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

micosoft

Larbre34 wrote: »

Several posts in the thread have answered why water is so special.

And many more have put forward that it isn't any more special than say Electricity. In fact electricity is more important given those who don't use mains water rely on pumps that need electricity.

There needs to be honesty here that whats been looked for is free water. Or more bluntly, free water for people who waste water. It's not just an unconvincing argument, it's hypocritical.

Captain Obvious

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Fergus O"Dowd, a former FG minister involved in the setting up of Irish Water, and still a FG TD wouldn't tick most of the above boxes, and yet he believed the same thing.

O'Dowd: My proposal to ban Irish Water privatisation was deleted

One TD's feeling and a misunderstanding in a letter from the EU. That is the sum total of evidence that privatisation was even desired by anyone.

micosoft

This about sums it up.

McMurphy

Captain Obvious wrote: »

One TD's feeling and a misunderstanding in a letter from the EU. That is the sum total of evidence that privatisation was even desired by anyone.

Your argument might hold more sway if, say the TD was an opposition TD, but in Fergus' case he's not only a FG TD, but a minister directly involved in setting up the clusterfcuk. Who voiced his concerns based on same.

I might have agreed with you if the opinion was from the likes of coppinger or Boyd-Barrett.

boombang

Eion Ó Broin really didn't make a convincing case for it today on Morning Ireland. It's disappointing to me that something as important as a constitutional amendment would be based on such flimsy and ideological thinking.

Larbre34

micosoft wrote: »

And many more have put forward that it isn't any more special than say Electricity. In fact electricity is more important given those who don't use mains water rely on pumps that need electricity.

There needs to be honesty here that whats been looked for is free water. Or more bluntly, free water for people who waste water. It's not just an unconvincing argument, it's hypocritical.

Water shouldn't be free, its not free now, to anyone. And people who waste it should be nailed to the floor.

What's being looked for, is certainty that the State will keep a hold of the resource, that it never be commodified.

I guess the people will decide whether thats a convincing argument or not.

The Bishop Basher

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Your argument might hold more sway if, say the TD was an opposition TD, but in Fergus' case he's not only a FG TD, but a minister directly involved in setting up the clusterfcuk. Who voiced his concerns based on same.

It might also hold more sway if Irish Water hadn't removed a reference to future privatisation from their website.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

I heard on the radio yesterday that Irish water requires something in the region of 19 billion to fix the network as is. If it is put into the constitution no private money will ever bridge any of that gap, so we'd be effectively ensuring we have a 19 billion quid millstone tied around our neck, along with all the other debts etc we have to service. Where would we envisage that money coming from?

lawred2

Larbre34 wrote: »

Its not a matter of basic public health management if there's a toll bridge on the M8 or a parallel runway at Dublin Airport.

and the constitution is the best place for basic public health management?

incentsitive

Public ownership is great, just look at the HSE and how efficiently it is run.....

Another thing which hasn't gone away is the crumbling, leaking, pipework which needs massive investment. Our water bans this year showed just how close we are to a meltdown in this regard.

Edward M

I'd have no problem with domestic water charges.
I would like certainty it won't be privatised so would be happy to see a referendum.
I read a quote on here somewhere about there already being enough noise in the constitution, bunkum.
The constitution is protection for something that doesn't leave it open to Govt to just change, its up to the will of the people, to me that's democracy at its best.
I think the recent controversy re broadband gives rise to concerns of political dealings with certain vested interests.
Privatisation of the service might turn out to be the best option for the service, but leave that up to the consumer to decide if it can be proven in the future.
All Govt decisions aren't always in the taxpayers best interests.

TheChizler

Larbre34 wrote: »

I'm neither a parliamentary draftsperson nor a constitutional lawyer, but some of the most contentious issues of recent years have been dealt with in amendment texts of less than 100 words.

