Ships under attack in the middle east

Don
Joined
7 Aug 2003
Posts
44,275
Location
Aberdeenshire
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.
Amazing isn't it, written there in black and white, yet people are still arguing that foreigners can pass through EU territory with banned items with impunity.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,898
[...]
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. [...]

The differentiating fact is that there is no EU embargo on transporting oil to Syria, there are however EU sanctions on Syria.

The relevant regulations are: EU COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 36/2012 - they apply to both weapons and the financial/economic measures taken against named entities. These are sanctions!

You seem to have grasped that weapons (covered by 36/2012) would be legally stopped on such a ship - why then do you not accept that oil to an entity covered in appendix II of the same regulations not be covered?

Again you've failed to provide anything to back up your position here - you've just made up some position that the sanctions re: a particular product (weapons) are legally different to the sanctions covering providing finance or economic resources to particular entities or individuals. On what basis can you make that claim given they come from the same set of regulations?

An embargo is generally a complete blockade of trade, that hasn't happened with regards to Syria, you've just attempted to throw in another hand waving argument with nothing to support it.

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.

No, no one has claimed that - the claim is that this ship is violating EU sanctions, not Iran. No one has claimed that Iran is subject to EU sanctions/rules, Gibraltar is an EU country and is subject to EU rules, those rules apply to all ships.

This has been explained to you multiple times so I don't know why you're persisting with the "Iran is not an EU member" line.

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).

Spain didn't have any basis to stop the ship as it didn't enter their waters aside form using the right of passage through the Strait. The ship broke EU law, and again no one has argued that EU sanctions apply to Iran.

You;'re nearly there - you just need to get past the unsupported BS you made up in your last post to justify your position that a ship carrying weapons (breaking 36/2012) could be legally stopped but a ship carrying oil to a particular entity (also breaking 36/2012) couldn't be legally stopped.

If your reply isn't factually based but relies on [waffle... but but embargo vs sanctions] then you're frankly full of it and are just wasting time.
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Feb 2010
Posts
3,034
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.

We would have lost the Falklands if we had a few more people like you in parliament.
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Mar 2015
Posts
4,528
Location
Earth
IMO, the tanker was in territorial waters or at least seems to be the case: https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/07/16/inenglish/1563261801_077325.html

Washington advised Madrid of the arrival of the supertanker 48 hours ahead of time, and the Spanish Navy followed its passage through the Strait of Gibraltar. It was expected to cross via international waters, as many Iranian vessels do without being stopped.

Surprisingly, on the night of July 3, it entered into waters that London classes as British Gibraltar Territorial Waters (BGTW), and dropped anchor just two miles off the Gibraltarian coast in order to resupply.

With that said, the reason for pulling the tanker aside was not really due to the EU sanction, but request from Washington https://theconversation.com/eu-sile...-telling-glimpse-of-post-brexit-future-120437:

In his role as Spain’s foreign minister he told media that the tanker had been seized following “a request from the United States to the United Kingdom”.

The EU sanction made a nice story, but I imagine the spirit of the sanction did not envisage this scenario, rather it was aimed at EU countries trading with Syria. Combine this with the previous actions of EU wanting to deescalate, this was only going to invoke more flames. This article sums up the points very well and how the wall of silence from EU and comments by foreign EU ministries when the UK took the tanker pretty much reinforces the EU's thoughts https://theconversation.com/eu-sile...-telling-glimpse-of-post-brexit-future-120437

But when it comes to diplomacy, perhaps we underestimate the impact of silence. A case in point was the lack of response from the EU over the UK’s strange role in the arrest of an Iranian supertanker in the Mediterranean Sea in early July. As the action was taken to uphold EU sanctions, the silence was all the more remarkable.

And

The silence conveyed its dissatisfaction to the US at the way it was manipulating EU sanctions to its own ends. More pointedly, the silence was trained upon Britian’s cumbersome attempt to court US military objectives while claiming to support the delicate diplomacy favoured by the EU towards Iran.

Overall sure, technically the UK had some justification here. In reality the reason is very thin and real reason for taking it is as per US request, not the EU sanctions.

