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

atticu

Your human rights are:

You have a right to life.

You have the rights to the fruits of your labour.

If someone takes the fruits of your labour, you have the right to retribution.

atticu

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Piped to your home/well drawn/delivered by camel, it matters not a jot.

Poster above stated water isn't a human right.

It is.

You can go around the house for posts and posts arguing the semantics of that if you want. I don't be joining you though.



See above.

Water is not a human right.

If you want something supplied to you, you have to pay for it.
Doesn’t matter if it is water, food or shelter.
You are not entitled to these things.

I understand that you would like the state to provide these things free of charge, but just because you would like that doesn’t mean that it will happen.

Edward M

atticu wrote: »

Water is not a human right.

If you want something supplied to you, you have to pay for it.
Doesn’t matter if it is water, food or shelter.
You are not entitled to these things.

I understand that you would like the state to provide these things free of charge, but just because you would like that doesn’t mean that it will happen.

I'm in favour of water charges. But that's just wrong.
The state doesn't just magic the money for any service, all are paid for by the citizens taxes, so none of it is free.
Fairness of payment would result in all paying by usage, but then what about health care, education etc etc.
We could have citizens required to stump up personally for every state service, why pick water as a starting point if you want to take that argument forward

atticu

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You're confusing water with a product. While some private concerns will sell you water, the state is a publicly owned supplier or water funded by taxation.

Theres a lot of confusion here. On the one hand it falls from the sky and we've ocean's full of it, on the other it's the fruits of someones labour? Jesus? I know some of you hadn't much of an argument to begin with but seriously.

No confusion, potable water is a product.

The state doesn’t have an obligation to supply water. I know that is what you want, but that doesn’t mean that everyone has to agree with you.

Water falls from the sky and we have oceans full of it, but in order for it to be potable takes some work, and someone has to do this work.
Are you saying that they must do this for free because you don’t want to pay for water?
Or are you suggesting that other people pay for your water through taxation?

I think the best way to fund the supply of potable water is to make the person who consume that potable water pay for what they consume.

If you think that potable water, which is a product, should be funded through taxation, then food, shelter and other things should also be funded through taxation.

atticu

Edward M wrote: »

I'm in favour of water charges. But that's just wrong.
The state doesn't just magic the money for any service, all are paid for by the citizens taxes, so none of it is free.
Fairness of payment would result in all paying by usage, but then what about health care, education etc etc.
We could have citizens required to stump up personally for every state service, why pick water as a starting point if you want to take that argument forward

Water is not a service.

Edward M

atticu wrote: »

Water is not a service.

but it is, saying it isn't at present is wrong, you might not like it but that doesent mean it isn't one.
Like rights, we might not all like some rights, but that doesent change the fact they are regarded as such.
The provision of water is a service, the provision of food is a service etc etc.

atticu

Edward M wrote: »

but it is, saying it isn't at present is wrong, you might not like it but that doesent mean it isn't one.
Like rights, we might not all like some rights, but that doesent change the fact they are regarded as such.
The provision of water is a service, the provision of food is a service etc etc.

I think that you need to read your post.
The provision of water is a service, not water.

FreudianSlippers

Edward M wrote: »

but it is, saying it isn't at present is wrong, you might not like it but that doesent mean it isn't one.
Like rights, we might not all like some rights, but that doesent change the fact they are regarded as such.
The provision of water is a service, the provision of food is a service etc etc.

Provision of water is a service, water is not a service. Water is owned by the State and protected by Art 10; therefore no amendment required.

/thread

FreudianSlippers

Peter Nolan of FORSA on Morning Ireland this morning has let the veil slip in identifying that they are the ones who have lobbied for this Constitutional amendment. He effectively admitted it has little to do with privatisation of the service noting that he agrees there is no intention or likelihood that IW would be privatised (well he made some odd point about "the law of unintended consequences") they are looking to ensure that Local Authorities are to be forever engaged by Irish Water as subcontractors to provide water services in local areas. This is nothing more than a public service union movement to ensure that the bill for administration is not reduced as was planned when Irish Water was being created.

McMurphy

atticu wrote: »

Water is not a human right.

I like how you just completely ignore the links provided that contradict this, and further, go on and redefine what is a human right according to..... you. Nice one.

If you want something supplied to you, you have to pay for it.
Doesn’t matter if it is water, food or shelter.
You are not entitled to these things.

I understand that you would like the state to provide these things free of charge, but just because you would like that doesn’t mean that it will happen.

No one thinks water is free.

And on one thinks the state should provide it free, we all understand it's paid for via taxes. The political arguments have been if we should continue paying for it this way.

The govt established "E.C" concluded we should.

This free stuff is just being silly, and has been covered multiple times already.

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's irrelevant whether or not it's a human right. Food and clothing are human rights, but nobody's clamouring for a constitutional amendment to nationalise Tesco or Dunnes.

