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

charlie14

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You aren't really making sense. I've no issue with a referendum being held and people voting on it. I think it is a populist response but I've no issue with it being put to the people. I have an issue with a proposed amendment, as in I would be voting against it in the referendum. I have no issue with legislation being passed to prevent privatisation.


You seem a bit lost again. If an amendment to prevent privatisation is passed, how do you see it preventing water charges in the future? The government can charge for the water instead


Wait 35 years and propose an amendment after someone dies and thousands have suffered? Great plan.


It's not proportional though. It's like cutting off your hands to prevent yourself from smoking because you thought a person smoking a cigarette looked cool.


Judges interpret the constitution. The decide what the wording means.

I`m making no sense yet you have no issue with a referendum but you have an issue with the proposed amendment. What do think the government committed to having a referendum on other than an amendment on privatisation As to your legislation preventing privatisation, you know as well as I do that can be charged by the stroke of a ministers pen at any time without the electorate having a say.


They could again try charging for it if they were that stupid, but if an amendment to prevent privatisation is passed they could not sell it to the highest or a "preferred" bidder.


No you are just being ridiculous. What do think someone is going to die of where a government do nothing for 35 year to rectify constitutionally, thirst.

It`s proportional in that the people will decide what their wishes are on whether water services can be privitised or not rather than it being left to a majority government. Especially when we have seen that even in a two party government neither could be trusted when it came their promises on water.

I`ve told you that already. Judges can interpret thw wording of any section of the constitution. They cannot alter it. Only the electorate can by way of a constitutional amendment.

charlie14

TheChizler wrote: »

I was debating the point with someone, and the talk of the AG came in out of nowhere later (as an attempt to deflect maybe?). Thats why it has nothing to do with the poster's claim.

It's boards.ie, people debate things, make claims, and are expected to support them. That's the level of political conversation I'm comfortable with, I think most people posting here would feel the same. If I wanted to get involved with the actual wording of what I feel is a pointless amendment to the constitution I'd become a politician.

So really what you are saying is regardless of the wording from anyone, including the AG, you are going to vote against anyway.

oscarBravo

charlie14 wrote: »

So really what you are saying is regardless of the wording from anyone, including the AG, you are going to vote against anyway.

I almost certainly will. It doesn't matter how well-worded a bad idea is; it's still a bad idea.

blanch152

oscarBravo wrote: »

I almost certainly will. It doesn't matter how well-worded a bad idea is; it's still a bad idea.

+1

charlie14

oscarBravo wrote: »

I almost certainly will. It doesn't matter how well-worded a bad idea is; it's still a bad idea.

That is your democratic right, but personally I`ll wait to see the wording.
You`re entitled to your opinion, but again for me personally, I don`t see it being a bad idea ensuring public water services are never privatised.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

That is your democratic right, but personally I`ll wait to see the wording.
You`re entitled to your opinion, but again for me personally, I don`t see it being a bad idea ensuring public water services are never privatised.

But water services are never going to be privatised anyway, the legislation has seen to that, the public pressure has seen to that (if it ever was a serious idea, which I don't think it was anything more than paranoia).

What you want is what the pro-life people wanted in 1983. You want to protect your pet idea from a future change of mind in government. That was the motivation behind the 6th, that is the motivation behind the current proposal.

Like the neanderthal promoters of the 8th, the promoters of the current referendum proposal have the same selfish short-sighted self-interested motivation. I can't agree with that.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

But water services are never going to be privatised anyway, the legislation has seen to that, the public pressure has seen to that (if it ever was a serious idea, which I don't think it was anything more than paranoia).

What you want is what the pro-life people wanted in 1983. You want to protect your pet idea from a future change of mind in government. That was the motivation behind the 6th, that is the motivation behind the current proposal.

Like the neanderthal promoters of the 8th, the promoters of the current referendum proposal have the same selfish short-sighted self-interested motivation. I can't agree with that.

You have put yourself out there as a bit of a legal expert, so why don`t you tell us what is required to change a piece of legislation as opposed to a constitutional amendment.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

You have put yourself out there as a bit of a legal expert, so why don`t you tell us what is required to change a piece of legislation as opposed to a constitutional amendment.

I am not a legal expert, I have had some legal training over the years.

What I am saying is that it is close to impossible to construct a constitutional amendment to do what the opponents of water charges and Irish Water wish it to do.