The purpose of the silence was to soak up the metallic clatter of militarism. It said to Britain that the time has come to decide between a hard and a soft path to peace in the Middle East.

On one hand, we try to use a soft approach with EU partners, on the other a hard approach and I say hard as obviously sizing this tanker was going to inflame the situation, exactly as we see now, It's hardly unsurprising Iran were going to retaliate, more so in thier own back yard. Already in past UK security services knew full well it was impossible to protect every ship with our forces, or lack of https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-m...l-to-protect-oil-shipping-lanes-idUKKCN1UE0KR

France, which has a naval base in the United Arab Emirates, does not plan to escort ships and views the U.S. plan as counterproductive to easing tensions because Tehran would see it as anti-Iran, a French official said.

The British security source said it was not viable to escort every commercial vessel, a view shared by several other countries.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,898
With that said, the reason for pulling the tanker aside was not really due to the EU sanction, but request from Washington https://theconversation.com/eu-sile...-telling-glimpse-of-post-brexit-future-120437:

The EU sanction made a nice story, but I imagine the spirit of the sanction did not envisage this scenario, rather it was aimed at EU countries trading with Syria.

The EU sanctions were the legal basis for this, the UK was tracking the vessel too, yes the US has requested it and given it was seemingly breaking EU sanctions then the UK is hardly in a position to turn around to our closest ally and say "no we're not going to enforce the law". It isn't clear, given the UK was tracking it too, that they'd not have stopped it anyway regardless. Most ships doing something contrary to Eu sanctions probably don't stop in Gibraltar's waters!

I think that it is dubious to claim that the spirit of the sanctions did not envisage this scenario - the spirit of the sanctions absolutely concerned (among other things) the supply of finance or economic resources to those entities while making use of EU territory.

"it was aimed at EU countries trading with Syria" integration trade is generally carried out by companies (plenty of which are multinationals) not individual countries themselves - the sanctions are aimed at any entity using EU territory whether that be entities based in EU territories or entities wishing to fly planes or sail ships through EU territory/make use of EU ports etc... This absolutely was envisaged - a ship making use of port facilities within the EU... that's not too different to a plane making use of an airport. If you're going to impose sanctions you don't not envisage say just letting your ports and airports be used to break them.
 
Permabanned
Joined
1 Apr 2010
Posts
370
Location
Nowhere
The EU sanctions were the legal basis for this, the UK was tracking the vessel too, yes the US has requested it and given it was seemingly breaking EU sanctions then the UK is hardly in a position to turn around to our closest ally and say "no we're not going to enforce the law". It isn't clear, given the UK was tracking it too, that they'd not have stopped it anyway regardless. Most ships doing something contrary to Eu sanctions probably don't stop in Gibraltar's waters!

I think that it is dubious to claim that the spirit of the sanctions did not envisage this scenario - the spirit of the sanctions absolutely concerned (among other things) the supply of finance or economic resources to those entities while making use of EU territory.

"it was aimed at EU countries trading with Syria" integration trade is generally carried out by companies (plenty of which are multinationals) not individual countries themselves - the sanctions are aimed at any entity using EU territory whether that be entities based in EU territories or entities wishing to fly planes or sail ships through EU territory/make use of EU ports etc... This absolutely was envisaged - a ship making use of port facilities within the EU... that's not too different to a plane making use of an airport. If you're going to impose sanctions you don't not envisage say just letting your ports and airports be used to break them.

You believe this drivel? Haha.

Give me an example of another EU country enforcing these sanctions that have been in place for years against a non-EU member.

Give me an example of senior EU officials stating that the purpose of the sanctions was to stop oil exports from non-EU members to Syria.

Jesus Christ...it's obviously because the US asked us to and we did it.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,898
@Radox-0

Yep, it's so obvious we did this to please the US that this endless talk of EU law is baffling.

Right, OK, we have these sanctions that Dowie is orgasmic about. Great.

It isn't baffling - it is in direct response to you and others repeatedly claiming that there wasn't a legal basis to seize the ship "because Iran isn't in the EU" etc...

So who prior to the UK actually enforced them against countries outside of the EU in all the years they were active? Drum roll................NO-ONE!


