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.
Comments
-
oscarBravo wrote: »Why? I'm pretty sure it would pass, too. That doesn't make it not a terrible idea. We're no strangers to enshrining terrible ideas in the Constitution by popular vote. I'm sure they do. But Fine Gael seeing merit in something doesn't automatically make it a good idea. I'm actually pretty sure that's the entire totality of the reason for this proposal, which makes it quite ironic that there's a strong correlation between those opposed to water charges and those in favour of this proposal. Why? Then you've misunderstood my reasoning.
I'm not arguing for letting the government do anything it wants; I'm arguing against using the Constitution as a way of enshrining current popular opinion so as to prevent future governments from enacting the will of future electorates.
The Constitution is there to stop the government over reaching and oppressing the population. The poster hasn’t “misunderstood your reasoning” he has your number completely and your weasel response proves this. Dismissing the control of our nations supply of water as a resource as merely the “trend of the day” is disengenuous in the extreme. Like pretty much all your posts in this thread.0 -
FreudianSlippers wrote: »The key word there is "management".
"and for the control of the alienation" would suggest they can sell the 'property' no?0 -
No I don't think that's a correct legal reading of what that says - I think my expanded post deals with this, but in short the State can divest the property to a private entity for the purpose of management of that property; in order to do so, the State must take actions to control the alienation of the property for the purposes of management."and for the control of the alienation" would suggest they can sell the 'property' no?
In other words, it's perfectly lawful for the State to permanently divest management of water to Irish Water (a private company) and take any action for the control of the alienation required for such a permanent divestment of management of water to Irish Water. Fundamentally, however, the State is still the owner of the property.0 -
Except literally nobody is suggesting this.Dismissing the control of our nations supply of water as a resource as merely the “trend of the day” is disengenuous in the extreme. Like pretty much all your posts in this thread.
Not the most subtle slippery slope!The Constitution is there to stop the government over reaching and oppressing the population.
Anyone with a fair knowledge of Constitutional law will be aware that the more proscriptive a Constitution is, the more easy it is for a government to over-reach. The purpose of a Constitution is to be the law-of-laws; inherently and historically, it should be less about what a Government cannot do and move about what the sovereign can do. If the sovereign through their elected officials choose to do something that is permissible through the Constitution then it should be done, no matter how stupid (see: Brexit)0 -
The Constitution is there to stop the government over reaching and oppressing the population. The poster hasn’t “misunderstood your reasoning” he has your number completely and your weasel response proves this. Dismissing the control of our nations supply of water as a resource as merely the “trend of the day” is disengenuous in the extreme. Like pretty much all your posts in this thread.
Even if this post makes sense, which is doesn't, how would the absence of such a Constitutional amendment equate to the Government oppressing the population?
Your reasoning is quite bizarre.0 -
Advertisement
-
It's really not. To some extent that's true of the US Constitution ("Congress shall make no law infringing..."), but ours is much less about proscription ("Provision may be made by law...").The Constitution is there to stop the government over reaching and oppressing the population.
I'm sorry, but that's just ad hominem.The poster hasn’t “misunderstood your reasoning” he has your number completely and your weasel response proves this.
Why? I've asked someone to explain to me why this one specific thing should be constitutionally protected out of all others, and not one reason has stood up to scrutiny.Dismissing the control of our nations supply of water as a resource as merely the “trend of the day” is disengenuous in the extreme.
More ad hominem.Like pretty much all your posts in this thread.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,192 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 37020
The Constitution is there to stop the government over reaching and oppressing the population. The poster hasn’t “misunderstood your reasoning” he has your number completely and your weasel response proves this. Dismissing the control of our nations supply of water as a resource as merely the “trend of the day” is disengenuous in the extreme. Like pretty much all your posts in this thread.
