Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1…1011131516…20

Comments

  • #362
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,083 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Podge_irl wrote: »
    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.

    Absolutely correct.

    Following the removal of the 8th, the government can enact legislation for abortion right up to the 38th week in all circumstances, or it can enact legislation to ban the morning-after pill, from one extreme to the other is now possible depending on the government of the day.

    An awful lot of motivation for this amendment is that we can't trust future governments not to privatise water supply, but future governments are elected by future electorates - our children and our grandchildren. Do we not trust them?


  • #363
    Larbre34
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,274 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    So which article should be amended?

    Article 10 Sections 1,3 & 4 possibly Article 11 also.


  • #364
    Larbre34
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,274 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    blanch152 wrote: »
    An awful lot of motivation for this amendment is that we can't trust future governments not to privatise water supply, but future governments are elected by future electorates - our children and our grandchildren. Do we not trust them?

    Correct, it is.

    There's enough stuff you couldn't ever have imagined going on in the World today to make it clear to me that outwardly good people can be easily led to do mad things. I don't trust or not trust people who haven't been born yet, but I'm not prepared to leave it to chance.

    If our children and grandchildren consider we have made a mistake in this matter, I suggest they can launch a campaign to Repeal in, say, 35 years or so.


  • #365
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    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.

    You are being pedantic and looking for an argument IMO.

    Giving you the benefit of the doubt, when we talk of the state not privatising that which is publicly owned, what do you not understand?


  • #366
    Captain Obvious
    Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    Article 10 Sections 1,3 & 4 possibly Article 11 also.


    And what purpose would you have in changing each of those sections?


    ARTICLE 10
    1 All natural resources, including the air and all forms of potential energy, within the jurisdiction of the Parliament and Government established by this Constitution and all royalties and franchises within that jurisdiction belong to the State subject to all estates and interests therein for the time being lawfully vested in any person or body.

    2 All land and all mines, minerals and waters which belonged to Saorstát Éireann immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution belong to the State to the same extent as they then belonged to Saorstát Éireann.

    3 Provision may be made by law for the management of the property which belongs to the State by virtue of this Article and for the control of the alienation, whether temporary or permanent, of that property.

    4 Provision may also be made by law for the management of land, mines, minerals and waters acquired by the State after the coming into operation of this Constitution and for the control of the alienation, whether temporary or permanent, of the land, mines, minerals and waters so acquired.


    ARTICLE 11
    All revenues of the State from whatever source arising shall, subject to such exception as may be provided by law, form one fund, and shall be appropriated for the purposes and in the manner and subject to the charges and liabilities determined and imposed by law.


  • Advertisement
  • #367
    Captain Obvious
    Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    You are being pedantic and looking for an argument IMO.

    Giving you the benefit of the doubt, when we talk of the state not privatising that which is publicly owned, what do you not understand?


    How would that prevent the state withdrawing from the water provision business maintaining the current infrastructure alone while and private companies provide the water?


  • #368
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    How would that prevent the state withdrawing from the water provision business maintaining the current infrastructure alone while and private companies provide the water?

    It's about ownership. If, as we currently do, we use contractors for varying works we can cease doing business with them.


  • #369
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    And what purpose would you have in changing each of those sections?

    This argument is ridiculous. The point seems to be that commentators on here can only seek changes or amendments to constitutional amendments, legislation, law in this thread or any other thread, if they can draft the wording themselves. It's a nonsense.


  • #370
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,083 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    Correct, it is.

    There's enough stuff you couldn't ever have imagined going on in the World today to make it clear to me that outwardly good people can be easily led to do mad things. I don't trust or not trust people who haven't been born yet, but I'm not prepared to leave it to chance.

    If our children and grandchildren consider we have made a mistake in this matter, I suggest they can launch a campaign to Repeal in, say, 35 years or so.

    Our generation has been here before - Repeal the 8th.

    Why are people trying to impose their view on their children and grandchildren having been through that?

    It just doesn't make sense.


  • #371
    Captain Obvious
    Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    It's about ownership. If, as we currently do, we use contractors for varying works we can cease doing business with them.


    Ownership of what exactly? If it's only about ownership then there's nothing to stop a private company coming in and taking over the business of water provision and charging for it.

    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    This argument is ridiculous. The point seems to be that commentators on here can only seek changes or amendments to constitutional amendments, legislation, law in this thread or any other thread, if they can draft the wording themselves. It's a nonsense.


