Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

elperello wrote: »

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

If anyone has any experience creating social media campaigns I really think it could possibly be effective. Like boycott pub night or something in retaliation to this. I wouldn't know where to start really.

I like your positive outlook, unfortunately I can't help you due to not having the skills needed. I would chip in a few quid if a crowd funding initiative is set up.

Anyone out there with Facebook of Twitter skills?

Where's a good lefty liberal protest when you need one, eh?

Dr Crayfish

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Where's a good lefty liberal protest when you need one, eh?

what's lefty and liberal about not wanting booze to be overpriced?

Spanish Eyes

ellejay wrote: »

There'll be plenty of loop holes.

Eg If a minimum sale price is implemented, what's to stop retailers GIVING the product away?
Eg Buy a bag of ice and you'll get a free bottle of booze.

I don't know, but would that be considered below cost selling or something?

elperello

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Where's a good lefty liberal protest when you need one, eh?

I don't mind lefty liberal or hard right, on this topic I'll be like our neighbours dog and go a bit of the road with anyone.
Desperate times and all that!

elperello

ellejay wrote: »

There'll be plenty of loop holes.

Eg If a minimum sale price is implemented, what's to stop retailers GIVING the product away?
Eg Buy a bag of ice and you'll get a free bottle of booze.

Seeing as how they have thought this through to the extent that they want to ban a hairdresser from giving a glass of prossecco to a young one getting ready for her wedding I wouldn't bank on it.

#banfun

AlanG

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, I think MUP is unfair - hitting the poor to try and support the Vintners.

If the Govt want to simply jack up all excise on alcohol, I would personally pay more than MUP will cost me, but I would prefer that to MUP, and that would meet their new stated goal of driving down consumption for health reasons.

But it would hurt the Vintners, so it won't happen.

This +1 - Leo will save those uneducated poor people from the demon drink but if you pay a bit more for your tipple you don't need Leo to save you. No law that is designed to punish particularly the lower paid should ever be brought in.

elperello

AlanG wrote: »

This +1 - Leo will save those uneducated poor people from the demon drink but if you pay a bit more for your tipple you don't need Leo to save you. No law that is designed to punish particularly the lower paid should ever be brought in.

You have hit the nail on the head there.

There is an element of class snobbery about a lot of the sanctimonious crowd supporting this.

I'm sick of "we have a problem" and "only cheap drink will be affected".

Apparently the fancy restaurant and golf club crowd are ok.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Where's a good lefty liberal protest when you need one, eh?

what's lefty and liberal about not wanting booze to be overpriced?

My point is that they know how to protest, and yet they're constantly derided for it.

elperello

https://timeline.com/nell-mccafferty-ireland-b9b972ca2696

Here is an early example of a pub flash mob protest.

weldoninhio

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Anyway since the product I buy currently is premium priced it will not go up. Happy Days!

You are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think premium brands aren’t going to jack their prices up too.

McMurphy

weldoninhio wrote: »

You are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think premium brands aren’t going to jack their prices up too.

Either that, or the likes of your Perlenbacher (which used to be a solid pilsner before they presumably started brewing elsewhere) will vanish from our shelves.

That would then make the headache in a can or bottle stuff (Heineken/Bud/Coors etc) as being the "cheap stuff" (which is why the vintners sell it by the keg)

I don't envisage that scenario playing out though.

Ted Plain

It certainly looks like this is on the way in. Whether it will be challenged or ruled illegal by the EU is not certain.

Anyway, will booze cruises make a comeback? Northern Ireland are supposed to be bringing in something similar at the same time, but they don't have a government at the moment. In any case, does anyone have a link to NI's proposed legislation?

If it is brought in here, but not in NI, there will be crippling traffic jams on the roads heading North. At least until Brexit kicks in.