However, there is a piece of legislation that says we have to have a plebiscite to privatise Irish Water. I cannot see how any future government will be able to amend that piece of legislation without significant, nearly overwhelming public support. In fact, if it was their view that the public supported privatisation, why wouldn't they have a plebiscite?

This constitutional amendment is unnecessary and unimportant and is distracting from the real problems of this country. The whole premise of this thread is nonsense, rubbish and paranoia.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

I am not a legal expert, I have had some legal training over the years.

What I am saying is that it is close to impossible to construct a constitutional amendment to do what the opponents of water charges and Irish Water wish it to do.

However, there is a piece of legislation that says we have to have a plebiscite to privatise Irish Water. I cannot see how any future government will be able to amend that piece of legislation without significant, nearly overwhelming public support. In fact, if it was their view that the public supported privatisation, why wouldn't they have a plebiscite?

This constitutional amendment is unnecessary and unimportant and is distracting from the real problems of this country. The whole premise of this thread is nonsense, rubbish and paranoia.

So again refusing to answer a question by attempting to misdirect with waffle.
Then again I may be misjudging you and you somehow missed the question, so I`ll repeat it for you.


From this legal training you have had over the years can you tell us, what is required to change a piece of legislation as opposed to a constitutional amendment ?

Captain Obvious

charlie14 wrote: »

I`m making no sense yet you have no issue with a referendum but you have an issue with the proposed amendment. What do think the government committed to having a referendum on other than an amendment on privatisation

I said it already, populism. No I have no issue with a referendum being put to the people. Yes I would likely be opposed to the amendment the referendum is over.

charlie14 wrote: »

As to your legislation preventing privatisation, you know as well as I do that can be charged by the stroke of a ministers pen at any time without the electorate having a say.

Are you talking about Statutory Instruments?

charlie14 wrote: »

They could again try charging for it if they were that stupid, but if an amendment to prevent privatisation is passed they could not sell it to the highest or a "preferred" bidder.

So the referendum will not prevent future water charges.

charlie14 wrote: »

No you are just being ridiculous. What do think someone is going to die of where a government do nothing for 35 year to rectify constitutionally, thirst.

No, but that's what happened with the eighth. Do you think anyone expected it when they voted yes to it?

charlie14 wrote: »

It`s proportional in that the people will decide what their wishes are on whether water services can be privitised or not rather than it being left to a majority government. Especially when we have seen that even in a two party government neither could be trusted when it came their promises on water.

But they caved to public pressure on water charges. So our system of government would seem to have worked.

charlie14 wrote: »

I`ve told you that already. Judges can interpret thw wording of any section of the constitution. They cannot alter it. Only the electorate can by way of a constitutional amendment.

But a judges interpretation doesn't always follow what the people intended.

charlie14

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I said it already, populism. No I have no issue with a referendum being put to the people. Yes I would likely be opposed to the amendment the referendum is over.

Are you talking about Statutory Instruments?

So the referendum will not prevent future water charges.

No, but that's what happened with the eighth. Do you think anyone expected it when they voted yes to it?


But they caved to public pressure on water charges. So our system of government would seem to have worked.


But a judges interpretation doesn't always follow what the people intended.

That is your democratic choice. Something that some here are attempting to deny to others.



No I was not talking about the Statutory Instruments Act of 1947. I was referring to what is required to change a piece of legislation as opposed to a constitutional amendment.


No it would not. Not that any politician is going to even dream about it without waking up in a cold sweat for a very long time to come. What it would do is take away the temptation to make a quick buck or do an old friend a turn.


So what do you propose. Never have another referendum due to the possibility there may be an unforeseen circumstance years down the road.


Not really in this instance. It was brought about primarily by two government parties that lied on the issue of water charges.They caved in to public pressure because they had no mandate and were not representing the wishes of the people. Not good governance imho.


In which case it is the responsibility of government to draft an amendment to put to the electorate that corrects any problem a judge may have while remaining true to the tenets of what the people intended.

Edward M

blanch152 wrote: »

I am not a legal expert, I have had some legal training over the years.

What I am saying is that it is close to impossible to construct a constitutional amendment to do what the opponents of water charges and Irish Water wish it to do.

However, there is a piece of legislation that says we have to have a plebiscite to privatise Irish Water. I cannot see how any future government will be able to amend that piece of legislation without significant, nearly overwhelming public support. In fact, if it was their view that the public supported privatisation, why wouldn't they have a plebiscite?

