Water charges are being introduced to pay off the national debt. This is why it was part of the memorandum with the IMF. The plan was to take the revenue stream previously used to pay for water, transfer it to bondholders and introduce pay-per-service charges in its place. Given that context a constitutional amendment to prevent privatisation of water isnt a useful demand. Even if it passed the water charges could continue, the debt would remain and the end result would be the continued transfer of wealth from the public to the markets. Leaving aside the politics (it was proposed by the bloody Green Party whose commitment to opposing austerity is shallow at best) it demonstrates a naivety about what public/private means today. We live in the era where private banks are bailed out with public funds, public institutions are tasked with facilitating private property speculation (NAMA), where the public is asked to consider itself consumers rather than citizens by the state. Public-private-partnership is not just one way of doing things, it is the model on which financialised capitalism is built. Unpacking the public and private will mean more than defence. It will mean attack. Redefining what public means and building a mass movement capable of bringing that vision into being. If public doesnt mean *free* at the point of access. If it doesnt mean an opposition to commodification. If it doesnt vomit at phrases like productivity savings. If it doesnt involve a fundamental repudiation of market logic - it will be bullshit. And it wont constitute any kind of break with neoliberalism. So, constitutional questions for another day. For now hold the line: abolish the water meters, abolish the water charges, abolish Irish Water.
Posted on: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 12:47:34 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015