We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
TÁNAISTE SIMON COVENEY has said that some legislators in Westminster “do need to remind themselves of why we’re talking about a backstop in the first place”, and the primary responsibility for the border issue now lies in London.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs was speaking today about the importance of the backstop which he said had become “the accepted solution” on the issue of the Irish border after long, protracted negotiations.
He said it would be foolish at this stage – with less than 100 days to go until Britain is due to leave the EU – to focus on alternatives “that are not easily found”, and that opponents of the backstop in Westminster have not put any forward because such proposals are “not credible”.
The backstop is the main sticking point for Brexiteers in the deal struck by Theresa May’s government with the EU. The backstop would ensure that Northern Ireland stays “aligned” to the regulations of the single market and the customs union if there is still no other solution that would avoid infrastructure along the Irish border.
To avoid a border, it means there would have to be the same or similar custom rules and regulations for products, food, animals, people and vehicles between the UK and the EU – or Northern Ireland and the EU.
Prime Minister May cancelled a vote on her Brexit deal last week because it was clear that she wouldn’t win the vote in the House of Commons, such is the opposition to her deal and its backstop. The vote is now due to be held next month.
Coveney said that given the UK government had reached an agreement with the EU, the focus should now be on making this compromise work.
“For us to be talking about and exploring other options not easily put together is not wise,” he said.
Coveney was also questioned if Ireland’s relationship with the UK had become an “us vs them” style situation, given recent comments by the likes of Conservative MPs Priti Patel and Jacob Rees-Mogg.
The Tánaiste said: “I’m not going to get into commenting on Jacob Rees Mogg or the comments he makes, apart from saying the Irish government from the very outset saw the dangers and continues to see the dangers of the potential corrosive effect of border infrastructure in terms of upsetting the normality.
I would say that all legislators in Westminster do need to remind themselves of why we’re talking about a backstop in the first place. The history between these two islands is deep, close and desperately tragic for a large part of that history. We are trying to find that solution. I’m not sure the focus in Westminster is where it should be in terms of why this issue is part of a negotiation in the first place.
To somehow blame Ireland for trying to protect the peace process is extraordinary… I can’t allow Ireland to be blamed here. We’re simply trying to protect our core national interests… in a way that’s very transparent and respectful. We haven’t responded to some of the provocation, and we’re not going to.
Coveney also defended Theresa May and praised her for being a strong advocate on the backstop, which he emphasised would only be temporary if it was ever used at all.
He said that the backstop was a fall back that would only be used if all else fails, and attempts to distract from its importance given the history of the island and the Good Friday Agreement wasn’t helpful.
He added: “Whether parliamentarians want to try gloss over that, and create a political narrative not based on reality… well that’s a matter for them.”
With reporting from Christina Finn, Gráinne Ní Aodha
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
People will start buying Coke from dealers
Haha yup yup 7up
Fat people ruining it for all of us. Put a levy on people who are overweight. If you can’t see your bits when looking down , pay the sugar tax
If they do go ahead, I’m keeping every receipt and claiming it all back in medical expenses for my daughter to treat her Hypoglycaemia.
Pretty soon we will have to go out to our gardens and eat grass everything else will be taxed
Education is the problem not the cost. More nanny state shite squeezing people for cash under the guise of social progress.
Fuel duty frozen for the sixth year, 2% increase in tax on cigarettes, with 3% on rolling tobacco, from 6pm, but beer and cider duty will be frozen as will the levy on whisky and other spirits. The rate at which workers start paying top rate tax is to be raised from £42,385 to £45,000, with the tax-free personal raised to £11,500 and corporation tax to be cut to 17% by April 2020. Trump won’t like that, less than half the rate of the US. That’s a tax haven to them…….
So how much more than the scandalous 5 euro 50 cent the local pub already charges for a pint of Rock Shandy be. will a new sugar tax be blamed for the shocking ripoff priced of soft drink in pubs already
Will the Looney Left be marching down O’Connell street against this double taxation?
