Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


EU reform will open net to cut-price drink

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 12 November 2006
DRINKERS and smokers will be able to buy cut-price alcohol and cigarettes from the Continent without leaving home under a new EU ruling likely to come into force next week.
The law is expected to be changed so that consumers in Britain can buy goods over the internet in other parts of the EU and ship them back to this country without paying extra duty.

It means that it will be possible to buy alcohol and cigarettes
from countries where duty is low, making vast savings in the process.

In Latvia - one of the countries from where purchases would be acceptable - 200 cigarettes cost £7.20, a saving of around £43 on British prices.

The reform will be felt most in countries like the UK, where excise duty is among the highest in the world.

Shoppers are expected to start buying online in their thousands if the new ruling is enacted, starving the Treasury of much of the £15bn it earns every year from duty on alcohol and cigarettes.

The change has come about as a result of an appeal by a Dutch group to have wine they bought in France brought back to their country without having to physically accompany it.

Presently, EU consumers can bring cheap goods back in from other parts of the continent, but they have to carry it and prove it is for personal use.

The advocate-general of the European Court of Justice ruled in favour of the Dutch group. The full court is expected to rubber-stamp his adjudication next week, paving the way for everyone to follow suit.

The ruling is due on November 23 and tax experts are predicting the change will happen. Already, businesses are preparing for the move, which is expected to see a massive increase in exports from the EU's newer nations.

The losers are expected to be retail outlets in Britain which may suffer a major drop in their own sales.

Legal advice drawn up by Ernst and Young on the ruling declared: "The judgement is likely to allow individuals to purchase alcohol over the internet or by telephone from other EU member states and to have their purchase delivered to them at home, while still paying low duty rates in the country of purchase."

Jeremy Beadles, the chief executive of the Wine and Spirits Trade Association, confirmed the main change. "The key distinction until now has been that you have to travel with the goods," he said.

Euro MP Charles Tannock said: "This is going to be a huge embarrassment to Gordon Brown and his tax-raising attempts. It will also increase pressure on member states to harmonise excise duty. If we are going to have a single market this must be permitted."

HM Revenue and Customs refused to comment on the case last night.



Page 1 of 1

 
1

The Strategist,

12/11/2006 01:35:20

What's the URL for this website?

2

'Suck' McCrunchie,

12/11/2006 02:48:51

For years the UK illegally stole cars from people bringing in more than 800 cigarettes from mainland Europe until a ferry company paid the legal costs for three people who had had their newish car confiscated for about 3200 cigarettes each.

HMR&C then decided that 3200 must be the new limit, despite EU law saying you can bring in as much as you want for your own use.

There was already a case similar to this (UK v Death Cigarettes i think) which the UK won. If the Dutch tax authorities lose their case then it will interesting to see how HMR&C choose to misinterpret the ruling.

Incidentally, there is an error in the article. There are still import restrictions even when travelling with tobacco from most of the 1/5/04 admissions.

1. Dick.....

If approval does go through, I would guess despite what the article says Latvia, other baltics, and most of the new admissions will not be included.

The lowest remaining EU duties are in Luxembourg, and I suggest you try these sites for prices....

http://www.tobacco.lu/

http://www.route66.lu/

EU 1 - Rip off Britain 0

3

Guga,

Rockall 12/11/2006 03:39:40

About time. We've been getting ripped off for years by both retailers and the Westminster government.

The EC is supposed to be a common market, so we should be able to bring in whatever we want, and as much as we want, from the continent by way of foodstuffs, clothing, tobacco and alcohol, to name but a few. I'll bet that DVD's and CD's are a lot cheaper there too.

The sooner this greedy government and the greedy retailers are put out of the rip off business, the better.

4

Phil C,

Fife 12/11/2006 03:56:09

Guga #3 - My sentiments exactly.

5

Anne,

12/11/2006 07:23:37

Fine, but the revenue lost on tobacco and alcohol will have ro come from somewhere.
Now where would Gorgon (sorry, Gordon) find an easy target?
Ah, yes, there's always the motorist......

