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

Sam Russell

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

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.

I think that the Constitution should guaranty the ownership of the infrastructure by the following:

The Government shall be collectively responsible for the protection, management and maintenance of the public infrastructure for water distribution, waste water treatment, electricity distribution, and gas distribution. The Government shall ensure in the public interest that these resources remains in public ownership and management.
Also, it is unlawful for any public land to be acquired by adverse possession whether it is State land or owned by a State enterprise.

That would make it impossible for vulture funds to acquire controlling interests in any strategic assets.

Captain Obvious

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.

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.

Ok let's say we did what you propose with phone lines. Would we have to have a new referendum when broadband was introduced? What about fibre? Or would we be stuck with a dated network because upgrading or extending it would put it outside what was covered?



What if a new hi tech method of treating water is developed that requires a complete new facility? A private company would be right on that but a government could take decades to upgrade it on their own.


You simply aren't thinking your idea through. You can't see past your own objective to the other consequences.

James Brown

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Ok let's say we did what you propose with phone lines. Would we have to have a new referendum when broadband was introduced? What about fibre? Or would we be stuck with a dated network because upgrading or extending it would put it outside what was covered?



What if a new hi tech method of treating water is developed that requires a complete new facility? A private company would be right on that but a government could take decades to upgrade it on their own.


You simply aren't thinking your idea through. You can't see past your own objective to the other consequences.

I can't take you seriously based on the above and if genuine, you aren't able to grasp the premise as laid out by Coppinger.

I think all you really have is the belief its a waste of time or that it may do more harm than good depending on the wording.
I agree with the latter.

blanch152

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think that the Constitution should guaranty the ownership of the infrastructure by the following:



That would make it impossible for vulture funds to acquire controlling interests in any strategic assets.

I think that would also make it impossible for the State to borrow money.

Certainly, the likes of TCD couldn't borrow from the EIB on the back of their land and buildings.

Even if they could continue to borrow, there would most certainly be a premium in the bond rates. If you amendment means something, it would mean that anyone who lends to the State or a State enterprise will have a more limited recourse than normal, hence the premium.

Higher interest rates for evermore is a high price for a constitutional amendment for something that it never going to happen anyway. Shooting yourself financially in the head for principled reasons makes this look more and more like Brexit every day.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I can't take you seriously based on the above and if genuine, you aren't able to grasp the premise as laid out by Coppinger.

If any premise is laid out by Coppinger, it is impossible to take it seriously.

Sam Russell

blanch152 wrote: »

I think that would also make it impossible for the State to borrow money.

Certainly, the likes of TCD couldn't borrow from the EIB on the back of their land and buildings.

Even if they could continue to borrow, there would most certainly be a premium in the bond rates. If you amendment means something, it would mean that anyone who lends to the State or a State enterprise will have a more limited recourse than normal, hence the premium.

Higher interest rates for evermore is a high price for a constitutional amendment for something that it never going to happen anyway. Shooting yourself financially in the head for principled reasons makes this look more and more like Brexit every day.

Trinity College is not a state enterprise.

The proposed words are only wrt the strategic infrastructure.

blanch152

Sam Russell wrote: »

Trinity College is not a state enterprise.

The proposed words are only wrt the strategic infrastructure.

TCD is governed by the Universities Act, which makes it a creature of statute, an enterprise controlled by the State, in much the same way as Irish Water, or Gas Networks Ireland. In fact, the State exercises more control over TCD than many other State enterprises.

You referred to State land, which says nothing about strategic infrastructure. If you make it legally impossible for bondholders to get recourse against the State in the form of State property - lands and infrastructure etc. - then those bondholders will be more reluctant to lend to the State, and will demand higher interest rates, even though the likelihood of them ever needing to call in the debts is remote. A stupid, no really stupid Constitutional amendment.

Furthermore, your amendment might also make PPPs illegal.

Why do people want to create the possibility of serious unintended consequences to address something that just isn't anyway likely to happen. As I keep saying, it is a mixture of Brexit and the 8th Amendment.

Sam Russell

blanch152 wrote: »

TCD is governed by the Universities Act, which makes it a creature of statute, an enterprise controlled by the State, in much the same way as Irish Water, or Gas Networks Ireland. In fact, the State exercises more control over TCD than many other State enterprises.

You referred to State land, which says nothing about strategic infrastructure. If you make it legally impossible for bondholders to get recourse against the State in the form of State property - lands and infrastructure etc. - then those bondholders will be more reluctant to lend to the State, and will demand higher interest rates, even though the likelihood of them ever needing to call in the debts is remote. A stupid, no really stupid Constitutional amendment.

Furthermore, your amendment might also make PPPs illegal.

Why do people want to create the possibility of serious unintended consequences to address something that just isn't anyway likely to happen. As I keep saying, it is a mixture of Brexit and the 8th Amendment.

