Rock on, Rockall! (it's back)

12-06-2019 10:09pm

janfebmar wrote: »

At least they could spell. They did not rob Hong Kong. The people of Hong Kong were very grateful for everything the British brought them.

Mother of God, is there no stopping you and this lamentably benighted twaddle? Do you mean they should be grateful for the drugs? Loads, and loads and loads of drugs supplied by the biggest drug dealer on the planet, your beloved British Empire? You do know that the British got possession of Hong Kong under the Treaty of Nanking in 1842 as a reward for winning the First Opium War, a war the British initiated to defend their rights to... you guessed it... deal drugs in the face of massive Chinese objections to growing drug problems in China?

Hilarious that you're so terrifyingly blinkered that you're trying to dress up your favourite state in the world as a civilising influence, even when it's the superstar drug dealer of the 19th century.

New York Times: How Britain went to war with China over opium (3 July 2018)

steddyeddy · 12-06-2019 10:35pm

recedite wrote: »

Well, they would say that, wouldn't they.
Sovereignty is a difficult thing to prove. I think, at the end of the day, if you control a piece of land, you have proved your sovereignty over it.
It stands to reason then, that the Scots/Brits will need to exert more control over the area, if there is some doubt about its sovereignty.

Well that's your reasoning not the UN's or anyone's for that matter. That would give Russia sovereignty over the Crimea and the IRA sovereignty over Free Derry as it was called. It's more than just whoever can exercise the most brute force. Control means control and nothing more.

janfebmar · 12-06-2019 11:03pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Mother of God, is there no stopping you and this lamentably benighted twaddle? Do you mean they should be grateful for the drugs? Loads, and loads and loads of drugs supplied by the biggest drug dealer on the planet, your beloved British Empire? You do know that the British got possession of Hong Kong under the Treaty of Nanking in 1842 as a reward for winning the First O

You are taking a quotation from a day or two ago out of context. By the time the British left Hong Kong when their lease expired in 1997, they had transformed it into a great economic hub, a city so great that it was comparable in many ways to New York and London. That was in complete contrast to China in the mid and late 20th century.

A Dub in Glasgo · 12-06-2019 11:03pm

recedite wrote: »

Well, they would say that, wouldn't they.
Sovereignty is a difficult thing to prove. I think, at the end of the day, if you control a piece of land, you have proved your sovereignty over it.
It stands to reason then, that the Scots/Brits will need to exert more control over the area, if there is some doubt about its sovereignty.

Yes they would say that as the current position is that the UK claim on Rockall is not internationally recognised

janfebmar · 12-06-2019 11:09pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

No,you genuinely believe you can see into the future,especially over a UI.:eek:

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Like you, I have an 'opinion' on what might happen. Unlike you I don't deny it when asked to explain.

lol Francie, you have an opinion all right. If it was 80 years ago, you would be urging your Republican comrade Sean Russell to side with the Nazis, which he did, and you would have been predicting the total destruction of the evil and dastardly British during the war. If it was the 1970s, you would have been predicting the victory of the IRA within a very short while and a united Ireland.

firemansam4 · 12-06-2019 11:10pm

RobMc59 wrote:

Saying Ireland spat out it`s dummy is no reason to be offended and Britain has`nt changed it`s attitude to Rockall-I`m glad the Taoiseach has seen sense and recognises whose jurisdiction Rockall comes under and that Ireland is on borrowed time fishing there although personally I would prefer Britain and Ireland to jointly fish there.

Did you even read the article that you quoted in your post?

At no point did it mention that Leo recognised Rockall jurisdiction as being British. He simply pointed out that things may change after Brexit which is totally correct.

_blaaz · 12-06-2019 11:11pm

janfebmar wrote: »

lol Francie, you have an opinion all right. If it was 80 years ago, you would be urging your Republican comrade Sean Russell to side with the Nazis, which he did, and you would have been predicting the total destruction of the evil and dastardly British during the war. If it was the 1970s, you would have been predicting the victory of the IRA within a very short while and a united Ireland.

Seems irrational to critise someone for something theyve not said?

janfebmar · 12-06-2019 11:17pm

_blaaz wrote: »

Seems irrational to critise someone for something theyve not said?

