The UK has the highest rates of duty on cigarettes and beer in the whole of
Europe and it seems that in every budget those who partake of either are
squeezed a little bit harder as duty is increased.
A recent survey of discarded cigarette packets in football stadia revealed that
between 30% and 40% of all cigarettes are now imported. Although hardly a
scientific study, it is very likely to be close to the mark, and there's no
real way to measure the proportion otherwise.
One confusing aspect of the media's reporting of the investigation results were
that the headlines all read along the lines of, "One in three packets of
cigarettes are bootleged", and aleged that these were all coming in as a
result of piracy, and not individuals purchasing abroad for their own
consumption.
The reports themselves acknowledged that the imports may have been legitimate,
but it's impossible to say which are and which aren't. Sensationalist reporting
may grab readers, but the important message is that smokers are increasingly
choosing to purchase from abroad, especially from within Europe.
Smokers and drinkers have long complained that they, along with car owners,
seem to be paying a disproportionate amount in to government coffers. Those
who smoke, drink and drive a car are particulalry displeased, subsidising, as
they are, those who do none of these.
Successive governments have never really explained why the duty on these items
needs to be so high, and it's ironic that if the revenue raised is essential
for continued financial stability of the country then, were we to follow the
government's advice to stop drinking and smoking, and chose alternative means
of transportation, this revenue stream, or more correctly, river, would dry
up completely.
It is difficult to see how any government can be so hypocritical when, on the
one hand, it needs revenue generated this way, yet tries to ram down our
throats the message that we must give up these things, and then refuses to
ban the activities, or their promotion.
Claiming that high duty is required to counter the increased costs to the health
service as illnesses caused by smoking and drinking present themselves is a
simplistic, and perhaps unfounded, argument if the savings made by people
choosing to terminate their lives before needing long term, old age, health
care or even drawing a pension aren't taken into account.
But, governments have been dogmatic in their stance, and duty continues to rise,
and there has been very little the citizens could do about it.
European integration is changing all that.
As Britain becomes part of Europe, which is happening whether we like it or
not, and whether we vote for or against joining the euro, access to other
European countries is becoming easier and more commonplace.
Where once the day trip from school was the only excursion off our island
which many would make, travel to France, and far beyond, is now a daily
occurance for many ordinary people. Hardly anyone bats an eyelid at the
suggestion of hoping on a ferry to some, once, far off place.
Closer economic unity and cross-border integration has meant that it is now
easier than ever before to purchase goods abroad without the complexities
there once were. The European market is open to all.
Where UK residents would complain about the cost of goods purchased
in Britain when compared with cheaper goods overseas, they now have the choice
of jumping in their cars, going abroad and bringing back their goods from
wherever they feel like.
It may cost a fair bit of money to travel to mainline Europe, but it's a simple
matter of economics; will I still get the item cheaper than if I bought it
locally ?
In the case of highly taxed luxury goods, the answer is almost certainly, "Yes".
And given that rules on exactly how many packets of fags, crates of beer and
casesof wine and spirits can be brought back into the country, significant
long term savings can be made for the outlay of a single trip.
Whenever I can, I get my friends who are going abroad to bring back cigarettes,
and as many as they can carry. With savings up to 60% to be made, for exactly
the same product that I buy at my local supermarket, I'd be stupid not to.
For someone who smokes 20 cigarettes a day, savings as great as 800 GBP a year
can be had. Enough to allow a contribution to be made to cover the costs of
those going to collect the goods.
The smoker wins, the courier wins, but the UK government loses out.
Whilst the winners are celebrating their liberation, the government is outraged.
"How can these people do this ?", they ask. Because we can; it's legal and it's
the free market that both the Tories and New labour want us to embrace with
open arms.
But when we do, we are condemned. Condemned by the very same government which
declares itself to be fighting the consumer's corner against 'Rip-Off Britain',
but is the biggest instigator of Rip-Off itself.
Complaints that they are loosing millions of pounds in unpaid duty are met with
ambivalence by those who are benefitting from the cross-border market. The only
supporters the government have are those who don't partake in using the imported
goods, and see themselves soon to be footing the shortfall, and those
who aren't able to undertake international purchasing or have such a little
islander mentality that they reject the concept out of hand.
If the government wants to stem the tide of cheap imports it has two choices;
either banning imports, which would be against European Law, or reducing the
duty so it was not economic to purchase from oversea sources.
The government is in a lose-lose situation; if it doesn't reduce duty then the
trade in imports will continue and it will lose revenue it hopes to see, if
it does reduce duty then it gives up its hope of even seeing that duty in the
first place.
If they make the, entirely possible, decision to increase duty to recoup the
loses, this will only encourage more to undertake importation and upset the
electorate who don't or can't even more. It will also make the profit from
illegal smuggling even greater.
Whilst the battle rages as to whether or not Britain should adopt the euro as
its currency and accept monetary union ( a vote which would be affirmative
if only we were able to call a euro 'a pound' and we could have the Queen's
head on the obverse ) true European integration will be achieved by the acts
of the people regardless.
Xenophobia and irrational fears that Germany will somehow undertake Word War
Three against us ( which we'll be forced to lose, due to some vote in the
European Parliament ), and an inability to forget their past militaristic
ventures ( but we did win the World Cup in '66, didn't we you Krout b-----ds )
are slowly being swept aside as common people start to deal with our foreign
neighbours and realise they are not the demons so often portrayed.
Pan-European business has been prevalent for years ( most of our utilities are
owned by non-UK organisations, for good or bad ), and the man in the street now
sees the opportunities presented by closer trading opportunities.
European integration will not happen at the flick of a switch, it is already
underway, slowly but surely. The only limitation is the British refusal to
learn any European languages, but even that is changing, and, to be honest,
many in the rest of Europe speak better English than some natives.
There are serious issues relating to accepting monetary union, not least that
Britain doesn't actually have the economy in place which it would like to
pretend it has, but, even without undertaking that bold step, integration is
happening now.
The people are accepting it, even actively encouraging it, and it's about time
that the government, and prospective candidates for the post, took note.
