On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:42:49 +0100, Robin wrote:

On 21/06/2016 14:28, Halmyre wrote:
The nearest I can find is that the EU *might* overturn the Scottish government's *proposal* (law not yet passed) for minimum alcohol pricing, saying it *might* be in contravention of free-trade laws. Note the caveats. This of course has been jumped on by some as being set in tablets of stone.


IMHO a little DIY would show the terms of the ECJ judgment are different
from, and more forceful than, that summary.

In the words of that bastion of anti-EU rhetoric, The Guardian:

More importantly, the rabidly anti-SNP Guardian.

" HEADLINE: Minimum alcohol price in Scotland breaches EU law, court rules

Strapline: Court says plan passed by Holyrood justified only if it was
more proportionate and effective than tax measures

The Headline doesn't agree with the strapline or the URL.

The European court has ruled that the Scottish government’s plan to
impose a blanket minimum price for alcohol is in breach of EU free-trade
laws.

In a significant blow to one of Nicola Sturgeon’s flagship policies, the
European court of justice (ECJ) said the policy could be justified on
health grounds under EU law only if it was more proportionate and
effective than using general taxation.

The SNP have no control over relevant taxes, they're all reserved.

Using taxation would still allow retailers to set their own prices, and
compete against each other. Imposing a 50p per unit minimum price on
alcoholic drinks – a policy the Scottish parliament passed with
cross-party support – would restrict retailers in doing so.

Nicola Sturgeon vows to fight for minimum alcohol price in Scotland

The ECJ returned the case to Scotland’s civil courts for a final ruling,
but said: “The court of justice considers that the effect of the
Scottish legislation is significantly to restrict the market, and this
might be avoided by the introduction of a tax measure designed to
increase the price of alcohol instead of a measure imposing a minimum
price per unit of alcohol.”"

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...aw-court-rules

Please bear in mind that it was a reference from the Scottish court to
the ECJ for a preliminary ruling. So it was not for the ECJ to decide
the dispute - at least, not at this stage.

So if they haven't decided Howard was lying.