My reference to state land was with regard to adverse possession - that is to prevent squatters claiming ownership of state land such as disused railway lines. Perhaps you might re-read my original post.

Trinity would not figure in any part of my wording. It is not strategic infrastructure. Again, perhaps re-read the post.

PPPs are a finance tool, again nothing to do with the original post.

RickFlash

Wasn't the water system fine when the Councils were in charge? Before Irish Water swooped in?

I'm not 100% informed on how it works if someone wants to enlighten me; But couldn't we just revert to how it was before Irish Water?

Sam Russell

RickFlash wrote: »

Wasn't the water system fine when the Councils were in charge? Before Irish Water swooped in?

I'm not 100% informed on how it works if someone wants to enlighten me; But couldn't we just revert to how it was before Irish Water?

Lack of investment, over 50% of clean water leaking away, insufficient water supply for Dublin, waste water treatment not meeting EU regulations, waste water discharging untreated to rivers and the seas, etc etc etc.

LA are arranged in political boundaries, not water catchment areas.

Lots of shortcomings in the LA systems that meant something had to be done, just not what was done. The setting up of Irish Water was wrong in every possible way.

Captain Obvious

RickFlash wrote: »

Wasn't the water system fine when the Councils were in charge? Before Irish Water swooped in?

I'm not 100% informed on how it works if someone wants to enlighten me; But couldn't we just revert to how it was before Irish Water?

No, you need a national approach to infrastructure development. They were fine for general maintenance.

blanch152

Sam Russell wrote: »

Trinity College is not a state enterprise.

The proposed words are only wrt the strategic infrastructure.

What do you think is collateral for Erviva's €1 billion debt?

http://www.ervia.ie/ervia-annual-report/19842_Ervia_AR_2017_(Full)_V18.pdf

Their vans?

Trinity College is a public body, under the terms of Section 1 of the FEMPI Act 2009.

FreudianSlippers

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think that the Constitution should guaranty the ownership of the infrastructure by the following:

That's actually not the worst wording proposed, but doesn't go anywhere near what most people seem to want. It's also completely unnecessary.

That would make it impossible for vulture funds to acquire controlling interests in any strategic assets.

:rolleyes:

Is this even a threat? So-called "vulture funds" are just the boogeyman of the minute and people need to chill out.

Sam Russell

blanch152 wrote: »

What do you think is collateral for Erviva's €1 billion debt?

http://www.ervia.ie/ervia-annual-report/19842_Ervia_AR_2017_(Full)_V18.pdf

Their vans?

Trinity College is a public body, under the terms of Section 1 of the FEMPI Act 2009.

The wording proposed is to safeguard the ownership of strategic infrastructure. If push came to shove, the Gov would have to under-right the debts, as they did with the banks. The purpose is to prevent a fire sale of assets as happened with NAMA. It might be worth adding Coilte to the list as they own a lot of land - which could be sold along with the timber, at knock down prices.

Suggest a better wording.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That's actually not the worst wording proposed, but doesn't go anywhere near what most people seem to want. It's also completely unnecessary.



:rolleyes:

Is this even a threat? So-called "vulture funds" are just the boogeyman of the minute and people need to chill out.

Well I am not a constitutional lawyer, but what do people want - a guaranty that there will never be water charges? That is not on offer.

Vulture funds is just a short hand way of saying that fire sales are not in the public interest. Just look at the sale of distressed assets by NAMA and the banks. Those same banks that we bailed out by the public purse.

It is not a prospect that should be considered again.

FreudianSlippers

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well I am not a constitutional lawyer, but what do people want - a guaranty that there will never be water charges? That is not on offer.

People don't seem to know what they want, which is why we shouldn't amend our Constitution to cover issues such as these.

Vulture funds is just a short hand way of saying that fire sales are not in the public interest. Just look at the sale of distressed assets by NAMA and the banks. Those same banks that we bailed out by the public purse.

It is not a prospect that should be considered again.

NAMA has been a monumental success and is in profit to the taxpayer. If we didn't sell off our infrastructure in the worst economic recession in the history of the State, we aren't going to do it on a whim now.

James Brown

Sam Russell wrote: »

Lack of investment, over 50% of clean water leaking away, insufficient water supply for Dublin, waste water treatment not meeting EU regulations, waste water discharging untreated to rivers and the seas, etc etc etc.

LA are arranged in political boundaries, not water catchment areas.

Lots of shortcomings in the LA systems that meant something had to be done, just not what was done. The setting up of Irish Water was wrong in every possible way.

We have the same set up we always had. LA's still look after their area with the use of contractors. The only difference today is IW took over from the DoE and there's a national plan of sorts. All of this could have been carried out without the costly invention of IW, but then that set up would be more difficult to privatise.

Sam Russell

Matt Barrett wrote: »

We have the same set up we always had. LA's still look after their area with the use of contractors. The only difference today is IW took over from the DoE and there's a national plan of sorts. All of this could have been carried out without the costly invention of IW, but then that set up would be more difficult to privatise.

