Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

elperello · 10-10-2018 10:14pm

I bought Perlenbacher during the Summer at €7.29 for 6 x 50ml ie. €1.21 each.

I also bought a case of Heineken at €24 for 24 x 50ml ie. €1 each.

Despite Heineken protecting their brand I could still buy it for less than the Lidl discount brand because Tesco wanted to sell it to me at that price.

Post MUP retailers will still be competing for customers no matter what notions the brewers may have about their brand image.

TallGlass · 10-10-2018 10:18pm

So this is short now of been signed into law. When can we all expect the prices to sky rocket? I'd say the supermarkets and publicans would love it before Christmas so can we expect it that soon.

I notice on RTE, they say there will be health warnings on products, should we expect to see warnings etched into pint glasses etc..? Or is that stuff safer in pubs?

I personally want the government of to put there money where there mouths are and lead by example and close the Dail bar.

McMurphy · 10-10-2018 10:21pm

elperello wrote: »

I bought Perlenbacher during the Summer at €7.29 for 6 x 50ml ie. €1.21 each.

I also bought a case of Heineken at €24 for 24 x 50ml ie. €1 each.

Despite Heineken protecting their brand I could still buy it for less than the Lidl discount brand because Tesco wanted to sell it to me at that price.

Post MUP retailers will still be competing for customers no matter what notions the brewers may have about their brand image.

You're missing the point, Tesco sold to you cheaper than lidl (who also regularly do their own specials XXL packs etc) because they could. Hell, they could have gave you them for free if they wanted.

Not so when they are restrained by govt introduced pricing, aka free marketinterference.

elperello · 10-10-2018 10:30pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

You're missing the point, Tesco sold to you cheaper than lidl (who also regularly do their own specials XXL packs etc) because they could. Hell, they could have gave you them for free if they wanted.

Not so when they are restrained by govt introduced pricing, aka free marketinterference.

I think we are at cross purposes.

I'm responding to the idea that brewers are able to place their products where they like in the market. My example shows that they can't do it now and I expect they won't be after MUP comes in.

McMurphy · 10-10-2018 10:42pm

elperello wrote: »

I think we are at cross purposes.

I'm responding to the idea that brewers are able to place their products where they like in the market. My example shows that they can't do it now and I expect they won't be after MUP comes in.

No what your example showed was that Tesco sold you a product at a price set by them, this may or may not have been at a loss (I have never seen any evidence either way on these theories that alcohol is a loss leader in supermarkets)

If/when MUP actually comes to fruition, Tesco won't be able to sell you your Heineken at a cheaper price than the govt have dictated per unit.

That will be on par with all the other beers out there, dutch gold included.

So again, anyone who thinks any of the big names in beer (Bud/Coors/Heineken/Carlsberg etc etc) will want their product to be viewed as being a bargain product doesn't understand marketing.

The "cheap stuff" will still be the cheap stuff post MUP, and the "premium stuff" will still be the premium stuff, often differing with little other than price.

TallGlass · 10-10-2018 10:47pm

Also. The point about market interference is very true. Why is it that a few cans of beers for people has to be regulated massively, seemingly in the name of health.

Yet, by the same token we are told that they cannot interfere in the insurance industry. Yet insurance prices are to me out of control(Apart from when they need to lob on a levy or two).

Do these guys know, that the amount of stress they cause people is also bad for your health. I'll point out again, that the beer bellys on about half the ****ers in the Dail, it shouldnt be a subbed Dail bar that they need its a free gym membership. The neck of them telling us we drink to much and the Mafia cartel bellys on them.

I can't wait till a FG TD knocks on me door, I'll be having a ****ing word with them that's for sure.

RobbingBandit · 10-10-2018 10:48pm

I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

FFS

There will be no increase in excise duty. Not a red cent.

The only increase will be in VAT. And if people reduce spending on other things then that will be offset by less VAT from those things.

The only ways this leads to an increase in VAT is if people dip into their savings or spend less on lower VAT rated items like food or tourism.

If alcohol consumption goes down then there will be a reduction in excise so the tax take drops.

Besides the bulk of the increase in price is PURE PROFIT for the supermarkets.

VAT you say VAT is it VALUE ADDED TAX, say it with me VALUE ADDED TAX,

TAX TAX TAX TAX TAX TAX

A tax by any other name is still a tax

The Rape of Lucretia · 10-10-2018 10:49pm

TallGlass wrote: »

Also. The point about market interference is very true. Why is it that a few cans of beers for people has to be regulated massively, seemingly in the name of health.

