Is there anything to be said for another election?

KlausFlouride

Wasn't it a Troika requirement? If one was feeling paranoid, could make a case that FG-Lab did such a lousy job introducing it so as to provoke maximum outrage and get it dropped over time, "Well, we did our best, boss, didn't work out, do we really need it anymore now?". Though more likely it was good old fashioned incompetence.

Chips Lovell

It was part of the Troika deal alright, but we exited the bailout in December 2013.

The real issue with regard to the EU is whether we'd still be compliant with the Water Framework Directive, but at the moment that doesn't seem to be deterring them and, if it they were found to be in breach, it would be a long time before it bit them in the ass.

Redbishop

Lavinia wrote: »

I'd love to see another round.
Water charges are a scum because water is already paid and covered via taxes. If those remain should they then reduce the taxes since it will not be the financial source for the water costs?
No they won't won't they.
So it's not about the water, it is about how to make "rich richer and poor poorer". Shame really.

I think you miss the whole point of charges.
If we pay for our water by charge then our taxes should go to other needy areas such as health or housing, to name just two.

Redbishop

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

It was part of the Troika deal alright, but we exited the bailout in December 2013.

The real issue with regard to the EU is whether we'd still be compliant with the Water Framework Directive, but at the moment that doesn't seem to be deterring them and, if it they were found to be in breach, it would be a long time before it bit them in the ass.

Just because we exited the bailout, does that mean we can renege on its terms?
If FF agreed to charges as part of fiscal reform, would they not still expect them to be implemented?

Lavinia

Redbishop wrote: »

I think you miss the whole point of charges.
If we pay for our water by charge then our taxes should go to other needy areas such as health or housing, to name just two.

Sure, such a great government after they became the biggest property owner in the world via "NAMA" and all that jazz about pumping the housing prices up above the sky so they can get the profit together with banks that they only cared about.

Sad how short memory we have.

Chips Lovell

Redbishop wrote: »

Just because we exited the bailout, does that mean we can renege on its terms?
If FF agreed to charges as part of fiscal reform, would they not still expect them to be implemented?

I'm not sure. Even if it did though, what could they do? Tell us we've been very naughty boys?

BoJack Horseman

Redbishop wrote: »

Just because we exited the bailout, does that mean we can renege on its terms?

Yes... the programme is finished.... all that is left is repayment.

the IMF have already got their money back, the EU will get theirs back in due course.... the nitty-gritty over how that is delivered is finished though.

Jayop

Redbishop wrote: »

Just because we exited the bailout, does that mean we can renege on its terms?
If FF agreed to charges as part of fiscal reform, would they not still expect them to be implemented?

Do you not think that a sovereign state should be allowed to decide on matters like this itself? Whether you agree with Water Charges or not, everyone should agree it's a matter for Ireland to settle itself.

Redbishop

Jayop wrote: »

Do you not think that a sovereign state should be allowed to decide on matters like this itself? Whether you agree with Water Charges or not, everyone should agree it's a matter for Ireland to settle itself.

Yes of course. I don't know where you got otherwise from my post.
I questioned if agreement was in place and if it was would there be comebacks perhaps because of it.
Also we are signed up to the wfd, I m sure we will be asked how we are going to fulfill that without charges too!

Jayop

Redbishop wrote: »

Yes of course. I don't know where you got otherwise from my post.
I questioned if agreement was in place and if it was would there be comebacks perhaps because of it.
Also we are signed up to the wfd, I m sure we will be asked how we are going to fulfill that without charges too!

Fair enough.

I don't know the in's and out's of it but I looked at this article and it would seem that we don't have a requirement for charging for domestic water.

Maybe someone with more knowledge on the subject can say if this is accurate or not.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/why-the-irish-government-is-not-required-to-implement-water-charges-on-households-1.2009288

Jayop

Jayop wrote: »

Do you not think that a sovereign state should be allowed to decide on matters like this itself? Whether you agree with Water Charges or not, everyone should agree it's a matter for Ireland to settle itself.

Absolutely.

