Rock on, Rockall! (it's back)

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

In the same way fanatical Muslim extremists never idolized Isis or the 9/11 hijackers. They were appalled there was a reason for Al Queida to exist and primarily blame America and the west for happened in the middle East.
Don't mistake that for idolising.

What?

Berserker

Deleted User wrote: »

Except that the UK have debased themselves to such an extent they are now a compliant lapdog.

In your eyes. The USA & UK think otherwise.

steddyeddy

janfebmar wrote: »

In the same way fanatical Muslim extremists never idolized Isis or the 9/11 hijackers. They were appalled there was a reason for Al Queida to exist and primarily blame America and the west for happened in the middle East.
Don't mistake that for idolising.

What are you talking about?

Realt Dearg Sec

janfebmar wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Have you morphed into janfebmar?

I never idolised anyone, much less the IRA. I'm appalled that there was a reason for the IRA to exist and primarily blame the British and partition for what happened in northern Ireland.
Don't mistake that for idolising.

In the same way fanatical Muslim extremists never idolized Isis or the 9/11 hijackers. They were appalled there was a reason for Al Queida to exist and primarily blame America and the west for happened in the middle East.
Don't mistake that for idolising.

This probably sounded better in your head.

_blaaz

janfebmar wrote: »

In the same way fanatical Muslim extremists never idolized Isis or the 9/11 hijackers. They were appalled there was a reason for Al Queida to exist and primarily blame America and the west for happened in the middle East.
Don't mistake that for idolising.

I have the confused

hehe. Definitely Maryisfrozen, or whatever its name is here, is the most interesting online persona on this website. I suspect it's about 13 years of age, but the really strange ideas - invariably of a cultural cringe variety - and bizarre inability to comprehend the Queen's English (ironically enough!) and reduce everybody to "Wtf" amazement is wonderfully idiosyncratic.

It's only going to melt your head so don't engage.

Duckworth_Luas

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What?

steddyeddy wrote: »

What are you talking about?

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

This probably sounded better in your head.

_blaaz wrote: »

I have the confused

Junkyard Tom

We need nukes and we need to be prepared to use them.

janfebmar

RobMc59 wrote: »

Your hatred and loathing of Britain is almost comical

RobMc59 wrote: »

I know that and any decent Irish person like yourself would probably have no time for the IRA but some here idolise them.

lawred2 wrote: »

Who here idolises them?

RobMc59 wrote: »

Imo francie does if you're asking

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I never idolised anyone, much less the IRA. I'm appalled that there was a reason for the IRA to exist and primarily blame the British and partition for what happened in northern Ireland.
Don't mistake that for idolising.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What?

Francie, the other poster said you idolised the IRA. Maybe idolised is the wrong word, but you previously condoned them, supported their actions, defended them etc. Of course you are appalled there was a reason for the IRA to exist (in your eyes) and you primarily blame the British and partition for what happened in northern Ireland. I would assume Loyalist extremists (even though there are none of them on board.ie or I have never seen anyone condoning loyalist paramilitaries) would be the reverse side of the coin and would be appalled there was a reason for the UVF to exist and would primarily blame the Irish Republicans for what happened in northern Ireland.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Francie, the other poster said you idolised the IRA. Maybe idolised is the wrong word, but you previously condoned them, supported their actions, defended them etc. Of course you are appalled there was a reason for the IRA to exist (in your eyes) and you primarily blame the British and partition for what happened in northern Ireland. I would assume Loyalist extremists (even though there are none of them on board.ie or I have never seen anyone condoning loyalist paramilitaries) would be the reverse side of the coin and would be appalled there was a reason for the UVF to exist and would primarily blame the Irish Republicans for what happened in northern Ireland.

What?



*are you on the wrong thread?

steddyeddy

janfebmar wrote: »

Francie, the other poster said you idolised the IRA. Maybe idolised is the wrong word, but you previously condoned them, supported their actions, defended them etc. Of course you are appalled there was a reason for the IRA to exist (in your eyes) and you primarily blame the British and partition for what happened in northern Ireland. I would assume Loyalist extremists (even though there are none of them on board.ie or I have never seen anyone condoning loyalist paramilitaries) would be the reverse side of the coin and would be appalled there was a reason for the UVF to exist and would primarily blame the Irish Republicans for what happened in northern Ireland.

