a win either way.

Also most no name branded wines are more expensive than branded wines... ie OBriens Wines are more expensive than Yellow Tail.

Geuze

Eurostat data on 2020 price levels:





We have the most expensive alcohol and tobacco in the EU.

Geuze

Leroy42 wrote: »

Of course not. It is aimed squarely at the lower priced sellers. If the price is the same across all brands then people will always go for the brand they know.
.

MUP will affect the price of 50cl cans of Guinness stout.

If sold at 2 euro, then no, MUP won't kick in.

But MUP will stop it being sold at 1 euro per can, which happens fairly often.



So it is false to say that MUP will only affect "lower priced" brands.

Leroy42

Geuze wrote: »

MUP will affect the price of 50cl cans of Guinness stout.

If sold at 2 euro, then no, MUP won't kick in.

But MUP will stop it being sold at 1 euro per can, which happens fairly often.



So it is false to say that MUP will only affect "lower priced" brands.

Do you think Diageo prefer to sell Guinness at €2 or €1? The only reason they drop the price is competition. Remove that competitions ability to compete on price and Diageo will be pretty confident that their marketing and brand loyalty will get them the vast majority of sales in that particular area.

And at a higher price point. So even if overall sales drop, their share will increase along with a higher price per unit.

And if it does result in people moving away from off licence sales and back to pubs (it won't) then Diageo win anyway as they are in every pub in the country.

FileNotFound

MUP will impact all drink brands with the exception of premium brands (Belgian beers etc.)
Its not that the day to day price increases, its that the deals we buy week in week out will be gone forever


While we all sit and say that a can of say Heineken or Guinness is already X or Y so it won't change. We will never again see the 24 for 28 euro etc.
And lets be honest most of us buy the deals not individual cans at top price.


Also this is not just MUP - it's also no using vouchers, no getting clubcard points and during Covid we added more physical barriers that have to be opened by hand.

And it's all been justified using a simple term "public Health" while totally ignoring the year on year decrease in consumption we have had for over 10 yrs. Naturally this continued decline will now be attributed to these idiotic measures (which also give no extra cash to the exchequer)


Have to say the lack of opposition to this both in Gov and opposition was a surprise.

Leroy42

FileNotFound wrote: »

Have to say the lack of opposition to this both in Gov and opposition was a surprise.

Why are you surprised? From a headline this looks like a 'good thing' to do. Sure people will not like it, but like the smoking ban it is in everyones bests interest.

Of course anyone that pays even the smallest attention to it, which I wager is actually a very small amount of people, will see that it is complete nonsense and even if one accepts the need to reduce consumption then this is a terrible way to go about it and doesn't even earn the country any additional revenue (save for some minor additional VAT on sales and Tax on profits).

But TD's want to to be seen to take the tough decisions, to do the right thing. And this is a pretty easy way to make it look that way to a large amount of people.

And many people will never really notice. Certainly not enough to actually get annoyed, and certainly not annoyed enough to change their vote.

FileNotFound

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why are you surprised? From a headline this looks like a 'good thing' to do. Sure people will not like it, but like the smoking ban it is in everyones bests interest.

Of course anyone that pays even the smallest attention to it, which I wager is actually a very small amount of people, will see that it is complete nonsense and even if one accepts the need to reduce consumption then this is a terrible way to go about it and doesn't even earn the country any additional revenue (save for some minor additional VAT on sales and Tax on profits).

But TD's want to to be seen to take the tough decisions, to do the right thing. And this is a pretty easy way to make it look that way to a large amount of people.

And many people will never really notice. Certainly not enough to actually get annoyed, and certainly not annoyed enough to change their vote.

The smoking ban was something I actually supported. I really don't see this as anywhere near comparable. The smoking ban had a clear public health function - remove smoke from indoors so staff and non smoking patrons do not pay the price for others choices.

Here we just increase shop profits and remove a few little deals, no impact on pubs that result in more alcohol related issues than anywhere, no money back to the exchequer to promote non drinking or pay for drink related services.

