Ships under attack in the middle east

[Dis86]

The EU doesn't impose it's sanctions on non-member states like the USA does and Iran is not a member of the EU, therefore the EU sanctions on Syria do not apply to Iran.

This is why the EU is being so quiet on the subject, because in it's eagerness to please the USA the UK has "done gone messed up" and if the EU did decide to become vocal about the subject then it would have to side with Iran, hence the silence.

You're wrong. See explanations above.

 

[dowie]

The EU doesn't impose it's sanctions on non-member states like the USA does and Iran is not a member of the EU, therefore the EU sanctions on Syria do not apply to Iran.

Correct, EU sanctions don't apply to Iran - no has claimed they do. I don't know why people keep on with this line... it makes no sense at all.

Gibraltar however is an EU member state and EU rules do apply there, in particular EU rules relating to Syria (specifically in this case named entities within Syria). This really isn't complicated and it has been mentioned plenty of times in the thread.

This is why the EU is being so quiet on the subject, because in it's eagerness to please the USA the UK has "done gone messed up" and if the EU did decide to become vocal about the subject then it would have to side with Iran, hence the silence.

How has the UK "done gone messed up" with regards to the EU's sanctions here?

Are you able to extend an argument any further than the "herp derp EU sanctions don't apply to Iran" line which seems both misguided and irrelevant.

 

[Jokester]

That’s some mental gymnastics that, because the EU isn’t saying that the UK is wrong, is evidence that the UK is wrong.

Whut?

 

[Rroff]

Basically it was rather silly of them to have stopped there.

That is what I was looking for

 

[RoboCod]

Your contributions never fail to be vacuous and lightweight.

Oh you're mistaken. Only my contributions to your boring, ill-informed and child like drivel are vacuous and lightweight. I lost the will to entertain any reasonable discussion with you a while back, when it became very clear that you're incapable of holding such discussion beyond anything that validates your own bias and spreads spam/BS.

 

[Rroff]

The EU doesn't impose it's sanctions on non-member states like the USA does and Iran is not a member of the EU, therefore the EU sanctions on Syria do not apply to Iran.

This is why the EU is being so quiet on the subject, because in it's eagerness to please the USA the UK has "done gone messed up" and if the EU did decide to become vocal about the subject then it would have to side with Iran, hence the silence.

As pointed out the EU does have specific sanctions against Syria in this context and it appears from what Dowie posted just above that the vessel was well inside an EU member state's waters when it was boarded. Iran might not like it but that has been the way the world works for awhile - hence the right of innocent passage and the definition of international straits, etc. even existing.

Oh you're mistaken. Only my contributions to your boring, ill-informed and child like drivel are vacuous and lightweight. I lost the will to entertain any reasonable discussion with you a while back, when it became very clear that you're incapable of holding such discussion beyond anything that validates your own bias and spreads spam/BS.

What I find concerning - he/she doesn't just have criticism for Western governments, etc. but will go as far, if necessary to support their point, as expressing support for repressive regimes who often violently suppress human rights and freedom of speech, etc. - all the while sniping from the bastion of an affected moral high ground. More often than not reverting to calling people idiots, etc. if they don't just accept the narration he/she is trying to push.

 

[ubersonic]

Correct, EU sanctions don't apply to Iran - no has claimed they do. I don't know why people keep on with this line... it makes no sense at all.

Because the poster I was responding to directly asked why the EU sanctions don't apply to the tanker, so I explained it.

How has the UK "done gone messed up" with regards to the EU's sanctions here?

Because when the UK decided to grab the tanker for the USA, our government either believed that the EU sanctions did give us the right to do so, or that Iran wouldn't retaliate. Whichever it was they were wrong and now we're in a real sticky situation and there is no sign (yet) that the USA is going to step up and help dissolve it (which it should as this whole mess is due to us acting as their lackey).

Are you able to extend an argument any further than the "herp derp EU sanctions don't apply to Iran"

It's not an argument, it's an explanation. People here may not like it, but it is a matter of fact not opinion.