This is a thread about Rockall. Do the IRA have a Rockall division?

W1ll1s

"Scotland is “within its rights” to threaten enforcement, and Ireland “hasn’t a leg to stand on” within Rockall’s 12-mile limit, Prof Symmons says" :rolleyes:

https://afloat.ie/resources/news-update/item/42931-rockall-legal-experts-says-scotland-right-ireland-wrong

odyssey06

W1ll1s wrote: »

"Scotland is “within its rights” to threaten enforcement, and Ireland “hasn’t a leg to stand on” within Rockall’s 12-mile limit, Prof Symmons says" :rolleyes:

https://afloat.ie/resources/news-update/item/42931-rockall-legal-experts-says-scotland-right-ireland-wrong

Prof Ronán Long, who is ocean governance and law of the sea chair at the World Maritime University, concurs with Prof Symmons, and says that rocks can generate 12-mile territorial sea limits under UN Law of the Sea convention rules.

Rubbish. Who are you gonna believe? Simon Coveney, minister who introduced our world leading Rent Pressure Zone legislation which has done such a good job of protecting tenants, OR the sea chair at the World Maritime University?

ps Is the sea chair on the ship? What a title

FrancieBrady

W1ll1s wrote: »

"Scotland is “within its rights” to threaten enforcement, and Ireland “hasn’t a leg to stand on” within Rockall’s 12-mile limit, Prof Symmons says" :rolleyes:

https://afloat.ie/resources/news-update/item/42931-rockall-legal-experts-says-scotland-right-ireland-wrong

Interesting that he doesn't point to any law or statute that allows a rock to have a to 'generate territorial limits', he just says that it can.

recedite

odyssey06 wrote: »

ps Is the sea chair on the ship? What a title

Apparently its the big throne just aft of the poop deck.

janfebmar

According to the Times, Scotland has a legal right to place a 12-mile territorial limit around Rockall, two Irish maritime law experts said.

Clive Symmons, of Trinity College Dublin, said that Irish ministers have been “incorrect” in asserting that the Scottish government had no basis for excluding Irish fishermen from Rockall waters. Ireland had not got a “leg to stand on” on the issue and Scotland was “within its rights” to threaten enforcement, he said.

Ronán Long, chairman of ocean governance and law of the sea at the World Maritime University, agreed and said that rocks could generate 12-mile territorial sea limits under the UN Convention for the Law of the Sea (Unclos).

mikhail

janfebmar wrote: »

Ronán Long, chairman of ocean governance and law of the sea at the World Maritime University, agreed and said that rocks could generate 12-mile territorial sea limits under the UN Convention for the Law of the Sea (Unclos).

I don't doubt it, but given the Irish government doesn't recognise the UK's claim to Rockall, it'd be odd of them to recognise rights arising from the claim.

janfebmar

janfebmar wrote: »

According to the Times, Scotland has a legal right to place a 12-mile territorial limit around Rockall, two Irish maritime law experts said.

Clive Symmons, of Trinity College Dublin, said that Irish ministers have been “incorrect” in asserting that the Scottish government had no basis for excluding Irish fishermen from Rockall waters. Ireland had not got a “leg to stand on” on the issue and Scotland was “within its rights” to threaten enforcement, he said.

Ronán Long, chairman of ocean governance and law of the sea at the World Maritime University, agreed and said that rocks could generate 12-mile territorial sea limits under the UN Convention for the Law of the Sea (Unclos).

Rocks under UN law have a right to 12 miles.

However :-

A.) Ireland and other countries don't recognise Rockall as part of Scotland. Unofficially I think the response was 'G'way ta fùck with ye checky b@stards!'.
B.) Ireland and the UK have an agreement to fish within each other's territorial waters.

Berserker

Deleted User wrote: »

Rocks under UN law have a right to 12 miles.

However :-

A.) Ireland and other countries don't recognise Rockall as part of Scotland. Unofficially I think the response was 'G'way ta fùck with ye checky b@stards!'.
B.) Ireland and the UK have an agreement to fish within each other's territorial waters.

A) The official response post Brexit will be that of the experts who have unanimously backed the Scots on the matter.