No-one? Yep, no-one.

False - various firms/entities have had assets frozen in relation to sanctions over Syria:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18897218

https://www.scmp.com/news/world/mid...mplicated-has-assets-frozen-france-over-links

Gee, could that possibly be because other EU member states didn't view that as affecting non-EU members?

Nope, see above.

"NO", Dowie screams. "It's because Grace 1 was the FIRST Iranian ship in all the years since these sanctions were passed that sailed through an EU member state's waters. AT NO POINT in all those previous years did an Iranian ship taking oil to Syria ever go through EU waters. The UK, which holds EU laws in the highest regards even above its own self-interests, was compelled to seize it. Literally compelled - it had no other choice."


See the quote in the post from the previous poster:

"It was expected to cross via international waters, as many Iranian vessels do without being stopped."

Do you have any other examples of Iranian vessels smuggling oil to Syria that stopped in Gibraltar? Is this a regular thing? I suspect it perhaps isn't.

You spent several pages denying that there was a legal basis for this when you were wrong, now you're trying to argue EU sanctions have never been enforced previously... well that is BS. If you're going to argue that we've actively let ships break these sanctions in the past then please proved some examples.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,898
You believe this drivel? Haha.

Give me an example of another EU country enforcing these sanctions that have been in place for years against a non-EU member.

See the above posts - assets of various entities have been frozen in various EU member states as a result of sanctions on Syria

Give me an example of senior EU officials stating that the purpose of the sanctions was to stop oil exports from non-EU members to Syria.

There isn't a general ban on oil exports to Syria, there are however controls in place on certain named individuals and entities. This has already been explained to you.

Jesus Christ...it's obviously because the US asked us to and we did it.

Not necessarily - the UK was tracking the ship too. The US is one of our closest allies, we share intelligence, we don't have the same policy re: sanctions on Iran but if this ship was breaking EU sanctions (which apparently seems to be the case) then why wouldn't we take action when that becomes apparent?
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Mar 2015
Posts
4,528
Location
Earth
The EU sanctions were the legal basis for this, the UK was tracking the vessel too, yes the US has requested it and given it was seemingly breaking EU sanctions then the UK is hardly in a position to turn around to our closest ally and say "no we're not going to enforce the law". It isn't clear, given the UK was tracking it too, that they'd not have stopped it anyway regardless. Most ships doing something contrary to Eu sanctions probably don't stop in Gibraltar's waters!

I think that it is dubious to claim that the spirit of the sanctions did not envisage this scenario - the spirit of the sanctions absolutely concerned (among other things) the supply of finance or economic resources to those entities while making use of EU territory.

"it was aimed at EU countries trading with Syria" integration trade is generally carried out by companies (plenty of which are multinationals) not individual countries themselves - the sanctions are aimed at any entity using EU territory whether that be entities based in EU territories or entities wishing to fly planes or sail ships through EU territory/make use of EU ports etc... This absolutely was envisaged - a ship making use of port facilities within the EU... that's not too different to a plane making use of an airport. If you're going to impose sanctions you don't not envisage say just letting your ports and airports be used to break them.

Once again, as I say, there is a legal basis, however it is very clear from the silence and only comment from a foreign EU ministry mentioning this was not done in name of EU and rather at behest of Washington. If it was done in the spirit, I would fully have expected the office of the European External Action Service, to put out comment or some kind of recognition of their sanction being enforced, the very ministry tasked with overseing sanctions, foreign policy issues under who's exact preview this would have come under. However checking their statement issue page: https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/search/site_en?page=6&f[0]=sm_specific_content_type:eeas_press:all&f[1]=im_field_eeas_homepage:38 on the 4th, the day we took the tanker only statement was an EU and Qatarand senior meeting and 5th EU - Ukraine fact sheet. This speaks volumes. Only with the recent ships taken did they put anything out: https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters...seizure-two-ships-iranian-authorities-gulf_en

So yeah, we had a legal basis, yet evidently for our hard work, the very agency who's remit the sanctions fall under and other EU ministries, aside the Spanish ministry's comments saying it was at the behest of Washington stayed very quiet for what would be a win surely?

