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

FreudianSlippers

Edward M wrote: »

Very democratic.

If one fails to understand democracy, perhaps one would find it "undemocratic" - I tend to see this line trotted out frequently when people simply disagree with a fact of matter.

FreudianSlippers

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

We could call them... "Local Authorities" - has a nice ring to it eh? :pac:

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

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.

So you admit that it is unforeseeable that the State would privatise the supply of water and this amendment to the Constitution is unnecessary?

State has done an awful job running water supply; State doesn't want to privatise water supply; literally nobody in their right mind would purchase water supply in Ireland (it's extraordinarily loss-making)... so what's the worry?

FreudianSlippers

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

Let me just follow this logic for a second.

Even IF the State sold off the infrastructure (which isn't going to happen) to a private company who was going to improve that infrastructure, the State would still own the commodity (i.e. water) which it would sell to the private company to supply in its infrastructure... then the amount which could be charged for that supply would be controlled by the CRU. In fact, to go even further, the State could even stipulate that there was a fixed charge to the consumer and the State could even still subsidise that as it already does.

People seem to be entirely perplexed at how commodities are already serviced in this country and elsewhere.

blanch152 wrote: »

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.

They may not remember, but look at broadband as a current example in vast swaths of the country. Or, frankly, water.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

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.

Are we just going to ignore the massive leaps in technology now too?



Years ago v today?

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Are we just going to ignore the massive leaps in technology now too?



Years ago v today?

Such as rainwater harvesting and desalination?

There is rapid technological change happening in the water industry as well.

James Brown

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Are we just going to ignore the massive leaps in technology now too?



Years ago v today?

Sure there was a time nobody had broadband

Ah gone be the days when the tax payer funded an infrastructure, it got privatised and then we had to pay a private concern at a price of their choosing to use it. And they did indeed improve said infrastructure, where it was worth it for them to do so.
Mind, that would never happen these days would it?

Seth Brundle

Matt Barrett wrote: »

What are you referring to?

Firstly, I was replying to this comment...

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?

Matt Barrett wrote: »

We already own the water infrastructure, reservoirs. Are you suggesting we're communist?

Secondly, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you but which was evidently was a waste of time: we don't own all the water infrastructure!
There are private companies with their own supplies and facilities. People have wells. We have group water schemes. There are thousands of people around the country who don't get water from the state (although they pay via their taxes towards public water supplies)

James Brown

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Firstly, I was replying to this comment...

Fair enough.

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Secondly, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you but which was evidently was a waste of time: we don't own all the water infrastructure!
There are private companies with their own supplies and facilities. People have wells. We have group water schemes. There are thousands of people around the country who don't get water from the state (although they pay via their taxes towards public water supplies)

You have not been following the thread closely. The point is State water concerns should never be privatised. Myself and others have gone to great length to refute claims we never made. Again, it's not about taking private concerns and making them publicly owned. As has been repeatedly pointed out.

McMurphy

Seth Brundle wrote: »

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

It's communist now for a state to try and ensure their water infrastructure, that the tax payers paid for is never sold off to private entities


Explain.

Seth Brundle

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You have not been following the thread closely. The point is State water concerns should never be privatised. Myself and others have gone to great length to refute claims we never made. Again, it's not about taking private concerns and making them publicly owned. As has been repeatedly pointed out.

Ive been following the thread fine. You said "We already own the water infrastructure, reservoirs" which is untrue. The state owns *some* of the water infrastructure and reservoirs but by no means all (which is the implication from your stayement). I pointed this out to you and for some reason you felt the need to go on about whether state concerns should be privatised. I corrected you (appropriately) - there was no need for your spiel here.

Seth Brundle

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

It's communist now for a state to try and ensure their water infrastructure, that the tax payers paid for is never sold off to private entities


Explain.

Really? I just explained it (and Matt was happy with the explanation) so why do you need another version? Was it too complicated for you? :rolleyes:

McMurphy

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Really? I just explained it (and Matt was happy with the explanation) so why do you need another version?

I don't know about you, but I don't read through to the end of a thread, and every quote therein to make sure someone hasn't already asked a question posted earlier in the day, before deciding whether to call out a stupid post or not.

