Water ownership...It hasn't gone away you know.

oscarBravo

Edward M wrote: »

My thinking on it is that referendums, no matter which way they go are indeed democratic decisions.

Sure. A referendum, by definition, is democratic. But being democratic doesn't make it not mind-numbingly stupid.

Brexit is the canonical example. The idea of holding the referendum was mind-numbingly stupid; the electorate in their infinite wisdom made a mind-numbingly stupid decision; HMG has elevated mind-numbing stupidity to a fine art in its handling of the outcome.

Democratic? Sure. Unspeakably stupid? Oh yeah. The two are in no sense whatsoever incompatible.

Edward M

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sure. A referendum, by definition, is democratic. But being democratic doesn't make it not mind-numbingly stupid.

Brexit is the canonical example. The idea of holding the referendum was mind-numbingly stupid; the electorate in their infinite wisdom made a mind-numbingly stupid decision; HMG has elevated mind-numbing stupidity to a fine art in its handling of the outcome.

Democratic? Sure. Unspeakably stupid? Oh yeah. The two are in no sense whatsoever incompatible.

Nor one's thinking on it either.
Brexit is still in progress, who knows in five years or more it could turn out to be a great decision.
I'd agree with you on it, but who knows?

Podge_irl

Larbre34 wrote: »

You are entitled to your view. You are entitled to consider the whole notion paranoid.

But it is my view, that due to the undeniable, gargantuan and very, very expensive cluster**** that was made of water infrastructure renewal funding and by extension water charges in recent years, the system needs protecting and preserving on the peoples' behalf.

What are you looking to protect though? Water itself? The pipes in the ground? The treatment facilities?

James Brown

Some of us want it protected, some see no need.

If we leave things as is we may or may not see access rights licenced off like Nestle currently have in Canada, (mind numbingly true) or Coca-Cola have in India, (tinfoil hat time). I mean companies that use water want to buy up access rights, bizarre.
There is a market for arguably the world's most precious resource. The idea that, although other countries are selling off water in massive amounts and some can't see that happening here is the bizarre thing.

Getting into the semantics is a great and worthy discussion. But using the mechanics and wording of documents not yet written to aid in the idea that there's no need, because that could never happen is odd to say the least and frankly not a credible argument.
Next we'll be defending the environment minister having several meals or inappropriate meetings with Nestle and Coca-Cola while citing the environment and preserving water by way of metering....

Podge_irl

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Some of us want it protected, some see no need.

If we leave things as is we may or may not see access rights licenced off like Nestle currently have in Canada, (mind numbingly true) or Coca-Cola have in India, (tinfoil hat time). I mean companies that use water want to buy up access rights, bizarre.

So you want to get rid of Ballygowan? It would be a legitimate viewpoint, I just want to understand where you stand.

McMurphy

Podge_irl wrote: »

So you want to get rid of Ballygowan? It would be a legitimate viewpoint, I just want to understand where you stand.

Why would ballygowan need to be rid of?

Podge_irl

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Why would ballygowan need to be rid of?

Well he seems to have an issue with private ownership and bottling of water such as Nestle and Coca-Cola. I personally think that the oversight of such issues has been questionable at times and the spread of bottled water in general is insane. It is not a million miles away from the situation you have in california of the almond growers who use several litres of water per almond. Both of these situations are questionable. However that is something that should be sorted by legislation and government action. It is inherently complicated and nuanced and governments do not always get it right, but constitutional amendments are much harder to finesse than legislation.

James Brown

Podge_irl wrote: »

Well he seems to have an issue with private ownership and bottling of water such as Nestle and Coca-Cola. I personally think that the oversight of such issues has been questionable at times and the spread of bottled water in general is insane. It is not a million miles away from the situation you have in california of the almond growers who use several litres of water per almond. Both of these situations are questionable. However that is something that should be sorted by legislation and government action. It is inherently complicated and nuanced and governments do not always get it right, but constitutional amendments are much harder to finesse than legislation.

Are you being purposefully obtuse?
I didn't realise Ballygowan was a publicly owned entity that needs protecting.
It seems the trend is to bait and then hope something comes up to be used as an argument.
What is your point? We shouldn't have water protected because there's no need or you want to pick holes in something someone said? Neither are much of an argument.
The concern is we end up relying on private concerns for access to drink water. I gave examples of corporate interest in water supply because the very idea is 'allegedly' beyond some people.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Are you being purposefully obtuse?
I didn't realise Ballygowan was a publicly owned entity that needs protecting.
It seems the trend is to bait and then hope something comes up to be used as an argument.
What is your point? We shouldn't have water protected because there's no need or you want to pick holes in something someone said? Neither are much of an argument.
The concern is we end up relying on private concerns for access to drink water. I gave examples of corporate interest in water supply because the very idea is 'allegedly' beyond some people.

