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

Captain Obvious

Edward M wrote: »

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.

But there has been multiple examples of how it could affect things outside of what is intended. Everything from bottled water to private wells.


And there are quite a number of public services that have been privatised elsewhere that i would consider vital. Prisons, Fire fighting and parks for example.

oscarBravo

Edward M wrote: »

I don't know of another one that is as vital as water.

Food is at least as vital, and we don't expect the state to provide it as a public service.

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.

Sure, and the Eighth Amendment didn't affect anyone's rights outside of what it covered: reproductive health, the right to travel, and the right to information.

Elemonator

oscarBravo wrote: »

Food is necessary for basic human survival. It's a market good, a valuable resource, and necessary for human survival.

This is the glaring inconsistency that I've yet to see addressed: we're happy for food to be a privately-owned, marketable commodity, but it's somehow unthinkable that water could be. You do know that there's nothing to prevent a state-owned water utility from disconnecting someone's water supply, right? Only if the amendment includes language to the effect that a publicly-owned water utility can never disconnect any of its customers, in which case I'd be even more vehemently opposed.

Writing complicated legislation into the Constitution is a really, really terrible idea. It shouldn't matter how strongly you feel about a political topic; this sort of constitutional vandalism is just straight-up wrong. Ye gods, this proposed amendment will add about 25% to the size of the Constitution, the way it's going.

I don't think there's a risk of a government deciding to privatise Ireland's food supply, that's the difference in my view and I think where the concern comes from. Most of the water for public consumption in the State is held by the authorities. All it would take is for some legislation and the whole scheme is privatised. The same can't be said for food.

We really shouldn't be concerned about the size of the Constitution when it guarantees are basic rights.

oscarBravo

Elemonator wrote: »

I don't think there's a risk of a government deciding to privatise Ireland's food supply...

Ireland's food supply is not currently in public ownership.

James Brown

Captain Obvious wrote: »

But there has been multiple examples of how it could affect things outside of what is intended. Everything from bottled water to private wells.


And there are quite a number of public services that have been privatised elsewhere that i would consider vital. Prisons, Fire fighting and parks for example.

No there has not been anything solid. There have been multiple 'what if' scenarios which mean nothing until we have some wording ready to go. Currently you could argue it might effect peoples right to collect rain water and anything else you care to throw into the mix.
If the FG AG hijacks it it will be pointless and possibly damaging.

Edward M

oscarBravo wrote: »

Food is at least as vital, and we don't expect the state to provide it as a public service. Sure, and the Eighth Amendment didn't affect anyone's rights outside of what it covered: reproductive health, the right to travel, and the right to information.

Yes we do, the state provides aid to anyone who can't afford food or shelter.
You're confusing me with someone against charging for water too, I think it should be charged for, but I hope it never gets privatised or a situation develop where a Govt can just do it without having to refer it back to the citizens.
Again I feel there is no comparison with the eighth, or anything else in the constitution.

Edward M

Captain Obvious wrote: »

But there has been multiple examples of how it could affect things outside of what is intended. Everything from bottled water to private wells.


And there are quite a number of public services that have been privatised elsewhere that i would consider vital. Prisons, Fire fighting and parks for example.

I think that's just posturing, arguing it can't be done to leave the door open.
The public water supply is nothing to do with private supplies or treatment or indeed private water industries.
There is a clear distinction.

oscarBravo

Edward M wrote: »

Yes we do, the state provides aid to anyone who can't afford food or shelter.

What makes you think that the state would provide food and shelter to the needy, but would balk at the idea of providing them with water?

You're confusing me with someone against charging for water too, I think it should be charged for, but I hope it never gets privatised or a situation develop where a Govt can just do it without having to refer it back to the citizens.

The government can do all sorts of things without having to refer them to the citizens.

Again I feel there is no comparison with the eighth, or anything else in the constitution.

Only because you're ignoring the comparisons.

Edward M

oscarBravo wrote: »

What makes you think that the state would provide food and shelter to the needy, but would balk at the idea of providing them with water? The government can do all sorts of things without having to refer them to the citizens. Only because you're ignoring the comparisons.

It wouldn't.
It can, that's a good point either way.
No, because I can see none.

Seth Brundle

Edward M wrote: »

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.

Water can and is sourced privately by many people and companies within the state so to imply in your second sentence that iot can't be gotten privately is wrong!
The state also is responsible for many services but fails to provide them - should we bung all those into the constitution?
Cluttering up the constitution to pander to populist whims shows a lack of concern for the constitiution!

