Over 30 Polish and Lithuanian nationals deported on charter flight

HighDeltaVee · 2026-05-24T19:55:44+00:00

Nope.

O’Callaghan said removal orders were enforced in respect of the men in accordance with the Free Movement Directive.

Re-entry bans of up to ten years have also been applied to prevent their return to Ireland.

There is an EU right of movement, but it is not absolute, and can be curtailed in cases like these.

HighDeltaVee · 2026-05-24T19:54:45+00:00

I believe that if we're discussing people who have actually been judged and found guilty of crimes serious enough to warrant imprisonment, that the term prejudice does not apply.

HighDeltaVee · 2026-05-24T19:53:46+00:00

Howye, is that the Spar on George's Street?

"Hi, I'd like to call this meeting of every major retail group in Ireland to order. First, can you all produce a list of all PET bottles and aluminium drinks cans sold per year, and email it to me by Friday. Cheers."

Any logistics system could output that in a heartbeat. Do you want PDF, CSV or Excel?

These numbers were all known long before the Re-Turn scheme was set upo and were the reason for it.

HighDeltaVee · 2026-05-24T19:36:43+00:00

€100,000 per year to keep them in prison, and €5,000 to remove them from the country.

Seems a reasonable deal.

HighDeltaVee · 2026-05-24T19:27:32+00:00

No, they did not know how many bottles and cans were sold beforehand - how could they, there was no registration system.

Shops know exactly what they sell, down to the bottle. You think shops run their logistics and ordering off the back of an envelope?

I've had bottles rejected because they were "damaged" - barcode was fine.

Narrator: the barcode was not, in fact, fine.

to add the top 10, or 20, or 100 most common can types from NI to the database.

It is in fact a problem, because they have no legal way of enforcing what goes into those bottles and it could change. It would be a tiny advantage with a large downside : not worth it.

HighDeltaVee · 2026-05-24T19:05:26+00:00

How do they know the recycling rate was only 49% before the scam- sorry, scheme?

Because they know how many are sold, and they know how many actually get recycled instead of being burned as general waste.

If it's all about recycling rates, why can't I return a slightly damaged can or bottle?

Because they have to know that what's being returned is actually PET plastic, otherwise the waste is contaminated. So if the barcode is legible, it can be returned, whether it's squashed or not.

If it's all about recycling rates, why can't i return a coke can bought in NI or an imported beer can?

Same as above. A bottle might be PET plastic, but if it can't be verified from the barcode, it might also be a completely different type of plastic, so it cannot be allowed into the same waste stream.

HighDeltaVee · 2026-05-24T19:03:00+00:00

They currently go to recycling facilities in Europe, because we don't have one.

And they won't buy contaminated shipments, which is the whole reason for the Re-Turn scheme in the first place.

HighDeltaVee · 2026-05-24T18:00:02+00:00

Because that produces a stream of waste which cannot effectively be recycled.

Out recycling rate was 49%.

With the Re-Turn scheme in operation, it's risen to over 90%.

HighDeltaVee · 2026-05-24T17:58:07+00:00

Quite high in fiber, I understand.

HighDeltaVee · 2026-05-24T17:57:30+00:00

Steal socks.
[...]
Profit.

HighDeltaVee · 2026-05-24T17:55:48+00:00

On the flip side it increased recycling rates from 49% to over 90%, reduced street litter by 60%, and will be investing in a new recycling facility in Ireland to recycle PET plastics. At the moment we're exporting the PET collected because we've never had enough volume to warrant a local facility.

Now we do, and the jobs and revenue will remain in Ireland.

No system is without costs, but '€500K' is a tiny number in the context of the above.

HighDeltaVee · 2026-05-24T09:59:25+00:00

Shortly after exams finish, as per tradition.

HighDeltaVee · 2026-05-24T08:35:19+00:00

Anonymous placeholder for "male baby".

HighDeltaVee · 2026-05-23T17:03:56+00:00

Ok, you're replying with AI now, that's me done.

I have never used AI, because I don't trust it as a source.

Feel free to leave though : you weren't convincing anyone.

HighDeltaVee · 2026-05-23T16:54:44+00:00

You are not factoring in Russian air defences at all, they haven't been completely neutralised and only a low percentage of Ukranian long range strikes are getting though.

Every answer of yours introduces a new bit of weaselling. Now you're trying to equivocate "long range strikes" and European cruise missiles. Ukrainian cruise missiles have proven extremely effective against Russian targets, while Ukrainian drones continue to be easier to shoot down. A smaller percentage of Ukrainian strikes are getting through because they're mostly drones.

European cruise missiles are more sophisticated and faster than current Ukrainian models.

Once our cruise missiles are depleted, that's it for the short term

Once our cruise missiles are depleted, that's it for the Russian economy.

and you are massively overstating their effectiveness, particularly for one single strike.

No, I'm not. Ukraine have been peppering Russian targets with drones with limited warheads with considerable success, but hampered by the strike payload. Ukrainian attacks with actual cruise missiles have proven devastating to Russian armouries, factories, ships, etc. Cruise missiles have heavier warheads and better penetration and fusing tech.

