Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

OldNotWIse

BillyBobBS wrote: »

Alcohol is incredibly expensive in Ireland. I do a run to France in the car twice a year for wine for myself, family, and friends. It works out at about one third to one quarter of the price of buying it here. Even after the ferry tickets cost it's a huge saving. We are rapidly heading into massive nanny state control of everything we do and that worries me more than anything.

I'd be interested in getting some information from you about this!

OldNotWIse

elperello wrote: »

While booze cruises and home brewing are strategies to avoid the effects of MUP they don't address the fact that it is bad legislation which will discriminate against someone who enjoys a few drinks in their own home.

Exactly! I've often thought that most of the drink related anti-social behavior and violence is by people who have got intoxicated in pubs and clubs - i.e. it is not the cheap drink that people are consuming at home that causes the problems. You're hardly going to get plastered on lidl beer than go into town to wreak havoc.

I pity the poor f*cker who works all week, spends most of his wages on a mortgage and childcare, and wants to buy himself a six pack on the way home on a Friday to relax in front of the telly with a few beers. He is not your problem, but he will be punished.

Jurgen Klopp

jimgoose wrote: »

T'Woolpack is ten minutes walk from my place through the leafy 'Burbs, and when I want lager I drink a couple of ice-cold Tuborg at €4 each, while holding up the counter with my arsehole middle-aged ten-year-old mates. I'll stick with that!

Lucky you

Fr Tod Umptious

If this is really driven by vintners, then it's totally and utterly short sighted and poorly thought out.

The Irish pub of a decade and more ago is dead and it's not coming back.

That's due to drink driving laws, smoking bans, economics and personal choices.

bananabread12

This is just a ploy on behalf of special interest groups i.e - a further consolidation of the Diageo Corporations monopoly on the market and the protection of the vintners association in Ireland.

Leroy42

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

If this is really driven by vintners, then it's totally and utterly short sighted and poorly thought out.

The Irish pub of a decade and more ago is dead and it's not coming back.

That's due to drink driving laws, smoking bans, economics and personal choices.

How is it shortsighted? This will reduce the gap between the price of the offy and the pub, thereby making the pub a more attractive option.

The Irish pub of a decade ago might be dead but you can't blame them for putting up a fight.

McMurphy

Leroy42 wrote: »

How is it shortsighted? This will reduce the gap between the price of the offy and the pub, thereby making the pub a more attractive option.

The Irish pub of a decade ago might be dead but you can't blame them for putting up a fight.

Putting up a fight is adapting your business model, reinventing yourself, luring old customers back,.and wooing new ones in.

Lobbying the government to tax the competition under spurious and faux health worries is the complete opposite of that.

Leroy42

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Putting up a fight is adapting your business model, reinventing yourself, luring old customers back,.and wooing new ones in.

Lobbying the government to tax the competition under spurious and faux health worries is the complete opposite of that.

You say tomato and I say tomato! They have the ability to get this through and it will help their business so why not.

Of course its fighting back. Its not the fightback you want, and its certainly not good for the consumer, but they are utilising the tools they have to increase the probability of future profits.

Whether it is a slow down in the fall off or an upturn will be seen over the next few years

Jurgen Klopp

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Putting up a fight is adapting your business model, reinventing yourself, luring old customers back,.and wooing new ones in.

Lobbying the government to tax the competition under spurious and faux health worries is the complete opposite of that.

Nevermind when your prices will still nearly be double the price of teh minimum shop price

Leroy42

Jurgen Klopp wrote: »

Nevermind when your prices will still nearly be double the price of teh minimum shop price

But price difference is not the problem. If it was then all the pubs would be empty. The problem is the increasing gap in the prices and as the offy prices get cheaper the pub prices go up so exacerbating the issue.

People have always been prepared to pay the additional costs of the drink in the pub. There are many factors including service, atmosphere, people, etc etc. But when the crash happened and peoples disposable income disappeared choices had to be made and people felt that the extra costs wasn't worth it.

What this is attempting to do is to narrow the gap and thus give people a reason to justify spending money in the pub. They won't get all the ofy sales back but they will get some of them.