Elemonator wrote: »

Most of the water for public consumption in the State is held by the authorities. All it would take is for some legislation and the whole scheme is privatised. The same can't be said for food.

So you plan on nationalising the likes of group water schemes and wells? Or is it ok to have some private and some public services (as is the case currently)?
What about allowing competition in the provision of water? Can competitors use government assets to provide these services?

Elemonator wrote: »

We really shouldn't be concerned about the size of the Constitution when it guarantees are basic rights.

Is life saving medical treatment a human right?

Edward M wrote: »

Again I feel there is no comparison with the eighth, or anything else in the constitution.

I think you're missing the point. It has nothing to do with the right to life but to do with how a constitutional amendment when poorly thought out can have so many unintended impacts.

Edward M wrote: »

I think that's just posturing, arguing it can't be done to leave the door open.
The public water supply is nothing to do with private supplies or treatment or indeed private water industries.
There is a clear distinction.

So there is absolutely no scenario whereby enshrining something within the constitution in terms of ownership of water assets can have a negative impact?
What is the clear distinction and how can you be sure that it has been future proofed?

FreudianSlippers

Elemonator wrote: »

We really shouldn't be concerned about the size of the Constitution when it guarantees are basic rights.

It has nothing to do with the "size" of the Constitution; this is just not what constitutions are for.

James Brown

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Water can and is sourced privately by many people and companies within the state so to imply in your second sentence that iot can't be gotten privately is wrong!
The state also is responsible for many services but fails to provide them - should we bung all those into the constitution?
Cluttering up the constitution to pander to populist whims shows a lack of concern for the constitiution!

You're confusing bad governance with privatisation.
It may be a whim to you and you are entitled to that opinion and all the weight that brings.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No there has not been anything solid. There have been multiple 'what if' scenarios which mean nothing until we have some wording ready to go. Currently you could argue it might effect peoples right to collect rain water and anything else you care to throw into the mix.
If the FG AG hijacks it it will be pointless and possibly damaging.

There is no wording because not a single person has been able to come up with a sensible wording that works and that has no unintended consequences.

And you are right, some of the suggestions, particularly on this thread, were so naive that they would affect the collection of rain water.

Edward M

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Water can and is sourced privately by many people and companies within the state so to imply in your second sentence that iot can't be gotten privately is wrong!
The state also is responsible for many services but fails to provide them - should we bung all those into the constitution?
Cluttering up the constitution to pander to populist whims shows a lack of concern for the constitiution!

No my statement isn't wrong, clean potable water is difficult to find.
In cases where the service breaks down the state or IW as its representative, usually provides alternative means of distrubiting clean potable water, like in bulk containers and tankers.
For all its failings IW takes its job seriously and faults, in our locality anyway, have been minimised and good work done on upgrading the system.
Public supply is important and preserving it as such is important too.

FreudianSlippers

Edward M wrote: »

Public supply is important and preserving it as such is important too.

Again, and for like the billionth time, there isn't even an iota of possibility that the public supply of water would or could be privatised. There seems to be a lot of confusion between the public supply of water and the potential (but unlikely) privatisation of a utility.

This lack of understanding and knowledge is exactly why we shouldn't let people vote in a Constitutional amendment in relation to this issue.

Edward M

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Again, and for like the billionth time, there isn't even an iota of possibility that the public supply of water would or could be privatised. There seems to be a lot of confusion between the public supply of water and the potential (but unlikely) privatisation of a utility.

This lack of understanding and knowledge is exactly why we shouldn't let people vote in a Constitutional amendment in relation to this issue.

Very democratic.

Seth Brundle

Edward M wrote: »

No my statement isn't wrong, clean potable water is difficult to find.
In cases where the service breaks down the state or IW as its representative, usually provides alternative means of distrubiting clean potable water, like in bulk containers and tankers.
...
Public supply is important and preserving it as such is important too.

Firstly your statement implied that water could not be sourced elsewhere...
"The state is responsible for many services, but there are others that can't be gotten privately as well."
The "as well" is the bit that implies water can't be gotten privately and is wrong.
I'm not sure where you're going in terms of bulk containers and tankers.
As for the clean potable water is difficult to find - this was a point being made by the supporters of water charges in the past. The protesters were the ones who kept saying how in this country, water falls from the sky every day :rolleyes:

Anyhow, you also ignored my point about the state being responsible for other services but fails to deliver on them. Should all of those be added to the constitution to make sure that they are not privatised?
Why are you suggesting that we add the "protection" of the water supply to the constitution and not other services? Are they not important?