Was it too complicated for you? :rolleyes:

No, and having now read it, it doesn't make much more sense either (so no need for the rolly eyes, ~( I find them condescending in the extreme tbh))

So, perhaps have another go at it.

Who is advocating for any of the private water infrastructure already in place to be nationalised/taken over by the state?

The communist reference was dumb, and was deservedly called out, so please explain your case (without the insults next time)

Seth Brundle

I've already explained it :rolleyes:

McMurphy

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I've already explained it :rolleyes:

You're rambling on about private infrastructure, and no one else is advocating for a govt to essentially seize any of them, and nationalise them/make them the property of the state.

This is a red herring, a problem that doesn't exist in any shape, other than for the purpose of making it a red herring.

So once again, why or what would be communist about a country, to try and ensure that it's water Infrastructure , the one bought and paid for using tax payers money, is never sold off to a private entity?

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

You're rambling on about private infrastructure, and no one else is advocating for a govt to essentially seize any of them, and nationalise them/make them the property of the state.

This is a red herring, a problem that doesn't exist in any shape, other than for the purpose of making it a red herring.

So once again, why or what would be communist about a country, to try and ensure that it's water Infrastructure , the one bought and paid for using tax payers money, is never sold off to a private entity?

It is just not possible to do that.

For a start, the State has already licensed use of our water to two private companies - Ballygowan and Glenpatrick.

The State has also allowed other private water groups to use our water.

So if we put an amendment into our Constitution that prevents future private sector entities from getting such a licence, then we will almost certainly fall foul of EU State Aid laws. But if we put an amendment into our Constitution that allows future private sector entities to get such a licence, then what is to stop them supplying 90% of the country with water?

But if we put an amendment into the Constitution that we can't sell off our infrastructure, that doesn't prevent a private sector company from building up their own, say from a desalination plant or something else.

Edward M

blanch152 wrote: »

It is just not possible to do that.

For a start, the State has already licensed use of our water to two private companies - Ballygowan and Glenpatrick.

The State has also allowed other private water groups to use our water.

So if we put an amendment into our Constitution that prevents future private sector entities from getting such a licence, then we will almost certainly fall foul of EU State Aid laws. But if we put an amendment into our Constitution that allows future private sector entities to get such a licence, then what is to stop them supplying 90% of the country with water?

But if we put an amendment into the Constitution that we can't sell off our infrastructure, that doesn't prevent a private sector company from building up their own, say from a desalination plant or something else.

Which is it, we can, we can't or if we do.
Your last point seems to indicate we can?

If you look at the UK as an example of privatised water, it doesn't seem to offer much choice as to whom you get your water off, it just depends on where you live as to whom you have to pay.

Food for thought.
https://www.ft.com/content/91a2779a-4077-11e7-9d56-25f963e998b2

Seth Brundle

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

So once again, why or what would be communist about a country, to try and ensure that it's water Infrastructure , the one bought and paid for using tax payers money, is never sold off to a private entity?

Christ almighty :rolleyes:
(deep breath)
Ok it's obviously difficult for you to follow. Humourous or otherwise, I made the jibe at this comment (as I've previously explained)...

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?

Now can you pelase explain where I'm supposed to have mentioned anything about becoming communist in terms of water infrastructure?
(hint: it doesn't!)

Edward M

Perhaps an easier to get link here. Much the same.
I think we should take measures to ensure this doesn't happen here.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/privatisation-failure-energy-water-railways-public-services-take-back-control-labour-john-mcdonnell-a7775216.html

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

State water concerns should never be privatised

1) What does that even remotely mean?
2) How can that possibly be explained in the Constitution? That would take PAGES of legislation to clearly define and explain.

blanch152

Edward M wrote: »

Which is it, we can, we can't or if we do.
Your last point seems to indicate we can?

If you look at the UK as an example of privatised water, it doesn't seem to offer much choice as to whom you get your water off, it just depends on where you live as to whom you have to pay.

Food for thought.
https://www.ft.com/content/91a2779a-4077-11e7-9d56-25f963e998b2

Given where we are, with private water group schemes in place, and the licensing of water supply to private companies such as Ballygowan, the construction of a constitutional amendment along the lines of the one sought by the OP is impossible. It will either result in compulsory privatisation, or more likely, be full of loopholes.

