Ireland is Europe's most expensive country for non-alcoholic drinks while food prices 12% above EU average
The survey of price levels of food, beverages, and tobacco covered 36 European countries in 2024. It showed that Ireland was the most expensive for non-alcoholic beverages, with prices 40% higher than the EU average. Non-alcoholic beverages included coffee, tea, cocoa, mineral waters, soft drinks, concentrates, fruit juices, and vegetable juices.
Ireland was the second most expensive country in both the Eurozone and EU27 for alcoholic beverages, with prices of alcohol in Ireland just under double the EU27 average in 2024. Of the 36 countries surveyed, Iceland had the highest prices of alcohol, at 185% above the EU27 average. Alcoholic Beverages were cheapest in Italy, at 16% below the EU27 average.
Tobacco prices in Ireland were the most expensive of the 36 countries surveyed in 2024, at 159% higher than the EU27 average.
Food prices in Ireland were 12% above the EU27 average in 2024, making them the second most expensive in the Eurozone, and third most expensive in the EU27. "Looking at specific food categories, we can see that except for meat, prices for the various types of foods in Ireland were all higher than the EU27 average in 2024," said CSO senior statistician in the prices division Edel Flannery. "Prices for breads and cereals were 17% higher than the EU27 average, while milk, cheese and eggs were 11% higher, fruits, vegetables and potatoes were 9% higher, oils and fats were 6% higher, and fish prices were 5% higher."
Each of the 36 countries collected prices for as many items as possible. Eurostat then combined the results to create the price level indices, which provide a comparison of countries' price levels in 2024 with respect to the EU27 average.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Examiner
26 minutes ago
- Irish Examiner
Natural resource endowments more a curse than blessing for developing nations
The world's superpowers have developed a seemingly insatiable appetite for the critical minerals that are essential to the ongoing energy and digital transitions, including rare earth metals (for semiconductors), cobalt (for batteries), and uranium (for nuclear reactors). The International Energy Agency forecasts that demand for these minerals will more than quadruple by 2040 for use in clean-energy technologies alone. However, in their race to control these vital resources, China, Europe, and the US risk causing serious harm to the countries that possess them. As it stands, China is leading the pack — having gained ownership or control over an estimated 60-80% of the critical minerals that are needed for industry (such as for magnets) and the green transition. This control extends across the supply chain: China is heavily invested in mining across Africa, Central Asia, and Latin America, and has been building up its processing capabilities. For Western powers, China's quasi-monopoly over critical minerals looks like an economic and national-security threat. This fear is not unfounded. In December 2024, China restricted exports of critical minerals to the US in retaliation for US restrictions on exports of advanced microchips to China. Since then, US president Donald Trump has forced Ukraine to relinquish a significant share of its critical minerals to the US in what he presents as repayment for American support in its fight against Russia. Trump also wants US sovereignty over mineral-rich Greenland, to the dismay of Denmark. He has suggested that Canada, with all its natural resources, become America's 51st state. The EU, for its part, has sought its own mining contracts such as in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) — touted as the 'Saudi Arabia of critical minerals.' From the Scramble for Africa in the 19th century to Western attempts to claim Middle Eastern oil in the 20th century, such resource grabs are hardly new They reflect a fundamental asymmetry: Less industrialised developing economies tend to consume fewer resources than they produce, whereas the opposite is true for developed economies and, nowadays, China. In principle, this asymmetry creates ideal conditions for mutually beneficial agreements: Industrialised economies get the resources they desire and non-industrialised economies get a windfall, which they can use to bolster their own development. However, in reality, vast natural-resource endowments have proven to be more of a curse than a blessing, with resource-rich countries often developing more slowly than their resource-poor counterparts. A key reason for this is that developed economies have more economic clout, advanced technology, and military might — all of which they bring to bear to acquire the resources they seek. For example, European imperial powers used steam-engine technology to help them explore and exploit Africa for resources such as copper, tin, rubber, timber, diamonds, and gold in the 19th century. Fair compensation This — together with more advanced weaponry and other technologies — meant that, far from offering local communities fair compensation for their valuable resources, European powers could subjugate those communities and use their labour to extract and transport what they wanted. However, even countries that are exporting their resources for a profit have often struggled to make progress on development, not only because of imbalanced