Opposition Stage Collective Dáil Walkout as Gov Guillotines Water Services Bill 2013

Sierra Oscar

Well, so much for the new politics as promised by the government. Every opposition TD has staged a collective walkout of the Dáil as the government is attempting to ram the Water Services Bill 2013 through the Oireachtas.

I think it is fair to argue that this bill is perhaps the most important piece of legislation that the Oireachtas will pass this year, yet it is being given less than half a day's debate in the Dáil.

The opposition have a duty to try and improve legislation through amendments, yet the government has refused to consider any opposition amendments on this bill.

A disgrace really when you take into account the promises made by both Fine Gael and Labour when it came to ensuring that legislation was properly debated.

Opposition TDs in Dáil walkout over Water Services Bill

Fianna Fáil lead Dáil walkout after row over water services legislation

In a rare occurrence Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin, the technical group, and other independents made a joint press conference on the issue.

Press Statement - Opposition Walkout Over Water Services Bill

humanji

Is the bill stalled now, or does it get to go through anyway?

P_1

humanji wrote: »

Is the bill stalled now, or does it get to go through anyway?

I'd imagine if it went to a vote the government's majority would see it through.

As an aside when was the last mass walkout from the Dail?

humanji

P_1 wrote: »

I'd imagine if it went to a vote the government's majority would see it through.

It may be the cynic in me, but I thought that might be the case and when I read FF had walked out, I instantly assumed they agreed with the bill and walked out in an attempt to make it look like they didn't to appease the voters.

P_1

humanji wrote: »

It may be the cynic in me, but I thought that might be the case and when I read FF had walked out, I instantly assumed they agreed with the bill and walked out in an attempt to make it look like they didn't to appease the voters.

I'm equally as cynical about FF's motives truth be told. Having said that something does have to be done about the overuse of the guillotine that has come into vogue.

My inner French revolutionary would welcome the use of a different type of guillotine coming back into vogue mind.

Manach

Water- to which access has been recognised as a fundamental level of human rights- the speed that this act been taken without any overriding urgent reasons to allow debate, is an the OP pointed out, wrong.

Sierra Oscar

Manach wrote: »

Water- to which access has been recognised as a fundamental level of human rights- the speed that this act been taken without any overriding urgent reasons to allow debate, is an the OP pointed out, wrong.

Indeed - but even if you agree with water charges it is still wrong to ram this legislation through the Oireachtas. It is not being scrutinized and it has already been highlighted that there are flaws in the legislation.

Ultimately it will be the taxpayer who will have to pay for any mistakes as a result of this legislation not being properly scrutinized.

The government could have allocated additional time, either before now or in the new year, to properly debate this. However they just want to get it done and dusted so that the media do not hone in on the debate.

Gringo180

Good oul Ming :pac:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b6a_1387463735

For Reals

This is just terrible. It's a prelude to privatisation, which in itself is short sighted. Like most privatisation, a few bob for the public coffers, great, but when the private company has a strangle hold on the public, and usually with poor service if the privatisation of water in the U.K. is anything to go by, the government just wring their hands and spout on about how they can ask but not dictate.

I'm pretty sure Fianna Fail would be all over pushing this through if they were in.
I do feel a sense of regret that I cannot give Fianna Fail the benefit of the doubt on this one. I'm not comfortable writing off anybody 100% but fool me six times etc.
Labour, you are a disgrace.

Mr.Micro

For Reals wrote: »

This is just terrible. It's a prelude to privatisation, which in itself is short sighted. Like most privatisation, a few bob for the public coffers, great, but when the private company has a strangle hold on the public, and usually with poor service if the privatisation of water in the U.K. is anything to go by, the government just wring their hands and spout on about how they can ask but not dictate.

I'm pretty sure Fianna Fail would be all over pushing this through if they were in.
I do feel a sense of regret that I cannot give Fianna Fail the benefit of the doubt on this one. I'm not comfortable writing off anybody 100% but fool me six times etc.
Labour, you are a disgrace.

Agree with privatisation or not, it is probably the only way to get investment into upgrading, infrastructure and providing a safe reliable service. It's just going to be another cost that consumers will have to bear.

walshb

Gringo180 wrote: »

Good oul Ming :pac:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b6a_1387463735

They really have no shame and no standards.

hmmm

Gringo180 wrote: »

Good oul Ming :pac:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b6a_1387463735

He has no problem opposing environmental standards for protecting our bogs, but on the other hand he wants the environment that produces our water to be perfect.

