Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

Just brewed a new Mexican Cerveza kit (probably a little inappropriate to clone Corona during these times but I digress ) the other night, currently listening to it bubbling away. Anyone seriously annoyed by MUP, get yourselves a brewing kit and start saving 500ml bottles whenever you drink from them.

It really cannot be overstated just how cheap it is to make beer which is far, far superior to the sh!te you can currently get for below minimum price. Not obviously that this excuses authoritarian legislation, of course it doesn't, but in terms of finding a way around it and ensuring the sesh can carry on, the more people who start doing this the better

Prices on ingredients have gone up slightly because of Brexit and increased demand during quarantine (apparently there aren't many companies which actually make malt extract kits here - perhaps this will change once MUP comes in and the cheaper breweries realise this is a potential new revenue stream?) but given that you're making beer which is 5% ABV minimum, €15-€20 for a 20 litre batch is still an absolute steal.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Just brewed a new Mexican Cerveza kit (probably a little inappropriate to clone Corona during these times but I digress ) the other night, currently listening to it bubbling away. Anyone seriously annoyed by MUP, get yourselves a brewing kit and start saving 500ml bottles whenever you drink from them.

It really cannot be overstated just how cheap it is to make beer which is far, far superior to the sh!te you can currently get for below minimum price. Not obviously that this excuses authoritarian legislation, of course it doesn't, but in terms of finding a way around it and ensuring the sesh can carry on, the more people who start doing this the better

Prices on ingredients have gone up slightly because of Brexit and increased demand during quarantine (apparently there aren't many companies which actually make malt extract kits here - perhaps this will change once MUP comes in and the cheaper breweries realise this is a potential new revenue stream?) but given that you're making beer which is 5% ABV minimum, €15-€20 for a 20 litre batch is still an absolute steal.

Sushhhhh, .... you are letting people in on our little secret. I am quite fond of the home brew cider kits myself. I have 40 pints of strawberry and lime on the go at the moment - will be bottling on Saturday. I reckon this age old hobby will see a re-surge soon as it will be next to impossible to increase tax on the raw ingredients that have so many other food related uses.

It's a good hobby anyway... teaches patience and skills.

Mup mentioned there on Moncrief, the wine expert then said wine over €8 in value won't be affected, to which Moncreif replied in that smarmy way of his "anyone who buys an €8 bottle of wine needs to immediately see a doctor"..... Complete disconnect there

elperello wrote: »

I know nothing about their private lives and have no interest in them but I do know that they are promoting a neo-prohibitionist agenda which is gaining ground all the time.



Anyone who knows anything about wine will recognise that for the tired old fashioned wine snobbery that it is.

You can do very well for under €7 if you look hard enough.
Some of the wines priced between €15 and €20 cost about €4 in other countries.

Reputable Rog wrote: »

You can do very well for under €7 if you look hard enough.
Some of the wines priced between €15 and €20 cost about €4 in other countries.

the first 4.87 on any bottle of wine is duty and vat. if you buy a €7 bottle of wine only 2.13 goes to the retailer.

My understanding that this is aimed at the binge drinkers that are drinking the likes of Linden village and Tesco lager. I can see how it might deter those that are not addicted but it seems like they might try and get drink elsewhere. Let's see how it plays out.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Cheap n' cheerful wines cost €1 a litre in other countries.

A rather terrible Alentejo for a Tenner in Lidl last summer cost me 75c in Lidl Portugal the year before.

machiavellianme wrote: »

Whyd you buy it twice if you knew it was terrible?
Expect it to cost 15 after MUP when you buy it the next time!

I didn’t buy it twice. I knew from the first time.

I heard something on the radio today, but I didn't catch it properly. I am only home about 30 minutes and heard it again when I was walking in the door.
'Garda say that drinking in the street beside the pub - 100m is illegal'
or something to that effect.
Then I read this.
Gardaí told not to penalise pubs serving alcohol outdoors

Ms Humphreys has now encouraged garda discretion regarding the policing of drinking alcohol on newly erected streetside tables.
Garda Commissioner Drew Harris also instructed regional Assistant Commissioners that gardaí should use discretion in relation to licensed premises while also continuing to respond to any public complaints received on matters such as public order, parking, and noise, An Garda Síochána said.