In terms of preserving our public supply, this is waffle - the system is broken and requires huge amounts of investment to repair the multitude of issues. Is the money required for a constitutional amendment bnot better off going towards fixing the system (although it would be like a drop in the ocean)?

Seth Brundle

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You're confusing bad governance with privatisation.

In what way?

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It may be a whim to you and you are entitled to that opinion and all the weight that brings.

It carries just as much weight as your opinion.
However, I don't think I resorted to passive agressive insults!

Edward M

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Firstly your statement implied that water could not be sourced elsewhere...
"The state is responsible for many services, but there are others that can't be gotten privately as well."
The "as well" is the bit that implies water can't be gotten privately and is wrong.
I'm not sure where you're going in terms of bulk containers and tankers.
As for the clean potable water is difficult to find - this was a point being made by the supporters of water charges in the past. The protesters were the ones who kept saying how in this country, water falls from the sky every day :rolleyes:

Anyhow, you also ignored my point about the state being responsible for other services but fails to deliver on them. Should all of those be added to the constitution to make sure that they are not privatised?
Why are you suggesting that we add the "protection" of the water supply to the constitution and not other services? Are they not important?

In terms of preserving our public supply, this is waffle - the system is broken and requires huge amounts of investment to repair the multitude of issues. Is the money required for a constitutional amendment bnot better off going towards fixing the system (although it would be like a drop in the ocean)?

Sorry, I did answer that question in an earlier post already.
I said I'd consider anything proposed on its merits and what affect it might have, but we're on water here.
I agree with your last point there completely too re the system and have no problem with water charges, never had.
If helping to reassure consumers in some way about the future provision of the service and where their money was going, might help convince them of the merits of charging then putting it in the constitution can only be good.

Just once again, and for the umpteenth time I feel, I'm not an anti IW or charges campaigner.

blanch152

Edward M wrote: »

If helping to reassure consumers in some way about the future provision of the service and where their money was going, might help convince them of the merits of charging then putting it in the constitution can only be good.

Putting something into the Constitution so people will be happy to pay for it is one of the more bizarre reasons for a Constitutional amendment.

Edward M

blanch152 wrote: »

Putting something into the Constitution so people will be happy to pay for it is one of the more bizarre reasons for a Constitutional amendment.

Why do you think FG are looking in to this?

Elemonator

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ireland's food supply is not currently in public ownership.

Exactly, thus the food supply isn't in one entity's control.

TheChizler

Elemonator wrote: »

Exactly, thus the food supply isn't in one entity's control.

Maybe we should split up public water supply into thousands of private entities, that would be one way of making it more secure

Captain Obvious

Elemonator wrote: »

Exactly, thus the food supply isn't in one entity's control.

But it could be if legislation was passed.

James Brown

Seth Brundle wrote: »

In what way?

It carries just as much weight as your opinion.
However, I don't think I resorted to passive agressive insults!

How bad the state may or may not run something does not necessarily equate to a move towards privatisation. Although that argument is often used as a call for privatisation.

Simply pointing out, opinions to the contrary are not proof of anything regardless of who puts it forward.
One man's 'populist whim...'.

James Brown

TheChizler wrote: »

Maybe we should split up public water supply into thousands of private entities, that would be one way of making it more secure

Maybe we could put all food distribution and creation under one state body and then privatise it leaving the tax payer in the role of consumer to one private concern with a monopoly on food supply?

Which by the way is what happened with Eircom and when competition came in you could take your number with you...but you wouldn't want to be in a hurry.

Seth Brundle

Let's just go fully communist while you're at it

James Brown

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Let's just go fully communist while you're at it

What are you referring to? We already own the water infrastructure, reservoirs. Are you suggesting we're communist?
When we sell off everything we'll have to replace politicians with customer service representatives

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Maybe we could put all food distribution and creation under one state body and then privatise it leaving the tax payer in the role of consumer to one private concern with a monopoly on food supply?

Which by the way is what happened with Eircom and when competition came in you could take your number with you...but you wouldn't want to be in a hurry.

I doubt you remember the time when you could move into a new home and it could take months, if not years, before you would get a phone connection.

The fixed infrastructure should have remained in State hands but the introduction of competition was the best thing that ever happened to phone services.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

What are you referring to? We already own the water infrastructure, reservoirs. Are you suggesting we're communist?
When we sell off everything we'll have to replace politicians with customer service representatives

We don't own all the water infrastructure.

Ballygowan and Glenpatrick have their own water infrastructure. Numerous private group schemes own their water infrastructure.

That is why it isn't as easy as some think to frame a constitutional amendment.