Have a read of this:

https://www.ballygowan.ie/our-water/ballygowan-water-source/

Ballygowan already own water access and water supply.

Either your amendment nationalises Ballygowan or else it permits private sector concerns to own water sources. Ditto for all other private water companies.

So your amendment could be pointless if it continues to allow Ballygowan to exploit Ireland's water or it could be very expensive for the State because we would have to compensate every private water company.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

That's a half truth. People posted saying it was needed and opponents to it asked for wording. Diverting the debate down to a nonsense.

So the argument now seems to be that if folk in an internet forum can't pen a legally binding document on it, we shouldn't proceed? Good one.

I believe it will be more easily written than the bank guarantee and as easily written as the changes the AG is making to twist it to FG's liking.



Good luck with your endeavour.

More strawman arguments.

Some posters, yourself included, have put forward the notion that drafting a constitutional amendment is a simple thing, no problem, and have advanced the conspiracy theory that FG are up to something. When challenged for a wording if it is so simple, they retreat and tell us it is something that the lawyers have to do. When it is then pointed out that the lawyers haven't been able to do it yet, we are told that if they could write the bank guarantee they could write a Constitutional amendment.

It is quite surreal to see the twists and turns that are being performed to somehow excuse the absence of a reasonable wording. At the least the Pro-Life campaign were able to draft a wording for the 8th.

Podge_irl

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Are you being purposefully obtuse?
I didn't realise Ballygowan was a publicly owned entity that needs protecting.

You said you don't want access rights licensed off. That means no private company involved in bottling water from sources in Ireland. You specifically referenced the exact same scenario in other countries and said you don't want it.

So what exactly is it you want?

What is your point? We shouldn't have water protected because there's no need or you want to pick holes in something someone said? Neither are much of an argument.

I don't particularly think it is needed and indeed could be be problematic. I think it would be difficult to word it so that it doesn't cause problems to current and future private water infrastructure without also giving loopholes for a particularly nefarious government to get around it.

Edward M

Podge_irl wrote: »

You said you don't want access rights licensed off. That means no private company involved in bottling water from sources in Ireland. You specifically referenced the exact same scenario in other countries and said you don't want it.

So what exactly is it you want?



I don't particularly think it is needed and indeed could be be problematic. I think it would be difficult to word it so that it doesn't cause problems to current and future private water infrastructure without also giving loopholes for a particularly nefarious government to get around it.

The problem with water here is maybe not from inside the state at all.
The democratic process is often forced from outside, by the EU etc.
The water charges controversy was caused by outside pressure, privatisation I think was on the EU agenda during the crisis.

Seth Brundle

I don't think there is any evidence that the EU looking to privatise it.
The IMF encouraged water charges to ensure a sustainable source income to pay for the requirements of the water system which was neglected by pretty much every government we've had.
From memory, the only ones to raise the privatisation subject were SF (in a manifesto IIRC) who subsequently did a U-turn on the matter.

FreudianSlippers

Edward M wrote: »

The minister?
A quick Google of the shareholders of IW gave me this.

"Irish Water has two shareholders, Ervia and the Irish Government. The ultimate shareholder of Irish Water is the Irish Government and, on that basis, Irish Water is a state-owned entity".

While IW is a private regd company, its a state owned entity.
You're being obtuse and disingenuous in your description of it and it's shareholder. it is not privately owned or run.

If one fundamentally misunderstands all basic aspects of company law... yeah.

The "Government" is also incapable of owning shares in a company - they do it through ministerial ownership; same with Ervia. The fact that the shares are owned by "the Government" does not mean it is not a private company.

FreudianSlippers

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Because I couldn't give a rats arse about it, and don't agree with it in its current guise anyway, for reasons already stated.

You however have presumably emailed him, as you seem to be fierce concerned on the wording.

Yet you feel the need to post here about it?

FreudianSlippers

charlie14 wrote: »

You have put yourself out there as a bit of a legal expert, so why don`t you tell us what is required to change a piece of legislation as opposed to a constitutional amendment.

Hi - legal expert here. The Constitution is fairly difficult to change and that's exactly why we shouldn't make this amendment with regard to water.

Are you a legal expert? Seem to be holding yourself out to be.

