Rock on, Rockall! (it's back)

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There is an extraordinary mind at work there blaaz.

How desperate is janfebmar for a cogent argument to have to invent all of those lies, not mention take the time to type it all out. :D

A hypothetical question so. Had you been around early in WW2, or early during the troubles, what outcome would you have predicted and who would you have sided with?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

A hypothetical question so. Had you been around early in WW2, or early during the troubles, what outcome would you have predicted and who would you have sided with?

Hypotec to the subject of the thread, which is NOT your obsession with me and what I think.

janfebmar

odyssey06 wrote: »

So below is Fastnet rock, complete with lighthouse.

If you put a lighthouse on Rockall, with a permanent staff, would that meet the requirements for "habitation" I wonder?

It was the British who built those things around the coast, and who built them well. Maybe they should have built one on Rockall? If someone lives somewhere for 6 weeks, does that make it habitable? Or has it to be habitable 12 months a year like Fastnet?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

It was the British who built those things around the coast, and who built them well. Maybe they should have built one on Rockall? If someone lives somewhere for 6 weeks, does that make it habitable? Or has it to be habitable 12 months a year like Fastnet?

It has to be able to 'sustain human habitation'
The SAS loon was wasting his time and endangering lives to have to go and rescue his ass.

janfebmar

janfebmar wrote: »

It was the British who built those things around the coast, and who built them well. Maybe they should have built one on Rockall? If someone lives somewhere for 6 weeks, does that make it habitable? Or has it to be habitable 12 months a year like Fastnet?

Would you like to move to Rockall, build a lighthouse and give it a try? It could be just the break you need.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It has to be able to 'sustain human habitation'
The SAS loon was wasting his time and endangering lives to have to go and rescue his ass.

The view of many Scottish is that he was not wasting his time, he wanted to stay there from May to July one year, which he did. He did not need rescuing, his plan all along was to leave the island by boat in order to return to the mainland.

janfebmar

Deleted User wrote: »

Would you like to move to Rockall, build a lighthouse and give it a try? It could be just the break you need.

A lighthouse keeper would not be my job, but many lighthouses around the country did make certain rocks habitable.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

The view of many Scottish is that he was not wasting his time, he wanted to stay there from May to July one year, which he did. He did not need rescuing, his plan all along was to leave the island by boat in order to return to the mainland.

There were people standing by to rescue him if he needed it.
He didn't prove anything but his own bloodymindedness.

A Dub in Glasgo

janfebmar wrote: »

The view of many Scottish is that he was not wasting his time, he wanted to stay there from May to July one year, which he did. He did not need rescuing, his plan all along was to leave the island by boat in order to return to the mainland.

He said "You get a lot of wind, a lot spray," he said. "In the winter the sea goes right over the top - you'd get wiped off the thing.

janfebmar

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

He said "You get a lot of wind, a lot spray," he said. "In the winter the sea goes right over the top - you'd get wiped off the thing.

Same as the Fastnet Rock so. And it is habitable too.

janfebmar

janfebmar wrote: »

Same as the Fastnet Rock so. And it is habitable too.

If they hadn't needed a lighthouse up until now... BTW, do you think the UK are going to recognise that Island China has developed any time soon?

It's far larger than Rockall and fully under their control.

blinding

recedite wrote: »

There's a bit of confusion around the "habitation" thing, so here it is.
A country can project a 200 mile economic exclusion zone (EEZ) out across the sea from its outermost inhabited coast or island. That in itself does not give exclusive fishing rights, but it gives first dibs on oil and gas wells, and gives extra weight to claims of ownership of any uninhabited islands within that zone.
On this basis, Rockall is within the UK's EEZ.


Rockall is above sea level at low tide, therefore it counts as "land".

So, because it is within their EEZ, and having landed on it and laid claim to this "land" for The Crown, as "land" it automatically generates its own 12 mile limit (as any claimed piece of land does, whether it is inhabited or not) This provides Rockall with exclusive fishing rights, regardless of whether the UK is inside the EU or outside it.
The northern waters of the UK are administered by the Scottish govt, who have 3 of their own fishing patrol vessels. But these can also call for back up from the RN whenever they need it, because Scotland is in the UK.


The Irish position is to say sure its only a rock, nobody owns it, lets all share the fish.


Meanwhile, Brussels is staying very, very quiet.

Brussels scared sh!tless about having to build the border wall to Rockall .

odyssey06

I know how we can get a bunch of Irish lads to take over Rockall and outlast SAS man ... tell them it's a stag adventure weekend and there'll be helicopter drops of beer, pizza, whiskey

janfebmar

odyssey06 wrote: »

I know how we can get a bunch of Irish lads to take over Rockall and outlast SAS man ... tell them it's a stag adventure weekend and there'll be helicopter drops of beer, pizza, whiskey

We'd want to print them instructions on how not to slip and fall off the rock, and get them to sign a disclaimer they would not sue if something happened, like the TD who needed instructions on how to use a swing. Even with ear defenders are you sure they would not sue the state for deafness arising from the noise of the helicopter?
Like thousands successfully sued the state for deafness a few decades ago?

Otherwise a good idea. Cannot be too hard, sure didn't a few leftie Greenpeace activists outlast the SAS mans record some years ago. If fastnet is habitable, which it is, then a similar rock like Rockwall should also be habitable.

recedite

How about a dance-off on top of the rock to decide the matter?
Jigs or Reels, give the Scots a choice.

