Water Charges (1 Viewer)

[Unknown Convict]

refusing to allow for a referendum on any future sale of irish water is not a necessary step to making the system more efficient.
it's an incredibly simple step to take and they refuse to do it. why is that?

i haven't heard one voice calling for the privatisation of the resource, from either the pro- or anti-charge brigades. i do think a referendum would help - do it as a rider on the marriage equality one, so no additional cost. i reckon it'd be carried by a greater majority than the marriage one.

 

[nooleen]

no, the contract to install the meters was handed to a private company.

and the government refuse to allow for a referendum to prevent sale of irish water to a private company.

 

[nooleen]

i haven't heard one voice calling for the privatisation of the resource, from either the pro- or anti-charge brigades. i do think a referendum would help - do it as a rider on the marriage equality one, so no additional cost. i reckon it'd be carried by a greater majority than the marriage one.

exactly. this is the whole point of my argument.

 

[magicbastarder]

in case it's not clear from the fact that my last 15 posts or so have been all about privatisation, when i talk about 'rights' and 'power' i'm referring specifically to the transfer of ownership of the resource to private interests

but you're confusing the necessary steps to modernise the system with the steps required to privatise it.

metering for water in no way necessitates privatising the system. germany's water system is metered and remains in public hands.

 

[nooleen]

but you're confusing the necessary steps to modernise the system with the steps required to privatise it.

metering for water in no way necessitates privatising the system. germany's water system is metered and remains in public hands.

no, i'm not. you don't seem to be taking in what i've said at least five times now about why privatisation is an issue.

 

[magicbastarder]

in fact, is there anything preventing the government from selling the water system without metering, to a private company, and paying them for the service through general taxation?

 

[Unknown Convict]

exactly. this is the whole point of my argument.

so if the govt. agree to a referendum (which they haven't ruled out afaik), you'll be happy to be metered and to pay for your consumption, so long as it remains out of (ETA) private hands (presuming that's the will of the people)? glad we're on the same page.

 

[nooleen]

so if the govt. agree to a referendum (which they haven't ruled out afaik), you'll be happy to be metered and to pay for your consumption, so long as it remains out of hands (presuming that's the will of the people)? glad we're on the same page.

what they have ruled out is allowing for a referendum on any future possible sale of irish water. i don't know what the rest of your argument is getting at.

 

[Unknown Convict]

in fact, is there anything preventing the government from selling the water system without metering, to a private company, and paying them for the service through general taxation?

no.
maybe the govt. should privatise it, making all citizens equal shareholders, so we all benefit when it turns a profit.

 

[pete]

I wonder can we learn anything from the lessons of the past?

Bintifada | thumped.com


where's @broken arm when you need him?

 

[magicbastarder]

it's an incredibly simple step to take and they refuse to do it. why is that?

possibly due to - legitimate - concerns about referendum fatigue.

Government to hold up to half a dozen referendums next year

let's say (potentially hypothetical situation) that the government have no intention of privatising the water system. they're then being asked to hold a referendum to decide something that's already decided, instead of a more pressing constitutional issue. should they take the populist route, or go with the referendum on blasphemy, say?

 

[magicbastarder]

no.
maybe the govt. should privatise it, making all citizens equal shareholders, so we all benefit when it turns a profit.

that didn't exactly work with eircom...

 

[nooleen]

possibly due to - legitimate - concerns about referendum fatigue.

Government to hold up to half a dozen referendums next year

let's say (potentially hypothetical situation) that the government have no intention of privatising the water system. they're then being asked to hold a referendum to decide something that's already decided, instead of a more pressing constitutional issue. should they take the populist route, or go with the referendum on blasphemy, say?

they're not being asked to hold a referendum, they're being asked to allow for one if sale of irish water comes up.

 

[magicbastarder]

they're not being asked to hold a referendum

eh, they *were* being asked to hold a referendum.

 

[nooleen]

that's not what i'm talking about. what i'm talking about should be clear as i've now repeated it about 10 times.

 

[Unknown Convict]

what they have ruled out is allowing for a referendum on any future possible sale of irish water..

nov. 4th

"I am not inclined to hold a referendum. I do think it is important here that we should look at the question of strengthening the law. Obviously no political party in Dail Eireann has a proposition to privatise Irish Water. It is already enshrined in law. It will not be privatised. I can't see any party anywhere wishing to put forward that proposition," he said.

nov. 5th

Minister for the Environment Alan Kelly has said he would not rule out holding a referendum to ensure Irish Water stays in public ownership. He told the Seanad today he appreciated what the House had decided earlier calling for a referendum.

 

[magicbastarder]

they have gone on record as having ruled out the sale of irish water, so specifically asking them to do something predicated on what they might do on what they have ruled out is beyond my somewhat tipsy brain to create an analogy for.

 

[magicbastarder]

as mentioned earlier, they stepped back from privatising coillte because they realised it would be political suicide - and compare the lack of public concern over that with the public concern expressed over irish water.
privatising irish water at this point would be the greatest act of political cojones this country has ever seen. and we all know enda is not the man with those cojones.

 

[nooleen]

nov. 4th

nov. 5th

december 9th

It is not the case that the matter shall be put to the people by plebiscite. Any Government, including that currently in office, with a majority of one in each House will actually be in a position to dispose of the assets of Irish Water without referring the matter to anyone else. There is absolutely no security whatsoever provided within the legislation on this matter. I tabled a very simple amendment which would have led to the inclusion in the Bill of the promise the Minister made on 19 November to the effect that the matter should be put by plebiscite to the people. However, that amendment was ruled out of order on the basis that giving the people of this country their say with regard to the disposal of this particular asset would involve a potential cost on the Exchequer. The legislation before the House is not worth the paper on which it is written. The Minister is serious in terms of the commitment he gave on 19 November but what he said on that date is not reflected in the legislation.

People will be surprised to hear that the Government is not serious about a plebiscite to keep Irish Water in public ownership and is refusing to accept the word "shall" instead of "may" or any compulsion to hold a plebiscite. I agree with the proposal that any vote should be taken in local authority areas - in municipalities rather than on a State-wide basis.

 

[nooleen]

they have gone on record as having ruled out the sale of irish water, so specifically asking them to do something predicated on what they might do on what they have ruled out is beyond my somewhat tipsy brain to create an analogy for.

they say all kinds of things. what gives away their true intentions is that they won't make a simple binding commitment to back up what they say.