As I see it, the proposal would need to identify the public health and societal necessity to access potable water, describe the scope of all public water infrastructure, provide that it be owned and maintained in perpetuity by and on behalf of the people and never be commoditized or commercialised.

I'm not sure how you can honestly say it can be solved with a simple wording if you can't give an example of it. What you're describing seems incredibly complicated. How you can describe the scope of current and future public water supplies in constitutional terms without affecting private group water schemes and wells is a mystery to me.

Larbre34

lawred2 wrote: »

and the constitution is the best place for basic public health management?

Um, yes? I'll refer you to children's rights and reproductive rights.

The administration is not a constitutional matter, but the guiding principle can be.

Chips Lovell

It is kind of embarrassing that something like this has to go into the constitution alright and I'm not sure how much difference its going to make. Most of the people who argued that the introduction of water charges was a precursor to privatisation will come up with some other reason to oppose them.

Larbre34

TheChizler wrote: »

I'm not sure how you can honestly say it can be solved with a simple wording if you can't give an example of it. What you're describing seems incredibly complicated. How you can describe the scope of current and future public water supplies in constitutional terms without affecting private group water schemes and wells is a mystery to me.

Its not my problem that you are easily mystified. One sentence to describe the public health need for reliable clean water. Another to describe that the system be a State resource belonged to the people, maintained by and on their behalf and that all premises be required to provide access to this system or a reliable, sustainable private supply.

TheChizler

Larbre34 wrote: »

Its not my problem that you are easily mystified. One sentence to describe the public health need for reliable clean water. Another to describe that the system be a State resource belonged to the people, maintained by and on their behalf and that all premises be required to provide access to this system or a reliable, sustainable private supply.

Unless you or someone else can provide such a wording, I'm going to assume that it's in fact not as simple as you say. It's very easy to claim something can be done easily or simply but then neglect to provide details.

Larbre34

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

I heard on the radio yesterday that Irish water requires something in the region of 19 billion to fix the network as is. If it is put into the constitution no private money will ever bridge any of that gap, so we'd be effectively ensuring we have a 19 billion quid millstone tied around our neck, along with all the other debts etc we have to service. Where would we envisage that money coming from?

Why would private money being invested necessarily be a value proposition for the people?

Nobody can borrow money for investment cheaper than the State and private money wouldn't come into it unless those investors saw long term profitability in it. You need only look at PPP toll roads, the broadband "plan", private health etc

Larbre34

TheChizler wrote: »

Unless you or someone else can provide such a wording, I'm going to assume that it's in fact not as simple as you say. It's very easy to claim something can be done easily or simply but then neglect to provide details.

Yeah thats sort of the Attorney General's job. Like all amendment texts, it has a journey ahead of it to be suitable. If I could provide a succinct and final wording to you now, id be doing it as a job. Either you're being obdurate or you cant understand the really quite simple principles of whats being proposed, either way, its not my task to convince you.

TheChizler

Larbre34 wrote: »

Yeah thats sort of the Attorney General's job. Like all amendment texts, it has a journey ahead of it to be suitable. If I could provide a succinct and final wording to you now, id be doing it as a job. Either you're being obdurate or you cant understand the really quite simple principles of whats being proposed, either way, its not my task to convince you.

I just can't accept how you can claim it's simple but not have anything to back that claim up. At best you can say it may be possible but right now nobody has a clue how complex it might be.

Larbre34

TheChizler wrote: »

I just can't accept how you can claim it's simple but not have anything to back that claim up. At best you can say it may be possible but right now nobody has a clue how complex it might be.

Ive explained several times how its simple, we are talking about very simple principles, not public ownership of cryptocurrencies or a mission to Mars. When we see draft language emerge, I'd be delighted to help you understand it.

FreudianSlippers

spaceHopper wrote: »

So will a farmer be able to drill a well.

Depends on the wording of the Constitutional amendment and the legislation that is put in place to effect that amendment. But in theory, the answer to that question on foot of an amendment akin to what appears to be (vaguely) proposed is "no".