However, I feel that it's certainly worth considering 'why' the Troika would have suggested introducing Water Charges as a useful tool for improving the State's long term debt servicing viability.

At one stage, with the Troika 'guiding' the country, we experienced a duality of incentives. The Troika's suggestions / recommendations etc was geared towards apolitical (in some cases enormously politically difficult!) improvements in the State's ability to cater for itself.

We effectively had un-influenced, unbiased, unvested but importantly not-independent* consultants prescribing policy! (*they were relying on it working)

Which of course impacted upon our sovereignty, and we are delighted to be out from under their gazes, but the experience certainly raised valid questions about why we do certain things, what we particularly should aspire to achieve as a State, and how we might go about achieving those goals.

Water Charges being passed from the exchequer to the user reconnected the ultimate consumer to the cost of provision. The tragedy of the commons effect that we had baked into our water provision services could be swept away, and we could as a State reduce both our overall net spend on water provision (current) whilst also streamlining and increasing our ability to invest in the infrastructure that we so desperately need.

A reduction in duplication of services, an ability to raise capital without adding it to the National Debt, an amalgamation of disparate resources into one system, a national utility provider with oversight for the totality of water provision services (outside of group schemes and well owners), the ability to adequately prioritise and plan infrastructure upgrades etc etc etc.

Just because the Troika are gone, does not mean that we should just ignore what they offered us.

We should of course recognise it as a learning experience, as our entire State was effectively audited and the 'bits that did not make sense' were brought to the fore.

Jayop

Deleted User wrote: »

Absolutely.

However, I feel that it's certainly worth considering 'why' the Troika would have suggested introducing Water Charges as a useful tool for improving the State's long term debt servicing viability.

At one stage, with the Troika 'guiding' the country, we experienced a duality of incentives. The Troika's suggestions / recommendations etc was geared towards apolitical (in some cases enormously politically difficult!) improvements in the State's ability to cater for itself.

We effectively had un-influenced, unbiased, unvested but importantly not-independent* consultants prescribing policy! (*they were relying on it working)

Which of course impacted upon our sovereignty, and we are delighted to be out from under their gazes, but the experience certainly raised valid questions about why we do certain things, what we particularly should aspire to achieve as a State, and how we might go about achieving those goals.

Water Charges being passed from the exchequer to the user reconnected the ultimate consumer to the cost of provision. The tragedy of the commons effect that we had baked into our water provision services could be swept away, and we could as a State reduce both our overall net spend on water provision (current) whilst also streamlining and increasing our ability to invest in the infrastructure that we so desperately need.

A reduction in duplication of services, an ability to raise capital without adding it to the National Debt, an amalgamation of disparate resources into one system, a national utility provider with oversight for the totality of water provision services (outside of group schemes and well owners), the ability to adequately prioritise and plan infrastructure upgrades etc etc etc.

Just because the Troika are gone, does not mean that we should just ignore what they offered us.

We should of course recognise it as a learning experience, as our entire State was effectively audited and the 'bits that did not make sense' were brought to the fore.

If Irish Water was a state run entity and it was enshrined in law that it was never to be privitised then I don't think you would have had anywhere near the opposition to it. People like myself don't want to see water being turned into a "for profit commodity" and unfortunately I believe the Troika would be quite happy for that to have happened, and as it happens I feel the Government of the day would have been happy with that too. It's not comparable to other utilities because you can live without electricity or phones but everyone needs water.

I question the motives of the Troika and whether they had the best interests of the Irish people at heart or was their attention elsewhere. If it was the latter then I wouldn't attach much validity to what they said.

Baggy Trousers

Jayop wrote: »

If Irish Water was a state run entity and it was enshrined in law that it was never to be privitised then I don't think you would have had anywhere near the opposition to it. People like myself don't want to see water being turned into a "for profit commodity" and unfortunately I believe the Troika would be quite happy for that to have happened, and as it happens I feel the Government of the day would have been happy with that too. It's not comparable to other utilities because you can live without electricity or phones but everyone needs water.

