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

charlie14 wrote: »

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.

All that and you haven't explained why the comparison to the eighth is not valid.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

All that and you haven't explained why the comparison to the eighth is not valid.

How often do I have to say this before you get it!

I find any attempts to make a comparison between an amendment to ensure a public water service is never privatised and the 8th. amendment callously obscene.

[Deleted User]

And we laughed at the Brits over the Brexit referendum!

Will we only put the water in the constitution or the sewage too?

Will I wake up some morning and find the government has accidentally nationalised the septic tank? :-)

charlie14 wrote: »

How often do I have to say this before you get it!

I find any attempts to make a comparison between an amendment to ensure a public water service is never privatised and the 8th. amendment callously obscene.

But you haven't said why you think that. And you haven't said why that makes it an invalid comparison.

McMurphy

Forgive me if I have this wrong here, but are a bunch of anonymous internet pseudonymous, asking another different set of anonymous internet pseudonymous to come up with some proposed text to feature in a possible constitutional amendment, and then picking holes in any posts they've been badgered into proposing?

Don't we have constitutional legal professionals to come up with this stuff if it's needed

From what I can see so far anyway, what FG are proposing is an amendment that says Irish Water (the company) couldn't ever be privatised, and as I previously said, that's a load of nonsense anyway, because if the people accept it as a company, the market for selling the citizens of the sate, the states water is accepted with it.

Once a market is established, competition would have to be brought in, just like waste, gas, electric, broadband etc etc etc.

I don't trust them one iota.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Forgive me if I have this wrong here, but are a bunch of anonymous internet pseudonymous, asking another different set of anonymous internet pseudonymous to come up with some proposed text to feature in a possible constitutional amendment, and then picking holes in any posts they've been badgered into proposing?

Don't we have constitutional legal professionals to come up with this stuff if it's needed

If they don't like being challenged like that they should probably stop dismissing arguments that it would be too difficult.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

But you haven't said why you think that. And you haven't said why that makes it an invalid comparison.

Nor have I any intention off doing so.

I have no interest in engaging with you or anyone else attempting to validate their comparison between an amendment on water and that of the 8th. amendment when I find the comparison callously obscene.
Especially in your case when you ignored everything else I replied to, yet somehow appear to believe I should feel the need to engage with you on your hobby horse terms.

charlie14 wrote: »

Nor have I any intention off doing so.

I have no interest in engaging with you or anyone else attempting to validate their comparison between an amendment on water and that of the 8th. amendment when I find the comparison callously obscene.
Especially in your case when you ignored everything else I replied to, yet somehow appear to believe I should feel the need to engage with you on your hobby horse terms.

Legal principles don't change depending on the topic being covered. The fundamental issues the eighth amendment caused, those of unintended outcomes to a populist amendment are very relevant to this discussion. Calling it callous and obscene doesn't change that.

If you don't want to engage you can simply stop responding to my posts or put me on ignore. It's not difficult. But don't expect to cheer on some an amendment to the constitution, the fundamental source of our law, without people questioning it. My argument hasn't changed but nobody seems to want to address it past saying that better minds will decide the appropriate wording.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Legal principles don't change depending on the topic being covered. The fundamental issues the eighth amendment caused, those of unintended outcomes to a populist amendment are very relevant to this discussion. Calling it callous and obscene doesn't change that.

If you don't want to engage you can simply stop responding to my posts or put me on ignore. It's not difficult. But don't expect to cheer on some an amendment to the constitution, the fundamental source of our law, without people questioning it. My argument hasn't changed but nobody seems to want to address it past saying that better minds will decide the appropriate wording.

I have no problem engaging with you as my post #211 shows, which in reply you totally ignored other than seemingly looking for some kind of validation of your hobby horse point.

A point that I have explained to you a number of time now I have no interest in engaging with you on, and where your persistence in apparently feeling that I somehow should, is imo now becoming borderline harassment.
Something afaik, unless the rules have changed here, is looked on as a no no.

charlie14 wrote: »

I have no problem engaging with you as my post #211 shows, which in reply you totally ignored other than seemingly looking for some kind of validation of your hobby horse point.

A point that I have explained to you a number of time now I have no interest in engaging with you on, and where your persistence in apparently feeling that I somehow should, is imo now becoming borderline harassment.
Something afaik, unless the rules have changed here, is looked on as a no no.

You stated why the issue is before us and what the process is leading to a referendum. These aren't issues of discussion. They are just facts. There is nothing to engage with in them. Then you called people armchair lawyers and said we were wasting our time discussing it and it was laughable to do so. What was the point you were looking to be engaged on from that post?