I don't remember the govt legislating to send every household in the land an automatic Tesco or Dunnes invoice, putting the onus on the homeowner to prove that they did their shopping elsewhere to avoid getting said bill.

Edward M

atticu wrote: »

I think that you need to read your post.
The provision of water is a service, not water.

Well I think you need to realise that the provision of water is what we are on about here.
Otherwise just mentioning water as a stand alone subject has many other threads, eg, nature or weather perhaps.
The stuff on here is getting stupidly pedantic by times.

Edward M

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Provision of water is a service, water is not a service. Water is owned by the State and protected by Art 10; therefore no amendment required.

/thread

Well it is my right to have an opinion as to that and again the pedantry is strong and laughable in that post.
Water provision is a service, without the end product, water, there is only a piping service, therefore water is part and parcel of that service.
A restaurant that serves food is hardly providing a service unless there is food, is it.

FreudianSlippers

Edward M wrote: »

Well it is my right to have an opinion as to that and again the pedantry is strong and laughable in that post.
Water provision is a service, without the end product, water, there is only a piping service, therefore water is part and parcel of that service.
A restaurant that serves food is hardly providing a service unless there is food, is it.

This is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.

Water is a commodity, it is owned by the State and protected by Article 10 of the Constitution - you may have a contrary opinion, but they are not equally as valid as these facts.

The State is entitled, pursuant to Article 10, to sell or otherwise discharge that commodity to a third party for provision of services (as you point out the cleaning and supply of same).

It is manifestly incorrect to claim that if a private company owns the infrastructure (and let's be clear here, this is not the case, it is not desired to be the case and it never will be the case) that they also own the water. In this circumstance, the private company would either need to purchase the commodity from the State or the State would have to agree to provide it for free.

You seem very unclear on the difference between provision of service and commodities - a clear reason why we shouldn't open this complicated issue to the electorate by way of a Constitutional amendment.

FreudianSlippers

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I like how you just completely ignore the links provided that contradict this, and further, go on and redefine what is a human right according to..... you. Nice one.

Let's cut out the B.S. opinion table tennis here and get down to the facts:

1) Access to water is not a legally binding "human right" as per the ECHR - available here: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

2) There is currently an EU Citizens' Initiative to make it a legally binding ECHR human right

3) Access to water is not a legally binding "human right" in the UN UDHR - available here: https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html

4) UN General Assembly Resolution 64/292 2010, the United Nations General Assembly explicitly recognized the human right to water and sanitation, in particular developing countries, to provide safe, clean, accessible and affordable drinking water and sanitation for all. Source: http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/human_right_to_water.shtml

Ireland, however, abstained from signing on to that Resolution, so access to water as per Resolution 64/292 2010 is not a human right in Ireland. Source: https://www.un.org/press/en/2010/ga10967.doc.htm

Edward M

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.

Water is a commodity, it is owned by the State and protected by Article 10 of the Constitution - you may have a contrary opinion, but they are not equally as valid as these facts.

The State is entitled, pursuant to Article 10, to sell or otherwise discharge that commodity to a third party for provision of services (as you point out the cleaning and supply of same).

It is manifestly incorrect to claim that if a private company owns the infrastructure (and let's be clear here, this is not the case, it is not desired to be the case and it never will be the case) that they also own the water. In this circumstance, the private company would either need to purchase the commodity from the State or the State would have to agree to provide it for free.

You seem very unclear on the difference between provision of service and commodities - a clear reason why we shouldn't open this complicated issue to the electorate by way of a Constitutional amendment.

I'm not alone, From wiki.

"In economics, a commodity is an economic good or service that has full or substantial fungibility:"

LinkedIn also rightly points out there is no service without a commodity.

Therefore water as a product is also an intrinsic part of the service, not only that I feel but the service.
Anyway that's dealing with the pedantics and not the issue, so I will just agree to disagree on it.

James Brown

Seth Brundle wrote: »

It's funny how everyone is confused over your proposal except you!

Also the comparison of rain and sea water to clean potable water is disingenuous. They are quite different (and I'm aware that the anti-water charges folk used rain as a reason for not paying but potable water is expensive to produce and supply) .

It is. I said as much.
That's true and I agree. I wasn't the one brought it up. I was commenting on other posters. It's a silly argument. Such was the point of my comment before you got too excitable to take it in.

James Brown

atticu wrote: »

I understand that you would like the state to provide these things free of charge, but just because you would like that doesn’t mean that it will happen.

You obviously don't understand. We pay, always have always will.

James Brown

atticu wrote: »

No confusion, potable water is a product.

The state doesn’t have an obligation to supply water. I know that is what you want, but that doesn’t mean that everyone has to agree with you.

Water falls from the sky and we have oceans full of it, but in order for it to be potable takes some work, and someone has to do this work.
Are you saying that they must do this for free because you don’t want to pay for water?
Or are you suggesting that other people pay for your water through taxation?

I think the best way to fund the supply of potable water is to make the person who consume that potable water pay for what they consume.