Its not really MUP that gets me, but this version where we pay and even the Gov get nothing back from it. And if the impacts so little that nobody notices in my mind thats a failure to start with!!.

It's sad to see that vintners still have sway enough to decide stuff for us, and then those poor scrotes in Alcohol Action.

Since the entire Dail failed to question it, not sure there is even anyone to switch a vote to. Maybe we have voted in cowards.

Leroy42

I am not saying it is comparable to the smoking ban, my point is that from a headline POV it comes from the same place.

'We are helping everyone be healthier, helping those that need our help most. Sure its a pain, but its a small price to pay to save people form the worst effects of alcohol. Think of the children'.

senordingdong

Leroy42 wrote: »

I am not saying it is comparable to the smoking ban, my point is that from a headline POV it comes from the same place.

'We are helping everyone be healthier, helping those that need our help most. Sure its a pain, but its a small price to pay to save people form the worst effects of alcohol. Think of the children'.

I'm dying to know how many lives have been saved by erecting those pathetic saloon doors to the alcohol Isles.

listermint

Leroy42 wrote: »

I am not saying it is comparable to the smoking ban, my point is that from a headline POV it comes from the same place.

'We are helping everyone be healthier, helping those that need our help most. Sure its a pain, but its a small price to pay to save people form the worst effects of alcohol. Think of the children'.

But what the headlines don't say is

We have the most expensive price for alcohol in Europe. We don't have the most consumption.
Alcohol consumption has been on the slide since 2010 year on year.
Young people aren't drinking as much as their parents.
The price of premium drinks including craft is already impacted which much of the 2.50 stuff now priced at 3.00.
Premium price disparities is a thing.



Anyone that says any of the above isn't true needs to be examined for their motives.


Headlines are great in a fact that the grab attention but never tell the true story.

Suckit

senordingdong wrote: »

I'm dying to know how many lives have been saved by erecting those pathetic saloon doors to the alcohol Isles.

We won't know that for a while. Apparently the genius behind them is that little Timmy will see the doors, and have no idea what's behind them.
He will go through life until he is 18 before he is aware he can enter the never never, but by that stage, the message will have got through loud and clear. Sectioned off area = BAD.
He will never enter, nor ever want to drink.
Job done.


To be honest, I have no real problem with them, it just seems that the idea behind them is daft. MUP however, being introduced into a country with some of the most expensive alcohol prices in Europe, to curb drinking, is stupid. And it's illegal.

senordingdong

Suckit wrote: »

To be honest, I have no real problem with them, it just seems that the idea behind them is daft. MUP however, being introduced into a country with some of the most expensive alcohol prices in Europe, to curb drinking, is stupid. And it's illegal.

I agree, they are as stupid as the day is long.

Leroy42

Suckit wrote: »

We won't know that for a while. Apparently the genius behind them is that lit
To be honest, I have no real problem with them, it just seems that the idea behind them is daft. MUP however, being introduced into a country with some of the most expensive alcohol prices in Europe, to curb drinking, is stupid. And it's illegal.

How is it illegal?

FileNotFound

Leroy42 wrote: »

How is it illegal?

Not sure it's illegal but when scotland did it the EU courts did acknowledge it did not align with free market concept (basically price fixing) but at the same time they didn't want to be involved and left it to the scottish courts to give final say.

Doesn't matter now - it's coming

dubrov

Minimum alcohol pricing has been coming for a long time.

Given its popularity, I doubt any politician wants to be seen to be too closely aligned with it.

Padraig Mor

Leroy42 wrote: »

How is it illegal?

Was there not some EU restriction that MUP is illegal if the same effect can be delivered by taxation instead? Surely increasing excise would have been the more appropriate option?

dubrov

Padraig Mor wrote:

Was there not some EU restriction that MUP is illegal if the same effect can be delivered by taxation instead? Surely increasing excise would have been the more appropriate option?