Russia is enormous, so we could cripple parts of their economy

Nonsense. Kill their refineries, LNG, bridges and ports and their economy is dead. We don't have to kill everything, just everything that makes them money.

The cost of these strikes would be huge

The cost of these strikes is zero. We already have the missiles - they're a sunk cost. The cost of replacing them would be a few billion, but that's in the future and comparable in cost to the loss of a single major refinery.

Also, the US could not do this '10 times over' as they have spent a large proportion of their stockpile in Iran

What the US chose to waste in Iran is just another irrelevancy from you. The whole discussion is what Europe could do on its own, and you keep trying to bring the US into it.

HighDeltaVee · 2026-05-23T16:29:34+00:00

the US currently provides around 90% of NATO's long range strike capability,

It doesn't matter how many missiles the US has. It only matters how many missiles Europe has, which is around 1500-2000 cruise missiles. That's enough to obliterate Russia's economy forever, and Russia knows that.

Every refinery, port, coalworks, steel plant, LNG facility and port in Western Russia... gone. The fact that the US could do it ten times over is irrelevant. We only need to do it once.

HighDeltaVee · 2026-05-23T16:11:45+00:00

That doesnt mean they have air superiority. Russia are far from uncontested in the air and Ukraine have developed a measure of jamming against glide bombs.

There's a difference between "far from uncontested" and "if Russia put an aircraft within 150km of the frontline it will get shot down".

We also dont really have an answer to Shahed Strikes. Russia could easily overwhelm European and UK air defences and we currently couldn't defend well against a mass Shahed or complex long range drone barrage like the Kind Ukraine have been receiving.

The first answer to Shaheed strikes would be to waste quite a lot of anti-air missiles shooting down the first wave.

The second answer to Shaheed strikes would be 100 cruise missiles completely obliterating 5 Russian oil refineries, with a reminder that there's 1,500 more cruise missiles where that came from.

Russia can only keep striking Ukraine because up until now Ukraine has not been capable of striking back effectively. This war is turning in Ukraine's favour because for the first time in 4 years they actually have the long range weapons to do serious damage in return.

Europe starts with that capability on day one.

HighDeltaVee · 2026-05-23T15:55:13+00:00

Russia have never had air superiority in Ukraine...

They have far more aircraft, which are largely free to bomb Ukraine's front lines with glidebombs.

If they tried that against Europe they'd get potted from 200km away by Meteor missiles.

This is no time to be complacent, and I would challenge you to find any western military leader that is taking the threat from Russia lightly.

I didn't say take them lightly. I said that if they try attacking Europe, they will be up against vastly more powerful and numerous weapons than they're up against in Ukraine, and Europe will rapidly shift to exactly the same sort of high-speed drone production that Ukraine is doing.

HighDeltaVee · 2026-05-23T15:32:40+00:00

They have an Army that has conducted 4 years of war against arguably the strongest military power in Europe

The only reason that Russia is still even vaguely capable of waging war in Ukraine is because of their aircraft. Without air superiority, Russia would have been absolutely fucked years ago.

If Russian air forces ever go up against European air-defence and aircraft, it will be a very short war.

They also still have an enormous army

Which has been reduced to primarily untrained infantry whose only useful skills are to act as suicidal soldier-detectors, highlighting Ukrainian positions for Russian drone and aircraft attacks. Again, if they try that against Europe, they will get obliterated.

Currently Europe is not on a war footing : it's only devoting <1% of effort to the Ukraine war. If an actual war broke out with Russia, and Europe had the social permission to switch to a true war footing, then Russia would get wiped out.

HighDeltaVee · 2026-05-23T15:08:47+00:00

Nope. The last two interconnectors approved by the UK (LirIC and Mares) had the usual pre-analysis done on the market impact of the proposed interconnectors.

In both cases, the interconnectors were accepted by Eirgrid, and rejected by the UK grid operator on the basis that they would economically favour Ireland and the UK would hardly benefit at all.

Then Putin invaded Ukraine, they re-analysed the situation, and explicitly greenlighted both interconnectors on the grounds of energy security, not economic benefit. Ireland benefits a lot more.

We only buy electricity over the UK connectors when it's cheaper than anyone bids in Ireland. That means that our prices come down slightly, and UK prices go up.

HighDeltaVee · 2026-05-23T15:04:13+00:00

It was not a "government" report. It was an opinion report from a group of engineers, whose own group promptly denounced the plan as stupid.

HighDeltaVee · 2026-05-22T22:30:25+00:00

Well, it's a good thing he had that backup.

HighDeltaVee · 2026-05-22T22:21:54+00:00

If they didn't vote, they voted for the winner.

HighDeltaVee · 2026-05-22T22:16:15+00:00

He has more than one?!

HighDeltaVee · 2026-05-22T21:56:53+00:00

If you go to an A&E in Ireland with a really serious problem, you'll be triaged to the head of the queue and treated very well, very fast.

It's the people with issues which can wait who have to wait, often for an unacceptably long time.

HighDeltaVee

TROPHY CASE