If you think that potable water, which is a product, should be funded through taxation, then food, shelter and other things should also be funded through taxation.

You've seemingly no clue on this. Do you think the state/LA's whom we fund, supply water on their own time using their own personal equipment? That's the only way your claims could be true.
I agree. If somebody has no access to clothes or food, the state should supply it and I'd happily see my taxes go there.
Now back to the matter at hand. Water charges are gone. Cheerio water charges.
The discussion is regarding keeping publicly owned water concerns/infrastructure/treatment public.

FreudianSlippers

Edward M wrote: »

I'm not alone, From wiki.

"In economics, a commodity is an economic good or service that has full or substantial fungibility:"

Exactly - potable water that flows through the pipes to your tap is therefore, be definition, a commodity.

LinkedIn also rightly points out there is no service without a commodity.

LinkedIn the social network?

Therefore water as a product is also an intrinsic part of the service, not only that I feel but the service.
Anyway that's dealing with the pedantics and not the issue, so I will just agree to disagree on it.

This is fundamental misunderstanding of commodification of water and the very nature of provision of water services unfortunately.

The service is the provision of water, the service may well also be the commodification of water; but water itself is not a "service" no matter how you slice it.

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You obviously don't understand. We pay, always have always will.

As usual missing or avoiding the point: we don't pay enough.

atticu

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You obviously don't understand. We pay, always have always will.

Are you telling me that you paid Irish Water when you received your bill?

If not, then you don’t pay.

Water charges have not gone away.

Edward M

atticu wrote: »

Are you telling me that you paid Irish Water when you received your bill?

If not, then you don’t pay.

Water charges have not gone away.

Do you pay?

James Brown

atticu wrote: »

Are you telling me that you paid Irish Water when you received your bill?

If not, then you don’t pay.

Water charges have not gone away.

You're confusing paying taxes with the IW con/swindle I didn't partake in, no.
Do you honestly not know how water is/was financed?
Any way, as I said there's no water charges. They are gone. No victors in it, (except Denis O'Brien, laughing yoga instructors, consultants and 'our own') as usual the tax payer is the loser.

Are you paying water charges, are IW taking your money?

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You're confusing paying taxes with the IW con/swindle I didn't partake in, no.
Do you honestly not know how water is/was financed?
Any way, as I said there's no water charges. They are gone. No victors in it, (except Denis O'Brien, laughing yoga instructors, consultants and 'our own') as usual the tax payer is the loser.

Are you paying water charges, are IW taking your money?

Another person who doesn't understand the Water Services legislation.

Water charges haven't gone away. All that has happened is that the free threshold has been raised. As people who buy shares and property are advised, what goes up, can also come down.

Edward M

blanch152 wrote: »

Another person who doesn't understand the Water Services legislation.

Water charges haven't gone away. All that has happened is that the free threshold has been raised. As people who buy shares and property are advised, what goes up, can also come down.

Some action today with regards to changing staff from local authorities.
Unions and the staff concerned are unlikely to move or agree without at least a promise and a date for a referendum.



https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/1206/1015530-irish-water/

oscarBravo

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I don't remember the govt legislating to send every household in the land an automatic Tesco or Dunnes invoice, putting the onus on the homeowner to prove that they did their shopping elsewhere to avoid getting said bill.

You don't remember it because it hasn't happened. I'm not clear what it has to do with human rights.

atticu

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You're confusing paying taxes with the IW con/swindle I didn't partake in, no.
Do you honestly not know how water is/was financed?
Any way, as I said there's no water charges. They are gone. No victors in it, (except Denis O'Brien, laughing yoga instructors, consultants and 'our own') as usual the tax payer is the loser.

Are you paying water charges, are IW taking your money?

You do know that Irish Water still exists, they are still sending out bills, and these bills are being paid.

atticu

Matt Barrett wrote: »

as usual the tax payer is the loser.

Earlier you said that you would happily pay more tax for people to get free food.

Now you are complaining that the tax payer is the loser.

Which do you want?

If the tax payers fund free stuff for everyone, the taxpayers will always be the losers.

McMurphy

atticu wrote: »

Earlier you said that you would happily pay more tax for people to get free food.

Now you are complaining that the tax payer is the loser.

Which do you want?

If the tax payers fund free stuff for everyone, the taxpayers will always be the losers.

The penny has eventually dropped I see.

How can anything taxpayer funded be free

You now seem to concede that it's not free at all, it's paid for from taxes.

Took a while, but you got there in the end I suppose.

pearcider

blanch152 wrote: »

Another person who doesn't understand the Water Services legislation.

Water charges haven't gone away. All that has happened is that the free threshold has been raised. As people who buy shares and property are advised, what goes up, can also come down.

What a strange poster you are. It’s like you’re almost throwing out threats now. You’re literally paraphrasing the Provisional IRA! You are grotesque. People like you are the type that will lead us into a totalitarian state.