Ships under attack in the middle east

[ubersonic]

You were arguing that EU law/sanctions didn't apply to the tanker though - specifically the prohibitions on certain trade relating to Syria.

With respect, it wasn't an argument it was a statement of fact. One echoed by the co-chair of the European council on foreign relations (one of the few chinks in the wall of silence the EU have been employing to avoid addressing the UK's actions, the other being the leak by the upcoming EU foreign policy chief that the USA originally asked Spain to stop the tanker and they refused).

I'm really not sure what distinction you're trying to make here re: sanctions/law

I'm honestly not sure how else to explain it really, you break the EU law by violating a sanction, but if the sanction doesn't apply to you then you cannot violate it by non-compliance and therefor cannot break the law.

One example I can think off that might help, is that pedestrians are not allowed to walk on the motorway, it's stated as a must not in the highway code therefore doing so is illegal and a person doing so would be breaking the law. It doesn't apply to cars, so a driver wouldn't be breaking the law by driving on the motorway (unless he was also doing something that was illegal ofc).

Gibraltar is part of the EU - why do you think EU law/sanctions don't apply there?

I never said they didn't.

 

[Jokester]

Right, I'm off to smuggle drugs and slaves through foreign countries. Later.

 

[Nasher]

Right, I'm off to smuggle drugs and slaves through foreign countries. Later.

Yep because obviously their laws won't apply to you, so you can do whatever you like apparently

 

[dowie]

With respect, it wasn't an argument it was a statement of fact.

No it isn't and you haven't backed up your claim with anything. I'm finding it hard to have much respect for your arguments at the moment tbh...

I'm honestly not sure how else to explain it really, you break the EU law by violating a sanction, but if the sanction doesn't apply to you then you cannot violate it by non-compliance and therefor cannot break the law.

What basis do you have to claim that the sanctions don't apply here - what immunity does a civilian ship have? You've provided nothing.

There is nothing in the documents from the EU that indicates any exemptions for merchant vessels as far as I can see.

So are you able to back up your claim here? I suspect you aren't because it is total BS. This idea that the ship can just ignore EU rules when in EU waters or the handwaving argument that they somehow don't apply because [reasons] are still yet to be explained by you.

 

[Kenai]

Article 35
This Regulation shall apply:
(a)
within the territory of the Union, including its airspace;
(b)
on board any aircraft or any vessel under the jurisdiction of a Member State;
(c)
to any person inside or outside the territory of the Union who is a national of a Member State;
(d)
to any legal person, entity or body which is incorporated or constituted under the law of a Member State;
(e)
to any legal person, entity or body in respect of any business done in whole or in part within the Union.

To me it seems fairly clear - once the vessel entered Gibraltar's waters, it fell under it's jurisdiction and thus subject to the regulation surrounding the sanctions.

 

[dowie]

Yup fairly clear, I mean the idea that you could just park up your arms delivery or your oil or delivery of hard cash intended for some targeted Syrian individual/entity while in territory of an EU member and then just pretend the rules don't apply is ludicrous.

Ditto to flying there... I mean according to ubersonic's logic, you could just fly a load of arms to Syria via a stop in Germany as long as the cargo aircraft was owned by some entity not based in the EU.

 

[MartinPrince]

To me it seems fairly clear - once the vessel entered Gibraltar's waters, it fell under it's jurisdiction and thus subject to the regulation surrounding the sanctions.

Couldn't be really much clearer or fairer though Iran are not really judging things by International norms so anything goes. Trump will never realise that when you kick a hornets nest controlling the outcome is rarely possible.

 

[Amp34]

Couldn't be really much clearer or fairer though Iran are not really judging things by International norms so anything goes. Trump will never realise that when you kick a hornets nest controlling the outcome is rarely possible.

Iran are backed into a corner...

The next question, disregarding whether or not it was a legal boarding, is why now?