Not seemingly. Undoubtedly. Proven scientifically beyond dispute.

elperello · 10-10-2018 10:51pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

No what your example showed was that Tesco sold you a product at a price set by them, this may or may not have been at a loss (I have never seen any evidence either way on these theories that alcohol is a loss leader in supermarkets)

If/when MUP actually comes to fruition, Tesco won't be able to sell you your Heineken at a cheaper price than the govt have dictated per unit.

That will be on par with all the other beers out there, dutch gold included.

So again, anyone who thinks any of the big names in beer (Bud/Coors/Heineken/Carlsberg etc etc) will want their product to be viewed as being a bargain product doesn't understand marketing.

The "cheap stuff" will still be the cheap stuff post MUP, and the "premium stuff" will still be the premium stuff, often differing with little other than price.

I believe that competition in the retail trade will trump any attempt by the brewers to artificially increase their prices above the MUP.

Don't get me wrong I still think MUP is a crock.

TallGlass · 10-10-2018 10:57pm

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Not seemingly. Undoubtedly. Proven scientifically beyond dispute.

If it's undoubtly proven in the name of health. Why is the Dail bar still open? Why is it subbed?

Chap, this isn't about health. I wouldn't be as annoyed if it was, I'm just sick to death of the lies after lies out of this **** show that is the FG/FF alliance. And the rubbish coming out is an insult to anyone living with someone with a drinking problem. Not one cent is ringfenced out of this for services to help them or to educate people.

Pauliedragon · 10-10-2018 11:02pm

I disagree with MUP but not too fussed. One thing that stood out for me though when I heard about this was it's apparantly designed to lower consumption and therefore lower the cost to heath system? My problem with that is we have the most financially mismanaged health system probably on the planet. Is it not hypocritical of the government to say to me "hey we're gonna prevent you being a burden down the track on our health system by charging you more for booze so you can't afford it" yet the biggest burden on the health system is in fact the financial mismanagement by the same government?

Capt'n Midnight · 10-10-2018 11:26pm

RobbingBandit wrote: »

VAT you say VAT is it VALUE ADDED TAX, say it with me VALUE ADDED TAX,

TAX TAX TAX TAX TAX TAX

A tax by any other name is still a tax

I'll try again

The plan is to reduce alcohol consumption, so there will be less excise duty.

The only way total tax take goes up is if the increase in VAT offsets the reduction in Excise.

But we know that the plan is to reduce the amount of alcohol consumed, and it's very likely that that people buying cheap alcohol may reduce spending on other products that attract VAT.

Geuze · 10-10-2018 11:52pm

TallGlass wrote: »

If it's undoubtly proven in the name of health. Why is the Dail bar still open? Why is it subbed?

For the millionth time, the Dail bar IS NOT SUBSIDISED.

It does not have the same overheads as other pubs, ok.

It maybe does not make the same net margin as other pubs, ok.

But the taxpayer does not pay it a subsidy.

Geuze · 10-10-2018 11:57pm

RobbingBandit wrote: »

The more it costs the more tax that will be collected on it so yes it is a tax, a stealth tax really, might not seem much but it's still gonna add to the coffers.

Over 3,000 posts, and people are still claiming that MUP is a tax?

MUP is not an excise duty.

OK, as the retail price jumps, and the gross margin earned by the supermarkets and suppliers soars, yes VAT will rise.

So, okay, yes, VAT receipts will rise, assuming no big drop in consumption.

NB: that is a debateable assumption.

hatrickpatrick · 11-10-2018 1:10am

Get thee to home brewing and don't look back, folks. Honestly. The only thing I'm worried about with this bill is that it'll now put a dent in session culture itself, but given how easy home brewing is I can totally see that becoming a huge staple from now on. Home brew companies need only give out some free promotional equipment during college freshers' weeks and make a killing, and thus the sesh will continue :cool:

realitykeeper · 11-10-2018 1:46am

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

FFS. You have to be at the wind up. The point was that if you're going to increase prices at all, do so via a tax. That way the extra money raised can go towards the healthcare this legislation is allegedly all about instead of giving money to people producing the substance you're trying to demonise. You're still getting the "prevention" from increased price.