I question the motives of the Troika and whether they had the best interests of the Irish people at heart or was their attention elsewhere. If it was the latter then I wouldn't attach much validity to what they said.

http://www.thejournal.ie/fergus-odowd-irish-water-agendas-privatisation-1825719-Dec2014/

FORMER JUNIOR MINISTER Fergus O’Dowd, one the people involved in setting up Irish Water, said last night that he felt that there were “forces at work” with “agendas” to privatise the utility company.
He said he remains “deeply concerned at other agendas, they may be European… I don’t know where they are coming from…” and said we have “real reason to be concerned” about the possibility of Irish Water being privatised.

Jayop

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/fergus-odowd-irish-water-agendas-privatisation-1825719-Dec2014/

So one of the people who helped set up the Utility said that it's possible that people at EU level have an agenda to privitise IW.

Amazing really.


Honestly, I know it sounds farcical going to the people with a referendum on water but I do think that that's the only way water charges will ever be accepted. Change the constitution, have it enshrined that it'll never be a for profit company and never be privitised then I feel the non-hardcore opponents will accept the charges.

People rejected Lisbon, changes were made to the treaty to allay fears people had and then it was accepted. Irish people are not completely unreasonable, we just don't like getting fed BS.

BoJack Horseman

Jayop wrote: »

Honestly, I know it sounds farcical going to the people with a referendum on water but I do think that that's the only way water charges will ever be accepted. Change the constitution, have it enshrined that it'll never be a for profit company and never be privitised then I feel the non-hardcore opponents will accept the charges

Ideally the constitution should not be a pawn for political posturing.
Such a idea should be for parliamentary statute, if at all.
It has no role in the constitution.

changes were made to the treaty to allay fears people had and then it was accepted

What changes?

Jayop

Jayop wrote: »

If Irish Water was a state run entity and it was enshrined in law that it was never to be privatised then I don't think you would have had anywhere near the opposition to it.1 People like myself don't want to see water being turned into a "for profit commodity" and unfortunately I believe the Troika would be quite happy for that to have happened, and as it happens I feel the Government of the day would have been happy with that too. 2 It's not comparable to other utilities because you can live without electricity or phones but everyone needs water.

I question the motives of the Troika and whether they had the3 best interests of the Irish people at heart or was their attention elsewhere. If it was the latter then I wouldn't attach much validity to what they said.

1 - Genuine question. Why not?

2 - As to the second point, we all need food too, but it's a 'for profit commodity' provided by private companies. The sky has not fallen in yet.

3 - They didn't have the interested of the Irish people at heart. They were interested in improving Ireland's ability to pay the debt back. There's a duality here though, in that for the main part, improving a Nation's ability to service its debt will more-than-likely improve its ability to operate itself!

Jayop

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Ideally the constitution should not be a pawn for political posturing.
Such a idea should be for parliamentary statute, if at all.
It has no role in the constitution.


What changes?

Without going back and looking I concede that there may not have been changes to the test but there was some form of addendum or legal agreement by the other member states which allayed fears that the Irish people said they had in relation to the first treaty.

BoJack Horseman

Deleted User wrote: »

2 - As to the second point, we all need food too, but it's a 'for profit commodity' provided by private companies. The sky has not fallen in yet.

If free water is constitutionally guaranteed, then it is only logical that free food be ditto.... then comes housing and so forth.

f*cking around with the constitution like this is for the birds.

KlausFlouride

1 - Genuine question. Why not?


Electricity market was deregulated/"market forces" prevailed. Result was price of electricity shot up, especially for industry, making Irish manufacturing in particular less competitive.

Jayop

Deleted User wrote: »

1 - Genuine question. Why not?

2 - As to the second point, we all need food too, but it's a 'for profit commodity' provided by private companies. The sky has not fallen in yet.

3 - They didn't have the interested of the Irish people at heart. They were interested in improving Ireland's ability to pay the debt back. There's a duality here though, in that for the main part, improving a Nation's ability to service its debt will more-than-likely improve its ability to operate itself!

