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

oscarBravo

listermint wrote: »

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

No, but food is.

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

No, it doesn't. I know lots of people with irrational fears of all sorts of things. I empathise with their plight, but I'm not going to propose amending the Constitution to sooth their nerves.

That's not a lack of empathy; it's a basic grasp of what a constitution is actually for.

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

Where is the proposed constitutional amendment to keep food affordable?

Fear is a stupid reason to amend the Constitution. Come up with a rational basis for it - and, ideally, a sane wording for it - and we can have an intelligent conversation about it. Until then, all we have is people demanding that our bizarre situation of being one of the tiny handful of countries on the planet that doesn't treat water supply as a utility be enshrined in the Constitution.

That proposal doesn't fit anywhere within any "cop on box" imaginable.

FreudianSlippers

listermint wrote: »

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

It's less about whether the resource is "finite" - you're looking for the concept of "scarcity"; rail as an infrastructural asset is scarce. Sure, you can have multiple providers using the infrastructure to provide a service, but the infrastructural asset that they use to provide that service is limited.

listermint wrote: »

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

To extrapolate that bit of logic shouldn't we have a Constitutional amendment banning alien abductions, ghosts and bigfoot? All things some people fear, no?

James Brown

TheChizler wrote: »

You must have an example of this simple wording in mind?

Top of my head:

'Any entity engaged with the state or created by the state in regard of water provision and/or maintenance shall always remain under the ownership of the state or be beholden to the state if a private entity in the states employ.'

That would cover any 'critical flaw' regarding a fear PPP might be blocked etc.

James Brown

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

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.

If they look at the Stieserv/metering debacle and 'we look after our own' appointments, it's hard to see why the distrust...
It's because FG can't be trusted that legislation is required. Not to mention that they seem to be working to amend it to bypass the actual water part having it only relate to the quango.

listermint

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It's less about whether the resource is "finite" - you're looking for the concept of "scarcity"; rail as an infrastructural asset is scarce. Sure, you can have multiple providers using the infrastructure to provide a service, but the infrastructural asset that they use to provide that service is limited.


To extrapolate that bit of logic shouldn't we have a Constitutional amendment banning alien abductions, ghosts and bigfoot? All things some people fear, no?

But i never said we should have an amendment, I was saying if you cannot understand the fear then you have little understanding of people.

Which i stand by.

James Brown

Is the argument, no such legislation is needed because FG pinky swear the idea of privatisation is just plain silly? Yeah, I wouldn't buy that for a second. The amendments to the proposed legislation already show they are trying to scuttle this unnecessary piece of legislation.

Captain Obvious

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Top of my head:

'Any entity engaged with the state or created by the state in regard of water provision and/or maintenance shall always remain under the ownership of the state or be beholden to the state if a private entity in the states employ.'

That would cover any 'critical flaw' regarding a fear PPP might be blocked etc.

What do you mean by "be beholden to"?

James Brown

Captain Obvious wrote: »

What do you mean by "be beholden to"?

Answerable to. Working for the state rather than giving them free reign over any element of the water supply. Allowing for private contractors to carry out works without the state giving up ownership. Enabling a form of PPP if required without giving away sections of the infrastructure or allowing any metering without the states consent. In short securing that the state always has ownership of the water supply infrastructure.

TheChizler

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Answerable to. Working for the state rather than giving them free reign over any element of the water supply. Allowing for private contractors to carry out works without the state giving up ownership. Enabling a form of PPP if required without giving away sections of the infrastructure or allowing any metering without the states consent. In short securing that the state always has ownership of the water supply infrastructure.

I might be misunderstanding you but I don't feel that statement prevents the state selling the infrastructure, unless by entity you also mean the infrastructure itself and not the body that owns it?

McMurphy

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

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.

You'd have to wonder if the govts own expert comisons findings - ie, that taxation should cover normal water usage will be one of these reasons ?

Captain Obvious

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Answerable to. Working for the state rather than giving them free reign over any element of the water supply. Allowing for private contractors to carry out works without the state giving up ownership. Enabling a form of PPP if required without giving away sections of the infrastructure or allowing any metering without the states consent. In short securing that the state always has ownership of the water supply infrastructure.

Sounds like your own interpretation of something that could be interpreted in a number of ways. Do you think the courts would support your interpretation if challenged? If, for example, the state wants a company to supply bottled water to Gardaí working at a large event such as the Pope's visit, would your wording not prevent that?

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Is the argument, no such legislation is needed because FG pinky swear the idea of privatisation is just plain silly? Yeah, I wouldn't buy that for a second. The amendments to the proposed legislation already show they are trying to scuttle this unnecessary piece of legislation.

Legislation is the appropriate place for this kind of prohibition; not the Constitution.


Edit: I'm only just seeing ancapailldorcha's amendment to the mod warning. Yep... I'm out.

Edward M

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, but food is. No, it doesn't. I know lots of people with irrational fears of all sorts of things. I empathise with their plight, but I'm not going to propose amending the Constitution to sooth their nerves.

