Ireland's Joint Water Committee 2017 groveling award

Those who have been following Ireland’s controversial Water issue for the past few decades would know about how much EU political interference has been applied to pressurise Ireland into bringing in domestic water metering and charges. They would also know about the slavish willingness of some Government Ministers, mainstream media and individuals to kowtow to Brussels' diktats and even to perhaps misinform the public.

In recent years Ireland’s water issue brought up many examples of this proverbial Irish trait of cap tipping or forelock tugging to foreign masters.  However, a recent ‘Joint Committee on Future Funding of Domestic Water Charges’ meeting on the 15th February 2017 showed EU Commissioner, Mr. Aurel Ciobanu-Dordea finger wagging and threatening fire and brimstone on the Irish nation if it did not abide by European Law.

In light of the above we thought it appropriate to remember this memorable event by awarding Jan O’Sullivan, Labour Party, best groveling award for outstanding ability in the field.

Finally all that remains to be said is we must give credit to Minister Simon Coveney for managing, hand picking and directing allparties involved. It goes without saying that the resulting impasse of 10/10 was no coincidence.

Jan O'Sullivan TD asking EU Commissioner, Mr. Aurel Ciobanu-Dordea whether it would be alright if the committee run it's draft report by the EU Commission before presenting it to the Dáil. 

 

Full transcript: http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates%20Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/committeetakes/FFJ2017021500002?opendocument#B00100


1998 Fianna Fáil & Labour Party Dáil debate in lead up to the European Water Framework Directive

What has 1998 got to do with Ireland's present day 'Water Charges' crisis, you might ask?

If a river is polluted you would be advised to investigate the source of contamination.  In the case of Ireland's' Water Charges', the problems stem generally from European and international financial pressures to privatise water and charge households for it's supply.  This pressure has been put on Ireland ever since joining the European Union in 1973.

In the 1990's the European Union interference and the vacillation of political parties over water charges and privatisation of this resource resulted in widespread public resentment.   Public opposition was so great in 1996 that it caused the demise of the 24th Rainbow Government of Fine Gael, Labour Party and Democratic Left, with the result of a new Fianna Fáil/Progresssive Democrats coalition in 1997.  One of the new government's promises was to stand up to Brussels and not introduce water charges.   Sinn Fein voted for Bertie Ahern as Taoiseach of the new government.

Just before the departure of the Rainbow Government, in December 1996,  on the eve of the general election,  Brendan Howlin, Minister for Environment announced that they would replace their proposed water charges with a new system in which motor tax collected in each area would be the source for local council funding. 

In particular, Ireland's present day water policy is legally bound by the Water Framework Directive 2000-60-EC, (WFD), a European agreement which was agreed and signed in 2000.  It has to be said that this piece of environmental legislation is, in the main,  worthwhile, especially with regards to it's pollution, preservation and water policy generally.  However,  problems arose here in Ireland and in Brussels due to the interpretation of the Directive.   Depending on political ideology controversy arose mainly around fundingand ownership of water resources.  Ireland's objections after the 1997 elections,  eventually resulted in the inclusion of Article 9.4, (The Irish Exemption), in the WFD and the acceptance of the principle of 'Subsidiarity' established in the Treaty of Maastricht  in 1992.

The following debate Dáil Éireann in 1998 between Emmett Stagg, Labour Party, and Noel Dempsey, Fianna Fáil, and others, epitomises the controversy and shows how Noel Dempsey, the Environment Minister was Ireland's negotiator and signator of the Water Framework Directive.

 

 

Thursday, 5 March 1998 Dáil Éireann Debate Vol. 488 No. 3

Mr. Stagg    asked the Minister for the Environment and Local Government  "inthe discussions, if any, he or his officials have had with the EU Commission or its representatives regarding charging for domestic water in Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter."

Mr. Dempsey:   "The draft EU Water Framework Directive presented by the European Commission in February 1997 provided for full cost recovery for water use, including sewerage services and environmental and resource costs, with some exceptions which would allow for a basic level of domestic water use at an affordable price.