1) Because I don't feel that the best interests of the people's needs for water are best served by lining the pockets of private corporations who's first goal will be to ensure profitability over supply and health issues. Private companies have for time immortal put peoples lives at risk and buried stories about their services to keep the shareholders happy.

2) The difference being we don't have an existing network of state owned and operated farms to provide food. As we can see though from companies like monsanto who do get involved in the food production industry they don't give a damn about the people and care only about the bottom line. I can choose to buy my food from people I know and trust as it stands, if some company like those which operate in the US with no interest in my childrens health run IW then what's my choices?

3) There's a limited duality in that. They would bankrupt Ireland a hundred times over if it lines the pockets of their vested interests. A healthy economy in Ireland is good for us all, one in which all out assets are free to be stripped from us and handed away for nothing isn't.

BoJack Horseman

KlausFlouride wrote: »

1 - Genuine question. Why not?

Why not food?

Electricity market was deregulated/"market forces" prevailed. Result was price of electricity shot up, especially for industry, making Irish manufacturing in particular less competitive.

Electricity costs are set by a government regulator.
'the market' cannot set prices.

That's why despite the price of oil & gas having collapsed, the regulator has not dropped the cost of the standard unit price.

If the market was to decide the price, there would be no regulator setting the price.

Chips Lovell

Jayop wrote: »

Honestly, I know it sounds farcical going to the people with a referendum on water but I do think that that's the only way water charges will ever be accepted.

You're more optimistic than me. My own feeling is that it would hardly have made a dent in the opposition. I'd love to be proven wrong though.

Jayop

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

If free water is constitutionally guaranteed, then it is only logical that free food be ditto.... then comes housing and so forth.

f*cking around with the constitution like this is for the birds.

Where from anything have I said that it should be enshrined in the constitution that water is provided for free? I've said the opposite in several posts.

I don't think we should be giving the states assets to multinational corporations for free like we've effectively done with our oil and gas reserves, maybe that's where you got mixed up in what I said.

BoJack Horseman

Jayop wrote: »

The difference being we don't have an existing network of state owned and operated farms to provide food.t.

Easily fixed though seeing as many farms rely largely on taxpayer subsidy to exist.

nationalise the farms I say.
Protect the people from vulture farmers!

Bob24

Deleted User wrote: »

2 - As to the second point, we all need food too, but it's a 'for profit commodity' provided by private companies. The sky has not fallen in yet.

Plus only a tiny portion of the water people use is for vital consumption (i.e. drinking). At the existing rate it would represent only a few cents per month. Everything else is no more vital than electricity (reverting to candles for lighting a house would feel no more convenient to people than reverting to rain water to flush the toilets, possibly the opposite).

Jayop

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Why not food?




Electricity costs are set by a government regulator.
'the market' cannot set prices.

That's why despite the price of oil & gas having collapsed, the regulator has not dropped the cost of the standard unit price.

If the market was to decide the price, there would be no regulator setting the price.

Why not education, why not health, why not just privitise the government.

BoJack Horseman

Jayop wrote: »

I don't think we should be giving the states assets to multinational corporations for free like we've effectively done with our oil and gas reserves, maybe that's where you got mixed up in what I said.

Well, you will be delighted to know that SF dropped their privatisation idea.
As per the thread title, we just need to vote SF at the next election so they can (as per their policy) nationalise the minerals exploration sector.

its within our hands.

BoJack Horseman

Jayop wrote: »

Why not education, why not health, why not just privitise the government.

I agree with you!

Nationalise everything.... referendums all round!

KlausFlouride

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Why not food?

Electricity costs are set by a government regulator.
'the market' cannot set prices.

That's why despite the price of oil & gas having collapsed, the regulator has not dropped the cost of the standard unit price.

If the market was to decide the price, there would be no regulator setting the price.

Eh, prices were increased to make the electricity market more attractive to other suppliers to increase competition to drive down prices. How did that work out?

Jayop

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

You're more optimistic than me. My own feeling is that it would hardly have made a dent in the opposition. I'd love to be proven wrong though.

Maybe I am but I guess I'm talking from the perspective of my own views and those of people I've spoken to.