deals with more powerful resource importers, but also because their governments have often mismanaged the associated bonanzas. It does not help that resource-rich countries and regions often grapple with internal and external conflicts. Consider the mineral-rich provinces of the DRC, such as Katanga and North Kivu, which have long suffered from violence and lawlessness, fuelled by neighbors such as Rwanda and Uganda. Today, the advance of the Rwanda-backed M23 rebels is fuelling bloodshed in eastern Congo, and creating an opportunity for outside powers to gain access to critical minerals. The DRC-Rwanda peace agreement brokered by the Trump administration promises precisely such access to the US in exchange for security guarantees. The resource curse is not inescapable, especially for countries with strong outward-facing institutions to manage the economy's external relations, including its resource sector's ability to attract investment and generate revenues for the state, and inward-facing institutions to govern how those revenues are used. If a country is to translate its resource endowments into economic development and improvements in human well-being, both have a critical role to play Outward-facing institutions must negotiate fair and transparent mining contracts with multinational corporations and strengthen local governments' ability to do the same. Such contracts should include local-content requirements, which keep more high-value-added processing activities at home, increase local employment, and strengthen the capacity of local suppliers and contractors. Since acquiring a 15% stake in De Beers, Botswana has sought to ensure that diamond cutting — not just mining — occurs domestically, which requires inward-facing institutions to deliver adequate investment in these capabilities. Inward-facing institutions must also manage risks raised by resource extraction, from health and environmental damage (deforestation, biodiversity loss, pollution) to labour rights violations (including child labour). Unfortunately, as it stands, many mineral-rich countries are falling far short, leading some to advocate boycotts of critical minerals coming from conflict zones or countries using forced labour. While such boycotts are unlikely to sway these governments, they could convince multinationals and foreign states to demand better enforcement of environmental and social standards from countries they deal with. Ultimately, it is up to mineral-rich countries to defend their interests and make the most of their endowments. This starts with strengthening institutions. Rabah Arezki, a former vice president at the African Development Bank, is director of research at the French National Center for Scientific Research and a senior fellow at Harvard Kennedy School. Rick van der Ploeg is a professor of economics at the University of Oxford and professor of environmental economics at the University of Amsterdam. Project Syndicate, 2025 Read More Government must stand firm on Israel's illegal occupation and genocide in Gaza Strip
RTÉ News
an hour ago
- RTÉ News
Taoiseach to travel to Luxembourg for two-day visit
Taoiseach Micheál Martin is due to travel to Luxembourg to meet the country's Prime Minister Luc Frieden, as part of a two-day visit to the grand duchy. Both leaders will discuss economic issues, including European competitiveness and EU-US trade negotiations. They will also discuss the current situation in both Ukraine and Gaza. Speaking ahead of the visit, the Taoiseach said Ireland and Luxembourg have "a shared interest" in the competitiveness agenda and deepening capital markets in Europe. "Bilateral relations between Ireland and Luxembourg are excellent and we are like-minded partners on many issues," he added. Mr Martin and Mr Frieden will also discuss proposals for the EU's next seven-year budget for 2028 to 2034 following last week's draft proposal by the European Commission for a €2 trillion budget. Two-way trade between Ireland and Luxembourg is worth about €3.5 billion each year, a majority of which is attributed to financial services. Like Ireland, Luxembourg's open economy and relatively low corporate tax rates have attracted international financial institutions and global investment funds to domicile in the jurisdiction for decades. Both countries' economies would be highly susceptible to a US-EU trade war in the event that it spirals to include retaliatory tariffs on digital services. US President Donald Trump has threatened 30% tariffs on imported goods from the EU, if a trade deal is not struck by 1 August. But Reuters reported yesterday that US and EU officials are discussing a broad 15% tariff on EU imports. During his visit, the Taoiseach will also meet with representatives of Irish businesses in Luxembourg and hear from Irish community representatives. More than 2,500 Irish citizens live and work in Luxembourg, a community that has doubled in size during the past 10 years, according to Ireland's embassy to Luxembourg. Tomorrow, the Taoiseach will hold a meeting with Nadia Calviño, President of the European Investment Bank (EIB). They will discuss Ireland's ongoing partnership with the bank and its role in supporting European competitiveness by investing in infrastructure projects. Mr Martin described the EIB as a "valued partner" that finances approximately €1bn for water, housing and energy projects in Ireland each year.