Cut out the tone please. There's no need whatsoever for it.The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 19:34
0 -
FreudianSlippers wrote: »No I don't think that's a correct legal reading of what that says - I think my expanded post deals with this, but in short the State can divest the property to a private entity for the purpose of management of that property; in order to do so, the State must take actions to control the alienation of the property for the purposes of management.
In other words, it's perfectly lawful for the State to permanently divest management of water to Irish Water (a private company) and take any action for the control of the alienation required for such a permanent divestment of management of water to Irish Water. Fundamentally, however, the State is still the owner of the property.
Ok thanks.
I guess my problem is coming from a reading of the sentence where I see the word "and" making it essentially two separate clauses so I am essentially reading it as:
"Provision may be made by law for the management of the property which belongs to the state by virtue of this article. Provision may be made by law for the control of the alienation, whether temporary or permanent, of that property."
But I'm not a lawyer :pac: so I guess this is not the correct legal interpretation.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Careful now. That toothless cat has claws.
Not a lot of good to a cat with no teeth when it comes to providing itself with nourishment.
This old cat is looking very very lean and bedraggled with only memories to keep it warm of the good old days when it ran rampant with its masters blessing, gobbling up all it desired and looking after its masters hanger-ons.
Neighbours got so fed up with its wasteful ways they pulled its teeth. Now to be certain it can never ever goes back to those ways they are going to take away its claws as well.0 -
Irish Water - check.
Water charges for excessive usage - check.
Exactly what I predicted. If you did actually read back carefully, there were posters predicting the demise and dismantling of Irish Water. I said that was never going to happen and that a single utility was here to stay. Proven completely correct in all of that. I also said that some form of usage charging was necessary for compliance with the WFD. And that is what we have. Proven correct on that one too.
Quite simply, a single utility is here to stay. Charges for usage are now enshrined and they will creep in further as the years go by.
I don't understand your bizarre reference to SF. On this thread, I have been criticial of both FF (weaselly populist) and FG (weak, afraid, climate change) and hardly mentioned SF. As with most political debates in Ireland on important issues, they are largely irrelevant.
Like many supporters of the fiasco on here you quickly (and in my view disingenuously) moved from being an avid supporter of water charges to expecting people to believe that your only interest was in an overall authority when water charges were cut off at the knees.
On the WFD was not your strongly stated position that unless we complied with the regime on paying charges above the "free water" household allowance of 30,000 liters per annum then we were going to be hit with daily fine in the millions by the EU. How has that worked out?
At the time you even posted a synopsis on an ECJ ruling to back up that belief, yet somehow failed to include the fact that the ruling stated the allocation of "free water" was entirely a matter for the state, not the EU.
As to your "checks"
Irish Water. Over 1 Billion Euro wasted on a metering project that has not, and never will, returned a cent to the provision of water services. Check.
Water charges for excessive use.
"Free water" allowance increased per household per annum from 30,000 liters to 210,000 liters. A figure that regardless of your wishful thinking on metering will not even come close to paying for the madcap scheme in the lifetime of generations to come, never mind the lifetime of the meters that were buried at such a wasteful cost. Check.0 -
Advertisement
-
Captain Obvious wrote: »You want the actual company enshrined in the constitution?
You're getting angry because people are pointing out the inherent flaws and dangers, as well as the difficulty, in trying to enshrine something like this in the constitution. Although it now seems you've swapped to legislation. Ownership of our natural resources is already enshrined in the constitution. We already can, and do, control them with legislation. What is it exactly you are worried will happen that you think we need to prevent?
I'm not angry I'm calling out your nonsense. There are inherit flaws and dangers in all legislation/law/pinky swear, (another childish attempt at belittling). That's not a valid argument for not having any.
I am hoping we can stop all our water infrastructure, rights, access being sold or licenced off. Are you now claiming you've no clue what this is about or just throwing up more nonsense? If it's already in the constitution how come the AG/Leo/Murphy etc. don't know about it? There's obviously an angle needs clarifying or a loophole needs closing.