Since the outset, the Commission has been advised of Ireland's opposition to the proposed charging provisions as they relate to domestic consumers. I and officials of my Department have continued to reiterate at every appropriate opportunity Ireland's objections in this regard. In July 1997 I wrote to the EU Environment Commissioner indicating this Government's position on the matter and I stated that we would not reconsider the issue of water charges for Irish consumers. I also made our position known to the UK Minister for the Environment in the course of our discussions on the UK's EU Presidency programme.

We have also maintained our opposition to charging domestic consumers in the course of consideration of the Commission's proposals at meetings at official level preparatory to consideration of the proposals by the Council of Environment Ministers. It is my intention to continue to oppose any provisions which seek to reintroduce charging for domestic uses of water in Ireland.

During discussions on 28 November 1997 in relation to EU Regional and Cohesion funding for infrastructural projects, the Commissioner for Regional Affairs referred to the Commission's decision to reduce the Cohesion aid rate for Irish environmental projects from 85 per cent to 80 per cent on account of the decision to abolish charges for public domestic water supplies and referred to the difficulties created vis-à-vis “the polluter pays” principle. In reply, I reaffirmed and explained the Government's policy on the matter.

At the launch of my Department's 1998 water and sewerage investment programme in Killaloe on 2 February 1998, I reaffirmed to the Commission official present in the clearest possible terms the Government's policy on non-charging for domestic water supplies.

Mr. Stagg:  " I welcome the new position adopted by the Minister's party on water charges. My party and I have been opposed to water charges for some time. The Minister will be aware that the previous Government abolished water charges. Can he assure us that, having regard to what is happening in Europe, the Government will not allow the reimposition of water charges?

Mr. Dempsey:   "The Deputy said he and his party have always been opposed to water charges. While the Deputy may have held this view for a number of years, it is not clear his party always held that view. It put local authorities in a position where they had to impose these charges.

The Government has not changed its position on water charges. We intend to maintain the position outlined in the programme for Government. Our arguments against water charges are soundly based on the principle of subsidiarity. We believe it is a matter for national Governments to decide whether to impose charges. We are making it clear to the EU that we regard the imposition of charges as in conflict with subsidiary principles."

Mr. Gilmore:   I have listened carefully to the Minister's reply to the supplementary from Deputy Stagg and the number of times he has told the Commissioner of the Government'sopposition to the reintroduction of charges. Will he state categorically that domestic householders will not be charged for the use of water and the provision of sewage treatment services because there seems to be some ambiguity between the Government and the Minister, particularly in his reply to Deputy Stagg, that there might be an imposition of charges by the EU?

Mr. Dempsey:  " I give an absolute, total, categorical assurance that this Government will continue its opposition to any proposals put forward by the EU Commission. If proposals are put forward and pursued we intend to fight them. Proposals were put forward during the time of the previous Government and, in keeping with its policy, I intend to oppose them."

Mr. Hayes: What is the nature of the discussions the Minister has embarked upon with the European Commission? It appears from his reply there have been three discussions since he took office. Is it the Minister's view that the European Commission sees this as the end of the matter? It has reduced from 85 per cent to 80 per cent the amount of grants made available to some programmes. Will there be further reductions in the various grants?

Mr. Dempsey:   As I do not have the gift of foresight, I cannot say whether this is the end of the matter. Since February 1997 the framework directive on water policy, which introduced the concept of charges for water, has been under discussion. The initial position of the Commission was that: “by 20.10 member states shall ensure full cost recovery for all costs for services provided for water uses overall and by economic sector, broken down at least into households, industry and agriculture”. That was its position as outlined on 25 February 1997. There are ongoing discussions on that EU Directive and I expect further discussion on it at the March council meeting.