Edward M wrote: »

Perhaps an easier to get link here. Much the same.
I think we should take measures to ensure this doesn't happen here.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/privatisation-failure-energy-water-railways-public-services-take-back-control-labour-john-mcdonnell-a7775216.html

What you are attempting to do is to repeat the mistakes of 1983 by taking a currently popular and populist political view and copperfasten that view into the Constitution and tie down future generations to the unintended consequences as well as the intended ones. I will not do to my children what was done by the past generation. I voted no in 1983, and I will vote no to the water referendum no matter what wording is proposed because it does not belong in the Constitution.

Larbre34

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

1) What does that even remotely mean?
2) How can that possibly be explained in the Constitution? That would take PAGES of legislation to clearly define and explain.

You've just inadvertently proved the whole point.

The Constitution will set out the principle in a paragraph (as it does with so many more convoluted topics) and enabling legislation will enact the detail.

References here to the likes of Ballygowan are just red herrings. Ballygowan has privately owned the source of its water for 40 years. It was a privately owned site before that. There is no reason for it to fall into the topic at hand. A constitutional protection for public water supply and consequential legislation will cover the infrastructure, the treatment, the maintenance, the quality, the river, reservoir and ground water sources for it, all of which can be mapped, defined and demonstrated.

As we know, so much of our treated water is lost through decrepit infrastructure. Bringing that up to date will improve the level of supply to meet demand into the future. At a point where it doesn't, water legislation should include CPO provision for private aquifers if necessary, but they do not need to be captured now.

Captain Obvious

Larbre34 wrote: »

The Constitution will set out the principle in a paragraph (as it does with so many more convoluted topics) and enabling legislation will enact the detail.

Yet nobody has yet to come up with a wording for such a simple task or even a proper description of what that wording should accomplish.

Larbre34

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Yet nobody has yet to come up with a wording for such a simple task or even a proper description of what that wording should accomplish.

You mean nobody here has?

Nobody in the threads on same-sex marriage or termination of pregnancy started posting draft texts or legal interpretations on those matters over the past few years. I wish posters who are against the campaign to do this here, in principle, would just say so.

It will be in the nature of the thing that there will be white papers, and AG opinions and drafts and Committees and Court challenges and all sorts, but its not up to people here to offer up an amateur version. And I think the description of what should be accomplished has been articulated in many posts, of mine and others. It is churlish to say otherwise. Again, if you are against it in principle, you will get your chance to reject it at the ballot box in time, or indeed to lobby your elected representatives in the meantime.

Captain Obvious

Larbre34 wrote: »

You mean nobody here has?

I haven't seen anyone at all with anything solid.

Larbre34 wrote: »

Nobody in the threads on same-sex marriage or termination of pregnancy started posting draft texts or legal interpretations on those matters over the past few years. I wish posters who are against the campaign to do this here, in principle, would just say so.

Those amendments were about granting personal rights. That's the purpose of the constitution. Have you read much of this thread? We've all been pretty clear we are against the campaign to change the constitution and explained why.

Larbre34 wrote: »

It will be in the nature of the thing that there will be white papers, and AG opinions and drafts and Committees and Court challenges and all sorts, but its not up to people here to offer up an amateur version. And I think the description of what should be accomplished has been articulated in many posts, of mine and others. It is churlish to say otherwise. Again, if you are against it in principle, you will get your chance to reject it at the ballot box in time, or indeed to lobby your elected representatives in the meantime.

No the description hasn't been accomplished. You aren't in any consensus. Some want Irish Water protected from privatisation, some want water provision restricted to the State and others want the infrastructure retained. If you don't want to be asked for a wording or even an overall description then stop acting like it is some simple matter.

blanch152

Larbre34 wrote: »

You mean nobody here has?

Nobody in the threads on same-sex marriage or termination of pregnancy started posting draft texts or legal interpretations on those matters over the past few years. I wish posters who are against the campaign to do this here, in principle, would just say so.

It will be in the nature of the thing that there will be white papers, and AG opinions and drafts and Committees and Court challenges and all sorts, but its not up to people here to offer up an amateur version. And I think the description of what should be accomplished has been articulated in many posts, of mine and others. It is churlish to say otherwise. Again, if you are against it in principle, you will get your chance to reject it at the ballot box in time, or indeed to lobby your elected representatives in the meantime.