That agreement will be no more post Brexit. Leo acknowledge that the existing relationship will change. The days of Irish vessels fishing in British waters are nearing an end.

Berserker

Berserker wrote: »

A) The official response post Brexit will be that of the experts who have unanimously backed the Scots on the matter.

That agreement will be no more post Brexit. Leo acknowledge that the existing relationship will change. The days of Irish vessels fishing in British waters are nearing an end.

Come back after Brexit and I may agree with you. Prior to that the Scots are having a laugh.

However, it will also mean the British wont be able to fish in Irish territorial or EU waters which will be a significant loss to them.

gozunda

This whole story does make me wonder if there has been some more recent geological and mineral surveys of the area which has precipitated this sudden bout of nationalism on the behalf of the Scots?

FrancieBrady

Berserker wrote: »

A) The official response post Brexit will be that of the experts who have unanimously backed the Scots on the matter.

That agreement will be no more post Brexit. Leo acknowledge that the existing relationship will change. The days of Irish vessels fishing in British waters are nearing an end.

They might win Rockall but destroy their fishing industry.
British fishing between a 'rock' and a hard place.
Go on Boris, pull that trigger.

RobMc59

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Come back after Brexit and I may agree with you. Prior to that the Scots are having a laugh.

However, it will also mean the British wont be able to fish in Irish territorial or EU waters which will be a significant loss to them.

I agree,Britain and Ireland have a special relationship which should transcend whatever is happening over the EU and having reciprocal agreements to allow each other access to fish each other's waters is the sensible thing to do imo.

recedite

mikhail wrote: »

I don't doubt it, but given the Irish government doesn't recognise the UK's claim to Rockall, it'd be odd of them to recognise rights arising from the claim.

Does this policy involve Leo putting his fingers in his ears and saying la la la...

You know, when crossing the road, you could "refuse to recognise" an oncoming lorry.
However that does not lessen the impact of said lorry when it hits you.

FrancieBrady

recedite wrote: »

When crossing the road, you could "refuse to recognise" an oncoming lorry.
However that does not lessen the impact of said lorry when it hits you.

The 'lorry' only exists in the mind of the driver.

recedite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The 'lorry' only exists in the mind of the driver.

Maybe the lorry in this analogy is actually a large Scottish fishing protection vessel, and Leo has just sent some small Irish trawlers out to cross its path.

jmayo

janfebmar wrote: »

According to the Times, Scotland has a legal right to place a 12-mile territorial limit around Rockall, two Irish maritime law experts said.

Clive Symmons, of Trinity College Dublin, said that Irish ministers have been “incorrect” in asserting that the Scottish government had no basis for excluding Irish fishermen from Rockall waters. Ireland had not got a “leg to stand on” on the issue and Scotland was “within its rights” to threaten enforcement, he said.

RonLong, chairman of ocean governance and law of the sea at the World Maritime University, agreed and said that rocks could generate 12-mile territorial sea limits under the UN Convention for the Law of the Sea (Unclos).

Ahh Trinity college the home of the quislings and the planters.
And what would one expect from someone name Symmons ?

As for the other eejit Long, he is also Trinity college.

Fecking hell maybe old mcquade had the right idea about stopping good Irish people from going there.

Deleted User wrote: »

Come back after Brexit and I may agree with you. Prior to that the Scots are having a laugh.

However, it will also mean the British wont be able to fish in Irish territorial or EU waters which will be a significant loss to them.

The French already have a plan for coping with the British fishermen post hard Brexit.
They are going to fish the stocks before they get into British waters.
Got to love the French.

FrancieBrady

recedite wrote: »

Maybe the lorry in this analogy is actually a large Scottish fishing protection vessel, and Leo has just sent some small Irish trawlers out to cross its path.

The whole shamoozle was a figment of some Scots imagination. The adults are sorting it out now.

Nobelium

Ireland missed the boat when the UK annexed it under their noses in 1955.
No point in pissing and moaning about it now.
You snooze you loose Ireland, including most importantly . . all the mineral and economic rights.

recedite

jmayo wrote: »

Ahh Trinity college the home of the quislings and the planters.
And what would one expect from someone name Symmons ?

I was waiting for that
A classic example of an ad hominem logical fallacy.