As regards it being very difficult, we should use the boys we had in 2010/2011 when we bailed out private investors who gambled and lost, privatised banks and took one for the team EU wise, surely that was more troublesome to pen? Oh, and I couldn't attempt such a complex documentation so I suppose it should have never been? They'd also no trouble creating documentation for the IW quango, Siteserv deal and doing Denis a solid all on the tax payers coin for a resource we already and continue to pay for.0 -
Like many supporters of the fiasco on here you quickly (and in my view disingenuously) moved from being an avid supporter of water charges to expecting people to believe that your only interest was in an overall authority when water charges were cut off at the knees.
On the WFD was not your strongly stated position that unless we complied with the regime on paying charges above the "free water" household allowance of 30,000 liters per annum then we were going to be hit with daily fine in the millions by the EU. How has that worked out?
At the time you even posted a synopsis on an ECJ ruling to back up that belief, yet somehow failed to include the fact that the ruling stated the allocation of "free water" was entirely a matter for the state, not the EU.
As to your "checks"
Irish Water. Over 1 Billion Euro wasted on a metering project that has not, and never will, returned a cent to the provision of water services. Check.
Water charges for excessive use.
"Free water" allowance increased per household per annum from 30,000 liters to 210,000 liters. A figure that regardless of your wishful thinking on metering will not even come close to paying for the madcap scheme in the lifetime of generations to come, never mind the lifetime of the meters that were buried at such a wasteful cost. Check.
The only thing that changed was the "free water" allowance. Incidentally, until it is actually introduced and functioning, we do not know whether the EU Commission will accept it as meeting the requirements of the WFD. In a future enforcement scenario, if that happens, the obvious solution to an adverse finding will be to drop the level of the allowance. The show ain't over until the fat old lady in the EU Commission sings. They are smart enough to know that until Brexit is finalised, there is no point upsetting the Irish public. Watch this space, it might take another few years, but
As for the meters, they are continuing to be installed in all new builds. The percentage of housing stock covered by water meters will continually rise as a result.
I normally don't hold people to what they said years ago because the biggest sign of intelligence is to change your mind and to accept sometimes that you were wrong. I was right that we needed to charge for water (we are doing so, albeit in a modified way) that a single utility was the correct way forward (Irish Water is still here), that there are huge conservation issues looming (shown last summer). Where I was wrong was about the ability of the FG and Labour government ability to stand up to the mob and I accept that. They have backed down and effectively delayed full implementation of the original proposals. I was also right about FF and SF's craven capitulation to opportunistic populism. I am also right that a referendum is nonsense.
As for the referendum, some people told us it would take place in 2015:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92918631&postcount=4816
And they predicted there would be no Irish Water:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=98848990&postcount=9522
Yet, despite getting all that wrong, you are raising issues with other people getting something wrong. People in glasshouses etc. I could go over other posts and probably find more serious wrongs but they popped up on the first page of a search and I can't be bothered, because as I point out above you are entitled to change your mind and/or admit you were wrong, without being hounded, so I will leave it there.
For what it's worth, I am still an avid supporter of water charges, still a believer in a single national utility and still believe a referendum is nonsense.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »I'm not angry I'm calling out your nonsense. There are inherit flaws and dangers in all legislation/law/pinky swear, (another childish attempt at belittling). That's not a valid argument for not having any.
I am hoping we can stop all our water infrastructure, rights, access being sold or licenced off. Are you now claiming you've no clue what this is about or just throwing up more nonsense? If it's already in the constitution how come the AG/Leo/Murphy etc. don't know about it? There's obviously an angle needs clarifying or a loophole needs closing.
As regards it being very difficult, we should use the boys we had in 2010/2011 when we bailed out private investors who gambled and lost, privatised banks and took one for the team EU wise, surely that was more troublesome to pen. Oh, and I couldn't attempt such a complex documentation so I suppose it should have never been?