MUP is about reducing the need for healthcare by deterring people from drinking so much. I would also make the point that not taxing a trader`s wares extra does not equate to giving them something, it only equates to not taking more than you already are. Even without the MUP legislation they are not being given anything because they can up their prices without the MUP just as easily as when they are ordered to up their prices.

Hotblack Desiato · 11-10-2018 2:20am

Geuze wrote: »

It does not have the same overheads as other pubs, ok.

If the State rented me a bar at zero cost and let me run it, would you call that a subsidy?

ThunbergsAreGo · 11-10-2018 6:33am

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Not seemingly. Undoubtedly. Proven scientifically beyond dispute.

Where is it proven that higher alcohol prices lowers consumption ?

A view of the countries that consume the most alcohol would suggest otherwise

The Rape of Lucretia · 11-10-2018 6:43am

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

There are very many reputable studies that confirm the effect. Variances between countries, income bands, types of alcohol etc, but the overall picture is very consistent.

http://www.ias.org.uk/Alcohol-knowledge-centre/Price/Factsheets/How-does-the-price-of-alcohol-affect-consumption.aspx

https://blog.euromonitor.com/2014/08/price-elasticities-in-alcoholic-drinks.html

https://www.statista.com/statistics/566785/demand-price-elasticity-for-selected-alcoholic-drinks-worldwide/

Well proven. Raising the price, reduces the consumption.

In the light of this clear new information for you, are you now in favour of mup?

listermint · 11-10-2018 6:59am

Geuze wrote: »

For the millionth time, the Dail bar IS NOT SUBSIDISED.

It does not have the same overheads as other pubs, ok.

It maybe does not make the same net margin as other pubs, ok.

But the taxpayer does not pay it a subsidy.

No they just cover the losses for unpaid tabs....

ThunbergsAreGo · 11-10-2018 7:07am

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Well proven. Raising the price, reduces the consumption.

In the light of this clear new information for you, are you now in favour of mup?

Average price elasticity in alcoholic drinks (ie, the weighted average of price elasticities of all product categories) as a whole is -0.4, meaning that the industry is largely inelastic in terms of price changes.

And no I think mup is wrong, I could understand it more of it was a tax increase . MUP benefits pubs and alcohol companies more than anyone else

The Rape of Lucretia · 11-10-2018 7:26am

naughtb4 wrote: »

Average price elasticity in alcoholic drinks (ie, the weighted average of price elasticities of all product categories) as a whole is -0.4, meaning that the industry is largely inelastic in terms of price changes.

And no I think mup is wrong, I could understand it more of it was a tax increase . MUP benefits pubs and alcohol companies more than anyone else

Inelastic, yes. But not zero. So consumption reduces as price rises.

Padraig Mor · 11-10-2018 9:07am

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Inelastic, yes. But not zero. So consumption reduces as price rises.

Ireland has some of the world's highest prices so why is our consumption not lower (although it's not actually that high, despite what the zealots would have you believe). Why do plenty of countries with cheaper booze (such as.....most other countries) have much lower consumption rates?

VinLieger · 11-10-2018 9:09am

Deedsie wrote: »

I am very much in favour of the new laws. Hopefully it will reduce session/binge culture in Ireland. Also hopeful the government invest more in mental health to diminish the harm alcohol can do to certain people.

But they arent going to invest anything more as we saw in the budget and they wont be getting any new money from this farce of a bill to direct towards such services either.

Those facts just add to the mountains of evidence that show this has nothing to do with the publics health

Leroy42 · 11-10-2018 9:20am

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Ireland has some of the world's highest prices so why is our consumption not lower (although it's not actually that high, despite what the zealots would have you believe). Why do plenty of countries with cheaper booze (such as.....most other countries) have much lower consumption rates?

Why don't you tell us your thoughts on it?

Doctor Jimbob · 11-10-2018 9:21am

realitykeeper wrote: »

MUP is about reducing the need for healthcare by deterring people from drinking so much. I would also make the point that not taxing a trader`s wares extra does not equate to giving them something, it only equates to not taking more than you already are. Even without the MUP legislation they are not being given anything because they can up their prices without the MUP just as easily as when they are ordered to up their prices.

MUP is about driving people back to pubs by reducing the cost difference between them and supermarkets. Even ignoring that, none of what you say is a good reason to implement a minimum price rather than additional tax.