This constitutional amendment is unnecessary and unimportant and is distracting from the real problems of this country. The whole premise of this thread is nonsense, rubbish and paranoia.

Sounds to me like you're blaming this thread for something based on what FG are looking into.
That's a real bit of paranoia there, unless you really think the Govt are basing how they do business on what boards threads are in favour of or not, or if the ministers spend their time on here replying.

TheChizler

charlie14 wrote: »

So really what you are saying is regardless of the wording from anyone, including the AG, you are going to vote against anyway.

Absolutely nothing to do with my point but probably, yes. I disagree with polluting the constitution with this kind of thing.

charlie14

TheChizler wrote: »

Absolutely nothing to do with my point but probably, yes. I disagree with polluting the constitution with this kind of thing.

Well really it is. If a majority agree with you and vote accordingly then there will be no change to the constitution.

What I find strange is why some on here have used the same argument on their worry for the constitution as a reason for not having a referendum, without seemingly having much regard for democracy. Appearing to somehow fell that their viewpoint should be paramount in denying others the right to make a choice.

blanch152

Edward M wrote: »

Sounds to me like you're blaming this thread for something based on what FG are looking into.
That's a real bit of paranoia there, unless you really think the Govt are basing how they do business on what boards threads are in favour of or not, or if the ministers spend their time on here replying.

No, I am not blaming this thread, perhaps I should have said that the whole premise of this thread proposed referendum is nonsense. The rubbish and paranoia is being spouted on the thread though.

The only argument being put forward is that somehow somebody in the future will want to legislate for abortion privatise Irish Water and that we need to put in a clause into our constitution to prevent a future democratic decision being taken.

Seth Brundle

charlie14 wrote: »

You`re entitled to your opinion, but again for me personally, I don`t see it being a bad idea ensuring public water services are never privatised.

So will group water schemes and shared wells cease to exist or will they be nationalised?
Will the likes of waste water be protected under this amendment?

Any constitutional amendment in terms of water supply will result in issues no matter what way they word it. Whatever is added to the constitution needs to be relatively short and not a comprehensive essay. For the requirements to "protect" water in our constitution under this suggestion well will be adding a huge (and IMO unnecessary) addition to our constitution that will result in so many legal challenges.
Mistrust in FG is not a reason to put something stupid into our constitution.

TheChizler

charlie14 wrote: »

Well really it is. If a majority agree with you and vote accordingly then there will be no change to the constitution.

What I find strange is why some on here have used the same argument on their worry for the constitution as a reason for not having a referendum, without seemingly having much regard for democracy. Appearing to somehow fell that their viewpoint should be paramount in denying others the right to make a choice.

I don't think we're having the same conversation any more...

James Brown

TheChizler wrote: »

No idea what the minister is claiming, but people here have claimed the wording will be simple, they must have something in mind if they're being honest when they make that claim.

That's a half truth. People posted saying it was needed and opponents to it asked for wording. Diverting the debate down to a nonsense.

So the argument now seems to be that if folk in an internet forum can't pen a legally binding document on it, we shouldn't proceed? Good one.

I believe it will be more easily written than the bank guarantee and as easily written as the changes the AG is making to twist it to FG's liking.

TheChizler wrote: »

We're going in circles and circles. People HERE made the claim. I have zero interest in the AG coming up with a simple amendment, I'm interested in calling out claims people made here which i highly suspect of consisting entirely of BS.

You make a claim in support of your argument; you back it up. Simples.

Good luck with your endeavour.

TheChizler

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So the argument now seems to be that if folk in an internet forum can't pen a legally binding document on it, we shouldn't proceed? Good one.

Not at all but if you want to believe that's what I'm arguing then I'll leave you to it.

Larbre34

TheChizler wrote: »

Not at all but if you want to believe that's what I'm arguing then I'll leave you to it.

Its quite obvious that is what your argument is. We can tell from things like your words.

I said it before, if the constitution can deal with the complex issues it currently does, then an amendment to preserve the water supply in public ownership is possible. The argument around private supplies /sources/wells causing a problem for such a provision is spurious. Private supplies can remain as such, subject to compliance with planning and environment laws.

The job of posters here, who support this measure to protect the water system as an asset for the people, is not to draft these legal texts, but to evaluate them, debate them, make representations on them and ultimately vote of them.