FrancieBrady

odyssey06 wrote: »

I know how we can get a bunch of Irish lads to take over Rockall and outlast SAS man ... tell them it's a stag adventure weekend and there'll be helicopter drops of beer, pizza, whiskey

Yes, there would have to be some point in it for an Irishman to do it. A bit like Everest...the Nepalese never bothered shimmying up Everest until a vainglorious Brit landed to pay them to do it.
They were happy to take the money and let them take all the glory and credit even though the British wouldn't have summitted the foothills without them.

whisky_galore

steddyeddy wrote: »

It's an uninhabited rock. No one has ownership.

There are hundreds, probably thousands, of uninhabited islands around the world owned by some country or someone.
It's like saying no one has ownership of a field cos no one lives in it.

recedite

whisky_galore wrote: »

It's like saying no one has ownership of a field cos no one lives in it.

Wheres the Bull McCabe when you need him!
Time for Leo to grow a beard.

FrancieBrady

whisky_galore wrote: »

There are hundreds, probably thousands, of uninhabited islands around the world owned by some country or someone.
It's like saying no one has ownership of a field cos no one lives in it.

Owning it isn't the point. Setting up an exclusive zone for themselves around it is the problem. And they cannot do that under UN law.

3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.

steddyeddy

whisky_galore wrote: »

There are hundreds, probably thousands, of uninhabited islands around the world owned by some country or someone.
It's like saying no one has ownership of a field cos no one lives in it.

Yes there are indeed but this ownership seems to be based on flag planting by a representative of the queen and the ownership itself is contested by three other countries.

recedite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Owning it isn't the point. Setting up an exclusive zone for themselves around it is the problem. And they cannot do that under UN law.

This has been explained numerous times. The UK is NOT claiming a EEZ based on, or centred on Rockall. Rockall is within their EEZ projected from inhabited Scottish islands (projected from St.Kilda to be exact)

FrancieBrady

recedite wrote: »

This has been explained numerous times. The UK is NOT claiming a EEZ based on, or centred on Rockall. Rockall is within their EEZ projected from inhabited Scottish islands (projected from St.Kilda to be exact)

You cannot set up an exclusive 12 mile limit around an uninhabitable rock. And Ireland under the EU Fisheries Agreement can fish anywhere in EU waters. Britain is in the EU.

RobMc59

recedite wrote: »

This has been explained numerous times. The UK is NOT claiming a EEZ based on, or centred on Rockall. Rockall is within their EEZ projected from inhabited Scottish islands (projected from St.Kilda to be exact)

So basically EU vessels can fish there for now as long as they adhere to guidelines-what happens if Britain leaves the EU is to be decided.The possibility of Scottish independence would complicate matters further.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You cannot set up an exclusive 12 mile limit around an uninhabitable rock.

Of course it is inhabitable. The fastnet Rock is habitable is it not, and it is similar to the Rockall rock.

recedite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You cannot set up an exclusive 12 mile limit around an uninhabitable rock.

You can yeah, if you own the rock. A rock counts as an island if it is above water at high tide.

Every State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baselines determined in accordance with this Convention. In the case of islands situated on atolls or of islands having fringing reefs, the baseline for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea is the seaward low-water line of the reef, as shown by the appropriate symbol on charts officially recognized by the coastal State.

https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part2.htm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And Ireland under the EU Fisheries Agreement can fish anywhere in EU waters. Britain is in the EU.

Even EU countries don't give up their entire territorial waters to the EU.
I think its normal to retain a 6 mile limit for local fishing boats (I'm open to correction on the exact rules) and then allow other EU trawlers into the outer 6 miles of their 12 mile territorial limit, and also the other EU trawlers would be free to fish in the rest of the EEZ of the country in question.

steddyeddy

janfebmar wrote: »

I am jokinging speculating what Francis the psychics positiion would have been had he been around early in WW2, or early during the troubles, seeing as he always defended the Republican position in those struggles, and is always predicting the downfall of the despised British in Brexit etc. As RobMc said of Francie, he genuinely believes he
can see into the future,especially over a UI !

Here's a bit of advice. I find your posts quite hard to read as you try to pack in so many digs about anything Irish. How about stick to one slur and go with it. Right now every post reads like:

• WW2 neutral
• Deaf Irish
• United Ireland
• Troubles
• IRA
• I never vote unionist parties
• I always vote unionist parties

_blaaz

janfebmar wrote: »

Of course it is inhabitable. The fastnet Rock is habitable is it not, and it is similar to the Rockall rock.

If you were on fastnet without food/water you would die relatively quickly



By your logic any ship which gets stuck in a reef etc and cant be moved,could be reclassified as an inhabitable island.....this is such a mind numbingly stupid point your trying to make

janfebmar

janfebmar wrote: »

Of course it is inhabitable.

It needs to be self sustaining to be considered an island. A lighthouse being supplied by a ship would not count.



And still waiting on whether you think the UK will be recognising the sizeable island China have developed, fully under their control?

steddyeddy

The other point worth remembering is that the UK really can't afford to annoy the EU right now.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Of course it is inhabitable. The fastnet Rock is habitable is it not, and it is similar to the Rockall rock.

'Sustain human habitation' Jan...2 months clinging on for dear life eating Mars bars is not 'sustaining human habitation'.