Irish Water pushing ahead with privatisation of Water Infrastructure on the DL?

Bishopsback

Nettle Soup wrote: »

Remember the EU Eurostat test that Irish Water failed?

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/09/07/privatisation-of-irish-water-is-ultimately-envisaged/



[/INDENT]

Again there, a referendum needed to privatise the infrastructure.
IW by definition would have been operated as if it was a private company.
It would have been borrowing off the state books if it had passed the test and been raising its own funding. That's not to say it would or should be sold off.
The protest was very successful from a political standpoint, it obliterated Labour, cut FG down to size and almost left the country ungovernable.
Something SF and leftie loonies would love, they don't want to govern, just make noise and gain seats to keep the mula flowing.
Thankfully, there are enough fairly sensible politicians and party's to chug on with the job of keeping us afloat.

wordofwarning

Nettle Soup wrote: »

It put people on the streets.

OMG! This is my point!!! If people are so outraged about IW charging for water and protesting. Privatising it, will finish off any Government. Every Government knows this. Yet the tin foil brigade, living off every lie from the anti-everything parties are believing the BS that IW will still be privatised...

Nettle Soup wrote: »

Are you saying that you naïve see-no-evil lapdogs know more than the minister and current FG TD who helped set up Irish Water

I am sorry, but I don't live off the opinions of single TDs. I know there are certain individuals in Ireland, who would go to jail for some TDs like Paul Murphy. I am an educated individual and see the bigger picture. I don't take the option of a TD trying to save his ass, as the word of God...

Nettle Soup wrote: »

Privatisation was always part of the Irish Water "plan"

I await your analysis.

You are real alright...really deluded.

I literally roll my eyes at anyone who thinks that Irish Water should be in the constitution of Ireland. A constitution should basic and as small as possible. It should not be filled to the brim with populaist BS. It is ironic that most of the crowd screaming and shouting that IW should be in the constitution are the same crowd moaning about the constitution being filled with outdated stuff like women's rights, abortion, god etc. It is as if some people never learn... ie what seems great to put in the constitution now, does not make much sense in a few years.

You fall to realise that IW was set up during a period of the state on the verge of bankruptcy. The privatisation of any state assets was on the card. But they were not privatised. If we did not privatise state assets during a massive economic crash. We won't do it during the good times.

Also that TD saying that he wanted a law requiring IW to hold a referendum before being privatised. It makes no ****ing sense. You could just change the law and not have to worry about the referendum. I will explain that video to you. It is someone trying to save their ass...

gerryirl

your correct Bishopsback... only problem is the people who think they won the battle with no charges didn't actually win. IW is now going to be funded through general taxation, so all the people that were protesting that don't work or don't need to work are fine while all the other people braking there backs to make a living will pay through taxes of some kind. Road tax was already diverted to pay for some of it and god knows what else. As you say from a Political standpoint they won but not on the charges

McMurphy

gerryirl wrote: »

your correct Bishopsback... only problem is the people who think they won the battle with no charges didn't actually win. IW is now going to be funded through general taxation, so all the people that were protesting that don't work or don't need to work are fine while all the other people braking there backs to make a living will pay through taxes of some kind. Road tax was already diverted to pay for some of it and god knows what else. As you say from a Political standpoint they won but not on the charges

So it'll be the same as it always has been?

Bishopsback

Rick Shaw wrote: »

So it'll be the same as it always has been?

Funding wise, yes it seems.
That doesn't mean that's the best outcome though.
Remember that resolution SF MEPs voted for, a report chaired by Lynn Boylan of SF?
Can you remember the wording of that, I can remind you if need be.

McMurphy

Bishopsback wrote: »

Funding wise, yes it seems.
That doesn't mean that's the best outcome though.

It's the best way of funding for our water services according to a commission of experts, set up by FG. Take it up with them should you disagree with it.

Remember that resolution SF MEPs voted for, a report chaired by Lynn Boylan of SF?
Can you remember the wording of that, I can remind you if need be.

Wtf is it with your SF infatuation? Away and take it to a SF thread, and stop trying the old deflection in this one.

Bishopsback

Rick Shaw wrote: »

It's the best way of funding for our water services according to a commission of experts, set up by FG. Take it up with them should you disagree with it.

Wtf is it with your SF infatuation? Away and take it to a SF thread, and stop trying the old deflection in this one.

Lol, no obsession as such. I just see it as a bit hypocritical for a party to develop a stance against a particular stance in one country while its reps are voting in favour of the very same stance elsewhere.
https://www.google.ie/amp/www.rte.ie/amp/726550/
Now miss Boylan actually chaired this thing!

Roger Hassenforder

Bishopsback wrote: »

Lol, no obsession as such. I just see it as a bit hypocritical for a party to develop a stance against a particular stance in one country while its reps are voting in favour of the very same stance elsewhere.
https://www.google.ie/amp/www.rte.ie/amp/726550/
Now miss Boylan actually chaired this thing!

Can you imagine the flip flopping if FF had a presence in another country

Bishopsback

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Can you imagine the flip flopping if FF had a presence in another country

Tbf, are any of them any different in that respect.
This has been the biggest flip flop for all the major party's.
I would concede that the protest was a big success.

Roger Hassenforder

Rick Shaw wrote: »

So it'll be the same as it always has been?

It seems to be even less going to actually providing water services, now that some of it is going to pay for the >700 bureaucracy and (>200?) call centre


https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1024/914731-epa_-_irish_water/


"Less than half (44%) of improvement works due between 2009 and 2016 were reported as complete at the end of 2016"

" for many years Ireland has not invested enough in the infrastructure needed to collect and treat our waste water. Capital expenditure on waste water treatment infrastructure in 2016 was €172 million. This is nearly €100 million less than the average spent each year between 2000 and 2011"

"delays in carrying out priority infrastructural improvements, despite revenue being available to carry out these works. For example, works to eliminate discharges of raw sewage from 16 areas, which were expected to be completed by the end of 2017, have been delayed by over three years. This highlights the need within Irish Water to improve efficiencies in the delivery of infrastructure projects."


At least someone is trying to keep them honest...