FreudianSlippers

Larbre34 wrote: »

You are entitled to your view. You are entitled to consider the whole notion paranoid.

But it is my view, that due to the undeniable, gargantuan and very, very expensive cluster**** that was made of water infrastructure renewal funding and by extension water charges in recent years, the system needs protecting and preserving on the peoples' behalf.

I'm not sure I understand why you would want the water infrastructure in Ireland to continue to be third-world standard, but ok.

ancapailldorcha

There have been multiple attempts at having a pop at other users. I'd prefer for this thread not to descend into petty name calling and jeering. Thanks.

blanch152

https://www.fsai.ie/faq/bottled_water.html


It turns out that Ballygowan are not the only private company exploiting Ireland's natural water sources. Glenpatrick in Clonmel are also taking the State's natural water and commercialising it.

Any constitutional amendment will affect these businesses.

Next question will have to consider desalination. Already Israel is heading for 50% of its water to be delivered through desalination:

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/534996/megascale-desalination/

A number of posters have called for a constitutional amendment because they see "water wars" in the future. However, if the technology behind large-scale desalination takes off, the future "water wars" will be a thing of the past. In fact, the existing water wars around irrigation etc. will also become a thing of the past.

https://www.niwater.com/about-us/

Northern Ireland Water is a government-owned company. What happens if it is privatised and we subsequently have a united Ireland? Another bill for Southern taxpayers to nationalise it?


In 1983, we didn't know about the morning-after pill, internet sales, abortion pills, we didn't have cheap travel to the UK. The abortion amendment couldn't cope with those changes in technology and society.

None of the ideas put forward for a constitutional amendment on water can cope with future technology or future societal change. Strangely, even though those putting the idea forward claim to be left-wing or socialist, it is the ultimate conservative approach to try and protect the status quo and prevent future change by future governments.

McMurphy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Yet you feel the need to post here about it?

Let me be clear, I couldn't give a rats arse about how it's worded, as in its current guise I don't agree with it regardless.

Just like others have said similar, that a bad idea, cleverly worded is still a bad idea (yet you didn't challenge their posts, go figure) and would vote against regardless how it's worded.

So, I'll simplify things, I could not give a rats arse about emailing a minister for clarity on how the amendment might be phrased, as I think how this is currently being flown (Irish Water the entity) could be a Trojan horse.

It's not like I didn't clarify my position in several posts.

James Brown

Podge_irl wrote: »

You said you don't want access rights licensed off. That means no private company involved in bottling water from sources in Ireland. You specifically referenced the exact same scenario in other countries and said you don't want it.

So what exactly is it you want?

I don't want the publicly owned and operated water supply privatised. I feel we need assurances based on the caliber of FF/FG politician we are use to. You've been following the thread?
To repeat, I gave examples of corporate interest in water supplies, (on another point, I don't think we should get further into that either in any large scale). Therefore, combining the two, I don't want corporations buying up rights to the point where our government begins to hand over state water concerns/operations/taps/pipes/H2O to private companies, y'know privatisation. If they want to licence out and use contractors, as we currently do, that's fine by me as long as it doesn't infringe on the state ownership of water.

Podge_irl wrote: »

I don't particularly think it is needed and indeed could be be problematic. I think it would be difficult to word it so that it doesn't cause problems to current and future private water infrastructure without also giving loopholes for a particularly nefarious government to get around it.

Fair enough. However I think the 'too difficult to word' argument is a nonsense.

I may indeed vote against it if FG have their way, (seems they've no problem wording it to their liking), as I feel it may be a pointless endevour.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I don't want the publicly owned and operated water supply privatised. I feel we need assurances based on the caliber of FF/FG politician we are use to. You've been following the thread?
To repeat, I gave examples of corporate interest in water supplies, (on another point, I don't think we should get further into that either in any large scale). Therefore, combining the two, I don't want corporations buying up rights to the point where our government begins to hand over state water concerns/operations/taps/pipes/H2O to private companies, y'know privatisation. If they want to licence out and use contractors, as we currently do, that's fine by me as long as it doesn't infringe on the state ownership of water.




Fair enough. However I think the 'too difficult to word' argument is a nonsense.

I may indeed vote against it if FG have their way, (seems they've no problem wording it to their liking), as I feel it may be a pointless endevour.

The "too difficult to word" argument is clearly not a nonsense, as there is no readily available wording from any politician. Our own barstool lawyers have had a go and their wordings have been torn to shreds. Very easy to dismiss the argument that it is too difficult to word, but not so easy to tell us what the wording is.