The likelihood of this being the first time Iran have shipped oil to Syria is slim, and the fact that the Grace 1 went into EU waters suggests they didn’t anticipate being stopped under EU law. Have the EU (and Gibraltar) been intentionally not applying this to these shipments in the past? If so, what changed?

That leads us to the fact Spain refused a US request to stop the ship, and the UK adhered to the request... Is it the first request by the US, or is it the first time an EU country has actually followed through with the request. It all stinks either way.

 

[dowie]

The likelihood of this being the first time Iran have shipped oil to Syria is slim, and the fact that the Grace 1 went into EU waters suggests they didn’t anticipate being stopped under EU law. Have the EU (and Gibraltar) been intentionally not applying this to these shipments in the past? If so, what changed?

Well where is the evidence that this has happened before and been known about - in particular the stop in Gibraltar?

That leads us to the fact Spain refused a US request to stop the ship, and the UK adhered to the request... Is it the first request by the US, or is it the first time an EU country has actually followed through with the request. It all stinks either way.

Well they don't mention any previous requests. You are aware that Spain has been a bit salty re: Gibraltar and also they're hardly reliable re: Syria either given their previous assistance towards Russian warships...

 

[RoboCod]

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?

I know right!? I'm going to go to a country and do loads of stuff that's illegal there. I'm then going to put my middle fingers up at the police when they come to arrest me. I'm not from their country, I don't recognise their laws, they don't apply to me. #lawyered

 

[ubersonic]

The likelihood of this being the first time Iran have shipped oil to Syria is slim, and the fact that the Grace 1 went into EU waters suggests they didn’t anticipate being stopped under EU law. Have the EU (and Gibraltar) been intentionally not applying this to these shipments in the past? If so, what changed?

What changed is that the USA asked the UK to stop the ship (having first asked Spain and been refused). The USA never asked the UK to stop any previous shipments so we didn't stop any for them.

It's not just that the EU/Gibraltar haven't been applying the sanctions to the shipments before, it's that they don't apply to the shipments, hence Spain refusing to stop it and the EU being mostly silent on the whole matter (because with all the Brexit stuff going on now isn't the time to badmouth the UK) aside from a couple of rogue high ranking EU officials questioning the UK's claimed legality for the stop.

according to ubersonic's logic, you could just fly a load of arms to Syria via a stop in Germany as long as the cargo aircraft was owned by some entity not based in the EU.

No you couldn't because that would be illegal. Careful dude, straw is flammable.

 

[dowie]

No you couldn't because that would be illegal. Careful dude, straw is flammable.

It is illegal when it concerns a ship too.

Why make these arbitrary distinctions... I mean you're nearly there. You've got no basis for the claims you made, you seem to accept that in the case of a cargo plane it would be illegal but in the case of a ship... apparently not because? Well you still haven't been able to explain.... aside from your unsupported claim that the sanctions don't apply because you say they don't.

Out of interest why do you think they apply to planes and not ships?

Especially when the relevant rules mention both.

 

[Amp34]

Well where is the evidence that this has happened before and been known about - in particular the stop in Gibraltar?



Well they don't mention any previous requests. You are aware that Spain has been a bit salty re: Gibraltar and also they're hardly reliable re: Syria either given their previous assistance towards Russian warships...

Youre aware of what a question mark means right?

The post is a list of questions. I would be interesting to know if this has happened before and whether it has been adhered to in the past.

My one point is that the timing is extremely coincidental if this it the first time this has happened.

It’s not just the Spanish however, we have other prominent European politicians and diplomats questioning this as well.

Considering the pressure the US are putting on Iran right now, the whole Syria part of it could well be a complete red herring and a scapegoat to further hurt Iran, hence why Spain refused to intervene.

 

[dowie]

Youre aware of what a question mark means right?

The post is a list of questions. I would be interesting to know if this has happened before and whether it has been adhered to in the past.

My one point is that the timing is extremely coincidental if this it the first time this has happened.