The problem with excise is that it impacts the pubs as well

the beer revolu

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Was there not some EU restriction that MUP is illegal if the same effect can be delivered by taxation instead? Surely increasing excise would have been the more appropriate option?

Let's be honest.
If it was a duty increase which would increase the price of every single alcoholic purchase people , despite what they say, would be even more incensed than they are about the mup.

I am against the mup but I'd be even more against a duty increase.

Suckit

Leroy42 wrote: »

How is it illegal?

I think when Scotland contested it, the EU saw no point in continuing it and told them to deal with it locally, as Brexit was going to be happening soon enough and any decision that they may have made would have been irrelevant by then.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/heard-the-one-about-eu-law-and-irish-minimum-alcohol-prices-1.2522678
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30712743.html
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/dec/23/minimum-alcohol-price-in-scotland-could-breach-eu-law-court-rules
https://www.thespiritsbusiness.com/2015/12/eu-court-rules-that-mup-breaches-trade-laws/

Strumms

senordingdong wrote: »

I'm dying to know how many lives have been saved by erecting those pathetic saloon doors to the alcohol Isles.

Precisely....Somebody who wants alcohol will get it...doors or any other deterrent won’t dissuade..

Hiking the price means say an alcoholic or regular drinker, spends 150 euros a week on alcohol which is give or take 550 a month on average say.

Is now spending almost say 700 euros a month..

The extra money isn’t a deterrent, because alcoholism is a disease and habitual regular drinkers have a psychological requirement for it, his / her body and mind are craving this chemical..this experience, this feeling..

So the extra money is money that they don’t spend or may not spend of family, health, wellbeing......

Leroy42

Suckit wrote: »

I think when Scotland contested it, the EU saw no point in continuing it and told them to deal with it locally, as Brexit was going to be happening soon enough and any decision that they may have made would have been irrelevant by then.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/heard-the-one-about-eu-law-and-irish-minimum-alcohol-prices-1.2522678
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30712743.html
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/dec/23/minimum-alcohol-price-in-scotland-could-breach-eu-law-court-rules
https://www.thespiritsbusiness.com/2015/12/eu-court-rules-that-mup-breaches-trade-laws/

Right, so it isn't illegal then.

Suckit

Leroy42 wrote: »

Right, so it isn't illegal then.

Well it is, as there are alternatives, and it is only considered to not be illegal if there aren't any that are as or more effective.
Also, MUP in itself is deemed illegal when it is pricing a product out of range of the less well off section of society, or any section.
It would be up to the EU to decide conclusively, but as it stands, it is believed to be illegal.

Leroy42

Suckit wrote: »

Well it is, as there are alternatives, and it is only considered to not be illegal if there aren't any that are as or more effective.
Also, MUP in itself is deemed illegal when it is pricing a product out of range of the less well off section of society, or any section.
It would be up to the EU to decide conclusively, but as it stands, it is believed to be illegal.

Believed to be illegal? It either is or it isn't. The EU did not rule that it was illegal. It does violate competition rules but the 'greater good' is an accepted norm and as such it is able to circumvent the rules. Thus it has not been found to be illegal.

It is currently in operation in Scotland, so it cannot be illegal under EU law.

Suckit

Leroy42 wrote: »

Believed to be illegal? It either is or it isn't. The EU did not rule that it was illegal. It does violate competition rules but the 'greater good' is an accepted norm and as such it is able to circumvent the rules. Thus it has not been found to be illegal.

It is currently in operation in Scotland, so it cannot be illegal under EU law.

It is not as black and white as you like to think, if it was, it wouldn't have had to go through the EU courts to be told to go to Scottish courts for them to decide.

"The case will now continue to the Scottish courts, and we look forward to a hearing in the new year to determine the outcome in this case."


David Frost, SWA chief executive, said: "The SWA always said European Union law issues were central to this case, and so it has proved. This settles EU law issues once and for all.