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 !

FrancieBrady · 12-06-2019 11:17pm

_blaaz wrote: »

Seems irrational to critise someone for something theyve not said?

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

_blaaz · 12-06-2019 11:19pm

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.

Deosnt seem remotely rational though tho??

If you have to imagine up scenarios to critise someone...maybe the thread has run its course?

janfebmar · 12-06-2019 11:25pm

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 · 12-06-2019 11:26pm

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 · 12-06-2019 11:32pm

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 · 12-06-2019 11:35pm

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.

12-06-2019 11:43pm

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 · 12-06-2019 11:44pm

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 · 12-06-2019 11:47pm

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 · 12-06-2019 11:51pm

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 · 13-06-2019 12:00am

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 · 13-06-2019 12:12am

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.

13-06-2019 6:11am

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 · 13-06-2019 6:27am

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 · 13-06-2019 8:01am

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 · 13-06-2019 8:24am

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 · 13-06-2019 10:04am

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

FrancieBrady · 13-06-2019 10:09am

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 · 13-06-2019 10:12am

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 · 13-06-2019 10:22am

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 · 13-06-2019 10:24am

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 · 13-06-2019 10:26am

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 · 13-06-2019 10:32am

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 · 13-06-2019 10:37am

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 · 13-06-2019 10:50am

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 · 13-06-2019 10:52am

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 · 13-06-2019 10:57am

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 · 13-06-2019 11:01am

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 · 13-06-2019 11:03am

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

13-06-2019 11:07am

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 · 13-06-2019 11:14am

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

FrancieBrady · 13-06-2019 11:19am

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'.

janfebmar · 13-06-2019 11:21am

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?

I cannot see why not. Nobody would say the Fastnet rock is not habitable.

FrancieBrady · 13-06-2019 11:22am

recedite wrote: »

You can yeah, if you own the rock. A rock counts as an island if it is above water at high tide.
https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part2.htm

Their ownership is contested and it is a long long time since the UK was a law onto itself.

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.

The UK boarding Irish trawlers fishing in their waters under EU agreements would never happen unless they were breaking some other supplementary law.

recedite · 13-06-2019 11:23am

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Does it really matter what the UK says about that?
What really matters is whether China can prevent the US fleet from sailing past the islands, with the crew mooning at the Chinese from the deck.

janfebmar · 13-06-2019 11:23am

Deleted User wrote: »

It needs to be self sustaining to be considered an island. A lighthouse being supplied by a ship ...

None of our islands are self sustaining if you use that definition, they are all supplied by ship.

13-06-2019 11:26am

janfebmar wrote: »

None of our islands are self sustaining if you use that definition, they are all supplied by ship.

Not for the maintaining of life, luxuries yes.

ohnonotgmail · 13-06-2019 11:26am

janfebmar wrote: »

None of our islands are self sustaining if you use that definition, they are all supplied by ship.

NONE of them? i'm pretty certain quite a few of them managed to support a population and probably still could. I dont remember Peig Sayers mentioning a supply ship.

janfebmar · 13-06-2019 11:26am

steddyeddy wrote: »

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

The UK have the fourth most powerful navy in the world (after the USA, China, Russia), and have had enough of the EU.

janfebmar · 13-06-2019 11:27am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

NONE of them? i'm pretty certain quite a few of them managed to support a population and probably still could. I dont remember Peig Sayers mentioning a supply ship.

Her stay was temporary, just like human habitation of Rockall to date.

steddyeddy · 13-06-2019 11:28am

janfebmar wrote: »

The UK have the fourth most powerful navy in the world (after the USA, China, Russia), and have had enough of the EU.

Let's see them try to keep that with a shrinking economy. They had enough of the EU? That must be why they keep begging them for extensions.

janfebmar · 13-06-2019 11:29am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

NONE of them? i'm pretty certain quite a few of them managed to support a population and probably still could. I dont remember Peig Sayers mentioning a supply ship.

Her stay was temporary, just like human inhabitation of Rockall to date. Nowadays whatever of our islands are inhabited are supplied by ship.

Rock on, Rockall! (it's back)

Comments