You made an assertion in addition to asking a question, I'm questioning that assertion. Yes I'm aware of what a question mark means..

It’s not just the Spanish however, we have other prominent European politicians and diplomats questioning this as well.

It might be helpful if you were clearer about what you're referring to.

Considering the pressure the US are putting on Iran right now, the whole Syria part of it could well be a complete red herring and a scapegoat to further hurt Iran, hence why Spain refused to intervene.

The Syria part is the legal basis for the stop, of course the US wants to hinder Iran's oil experts in general but those are US sanctions and not enforced by the UK or wider EU.

Spain weren't in a position to intervene, there is free passage through the Strait of Gibraltar and then it was in international waters before turning into Gibraltar's waters for a pre-arranged stop.

If it has stopped at a Spanish port instead then perhaps Spain could have been in a position to intervene.

 

[Randomface74]

This thread should be moved to speakers corner coz it's the same bs circle jerk as the brexit thread.

 

[Buddy]

Meanwhile ...

Allah-Morad Afifipoor, head of Ports and Maritime Organization in southern Hormozgan Province, said on Saturday that the 30,000-tonne UK-flagged Stena Impero tanker had "collided with a fishing boat on its route and, according to law, after an accident it is necessary that the causes are investigated."

Following the collision, those on board the fishing boat "contacted the British vessel but didn't receive any response," so they informed the Hormozgan maritime organization "according to the legal procedures," he added.

Afifipoor also noted that the tanker had been taken to Bandar Abbas port, where it and its crew will remain while a probe is carried out into the British vessel’s conduct.

EDIT BIT MORE :

Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) impounded Stena Impero on Friday while it was passing through the Strait of Hormuz en route to Saudi Arabia. It was seized "for failing to respect international maritime rules.”

 

[dowie]

Hmmm so a collision with a fishing vessel leads to being forced out of Oman's water's and into Iran's waters. And where did this fishing vessel come from?

The silly thing is Iran has so far seized a small tanker no one seems to want to claim, a British owned/Liberian flagged vessel that it actually let go and this Swedish owned Vessel (with no British crew members) that was flying a British flag.

Granted the UK does owe some protection to UK flagged vessels but this is actually a Swedish vessel that they've held hostage.

 

[LeeUK]

UK does **** all as usual. Where are the navy etc when UK ships get captured by Iran?

 

[Dis86]

UK does **** all as usual. Where are the navy etc when UK ships get captured by Iran?

They were an hour away steaming there at full speed but not wanting to potentially provoke war by crossing in to Iranian waters.

 

[ubersonic]

Out of interest why do you think they apply to planes and not ships?

One being a plane and one being a ship aren't actually the differentiating factor. The plane carrying guns is violating an EU embargo on transporting weapons to Syria, that is against the law because the embargo applies throughout the EU and not only to member states. If the ship being discussed was also carrying guns it would also be violating the EU embargo on weapons to Syria and breaking EU law. Back in the 00's the USA fell foul of an EU embargo on guns to Afghanistan while they were trying to arm their newly founded Afghan army.

The differentiating fact is that there is no EU embargo on transporting oil to Syria, there are however EU sanctions on Syria. What some people are claiming is that Iran broke EU law by violating the EU sanctions on Syria, which would be true if it were an embargo not a sanction, however EU sanctions only apply to member states of the EU of which Iran is not one. This means Iran cannot have broken EU law by violating the sanctions as the sanctions do not apply to them, therefore their compliance is not a legal requirement as it would be for an EU member state (this is why Spain had zero interest stopping the ship and the US had to ask us to do it instead).

Hmmm so a collision with a fishing vessel leads to being forced out of Oman's water's and into Iran's waters. And where did this fishing vessel come from?

Most likely straight out of Iranian waters and into the side of the tanker, wouldn't surprise me if the Iranian navy were standing by on the edge of their waters ready to receive the fishing boats call about the "incident"