How is it obvious that there is an angle that needs clarifying or a loophole that needs closing? To be obvious, there would need to be a court ruling on the issue or Irish Water would have to be sold.
This thread is getting more nonsensical by the minute.
Once again, you also fail to understand the distinction between legislation and constitutional amendment, despite this distinction having been explained to you several times now in the thread. The red herring you introduced of the bailout was legislation, your proposal is a constitutional amendment. Understand now?0 -
The only thing that changed was the "free water" allowance. Incidentally, until it is actually introduced and functioning, we do not know whether the EU Commission will accept it as meeting the requirements of the WFD. In a future enforcement scenario, if that happens, the obvious solution to an adverse finding will be to drop the level of the allowance. The show ain't over until the fat old lady in the EU Commission sings. They are smart enough to know that until Brexit is finalised, there is no point upsetting the Irish public. Watch this space, it might take another few years, but
As for the meters, they are continuing to be installed in all new builds. The percentage of housing stock covered by water meters will continually rise as a result.
I normally don't hold people to what they said years ago because the biggest sign of intelligence is to change your mind and to accept sometimes that you were wrong. I was right that we needed to charge for water (we are doing so, albeit in a modified way) that a single utility was the correct way forward (Irish Water is still here), that there are huge conservation issues looming (shown last summer). Where I was wrong was about the ability of the FG and Labour government ability to stand up to the mob and I accept that. They have backed down and effectively delayed full implementation of the original proposals. I was also right about FF and SF's craven capitulation to opportunistic populism. I am also right that a referendum is nonsense.
As for the referendum, some people told us it would take place in 2015:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92918631&postcount=4816
And they predicted there would be no Irish Water:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=98848990&postcount=9522
Yet, despite getting all that wrong, you are raising issues with other people getting something wrong. People in glasshouses etc. I could go over other posts and probably find more serious wrongs but they popped up on the first page of a search and I can't be bothered, because as I point out above you are entitled to change your mind and/or admit you were wrong, without being hounded, so I will leave it there.
For what it's worth, I am still an avid supporter of water charges, still a believer in a single national utility and still believe a referendum is nonsense.
Still ignoring ECJ rulings on the WFD and the realities of water charges. Delusional or clinging on to a faint hope that an amendment that FG committed too, and that the vast majority of T.D`s are in favour of, that will ensure the public water supply will never be privatised as some vague hope it may save the dream of water metering, it`s difficult to say which definitively.
Looking at all here who are not in favour of an amendment in light of their past histories on water metering, strikes me as much like an arguement that bald men would put forward as to why the creation of the comb was not possible.0 -
IMHO there is an implied comma there - as is the case with legislative drafting in particular, the lawyers that tend to write these things don't often use commas in the same way that normal people would. It actually happens frequently in our Constitution because it is very heavily based on the US Constitution who seem like they had to pay extra for commas!Ok thanks.
I guess my problem is coming from a reading of the sentence where I see the word "and" making it essentially two separate clauses so I am essentially reading it as:
"Provision may be made by law for the management of the property which belongs to the state by virtue of this article. Provision may be made by law for the control of the alienation, whether temporary or permanent, of that property."
But I'm not a lawyer :pac: so I guess this is not the correct legal interpretation.0 -
I don't believe the EC has ruled on this yet, unless you have a link to the decision? Arguably the State (the taxpayer) will be paying for anyone using over the allocated limit to Irish Water with "excessive users" being penalised.On the WFD was not your strongly stated position that unless we complied with the regime on paying charges above the "free water" household allowance of 30,000 liters per annum then we were going to be hit with daily fine in the millions by the EU. How has that worked out?
So, we're simply paying more taxation into water than before.