If you asked me if you should use petrol to put out a fire I would explain that you shouldn't because it's flammable, you not liking that explanation doesn't magically stop the petrol being flammable or make it's ignition properties irrelevant.

 

[Dis86]

Because the poster I was responding to directly asked why the EU sanctions don't apply to the tanker, so I explained it.

I didn't ask that at all. I asked why EU law doesn't apply. As it happens the sanctions do apply to the tanker. Like I said earlier - you're wrong.

 

[ubersonic]

As it happens the sanctions do apply to the tanker.

No, no they don't, this has been explained multiple times in the media and in this very thread. The tanker does not belong to an EU member, therefore EU sanctions do not apply to it, the fact it was in EU waters is irrelevant as that's not how the EU applies it's sanctions. This is why Spain refused to stop it when the USA asked them so they had to call us and say jump.

 

[dowie]

Because the poster I was responding to directly asked why the EU sanctions don't apply to the tanker, so I explained it.

But you didn't explain, you made some statement about EU sanctions not applying to Iran when no one has claimed that they do.

It's not an argument, it's an explanation. People here may not like it, but it is a matter of fact not opinion.

If you asked me if you should use petrol to put out a fire I would explain that you shouldn't because it's flammable, you not liking that explanation doesn't magically stop the petrol being flammable or make it's ignition properties irrelevant.

It isn't an explanation though it is an irrelevant statement that doesn't apply to the situation in question.

The quote you replied to was "Why doesn't EU law apply?"

You've provided an irrelevant reply stating that EU law doesn't apply to Iran. So what? The incident in question relates to Gibraltar, Gibraltar is part of the EU and EU law does apply there.

The fact is that EU law does apply here - someone trying to claim it doesn't is rather mistaken. If you don't believe this then please do provide an explanation of why it doesn't.

 

[dowie]

No, no they don't, this has been explained multiple times in the media and in this very thread. The tanker does not belong to an EU member, therefore EU sanctions do not apply to it, the fact it was in EU waters is irrelevant as that's not how the EU applies it's sanctions. This is why Spain refused to stop it when the USA asked them so they had to call us and say jump.

LOL what?

So just to get this straight, because a civilian ship is owned by a non-EU member then when it is in UK or EU waters then UK or EU laws don't apply to it?

So lets say a Russian fishing vessel fancies fishing UK waters - we can do nothing because it isn't a UK or EU ship and so our laws don't apply to it?

If I sail a yacht to France I can just park it off a beach and do anything I want because my yacht is registered in the UK not France?

 

[ubersonic]

The incident in question relates to Gibraltar, Gibraltar is part of the EU and EU law does apply there.

Yes but the tanker didn't break EU law because it doesn't belong to a member state so the sanctions don't apply to it. If it was a German tanker than the sanctions would apply and it would have broken the law, that's how it works.

To put this in perspective, if they wanted to the Russians could load a tanker with oil in Kaliningrad, then sail it around Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, etc all the time blaring over a loudspeaker that it's carrying oil to Syria to be refined. And they would do nothing about it because it's not breaking any laws as the Syrian sanctions do not apply to it, hence why they refused to stop the Iranian tanker and Trump had to call up the 51st state.

LOL what?

So just to get this straight, because a civilian ship is owned by a non-EU member then when it is in UK or EU waters then UK or EU laws don't apply to it?

No, EU sanctions do not apply to it, you break the law by violating the sanctions, if the sanctions do not apply to you then there's nothing to violate.

Here, I'll make it super simple:

EU member: Yes
Complying with EU sanctions: Yes
Breaking EU law: No

EU member: Yes
Complying with EU sanctions: No
Breaking EU law: Yes

EU member: No
Complying with EU sanctions: Yes/No
Breaking EU law: No​

 

[Dis86]

Yes but the tanker didn't break EU law because it doesn't belong to a member state so the sanctions don't apply to it. If it was a German tanker than the sanctions would apply and it would have broken the law, that's how it works.

That's not how it works at all. It passed through EU territory therefore it is bound by the rules and regulations of that territory...

I drive a British registered car, I'm a British citizen, does this mean if I go to Ireland I can ignore their speed limits and drive at mine? No!