So.. It is illegal to serve alcohol outside a pub, but for now, they can ignore it. I don't mind that, in fact I like it. But they are either worried about our health, or they aren't.

I wonder what they will do next to discourage alcohol abuse in this country. Bring back happy hour?

Leroy42 wrote: »

Of course not. It is aimed squarely at the lower priced sellers. If the price is the same across all brands then people will always go for the brand they know.

Do you think LIdl would have got a hand in the market is they came in with the same products and the same price? No, people, except for convenience, would have stuck to the old reliables.

To move people off a brand, and Ireland was very brand loyal, you need something to offer. Be that price, quality of something else.

Take the ability to compete on price away, which is what this does, and the sales of NoName Brand will drop.

It is also aimed at driving people back towards the pubs, but the double benefit for the likes of Diageo is that they win either way.

Well I meant the pricing of branded products in terms of consumer impact but yes for the Diageos you are right it is a win either way.

Also most no name branded wines are more expensive than branded wines... ie OBriens Wines are more expensive than Yellow Tail.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Of course not. It is aimed squarely at the lower priced sellers. If the price is the same across all brands then people will always go for the brand they know.
.

MUP will affect the price of 50cl cans of Guinness stout.

If sold at 2 euro, then no, MUP won't kick in.

But MUP will stop it being sold at 1 euro per can, which happens fairly often.



So it is false to say that MUP will only affect "lower priced" brands.

MUP will impact all drink brands with the exception of premium brands (Belgian beers etc.)
Its not that the day to day price increases, its that the deals we buy week in week out will be gone forever


While we all sit and say that a can of say Heineken or Guinness is already X or Y so it won't change. We will never again see the 24 for 28 euro etc.
And lets be honest most of us buy the deals not individual cans at top price.


Also this is not just MUP - it's also no using vouchers, no getting clubcard points and during Covid we added more physical barriers that have to be opened by hand.

And it's all been justified using a simple term "public Health" while totally ignoring the year on year decrease in consumption we have had for over 10 yrs. Naturally this continued decline will now be attributed to these idiotic measures (which also give no extra cash to the exchequer)


Have to say the lack of opposition to this both in Gov and opposition was a surprise.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why are you surprised? From a headline this looks like a 'good thing' to do. Sure people will not like it, but like the smoking ban it is in everyones bests interest.

Of course anyone that pays even the smallest attention to it, which I wager is actually a very small amount of people, will see that it is complete nonsense and even if one accepts the need to reduce consumption then this is a terrible way to go about it and doesn't even earn the country any additional revenue (save for some minor additional VAT on sales and Tax on profits).

But TD's want to to be seen to take the tough decisions, to do the right thing. And this is a pretty easy way to make it look that way to a large amount of people.

And many people will never really notice. Certainly not enough to actually get annoyed, and certainly not annoyed enough to change their vote.

The smoking ban was something I actually supported. I really don't see this as anywhere near comparable. The smoking ban had a clear public health function - remove smoke from indoors so staff and non smoking patrons do not pay the price for others choices.

Here we just increase shop profits and remove a few little deals, no impact on pubs that result in more alcohol related issues than anywhere, no money back to the exchequer to promote non drinking or pay for drink related services.

Its not really MUP that gets me, but this version where we pay and even the Gov get nothing back from it. And if the impacts so little that nobody notices in my mind thats a failure to start with!!.

It's sad to see that vintners still have sway enough to decide stuff for us, and then those poor scrotes in Alcohol Action.

Since the entire Dail failed to question it, not sure there is even anyone to switch a vote to. Maybe we have voted in cowards.

Leroy42 wrote: »

I am not saying it is comparable to the smoking ban, my point is that from a headline POV it comes from the same place.

'We are helping everyone be healthier, helping those that need our help most. Sure its a pain, but its a small price to pay to save people form the worst effects of alcohol. Think of the children'.

I'm dying to know how many lives have been saved by erecting those pathetic saloon doors to the alcohol Isles.