Larbre34 wrote: »

Constitutional protection of the water supply means it will never be considered as a bankable asset and potential piece of the family silver to be floated off again, pardon the pun.

I'm not sure you are exactly sure what you're talking about here: water supply or the assets themselves?

The underlying assets are owned by the state (i.e. the water, the infrastructure) and this is already essentially protected by the Constitution pursuant to Article 10. This is also dealt with in the WFD and national legislation - private companies may build and maintain the infrastructure but it is always owned by the State.

Larbre34 wrote: »

I'm not talking about water utility providers, I'm talking about the engineering challenge of updating the infrastructure.

So you admit there is no need for a Constitutional amendment as we already constitutionally own the water and legislatively own the infrastructure.

FreudianSlippers

Larbre34 wrote: »

Ive explained several times how its simple, we are talking about very simple principles, not public ownership of cryptocurrencies or a mission to Mars. When we see draft language emerge, I'd be delighted to help you understand it.

I'm sorry but that's a cop out.

poppers

if this goes to a ref and is passed will the state be obliged to connect every house in ire to the public water supply.
there is an serious lot of private wells and private schemes supplying rural ire.

TheChizler

Larbre34 wrote: »

Ive explained several times how its simple, we are talking about very simple principles, not public ownership of cryptocurrencies or a mission to Mars. When we see draft language emerge, I'd be delighted to help you understand it.

No need for the snarky dig. I'm perfectly capable of understand simple wordings, what I'm not capable of is putting up with unproven claims, which are repeated over an over again as if the repetition somehow makes them valid. You obviously aren't going to back up your claim here and now we're going round in circles, so let me know when you hear of this simple wording that does exactly what's needed and I'll happily discuss further.

blanch152

Larbre34 wrote: »

I'm neither a parliamentary draftsperson nor a constitutional lawyer, but some of the most contentious issues of recent years have been dealt with in amendment texts of less than 100 words.

As I see it, the proposal would need to identify the public health and societal necessity to access potable water, describe the scope of all public water infrastructure, provide that it be owned and maintained in perpetuity by and on behalf of the people and never be commoditized or commercialised.

The Government and state agencies should, of course, be enabled to develop policy for water under legislation, so long as whatever it is honours the amendment.

I imagine there will be plenty of debate on the content once this matter begins its Oireachtas committee journey.

Larbre34 wrote: »

Its not my problem that you are easily mystified. One sentence to describe the public health need for reliable clean water. Another to describe that the system be a State resource belonged to the people, maintained by and on their behalf and that all premises be required to provide access to this system or a reliable, sustainable private supply.

Larbre34 wrote: »

Ive explained several times how its simple, we are talking about very simple principles, not public ownership of cryptocurrencies or a mission to Mars. When we see draft language emerge, I'd be delighted to help you understand it.

That isn't simple. Pretending it is simple to draft a Constitutional amendment is a cop-out.

What does that mean for private wells?
Will farmers lose ownership of wells?
Will other landowners lose ownership of rivers and springs?
Will householders be unable to install their own water reclamation infrastructure?
Will people be able to sue if they don't have public water?
Will people be able to sue the State if a commercial company accidentally pollutes the water supply? After the Constitution says it is a public health necessity and liability will fall on the State if anything goes wrong, no matter who is at fault.
Will the State be unable to invest in water infrastructure because it is paying out damages right, left and centre for breaches of constitutional rights?

There are many other potential unintended consequences of a mad amendment like this.

blanch152

poppers wrote: »

if this goes to a ref and is passed will the state be obliged to connect every house in ire to the public water supply.
there is an serious lot of private wells and private schemes supplying rural ire.

If the type of amendment proposed by some posters is adopted, then yes.

For anyone with even a little legal understanding, the huge difficulty in constructing a constitutional amendment on water is obvious. Look at how the 1983 amendment on abortion ended up preventing a woman from travelling to England.