"The court has confirmed that minimum unit pricing is a restriction on trade, and that it is illegal to choose MUP [minimum unit pricing] where there are less restrictive ways of achieving the same end.


"The Scottish courts will now reflect on the implications of the ruling and all the evidence, before issuing a final judgement."

Leroy42

Suckit wrote: »

It is not as black and white as you like to think, if it was, it wouldn't have had to go through the EU courts to be told to go to Scottish courts for them to decide.

I'm not saying it is. But something is not illegal until it is. It hasn't been deemed to be illegal, and as such it isn't.

That may change in the future, but as of now it is has been found to be illegal.

elperello

I think we can safely discount the Scottish example following Brexit.

MUP may well be illegal but that won't be decided until it is tested in court.

It is clear that it is not in the interests of either the on premises or off sales drinks trade to take a case.

That leaves it up to a consumer challenge which appears very unlikely.

Mr. teddywinkles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117490371#Comment_117490371

Speaking of scotland. Drug related deaths are up drastically the last 2 years. Any correlation there at all.

macraignil

I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117683564#Comment_117683564

Just saw the figures on the BBC news there with 1339 deaths (a new record) linked to drugs for 2020 in Scotland and this is the place that advocates of minimum alcolol unit pricing in Ireland are saying is an example we should be following. Just goes to show how much thought these so called advocates for public health have put into a policy that is so prejudiced against people on lower incomes. Minimum alcohol pricing will have no effect on people with good incomes and force those on low incomes to try other substances or cocktails of chemicals to get their fix. It's a disgrace that politicians on incomes such that this legislation has no effect on them can bring in such discrimination against those on low incomes. I have zero confidence a higher price for the cheapest alcohol will have any effect on alcoholics other than leaving them with less money to spend on other things they need to live. I could see some I know more likely to go without food at times rather than having a few cheap cans and a meal as they might have done if this legislation was not introduced.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117683564#Comment_117683564

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/30/drugs-deaths-in-scotland-soar-to-record-level

Oops.

Richard Hillman

Young people will turn to drugs over alcohol. Alcohol Action Ireland and the likes think they'll be doing Saturday Fun Runs and attending mental health workshops.

You'd have to wonder what's next for Alcohol Action Ireland. Once they get this through, they'll need a new issue to keep them going. They'll have to justify that government/lotto money and the 250k spent on wages for 3 employees.

Wilmol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117731566#Comment_117731566

Reduce alcohol sale hours, this has been done in other countries. Something along the lines of no sale on Sundays and reduced hours such as 12PM to 8PM

Atlantic Dawn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117740567#Comment_117740567

Or just sell it between 7pm and 8pm on the first Monday of each month and watch sales of illegal drugs rocket while no drink can be bought.

Wilmol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117740600#Comment_117740600

Yes, yes, but we're saving lives from alcohol and we need to do something! Just shows that the world is unfair when these individuals get paid 6 digit salaries.

ShamNNspace

More bull https://www.thejournal.ie/retailers-move-to-selling-smaller-units-of-alcohol-ahead-of-minimum-pricing-charity-claims-5524149-Aug2021/

KrustyUCC

Eunan McKinney on RTE going on about how cheap it is to drink here..

Always love how RTE never ask him about us being amongst the most expensive in Europe for alcohol

Thelonious Monk

This ridiculous survey what put out by these AAI zealots. I don't know why they are given so much air time.

KrustyUCC

Exactly

The same basket of drink would be significantly cheaper in the vast majority of EU countries not to mind what it will be like after January with MUP

RTE couldn't point that out though

Wouldn't be on message

Eunan McKinney was even going on about ICU beds being taken up with alcohol issues that are needed more than ever with Covid

Leroy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117766614#Comment_117766614

Well, on the last point he has a point. The amount of time, money and effort that is required to be spent by the state is massive in relation to alcohol and its effects. Be it crime, anti-social behaviour, domestic abuse, domestic issues, drink driving, injuries etc.