That's not a lack of empathy; it's a basic grasp of what a constitution is actually for. Where is the proposed constitutional amendment to keep food affordable?

Fear is a stupid reason to amend the Constitution. Come up with a rational basis for it - and, ideally, a sane wording for it - and we can have an intelligent conversation about it. Until then, all we have is people demanding that our bizarre situation of being one of the tiny handful of countries on the planet that doesn't treat water supply as a utility be enshrined in the Constitution.

That proposal doesn't fit anywhere within any "cop on box" imaginable.

And the Govt is looking in to it with a view to making a proposal on it, you say it doesn't fit in to any "cop on box".
Doesn't inspire confidence does it,
Paying for water needs to be sorted perhaps, but the ownership of the service has nothing to do with that really, what wrong with ensuring the service can't be sold off without the consent of the majority of the people.?

blanch152

listermint wrote: »

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.

I never said that I didn't understand the fear.

I said that the fear was irrational. And I stand over that.

None of that has anything to do with empathy.

I empathise with my young niece's fear of large teddy bears but I am not proposing a constitutional amendment to ban them.


Understanding, rationality and empathy are three very different things.

James Brown

TheChizler wrote: »

I might be misunderstanding you but I don't feel that statement prevents the state selling the infrastructure, unless by entity you also mean the infrastructure itself and not the body that owns it?

Any entity, body, company, dealing or working with water infrastructure/supply/maintenance will be owned or working for the state. Meaning the water infrastructure/supply/maintenance will always belong to the state.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Sounds like your own interpretation of something that could be interpreted in a number of ways. Do you think the courts would support your interpretation if challenged? If, for example, the state wants a company to supply bottled water to Gardaí working at a large event such as the Pope's visit, would your wording not prevent that?

You're seriously questioning the legal validity of something I made up off the top of my head in as long as it took to type? What's the point, seriously?
To be fair, I'd need seen a paper contract before I let the Garda look after anything.

Always Tired

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.

what? our most important resource, and will soon become extremely valuable as clean water will continue to become more scarce due to contamination from nuclear sites, etc.

you think private companies aren't champing at the bit to get their hands on water? you better believe they are, and i want them nowhere near it . I'll be voting yes, certainly.

James Brown

Always Tired wrote: »

what? our most important resource, and will soon become extremely valuable as clean water will continue to become more scarce due to contamination from nuclear sites, etc.

you think private companies aren't champing at the bit to get their hands on water? you better believe they are, and i want them nowhere near it . I'll be voting yes, certainly.

The naivety is hard to comprehend. The fact that multinationals are buying up water rights globally puts FG's effort at doing Denis a solid* in the shade.

*I am of the belief the Sitserv/metering issue currently under investigation was FG doing Denis another solid.

Eric Cartman

Always Tired wrote: »

what? our most important resource, and will soon become extremely valuable as clean water will continue to become more scarce due to contamination from nuclear sites, etc.

you think private companies aren't champing at the bit to get their hands on water? you better believe they are, and i want them nowhere near it . I'll be voting yes, certainly.

Have you looked at Irish rail, aer Lingus, telecom erieann, an post etc... and how they were doing when they were state run.

Private business delivers better service, cheaper and a better product for users. I don't think something as important as water should be left to our government considering the upgrades needed to infrastructure , I believe we will pay a charge for water in the future by use and thats the right thing to do.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Top of my head:

'Any entity engaged with the state or created by the state in regard of water provision and/or maintenance shall always remain under the ownership of the state or be beholden to the state if a private entity in the states employ.'

That would cover any 'critical flaw' regarding a fear PPP might be blocked etc.

Let us pretend for a minute that the words in your proposal might actually have legal effect. Here is one simple consequence.

Any building owned by the State with its own well or water reclamation arrangement could not be sold by the State if your amendment was passed.

So, for example, if local authority houses (entity created by the state) had water butts (water provision), they couldn't be sold off.

It is quite disconcerting to see posters repeatedly claim something is simple, yet when the first (and only) example comes along, its deep deep flaws can be so basically be exposed. Throwing out the idea that we can have a constitutional amendment on water and that it is simple to invent a wording is just silly notions.

TheChizler

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Any entity, body, company, dealing or working with water infrastructure/supply/maintenance will be owned or working for the state. Meaning the water infrastructure/supply/maintenance will always belong to the state.

The body would be owned by the state forever, but what if the government directed Irish Water to sell its assets? How would it prevent that?

Captain Obvious

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You're seriously questioning the legal validity of something I made up off the top of my head in as long as it took to type? What's the point, seriously?

The point is that unnecessary legislation or amendments to the constitution have unintended consequences and cause restrictions on freedoms that were not intended. They shouldn't be made just to calm paranoia.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

To be fair, I'd need seen a paper contract before I let the Garda look after anything.

I'm not sure if you used Google translate for this or if you were just so excited to get a dig at the Gardaí you lost the run of yourself and couldn't string together a coherent sentence. Or maybe you just couldn't argue your point so went on the attack instead.