    It's not an argument. I'm trying to establish what exactly the intention is.


  • Advertisement
  • #372
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    Ownership of what exactly? If it's only about ownership then there's nothing to stop a private company coming in and taking over the business of water provision and charging for it.





    It's not an argument. I'm trying to establish what exactly the intention is.

    It's in the OP.
    Govt to consider referendum on public ownership of water services
    The Cabinet has given its approval for Minister for Housing Eoghan Murphy to contact the Attorney General about holding a referendum regarding the State affording constitutional protection to the supply of water services.

    It is believed the aim of any text would be to retain public ownership over any body charged with responsibility for the supply of water services.

    The initial step would be for the Attorney General, Séamus Woulfe, to draft amendments to a number Private Members Bills, including one published by Independents4Change TD Joan Collins two years ago.

    It is not yet clear when a referendum could be held as that depends, in the first instance, on when the Attorney General returns with any proposals.

    Ms Collins has cautiously welcomed the decision, saying at least Mr Murphy was finally "doing something".
    https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/1120/1012197-water-referendum/

    You and I can stop it. If the State owns something and a private contractor is brought in at any level, their services can be discontinued.
    In contrast if we privatise that which is currently public we'll be met with the 'our hands are tied' as we saw in the communications field, should we raise any issues politically. We're going in circles. If you've genuine query or issue it should be raised with the FG AG. We've not got any defined wording as yet.

    They sat on it for two years and then decided to amend it to their liking.


  • #373
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,083 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    It's in the OP.



    You and I can stop it. If the State owns something and a private contractor is brought in at any level, their services can be discontinued.
    In contrast if we privatise that which is currently public we'll be met with the 'our hands are tied' as we saw in the communications field, should we raise any issues politically. We're going in circles. If you've genuine query or issue it should be raised with the FG AG. We've not got any defined wording as yet.

    They sat on it for two years and then decided to amend it to their liking.

    That article at best tells us what FG are intending, but it doesn't tell us whether you or anyone else on here agrees with them, or if you disagree with them in what way.

    For example, I am absolutely clear. The referendum is a mistake on principle, no matter who is proposing it. Even if it wasn't a mistake on principle, it won't work in practice, because there is no practical wording.

    Not a single post here has been able to present a coherent argument for a principled reason for a referendum (other than one who doesn't trust his children to elect future governments) or a suitable wording.


  • #374
    Captain Obvious
    Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    It's in the OP.


    It is believed the aim of any text would be to retain public ownership over any body charged with responsibility for the supply of water services.

    That description would exclude private water schemes, hence my objection.
    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    You and I can stop it. If the State owns something and a private contractor is brought in at any level, their services can be discontinued.


    I'm not clear on what you mean by this.


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    In contrast if we privatise that which is currently public we'll be met with the 'our hands are tied' as we saw in the communications field, should we raise any issues politically. We're going in circles. If you've genuine query or issue it should be raised with the FG AG. We've not got any defined wording as yet.


    Does it not bother you that nothing has been suggested by the opposition or the likes of PBP who have adopted water as their main issue?


  • #375
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    That description would exclude private water schemes, hence my objection.




    I'm not clear on what you mean by this.

    As I say, nothing is set.

    When something belongs to the state, politicians can make changes. You or I could push for a change by way of political representatives.


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    Does it not bother you that nothing has been suggested by the opposition or the likes of PBP who have adopted water as their main issue?

    No.
    I would say water is the one they've received a lot of press for due to the massive public support on the issue and media coverage.
    I would suggest many are willing to support Coppinger's bill in principle but waiting to see how the FG AG will amend it. You can't be for or against something as yet to be defined.


  • #376
    Captain Obvious
    Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    As I say, nothing is set.

    When something belongs to the state, politicians can make changes. You or I could push for a change by way of political representatives.





    No.
    I would say water is the one they've received a lot of press for due to the massive public support on the issue and media coverage.
    I would suggest many are willing to support Coppinger's bill in principle but waiting to see how the FG AG will amend it. You can't be for or against something as yet to be defined.


    That's this one is it?

    The Government shall be collectively responsible for the protection, management and
    maintenance of the public water system. The Government shall ensure in the public interest that
    this resource remains in public ownership and management.


  • #377
    Larbre34
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,274 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Our generation has been here before - Repeal the 8th.

    Why are people trying to impose their view on their children and grandchildren having been through that?

    It just doesn't make sense.

