Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

Hardly a dead horse if the Scottish court case never ran it's full course in Europe and they got as far as EU acknowledging that it was illegal.

Also worth pointing out (again) that we wouldn't have been in the same situation as Scotland.

The President signed our legislation into law. If there was any legal doubt, he would have referred it to the Supreme Court.

Yes.

he didn't though. And there is legal doubt, you even highlighted in your post above.

I know that the Chief Justice, the President of the Court of Appeal, The President of the High Court, and the Attorney General are among the members of the Council of State which advises the President on the constitutionality of legislation. And that legislation is drafted by lawyers. You probably know more about the law than they do?

Thanks for the quick reply.

So we have three small population countries, Ireland, Scotland and Wales who have embraced MUP.

Two of these have left the EU.

It's probably fair to think that brewers, distillers, wine makers in all parts of the EU might be watching how MUP works out here with some interest.

I wonder what they are thinking and would they like to see MUP in big markets like France or Germany.

ps. just on the compliance with EU law, MUP is open to challenge even if it did pass here.

Can't see MUP working on mainland Europe at all. Their best be would be to introduce it all at once, and they all have tax options first.

It is not price discrimination, and the ECJ left it with Scotland to decide whether MUP should be their preference over taxation. I can't see the Irish Courts which would be the first port of call in any EU challenge, allowing any such challenge to go ahead.

The legal challenge to MUP was led by industry trade organizations; namely, the Scotch Whisky Association supported at some points by Spirits Europe and the Comité Européen des Entreprises Vins. Their main argument was that MUP contravened European Union (EU) rules on the free movement of goods, which the ECJ had previously ruled prohibited setting a minimum price for tobacco 9. However, in December 2015, the ECJ clarified that MUP could be legal under provisions allowing for ‘proportionate’ free trade restrictions in the interest of protecting public health 10. The proportionality test specified that MUP should either achieve greater benefits for public health or impose fewer restrictions on the free movement of goods than other existing policy options (generally interpreted as alcohol taxation). After considering that introducing a minimum price targets alcohol disproportionately consumed by heavier drinkers, the EU directives which may hinder taxation of alcoholic drinks in proportion to their strength (Directives 92/83/EEC and 92/84/EEC) and the specific problem posed by cheap alcohol in Scotland, the Scottish Outer Court of Session ruled in October 2016 that MUP was a proportionate measure, as targeting cheap alcohol could achieve benefits that taxation policies do not. The industry groups appealed to the UK Supreme Court, but that appeal was rejected on 15 November 2017. The Supreme Court noted additionally that comparing benefits of public health with restrictions on free trade is conceptually and analytically challenging as well as being primarily a task for governments, not courts. With no higher court of appeal available, the current legal process is over.

Wouldn't need a referendum, but you get a say when the polls open for the next election. It's publican greed and anti-competition, end of story, but it would need to be the off-licences or supermarkets taking it to the European Courts on the basis of unfair competition practice (I think - open to correction).

We don't get referendums on ordinary legislation like this. Any new government can repeal it, and it would be wrong to make it either permanent or banned forever by referendum.

Constitutional Referendum

Article 46 of the Constitution sets out the rules for how the Constitution can be amended. Article 47 sets out the basic rules for referendums. A body of legislation, including a series of Referendum Acts, governs how they operate.

For a constitutional referendum, a Bill is first introduced in the Dáil, setting out the wording of the proposed amendment. If both the Dáil and the Seanad pass the Bill, the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage makes an order specifying the polling day for the referendum.

Ordinary Referendum

An ordinary referendum is one that does not relate to amending Bunreacht na hÉireann (the Irish Constitution). To date no ordinary referendum has ever been held.

An ordinary referendum would take place if the President received a joint petition from both houses of the Oireachtas. The petition would say that a proposed Bill was of such national importance that the people of Ireland should decide whether it became law.

The joint petition must be passed by the majority of the members of the Seanad and one-third of the members of the Dáil. When the President receives the petition, they must consult the Council of State. If the President agrees that the proposal is of such national importance they will refuse to sign the Bill until a referendum has been held.

The referendum must be held within 18 months of the President's decision not to sign the Bill.

You are just posting walls of text that have already been covered and it hasn't changed.

"9. However, in December 2015, the ECJ clarified that MUP could be legal under provisions allowing for ‘proportionate’ free trade restrictions in the interest of protecting public health"

The ECJ had ruled that December that the policy could be justified on health grounds under EU law only if it was more proportionate and effective than using general taxation. However, the ECJ referred the final decision back to the Scottish courts.

The courts that decided it for Scotland in the end were the UK courts, who had already decided when the case was first contested the same thing.

It may not be price discrimination, but it is damn close, close enough maybe to bring it to court on that basis.

The ECJ defines prices discrimnination:

"Discriminatory pricing can constitute an abuse only where the behavior at stake "has an effect on the costs, profits and any other relevant interest" of one or more of the companies involved. Finding such an abuse, however, does not require proof of "actual, quantifiable deterioration in the competitive situation"of the customer. There is no de minimis threshold."

And that is without mentioning bias towards groups of people.

I know you are only kidding and of course Boards is not known for being a reliable indicator of public opinion.

However I've yet to meet a member of said public who likes paying extra for their bottle of wine or few cans.

Some words from Drinkaware CEO Sheena Horgan:

“Covid has shifted drinking behaviour significantly, for many this means drinking more and for others drinking less."

Absolutely nonsense - ridiculous law set up by people who think that they should be deciding what we can drink or who can drink what amount at what cost to themselves.

The governments job is not to do that, nor should they be doing it. Where do they decide to stop? If they are going to do it with one thing then they should apply it to all things that are bad for us.

We should be expecting a minimum unit pricing for processed meats, instant dinners, desserts, granola/sugary cereals and so on. Utter bullsh*t.

It is a state sanctioned shakedown of people who buy booze in supermarkets. Nothing more.

They have no regard for you other than as a shakedown for rent seekers, a source of money to be fleeced.

Apparently people who drink in pubs or buy fine wines or aged whiskeys cant have any problems with alcohol according to MUP 'logic'.

Ireland doesnt even have the excuse Scotland, Wales or BC had, cos we can raise excise unlike those regions.