6

Pete39,

Tasmania 12/11/2006 07:25:10

I do not believe that the 15bn tax revenues covers alcohol and cigarettes. Not to say that it matters since I live in Tasmania. however I do believe that if we over here were allowed to grow our own tobacco and distill our own booze it would be an economically viable proposition.

7

mr chips,

12/11/2006 09:05:18

Yahoo for the net ,cant wait, looks like the snp are goosed on their plan to tax the hell out of alcohol
in scotland, will stuart maxwell be taking his big stick to europe, I think not.

8

Colin,

Banff 12/11/2006 09:28:35

This is fantastic news for consumers. Its about about time we paid more realistic prices for these products. Cant say I am too bothered about cheap booze. I can hear the health nannies squealing already....

I will be taking full advantage of the ruling.

It will be short lived though. HMG and the SE are addicted to wasting billions of pounds every year so they will simply increase the basic rate of income tax.

Still, its a rare thing these days for the smokers to catch a lucky break. The victimisation of this substantial minority has been relentless in recent years. More so since our ban was foisted on us.

Its a happy, happy day!

9

Mr Twerp,

East Lothian 12/11/2006 10:58:33

I have defended a person's right to smoke as long as they respected, the rules of and my right to have access to, no smoking areas. Plus, I always accepted their right to NHS treatment for their self-inflicted illnesses. After all, they did pay more in tax than the treatment costs of all smoking related problems. Now, if the tax take becomes less than the care and medication, I may have difficulty agreeing to them having the same right of access as a person suffering from a non self-inflicted illness.

10

Richard Walker,

12/11/2006 12:04:37

Mr Twerp,

Smokers should not be treated on the NHS?

Then should this also be applied to sportsman? ie my 27 year cousin who bust her knee twice while training for the london marathon, my bother who bust his legs sky diving, both self inflicted by choice?

What about motor cyclists, car drivers who cause accidents?

Abortions when a woman chooses her career over life?

Who should pay in these cases?

Oh bugger this lets privatise the NHS - if you want to place restrictions on who gets treated.

11

Budgie,

Scotland 12/11/2006 12:10:04

The Government will have to ameliorate the tax loss by adjusting the taxes levied on these products purchased in this country, to match the prices available elsewhere in Europe.

12

ChrisC,

12/11/2006 12:23:55

Certainly good news for smokers living on a low income. Most tax increases apply to those on high incomes with most spending power.
This could benefit lower socio-economic groups far more than the ban was claimed to do.
Might we also look forward to a growth in unregulated social meeting places for all those driven out of pubs and clubs?

13

'Suck' McCrunchie,

12/11/2006 12:42:29

I smoke like a lum, although largely on my own in Scotland now, as everyone seems to have children with them most of the time now.

Its often very tempting to drive down to Berwick to sit in a cafe to chat and smoke at the same time.

However I have not paid UK duty on tobacco in years, and buying the cigars abroad pays enough to cover the holiday cost.

Two more websites that may appeal are....

http://www.day-tripper.net/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adinkerke

Its safest to entirely read the last article.

14

Rob me blind,

12/11/2006 12:50:26

Even more proof if it were needed that those in Holyrood and Westminster have no control over what goes on in our own country. On one hand we have them spouting about how they will cut back on alcohol sales and make it harder for the young to get drink. then this what a shambles don’t these Muppets in their ivory towers even read some of the masses of paperwork that pours out of the EU before they open their mouths and put their big feet in them.

15

eric,

12/11/2006 13:32:11

Get yer half price Buckie Doon the barras

16

Donnie,

12/11/2006 16:23:07

I do believe the current price of 200 cigs in Latvia are £7.23p, a saving of over £42 per week. The cost of a decent bottle of wine here £6.29, in France £3.29. So where will gordon get the revenue from well those non smoking, non drinking citizens will have to pay more income tax along with the rest of us.

No 9 Mr Twerp Smokers pay NI contributions the same as everyone else, I dont remember the government saying when it took my money if you take a risk you wont get treated. however, if they will refund my years of contributions I would be happy to go private. Every Saturday/Sunday the A&E department is full of sportsmen, with injuries from broken bones, missing teeth and eye injuries, then add in the drunks, not to mention those that took a risk when driving, so where do we draw the line on risk taking, and self inflicted injury.