Not the overweight ones anyway…
almost nobody in ireland is in perfect physical shape and the ones that are dont drink more than 3 or 4 bottles a year hardly impact them
We need to get vending machines out of schools and hospitals first.
Especially the schools and the tuc shops.
Couldn’t agree more – there is absolutely no way these vending machines selling should be allowed in our schools.
I’m guessing this will lead to more soft-drinks with artificial sweeteners which aren’t exactly healthy either. The problem here is education.
It always is Sean , that and banning shops from from making the que to the checkout look like Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory with cheap bars, sweets, crisps and drinks etc. In moderation Dark Chocolate with a 70% coco content does have some health benifits but it can be hard to get in local shops
exactly, Alcohol and tobacco are taxed to the hilt here yet people still use those. Taxing something to prevent abuse doesnt work. Educate people and let them make their own decisions i say.
The price of cigarettes (which is about 90% tax) was a significant factor when I decided to give up smoking 7 years ago.
It may be better to tax the manufacturer regarding the sugar content, they will pass the price on to the consumer but it will also make them look at the sugar content, if you charge the manufacturer on what is produced before sale of goods they will look at it a lot quicker
Why not then tax the company supplying the sugar to the companies as well? Then you could also tax the companies that import the sugar… JK. You really want to hit the consumer with the tax. Higher prices will deter some. But sales will be hurt. Then the company would reduce the sugar. And the price returns to norm. Then the consumer and company both win.
Wow people really on board with paying more taxes, are they stupid? completely regressive tax aswell, which will have zero impact on obesity. The most obese nations in the world are also some of the poorer ones, look it up
Won’t stop consumption. Just another way of stifling money from the masses. Can we address the route problems of things instead of bloody taxing them? It’s a way for government to make it look like they’re addressing an issue while making a bit more money.
It’s a win win solution. If the tax reduces sugar consumption then it will impact on obesity. If the tax has no impact on consumption then there’s more money in the government coffers to fund the health services to deal with the growing obesity problem. It’s a no-brainer but it’s also only a small step in the right direction.
It’s a bit like the plastic bag levy: it reduced the use of plastic bags which were a blight on our landscape and the revenue raised is used to pays the salaries of the Environmental Protection Agency and local authority environmental services.
So during a 15km+ run I would have to pay a tax (designed to make me lose weight) to have an energy drink, which penalises me for doing a healthy activity?
Breaking news just in….. Sugar isn’t healthy.
@Moderate Michael, in moderation it actually is
Some sugars are healthy and as with all things, moderation.
Besides most “isotonic” drinks are a bunch of nonsense.
Tap water with a few of grains of sugar and salt dissolved in are as good for your body, or so I’ve heard. I’m by no means an expert on the subject.
Refined sugar, the sugar in those so called energy drinks is not healthy whatsoever, not even in moderation. I can’t believe people actually buy into that energy drink marketing bs. Do a 15km run, and lose any benefits you gained by drinking those drinks, lol.
Any moderate to intensive constant (such as running) exercise which lasts over an hour will burn through your available sugar supplies. If you wish to continue you will need to take on carbohydrates for energy along with salts and water to balance sweat loss.
You run the risk of a hypoglycaemic event otherwise and that is NOT recommended so you will need something.
So no, a small bottle of an isotonic drink is not unhealthy in that situation at all
I hear water is good for hydration during and after a long run
Not so good for salts and sugar however (which you will need during)
@Damocles “Tap water with a few of grains of sugar and salt dissolved in are as good for your body”
You are basically describing what an isotonic drink is (once the measurements are correct)!!
“or so I’ve heard. I’m by no means an expert on the subject.”
Don’t misquote me.
Ian an energy drink is poison and offers you nothing, if anything it undos the good work
Your body has glucose and glycogen that will last for 2hrs and can be replenished through food afterwards!
I run and personally find these drinks useless.
Damocles I didn’t misquote you (or even quote out of context). I was actually expanding on your comment regarding the salt and sugar water mixture.