In respect of the discussions I have had with the Commission, my first contact was in July 1997 when the Commissioner wrote to congratulate me on my appointment as Minister for the Environment and Local Government and requested that I revisit the decision of the previous Government on the position of water charges. I replied thanking the Commissioner for her good wishes and explained fully the Government decision. This was not a discussion but an exchange of letters. The other two occasions have been outlined in the question. When Mr. Verstringer was here and the matter was raised with him at a press conference he made the EU position clear. I availed of the opportunity to reiterate our position in relation to charges. It has been stated by the EU that we are the only member state that does not impose charges for domestic water. That is not the case. In Luxembourg there is opposition in [562] principle to imposing water charges. Its Government ruled out the imposition of water charges three years ago and in Greece there are no charges. We have been arguing on the principle of subsidiarity and from the point of view of social and public health considerations and that it is in conflict with our policy.

Mr. Gilmore:  . Will the Minister accept that the cost of providing water is already being met by taxpayers through the general taxation system? Is it not a matter for the Government to decide rather than the European Union seeking to intervene in the manner in which the State collects taxes and recovers charges?

Eamon Gilmor (left), Brendan Howlin (right), Labour Party, source: RTE News, 2016

Mr. Dempsey:  " That is our position. I agree with the Deputy that it is a matter for us to decide, in keeping with the principle of subsidiarity, how people should pay for water. The only sector not charged for water is the domestic sector. We have made this point strongly.

We are trying to ensure water charges are not imposed on the domestic sector. I am satisfied we are doing a good job."

Written Answers. - Water Charges.

Thursday, 19 November 1998 Dáil Éireann Debate Vol. 497 No. 1

Trevor Sargent, GP

 Mr. Sargent    asked the Minister for the Environment and Local Government    if he will report on his meeting with Mr. Verstrynge, Environment Deputy Director General of the EU; his views on whether the Government is under renewed pressure to reintroduce domestic water charges from the European Commission; if the new proposed water framework directive will require full application of the polluter pays approach; if the polluter pays principle was enshrined in the Amsterdam Treaty which Ireland ratified"

Mr Dempsey:   "At a recent conference on environmental benefits of Cohesion Fund investment in Ireland, I had an informal meeting with Mr. Verstrynge, Deputy Director General of DG XI of the European Commission, at which we discussed a range of matters, including the application of the polluter pays principle in Ireland. I outlined the Government's position in this regard and stated our continued opposition to the reintroduction of domestic water charges.

The current draft of the EU Water Framework Directive, on which common understanding was reached at the Environment Council in June, proposes that member states shall take account of the principle of recovery of the costs of water services in accordance with the polluter pays principle. It would allow member states to have regard, inter alia, to the social, environmental and economic effects of the recovery. The current draft of Article 12 of the directive takes account of the view that it should be a matter for member states to determine charging policy in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. I stated my intention at the June Council to continue to exempt domestic water services from water charges.

The polluter pays principle is enshrined in Article 34 of the Amsterdam Treaty which amends the terms of Article 130r of the Maastricht Treaty."

Source: Dail Question-Water Charges March 1998
             Written Answers -Water Charges Nov 1998


Jeremy Corbyn: A revolution in plain sight

 

In their thousands they came. Carrying home-made placards, they came. Women pushing prams, their kids in tow, the young, middle-aged and old, black, white, disabled, the old left and the newly awoken; in the pouring rain they came. They filled St George’s Plateau and still they came, until they filled the road and the central reservation and the pavements beyond. 10,000 strong they closed Lime St, stopped traffic, and still they came.

This is a movement, a mass outpouring that demands, no, deserves to be heard. “Not the usual crowd,” said a friend. That’s us I thought. I’m part of the ‘usual crowd’. The old left. Veteran’s of struggles past. We were there alright, but this time to simply bear witness. This is a spontaneous movement. Some deride it and call it a cult, but that belittles the hundreds of thousands of ordinary people who are now, with one voice demanding change. These people turned out tonight, not for one man, but for hope, for a vision of a better way, and an end to the politics of the few and the demonisation of  the many.