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Easily fixed though seeing as many farms rely largely on taxpayer subsidy to exist.

nationalise the farms I say.
Protect the people from vulture farmers!

See this is why it's impossible to have a rational conversation on the matter.

Jayop

Jayop wrote: »

1) Because I don't feel that the best interests of the people's needs for water are best served by lining the pockets of private corporations who's first goal will be to ensure profitability over supply and health issues. Private companies have for time immortal put peoples lives at risk and buried stories about their services to keep the shareholders happy.

You'll do well to find a single private water company that has remained profitable in the face of supply and health issues, the profitability of said company would be directly linked to those!

We trust private companies to give us all sorts of things all the time, what is inherently less trustworthy about water providers? Where is this paranoia emanating from?

Jayop wrote: »

2) The difference being we don't have an existing network of state owned and operated farms to provide food. As we can see though from companies like monsanto who do get involved in the food production industry they don't give a damn about the people and care only about the bottom line. I can choose to buy my food from people I know and trust as it stands, if some company like those which operate in the US with no interest in my childrens health run IW then what's my choices?

Any examples of Irish companies and not ones in a completely different regulatory environment?

I've not said anything about removing or privatising the state owned network of pipes btw. Privatisation of the provision of the service does not require the sale of infrastructure.

Jayop wrote: »

3) There's a limited duality in that. They would bankrupt Ireland a hundred times over if it lines the pockets of their vested interests. A healthy economy in Ireland is good for us all, one in which all out assets are free to be stripped from us and handed away for nothing isn't.

That's some far-reaching conjecture. Where is this paranoia emanating from? A distinct lack of trust in others?

The point of the duality is straightforward, in order for the Troika to get paid, they had to get us better. They were effectively a surgeon who only got paid by a living patient. Their own interests were best served by aligning with our best interests!

Jayop

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Well, you will be delighted to know that SF dropped their privatisation idea.
As per the thread title, we just need to vote SF at the next election so they can (as per their policy) nationalise the minerals exploration sector.

its within our hands.

Considering we get pretty much nothing from the exploration that's going on given the companies can write off all their losses and costs over ten years against any profits they make we may as well let it lie in the ground and protect our environment.

KlausFlouride

Deleted User wrote: »

The point of the duality is straightforward, in order for the Troika to get paid, they had to get us better. They were effectively a surgeon who only got paid by a living patient. Their own interests were best served by aligning with our best interests!

Correct. And Troika will increase taxes, cut spending & slash capital spending to do so irrespective of long term damage to country.

Chips Lovell

Jayop wrote: »

Maybe I am but I guess I'm talking from the perspective of my own views and those of people I've spoken to.

I reckon there's a widespread distrust of politicians that was always there but has really been amplified since the crash.

BoJack Horseman

Jayop wrote: »

we may as well let it lie in the ground and protect our environment.

Nothing to complain about then so!

But SF see differently, they will deliver us a minerals exploration company that will put the costs of IW in the shade.

More people just need to vote for them.....

Jayop

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I reckon there's a widespread distrust of politicians that was always there but has really been amplified since the crash.

There's quite a bit of justification for the distrust of politicians given all that's gone on.

whatstherush

Jayop wrote: »

Considering we get pretty much nothing from the exploration that's going on given the companies can write off all their losses and costs over ten years against any profits they make we may as well let it lie in the ground and protect our environment.

We get 55% in Tax and 5% royalty on any new finds. The Oil companies really missed a trick while we were "giving it away", not one barrel of oil brought ashore.

Jayop

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Nothing to complain about then so!

But SF see differently, they will deliver us a minerals exploration company that will put the costs of IW in the shade.

More people just need to vote for them.....

Nothing to complain about? Handing over massive assets to foreign corporations with no return for the state is nothing to complain about? Utter madness.

BoJack Horseman

Jayop wrote: »

Nothing to complain about? Handing over massive assets to foreign corporations with no return for the state is nothing to complain about? Utter madness.