I don't for a second believe that MUP is the answer to any of that, would much prefer a 'levy' be placed on each unit such that regardless of price, there is a collection for the overall socital cost of alcohol. Of course, we actually already have that given we have excise duties which just disappear into the great tax bucket, but it would make far more sense to create a standalone levy and that targeted and properly funded projects are set up to help those that suffer from alcohol addiction or it effects.

KrustyUCC

My parents were in England recently

They brought me a few craft beers back

€1.28 for a 5% lager when converted back to €

Going to be €1.97 minimum here in January

53.91% increase for the same strength beer

KrustyUCC

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117766655#Comment_117766655

True overall but yes MUP won't have any effect on those areas

I wouldn't be surprised to see crime increase to pay for the extra money needed under MUP

The strange thing with MUP is that the increase will mainly go to the retailers not the exchequer

"it would make far more sense to create a standalone levy and that targeted and properly funded projects are set up to help those that suffer from alcohol addiction or it effects."

That's a proper health argument

As opposed to the FG rationale for supporting the pubs that is dressed up as health issue for MUP

-=al=-

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117766684#Comment_117766684

Even in Scotland where minimum pricing is enforced, it was about £1.25-£1.50 for branded 5% abv 500ml IPA, and a branded litre of spiced rum @30% abv for £16.

Even with minimum pricing there the alcohol is still far cheaper than Ireland where folk currently are and will be taken for a bigger spin

It's nuts they're still pushing this through the way they are without anyone saying some basic facts in the other direction. There couldn't be a much worse way to go about tackling the issue

On the contrary, Alcohol deaths in Scotland are at highest level since 2008! Covid probably skewing the numbers, but they probably are everywhere. At the same time they'll only choose to cherry pick the stats that suit their cause

I still have absolutely no issues with tacking alcohol related concerns in Ireland but not like this

ShamNNspace

On newstalk now but be careful make sure you have your blood pressure tablets taken 🙂

Suckit

Christ going all out with their tales of cheap Irish alcohol. There needs to be a push back.

They (AAI) were on RTE this morning, Eunan telling the people how cheap it is and using examples that mey be true, but if they are, he didn't give any examples of where to find it that cheap. Also seemingly using examples of a glass of cider or beer as opposed to a can, to make it sound cheaper.

Thelonious Monk

wtf is this guy's problem? like we all have to get sick and die somehow, would all of us living longer and getting totally helpless be any better for the health care system? just let us drink ourselves to death in peace ffs.

Hotblack Desiato

A 700ml bottle of whiskey with an alcohol content of 40% was available for €12.99

That's absolute and utter bullshít.

Seems to be the same "example" as before, when the "40% 700mL bottle of whiskey" turned out to be a "20% 500mL bottle of liqueur"

AAI are liars. But RTE, Newstalk, Journal and all the other media are refusing to challenge them on their lies. It'd be nice to see a lot of complaints going in to the BAI over this. (I don't listen to RTE or Newstalk, bad for the blood pressure! 😋 )

mollser

How come they never correlate MUP in Scotland with the rapid rise in drug use there? They're one of the worst countries for illegal substance abuse which ramped up significantly since MUP was introduced, there has to be at least a dotted line there and I would like that our health experts properly considered that. Unintended consequences of legislation needs to be considered!

PopePalpatine

Feck it, I'll be that guy - because it doesn't fit "The Agenda".

I need to go sanitise my keyboard after typing that.

Suckit

If this goes through, surely it would be a contradiction to MUP and that the Government are concerned in any way, shape or form for our health?

https://www.thejournal.ie/pub-opening-hours-5549518-Sep2021/

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117894635#Comment_117894635

what makes you think MUP is anything to do with health?

Suckit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117894686#Comment_117894686

I don't think that. Never did. But the 'bums back on seats' was 2011, they have since changed the narrative to try to convince us it is for our health. If the late licence goes ahead, then surely MUP can't.