    Yes I use it deliberately as an example, but then you continue to be pedantic and evasive. The whole Constitution is an imposition by the people of 1937 on those of us that came after them, thats why we had to deal with primacy of the church, blasphemy etc. Its a dynamic document not the ten commandments.

    You and I will never agree on this matter. You will always look for holes in the argument and express bewilderment at every turn and thats your right, but I still think this will come to a vote at some point in the next 5 years and I think youll be in the minority.


  • #378
    Larbre34
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,274 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    And what purpose would you have in changing each of those sections?

    You don't really live up to your moniker do you?

    The purpose is obvious, the specific wording is up for debate and judgement alright, but we are at the beginning of that now. As I said to Blanch, you'll get your chance to vote on it.


  • #379
    Captain Obvious
    Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    You don't really live up to your moniker do you?

    The purpose is obvious, the specific wording is up for debate and judgement alright, but we are at the beginning of that now. As I said to Blanch, you'll get your chance to vote on it.


    The purpose is not obvious. I have already explained that ye all have a different idea of the purpose. If you don't want to discuss it why are you here?


  • #380
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,083 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    You are being pedantic and looking for an argument IMO.

    Giving you the benefit of the doubt, when we talk of the state not privatising that which is publicly owned, what do you not understand?
    Larbre34 wrote: »
    Yes I use it deliberately as an example, but then you continue to be pedantic and evasive. The whole Constitution is an imposition by the people of 1937 on those of us that came after them, thats why we had to deal with primacy of the church, blasphemy etc. Its a dynamic document not the ten commandments.

    You and I will never agree on this matter. You will always look for holes in the argument and express bewilderment at every turn and thats your right, but I still think this will come to a vote at some point in the next 5 years and I think youll be in the minority.


    Remainers were accused of being pedantic when they pointed out that there wouldn't be vast mounts of money available to the NHS or when they pointed out that it wouldn't be so easy to conclude trade deals with third countries.

    Similarly, those who point to unintended consequences of various wordings, or difficulties with the proposed wordings or simply to the dangers of tying future generations to a silly idea are accused of being pedantic. Not just parallels with the 8th in 1983, but more worrryingly, with the Brexit campaign.

    Debate the issues, explain why you are unconcerned about unintended consequences, how you are so certain that a suitable wording can be found, and why water is more important than our oil and gas resources, or our mineral resources, especially when the technological developments in desalination are about to make the sourcing of water so much easier. Maybe none of you can address these points, so you have to call those who disagree pedantic.


  • #381
    henryporter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,089 ✭✭✭henryporter


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'll be voting against. Not because I have strong feelings about privatisation of water - despite all the hysteria, I'm pretty sure it has never been on the cards - but because we have enough noise in our Constitution already, and this is an issue that very much has no place in it.
    If it gives the tin foil hat brigade one less excuse not to pay for their water then it should be a yes vote - no point trying to talk sense to people with none


  • Advertisement
  • #382
    Edward M
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,837 ✭✭✭Edward M


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Remainers were accused of being pedantic when they pointed out that there wouldn't be vast mounts of money available to the NHS or when they pointed out that it wouldn't be so easy to conclude trade deals with third countries.

    Similarly, those who point to unintended consequences of various wordings, or difficulties with the proposed wordings or simply to the dangers of tying future generations to a silly idea are accused of being pedantic. Not just parallels with the 8th in 1983, but more worrryingly, with the Brexit campaign.

    Debate the issues, explain why you are unconcerned about unintended consequences, how you are so certain that a suitable wording can be found, and why water is more important than our oil and gas resources, or our mineral resources, especially when the technological developments in desalination are about to make the sourcing of water so much easier. Maybe none of you can address these points, so you have to call those who disagree pedantic.

    I think the clue is in the thread title.
    Introducing whataboutry is never a good argument really and defective.
    If this ever comes up for referendum then it will be up to the voters to decide really.
    I wouldn't actually be too confident FG will get it right either.
    Firstly I'm suspicious of their motives and secondly they completely messed up the whole water thing from start to finish.
    It would be of no surprise to me if they can't find a wording, or if they do it will be an unpalatable one either.
    That's their way of doing business, their way or the highway.


  • #383
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    Article 10 Sections 1,3 & 4 possibly Article 11 also.
    I'm not sure you can tell me exactly what you want such an amendment to actually say.


  • #384
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    It's about ownership. If, as we currently do, we use contractors for varying works we can cease doing business with them.
    ...and then what? Just not do those works?