NeilGoochFerriter
Do you have any proof of this? Dieticians (Not nutritionists) and Biologists have supported the use of isotonics during extended periods of exercise.
You can not go flat out for over an hour and if you have ever tried to do a 2 hour run and had a hypoglycaemic event you would know just how quickly you need to get some sugars
Buster: Personal (see anecdotal) experience means nothing in science and, on average, it’s a 1 hour window (based on last time eaten etc)
Running the risk of fuel crash during a run is moronic and if you are going farther/longer than you usually run then you will run that risk as your body will not be prepped
Ian I competed and completed a 55K adventure race in Killarney on Sunday, out of the serious athletes competing I saw none drinking that stuff wonder why?
Yes your intensity reduces as you change through the energy systems so it impossible to go flat out for over an hour, most long distance runners will finish in under 2hrs so they don’t run out of glycogen (hit the wall)
What year of Sports science are you Ian? My guess is first but could be wrong? Don’t be to hung up on what they tell you in these courses its totally different when you get out in the real world?
Because they have been training and adjusting their body for this for months and you are not at your VO2 max in adventure races. Serious athletes also have huge glycogen stores in the muscles and liver, from years of training.
Do you ever wonder why tennis players will eat a few squares of chocolate during sets?
2 hours look it up.
Anyway Ian each to their own I say so whatever works, think the main point here is not sports drinks for those who exercise, its soft drinks being linked with childhood obesity
Vincent Wallace: ad hominem comments as you can not actually back it up?
buster lad you are totally right in general but there have been times where I had glycogen crashes before that and found myself 5km from home. Not a nice place to be
Oh but I can Ian.
Please do.
Does it involve forced medical procedures, as your comments further down seem to show liking for this
A Skinfold test is classed as a medical procedure now? Things must have changed drastically in the last 10 years since I did that course.
Ian look up Robert Ludwig sugar the bitter truth it’s a presentation in Berkley regarding the effects of sugar on the body. He mentions in particular Gatorade the original sports drink. Your science/opinion is flawed and downright wrong.
The only problem with this proposal is it will probably force manufacturers to make artificial and dangerous sweeteners like Aspartame the norm (i.e. Pepsi Max). There are people out there who think Pepsi Max is healthy!
So people who drink too much of this type of junk will just get other types of illnesses (including cancer) instead of getting obese.
How is aspartame unhealthy? You may be correct but you need to back up such a statement.
There are studies showing a single small section of society is affected by the recommended safe allowance but I wonder if you have actually read these studies….
PS cancer is not one of the study results
Facebook told us it was unhealthy because it cleaned someone’s copper penny
If you as for proof it’s all a conspiracy by big business :) facts are hard to come by.
Aspartame is safe, otherwise it wouldn’t be allowed into food. Don’t believe everything you read on facebook, Mercola or Foodbabe websites. I do have issues with aspartame and other artifical sweeteners as they develop a “sweet tooth” in people especially kids who will then seek out sweeter foods. Sweeter foods are generally more calorific even without added sugar.
Recent studies have found a correlation that people who consume artifically sweeted foods are less healthy than those who don’t (but are still more healthy than those who consume high sugar diets). Although artifical sweetners have zero calories, scientists think (but haven’t proven yet) that the body still thinks it’s sugar and they have a similar effect on your insulin and other hormone levels as sugar.
LesEnfant Perdu that is all true.
How dare you make a statement about a topic you seem to actually have researched.
By the way, the negative results from Aspartame are in relation to certain types of depression (one study abandoned for subject safety concerns and others so increased depressive symptoms).
LesEnfant, Ían… Donald Rumsfeld used his wealthy and corrupt connections in Washington to have Aspartame approved by the FDA for human consumption in spite of the dangers associated… http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_805581.html
The problem is with fruit juices too. While there are many that don’t have added sugar, the sugar that came from the fruit is very concentrated in these drinks and without the fruit’s natural fibre requires a lot less energy to process in the body.