Edit: I'm not particularly in favour of adding more taxes either - we already pay plenty of tax on alcohol. I could at least follow the logic of a tax though. MUP is nonsense.

realitykeeper · 11-10-2018 10:22am

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

MUP is about driving people back to pubs by reducing the cost difference between them and supermarkets. Even ignoring that, none of what you say is a good reason to implement a minimum price rather than additional tax.

Edit: I'm not particularly in favour of adding more taxes either - we already pay plenty of tax on alcohol. I could at least follow the logic of a tax though. MUP is nonsense.

I disagree on all counts. The MUP will impose a minimum price regardless of where you purchase the alcohol. Traders can increase their prices anyway so it is wrong to say they are being given anything by ordering them to increase their prices. Governments generally tend to mismanage things so I would prefer a completely privatized healthcare system. That way you would not have to pay as much tax on alcohol but if you fail to save the difference for your own healthcare provision, you would have to fall back on charity for your healthcare should you need it.

Doctor Jimbob · 11-10-2018 10:29am

realitykeeper wrote: »

I disagree on all counts.

Fair enough, you're entitled to do so.

The MUP will impose a minimum price regardless of where you purchase the alcohol.

So would a tax, but the extra money could actually go somewhere useful.

Traders can increase their prices anyway so it is wrong to say they are being given anything by ordering them to increase their prices.

I'm saying that a 50 cent increase will go to the traders, whereas if a comparable tax was implemented instead, that 50 cent could go to healthcare. I can't see any way that would be an inferior option.

Governments generally tend to mismanage things so I would prefer a completely privatized healthcare system. That way you would not have to pay as much tax on alcohol but if you fail to save the difference for your own healthcare provision, you would have to fall back on charity for your healthcare should you need it.

You don't support government interference in healthcare but you're happy to have them interfere in pricing. Why?

VinLieger · 11-10-2018 10:31am

realitykeeper wrote: »

I disagree on all counts. The MUP will impose a minimum price regardless of where you purchase the alcohol. Traders can increase their prices anyway so it is wrong to say they are being given anything by ordering them to increase their prices. Governments generally tend to mismanage things so I would prefer a completely privatized healthcare system. That way you would not have to pay as much tax on alcohol but if you fail to save the difference for your own healthcare provision, you would have to fall back on charity for your healthcare should you need it.

So you are for a completely privatized healthcare system but also pro wide ranging government interference and price fixing?

Those are two mutually exclusive positions.

Padraig Mor · 11-10-2018 11:12am

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why don't you tell us your thoughts on it?

I've given them previously. To summarise: MUP is solely designed to push people back into the pubs. It is a sop to the vintners (who FG promised to help in their manifesto a number of years ago), given a fig leaf of respectability by painting it as a 'health' move aided and abetted by the useful fools in zealous anti - alcohol organisations. Our alcohol consumption has been dropping for ~15 years at this stage and, while at the higher end of the scale, is not world leading these days. That it cannot achieve its aims is demonstrated by my earlier post: we already have some of the world's most expensive booze, and countries with much cheaper prices drink less. To claim that MUP can curb 'problem' drinking in a fashion that taxation measures cannot requires mental gymnastics so ludicrous as to be laughable - it is clearly and obviously designed to raise prices in off licences, but keep them the same in pubs. These same 'responsible' pubs of course are the ones that will keep serving you till you cannot stand and the source of the vast majority of alcohol related antisocial behaviour and violence - the fights on the street are at pub closing time, not offie closing time.

TallGlass · 11-10-2018 11:24am

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Inelastic, yes. But not zero. So consumption reduces as price rises.

Can you show us this study. Generally interested in what you and they are talking about.

TallGlass · 11-10-2018 11:27am

Geuze wrote: »

For the millionth time, the Dail bar IS NOT SUBSIDISED.

It does not have the same overheads as other pubs, ok.

It maybe does not make the same net margin as other pubs, ok.

But the taxpayer does not pay it a subsidy.

Yeah, right. As mentioned, who bailed them out the last time the TDs wouldn't settle there tabs. It's a farce, remind me again, why they need a bar in there workplace? I get by without one in my workplace.

KrustyUCC · 11-10-2018 11:57am

The Government is to provide an additional €84 milion for mental health services in 2019, bringing the total available funding for mental health to €1 billion.

https://www.rte.ie/news/budget-2019/2018/1009/1001969-1-billion-increase-in-funding-for-health/

There is no breakdown available for which areas of mental health the additional funding will be channeled into

joe40 · 11-10-2018 12:26pm

For all the people that claim this measure is solely an attempt to get more people going to pubs, do they have the same opinion about the law in Scotland.
Was Nicola Sturgeon only looking after publicans when a similar measure was introduced there.

