Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

the beer revolu

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Pubs have been fixing prices since time immemorial. Plenty of publicans have tried to be the guy who had a pint 5p / 10c or whatever cheaper than the rest in their town/area (why do the rest all have the same price in the first place?) and been forced to fall into line.
:

It would be hard to prove that this is in any way organised, though.

Pub A choosing to match the price of pub B is not evidence of organised price fixing.

While yes, it does look like price fixing, I don't think it could be evidenced as such.

patrickbrophy18

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Most of those NGOs are religious and delivering public services and it's done because it's always been done that way. The public need to demand an end to it.



This is stupid. The public never get a vote on what party goes into coalition with what other party/parties.



This is also stupid. We elect representatives to legislate.

The problem is that all political parties and all media appear to have been captured by the MUP bullshít peddlers.

I don't understand why you refer to my points as stupid.

I'm a firm believer of free market capitalism. No charity group should ever have a say in it. Charity should always be optional. Alcohol Action Ireland are a charity.

The forcing of their puritanical ideals on the public through MUP is a massive virtue signal.

The punishing of the many for the sins of the few is just a lazy cop out and is IMO undemocratic.

Tony EH

odyssey06 wrote: »

The government constrains competition by limiting number of licenses and gives pub licensees a privileged position.

And yet supermarkets will not be allowed to charge as they see fit.

Strange they have no qualms about setting a minimum price for alcohol.
They want to reduce alcohol consumption.
Yet the thought of setting a maximum price for soft drinks when sold in a licensed premises or investigating why such soft drinks are priced so high is a bridge too far for them?

Ah yeh, but that's interfering in the free market.

:pac:

Suckit

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Pubs have been fixing prices since time immemorial. Plenty of publicans have tried to be the guy who had a pint 5p / 10c or whatever cheaper than the rest in their town/area (why do the rest all have the same price in the first place?) and been forced to fall into line.

I was trying to find a chart or list of all the price hikes since 1970 last night, but I was tired and kept getting results about MUP.
I was thinking along the lines of the MUP in theory paper.
They surely haven't taken into account a country like Ireland where there are price hikes regularly. This will just be seen as another one of those by most, with the addition that we can now revert back to going up to Newry or wherever and buying cheaper in bulk. Not everyone will go up, but many will, and others will at least once. Anyone that goes up will surely buy as much as they can afford, unless they have gone up specifically for that reason for an upcoming event or party, or something like Christmas, in which case they will buy as many as they can fit in the car.
Others will continue to take the Ferry to France.
For the people that won't go anywhere, it will just be seen as another price hike. They will buy anyway.
For the ones that can barely afford it anyway, they will just beg for a little longer outside the off licence.
It makes no sense to introduce an MUP for 'health' reasons in a country where the cost of living is high anyway, and we are already the most expensive country in the EU for many alcohol products.
"In Theory" it might work in a cheaper country like the ones on the paper, where the cost of living is significantly lower and there are low wages across the board.

the beer revolu

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I don't understand why you refer to my points as stupid.

I'm a firm believer of free market capitalism. No charity group should ever have a say in it. Charity should always be optional. Alcohol Action Ireland are a charity.

The forcing of their puritanical ideals on the public through MUP is a massive virtue signal.

The punishing of the many for the sins of the few is just a lazy cop out and is IMO undemocratic.

The point you refer to here wasn't labelled as stupid.
It was your other points that you ignored here were called stupid.
Those point suggest that you just don't understand how our democratic system works.
(a bit like Sin Fein)

VinLieger

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

They are a monument to utter stupidity, it is frightening to think that people who govern us thought this was a wise, necessary and rational measure.

The door in my local Dunnes has been stuck open ever since the first few days and nobody has seen fit to close it :cool:

Dont forget that the current barriers are a downgrade from what was originally in the Public health alcohol bill, the original drafty had the alcohol sections being completely blocked from view by curtains or other barriers in a similar fashion to the way the US used to have XXX sections in video stores behind a curtain.