17

Miss H,

12/11/2006 16:42:29

7 I certainly hope he will.

Would you all be in favour of buying heroin over the internet?

Because booze and fags kill way more people than heroin does.

If this comes into effect the days of the NHS as we know it are numbered as I believe Mr Twerp is not alone, an increasing number of people are fed up paying for other peoples bad choices.

At the moment government can part fund the NHS from revenue raised from the sale of alcohol and tobacco. But if we lose that ability then the unfairness of a system which takes no account of individual responsibility is simply not sustainable and we will have to move to an insurance based health model as exists in other European countries.

So, yes, people who smoke and abuse alcohol would have to pay more as would people who do dangerous sports.

However I would wait and see what happens with this proposal. I cannot see Sweden or Finland accepting this for example so there may be derogations.

18

mr chips,

12/11/2006 17:17:33

Great news for the anti smoking , anti boozing pc
nutters, they will have to cough up at least £40.00 or £50.00 extra a week, to cover lost revenue, as we selfish smokers and drinkers will be buying abroad.

19

Donnie,

12/11/2006 17:17:44

No 17 Miss H, you say
"If this comes into effect the days of the NHS as we know it are numbered as I believe Mr Twerp is not alone, an increasing number of people are fed up paying for other peoples bad choices."

I take it then that you acknowledge that revenue made from smoking and drinking has been supporting the NHS for a very long time. The cost of a packet of cigarettes is £5.00, £4.00 of this is tax. The treasury makes 10 billion out of smokers alone, but they only cost the NHS 1.5 billion. the government is making a profit of 8.5 billion pounds which is spent on everyone else not just smokers.
200 cigarettes a week just over £7.00 in Lativa, leaving smokers £43 a week better off, I would gladly pay that for Private Health Insurance and be treated with respect instead of having to stand outside of hospital grounds on the pavement to smoke a cigarette.

20

Bill Crombie,

Chippenham, UK 12/11/2006 17:25:07

In a perverse way, this is a token victory for smokers if it goes ahead. With all the UK politicians ranting about cutting smoking uptake and reducing alcohol intake, it is ironic that it only takes a Euro bureaucrat to blow their illiberal plans to shreds. I am not a great fan of the EU, but at least with the stroke of a pen, our control freak politicians have been rendered impotent.

Poor old Gordon Brown, it looks as though he may have to raise taxes on the non-smokers. It seems strange that this story has not generated many viewpoints from the healthist contingent.

21

Edward,

12/11/2006 19:33:26

This idea has been available since day one of the EU, but no one has actually thought about doing it.
ALL products can be bought and sold over the internet from and to any part of the EU. Why drinks should have been thought different beats me.
If Scotland had been independent, it could have jumped on this, by setting its own tax structure for drinks. You could set up companies in Scotland flogging cheap booze and smokes to the rest of EU over the internet, would make a tidy sum in profit
Nothing stopping you, well apart from not being Independent that is, oh well...

22

magic dragon,

pla net 12/11/2006 20:05:42

Wonder if the laws could extend to that other popular dutch tobacco known as "skunk", or is that illegal in Scotland?
Now there is some money for revenue, licensed canna`bacco shops, with the taxes going to a newly independent purse.

23

mandyv,

Uk 12/11/2006 20:33:55

Great news for people who are not going to be forced into giving up.
Probably put more speed cameras where they are not needed to make for the shortfall in tax.
People in prisons are not paying anything and cost the Country money, I believe they get treated on the NHS where do you stop with your smokers should not get treated if they buy from abroad.
Lots do already and have lovely holidays in the sunshine and are not treated like the new social lepers either.

Will we be able to order them for the elderly and the people who cannot afford computors. I would hate for them not to be able to get them cheaper.

So maybe we will have more money for other things to spend in this Country so it will be swings and round-abouts.