Will that pass the polluter pays principle? Perhaps - I think it probably won't which is why the EC is putting it on the long finger for the moment.0 -
Still ignoring ECJ rulings on the WFD and the realities of water charges. Delusional or clinging on to a faint hope that an amendment that FG committed too, and that the vast majority of T.D`s are in favour of, that will ensure the public water supply will never be privatised as some vague hope it may save the dream of water metering, it`s difficult to say which definitively.
Looking at all here who are not in favour of an amendment in light of their past histories on water metering, strikes me as much like an arguement that bald men would put forward as to why the creation of the comb was not possible.
I actually laughed out loud at that post.
Water metering is happening every day, it will continue to happen, and sooner or later, more probably later I admit, the free allowance will come down.
However, that has absolutely nothing to do with the silly stupid notion that we should put an unworkable clause into the constitution that carries a very high risk of serious unintended consequences and repeats the mistakes of the 8th.0 -
FreudianSlippers wrote: »I don't believe the EC has ruled on this yet, unless you have a link to the decision? Arguably the State (the taxpayer) will be paying for anyone using over the allocated limit to Irish Water with "excessive users" being penalised.
So, we're simply paying more taxation into water than before.
Will that pass the polluter pays principle? Perhaps - I think it probably won't which is why the EC is putting it on the long finger for the moment.
The current "free allowance" is set at a high level. It may pass initial scrutiny from the Commission, but it is in the review of our river basin management plan that the Commission will examine the matter closely.
This has a way to go yet. FF are experts at kicking the can down the road, and ultimately that is what has happened.0 -
I actually laughed out loud at that post.
Water metering is happening every day, it will continue to happen, and sooner or later, more probably later I admit, the free allowance will come down.
However, that has absolutely nothing to do with the silly stupid notion that we should put an unworkable clause into the constitution that carries a very high risk of serious unintended consequences and repeats the mistakes of the 8th.
But but but, water metering is not doing what all that wasted 1 Billion Euro was supposedly for, never has in fact. Contributed a single cent to the provision of water services.
With all that laughing did you actually miss that the "free water" allowance has been increased from 30,000 liters annually per household to 210,000 liters or did you just chose to ignore an uncomfortable truth ?
With you being into crystal ball gazing, seeing as we are one of the lowest users of domestic water in the OECD and taking into account the lifespan of those meters, and an allowance level increased from 30,000 liters to now 210,000 liters when do you see them contributing anything financially to the provision of water services when they were not contributing a red cent at an allowance level of 30,000 liters ?
Attempting to compare an amendment to ensure water is never privatised to the 8th. amendment in my view is callously obscene.0 -
it is in the review of our river basin management plan that the Commission will examine the matter closely.
Ireland are being sued for breach of the WFD at the moment to do with quality of drinking water. I believe (but stand to be corrected) that it's correlated to issues with supply and infrastructure which will invariably lead full circle to the Commission ruling Ireland will need to fund replacement of pipes and other infrastructure facilities. In other words, back at square one.
I don't really care one way or the other which way water is funded. I accept the argument about "the books", I accept the argument that taxation is being used to fund water (and that this money is being wasted). I just think we should be honest and tell people that if they want clean, sustainable and readily available water then we're going to have to figure out a way to pay for it.0 -
Advertisement
-
No, it's to do with a by-product of chlorination of the water as opposed to the probably countless other health issues from the lead pipes and run-off.Ireland are being sued for breach of the WFD at the moment to do with quality of drinking water. I believe (but stand to be corrected) that it's correlated to issues with supply and infrastructure which will invariably lead full circle to the Commission ruling Ireland will need to fund replacement of pipes and other infrastructure facilities. In other words, back at square one.0 -
FreudianSlippers wrote: »I don't believe the EC has ruled on this yet, unless you have a link to the decision? Arguably the State (the taxpayer) will be paying for anyone using over the allocated limit to Irish Water with "excessive users" being penalised.
So, we're simply paying more taxation into water than before.
Will that pass the polluter pays principle? Perhaps - I think it probably won't which is why the EC is putting it on the long finger for the moment.