They claim the barriers are to help reduce alcohol consumption in underage children by keeping it away from them by telling them its a special drink only adults can see and drink. I mean what planet are they even living on, have they met children, have any of their own or even remember what it was like to be a kid? You tell a kid of any age they cant have something they are going to want it even more and will do anything to obtain it.

Antares35

VinLieger wrote: »

Dont forget that the current barriers are a downgrade from what was originally in the Public health alcohol bill, the original drafty had the alcohol sections being completely blocked from view by curtains or other barriers in a similar fashion to the way the US used to have XXX sections in video stores behind a curtain.


They claim the barriers are to help reduce alcohol consumption in underage children by keeping it away from them by telling them its a special drink only adults can see and drink. I mean what planet are they even living on, have they met children, have any of their own or even remember what it was like to be a kid? You tell a kid of any age they cant have something they are going to want it even more and will do anything to obtain it.

And when did it become everyone's responsibility to make sure kids don't see alcohol? What's wrong with having it on view and expecting parents to, you know, parent? Isn't it their job to keep their kids on the straight and narrow as much as they can? Rather than expecting us all to live in some weird society that shields their precious eyes from the devil that is a bottle of rosé sitting on a shelf in a supermarket?

Suckit

Aside from anything else, the money would be far better suited educating kids about alcohol, than putting up barriers and the like. I haven't been in France for a while, but the last time I was there I didn't notice any barriers, or curtains in Germany, or notices and walls in Spain.
Wasting money on irrelevant, stupid nonsense.
Part of me wants to meet the genius that came up with it, but knowing that the government went along with it as though they thought they were doing something is worse.

Hotblack Desiato

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I don't understand why you refer to my points as stupid.

Because we don't elect governments and never have. We elect TDs and they decide among themselves who gets to form a government.

I'm a firm believer of free market capitalism. No charity group should ever have a say in it. Charity should always be optional. Alcohol Action Ireland are a charity.

So-called "charities" receiving state funding (does AAI actually fundraise itself at all?) are a disgrace. It's bad enough when they're used to deliver public services (usually badly and with an unwanted side-dish of religion attached) but allowing a government funded body to lobby the government to legislate in its favour is a perversion of democracy.

celvinxen

This is purely dictatorship. That means I can't sell my product any price I like whether there are other special things attached to it or not

patrickbrophy18

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Because we don't elect governments and never have. We elect TDs and they decide among themselves who gets to form a government.

I am aware of this. It is precisely why I didn't vote for the 3 parties which I mentioned. Until a new party is formed that will commit to pulling investment on all NGOs, I will continue to not vote.

Continued collusion between NGOs and the government at the expense of the very people that pay their wages smacks of fraud.

Punish the irresponsible and not everyone. Othetwise, it becomes socialism. As Churchill said, "The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries".

CrabRevolution

VinLieger wrote: »

Dont forget that the current barriers are a downgrade from what was originally in the Public health alcohol bill, the original drafty had the alcohol sections being completely blocked from view by curtains or other barriers in a similar fashion to the way the US used to have XXX sections in video stores behind a curtain.


They claim the barriers are to help reduce alcohol consumption in underage children by keeping it away from them by telling them its a special drink only adults can see and drink. I mean what planet are they even living on, have they met children, have any of their own or even remember what it was like to be a kid? You tell a kid of any age they cant have something they are going to want it even more and will do anything to obtain it.

As Chief Wiggum put it in the Simpsons:
"Just what is your fascination with my forbidden closet of mystery?"

VinLieger

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Until a new party is formed that will commit to pulling investment on all NGOs, I will continue to not vote.

You understand by not voting at all you are still supporting the status quo of the large parties you claim to be opposed to?

tjhook

Suckit wrote: »

"In Theory" it might work in a cheaper country like the ones on the paper, where the cost of living is significantly lower and there are low wages across the board.