As I said.... we just need to do the right thing and elect them to power and all will be well.....
Because aswell as creating the exploration quango, they also commit to buying a controlling stake in the existing exploration license holders.
So the evil foreign organisations will then belong to us & accordingly its revenues!

Jayop

whatstherush wrote: »

We get 55% in Tax and 5% royalty on any new finds. The Oil companies really missed a trick while we were "giving it away", not one barrel of oil brought ashore.

I read an article recently (I'll look for it later) that detailed the actual amount of revenue that the government get in comparison to other states with natural assets and it didn't make for good reading.

There's so much that they can write off that the state in reality only gets a fraction of the old 40% or even new 55% rate.

Chips Lovell

If current reporting reflects the final deal, it really is a spectacular win for Micheál Martin when you think about it. He not only succeeded in effectively abolishing water charges but he also got is biggest political rival to do it.

All of the kudos. None of the blowback.

oscarBravo

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

You're more optimistic than me. My own feeling is that it would hardly have made a dent in the opposition. I'd love to be proven wrong though.

"No way, we won't pay. Unless there's a referendum, then we'll cheerfully pay."

Hm, don't remember hearing that one at any of the protests.

Rightwing

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

If current reporting reflects the final deal, it really is a spectacular win for Micheál Martin when you think about it. He not only succeeded in effectively abolishing water charges but he also got is biggest political rival to do it.

All of the kudos. None of the blowback.

Only numpties in the media would think it's a win.

It damages the credibility of all the parties involved. It's easy to hold a country to ransom.

M Martin can get more wins like this, cut the price of electricity by 50% would be very popular, getting rid of bin charges would be another one.

It's why FF are the most popular party in the country (and why our national debt is €200bln odd).

Redbishop

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

If current reporting reflects the final deal, it really is a spectacular win for Micheál Martin when you think about it. He not only succeeded in effectively abolishing water charges but he also got is biggest political rival to do it.

All of the kudos. None of the blowback.

I assume there has to be legislation passed abolishing water charges now, which should lead to a dail debate.
This will give all sides as chance to vent their anger and have a good poke at the policy again.
FF won't come unscathed out of that given that its only a suspension and IW is still here.
Frankly I cant see this arrangement lasting too long as SF are really going to try to link them in to the total policy now.

Larbre34

No need for legislation until the Commission has reported and the Dáil votes for it. The "suspension" will keep things on the long finger.

By the way, this is no victory if Irish Water outlasts the review.

FrancieBrady

The Independents needed to form a government should now push to deal with this as their part of the deal.
Force a bit of reality and maturity onto FG and FF

Larbre34

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The Independents needed to form a government should now push to deal with this as their part of the deal.
Force a bit of reality and maturity onto FG and FF

Why would they be "needed"? 51+43=94.

Their inclusion is only tokenism, keep them quiet and all that. They can either get their few local hobby horses dealt with or they can cause trouble over this and get left out in the cold. I suspect I know what they shall be doing.

Car99

Getting rid of water charges what a joke , ffs , the tax payer will have to make up for it somewhere and the only people who will benefit are those that don't pay income tax. Whats the point in voting for any of those clowns.

FrancieBrady

Larbre34 wrote: »

Why would they be "needed"? 51+43=94.

Their inclusion is only tokenism, keep them quiet and all that. They can either get their few local hobby horses dealt with or they can cause trouble over this and get left out in the cold. I suspect I know what they shall be doing.

I think Independents might be a little more motivated this time and be seen to affect some change and I think some FGers may not be able to stomach this deal, so more INDs might be needed to stabilise the rickety ship. Interesting to see how it develops.

Redbishop

Larbre34 wrote: »

Why would they be "needed"? 51+43=94.

Their inclusion is only tokenism, keep them quiet and all that. They can either get their few local hobby horses dealt with or they can cause trouble over this and get left out in the cold. I suspect I know what they shall be doing.

They would need them!
While supporting FG administration, I think FF are still planning on being the largest opposition party, to keep SF down the order and for their own policy talk.
They plan to abstain on policy issues meaning FG do need independent support for majority votes.