The Oireachtas members are clear what is demanded here. When the AG publishes his opening gambit, ill be happy to discuss it.

Seth Brundle

Larbre34 wrote: »

I said it before, if the constitution can deal with the complex issues it currently does, then an amendment to preserve the water supply in public ownership is possible. The argument around private supplies /sources/wells causing a problem for such a provision is spurious. Private supplies can remain as such, subject to compliance with planning and environment laws.

Humour me then by answering these...

Seth Brundle wrote: »

So will group water schemes and shared wells cease to exist or will they be nationalised?
Will the likes of waste water be protected under this amendment?

James Brown

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Humour me then by answering these...

I thought he did.
I would say all will continue as is.
While the waste water query may be tongue in cheek, I would say it will and should remain the responsibility of the state to dispose of or treat as needed.
Again I would assume what is currently held privately will remain so. The water supply infrastructure owned by the state is the one some of us are looking to secure in public hands.
It's about stopping any changes towards privatisation, not taking privately held wells/sources and making them public, which I thought was common knowledge.

Seth Brundle

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I thought he did.

I don't believe that he did!

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I would say all will continue as is.

"Continue as is" as in now where you have people moaning because of some non-existent threat?

Matt Barrett wrote: »

While the waste water query may be tongue in cheek, I would say it will and should remain the responsibility of the state to dispose of or treat as needed.

But the state doesn't deal with all public waste water supplies. There are some private common WWTPs - should these be covered under the constitutional amendment?.
Does your reference to "dispose of" also mean that you're happy if the state privatises wastewater treatment?

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Again I would assume what is currently held privately will remain so. The water supply infrastructure owned by the state is the one some of us are looking to secure in public hands.
It's about stopping any changes towards privatisation, not taking privately held wells/sources and making them public, which I thought was common knowledge.

So you're happy with some privatisation e.g. group water schemes? So why against privatisation of other supplies that provide water to the public? What's the difference?
Edit: meant to also ask: are you in favour of some competition in areas where the state supplies water?

James Brown

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I don't believe that he did!

"Continue as is" as in now where you have people moaning because of some non-existent threat?

I misunderstood, I thought your queries were at least partly genuine.
The ownership of water is the topic. Therefore anything owned by private individuals would remain so I would imagine. And we are looking for assurances the states ownership will remain in the hands of the state.

Seth Brundle wrote: »

But the state doesn't deal with all public waste water supplies. There are some private common WWTPs - should these be covered under the constitutional amendment?.
Does your reference to "dispose of" also mean that you're happy if the state privatises wastewater treatment?

You should re-read before being so eager to create imagined arguments.
You even quoted this:

While the waste water query may be tongue in cheek, I would say it will and should remain the responsibility of the state to dispose of or treat as needed.

Is the use of the word 'dispose' really an argument you want to make?

Seth Brundle wrote: »

So you're happy with some privatisation e.g. group water schemes? So why against privatisation of other supplies that provide water to the public? What's the difference?
Edit: meant to also ask: are you in favour of some competition in areas where the state supplies water?

I'm happy with private wells to remain private and any schemes where the state plays a part remain as is. Again, in case you're confused, as you seem to be, it's not about the state taking over anything, it's about the states water/supply/maintenance that is currently in public hands remaining so.

This has all been covered. Are you going to ask will Ballygowan be taken over by the state? I'd say not.

Larbre34

I did already answer it.

If a private house or premises currently has a private water source under that property and paid to have a well and pump installed and has storage or treatment for the waste water on site and those arrangements are compliant with the planning approval for the site and with environmental regulations covering the sustainable treatment of waste water, then those arrangements will not be umbrellad under any amendment to maintain State ownership of the public water system.

We are talking about preserving taxpayers assets that have the potential to be monetised, commercialised, privatised, not private supplies where they exist. Its really not that complicated a concept.

Elemonator

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why? Why water, and not roads, or railways, or the power grid, or air traffic control, or RTE, or Ervia, or Dublin Port, or anything else that's in public ownership?

Should all of those things be written into the Constitution, or just the populist issue that the most recent hissy fit made about it?

