I'm not copping out of anything but I see no value in going over old ground.
Like yourself I'm discussing this matter on my own terms and I reject your attempt at a summary.
You are throwing the kitchen sink at it with a lot of irrelevancies presumably hoping something will stick.
But yet again you have failed to come up with a definition of quango that fits Re-turn.
Like many on this thread, you have moved on to questioning my integrity and inferring that I have some personal gain from Re-turn.
You and "other posters" can continue to incorrectly categorise Re-turn as a quango if you wish but I reserve the right to intervene as I see fit.
It's entirely justified to call it a quango. I outlined all the reasons why above in post 3268, you didn't even attempt to engage with them, just a cop out answer about having "the same conversation".
But here's the summary: They are a quango. They are quasi-governmental. They operate using devolved powers, within parameters entirely specified by government fiat, via a state monopoly. They provide a specific service to the public. No other company can collect Re-turns. Engagement with Re-turn is obligatory if you wish to reclaim your deposit.
For someone who claims not to be here defending or excusing Re-turn, you sure seem to have a dog in the fight when it comes to the finer definition of what a quango is and arguing the point in relation to Re-turn.
You still haven't come up with a better description of that Re-turn is. Despite being asked by multiple posters. Another reason why it is entirely reasonable to refer to Re-turn and quango together.
There's no such thing as a contextual quango? Why not?
And I and others will continue to do so to refer to them as a quango, or worse than a quango. And every post you make just presents such a position even more as a defence of Re-turn, and your claims to the contrary have no credibility.
No one else would continue to dispute the point without providing an alternative description of Return even if paints them in a bad light.
Re-turn is either a quango or not.
I say not and I have outlined why.
There's no such thing as a contextual quango.
It's up to those using the description to support their claim which they have failed to do.
Hehe good point tho Anglo Irish had a license to print money as a bank and well …
Can return go bankrupt?
Given that they have been handed a scam to more or less print money I severely doubt that is a possibility.
And we wouldn't be having the conversation again, if you didn't keep replying to posters despite still being completely unable to define what Re-turn is, or how it alters the material points being made.
So don't be surprised when multiple posters on the thread continue to refer to them as a quango, a usage I have justified in the context of this discussion in previous post.
I see you have quoted my post.
Please clarify if this means I am no longer on your ignore list.
We had this same conversation months ago.
You introduced this "worse than a quango" category then.
I outlined the reasons why I believe Re-turn,is not a quango.
We failed to agree then and seems unlikely to agree now.
You haven't answered. What are they then?
You well understand the point the poster was trying to make.
You can't come up with an alternative term to describe them, just repeating they are not a quango. How does it materially change the point the poster was trying to get across?
They have in effect been funded by the Government by establishment of a monopoly for them that comes with a revenue stream.
They operate by Government fiat. They can't just make unliteral changes to the operation of the scheme without referring back to the Government, can they? So in judging their performance and results, also being judged is the parameters of the scheme as established by the Government.
What's worse than some quangos is that the Government have even less control or oversight of them, despite devolving powers to them and establishing a line of funding for them. No government appointees on the board.
If they don't meet their targets they will just go begging to the government to increase deposits. So they sure quack like a quango.
So for the purposes of this discussion, it is reasonable to refer to them as a quango, or as I have done, worse than a quango.
I hope I haven't laboured the point.
I have answered and made my case before several times.
They don't fit the normal definition of a quango.
They are not Government funded or controlled by a Department.
They will be judged on their performance and results not what they are defined as.
You are correct that sent for recycling doesn't mean it's actually recycled.
If it turns out that it's not recycled the entire project will be in deep trouble.
Sure comes across that way.
So what are they then?
And if you can't answer that, and it is not intended as a defence or excuse of them, what's the point of the numerous posts? Why even dispute?
Obviously I don't believe Re-turn are a quango.
That's not necessarily intended as a defence or excuse for Re-turn.