The main arguments against the water referendum is that it is unnecessary and likely to cause unintended restriction. The eighth is the example of both of these. Now you can refuse to acknowledge this all you want but it doesn't change it. We cold point to other parts of the constitution that have the same issue but the point won't change. The argument against it being unnecessary seems to be that FG can't be trusted. The argument against it causing unintended restriction seems to be that FG will word it correctly. Seems a bit of a contradiction.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You stated why the issue is before us and what the process is leading to a referendum. These aren't issues of discussion. They are just facts. There is nothing to engage with in them. Then you called people armchair lawyers and said we were wasting our time discussing it and it was laughable to do so. What was the point you were looking to be engaged on from that post?

The main arguments against the water referendum is that it is unnecessary and likely to cause unintended restriction. The eighth is the example of both of these. Now you can refuse to acknowledge this all you want but it doesn't change it. We cold point to other parts of the constitution that have the same issue but the point won't change. The argument against it being unnecessary seems to be that FG can't be trusted. The argument against it causing unintended restriction seems to be that FG will word it correctly. Seems a bit of a contradiction.

It which case your stated main arguments against the referendum are redundant as there is going to be one to ensure that public water services are never privatised.

My believe is, (especially considering the posters here who have in the past been ardent supporters of everything related to the massive money wasting fiasco) that with the passing of this referendum they see their perceived last slim hopes of water charges ever recurring gone. That is where I find it laughable of bar stool lawyers challenging internet randomers to word this amendment. It`s nothing other than smoke and noise imho.

Nobody can quarantee that any referendum can be worded so that it is never challenged or have some unforeseen difficulties that threaten its basic tenets. When this has happened then the state has moved to rectify that. So why should it be any different if it occurs sometime in the future ?
A waste of taxpayers money to ensure the basic tenets hold true ?
Quite a few could be held before coming close to that wasted while being cheered on by supporters of the fiasco.

Do I trust FG on the wording ?
Not one iota for obvious reasons, but then the wording will have to be passed by the Houses of the Oireachtas, (where there are quite a few I believe that share that mistrust), before being presented to the people to vote on.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Forgive me if I have this wrong here, but are a bunch of anonymous internet pseudonymous, asking another different set of anonymous internet pseudonymous to come up with some proposed text to feature in a possible constitutional amendment, and then picking holes in any posts they've been badgered into proposing?

More asking the people claiming that the wording will be simple and non-problematic how can they know that.

McMurphy

TheChizler wrote: »

More asking the people claiming that the wording will be simple and non-problematic how can they know that.

Would their time not be better spent emailing Minister Murphy, or his department, as it appears to be his proposal

Besides getting clarity from Eoghan, it would give him something to do. :P

The wording of the constitutional amendment appears to be a FG problem, to a.FG problem.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

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.

The comparison between the two amendments has nothing to do with the content of the amendments. Both of them share the following characteristics:

- Unnecessary inclusion in the Constitution
- Populist mob movement in favour of amendment
- Extreme difficulty in forming a wording
- Populist opportunistic opposition parties led by FF
- Weak FG government
- Serious concern about unintended consequences

How you can find any of those six things "callously obscene" is beyond me. At a stretch the silly mob calling for the amendment could be described as callously obscene.

The only conclusion is that you can't argue against those points and seek to deflect.

As for the difference between paranoia and genuine concern, it is less to do with the feelings of those with the beliefs, and more to do with the likelihood of the issue causing the paranoia actually happening.

charlie14 wrote: »

It which case your stated main arguments against the referendum are redundant as there is going to be one to ensure that public water services are never privatised.

I'm not arguing against the referendum, I'm arguing against an amendment for water privatisation.

charlie14 wrote: »

My believe is, (especially considering the posters here who have in the past been ardent supporters of everything related to the massive money wasting fiasco) that with the passing of this referendum they see their perceived last slim hopes of water charges ever recurring gone. That is where I find it laughable of bar stool lawyers challenging internet randomers to word this amendment. It`s nothing other than smoke and noise imho.

The issues have absolutely nothing to do with each other. There's nothing stopping a state body running the water services and charging for them.

charlie14 wrote: »

Nobody can quarantee that any referendum can be worded so that it is never challenged or have some unforeseen difficulties that threaten its basic tenets. When this has happened then the state has moved to rectify that. So why should it be any different if it occurs sometime in the future ?