All been done and dusted in the old mega threads, and as you were an active poster there yourself I do not feel the need to again go over old ground with you.
I don`t know where this EU "long finger" originated.
We were promised instant hell and damnation by pro water charges posters back on the old mega threads with daily millions in fines if we didn`t comply with the 30,000 liter limit and as yet I haven`t seen or heard a word on its introduction. Feel free to get back to me as soon as it happens. Until then take care.0 -
You're claiming the EC has ruled on this issue then you can provide the evidence. That's the way this works.All been done and dusted in the old mega threads, and as you were an active poster there yourself I do not feel the need to again go over old ground with you.
I don't think anyone mentioned and "EU 'long finger'"I don`t know where this EU "long finger" originated.
I don't think this is accurate at all. The EC has not adjudicated the current Water Services Act and its compliance with the WFD; I'll be sure to get back to you when it does.We were promised instant hell and damnation by pro water charges posters back on the old mega threads with daily millions in fines if we didn`t comply with the 30,000 liter limit and as yet I haven`t seen or heard a word on its introduction. Feel free to get back to me as soon as it happens. Until then take care.0 -
Ireland are being sued for breach of the WFD at the moment to do with quality of drinking water. I believe (but stand to be corrected) that it's correlated to issues with supply and infrastructure which will invariably lead full circle to the Commission ruling Ireland will need to fund replacement of pipes and other infrastructure facilities. In other words, back at square one.
I don't really care one way or the other which way water is funded. I accept the argument about "the books", I accept the argument that taxation is being used to fund water (and that this money is being wasted). I just think we should be honest and tell people that if they want clean, sustainable and readily available water then we're going to have to figure out a way to pay for it.
Also ensure any monies are going to infrastructure and not another quango or sweet deal, but they can't help themselves sadly.
All IW did was become the HQ for the very same LA workers and contractors who worked under the DOE. If they were serious about the water they would have put the IW/Yoga/sweet deal/'jobs for our own' monies into infrastructure. But that would be much more difficult to cream off of.
Such behaviour requires the people get insurances into the constitution.0 -
I may surprise you here, but I agree completely (other than I think Irish Water is correctly a "quango" in the terms that it is a private company wholly owned by the State). There should be complete transparency in all government/quango contract awards - so if it ends up SiteServ are the best bidder, at least we can all look at the bid and say "fair enough" if it is.Matt Barrett wrote: »Also ensure any monies are going to infrastructure and not another quango or sweet deal, but they can't help themselves sadly.
All IW did was become the HQ for the very same LA workers and contractors who worked under the DOE. If they were serious about the water they would have put the IW/Yoga/sweet deal/'jobs for our own' monies into infrastructure. But that would be much more difficult to cream off of.
Such behaviour requires the people get insurances into the constitution.0 -
But but but, water metering is not doing what all that wasted 1 Billion Euro was supposedly for, never has in fact. Contributed a single cent to the provision of water services.
With all that laughing did you actually miss that the "free water" allowance has been increased from 30,000 liters annually per household to 210,000 liters or did you just chose to ignore an uncomfortable truth ?
With you being into crystal ball gazing, seeing as we are one of the lowest users of domestic water in the OECD and taking into account the lifespan of those meters, and an allowance level increased from 30,000 liters to now 210,000 liters when do you see them contributing anything financially to the provision of water services when they were not contributing a red cent at an allowance level of 30,000 liters ?
I have addressed the allowance issue already. I notice you are now accepting that the only change has been an increase in the allowance.
I don't know if you ever bought shares or other investments. There is a standard warning that whatever goes up can also come down.
Watch this space over the next few years.Attempting to compare an amendment to ensure water is never privatised to the 8th. amendment in my view is callously obscene.