Like I said before, you can call it a quango if you like.
But don't quote me as supporting your error.
Return are WORSE than a QUANGO. The government have given Return a monopoly and devolved powers to them (typical of QUANGOs) but without subjecting them to the scrutiny \ putting Government appointees on the board you would expect with a full QUANGO.
So when people say Return aren't a QUANGO, that really is no defence or excuse of them.
You basically made the point yourself that it’s a quango with your answers
It walks like a quango, it quacks like a quango, it looks like a quango, it smells like a quango
… it’s a quango
Can a private company come in and place their own machines next to return ones
No
And get same or better prices from whoever is doing the actual recycling
Can return go bankrupt? Can one see their accounts like one can with private limited companies?
Yes
What are the penalties to return if EU targets are not met? Why would the state and taxpayers have to pay this penalty
Because the Member State is responsible.
return are a quango, no amounts of spin changes the fact
No comment.
Can return go bankrupt? Can one see their accounts like one can with private limited companies? What are the penalties to return if EU targets are not met? Why would the state and taxpayers have to pay this penalty
So what is ReTurn?
I'm not scaremongering.
I qualified the fines issue by saying we could be fined.
As you say political positions can change.
If you want to say Re-turn is a quango you can but that doesn't mean it is one.
By the way it has been clarified several times on this thread that Re-turn is not a quango.
A quango or QUANGO (less often QuANGO or QANGO) is an organisation to which a government has devolved power, but which is still partly controlled and/or financed by government bodies. The term was originally a shortening of "quasi NGO"
Thats exactly what ReTurn is.
We are an EU member, EU is not some sort of boogie man, goalposts get moved all the time and some member often refuse to do much including the likes of Germany
Take the CO2 EU emission targets, not a single member will reach them, so goal posts will be shifted
And yes they are a quango, there are no penalties to this entity if they don’t reach the targets
You think return will pay the EU fines you scaremonger with?
I have zero confidence in anything said by Re-turn given how they have blatantly misrepresented "collected for recycling" and "recycling" on the website.
"Sent for recycling" doesn't actually mean it will be recycled.
If the targets are not met Ireland could be fined by the EU.
It's a given that Re-turn can only forward for recycling what it actually collects.
In the link I posted earlier they state -
What will happen to the drink containers once they have been collected?
All containers collected will be sent for recycling. The Deposit Return Scheme focuses on maximising the volume and quality of material collected for recycling
Of course a certain amount of cans/bottles will be recycled from other sources IE. bin companies.
So the recycling rate could be greater than what is collected by Re-turn.
Here it is, from the EU website directly. The EU has not set recycling targets. They have set collection targets.
Note how Return have changed the wording from "separate collection for recycling", to just "recycling."
The Single-use Plastics Directive (
Directive (EU) 2019/904
) sets targets for the separate collection for recycling of waste single-use plastic beverage bottles. By 2025, Member States shall meet the target of 77% for the separate collection for recycling of waste single-use plastic beverage bottles, by weight of all such single-use bottles placed on the market. By 2029, this target increases to 90%.
https://environment.ec.europa.eu/news/single-use-plastics-rules-calculation-verification-and-reporting-data-separate-collection-waste-2021-10-07_en#:~:text=By%202025%2C%20Member%20States%20shall,this%20target%20increases%20to%2090%25.
What a carry on. No wonder we have posters coming on here to tell us they're "recycling" more with this scheme when re-turn.ie is so full of 💩. Cheers for highlighting that for us @elperello
@jj880 I think when I looked at it earlier on thread, those targets related to collection.
Are these container recycling targets or container return targets?
They also created themselves cushy jobs and nice pensions from what not used to be an issue as mostly everyone recycled into green bins
And created a problem where in cities trash bins and bags are being ripped open now looking for cans and bottles leading to more litter
what happens if they don’t meet targets? Have we known any quango to ever be punished?