Jesus...

 

[Amp34]

I'm yet to see it established exactly where the interception of Grace 1 took place - if it was in the recognised straits area that is a hugely different story versus if it had wandered into Gibraltar's territorial waters.

I’m not suggesting Iran did or didn’t take the ship legitimately, rather pointing out why they did it.

Iran, as usual has been backed into a corner and is doing what it can to get out of it. They're in a catch 22, and one of the only things they can do that isn't a direct act of war (which they obviously don’t want is disrupt shipping near their shores.

Case in point is the argument that they cannot tell the UK where their ship was going, because if they did the US would sanction the buyer. Whether it was or wasn’t going to Syria is besides the point. It’s a legitimate point, and another example of them being backed into a corner.

You can only back something into a corner so far before they lash out...

Edit: just realized you were talking about Grace 1 not the Ship taken by Iran. Still relevant points to the thread though!

 

[Amp34]

Doubt we'll do much as we are currently run by spineless politicians. If this happened in the good old Maggy Thatcher days she would.have sent the SBS straight in to retake the ships

In Maggie’s day we probably wouldn’t have take the Iranian ship in the first place, hence not starting down the whole rabbit hole in the first place.

 

[dowie]

No, EU sanctions do not apply to it, you break the law by violating the sanctions, if the sanctions do not apply to you then there's nothing to violate.

Here, I'll make it super simple:

EU member: Yes
Complying with EU sanctions: Yes
Breaking EU law: No​

But no ships are EU members, they're ships! Sorry but you really are being a bit dense here!

You didn't answer my questions - if the laws of member states and EU law can't apply to foreign ships in those state's waters then why can't Russians just fish without quotas in UK/EU waters for example?

In fact why would fishing even be part of the Brexit negotiations - Spain and France can just fish in UK waters after we leave because according to your logic UK law can't apply to their vessels.... even in UK waters?

Please do correct the above if I've got your opinion wrong - as that is what your argument seems to be based on so far. That a civilian ship belonging to a non-EU member state can just ignore laws within EU member state's waters.

Gibraltar is an EU member, EU law applies in that territory - this is really simple!

 

[Rroff]

I’m not suggesting Iran did or didn’t take the ship legitimately, rather pointing out why they did it.

Iran, as usual has been backed into a corner and is doing what it can to get out of it. They're in a catch 22, and one of the only things they can do that isn't a direct act of war (which they obviously don’t want is disrupt shipping near their shores.

Case in point is the argument that they cannot tell the UK where their ship was going, because if they did the US would sanction the buyer. Whether it was or wasn’t going to Syria is besides the point. It’s a legitimate point, and another example of them being backed into a corner.

You can only back something into a corner so far before they lash out...

Grace 1 is the tanker the UK seized - which the image Dowie posted earlier places it inside territorial waters when it was intercepted.

 

[ubersonic]

As some people seem to be having significant difficulty understanding the differences between EU laws/sanctions and how they operate I made a simple to follow flow chart for them.

 

[EvilSooty]

What I find concerning - he/she doesn't just have criticism for Western governments, etc. but will go as far, if necessary to support their point, as expressing support for repressive regimes who often violently suppress human rights and freedom of speech, etc. - all the while sniping from the bastion of an affected moral high ground. More often than not reverting to calling people idiots, etc. if they don't just accept the narration he/she is trying to push.

I find it 'concerning' that you have no concept of cause and effect here. Who started seizing tankers on spurious grounds first? Iran or the UK? Take your time...

 

[ubersonic]

Please do correct the above if I've got your opinion wrong

I did actually explain it in the post you quoted but I will reiterate if you wish, it's not the laws that don't apply, they do, it's the sanctions. There is no law that says you cannot take oil to Syria to get it refined, that is perfectly legal in of itself, however if an EU member state does it then they would be in violation of the EU sanctions on Syria which do say you can't and by violating those sanctions they would be breaking EU law. However the sanctions do not apply to non-EU members states and so if a non-EU state does it then they are not violating the sanctions as the sanctions do not apply to them, if they are not violating EU sanctions then they are not breaking EU law.