Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

buried

My TD's family runs a pub. I may as well write a letter to Monica Belluci asking for a lapdance

One_Of_Shanks

buried wrote: »

My TD's family runs a pub. I may as well write a letter to Monica Belluci asking for a lapdance

Maybe so, but TD's are a better avenue than moaning about Newstalk.

buried

One_Of_Shanks wrote: »

Maybe so, but TD's are a better avenue than moaning about Newstalk.

Oh I agree with you on that, but a lot of these politician hoors are tied up in the pub trade. Smoke em if you got em, but a lot of these so called "public representatives" are literally just "Pub representatives".

Leroy42

buried wrote: »

One_Of_Shanks wrote: »

Maybe so, but TD's are a better avenue than moaning about Newstalk.

Oh I agree with you on that, but a lot of these politician hoors are tied up in the pub trade. Smoke em if you got em, but a lot of these so called "public representatives" are literally just "Pub representatives".

And yet they vote for ever tighter drink driving laws, the smoking ban, getting rid of kids after certain hours.

Why would vote any of these through if all they are interested in is their own pub.

I'm not saying it doesnt play a part, we all have a bias, but it seems that they are not solely slaves to it

One_Of_Shanks

Leroy42 wrote: »

And yet they vote for ever tighter drink driving laws

Come to mention it, I always found it baffling how so many checkpoints for drink driving are on Sunday mornings.

Why not just have them outside pubs where people are obviously likely to be drinking.
But that doesnt happen.

Weird, eh?

McMurphy

One_Of_Shanks wrote: »

Sure who gives a toss about Newstalk and Moncrief?

I seriously doubt Moncrief gives a crap about the bill.

It was in Fine Gael's manifesto that THEY would do whatever it took to help pubs and its they who created this.

So it lands with them and maybe you might get somewhere taking it up with them but Newstalk are only passing it on and no amount of complaining about newstalk will get anyone anywhere.

Voicing concerns/opinions to TD's serves a purpose. Complaining about Newstalk serves none.

I think you missed the point.

I wasn't having a go about newstalk - the media outlet. I was pointing out the inconsistencies between the broadcasters.

Discodog

One_Of_Shanks wrote: »

Come to mention it, I always found it baffling how so many checkpoints for drink driving are on Sunday mornings.

Why not just have them outside pubs where people are obviously likely to be drinking.
But that doesnt happen.

Weird, eh?

You really expect the Guards to adjust their shifts so that they are available when the crime is happening ?

Nice relaxing Sunday Checkpoint. Catch the parents taking their kids to GAA.

Mr. teddywinkles

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

By my calculation, that's close to 40 pints in 48 hours - are you Andre the Giant or something?

I paid 18e for two drinks and a few miserable chicken pieces last weekend out. And I wasn't exactly ordering chateau de bollix. So it doesn't take much to reach a 100e

One_Of_Shanks

One_Of_Shanks wrote: »

Come to mention it, I always found it baffling how so many checkpoints for drink driving are on Sunday mornings.

Why not just have them outside pubs where people are obviously likely to be drinking.
But that doesnt happen.

Weird, eh?

Not baffling at all. Time and a half rate on Sundays for the Gardai.

One_Of_Shanks

Ya get nowhere around here with sarcasm apparently

buried

Deedsie wrote: »

Do you live in a 1 TD constituency?

Pretty much D. There is only one that actually seems to go to work in Dáil Éireann. That's the one I'm on about. F**k knows where the other crew are, probably the pub.

Discodog

I knew that a drink is good for me - now the proof

http://www.newsweek.com/drinking-alcohol-tied-long-life-new-study-813013

hatrickpatrick

Bill has been scheduled for today, tomorrow, and Thursday, still at the second stage in the Dail. They really want to pass it asap it seems, they're devoting more time to it than anything apart from Project Ireland, but as we've seen there seems to be a high chance that other discussions overrun so that it doesn't have time to be discussed on some of the scheduled days. Today for instance they only have two hours for the whole government business discussion and that includes both this and a bill to amend the Radiological Protection Act - which is up first and they seem to want to get the whole second stage of that done today. So it would appear that in general, the Dail schedule is very much a guideline and extremely flexible.

What I'm interested to know is whether this will be referred to a select committee or a departmental committee, or if they'll go for a whole-Dail committee like they did in the Seanad. Seems controversial enough to potentially merit the latter. If it goes to the health committee specifically it probably has less chance of being delayed given that I'd imagine a lot of TDs who sit on that committee will be unconditionally in favour of it, so it'll be interesting to see what happens.

Capt'n Midnight

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-43197384

The Scottish government has recommended that the minimum price for a unit of alcohol should be set at 50p.

The minimum pricing scheme will come into force in May, after ministers won out in a lengthy legal battle.
...
Minimum pricing is designed to cut the intake of problem drinkers by raising the price of the strongest, cheapest alcohol, with the extra revenue going to retailers.

with the extra revenue going to retailers


What's Rab C Nesbitt's take on this ?