I fully imagine given the course of action the EU are taking in terms of a soft approach and seemingly a more calmer course the Washington, very little would have been said if the ship was allowed on its way. However we did not and the ramifications that happened since are the result and not unexpected given the comments made in above link above by reutuers of British security sources saying we cannot protect everything.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,898
Once again, as I say, there is a legal basis, however it is very clear from the silence and only comment from a foreign EU ministry mentioning this was not done in name of EU and rather at behest of Washington.

That isn't clear - as already mentioned the UK was tracking the ship too. You'll note that the UK does not support the US's stance re: sanctions on Iran. The ship however, if breaching EU sanctions/entering Gibraltar's waters is then clearly breaking EU rules which the UK does adhere to. Given the UK was tracking the ship too then it isn't clear at all that it wouldn't have been stopped regardless.

If it was done in the spirit, I would fully have expected the office of the European External Action Service, to put out comment or some kind of recognition of their sanction being enforced, the very ministry tasked with overseing sanctions, foreign policy issues under who's exact preview this would have come under. [...]

So yeah, we had a legal basis, yet evidently for our hard work, the very agency who's remit the sanctions fall under and other EU ministries, aside the Spanish ministry's comments saying it was at the behest of Washington stayed very quiet for what would be a win surely?

Well there are rather obvious reasons for this (aside from brexit!) and no it doesn't imply that this wasn't done in the spirt of the law, this was seemingly breaching a clear intent of the law if the alleged destination is correct. The obvious reason for the EU's silence is the rather delicate issue of the Iranian nuclear treaty that the EU is still trying to support.

I fully imagine given the course of action the EU are taking in terms of a soft approach and seemingly a more calmer course the Washington, very little would have been said if the ship was allowed on its way. However we did not and the ramifications that happened since are the result and not unexpected given the comments made in above link above by reutuers of British security sources saying we cannot protect everything.

Well there isn't much point in signing up to sanctions if you're going to let a blatant breach of them occur within your own territorial waters! It would be ridiculous for the UK to ignore the ship given our stance on Syria.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,898
Your naivety is amazing; itt's like talking to a newborn.

I'm not the Russian shill who spent several pages denying there was even a legal basis here - interesting that you've given up on that flawed argument/don't have a response now that it has been completely torn apart with direct references to the EU's rules.

[waffle about muh Iraq etc...]

I'm talking about seizing commercial ships going about their lawful business. The US vassals (France and the UK) seize bank accounts all the time based on lies (you do know Douma was a false flag, don't you?). Give me an example of EU member states seizing an oil tanker from a country not in the EU in connection with these EU sanctions you hold in such high regard.

It isn't clear that many tankers are actually silly enough to stop at EU ports while breaking them - I'll ask again do you have any examples of cases where these sanctions were breached and no action was taken?

First you deny sanctions have been enforced previously, they have. Now you want to narrow that to enforced on tankers in a similar manner to this one - well it isn't clear that there have been (m)any breaches in the past and you haven't provided any (what a surprise). The US generally isn't shy about this stuff - I'd suspect they'd kick up a fuss if the EU was actively ignoring it's own policy here (and I'm not sure why you think EU member states would even want to actively undermine the sanctions policy here given that you've already got examples of sanctions being enforced against Chinese, Lebanese etc.. companies with their assets being frozen).

As for comments about Spain re: Gibraltar... no surprises there! who'd have thought the Spanish would get upset over Gibraltar.

Your arguments are overly simplistic and seemingly at the level of "vassal state" "but but Iraq" etc... try to be a bit more coherent and reply to what has actually been presented. You wasted pages of posts already because you couldn't even grasp that there was a legal basis for the seizure.
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Mar 2015
Posts
4,528
Location
Earth
That isn't clear - as already mentioned the UK was tracking the ship too. You'll note that the UK does not support the US's stance re: sanctions on Iran. The ship however, if breaching EU sanctions/entering Gibraltar's waters is then clearly breaking EU rules which the UK does adhere to. Given the UK was tracking the ship too then it isn't clear at all that it wouldn't have been stopped regardless.