My GP told me that obesity would be rare if it wasn’t for sugary drinks. It’s extremely hard for a person to eat the amount of calories that make you obese, it’s only by drinking all those extra claories that it becomes possible. If every obese person only drank unsweeted drinks they would only be overweight.
There were plenty of obese people in the 50s.
Yes there were obese people in the 50′s, but a lot less percentage of the population was obese than today. I think you’ll find sugary drinks existed before1950. King Henry VIII was obese in his later days and that was in the 1540′s.
Obesity has always been around, always will be.
Yeah but having 50% of the population obese is going to cost you and I a lot more money than having 10% (in paying for thier health treatment). Remember it is the tax payer who ulitmately pays for this.
Products that cause ill health or pollute the environment should have a cost built in that factors the cost of treatment in hospital or the cost of cleaning up the enivronment. Otherwise the private company makes its profits and its the people (thru taxation) have to pay to clean up the mess.
Perhaps just perhaps, these people are tax payers too or were at least tax payers over the years. So they haw basically paid for their medical care via taxes. Perhaps they too have VHI or the likes and that covers hospital stays.
I don’t think this stuff very often so it won’t impact my pocket in any way, but I still disagree with it.
If the Chancellor things for one moment that making coke more expensive will stop little Beckie from drinking gallons of Coke every day he’s sorely mistaken.
Some research I saw not so long ago saw that low income families saw things like buying fast food (and also buying baby formula) as status symbols. Now on council estates carting a can of Fanta around will be seen like that too.
That is, of course, if the major retailers don’t simply absorb the extra cost. I expect to see them adverting this soon. The profit margins on this sort of consumer goods are huge as it is.
There was a minimal reduction in Mexico, but the two situations aren’t comparable… I expect the demographics of those who have demurred on the sugary drinks in Mexico are vastly different to the target audience in the UK.
Small change is enough to make huge savings. Over 600 million is spent in ireland on treating diabetes that is brought on solely from bad lifestyle. If a tax reduces this by 10 or 20%, we are looking at massive savings
There was an article here a few days ago showing that fizzy drinks are already trending down. Watch them introduce this here now and claim a victory as the trend continues.
@cholly I’d rather look at why sweets and sugary drinks have such huge pull in society. From massive advertisements campaigns, to directing products at young children who have absolutely no idea what they’re putting into their body. Making a bit more expensive just kicks the can (heh heh) down the road.
People need to be educated in this .A normal can of soft drink can have 9 or up to 11 spoons of sugar in it . The RDA is 6 spoons . But its not only in drinks , sugars have found their way into all foods. These sugars have about 50 different names . As it stands Ireland is the 4th highest consumer of sugar per day in the world.
And that’s why we have been predicted as being the most obese nation in Europe soon enough:
I agree we need more education on the content of sugar but I do not think solf drinks is the issue in Ireland. I think it’s the added sugar we do not see.
Tip of the ice berg, who is behind that budget, the IMF?
John Perkins, Former Advisor IMF.
“My job was to identify countries with resources that corporations covert, like oil and then arrange a huge loan to that country from the World Bank or from one of its sister organisations. The money however would not go to the country, it would go to our own corporations who would make huge profits, but the majority of the people would suffer terrible as a result, because money would be diverted from Education, Healthcare and other Social Services to pay interest on the debt.”
What happened when the IMF moved in and the debt couldn’t be repaid?
“We go back into that country and say, since you can’t pay your debt, sell your resource oil or whatever real cheap to our corporations without any environmental restrictions or, or social regulations. Privatise, sell your electric utilities, your water, sewage systems, your schools, your jails, all your public sector businesses to our corporations, and in the few cases where we failed economic hitman, the jackals went in and still do and aah, they either assassinate the leaders of the country or overthrow them in coups.”
Suppose a playstation and xbox tax is on the way
This is just another tax to line the exchequers coffers and will not help the situation at all. People will just switch to sugar free which is much worse for your body in the long run. Aspartame, acesulfame K, etc etc. 5 minutes on a search engine will show that. More education is needed, not more taxes.