Something equally mad will come from this silly idea.

micosoft

Larbre34 wrote: »

Ive explained several times how its simple, we are talking about very simple principles, not public ownership of cryptocurrencies or a mission to Mars. When we see draft language emerge, I'd be delighted to help you understand it.

You know what. You are right. A simple catchphrase is all you need. Like "Brexit is Brexit!". Let's let other people "Experts?" that are against it make sense of it. And we'll complain if it's not done right.

It was interesting to read the Guardian report today on how Populism has captured one in four votes in Europe. Simplistic catchphrases that have devastating consequences are the order of the day. There is literally nothing simple about the provision of a reliable potable water network. Nothing at all.

We don't even have to imagine the consequences of using the constitution as a garbage bin of populist amendments. Let's remember the last crude amendment - the 9th. And let's remember the opposition to repealing that wanted to insert a replacement Amendment. And how that was rightfully dismissed as a crude interference with unforeseen consequences. Which we saw with the tragic X case.

ancapailldorcha

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm sorry but that's a cop out.

Rennaws wrote: »

I pay more then my fair share of tax..

I already pay for my water..

I'm hoping for a better standard of posting than this. No more please.

listermint

blanch152 wrote: »

There is nothing rational to suggest that Irish Water might be privatised. There never has been any proposal to privatise Irish Water.

There is loads of waffle from irrational scaremongering politicians imbued with an unhealthy dose of paranoia.

The whole "Irish Water will be privatised unless we have a constitutional amendment" cause is a small step up from the "post this on Facebook to stop them stealing your identity" fraud.

FG are stupidly falling for the idea that the mob in the Dail have to be appeased on the issue, most people don't care. Just like the British people are slowly waking up and telling their Conservative MPs to back May's deal, some day rationality will return to Irish politics, and the sooner the better.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Maybe (I'm unconvinced) - but why are people collectively crapping the bed at the prospect of privatisation of water, while not giving a damn about the privatisation of anything else?

There was never, ever the faintest hint of a suggestion that privatisation was on the cards, except from opponents of water charges. A cynic might be tempted to suspect that all the waffle about privatisation was a bogeyman used to add a veneer of respectability to a reluctance to pay for a utility. What people decide to believe without evidence is a pretty poor rationale for amending the Constitution.

Water is a finite resource, Rail is not a finite resource that you need to consume to last the week.

The fact that you and Blanch cant 'understand' the fear people have means you dont actually have empathetic abilities..


People fear having to pay over the odds for something they need to live....... And you call it irrational.


Lads come one, open up the cop on box a bit.

FreudianSlippers

Quite simply:

1) There is absolutely no evidence that this State is, has been or ever will be capable of managing, maintaining or constructing vast and vital infrastructure.

2) There is no evidence that the State intends to sell the asset (water) or the infrastructure (pipes, etc.) to a private enterprise.

3) There is no legal basis pursuant to Article 10 of the Constitution that the State could lawfully sell the asset (water) to a private company.

4) There is no legal basis pursuant to the WFD and other national legislation that the State can (or in fact would ever want to) sell the infrastructure to a private enterprise.

What does the State want to do?

They want to outsource the construction of infrastructure on their behalf to private enterprise who can achieve the goals at a speed and price that the State has shown repeatedly that it cannot do. They want a semi-State (read: subsidised) company to administer and manage water provision and, eventually, the billing for same so that water can be moved off the State's books to a great extent.

Just because a private company is building the infrastructure does not mean they own it - this has been manifestly clear in all legislation and documentation regarding this from day-one.

What exactly are people looking for in an amendment to the Constitution? I don't think half the posters here calling for same fully understand what the issues are here.

It's knee-jerk populism at its worst fuelled by the opinions of your average Joe Duffy caller that doesn't understand water infrastructure, doesn't understand private enterprise, doesn't understand basic civics and has zero legal knowledge.