Secondly, it cuts off the pressure on the big brands from the cheaper imports in the offy trade. Why pay €2 a bottle of Carlsberg (or whatever) when you can get Lidl/Aldi etc for 50c? This will remove that gap and give the premium brands more market share.

hatrickpatrick

Leroy42 wrote: »

Secondly, it cuts off the pressure on the big brands from the cheaper imports in the offy trade. Why pay €2 a bottle of Carlsberg (or whatever) when you can get Lidl/Aldi etc for 50c? This will remove that gap and give the premium brands more market share.

And this is exactly why there's a real hope that it will be ruled illegal on the grounds of EU competition law - if anyone takes a case against it in the Irish courts.

TerrorFirmer

NikoTopps wrote: »

Alcohol in Éire is already extremely expensive.For example there is a Lidl own brand vodca, a red label.Here it cost 12€ish for 0,7L.in Spain same exact brand is 4,29€,and in Germany 4,99€. It's ridiculous here

The part I don't get is what happens when the Lidl vodka shoots up to whatever the new minimum is - surely the actual 'brand' vodkas will then increase relatively in price as well to retain the current pricing gap, so a bottle of Smirnoff could suddenly double in price.

Fr Tod Umptious

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

The Irish pub of a decade and more ago is dead and it's not coming back.

That's due to drink driving laws, smoking bans, economics and personal choices.

I wouldn't go that far, there are still lots of local pubs which haven't changed much in many years and are still very busy.

City pubs are also doing very well, I'm in the pub every week and see plenty of busy ones. There may not be as many pubs outside the cities now as there was but many of the ones that are still there are doing fairly well, I know the two pubs I'd call my locals (one in a rural town and one just outside it) always do a good trade.

I obviously totally disagree with these crazy measures being introduced, we already have some of the most expensive drink prices in Europe (the most expensive I reckon in the off trade). Its bananas that they are trying to make it more expensive, it won't stop be drinking but its exceptionally annoying that its going to cost me more. If I want to get hammered on cans that's my business, the gov should just stay out of it.

TerrorFirmer

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

The part I don't get is what happens when the Lidl vodka shoots up to whatever the new minimum is - surely the actual 'brand' vodkas will then increase relatively in price as well to retain the current pricing gap, so a bottle of Smirnoff could suddenly double in price.

It's not even that much of a big deal for spirits as nowadays most people travel quite a bit and can pick up drink then. I have a press full of sprints and none of it was bought here as I and people I know travel a lot so easy to get what you want abroad for much less.

Its cans that are really going to get expensive and they are the thing most people buy regularly here.

Leroy42

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And this is exactly why there's a real hope that it will be ruled illegal on the grounds of EU competition law - if anyone takes a case against it in the Irish courts.

It was already ruled on in terms on MAP in Scotland and found to be legal by European courts

Geuze

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Will be on the ferry to France. Even just breaking even would make it worthwhile. I wouldn't mind if it was an ACTUAL health initiative, but we all know it's just a way to bring in more money to p*ss away.

Again, for clarity, MUP is not a tax, it's not an excise duty.

hatrickpatrick

Leroy42 wrote: »

It was already ruled on in terms on MAP in Scotland and found to be legal by European courts

Not quite, it was found by European courts that each member state would have to rule on it, and the ruling in Scotland has been challenged to the UK Supreme Court and is still pending. So there's some hope, if not a huge amount.

Jurgen Klopp

Still tho I imagine it will be a nice little earner on the blackmarket now.

If your standard can of say Heineken becomes €2 plus your looking at €40 for 20 cans

I imagine their will be plenty offering slabs for half that

Richard Hillman

How on earth do they expect to be re-elected after introducing something like this.

We allowed the health fascists in medialand convince the country that we have a drinking problem. This is how it has ended. They'll be back with Sugar taxes and the like.

It won't end until we are all given set menus for breakfast, lunch and dinner menu. And told we are only allowed to drink X amount a week. The rest of our incomes will go to tax.

Communism is creeping in the back door.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Jurgen Klopp wrote: »

Still tho I imagine it will be a nice little earner on the blackmarket now.

If your standard can of say Heineken becomes €2 plus your looking at €40 for 20 cans

I imagine their will be plenty offering slabs for half that

Was thinking the same thing.