Sugar comes in many forms. It would be far more effective to tax all drinks containing sweeteners. Sugar substitutes such as Aspartame have been linked to serious health conditions in a number of studies.
http://www.mercola.com/article/aspartame/hidden_dangers.htm
Natural sugar is the lesser evil when compared to the lab manufactured junk that will be pumped into drinks in its place. The emphasis should be on education both for parents and children.
Why a sugar tax cause some cant say no cause parents wont make their kids go out in play. It be much better to reduce the amount of sugar in our products over the next 5 years or so, this way our bodies would not miss it.
more taxes on the way
Maybe it’s time for parents to take responsibility for their children and stop feeding them cr*ap. I know it’s down to knowledge and awareness of what’s good and what’s not for us in terms of nutrition, and maybe 15-20 years ago access to such information was out of reach for many, but nowadays a simple Google search will give anyone miriads of results on healthy eating and nutrition. Of course people will say that healthy food is expensive (it’s not – going to the chippers costs more), but I think it’s more to do with discipline, planning, and actually putting some time into actually preparing those meals (because going down to the chippers and waiting around doesn’t take time at all). Also don’t need to text sugary drink, force manufacturers to put the sugar content using large clearly visible fonts onto the packaging (I’m also looking at you Kellog’s bars with 22+ grams of sugar per 89gram bar – no wonder you’ll feel energised with your ‘healthy’ breakfast until you start crashing and craving more sugar). Rant over! Have a nice day and make some pancakes with 2 eggs and a banana blended with a tiny bit of butter…tasty and healthy…
Absolutely not. So because a hand full off obese people can’t control themselves everyone else has to pay more for having a can of coke every now and again! Bring in an obese tax if your over 30 on a BMI chart and have over 40 percent body fat you are taxed directly.
BMI would put bodybuilders, a lot of GAA footballers and ruggers way over the “Healthy” level
It’s a guide (for average punters) not a hard rule
Horsesh!t ! A guys or girl who’s 6 6′ can have a BMI of 30 and over .
I no that’s why I added 40 percent body fat along with BMI. Wouldn’t be much of a body builder with that body fat percentage now would they?
How do you propose to measure this % body fat?
Anybody who has done a simple fitness instructor course can administer a Slinfold calipers test. You could use a simple BIA to measure also but usually they are out by plus or minus 3-5 percent still if you are obese that would be enough.
Skinfold
So you propose that everyone in the country be subjected to a medical exam, for the purpose of Taxation?
It might sound absurd. But is it any less absurd then making the majority of people pay for the minority?
So forced medical examinations? That’s your answer?
Point of interest, where do you draw the line on your medical exams/procedures?
Back to college with you Ian. Learn some more big words you can spew them out then tomorrow. Stepping on scales is a medical procedure now haha!
There’s already enough taxes without adding new ones.
Sad times. Punishes those who enjoy sugar in moderation and as part of a healthy diet as well as the designated driver.
My university had a clever initiative for producing their own subsidised bottled water sold on all campus stores and restaurants for 20c a bottle which seemed to have a great impact in what drink students chose with their meal. Why do these problems at national level always have to be dealt with through the stick rather than the carrot?
Was in the mater a few years back in the gastro unit. A awful lot if patients suffering with IBS are referred there. In the corner of the waiting room was a vending machine full of sugary drinks.. honestly what are we doing in this country. Added sugar / processed foods are destroying the health of this country. Free choice yes but let’s not kid ourselves what effect this is having.
So in this sugar tax are they just doing drinks or are they going to include chcoolate bars and sweets like jelly tots?
Good idea just be consistent if your going to impose it.
“Finance Minister”. “Chancellor Of The Exchequer”, ITYF.
And anyway, why not?
Bloaters, if you’ll excuse the vernacular, are an additional burden (ha ha) on themselves and on society as a whole. By being robust and healthy people can live longer more productive lives and contribute to society rather than be an expense for the health service before popping their clogs, iyetv, in their thirties.