Larbre34 wrote: »

You've just inadvertently proved the whole point.

The Constitution will set out the principle in a paragraph (as it does with so many more convoluted topics) and enabling legislation will enact the detail.

References here to the likes of Ballygowan are just red herrings. Ballygowan has privately owned the source of its water for 40 years. It was a privately owned site before that. There is no reason for it to fall into the topic at hand. A constitutional protection for public water supply and consequential legislation will cover the infrastructure, the treatment, the maintenance, the quality, the river, reservoir and ground water sources for it, all of which can be mapped, defined and demonstrated.

As we know, so much of our treated water is lost through decrepit infrastructure. Bringing that up to date will improve the level of supply to meet demand into the future. At a point where it doesn't, water legislation should include CPO provision for private aquifers if necessary, but they do not need to be captured now.

What is public water supply? It includes private water group schemes. It includes drinking water extracted by Ballygowan and Glenpatrick. It includes farmer's wells that they share with neighbours.

How do you then "constitutionally protect" public water supply, and what is even meant by "constitutionally protect"?

You claim that those seven words in bold in your post are the description of what must be accomplished. Well, it ain't as simple as your seven words make out.

Some have risibly proposed that you exempt existing private water supplies. Well, why can't Coca-Cola make an Irish mineral water to compete with Ballygowan if they want? Why can't a farmer who finds a source of water on his land not did a new well? What if Northern Ireland Water decides it can supply the likes of Letterkenny and Dundalk more cheaply and efficiently than Irish Water?

A constitutional amendment would give Ballygowan and Glenpatrick a duopoly on the supply of Irish mineral water.

These are real questions, they are not red herrings. This is turning into the equivalent of Brexit. Just exit the EU (put in a constitutional protection for public water supply) and everything will be great for evermore. Anyone who points out the consequences is shouted down and accused of red herrings or of being FF/FG shills or somesuchlike.

If you believe that Ballygowan is a red herring, either explain why using appropriate legal language, or admit that you don't know.

Larbre34

FFS.

The Constitution contains 50 articles.

Articles 1-39 define the functions of the State and its agencies and set out the separation of powers in the State.

Articles 40-44 provide for the fundamental rights of Irish citizens.

The remaining articles are:

Article 45, which sets out directive principles of social policy

Article 46, which sets out how the Constitution may be amended

Article 47, which governs referendums

Articles 48-50, which repealed the previous Constitution (of Saorstát Éireann) and ensured the continuance of laws

blanch152

Larbre34 wrote: »

FFS.

The Constitution contains 50 articles.

Articles 1-39 define the functions of the State and its agencies and set out the separation of powers in the State.

Articles 40-44 provide for the fundamental rights of Irish citizens.

The remaining articles are:

Article 45, which sets out directive principles of social policy

Article 46, which sets out how the Constitution may be amended

Article 47, which governs referendums

Articles 48-50, which repealed the previous Constitution (of Saorstát Éireann) and ensured the continuance of laws

And Articles 51-100 will be needed for the Constiutional amendment on water that the OP and others are seeking.

Captain Obvious

Larbre34 wrote: »

FFS.

The Constitution contains 50 articles.

Articles 1-39 define the functions of the State and its agencies and set out the separation of powers in the State.

Articles 40-44 provide for the fundamental rights of Irish citizens.

The remaining articles are:

Article 45, which sets out directive principles of social policy

Article 46, which sets out how the Constitution may be amended

Article 47, which governs referendums

Articles 48-50, which repealed the previous Constitution (of Saorstát Éireann) and ensured the continuance of laws

So which article should be amended?

Podge_irl

Larbre34 wrote: »

Nobody in the threads on same-sex marriage or termination of pregnancy started posting draft texts or legal interpretations on those matters over the past few years. I wish posters who are against the campaign to do this here, in principle, would just say so.

The referendum to remove/amend the 8th has left us in the situation that is literally the exact opposite of what is being proposed here though. It is a constitutional amendment that says essentially that this is an area that should be governed through legislation. There is nothing stopping a government legislating to make abortion illegal in all scenarios - they are just incredibly unlikely to do it.

If the substance of this provision relies on legislation than it is "worthless" insofar as passing legislation to then allow privatisation will be no harder or easier than doing the privatisation itself.