The return of Bootlegging is nigh.

ohnonotgmail

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Was thinking the same thing.

The return of Bootlegging is nigh.

Or trips up to newry at christmas time.

pilly

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Or trips up to newry at christmas time.

Especially if sterling stays the way it is.

DEFTLEFTHAND

I don't want the government to be my parents.

Adults have free will and are are supposed to possess common sense and personal responsibility.

Leroy42

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Or trips up to newry at christmas time.

Isn't NI introducing something similar? I think that is what led to a delay as they want to bring both in at the same time to avoid losses to cross border selling.

Of course with brexit, that will bring in customs limits which would have quite an impact as well.

The exchange rate would be a different issue of course.

Its not the increase in pricing as such that I object to, although obviously nobody would willingly accept it, but if it was at least based on increased duties, duties that could be earmarked for alcohol awareness programs, better treatment centres, local sports and social clubs to give people alternatives to drinking, then it might be useful.

But all this will end up doing is costing your average drinker more money, increasing market share of the more established brands and helping the vitners.

Spanish Eyes

If this comes in I will be more determined than ever to avoid pubs forever more.

They wouldn't even give you a paper plate of stale crisps or a few peanuts. No, the LVA are miserable basta rds blaming everyone else for their problems.

They are a powerful lobby though. And I agree this has nothing to do with health or anything other than the nanny State worming its way in again.

We will probably need a PS card to buy a bottle of wine or a few beers in the Off license/supermarket soon. Looks like we will need it for everything else. And then we can be monitored and locked up somewhere for treatment if we buy more than 14 units a week.

Truly a dystopian nightmare. But watch this space!

ohnonotgmail

Leroy42 wrote: »

Isn't NI introducing something similar? I think that is what led to a delay as they want to bring both in at the same time to avoid losses to cross border selling.

Of course with brexit, that will bring in customs limits which would have quite an impact as well.

The exchange rate would be a different issue of course.

Its not the increase in pricing as such that I object to, although obviously nobody would willingly accept it, but if it was at least based on increased duties, duties that could be earmarked for alcohol awareness programs, better treatment centres, local sports and social clubs to give people alternatives to drinking, then it might be useful.

But all this will end up doing is costing your average drinker more money, increasing market share of the more established brands and helping the vitners.

They tried to bring it in in Scotland and the case on that has been sent to the Supreme Court. If the supreme court strikes down minimum pricing then the north cant introduce it.

Donald Trump

Deleted User wrote: »

If they make alcohol prohibitively expensive, its creating a virtual prohibition. Did you ever wonder why so many blues players had blind in their name?

Blind Joe Reynolds
Blind Teddy Darby
Blind Boy Fuller
Blind Willie Johnson

They were blinded from drinking illegal hooch during prohibition in the US. Its a genuinely scary prospect that that could happen here. Home Brew isn't the problem. Make a bad batch of home brew beer and the worst that happens is you have a carbuoy of undrinkable beer, but artifcially inflate the price of a legal bottle of vodka to 50 euro and the black market of cheap home made alcohol will explode, and as with any black market there will be lots of counterfeit. People will be sold anti-freeze and either go blind or die from consuming it.

This is a very bad idea.

ah, Is that why Blind Boy Boatclub wears the plastic bag on his head?

Ipso

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I don't want the government to be my parents.

Adults have free will and are are supposed to possess common sense and personal responsibility.

Yeah, but a lot of these adults think they can do what they want to their body and expect the tax payers to step in when it impacts on their health.

bananabread12

Ipso wrote: »

Yeah, but a lot of these adults think they can do what they want to their body and expect the tax payers to step in when it impacts on their health.

So why shouldn't we just show these people that they need to take some personal responsibility for themselves by getting rid of their free healthcare instead of punishing the entire population?

If you turn up to A&E with an alcohol related problem then fair enough...better whip out your credit card there, pal.

Ipso

bananabread12 wrote: »

So why shouldn't we just show these people that they need to take some personal responsibility for themselves by getting rid of their free healthcare instead of punishing the entire population?

If you turn up to A&E with an alcohol related problem then fair enough...better whip out your credit card there, pal.

See how many politicians will propose something like that.