Sure, not all people drinking these things are going to be lardy wobble bottoms but fewer of them will be as a result of these measures.
Bravo, Mr Osborne, I may disagree with you on a whole raft of issues but not on this one.
This is a no brainer, diabetics is costing the country millions ( never mind the health of people ) the manufacturing companies are lacing there products to make a quick profit. Something needs to be done.
A tax just absolves the government of actually doing anything while having zero impact on sugar intake
Sure we could just shoot them in the head?
Along with all the other people who have long term illnesses and those who are sick, sure close down the whole medical profession, sure get rid of those on social welfare too, we could stop building/fixing roads, then we would have billions and the government could give themselves a 1000% pay rise. Happy days for anyone healthy.
tax the companies how make the drinks please don’t impose this on small business to collect this tax for the government
and it should only apply to overweight people
we could put a scales by the till
Sugar reduction is important but Trans Fat ban is perhaps more important.
“Trans Fats” are now banned by Barack Obama in the US (350 million) from 2018.
Trans fats average intake is 4.6 lbs or 2.2 Kgs per annum in the US.
Trans fats are artificial industrially produced fats which prolong shelf life of food …. but shorten yours!
Trans fats German patent 141029 by Wilhelm Normann.
Trans fats can be found in packaged long life foods e.g. biscuits, crisps, frozen pizza base, snacks, popcorn, chewing gum, packaged chips, burger buns ….. difficult to avoid, so prevalent.
Insulin expects to find natural fat on the outer cell wall to enable it to function properly as nature intended, not artificial Trans Fats.
Trans fat ban from you diet can completely reverse Diabetes Type 2. Takes over 6 mths.
Trans fats (hypothesis) may be root cause of Alzheimers interfering with cleave of Amyloid protein in the brain cell wall …
Irish FSA should ban Trans fats from Irish food chain.
Stapling the mouth closed may assist ahem..overweight people
How about sticking a tube of food down an anorexic person’s neck? Not such an accepted proposition is it?
Being fat is always caused by overeating but what causes the overeating in the first place?
Many things can cause overeating habits such as stress, worry, mental health, indolence oh and plain ole greed
So did your rather flippant comment refer to all of the above?
Although there are several factors, I would say indolence is the most relevant here. I definitely don’t want to be tarring everybody with the same brush, however, I know quite a few large/fat/obese/overweight/whatever people who are just so plain lazy that it’s a no brainer as to why they have weight issues
Here’s an idea, get kids off the video games and Internet and let them go outside
Maybe a shock to the system to some people but sitting on your arse all day playing video games is not very healthy
Growing up in the 70s and 80s everything we ate was high in sugar and a lit glowed in the dark but we ran it all off by going outside. Sugar fizzy drinks were a so called treat we had at the weekend birthdays or Christmas
A sugar tax will do zero good people will still eat and drink sugary chocolate and fizzy drinks, look at the taxes on alcohol and cigarettes and successful they are in stopping people drinking and smoking
It’s just another tax if introduced won’t make a blind bit of difference
If you haven’t eaten all day and you’re starving a sugary drink is a quick easy way to get calories into you. Diabetics might use them if their blood sugar levels drop too low.
You’d have to be living under a stone not to know sugar isn’t good for your body. If people don’t care and drink them anyway then let them. It’s not anyone’s business but their own.
Monkey see monkey do.. right? Well another country does it.. so we must right? …. Really, isn’t it about time our politicians and excuse for independent media had at least one original thought rather than just heading further down the road of the totalitarian 1984 nanny state?.
Tax everything with sugar in it
When’s the last time you saw your supermarket special offer section pushing healthy foods instead of high sugar and trans fats?
exactly.
It’s going to be a problem for the mules to hide those 2 litre bottles of red lemonade when the customs are getting down and dirty with the cavity searches.
People shouldn’t drink them, but no need to tax them, government always looking to screw people
The manufacturers need to be taxed for sugar not the consumer. This might stop them piling in the sugar.
They are putting g pictures of fat people on the cans from next year on as a warning
have your say