The state has historically been very slow to rectify anything in the constitution. And the issues caused for the people caught up in the meantime are reason enough to give it great consideration beforehand. And you're right, you can't guarantee any piece of law will be worded correctly and won't have unintended consequences. That's why you don't pass it without good reason in the first place.

charlie14 wrote: »

A waste of taxpayers money to ensure the basic tenets hold true ?
Quite a few could be held before coming close to that wasted while being cheered on by supporters of the fiasco.

What are you talking about? Who brought up a waste of money?

charlie14 wrote: »

Do I trust FG on the wording ?

Not one iota for obvious reasons, but then the wording will have to be passed by the Houses of the Oireachtas, (where there are quite a few I believe that share that mistrust), before being presented to the people to vote on.

So why not just bring in legislation? If you are so trusting of the House then they can protect the water services through law alone.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Would their time not be better spent emailing Minister Murphy, or his department, as it appears to be his proposal

Besides getting clarity from Eoghan, it would give him something to do. :P

The wording of the constitutional amendment appears to be a FG problem, to a.FG problem.

Why don't you email him and tell him to come discuss it here?

McMurphy

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Why don't you email him and tell him to come discuss it here?

Because I couldn't give a rats arse about it, and don't agree with it in its current guise anyway, for reasons already stated.

You however have presumably emailed him, as you seem to be fierce concerned on the wording.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Would their time not be better spent emailing Minister Murphy, or his department, as it appears to be his proposal

Besides getting clarity from Eoghan, it would give him something to do. :P

The wording of the constitutional amendment appears to be a FG problem, to a.FG problem.

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.

Edward M

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.

The wording is usually simple, so voters can understand it.

blanch152 wrote: »

The comparison between the two amendments has nothing to do with the content of the amendments. Both of them share the following characteristics:

- Unnecessary inclusion in the Constitution
- Populist mob movement in favour of amendment
- Extreme difficulty in forming a wording
- Populist opportunistic opposition parties led by FF
- Weak FG government
- Serious concern about unintended consequences

How you can find any of those six things "callously obscene" is beyond me. At a stretch the silly mob calling for the amendment could be described as callously obscene.

The only conclusion is that you can't argue against those points and seek to deflect.

As for the difference between paranoia and genuine concern, it is less to do with the feelings of those with the beliefs, and more to do with the likelihood of the issue causing the paranoia actually happening.

For someone who does not answer questions asked, it`s a bit presumptuous to expect it of others. Especially in detail. So briefly.

"Callously obscene" . Covered in multiple recent posts.

Your 6 points. Paragraph 2 post #222.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I'm not arguing against the referendum, I'm arguing against an amendment for water privatisation.

The issues have absolutely nothing to do with each other. There's nothing stopping a state body running the water services and charging for them.

The state has historically been very slow to rectify anything in the constitution. And the issues caused for the people caught up in the meantime are reason enough to give it great consideration beforehand. And you're right, you can't guarantee any piece of law will be worded correctly and won't have unintended consequences. That's why you don't pass it without good reason in the first place.

What are you talking about? Who brought up a waste of money?

So why not just bring in legislation? If you are so trusting of the House then they can protect the water services through law alone.

Then your argument is wasted because the government has committed to hold one and the Attorney General tasked to word it.

The state attempting to charge for domestic water is the prime reason there is going to be one.

With it having through the Houses of the Oireachtas I`m sure it will be given great consideration, and if there should be any future problems I doubt any will result in deaths before being rectified.

Just asked a question as I really cannot see any great reasons for objecting to having it.

Because of the make up of the present House I trust they will. In light of the past electoral promises of Labour and FG when it comes to the House in the future, it`s very much a case of once bitten...

Edward M wrote: »

The wording is usually simple, so voters can understand it.

Ideally yes, but that presumes a simple wording is possible. That's the claim.

TheChizler wrote: »

Ideally yes, but that presumes a simple wording is possible. That's the claim.

That is one of the reasons we pay the Attorney General and the members of the Oireachtas big bucks.

To ensure to the best of their ability it is before being passed to the electorate to vote on.

charlie14 wrote: »

That is one of the reasons we pay the Attorney General and the members of the Oireachtas big bucks.

To ensure to the best of their ability it is before being passed to the electorate to vote on.

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.

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.

I`m afraid rather than "Simples" I find your post somewhat cryptic and confusing.
What actually are these claims you are calling out as BS, and why do you have zero interest in the AG coming up with a simple amendment ?

charlie14 wrote: »

Then your argument is wasted because the government has committed to hold one and the Attorney General tasked to word it.