An additional tax would affect all drink so people that currently buy off sales that are above MUP would be affected. This measure will only affect the cheapest drinks.

Off licence/supermarket prices will still be considerably cheaper than pubs especially when you consider cost of taxi etc so this measure will not benefit pubs.

Good pubs are not just about drinking their product has to be more than that or else they won't survive.

Geuze · 11-10-2018 12:27pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If the State rented me a bar at zero cost and let me run it, would you call that a subsidy?

OK, fair enough.

But people write and speak as if it receives a direct cash subsidy.

KrustyUCC · 11-10-2018 12:38pm

joe40 wrote: »

For all the people that claim this measure is solely an attempt to get more people going to pubs, do they have the same opinion about the law in Scotland.
Was Nicola Sturgeon only looking after publicans when a similar measure was introduced there.

An additional tax would affect all drink so people that currently buy off sales that are above MUP would be affected. This measure will only affect the cheapest drinks.

Off licence/supermarket prices will still be considerably cheaper than pubs especially when you consider cost of taxi etc so this measure will not benefit pubs.

Good pubs are not just about drinking their product has to be more than that or else they won't survive.

Did Nicola Sturgeon specifically say she wanted to support Scottish pubs specifically linking supermarket selling to pub viability?

"banning the practice of below cost selling on alcohol, particularly by large supermarkets and the impact this has had on alcohol
consumption and the viability of pubs"

http://michaelpidgeon.com/manifestos/docs/fg/Fine%20Gael%20GE%202011.pdf

Also note that the proposal is not in the Health section of the manifesto

Yes additional tax would affect all drinks. Now it's supermarket drink bad pub drink good. Carry on lads

Tax increase could be spent on health, education etc

This bill just ensures supermarkets get more for alcohol

This bill will affect the price of all alcohol in supermarkets. Premium brand wills increase their prices to keep the distance between them and so called 'cheapest drink'

joe40 · 11-10-2018 1:27pm

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Did Nicola Sturgeon specifically say she wanted to support Scottish pubs specifically linking supermarket selling to pub viability?

"banning the practice of below cost selling on alcohol, particularly by large supermarkets and the impact this has had on alcohol
consumption and the viability of pubs"

http://michaelpidgeon.com/manifestos/docs/fg/Fine%20Gael%20GE%202011.pdf

Also note that the proposal is not in the Health section of the manifesto

Yes additional tax would affect all drinks. Now it's supermarket drink bad pub drink good. Carry on lads

Tax increase could be spent on health, education etc

This bill just ensures supermarkets get more for alcohol

This bill will affect the price of all alcohol in supermarkets. Premium brand wills increase their prices to keep the distance between them and so called 'cheapest drink'

I don't particularly care what fine gael put into manifesto to try to get votes. Like all political parties they will promise all things to all people.

The fact remains this measure was introduced in Scotland as a "public health initiative" not a sop to publicans, so there must have been some research into whether it would be effective or not. By effective I mean have some impact, not a cure for all ills.

People also keep saying this will raise the price of all drinks, as if it is a foregone conclusion. I understand the reasoning, but don't believe that will happen. Retailers will still price their product to sell.

If the likes of Heineken, bud or craft beers currently selling above MUP could command a higher price, they would be doing so already.

I just don't accept the argument their price will automatically go up in line with price increases elsewhere.

KrustyUCC · 11-10-2018 1:30pm

FactCheck: Is minimum unit alcohol pricing "proven" to work?
Health Promotion Minister Marcella Corcoran Kennedy made a big claim about the effectiveness of the government’s alcohol policy, this week. We tested it.

In a debate on TV3′s Tonight With Vincent Browne on Monday, Junior Minister Marcella Corcoran Kennedy claimed that the policy has been “proven to work” in other jurisdictions, citing the example of British Columbia in Canada.

http://www.thejournal.ie/minimum-unit-pricing-alcohol-ireland-facts-2932210-Aug2016/

ThunbergsAreGo · 11-10-2018 1:30pm

joe40 wrote: »

I don't particularly care what fine gael put into manifesto to try to get votes. Like all political parties they will promise all things to all people.

The fact remains this measure was introduced in Scotland as a "public health initiative" not a sop to publicans, so there must have been some research into whether it would be effective or not. By effective I mean have some impact, not a cure for all ills.