Banjo String

hmmm wrote: »

He has no problem opposing environmental standards for protecting our bogs, but on the other hand he wants the environment that produces our water to be perfect.

I think the point he was making was it is wrong to expect people to be forced to pay for water that is literally poisonous.

I found it really easy to follow tbh.

ezra_pound

Ming the minger and Mick the mick.

ezra_pound

Banjo String wrote: »

I think the point he was making was it is wrong to expect people to be forced to pay for water that is literally poisonous.

I found it really easy to follow tbh.

The point the poster made is that ming has double standards when it comes to environmental matters. He's no rainbow warrior.

Banjo String

ezra_pound wrote: »

The point the poster made is that ming has double standards when it comes to environmental matters. He's no rainbow warrior.

hmmm wrote: »

He has no problem opposing environmental standards for protecting our bogs, but on the other hand he wants the environment that produces our water to be perfect.

I'm sure the other poster can type for themselves, but anyway.

Ming Flanagans 'point' today wasn't double standards as far as I could make out. He made the legitimate point that his constituents would soon be forced to pay water charges for water that is not fit for human consumption.

Little to do with the environment Imo, and more to do with having to pay for a bad service.

I'd guess if you were in a cafe and you ordered a coffee, you'd expect it to be drinkable if your being asked to pay for it?

Faux outrage and deflection all around lads.

For Reals

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Agree with privatisation or not, it is probably the only way to get investment into upgrading, infrastructure and providing a safe reliable service. It's just going to be another cost that consumers will have to bear.

Lets suppose the tax paying public and the government are one entity.
We need pay a levy/tax for water to ensure quantity and quality to every house.
For decades this was drawn from other sources, but now its felt we need a specific levy for water, (personally I think its just an excuse for more tax but what ever).
So down the road we decide, 'why not privatise?' some company can look after the whole affair and we'll make money.....but each individually have to pay at rates set by a private company not beholding to us and they could sell it on to some other company......The service may suffer but times are tough and they need raise rates for the upkeep. And so on.
Basically we're putting money in one pocket and taking it out of another. All that will happen is we'll give up control of our water supply for an initial lump sum.

I disagree with you post. I'm not a consumer. My taxes are not investments in the corporate sense. It's my water already, my family and I had paid and continue to pay for the supply to come to my tap. The government and council work for me as much as I pay tax to them.
Cherry picking services already funded/supported by taxes and splitting them off to private concerns, (while not lowering other taxes I might add) is in the least disingenuous and at worse a scam to bleed people dry under the guise of necessity, which not unlike the Home tax and Broadcast tax, is simply bull****.

hmmm

Banjo String wrote: »

He made the legitimate point that his constituents would soon be forced to pay water charges for water that is not fit for human consumption.

Little to do with the environment Imo

Water that is "not fit for human consumption" has "little to do with the environment"? You what?

hatrickpatrick

Personally I don't see the point in debating anything when the current voting system ensures that politicians are forced to vote with their party regardless. The Dail as it currently stands is a rubber stamp for the cabinet - in all honesty, if you bypassed the Dail altogether and simply allowed the cabinet to unilaterally pass legislation, how much difference would it actually have made to say the last year of acts?

I agree that ramming things through is a disgrace, but standing orders relating to speaking rights and party membership need to fundamentally change in order for debate in the Dail to be productive.

My name is URL

hmmm wrote: »

Water that is "not fit for human consumption" has "little to do with the environment"? You what?

Do you agree with the point he made regarding the quality of water in certain areas, or are you just on automatic when it comes to Flanagan... ie. oppose even that which you agree with just because of the individual speaking? Irish politics, ehh?

He's a hypocrite a lot of the time, as are the majority of others in the Dail, but he's spot on with what he said today.. nobody else seemed bothered enough to raise the issue.

Banjo String

hmmm wrote: »

Water that is "not fit for human consumption" has "little to do with the environment"? You what?

If you're going to quote me, at least quote the post in its entirety.

Do you agree that it's a disgrace that members of his constituency will be forced to pay for water that is literally poisonous?

Again I also ask, if you ordered a coffee in a cafe, if you were being charged for the coffee, would you expect it to be at the very least drinkable, never mind non poisonous?

If the man hadn't a valid point, let me know.

hmmm

Banjo String wrote: »

If you're going to quote me, at least quote the post in its entirety.

Do you think the quality of drinking water has something to do with the environment, yes or no? If no, where do you think water comes from?