An option would be to incorporate stocking up into a holiday to France. This ship is on the way to us:

https://www.irishferries.com/uk-en/news-listing/irish-ferries-chooses-w.-b.-yeats-as-name-for-new-cruise-ferry/

It's a pity that France is so far away. Sweden, for example, has expensive booze, but is close to Germany and so - so I have read - the Swedes descend upon North Germany armed with handcarts and do a smash-and-grab on vodka before legging in back to Sweden. I would say it's as much a two fingers to the government as saving money.

This Bill that is coming in goes too far and the government is poking it's nose in where it has no fukking business, such as not allowing a glass of bubbly at a stag-do towel shave or a wedding dress fitting. They should fukk right off with themselves, the useless shower of kunts.

We do have a problem with alcohol and I believe the problem is arseholes in our government talking down to us like we are children, which is not a surprising thing for school teachers to do. My anecdote is that on a "European tour" the teachers confiscated all the booze from the 17 year-olds at a stop on a motorway service stations and began to demonstratively spill it on the ground. Some horrified French truck drivers came running over shouting, asking what the fukk they thought they were doing. This sort of cretinous Establishment attitude is what mystifies and glorifies alcohol to impressionable youth.

That's my rant on the matter.

McMurphy

This Bill that is coming in goes too far and the government is poking it's nose in where it has no fukking business, such as not allowing a glass of bubbly at a stag-do towel shave or a wedding dress fitting. They should fukk right off with themselves, the useless shower of kunts.

But they're allowed one at their place of work, often before they decide upon or vote on legislation that will affect their 'subjects'.

Work that one out.

King George VI

I can imagine the most gigantic protest this nation has ever seen if this is actually brought it. and I'd join it.

VinLieger

King George VI wrote: »

I can imagine the most gigantic protest this nation has ever seen if this is actually brought it. and I'd join it.

There won't be one, its got cross party support throughout the Dail, FG, FF and SF all support it and there isnt a peep out of the independents, they've played this very shrewdly unfortunately and completely blurred the facts surrounding it using medical mumbo jumbo and numerous high and mighty members of the college of physicians all over the media telling us how we are all going to die from a sip of beer

Dr Crayfish

Rick Shaw wrote: »

But they're allowed one at their place of work, often before they decide upon or vote on legislation that will affect their 'subjects'.

Work that one out.

I don't know why people focus on the Dail bar. Lots of workplaces have booze on the premises. I had a job once where they wheeled around a booze cart every Friday at 4pm and it was free. In Australia this is the norm on Fridays in offices. We're as bad as they are if we start moaning about the Dail bar in my opinion.

Anyway I think they're discussing the bill in the Seanaid today, no doubt it will be passed.

Dr Crayfish

King George VI wrote: »

I can imagine the most gigantic protest this nation has ever seen if this is actually brought it. and I'd join it.

Nope. We'll just moan about it, down the pub probably, which is exactly what they want. Well played Leo.

VinLieger

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

I don't know why people focus on the Dail bar. Lots of workplaces have booze on the premises. I had a job once where they wheeled around a booze cart every Friday at 4pm and it was free. In Australia this is the norm on Fridays in offices. We're as bad as they are if we start moaning about the Dail bar in my opinion.

Anyway I think they're discussing the bill in the Seanaid today, no doubt it will be passed.

People focus on it cus its massively hypocritical for our lawmakers to tell us to stop drinking so much while they stroll in and out of their own private members bar on a daily basis

ohnonotgmail

VinLieger wrote: »

People focus on it cus its massively hypocritical for our lawmakers to tell us to stop drinking so much while they stroll in and out of their own private members bar on a daily basis

not to mention voting after a few drinks. i'd be fired if i had a few drinks and went back to work.

Dr Crayfish

VinLieger wrote: »

People focus on it cus its massively hypocritical for our lawmakers to tell us to stop drinking so much while they stroll in and out of their own private members bar on a daily basis

Fair enough yeah. I just can't understand why they want this bill to go through when probably 90% of people would be against it. Then again there are a lot of holy joe types in the country who probably support it.

