Welcome to November. We’ve now finished with the antis’ Stoptober and the counter campaign Octabber, and have moved on to Movember: apparently the month for growing moustaches.
While we are waiting for our moustaches to grow, we thought we’d round up a few stories we’ve had hanging around related to smuggling, illicit tobacco, and indeed legitimate tobacco and alcohol purchases bought within the EU for personal use.
The first story amused us. Although it now looks as if the Scots won’t be introducing minimum alcohol pricing, one enterprising county council south of the border saw it as a way to boost local trade.
Plans to attract Scots on “booze cruise” trips to northern English towns after a minimum alcohol price is introduced were set out by political leaders south of the Scottish Border. Councillors on Northumberland County Council warned that the area could miss out on a “golden opportunity” by not setting aside cash to entice Scottish drinkers with an advertising campaign. They also thought that if they didn’t take advantage, then their arch rivals, Carlisle, would. Of course, this was dismissed as an “utterly irresponsible idea” by politicians north of the border. Unintended consequences? What the hell did they expect?
The second story is less amusing. In a move to destroy legitimate business, ASH claimed that UK tobacco companies were behind smuggling their own products. It is an astonishing claim that any business which has been trading legitimately for centuries needs to resort to smuggling to make a profit.
Hidden away in note 5 of this ASH press release is this statement : “The illicit tobacco trade rose from below 5% in the early 1990s to 20% in 2000 (mid-range estimates), in large part due to tobacco companies’ facilitating the smuggling of their own products. Around 80% of smuggled tobacco entering the UK in the 1990s was manufactured in the UK, exported and diverted to the black market, then smuggled back into the UK. In 2000, the UK Government introduced an anti-smuggling strategy and strengthened it in 2006, 2008, and 2011. Between 2004 and 2010, the European Union also concluded legally-binding agreements with the four biggest tobacco manufacturers, imposing large financial penalties if their own products were found to have been diverted into illicit channels.”
The claim that tobacco companies are responsible for what happens to their product after it is sold is as ridiculous as claiming that a former car owner is responsible for an accident that occurs after they sold their car.
Finally, a bit of a justified anger from Nothing 2 Declare: the excellent UK website that advises legitimate cross-border EU shoppers – and operates strictly within the law at all times.
Border Force has recently removed public reference to many rights of cross border EU shoppers, for example to the right to record interviews, although the law and the BF’s own operating manual have not changed.
The article is here: Border Force should hang its head in shame.