Irish Independent
4 hours ago
- Irish Independent
EU and US move toward trade deal that could include a 15pc baseline tariff on EU goods with possible exemptions
European negotiators were hoping to reach an agreement to dodge the 30pc tariff rate Trump has said he would impose on imports from the 27-nation bloc on August 1. The rate, which could also extend to cars, would mirror the framework agreement the U.S. has struck with Japan, which Trump announced late on Tuesday. There could be concessions for sectors like aircraft and lumber as well as some medicines and agricultural products, which would not face tariffs, the diplomats said. Washington does not, however, appear willing to lower its current 50pc tariff on steel, they said. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro told Bloomberg News the report from the EU should be taken with "a grain of salt." As talks continued, the European Commission said it would press on with potential counter-measures in case a deal was not reached. EU member states were set to vote on 93 billion euros of counter-tariffs on U.S. goods on Thursday, European diplomats said. A broad majority of members support using anti-coercion instruments if there is no deal, they said. Trump was aiming to secure an agreement on the heels of a complicated deal reached with Japan, the largest foreign investor in the U.S. That deal included a $550 investment and loan pledges from Japan and its commitment to buy 100 Boeing airplanes and boost purchases of U.S. agricultural products. That investment - to be spent at Trump's discretion - would focus on key industries like energy, semiconductors, critical minerals, pharmaceuticals and shipbuilding, the White House said on Wednesday. Tariffs on Japan's auto sector will drop from 27.5pc to 15pc as part of the agreement, reviving hopes for similar treatment for European cars. Asian and European stock markets rallied as investors cheered the U.S.-Japan agreement, but U.S. stocks showed a more modest rise and earnings reports were gloomy. American businesses making everything from chips to steel reported downbeat results on Wednesday, revealing how the Trump administration's chaotic trade policy has hurt profits, added to costs, upended supply chains and weighed on consumer confidence. U.S. automakers signaled their unhappiness with the Japan deal, raising concerns about a trade regime that cuts tariffs on Japanese auto imports while leaving 25pc tariffs on imports from their plants and suppliers in Canada and Mexico. "Any deal that charges a lower tariff for Japanese imports with virtually no U.S. content than the tariff imposed on North American-built vehicles with high U.S. content is a bad deal for U.S. industry and U.S. auto workers," said Matt Blunt, the president of the American Automotive Policy Council, which represents General Motors, Ford and Chrysler parent Stellantis. Automobile stocks led the climb of European shares after the Japan deal spurred hopes that the U.S. was budging over tariffs on EU cars. EU officials have previously said Washington has shown little sign of doing so. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in an interview with Bloomberg Television that Japan received the 15pc rate on auto tariffs "because they were willing to provide this innovative financing mechanism" that he did not think other countries could replicate. Trump, however, has appeared open to a range of options as the U.S. negotiates trade deals. "I will only lower tariffs if a country agrees to open its market," Trump wrote in a social media post on Wednesday. The Republican president said late on Tuesday that other countries would be coming to Washington for talks this week. Governments were scrambling to close trade deals before next week's deadline that the White House has repeatedly pushed back under pressure from markets and intense lobbying by industry. U.S. and Chinese officials plan to meet in Stockholm next week to discuss extending an August 12 deadline for negotiating a trade deal. White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt on Wednesday would not discuss expectations for the meeting, but said Bessent "looks forward to continuing discussions with his Chinese counterparts."