24

Celtic Cousin,

Wales 12/11/2006 21:39:24

Post #23 (Mandy) makes a valid point. Instead of holidaying in continental countries, where I indulge myself in cultural, vacational and shopping trips to take advantage of low cost consummables. I'll be able to order goods over the internet without being ripped off with the high UK taxes inposed and in future be able to holiday in the British Isles. I've yet to visit Scotland and would very much like to spend time in that magnificent country and tour. This ruling will certainly mean that I no longer have to travel overseas in order to have a good time.

25

Barnowl,

Wales 12/11/2006 23:25:09

Don't let's get too carried away here - it may appear to be good news for heavy smokers and drinkers but if the Treasury loses even more tax income than it already does it will simply make it up by increases elsewhere. Our substantial welfare state depends on someone paying our equally substantial taxes. If EU tobacco and alcohol taxes were harmonised, GB could always put VAT up to 20%, or add a couple of pence to income tax. Or bump up council taxes. Or indulge in even more stealth... or introduce new taxes. How about capital gains tax on your house sales? It's nice to find ways around the system but in the end we all have to pay. Harmonisation of tax rates around the EU will doubtless come one day, but personally I would prefer to see that in 20 years time... it will be painful.

26

Colin,

Banff 13/11/2006 00:06:38

At present I pay 4.7 times more for the NHS as a non smoker yet I dont use it 4.7 times more than a non smoker. Most smokers, just like non smokers (who can all contract the same diseases smokers can) use the NHS most heavily in the last six months of their life.

I rarely visit my doctor, but when I do, the waiting room is filled with people who dont smoke. I know this as I live in a small village. In one company I worked for, the people taking huge amounts of time off due to illness, werent the smokers, exactly the opposite, in fact.

Its about time non smokers paid a little extra. But in particular, I take great pleasure in reading from anguished anti smokers.

Karma. It takes care of everything.

27

Dunhillbabe,

stockton on tees 13/11/2006 18:39:15

I hope Ms Moore is spitting feathers. Come the ban we will stay home and smoke our cheap fags and drink cheap booze AND avoid the forthcomming hike in air travel taxation we'd normally incur going abroad to get these goods - thus depriving the exchequer of the means to rob us blind. Perhaps the subsequent tax increase passed on to our non smoking bretheren will change their tune re smokers. BTW regarding healthcare for the deserving - the list of 'your fault' ailments and accidents could fill an encyclopedia - including those of old age for living too long. Mark my words if we're ready to let sick babies die, we're more than past the stage where the elderly are 'helped' towards the light. To be honest I think the EU is a bloody menace but I'll take the few crumbs of comfort that it offers thank you very much and here's my order.....

28

Lynseyw,

England 13/11/2006 20:16:18

I wouldn't imagine drink would be really viable for self importing due to the cost of delivery due to the weight. Ciggies is another matter though, especially if allowed from say Latvia etc. If this comes in then UK would have no real option other to reduce taxes on these products. Fingers crossed.

29

claire,

15/11/2006 00:59:52

I wonder if HMG will be funding the health care for all that treatment they are starting to need for continuously shooting themselves in the foot!!! lol They've certainly cooked their goose this time if this ruling goes through! It would be nice for the smokers to put 2 fingers up at HMG and tell greedy gordon to go raid the purses of others who drain the other 9.5bn of smokers revenue with their own bad habits! Article today in the times about the type 2 diabetes pandemic whose major cause is obesity.

30

not allowed my name anymore,

17/11/2006 00:57:09

this is hillarious, long live the internet.

31

__-Steve-__,

Nottingham 17/11/2006 08:22:28

Miss H (17)

You asked if we would all be in favour of buying heroin over the internet because booze and fags kill way more people than heroin does.

This appears to imply that booze and fags are more harmful than heroin which is simply not true. A regular heroin user is up to 100 times more likely to suffer premature death than a non user of the same age; this is far higher than even the made up figures for smoking related deaths.

I'm sure that most parents would be concerned to find their teenage child had been trying beer or cigarettes but I'm certain they would be mortified to find that child had been 'shooting up'.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
 

Today's Vote

Is the government right to try to ban newsagents from having cigarette displays?
Yes, anything to discourage smokers is good
No, shopkeepers could lose their livelihoods
No, smokers will still know the fags are under the counter


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.