Yes, calling it "callously obscene" means that you don't have to address the clear analogies raised. I remember 1983 and how many people desperately wanted the 8th put in place, the same type of irrational rabidity for amending the Constitution that I see here on the water issue.0 -
I have addressed the allowance issue already. I notice you are now accepting that the only change has been an increase in the allowance.
I don't know if you ever bought shares or other investments. There is a standard warning that whatever goes up can also come down.
Watch this space over the next few years.
Yes, calling it "callously obscene" means that you don't have to address the clear analogies raised. I remember 1983 and how many people desperately wanted the 8th put in place, the same type of irrational rabidity for amending the Constitution that I see here on the water issue.
Well that gave me a laugh.
You have addressed the allowance issue.
You didn`t even attempt to address the question.
No I called it callously obscene, because as I have already said to you, I find attempting to make a comparison between an amendment to ensure public water is never privatised and the 8th. amendment callously obscene.0 -
No I called it callously obscene, because as I have already said to you, I find attempting to make a comparison between an amendment to ensure public water is never privatised and the 8th. amendment callously obscene.
Yes I'd imagine that's easier than actually addressing the comparison logically. The 8th amendment is a prime example of a bad change to the constitution that had unintended consequences and we were stuck with it for a long time. Proponents of putting IW into the constitution have failed to come up with a compelling motivation for adding it beyond paranoia. They've failed to come up with a wording for the amendment. They've even failed to say what Article they would be amending. They've shown an inability in differentiating a constitutional amendment from normal legislation.
If there is a referendum it will be the job of the pros to convince the cons. You can't just clutch your pearls when somebody brings up the eighth, you have to say why it's different this time, why the same mistake won't be made.0 -
FreudianSlippers wrote: »Oh wait... I just remembered that this already doesn't work, as Irish Water is a private company and the Minister is the sole shareholder.
The minister?
A quick Google of the shareholders of IW gave me this.
"Irish Water has two shareholders, Ervia and the Irish Government. The ultimate shareholder of Irish Water is the Irish Government and, on that basis, Irish Water is a state-owned entity".
While IW is a private regd company, its a state owned entity.
You're being obtuse and disingenuous in your description of it and it's shareholder. it is not privately owned or run.0 -
Advertisement
-
Captain Obvious wrote: »Yes I'd imagine that's easier than actually addressing the comparison logically. The 8th amendment is a prime example of a bad change to the constitution that had unintended consequences and we were stuck with it for a long time. Proponents of putting IW into the constitution have failed to come up with a compelling motivation for adding it beyond paranoia. They've failed to come up with a wording for the amendment. They've even failed to say what Article they would be amending. They've shown an inability in differentiating a constitutional amendment from normal legislation.
If there is a referendum it will be the job of the pros to convince the cons. You can't just clutch your pearls when somebody brings up the eighth, you have to say why it's different this time, why the same mistake won't be made.
As I have already told another poster attempting to make any comparison between an amendment on ensuring the public water supply is never privatised and the 8th. amendment I for one find it callously obscene.
As to your very misdirected jibe of "just clutch your pearls" I have never found that being a member of any religious persuasion has a correlation with a moral compass.
You also appear to have a very poor understanding between what constitutes paranoia and what constitutes genuine concern. While many who opposed water charges felt genuine concern on the future possibility of privitisation I believe you will find that there are many who agreed also share that concern.
The simple facts are the government established an independently chaired Oireachtas Committee which recommended a referendum an amendment on the issue of water privatisation. The government accepted this recommendation, as did the vast majority of the Houses of the Oireachtas. The Attorney General is tasked with the proposed wording of this amendment which when complete will be debated and voted on by the Houses of the Oireachtas. If passed this amendment, by way of a referendum, will then be put to the people to make a democratic choice.
In the context of the above I for one find it in the realm of the ridiculous laughable that bar stool lawyers are asking internet randomers to word his amendment. In my view not just ridiculously laughable but a complete and utter waste of time until we see the Attorney General`s wording of the proposed amendment.0
Advertisement