And yes, I do have a problem with someone who opposes environmental regulations on the one hand, and on the other hand expects to be provided with clean drinking water.

oscarBravo

Banjo String wrote: »

Do you agree that it's a disgrace that members of his constituency will be forced to pay for water that is literally poisonous?

Members of his constituency are already paying for toxic water - it's the quality of the water that's the disgrace here, not the fact that the means of paying for it will change.

That's a distinction that seems to be lost on Flanagan and his supporters. If he's only framing his objection to toxic drinking water in the context of direct billing, he's implying that it's OK for that water to be piped to his constituents' homes as long as they're paying for it through taxation.

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

Members of his constituency are already paying for toxic water - it's the quality of the water that's the disgrace here, not the fact that the means of paying for it will change.

That's a distinction that seems to be lost on Flanagan and his supporters. If he's only framing his objection to toxic drinking water in the context of direct billing, he's implying that it's OK for that water to be piped to his constituents' homes as long as they're paying for it through taxation.

So once water charges are brought in, there will be a tax cut elsewhere to the equivalent of however much tax revenue was already being spent on water then?

Ridiculous argument. :rolleyes:

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So once water charges are brought in, there will be a tax cut elsewhere to the equivalent of however much tax revenue was already being spent on water then?

Who claimed that?

Ridiculous argument. :rolleyes:

Nicely dodged.

View

Sounds like the opposition want an excuse to head home early for Christmas.

After all, does anyone imagine that should the Dáil spend the next two months debating this that it'll make a blind bit of difference to the votes on the bill and/or any proposed amendments to it.

When was the last time a government lost a vote in the Dáil? Was it when Jim Kemmy cast the key swing vote to vote down the budget in '81 or '82?

Manach

Irish legislation is usually of fairly high standard, comparatively from what I've read. However rushed bills without proper time for other views then tends to the fount of major issues down the line. For instance that of the Company Act, 1990. This was rushed through due to the Beef issues at the time. The language in the act was, poorly configured. Hence much wasted ink was shed to try and moderate this in the courts - with a more holistic bill having to be later drafted.
This current guillotine seems to have no present urgency but a self-imposed one by the government.

ezra_pound

Banjo String wrote: »

I'm sure the other poster can type for themselves, but anyway.

Ming Flanagans 'point' today wasn't double standards as far as I could make out. He made the legitimate point that his constituents would soon be forced to pay water charges for water that is not fit for human consumption.

Little to do with the environment Imo, and more to do with having to pay for a bad service.

I'd guess if you were in a cafe and you ordered a coffee, you'd expect it to be drinkable if your being asked to pay for it?

Faux outrage and deflection all around lads.

I'm sure all posters here can speak for themselves. I'm just supporting his view which you fail to see. Ming is a clientelist local issue pothole fixing TD and represents much of what is wrong with this country.

If ming wants his constituents drinking healthy clean water then he should support the funding of the water system and this water tax.

Simple.

nice_guy80

oscarBravo wrote: »

Members of his constituency are already paying for toxic water - it's the quality of the water that's the disgrace here, not the fact that the means of paying for it will change.

That's a distinction that seems to be lost on Flanagan and his supporters. If he's only framing his objection to toxic drinking water in the context of direct billing, he's implying that it's OK for that water to be piped to his constituents' homes as long as they're paying for it through taxation.

Many areas in rural Ireland have their own water schemes, costs paid for by the local residents.

Mainly cause they wouldn't trust the council to run them.
And with just cause.

nice_guy80

ezra_pound wrote: »

I'm sure all posters here can speak for themselves. I'm just supporting his view which you fail to see. Ming is a clientelist local issue pothole fixing TD and represents much of what is wrong with this country.

If ming wants his constituents drinking healthy clean water then he should support the funding of the water system and this water tax.

Simple.

No.
Cannot agree with you on this one. Some of the opposition deputies have introduced very well thought out bills on various issues only for them to be shot down by the government. (you just never hear about them in the media due to the government spin masters controlling the flow of information)

Water is a right, not a privilege.
Everyone is entitled to an amount of clean, drinkable water everyday.
The government have not even proposed what level of water consumption each day will not be charged for.

gotBass

What I would like to know is who is in the background. Water privatisation is going to happen, the question is which pack of crooks this time is going to screw us. When things like this get rammed through there is always someone waiting to cash in on the rest of us.
No point being annoyed just pay up like a good little Paddy. Btw I have no problem with taxes but something smells off here.