In the UK a unit is 10ml of alcohol, here it's 10 grams. So works out about 70c a unit.

BuilderPlumber

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Bill has been scheduled for today, tomorrow, and Thursday, still at the second stage in the Dail. They really want to pass it asap it seems, they're devoting more time to it than anything apart from Project Ireland, but as we've seen there seems to be a high chance that other discussions overrun so that it doesn't have time to be discussed on some of the scheduled days. Today for instance they only have two hours for the whole government business discussion and that includes both this and a bill to amend the Radiological Protection Act - which is up first and they seem to want to get the whole second stage of that done today. So it would appear that in general, the Dail schedule is very much a guideline and extremely flexible.

What I'm interested to know is whether this will be referred to a select committee or a departmental committee, or if they'll go for a whole-Dail committee like they did in the Seanad. Seems controversial enough to potentially merit the latter. If it goes to the health committee specifically it probably has less chance of being delayed given that I'd imagine a lot of TDs who sit on that committee will be unconditionally in favour of it, so it'll be interesting to see what happens.

This is a total insult to the people of Ireland that they are wasting time on this drivel. In a week where there is bad weather and at a time when Brexit offers uncertainty, I think the Dail should concentrate on these issues. There are plenty real problems for the government to deal with and minister Harris should be more concerned about what cold weather does to people's health at the moment.

hatrickpatrick

They got around to the bill today but only had time for two TDs to speak on it. Healy Rae was interesting - he massively supports minimum pricing it would seem but he disagrees with virtually everything else in the bill, while Eamonn O'Cuiv was fully in favour.

Healy Rae:

The Bill has strayed from its original purpose. It has gone off the rails altogether and is losing support for that reason. We all want to tackle the problems of harmful and underage drinking but extreme legislation is not always good legislation. I ask the Minister to consider the points I have raised and identify what small changes could be made to the Bill to address these concerns. Nobody is interested in scuppering the legislation. The issue is one of making sensible changes that will create balance. For this reason, I ask the Minister to revisit the Bill. If the Government were to stick to the original intention of introducing minimum pricing and if it tried to address the issue of teenagers being lured into a small number of large, open venues, we would achieve a better outcome.

It would seem that, at least on the face of it, MUP is the one aspect of the bill which has broad cross-party support. It may come down to backbench opposition (Such as we say from Noel Rock a few weeks ago), or down to the make-up of whichever committee this bill ends up being sent to for the third stage.

Others have commented that there's a lot more behind-the-scenes opposition from TDs to minimum pricing than they let on in public, I'd be interested to hear more about the source of these rumours and how extensive this "closeted opposition" may be?

Reputable Rog

Alcohol bill will violate treaty, say EU countries
Catherine Sanz, Ireland Reporter
March 5 2018, 12:01am, The Times

The legislation would introduce new labelling rules that some countries argue would discriminate against imported products SASKO LAZAROV/ROLLINGNEWS.IE
Share
Save
Ireland has been warned by 14 member states that its alcohol bill may be found in breach of EU law.
The Public Health (Alcohol) Bill, which was debated in the Dáil last month, proposes rules on advertising, labelling and minimum pricing, defined at 10 cents per gram of alcohol. It will affect cheap beer, wine and spirits but not premium products.
The countries said the bill was a disproportionate response to the issue of alcohol misuse that would damage trade and discriminate against new products entering the Irish market. They expressed scepticism that it would achieve its aim of reducing alcohol consumption and questioned why less restrictive measures were rejected in favour of the “stringent” proposals.
The EU-wide opposition to the bill will likely lead to further delays and could pave the way for a case to be brought against Ireland at the European Court of Justice. The health department has not responded to the comments, which were received nearly two years ago. A spokesman said that responses were being finalised.
Each EU member state is notified when a country proposes legislation that could have implications for the internal market, and 14 made submissions to the European Commission about the alcohol bill.
In the submissions, released to The Times by the commission, the countries argue that minimum pricing may be in breach of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which states rules on the free movement of goods. They claim that minimum pricing will limit the incentive for innovation among private label producers, who are unable to exert competitive pressure on established brands.
France said it advocated an ambitious approach against the harmful use of alcohol but that the bill “appears to be incompatible” with EU law. It said minimum pricing would constitute measures equivalent to a restriction on imports, which is prohibited by Article 34 of the TFEU. While it highlighted that Article 36 of the treaty allows for exemptions when the restriction can be justified as protections to the health of humans, “the French authorities nevertheless consider that the measures in question are neither necessary nor proportionate to attain this objective”.
Many of the advertising and labelling restrictions in the bill are modelled after the Loi Évin, a policy passed in France in 1991, yet France criticised them. It said they would give an advantage to brands already on the Irish market and questioned the need for products to include a warning about the dangers of alcohol.
“This constitutes an unprecedented initiative within the European Union and would result in the need to repackage products specifically for the Irish market,” France’s submission added.
Minimum pricing was also criticised by Austria, which said it would be a welcome development “in principle” but that its experts were sceptical that it would solve alcohol-related problems. “Austria supports a holistic approach . . . without creating stringent laws and restricting freedom of choice with regard to the moderate consumption.”
Portugal criticised the bill’s attempt to legislate on issues that had already been harmonised at EU level, such as labelling on the quantity in grams of alcohol and energy value of a product. “This may be considered a lack of sincere co-operation with EU bodies,” the submission added.
Many countries questioned the logic of the bill, drawing a distinction between tobacco products, which cause harm even in small amounts and alcohol, which they said could be safely consumed in moderate amounts.
“Alcohol consumption in itself does not automatically present a danger to moderate and responsible consumers; it is misuse or abuse that needs to be addressed but does not appear to be mentioned at this juncture,” Italy stated.
The bill also prohibits the importation for sale of publications that contravene alcohol advertising rules, which include a ban on front and back cover alcohol ads and on publications where more than 20 per cent of advertising space is for alcohol. Italy said that these restrictions would breach the TFEU.
Ireland was forced to re-notify the European Commission and invite additional submissions after amendments were added to the bill last year. Member states have until April to comment on measures such as mandatory cancer warnings and that health warnings must take up one third of the label.
Simon Harris, the health minister, said that Ireland needed to show “leadership” with its alcohol legislation. “I certainly hope . . . that we will be able to go to other European health ministers and say, ‘Have you heard about what we are doing in Ireland?’ ” he told the Seanad last year.