    This is getting ridiculous.
    Larbre34 wrote: »

    The purpose is obvious

    ... yet the obvious purpose has not been described in the slightest other than a vague "public ownership of water".


  • #385
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    The purpose is not obvious. I have already explained that ye all have a different idea of the purpose. If you don't want to discuss it why are you here?

    I would put it that the wording should ensure no Irish citizen is beholden to a private concern for water supply and that ownership of water and it's mechanism, processing etc. that are currently publicly owned, remain so and responsibility for providing such remains in public hands.

    Now you can pick holes in that text and pretend you don't understand what I mean and that's fun for all but it's reminiscent of...
    I wish for a turkey sandwich, on rye bread, with lettuce and mustard and-and I don’t want any zombie turkeys, I don’t want to turn into a turkey myself, and I don’t want any other weird surprises. You got it? . . . Hey! Hmmm, mmm, not bad, nice hot mustard, good bread, the turkey’s a little dry . . . the turkey’s a little dry! Oh foul accursed thing! What demon from the depths of hell created thee?” – Homer Simpson

    You should get the jist.


  • #386
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,083 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    I would put it that the wording should ensure no Irish citizen is beholden to a private concern for water supply and that ownership of water and it's mechanism, processing etc. that are currently publicly owned, remain so and responsibility for providing such remains in public hands.

    That is all fine but hopelessly naive again in the wording.

    Farmers who share wells with their neighbours and get recompensed will have their wells nationalised. All private group water schemes will be nationalised as well.

    Those two measures are necessary to ensure that no Irish citizen is beholden to a private concern for water supply.

    Of course, it also means Irish Water will have to supply water to Denis O'Brien no matter where he lives on this planet. After all your amendment applies to Irish citizens and doesn't mention residence.

    Not forgetting that Irish Water will be able to deny tourists and recent immigrants of water as well.

    We will have to cancel the rural broadband roll-out, to ensure that a complex system of pumping stations provides water to the top of every inhabited mountain in Ireland. And what about the islands?

    If you try to correct for those unintended consequences (and don't forget the ones I haven't thought of) you will have the longest constitutional amendment in history.

    It is all very Brexiteer like, just vote yes and everything will be great. Probably a Homer meme about that as well.


  • #387
    Captain Obvious
    Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    I would put it that the wording should ensure no Irish citizen is beholden to a private concern for water supply and that ownership of water and it's mechanism, processing etc. that are currently publicly owned, remain so and responsibility for providing such remains in public hands.

    Now you can pick holes in that text and pretend you don't understand what I mean and that's fun for all but it's reminiscent of...



    You should get the jist.


    What if a private citizen wants to be beholden to a private company because they aren't happy with the service provided by the state?


  • #388
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,083 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    What if a private citizen wants to be beholden to a private company because they aren't happy with the service provided by the state?


    Why would any citizen want to be beholden to anyone, private company or State?

    These wording make Brexit look sane.


  • #389
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Irish Water is a "private concern".


    Beholden is a funny word to use. (edit: beaten to it!)


  • #390
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    What if a private citizen wants to be beholden to a private company because they aren't happy with the service provided by the state?

    I'll play along. They can purchase water at a supermarket I'd imagine.
    If they've issues they can contact their Councilor/TD too.

    Is the idea that people might not be allowed to seek water privately what concerns you? You know this is about keeping public what's public. You can fill your bath with Ballygowan all nice and legal like.


  • Advertisement
  • #391
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    I'll play along. They can purchase water at a supermarket I'd imagine.
    If they've issues they can contact their Councilor/TD too.
    But if your fantasy Constitution says that "no Irish citizen [can be] beholden to a private concern for water [...]" then can a supermarket legally sell water?

    I'd say they couldn't because that would be an Irish citizen "beholden" (still scratching my head at the odd use of that word) to a private concern for water.

    It would be interesting as well to see if the ECJ ruled similarly to the US Courts in relation to the concept of whether all lawful "persons" are citizens (see inter alia the Citizens United case) - if they did, then it would be unconstitutional to charge companies for water and, theoretically, Tesco Ireland couldn't actually purchase supply of water.

    Certainly, under your proposed amendment, Ballygowan wouldn't be able to sell water; but yet at least they have the benefit of not having to pay for it from the government either.

    The unintended consequences snowball actually starts growing pretty quickly once you think about it.


Advertisement