As I said - IW could not have been set up in a worse way than it was. Every possible mistake was made in the worse possible way.

Sam Russell

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

NAMA has been a monumental success and is in profit to the taxpayer. If we didn't sell off our infrastructure in the worst economic recession in the history of the State, we aren't going to do it on a whim now.

NAMA is only in profit because it got assets for next to nothing (about a 70% discount) and is considered to make a profit if it sells them for more than they cost them - not more than it cost the state to bail out the banks. Look at how much those same assets have been flipped for by there new owners.

No, NAMA should have got the assets at 100% of valuation and they would then only make a 'profit' if they realised that much. Just look at the scandalous Eagle Project where funny money ended up in the Isle of Man on a deal selling NI assets.

James Brown

I'd suggest had metering/IW gone uncontested, we likely would be selling off elements of infrastructure. The fact that during the worst economic recession in our history water infrastructure suddenly became so important is the clue IMO.

James Brown

Wording hasn't come up as an issue so far.
While safeguarding water from privatisation is pointless and all, people should be able to vote for the ambassadorial role of President while living abroad damn it...

The Government is planning to hold two referendums on the same day at the local and European elections next May.

A Government spokesperson has confirmed that the Cabinet is looking at holding a referendum on divorce and also on extending the vote for presidential elections to Irish citizens outside of the State.

The proposal for a divorce referendum follows a private members bill by the Minister for Arts, Josepha Madigan, to shorten the period that those seeking a divorce need to live apart from four out of five years to two out of three years.

When Minister Madigan's bill passed second stage in the Dáil, some questions were raised about whether time limits should be in the Constitution, arguing the Oireachtas should decide the matter.
https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2018/1204/1015126-referendum-proposal/

The constitution could be on the verge of exploding.

atticu

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'd suggest had metering/IW gone uncontested, we likely would be selling off elements of infrastructure. The fact that during the worst economic recession in our history water infrastructure suddenly became so important is the clue IMO.

The clue to what?
The water wars?


Another thing, when was the worst economic recession in our history?

atticu

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Why are wars fought over oil?

Oil is not the same as water.

So, care to explain why there will be wars fought over water?

atticu

uptherebels wrote: »

Eventually there will be.
clean water is a finite resource. If wars can be fought over oil when there are alternatives to it (neglecting supply issues) what would happen will happen when there is no alternative to water?
You would have seen recently about Cape town almost running out of water! That is only the beginning...
Read up on the effect of over consumption on natural aquifers and the problems that is going to cause.
I have no problem paying for water
I do have a problem over paying for it so that some CEO or group of investors can make a profit.

I must have missed the water wars in Cape Town.

Could you supply a link so that I can read up on those wars?

James Brown

atticu wrote: »

The clue to what?
The water wars?


Another thing, when was the worst economic recession in our history?

A move towards something more than addressing the water infrastructure they let fester for generations at a time when 'we were practically eating out of bins' no less.
IMO, short term, money for 'our own', long term, privatisation.

atticu wrote: »

Oil is not the same as water.

So, care to explain why there will be wars fought over water?

Water is more precious.

atticu

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Water is more precious.

Would you like to explain how water, that falls from the sky for free, and covers more than two thirds of the earths surface is more precious than oil?

Precious: of high price or great value, very valuable or costly, highly esteemed for some spiritual, nonmaterial or moral quality.

Captain Obvious

Matt Barrett wrote: »

A move towards something more than addressing the water infrastructure they let fester for generations at a time when 'we were practically eating out of bins' no less.
IMO, short term, money for 'our own', long term, privatisation.



Water is more precious.

Doesn't it fall from the sky regularly?

McMurphy

atticu wrote: »

Oil is not the same as water.

I'm aware of that, in fact there's even a very well known phrase stating such.

So, care to explain why there will be wars fought over water?

What's this "will" craic?

Google "water conflict".

atticu

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I'm aware of that, in fact there's even a very well known phrase stating such.


What's this "will" craic?

Google "water conflict".

You do understand that conflict doesn’t equal war?

Note: many areas demonstrated effective management to diffuse the situation...


You should read what you post before you post it.
That map only strengthens my point, and weakens yours.

But, hey keep arguing with yourself.

McMurphy

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Doesn't it fall from the sky regularly?

Except during heatwaves when droughts occur, then certain folk will use the complete opposite argument to further their own agenda.

James Brown

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Doesn't it fall from the sky regularly?

Photo or it doesn't happen.

atticu wrote: »

Would you like to explain how water, that falls from the sky for free, and covers more than two thirds of the earths surface is more precious than oil?

Precious: of high price or great value, very valuable or costly, highly esteemed for some spiritual, nonmaterial or moral quality.

Can you go a week without oil? When oil runs out, we'll adapt. Should be adapting now mind.