As for the argument that "we need assurances based on the caliber of FF/FG politician we are use to", do you really think that is some sort of sustainable argument? After all, they are hitting 60% of the population voting for them. Are you telling that 60% that the politicians they vote for are the reason for the water referendum? I find that argument bizarre, especially as they could easily by voted out and replaced by the intellectual giants of Pearse Doherty, Ruth Coppinger and Claire Daly anytime the electorate wants.

Why would companies like Ballygowan buying up rights cause the government to privatise water companies? There is a logical leap or connection that I am missing so perhaps you could explain how one causes the other.

If the State owns all the water rights, will it prevent a future desalination plant from opening?

Edward M

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I don't think there is any evidence that the EU looking to privatise it.
The IMF encouraged water charges to ensure a sustainable source income to pay for the requirements of the water system which was neglected by pretty much every government we've had.
From memory, the only ones to raise the privatisation subject were SF (in a manifesto IIRC) who subsequently did a U-turn on the matter.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews//ireland/odowd-my-proposal-to-ban-irish-water-privatisation-was-deleted-654080.html

Just to refresh your memory, from the man responsible for helping set it up!

blanch152

Edward M wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews//ireland/odowd-my-proposal-to-ban-irish-water-privatisation-was-deleted-654080.html

Just to refresh your memory, from the man responsible for helping set it up!

Yeah, there was another poster back in the day of the old water threads who used to repeatedly post something like that from poor old Fergus. Wasn't the Examiner link, but something similar.

Given the man got fired for incompetence, I don't put much faith in any bitter words he had when he was leaving.

Captain Obvious

Edward M wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews//ireland/odowd-my-proposal-to-ban-irish-water-privatisation-was-deleted-654080.html

Just to refresh your memory, from the man responsible for helping set it up!

Of course there are people who want to privatise water. There are people that want to privatise everything. He even said the forces were not necessarily political. That doesn't mean we need to put everything in the constitution to avoid it being privatised.

Edward M

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Of course there are people who want to privatise water. There are people that want to privatise everything. He even said the forces were not necessarily political. That doesn't mean we need to put everything in the constitution to avoid it being privatised.

In fairness my own thinking would be that FG/Lab didn't set up IW with the intention of selling it off, and the single water utility is the best model for the service.
At the time we were under pressure financially and the imf the EU et al were calling the financial shots.
My fear would be that down the line if we ever found ourselves in a similar situation it could be a saleable asset wrapped up and ready to go.

FreudianSlippers

Edward M wrote: »

In fairness my own thinking would be that FG/Lab didn't set up IW with the intention of selling it off, and the single water utility is the best model for the service.
At the time we were under pressure financially and the imf the EU et al were calling the financial shots.
My fear would be that down the line if we ever found ourselves in a similar situation it could be a saleable asset wrapped up and ready to go.

Does that actually matter though? As long as the commodity is in State ownership and the prices are regulated, wouldn't it in theory be better to have competition in the market (like gas and electricity) if they can provide a better service than the state?

If a private company wants to invest money in leasing and upgrading water infrastructure, purchase the commodity from the state in its raw form, make that commodity consumable and delivered in abundance to a household... so long as it is well regulated I don't see the issue with that.

At the moment you have a State monopoly failing to provide investment or even supply to certain areas, using your tax money to pay civil servants instead of actually doing what they're supposed to do.

I'm not suggesting water (the commodity) should be capable of being privatised - I believe it is already prohibited by Article 10, but if we need to have an amendment to make that more clear then fine. We should not amend our Constitution to mandate nationalisation of a private state-owned company.

Chips Lovell

Mod Note

One person has been banned for personalising the debate.

Stick to the topic at hand please.

If posters want to continue long running personal spats, take it to PM.

Thanks

Captain Obvious

Edward M wrote: »

My fear would be that down the line if we ever found ourselves in a similar situation it could be a saleable asset wrapped up and ready to go.

I can't say that is unreasonable but i think a constitutional amendment is a disproportional reaction to it. Would you support an amendment for any other resource or service?

Edward M

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I can't say that is unreasonable but i think a constitutional amendment is a disproportional reaction to it. Would you support an amendment for any other resource or service?

I'd have to take it into consideration at the time and depend on what it was.
The state is responsible for many services, but
there are others that can't be gotten privately as well.
I don't know of another one that is as vital as water.
The arguments about cluttering the constitution don't stand up for me, this would have little affect on anything else in the constitution and shouldn't affect anyone's statutory rights outside of itself and what it covers, the public water supply and governance of it.