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Private business delivers better service, cheaper and a better product for users.

Does it? The railways in the UK, and also in the UK, the deregulated bus system in Manchester are glaring examples to the contrary. The Manchester example is particularly noteworthy of private business looking after itself with the needs of its customers an irrelevancy to put it bluntly. Companies laying on loads of buses to service profit making routes while ignoring other routes that made a loss but were still needed.

James Brown

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Have you looked at Irish rail, aer Lingus, telecom erieann, an post etc... and how they were doing when they were state run.

Private business delivers better service, cheaper and a better product for users. I don't think something as important as water should be left to our government considering the upgrades needed to infrastructure , I believe we will pay a charge for water in the future by use and thats the right thing to do.

How's that broadband roll out going along?
Private business only cares about profit and if there's no profit in it, they aren't interested. This is were the state and it's alleged responsibility of serving the public comes into play.
We pay for water, just not a singular charge. It's the monetisation of water that's the concern. We are willing and do pay for it. How badly managed it is is another story. Trying to equate how we pay for it with how poorly it was underfunded and ignored for so long is an argument long lost back in the metering days.

James Brown

TheChizler wrote: »

The body would be owned by the state forever, but what if the government directed Irish Water to sell its assets? How would it prevent that?

The assets would not include water supply, infrastructure as they would belong to the state. IW for example could sell it's laughing yoga mats but not the pipes water or processing facilities.

James Brown

Captain Obvious wrote: »

The point is that unnecessary legislation or amendments to the constitution have unintended consequences and cause restrictions on freedoms that were not intended. They shouldn't be made just to calm paranoia.

I believe they would/intend to privatise water at some point. The fact they are playing about with it adds to that. Simply claiming it's mere paranoia won't put safe guards in place and with the caliber and quality of FG, I think naivety that they wouldn't, is a stronger case.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I'm not sure if you used Google translate for this or if you were just so excited to get a dig at the Gardaí you lost the run of yourself and couldn't string together a coherent sentence. Or maybe you just couldn't argue your point so went on the attack instead.

The topic was the legitimacy of my comment of possible policy and how it might play out. You brought the Garda into it. They have a piss poor reputation in regard to contracts. I thought it ironic to use that organisation in such a topic.

TheChizler

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The assets would not include water supply, infrastructure as they would belong to the state. IW for example could sell it's laughing yoga mats but not the pipes water or processing facilities.

And how would the amendment make the distinction?

James Brown

TheChizler wrote: »

And how would the amendment make the distinction?

By clarifying that although the state may use semi-state or private concerns to operate or in some way interact with water, it's supply and maintenance, the infrastructure, water and processing facilities etc would be owned by the state. They would be contractors or partners on the understanding that ownership remains with the state. Don't you think? As it stands the LA's and private contractors carry out the work and yet we haven't needed to privatise.

Captain Obvious

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I believe they would/intend to privatise water at some point. The fact they are playing about with it adds to that. Simply claiming it's mere paranoia won't put safe guards in place and with the caliber and quality of FG, I think naivety that they wouldn't, is a stronger case.

You can believe the sky is going to fall down but it doesn't mean the government should make provisions for it. The repeal of the eighth should have made people aware of the dangers of ill thought out amendments to our constitution. And the fact that people are having difficulty putting a wording to it should be an indicator of how easily it could go wrong. And that's leaving aside the fact that Article 10 already covers natural resource management and would have to be amended in a way that doesn't cause havoc.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The topic was the legitimacy of my comment of possible policy and how it might play out. You brought the Garda into it. They have a piss poor reputation in regard to contracts. I thought it ironic to use that organisation in such a topic.

No you didn't. You thought you'd have a go at a person by insulting their profession with an unrelated comment.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

By clarifying that although the state may use semi-state or private concerns to operate or in some way interact with water, it's supply and maintenance, the infrastructure, water and processing facilities etc would be owned by the state. They would be contractors or partners on the understanding that ownership remains with the state. Don't you think? As it stands the LA's and private contractors carry out the work and yet we haven't needed to privatise.

Your amendment won't do that.

In fact, the more I listen to the naive calls for an amendment, the more I think that if an amendment could be constructed to do all of the things that you wish it to do, it would be longer than the Constitution itself.

They type of thing you are proposing just isn't possible to translate into language suitable for a Constitutional amendment. The fact that your only attempt to do so was completely ripped apart by a succession of posters should have alerted you to that fact.

VonZan

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Have you looked at Irish rail, aer Lingus, telecom erieann, an post etc... and how they were doing when they were state run.

Private business delivers better service, cheaper and a better product for users. I don't think something as important as water should be left to our government considering the upgrades needed to infrastructure , I believe we will pay a charge for water in the future by use and thats the right thing to do.

I don't think water will ever fall into the hands of private operators in this country. Any attempt to privatise will be meet with huge resistance. No political party will touch it.

Irish Rail and An Post are still owned and operated by the state as statutory corporations.