Well there are rather obvious reasons for this (aside from brexit!) and no it doesn't imply that this wasn't done in the spirt of the law, this was seemingly breaching a clear intent of the law if the alleged destination is correct. The obvious reason for the EU's silence is the rather delicate issue of the Iranian nuclear treaty that the EU is still trying to support.



Well there isn't much point in signing up to sanctions if you're going to let a blatant breach of them occur within your own territorial waters! It would be ridiculous for the UK to ignore the ship given our stance on Syria.


Going to have to disagree. As its clear to me, If the EU cared that much about this sanction, they would have put out a statement. They put out statements for everything and anything yet remained absolutely silent on this, and only statement as I mentioned was an EU based ministry saying this was done for Washington, not once saying for breaking EU sanctions or anything like that. Only words they put out as mentioned were in regards to the recent taking of the ship's and even then the wording was so light, would have no idea it was an EU member states, flagged ships that were taken

Exactly, it is a delicate issue in regards to the Nuclear Treaty which is why I fully expect the if this ship passed, they (EU) would not have cared, more so as you say the destination was only alleged at this point and still is alleged (though it was likely going Syria). They and the UK until recently had bigger fish to fry in regards to trying a softer approach in regards to Nuclear Treaty. The UK does not support the US's stance, which is why while trying for a softer approach, taking the tanker is the all more perplexing decision in the grand scheme of things, its why commentator's are pretty much suggesting we are straddling the line here between a softer and harder approach and both will not work.

Suffice to say here we are, and only think we can do is put out "serious" statements and stern words which mean F all to Iran. Eu are silent on the matter and the US at the behest of who we did this are back to protecting their own ships, with UK left in the lurch and deal with it.

To add, this comment by the Swedish prime minster https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/20/gulf-crisis-tanker-retaliation-iran-hormuz
Carl Bildt, the former Swedish prime minister and co-chair of the European council on foreign relations, pinpointed the ambiguities of the British action in Gibraltar: “The legality of the UK seizure of a tanker heading for Syria with oil from Iran intrigues me. One refers to EU sanctions against Syria, but Iranis not a member of the EU. And the EU as a principle doesn’t impose its sanctions on others. That’s what the US does.”

So yeah, when you get comments from the head of a EU nations and chairs of foreign relations, EU itself remaining absolutely silent on the UK executing a EU sanction and one ministry saying it was done for Washington and only the US coming out and saying good job, well that kind of only leads to my above opinion
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,898
Going to have to disagree. As its clear to me, If the EU cared that much about this sanction, they would have put out a statement. They put out statements for everything and anything yet remained absolutely silent on this

You might note that they've been rather careful in general regarding Iran! It is the rather obvious explanation for this rather than any dispute that this action isn't enforcing the sanctions that the EU agreed to.

Exactly, it is a delicate issue in regards to the Nuclear Treaty which is why I fully expect the if this ship passed, they (EU) would not have cared, more so as you say the destination was only alleged at this point and still is alleged (though it was likely going Syria). They and the UK until recently had bigger fish to fry in regards to trying a softer approach in regards to Nuclear Treaty. The UK does not support the US's stance, which is why while trying for a softer approach, taking the tanker is the all more perplexing decision in the grand scheme of things, its why commentator's are pretty much suggesting we are straddling the line here between a softer and harder approach and both will not work.

It isn't at all IMO - do you have any examples where the EU has allowed breaches of the Syrian sanctions in relation to Iran? I can see why it might be perplexing if you're taking the view that this is something the EU would ignore in order to pacify Iran but the reality seems to be that they are actively enforcing the sanctions on Syria ergo as much as the UK might want to uphold the nuclear treaty they can't just allow a breach of the regulations to apply in Gibraltar's waters.

Remember Iran has been an active participant in the conflict in Syria from the start and the sanctions specifically target Iranian entities both named Iranian individuals involved in the conflict and Iranian entities such as the Quds force (see annex II of the regulations). Given that the EU has included them then I think you're wrong to assume that the EU would not have cared or had bigger fish to fry. Syria is pretty serious in itself and if they didn't want to enforce any of the related sanctions on Iran then they had no need to specifically name Iranian individuals and entities in the regulations they created!