So lets just assume that Scotland have done the research for us?

MUP benefits Publicans and Drinks Companies more than anyone else

Leroy42 · 11-10-2018 1:39pm

joe40 wrote: »

People also keep saying this will raise the price of all drinks, as if it is a foregone conclusion. I understand the reasoning, but don't believe that will happen. Retailers will still price their product to sell.

If the likes of Heineken, bud or craft beers currently selling above MUP could command a higher price, they would be doing so already.

I just don't accept the argument their price will automatically go up in line with price increases elsewhere.

I think the clue is in the title. It is MAP. The government is setting the lowest level at which a lager (for example) can be sold. Once a floor is set, lowest price is no longer a factor.

But there is no upper price. It is why the craft beers sell for far more the lies of Dutch Gold. Simply because the consumer is willing to pay more for that they perceive to be a better product.

Now, in the short term prices probably won't rise, but after a few months the new price will be factored in by the consumer and they will return to their old habits. So they will again be prepared to pay a premium for the Craft Beer. Thus the Craft beer would be made to maintain the old price as now the 'market' price as increased.

It might take longer that a few months, I don't know, but it will happen. Just as the price inevitably moves towards €1 instead of .79p after the changeover. It is simply repositition the value of value within the market.

joe40 · 11-10-2018 2:06pm

KrustyUCC wrote: »

FactCheck: Is minimum unit alcohol pricing "proven" to work?
Health Promotion Minister Marcella Corcoran Kennedy made a big claim about the effectiveness of the government’s alcohol policy, this week. We tested it.

In a debate on TV3′s Tonight With Vincent Browne on Monday, Junior Minister Marcella Corcoran Kennedy claimed that the policy has been “proven to work” in other jurisdictions, citing the example of British Columbia in Canada.

http://www.thejournal.ie/minimum-unit-pricing-alcohol-ireland-facts-2932210-Aug2016/

I just read that full article (granted it was a skim reading). It is very good and to be honest has put a bit of a dent in my argument, but since this is the internet I have to persevere.

Busy now I'll get back!!

Spanish Eyes · 11-10-2018 2:08pm

Am I misssing something or what?

Surely if a premium product is in or around the same price as cheap stuff after MUP, then drinkers will buy the branded/premium stuff. Wouldn't they?

So why would so called branded/premium producers put their prices up, instead of welcoming in all those who drank cheaper stuff before MUP. Win win.

I hasten to add that I am not in favour of the Nanny State of which MUP is but one aspect at all, and it is creeping in to all aspects of our lives. But that's another topic, although associated with this one.

ThunbergsAreGo · 11-10-2018 2:40pm

A bit I am missing on this, is the minimum pricing on what the drinks company can sell to the supermarkets at, or what the supermarkets can sell for?

KrustyUCC · 11-10-2018 2:44pm

What the supermarkets/off licences can sell for

KrustyUCC · 11-10-2018 3:57pm

Alcohol Bill passes through all stages of Oireachtas

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/alcohol-bill-passes-through-all-stages-of-oireachtas-874984.html

Once Michael D signs the bill I wonder when prices will go up?

VinLieger · 11-10-2018 4:16pm

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Alcohol Bill passes through all stages of Oireachtas

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/alcohol-bill-passes-through-all-stages-of-oireachtas-874984.html

Once Michael D signs the bill I wonder when prices will go up?

I think its still going to be held until NI brings in similar to avoid cross border shenanigans, also theres bound to be EU appeals as this can be argued to breach competition laws

McMurphy · 11-10-2018 4:48pm

The govt looks to be in pretty shaky grounds right now, what with Naughten and Fitzpatrick gone.

Imagine them knocking on doors for an election hot on the heels of this blatant sop.

DEFTLEFTHAND · 11-10-2018 5:00pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

The govt looks to be in pretty shaky grounds right now, what with Naughten and Fitzpatrick gone.

Imagine them knocking on doors for an election hot on the heels of this blatant sop.

This Bill alone could put them out.

You don't fck with an Irishman and his drink.

KrustyUCC · 11-10-2018 5:19pm

Only issue is who do you vote for that hasn't had a part in passing this bill?

Checkmate19 · 11-10-2018 5:43pm

Well for one you don't vote for fine gael as it was their idea. Brought in the back of a health bill but really to as they said in their manifesto support pubs.

Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

Comments