In fairness I don't think these things are nearly as comparable. Roads etc. are a public good but they aren't as necessary for basic human survival. Electricity was deregulated a few years ago to allow competition against the State but water has not. Nearly all public water supplies is controlled by the Government and would be a lot less secure than electricity if they decided to privatise it. Not only this but water when compared to other commodities should never be allowed to become a market good. It's the world's most valuable resource (necessary for human survival) and should be given the highest protection possible, particularly as it becomes more scarce.

I would hate to imagine a situation where a young struggling family is struggling to pay a water bill to a private water body and as a result the private water utility would turn off the water essentially violating a basic human right.

Sure there are already existing legislative provisions preventing such situations such as the Water Services Act 2014 which prevent Irish Water shareholders such as the Ministers from alienating their shares but the legislation can be changed. A constitutional amendment will afford the highest of protection and public consultation.

The new constitutional amendment should mention supplies held in public ownership so that it doesn't extend to wells. I know its a lot more complicated than that given the amount of different types of water schemes in the country and it must be finely dealt with to avoid conflict with the right to private property but I think it is doable.

Podge_irl

Larbre34 wrote: »

I did already answer it.

If a private house or premises currently has a private water source under that property and paid to have a well and pump installed and has storage or treatment for the waste water on site and those arrangements are compliant with the planning approval for the site and with environmental regulations covering the sustainable treatment of waste water, then those arrangements will not be umbrellad under any amendment to maintain State ownership of the public water system.

We are talking about preserving taxpayers assets that have the potential to be monetised, commercialised, privatised, not private supplies where they exist. Its really not that complicated a concept.

I mean, technically this wouldn't stop the government selling all future water infrastructure not yet built to private enterprises and then slowly shutting down all current public infrastructure as it is replaced by the private one. As long as we are being paranoid we may as well go all out.

Edward M

blanch152 wrote: »

No, I am not blaming this thread, perhaps I should have said that the whole premise of this thread proposed referendum is nonsense. The rubbish and paranoia is being spouted on the thread though.

The only argument being put forward is that somehow somebody in the future will want to legislate for abortion privatise Irish Water and that we need to put in a clause into our constitution to prevent a future democratic decision being taken.

I'm not sure I understand your perspective tbh.
My thinking on it is that referendums, no matter which way they go are indeed democratic decisions.
Be it the eighth or a keep water public referendum, if its by public vote then I don't see anything undemocratic.
You seem to be suggesting differently?

Larbre34

Podge_irl wrote: »

I mean, technically this wouldn't stop the government selling all future water infrastructure not yet built to private enterprises and then slowly shutting down all current public infrastructure as it is replaced by the private one. As long as we are being paranoid we may as well go all out.

You are entitled to your view. You are entitled to consider the whole notion paranoid.

But it is my view, that due to the undeniable, gargantuan and very, very expensive cluster**** that was made of water infrastructure renewal funding and by extension water charges in recent years, the system needs protecting and preserving on the peoples' behalf.

oscarBravo

Elemonator wrote: »

Roads etc. are a public good but they aren't as necessary for basic human survival.

[...]

...water when compared to other commodities should never be allowed to become a market good. It's the world's most valuable resource (necessary for human survival)...

Food is necessary for basic human survival. It's a market good, a valuable resource, and necessary for human survival.

This is the glaring inconsistency that I've yet to see addressed: we're happy for food to be a privately-owned, marketable commodity, but it's somehow unthinkable that water could be.

I would hate to imagine a situation where a young struggling family is struggling to pay a water bill to a private water body and as a result the private water utility would turn off the water essentially violating a basic human right.

You do know that there's nothing to prevent a state-owned water utility from disconnecting someone's water supply, right?

Sure there are already existing legislative provisions preventing such situations such as the Water Services Act 2014 which prevent Irish Water shareholders such as the Ministers from alienating their shares but the legislation can be changed. A constitutional amendment will afford the highest of protection and public consultation.

Only if the amendment includes language to the effect that a publicly-owned water utility can never disconnect any of its customers, in which case I'd be even more vehemently opposed.

Writing complicated legislation into the Constitution is a really, really terrible idea. It shouldn't matter how strongly you feel about a political topic; this sort of constitutional vandalism is just straight-up wrong.

The new constitutional amendment should mention supplies held in public ownership so that it doesn't extend to wells. I know its a lot more complicated than that given the amount of different types of water schemes in the country and it must be finely dealt with to avoid conflict with the right to private property but I think it is doable.

Ye gods, this proposed amendment will add about 25% to the size of the Constitution, the way it's going.