Recently those in the media, sadly including people like Owen Jones, have decried the use of social media in shaping this movement. However, in the absence of main stream coverage, we have had no choice but to turn to alternative forms of communication. We would not know each other existed, if we didn’t; such is the black-out from official outlets. Sharing our stories, supporting each other, preaching to the converted are all important steps in strengthening and emboldening our movement, and this is precisely why 10,000 people closed down Liverpool city centre tonight. We have gained confidence from each other’s successes.

Lime St, LiverpoolCorbyn rally Aug 1, 2016

The people of Liverpool were inspired by their comrades in York, Hull, Leeds, Salford, Newcastle, Plymouth and Cornwall this weekend, and tonight we have doubtless inspired countless others. I have always been proud of my city. It is a place of solidarity, of hope and of determination. Tonight it was one of many cities joined in a nationwide campaign for socialism. We will all never walk alone.

This is how you build a movement. This is how you win hearts and minds. Now is not the time for faint hearts, or for Fleet Street lectures. We knew it was going to be bloody hard. Frankly it’s always been that way. The powerful won’t surrender without a battle, and while some run from the fight, hurling catastrophic prophesies as they flee, let history show that it was us that stood strong. It was we who built momentum, gave each other succour and encouragement. When others ran away, in our thousands we came to change society.

Mass meeting in Leeds July 31, 2016, yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk

The people of Liverpool were inspired by their comrades in York, Hull, Leeds, Salford, Newcastle, Plymouth and Cornwall this weekend, and tonight we have doubtless inspired countless others. I have always been proud of my city. It is a place of solidarity, of hope and of determination. Tonight it was one of many cities joined in a nationwide campaign for socialism. We will all never walk alone.

This is how you build a movement. This is how you win hearts and minds. Now is not the time for faint hearts, or for Fleet Street lectures. We knew it was going to be bloody hard. Frankly it’s always been that way. The powerful won’t surrender without a battle, and while some run from the fight, hurling catastrophic prophesies as they flee, let history show that it was us that stood strong. It was we who built momentum, gave each other succour and encouragement. When others ran away, in our thousands we came to change society.

Large crowd support Jeremy Corbyn www.liverpoolecho.co.uk, Aug 1, 2016

So don’t tell me this is insignificant. I won’t hear that these demonstrations mean nothing, and I don’t believe that change is impossible. This is new territory. The rules are being rewritten. 1983, 1997 and 2010 are ancient history. This is 2016. It’s the old ideas about politics that are irrelevant, not this glorious, magnificent uprising. We are rewriting the rules as we go, and nobody can truly predict what will happen; save to say that the old ways are dead and politics will forever be changed. The political discourse is transformed, maybe forever, and the tired old consensus has been ripped up.

The Westminster elite need to get over themselves. There is a revolution taking place in plain sight. They can choose to ignore it if they like, but they can’t suppress the truth anymore. We don’t need the oxygen of their publicity anymore. Thanks to new media we can talk to each other, organise and mobilise without them. The stronger and more confident we become, the more we can begin to engage with others in our communities and on our streets, in universities and workplaces.

This is just the beginning. The battle to reclaim our heartlands has begun. After decades of ‘Blairite’ neglect the working class are coming home. We’ll come for middle England next. Our message of hope, of a fairer more equal society, where the rich pay what they owe and everybody shares in the fruits of their labours will surely resonate with them too. This is our vision, our common purpose. It’s what mobilises us and it’s what will sweep Jeremy Corbyn to yet another victory in September.

The message to the Parliamentary Labour Party is now a simple one. Get behind us or step

Last night, I was proud to speak at this incredible rally in Liverpool - a city which has a proud history of standing up for justice. Our movement - strong, confident and growing bigger everyday - can win power and ensure every person in our country is decently housed, every child has access to a world-class education and anyone who falls ill has the NHS, free at the point of use, to turn to.

Video from player.mashpedia.com

Source:  Jeff Goulding, Aug 1, 2016