Ah now, don't be giving them ideas - "AAI calls for income reductions as a health measure to reduce alcohol consumption"

patrickbrophy18

VinLieger wrote: »

You understand by not voting at all you are still supporting the status quo of the large parties you claim to be opposed to?

Oh, I did vote. But, for parties that are more tax payer friendly which I wont mention as my voting is confidential. I do read the manifestos to get an idea what I am voting for.

Either way, I flat out don't support price fixing which is precisely what MUP is.

dockysher

would have around 45 pints in about 2 hours

VinLieger

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Oh, I did vote. But, for parties that are more tax payer friendly which I wont mention as my voting is confidential. I do read the manifestos to get an idea what I am voting for.

Either way, I flat out don't support price fixing which is precisely what MUP is.

Look I hate MUP but your all over the map with your righteous libertarian anger here, it's nothing close to price fixing however what it is is government unfairly supporting one portion of an industry over another.

ThunbergsAreGo

VinLieger wrote: »

You understand by not voting at all you are still supporting the status quo of the large parties you claim to be opposed to?

Well actually hes supporting nobody.
Feeling in the same position there is no party that appeals to me personally.

Opposition didn't exactly oppose this either

VinLieger

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

Well actually hes supporting nobody.
Feeling in the same position there is no party that appeals to me personally.

Opposition didn't exactly oppose this either

By not voting at all you indirectly are supporting the winning result of any democratic vote be it a referendum or election. Far too many people do not understand this and think not voting at all is some kind of protest when it actually just shows ignorance of the democratic process.

The poster has further clarified they just didn't vote for a major party though.

Yes I'm surprised at the likes of SF supporting this but it unfortunately shows how effective the anti fun brigade have managed to present this as a health issue when it has nothing to do with it.

ThunbergsAreGo

VinLieger wrote: »

By not voting at all you indirectly are supporting the winning result of any democratic vote be it a referendum or election. Far too many people do not understand this and think not voting at all is some kind of protest when it actually just shows ignorance of the democratic process.

The poster has further clarified they just didn't vote for a major party though.

Yes I'm surprised at the likes of SF supporting this but it unfortunately shows how effective the anti fun brigade have managed to present this as a health issue when it has nothing to do with it.

Ah ok, you had specifically mentioned not voting supporting the status quo. It is indirectly supporting any winner you disagree with.

We don't really do opposition in this country at the moment, just nodding dogs doing whatever the latest "experts" or NGOs decide

Wanderer78

VinLieger wrote:

By not voting at all you indirectly are supporting the winning result of any democratic vote be it a referendum or election. Far too many people do not understand this and think not voting at all is some kind of protest when it actually just shows ignorance of the democratic process.

People should have the right not to vote, by not doing so, can mean anything and nothing, we should of course encourage people to vote, as voting is a critical part of the democratic process, shaming those that do not probably isn't a good approach to encouragement!

VinLieger

Wanderer78 wrote: »

People should have the right not to vote, by not doing so, can mean anything and nothing, we should of course encourage people to vote, as voting is a critical part of the democratic process, shaming those that do not probably isn't a good approach to encouragement!

No, of course you can vote if you don't want to but not voting at all as a protest against the bigger parties, that i have seen people claim to do, is moronic because in reality you are only helping them by not voting for whatever independent candidates that might be opposing them.

If the independent candidates don't light a fire under you either that's fine too but then you aren't voting as no politician appeals to you and not as some kind of silly protest.

Anyway this is way off topic.

Fr Tod Umptious

VinLieger wrote: »

By not voting at all you indirectly are supporting the winning result of any democratic vote be it a referendum or election. Far too many people do not understand this and think not voting at all is some kind of protest when it actually just shows ignorance of the democratic process.

The poster has further clarified they just didn't vote for a major party though.