Do you not know the difference between a referendum and an amendment? The referendum is the vote part. That's what the governemnt has committed to hold. I'm not arguing against that. I'm arguing against the amendment. That's the change to the constitution. That's the part the AG will word.

charlie14 wrote: »

The state attempting to charge for domestic water is the prime reason there is going to be one.

It has no connection. The state can still charge for water if IW is privatised.

charlie14 wrote: »

With it having through the Houses of the Oireachtas I`m sure it will be given great consideration, and if there should be any future problems I doubt any will result in deaths before being rectified.

The eighth went through the same process.

charlie14 wrote: »

Just asked a question as I really cannot see any great reasons for objecting to having it.

There are plenty of reasons but I suppose the main one is the lack of flexibility afforded by an amendment over a legislative change.

charlie14 wrote: »

Because of the make up of the present House I trust they will. In light of the past electoral promises of Labour and FG when it comes to the House in the future, it`s very much a case of once bitten...

But you are not trusting they will. You are arguing against them being trusted to use legislation alone. You are arguing for it to be enshrined in the constitution and for judges to decide its interpretation in the future.

charlie14 wrote: »

I`m afraid rather than "Simples" I find your post somewhat cryptic and confusing.
What actually are these claims you are calling out as BS, and why do you have zero interest in the AG coming up with a simple amendment ?

It's a few pages back and I cant remember who it was but someone was saying that an amendment that prevented Irish Water from being privatised while not affecting private operations that extract water was not only entirely possible but would have a simple wording. When called out on how they can know all this without having a wording in mind they couldn't answer.

That's all I'm getting at. The fact that the AG will try to come up with a wording has nothing to do with that poster making a claim now about some other imaginary wording.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Do you not know the difference between a referendum and an amendment? The referendum is the vote part. That's what the governemnt has committed to hold. I'm not arguing against that. I'm arguing against the amendment. That's the change to the constitution. That's the part the AG will word.

It has no connection. The state can still charge for water if IW is privatised.

The eighth went through the same process

There are plenty of reasons but I suppose the main one is the lack of flexibility afforded by an amendment over a legislative change.

But you are not trusting they will. You are arguing against them being trusted to use legislation alone. You are arguing for it to be enshrined in the constitution and for judges to decide its interpretation in the future.

Did you actually read that before posting ?
You are not arguing against a referendum the government is committed to hold, but you are arguing against an amendment relating to the privitisation of water that the government is duty bound by should it pass. What do you believe the government committed to holding a referendum on. Something other than water privatisation ??

Technically if water services were privatised the government could, and in an equally fantasy world the private company would also donate all the profits.

So what. I would expect that should any future unforeseen difficulties arise in relation to any amendment then a government would act similarly.

That is the prime reason to have this amendment added to the constitution. To prevent privatisation by the stroke of a pen by a majority government.

I trusted Labour and FG on the issue in 2011. I learned from that. Judges cannot change the constitution. They can only rule that a specific section is unconstitutional and state the reasons why.To change any section of the constitution requires a referendum.

TheChizler wrote: »

It's a few pages back and I cant remember who it was but someone was saying that an amendment that prevented Irish Water from being privatised while not affecting private operations that extract water was not only entirely possible but would have a simple wording. When called out on how they can know all this without having a wording in mind they couldn't answer.

That's all I'm getting at. The fact that the AG will try to come up with a wording has nothing to do with that poster making a claim now about some other imaginary wording.

Didn`t you also say you had no interest in the AG`s wording ?
I really do not know what your point is other than just being perhaps being argumentative for the sake of it.

What a random poster here believes or not should be the wording doesn`t matter a jot. They are not going to be wording this amendment. The AG is, and that wording will then have to be accepted by a majority in the Houses of the Oireachtas before it goes to the electorate to vote in a referendum

charlie14 wrote: »

Did you actually read that before posting ?
You are not arguing against a referendum the government is committed to hold, but you are arguing against an amendment relating to the privitisation of water that the government is duty bound by should it pass. What do you believe the government committed to holding a referendum on. Something other than water privatisation ??

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.

charlie14 wrote: »

Technically if water services were privatised the government could, and in an equally fantasy world the private company would also donate all the profits.

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.

charlie14 wrote: »

So what. I would expect that should any future unforeseen difficulties arise in relation to any amendment then a government would act similarly.

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

charlie14 wrote: »

That is the prime reason to have this amendment added to the constitution. To prevent privatisation by the stroke of a pen by a majority government.

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.

charlie14 wrote: »

I trusted Labour and FG on the issue in 2011. I learned from that. Judges cannot change the constitution. They can only rule that a specific section is unconstitutional and state the reasons why.To change any section of the constitution requires a referendum.

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