VinLieger

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Fair enough yeah. I just can't understand why they want this bill to go through when probably 90% of people would be against it. Then again there are a lot of holy joe types in the country who probably support it.

FG's 2011 manifesto is your answer, FF is because of how many of their members are publicans, SF i really cant wrap my head around though

Asus X540L

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Fair enough yeah. I just can't understand why they want this bill to go through when probably 90% of people would be against it. Then again there are a lot of holy joe types in the country who probably support it.

I thought the holy joe's would stop gay marriage but that was a landslide

Dr Crayfish

Asus X540L wrote: »

I thought the holy joe's would stop gay marriage but that was a landslide

The people had a choice in that, we don't in this

Asus X540L

What's the latest on this?

Did it come in in Scotland in the end?

McMurphy

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

I don't know why people focus on the Dail bar. Lots of workplaces have booze on the premises. I had a job once where they wheeled around a booze cart every Friday at 4pm and it was free. In Australia this is the norm on Fridays in offices. We're as bad as they are if we start moaning about the Dail bar in my opinion.

Anyway I think they're discussing the bill in the Seanaid today, no doubt it will be passed.

I don't claim to speak for anyone but me, but in my own opinion, my issue is that legislators are bending over backwards to to pander to a vested interest (Vintners) and meddle with a free market by introducing Minimum pricing on alcohol.

They.claim they are doing so under health concerns.


While they're free to drink themselves into a stupor, at their place off work, on the very same unhealthy drink that has been heavily subsidised by taxpayers money.

Do as I say

Not as I do.

VinLieger

Asus X540L wrote: »

What's the latest on this?

Did it come in in Scotland in the end?

Yeah the EUCJ kinda fluffed it unfortunately they said its definitely illegal by EU standards and should instead be done via excise and taxation but then also said that its grand and up to your own courts to decide what happens next.

Basically they decided to not make a real decision

Dr Crayfish

VinLieger wrote: »

Yeah the EUCJ kinda fluffed it unfortunately they said its definitely illegal by EU standards and should instead be done via excise and taxation but then also said that its grand and up to your own courts to decide what happens next.

Basically they decided to not make a real decision

So it looks like the EU wouldn't block our government doing it then? Sigh.

VinLieger

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

So it looks like the EU wouldn't block our government doing it then? Sigh.

Nope, its up to our own courts to decide if it break EU law, which it definitely does but if the Scottish courts are anything to go by ours will also say it doesn't

Leroy42

VinLieger wrote: »

Nope, its up to our own courts to decide if it break EU law, which it definitely does but if the Scottish courts are anything to go by ours will also say it doesn't

Well not exactly. The courts don't simply decide it doesn't break the law if it clearly does. (I'm have no idea either way). You state it does break the law in which case this legislation has no chance of going through,

If it does break the law then the courts have no choice but to rule on that.

What the EU court ruling means is that the EU is saying that the government has the right to pursue it and others have the right to bring the issue to court within that country.

So leaving the decision down to the countries themselves.

VinLieger

Leroy42 wrote: »

Well not exactly. The courts don't simply decide it doesn't break the law if it clearly does. (I'm have no idea either way). You state it does break the law in which case this legislation has no chance of going through,

If it does break the law then the courts have no choice but to rule on that.

What the EU court ruling means is that the EU is saying that the government has the right to pursue it and others have the right to bring the issue to court within that country.

So leaving the decision down to the countries themselves.

The problem is the vagueness of the EUCJ rulling, it states its okay if the policy could be justified on health grounds under EU law only if it was more proportionate and effective than using general taxation. So the vagueness problem is where it becomes subjective as imo there's not enough evidence to say it is more effective but according to the scottish court there is even though there is literally only one study that's been done on it so I don't see how that's possible

Also lets not forget this has nothing to do with health and is all about FG fulfilling their 2011 election promise