Yes I'm surprised at the likes of SF supporting this but it unfortunately shows how effective the anti fun brigade have managed to present this as a health issue when it has nothing to do with it.

Why would you surprised at that ?

Take a look at SF.

Their base is very much in the less affluent areas of society, lets put it that way.
Many people in these area would have suffered the affects of alcohol abuse far more than people from affluent areas.
That's part of the reason they are less affluent.

So no SF politician will get anywhere in these areas if they are not seen to be tackling areas such as alcohol abuse.

You can't imagine a SF politician in front of a room full of mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers etc who have suffused due to alcohol abuse by family members and say they are opposing measures to make alcohol less available ?

HBC08

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Why would you surprised at that ?

Take a look at SF.

Their base is very much in the less affluent areas of society, lets put it that way.
Many people in these area would have suffered the affects of alcohol abuse far more than people from affluent areas.
That's part of the reason they are less affluent.

So no SF politician will get anywhere in these areas if they are not seen to be tackling areas such as alcohol abuse.

You can't imagine a SF politician in front of a room full of mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers etc who have suffused due to alcohol abuse by family members and say they are opposing measures to make alcohol less available.

Being against this nonsense doesn't equate to supporting alcohol abuse.

Fr Tod Umptious

HBC08 wrote: »

Being against this nonsense doesn't equate to supporting alcohol abuse.

True, but we all know how the media and spin work.

Capt'n Midnight

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

it is an amazing coincidence that the extra cost of producing alcohol free beer is almost exactly the same as the duty on alcohol.

Removing the alcohol can be done in various ways like vacuum distillation or with enzymes. Nowhere near the cost of producing the beer.

E10 petrol is 10% alcohol so at €1.60 a litre you get 80g ethanol which is 8 units at 20c a unit. To give an idea of how little it costs to produce ethanol.
Yes you could separate ethanol from fuel by adding water , but there are other additives in fuel which are really nasty so it's not a good idea.



Technically since alcohol free beer could be considered a food like milk since it doesn't contain sugar or alcohol or added flavourings. Though I doubt the revenue would drop the VAT.

patrickbrophy18

VinLieger wrote: »

Look I hate MUP but your all over the map with your righteous libertarian anger here, it's nothing close to price fixing however what it is is government unfairly supporting one portion of an industry over another.

First off, how is my "libertarian anger" "all over the map"?
Second off, MUP is price fixing as it was originally designed to prop up the pubs by preventing the off trade from being more competitive. It was conveniently reworded over the years to be public health related.

Thankfully, a copy of the 2011 manifesto was kept to preserve the original reason for MUP for public viewing.

As I mentioned many pages back, I think the only way pubs would be able to reap the fruits of their labours is to flat out abolish the measures from the Intoxicating Liquor Act of 2008 and make it less of a financial risk to publicans or would-be publicans.

Increased prices of late licenses, reducing the drink driving limit and curtailing opening hours of pubs have also played a huge role in destroying pub feasability.

Either way, government intervention of the pub and off license has done nothing but create resentment between the two trades.

Hotblack Desiato

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

So no SF politician will get anywhere in these areas if they are not seen to be tackling areas such as alcohol abuse.

Jaysus wept.

This has nothing at all to do with alcohol abuse, why is off licence alcohol regarded as a massive health risk but pub alcohol not? This is all about kneecapping the offies and supporting the vintners - the ultimate in closed shops.

GhostyMcGhost

Finally, someone talking sense

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/minimum-unit-pricing-could-see-alcohol-in-ireland-twice-as-dear-as-north-1120894.html

For example if you look at overall alcohol consumption that's declined siginificantly here, so we had a decline of 6.6 per cent last year and that's the lowest level in 30 years, alcohol consumption now is 30 per cent lower overall than the peak in 2001 so there hasn't been anything that should trigger this reaction from Government

Reputable Rog

The tide is turning, I think there’s zero chance of this anytime soon. Border politicians very nervous.