I think our European Friends will intervene and quash this nonsense.

Muahahaha

Reputable Rog wrote: »

I think our European Friends will intervene and quash this nonsense.

Im not always a fan of the EU but there are times like this that I would rather to have them than allowing our lot come up with even more taxation masquerading as a health policy.

Reputable Rog

Muahahaha wrote: »

Im not always a fan of the EU but there are times like this that I would rather to have them than allowing our lot come up with even more taxation masquerading as a health policy.

I think a country like the UK could get away it but they won't tolerate any nonsense from pixiehead land.

elperello

And Spanish ale shall give you hope
My dark Rosaleen

Spanish Eyes

RE the Times report quoted by ReputableRog above, did the EU raise any objections to Scotland and its MUP policy? That went all the way to the Supreme Court in London and the verdict was, Scotland it's all fine, do what you want. So it is being introduced in May this year.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/nov/21/scotlands-minimum-pricing-for-alcohol-to-take-effect-in-may-2018

weldoninhio

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

RE the Times report quoted by ReputableRog above, did the EU raise any objections to Scotland and its MUP policy? That went all the way to the Supreme Court in London and the verdict was, Scotland it's all fine, do what you want. So it is being introduced in May this year.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/nov/21/scotlands-minimum-pricing-for-alcohol-to-take-effect-in-may-2018

Scotland is on it’s way out of the EU, so I doubt the EU care.

Spanish Eyes

weldoninhio wrote: »

Scotland is on it’s way out of the EU, so I doubt the EU care.

Well we know that now (even though they want to stay in EU), but the MUP policy began its rounds long before the vote on Brexit in 2016, so I just wondered why EU did not round on them at the time also.

http://www.ias.org.uk/What-we-do/Alcohol-Alert/February-2015/No-legal-obstacle-to-MUP-in-Scotland-Scots-QC.aspx

weldoninhio

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Well we know that now (even though they want to stay in EU), but the MUP policy began its rounds long before the vote on Brexit in 2016, so I just wondered why EU did not round on them at the time also.

http://www.ias.org.uk/What-we-do/Alcohol-Alert/February-2015/No-legal-obstacle-to-MUP-in-Scotland-Scots-QC.aspx

I’d imagine they’d hoped that the British courts would see sense and stop MUP

Spanish Eyes

weldoninhio wrote: »

I’d imagine they’d hoped that the British courts would see sense and stop MUP

That didn't work though!

But as you say there is little point now.

weldoninhio

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

That didn't work though!

It didn’t, but by the time it went through the highest court, Brexit was in the works.

Ipso

weldoninhio wrote: »

I’d imagine they’d hoped that the British courts would see sense and stop MUP

Scotland has more common sense benefits of Brexit to look forward to.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/irn-bru-recipe-change-low-sugar-production-latest-a8152636.html

elperello

Ipso wrote: »

Scotland has more common sense benefits of Brexit to look forward to.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/irn-bru-recipe-change-low-sugar-production-latest-a8152636.html

Great tack to wash down a deep fried Mars Bar

Ipso

elperello wrote: »

Great tack to wash down a deep fried Mars Bar

And blood and guts in a wee sheep's stomach.

hatrickpatrick

Feckin' thing is scheduled for discussion every day this week, currently being discussed in the Dàil. Unfortunately I reckon it'll probably go to committee stage very soon - there seem to only be a handful of TDs in the chamber to discuss it today, so whether that means they'll adjourn the second stage to allow others to speak or simply move it to committee on the grounds that people had a chance today and didn't take it, I'm not fully sure.