The UK wasn't in a good position to not do anything - we're committed to enforcing the sanctions relating to Syria and we've apparently monitored a potential breach alongside the US, it would be farcical to turn around and decide not to then enforce them.
 
Permabanned
Joined
1 Apr 2010
Posts
370
Location
Nowhere
You might note that they've been rather careful in general regarding Iran!

It isn't at all IMO - do you have any examples where the EU has allowed breaches of the Syrian sanctions in relation to Iran? I can see why it might be perplexing if you're taking the view that this is something the EU would ignore in order to pacify Iran but the reality seems to be that they are actively enforcing the sanctions on Syria ergo as much as the UK might want to uphold the nuclear treaty they can't just allow a breach of the regulations to apply in Gibraltar's waters.

Remember Iran has been an active participant in the conflict in Syria from the start and the sanctions specifically target Iranian entities both named Iranian individuals involved in the conflict and Iranian entities such as the Quds force (see annex II of the regulations). Given that the EU has included them then I think you're wrong to assume that the EU would not have cared or had bigger fish to fry. Syria is pretty serious in itself and if they didn't want to enforce any of the related sanctions on Iran then they had no need to specifically name Iranian individuals and entities in the regulations they created!

The UK wasn't in a good position to not do anything - we're committed to enforcing the sanctions relating to Syria and we've apparently monitored a potential breach alongside the US, it would be farcical to turn around and decide not to then enforce them.

Give an example of another EU country seizing an oil tanker en route to Syria.

Sure, the UK cares profoundly about legalities hence why it destroyed Iraq, Libya and funded jihadis in Syria...
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,898
If you're just going to throw in ad hominem nonsense as per your previous posts then there isn't much point engaging with you. You're certainly not discussing the issue in good faith as you just ignore factual posts that counter some of the claims you come out with such as this action not having a legal basis.

You're now demanding, again, examples of tankers seized previously when it has been pointed out that it apparently isn't usual (unsurprisingly) for a tanker actively breaching EU sanctions to make a stop like this in the first place. If you have any evidence of previous tankers actively breaching sanctions and EU member states allow it then please do post them.
 
Permabanned
Joined
1 Apr 2010
Posts
370
Location
Nowhere
If you're just going to throw in ad hominem nonsense as per your previous posts then there isn't much point engaging with you. You're certainly not discussing the issue in good faith as you just ignore factual posts that counter some of the claims you come out with such as this action not having a legal basis.

You're now demanding, again, examples of tankers seized previously when it has been pointed out that it apparently isn't usual (unsurprisingly) for a tanker actively breaching EU sanctions to make a stop like this in the first place. If you have any evidence of previous tankers actively breaching sanctions and EU member states allow it then please do post them.

You can't give an example as there haven't been any as if there had been Iran would have screamed about it and it would be newsworthy. We could have easily ignored it, but didn't for obvious reasons.

You are a worshipper of the US empire who applauds actions that make the UK look weak.

How do these actions benefit the UK? It has shown our navy up to be ineffectual in protecting maritime shipping and that we jump when the US tells us to.

If you were any kind of British nationalist you would oppose this humiliation that we are inflicting upon ourselves.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,898
You can't give an example as there haven't been any as if there had been Iran would have screamed about it and it would be newsworthy.

In order for there to have been any there need to exist other ships actively breaking the rules. You've not established that this is the case in the first place ergo that point is rather flawed!

You are a worshipper of the US empire who applauds actions that make the UK look weak.

nope

How do these actions benefit the UK? It has shown our navy up to be ineffectual in protecting maritime shipping and that we jump when the US tells us to.[

If you were any kind of British nationalist you would oppose this humiliation that we are inflicting upon ourselves.

I've never claimed to be a "nationalist". It has shown that we keep our obligations and enforce the EU sanctions we agreed to! It would be rather farcical to not enforce them when aware of a breach!

You seem to be suggesting that we should just ignore regulations that we've agreed to -what therefore would be the point in having such regulations?
 
Back
Top Bottom