Rock on, Rockall! (it's back)

janfebmar · 12-06-2019 3:29pm

firemansam4 wrote: »

The fact that a lunitic camped on that rock for a few weeks does not class it as being habitable.
It is not habitable and Irish fishing vessels are clearly well within there rights to fish in the waters around it.

.

It was habitable to the fellow who stayed there for 6 weeks , and to the people who stayed there for longer since. It is also habitable to lots of wildlife.

FrancieBrady · 12-06-2019 3:35pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

It would be terrible if the taoiseach had to make a second embarrassing climbdown.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/impounding-ni-registered-fishing-boats-regrettable-varadkar-1.3811547

That was not a bit embarrassing, it was a well timed warning about what happens in the real world if the UK goes ahead with it's fantasy no consequences Brexit.

firemansam4 · 12-06-2019 3:43pm

janfebmar wrote:

It was habitable to the fellow who stayed there for 6 weeks , and to the people who stayed there for longer since. It is also habitable to lots of wildlife.

You are grasping at straws now, and counting wildlife as a reason for it being habitable?
None the less I still think this will be dropped and Irish fishing vessels will continue to fish in these waters for many years to come.

You really need to take off your British tinted glasses and see the reality of the situation for what it is.

FrancieBrady · 12-06-2019 3:53pm

janfebmar wrote: »

It was habitable to the fellow who stayed there for 6 weeks , and to the people who stayed there for longer since. It is also habitable to lots of wildlife.

It cannot 'sustain human habitation', do your basic research jan.

From the UNCLOS preamble

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

odyssey06 · 12-06-2019 3:54pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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

What does it say about the 12 mile territorial waters?

FrancieBrady · 12-06-2019 4:00pm

odyssey06 wrote: »

What does it say about the 12 mile territorial waters?

It does not allow any claimant to establish an economic zone or lay exclusive claim to the resources.

odyssey06 · 12-06-2019 4:05pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It does not allow any claimant to establish an economic zone or lay exclusive claim to the resources.

That's not quite the same thing as fishing in the territorial waters though, or is it?

What you quoted would make it clear that the following does not apply to Rockall:
Economic zone is up to 200 miles.
Continental shelf resources.

I'm asking specifically about the territorial waters of 12 miles surrounding Rockall. Territorial waters is a narrower and different concept in law to Exclusive Economic Zone.

steddyeddy · 12-06-2019 4:09pm

I have to say I think the distance thing is a red herring. Ireland isn't making a claim on the island. Previously Britain has "claimed land" that is in closer proximity to other countries. I agree with Simon Coveney's view on this:

"What we do not accept is that a very small rock constitutes a sovereign territory that can have a 12-mile limit set around it," he said."That is what the Scottish government is claiming and we do not accept that."

The UK "claimed" it in 1955 by putting a flag on it. It's 2019, not the height of the British Empire. Britain's in a much weaker position as they're currently negotiating with the EU in an attempt to prevent their economy getting destroyed. This colonial land grab shouldn't be taken seriously.

They UK are also in dispute about Lough Foyle, the lake lying between Derry and Donegal. Ireland has a reasonable position of claiming half of the lake while Britain says it owns all of it. It's a bit pathetic at this stage.

FrancieBrady · 12-06-2019 4:11pm

odyssey06 wrote: »

That's not quite the same thing as fishing in the territorial waters though, or is it?

What you quoted would make it clear that the following does not apply to Rockall:
Economic zone is up to 200 miles.
Continental shelf resources.

I'm asking specifically about the territorial waters of 12 miles surrounding Rockall. Territorial waters is a narrower and different concept in law to Exclusive Economic Zone.

You cannot declare a 12 mile zone around outcrops...it's very simple.

odyssey06 · 12-06-2019 4:13pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You cannot declare a 12 mile zone around outcrops...it's very simple.

If it's so simple, where is the section of UN law stating that such 'rocks' don't have territorial waters?
It's clear the UN law intended that the rocks didn't get EEZs or continental shelf rights.

FrancieBrady · 12-06-2019 4:14pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

I have to say I think the distance thing is a red herring. Ireland isn't making a claim on the island. Previously Britain has "claimed land" that is in closer proximity to other countries. I agree with Simon Coveney's view on this:

The UK "claimed" it in 1955 by putting a flag on it. It's 2019, not the height of the British Empire. Britain's in a much weaker position as they're currently negotiating with the EU in an attempt to prevent their economy getting destroyed. This colonial land grab shouldn't be taken seriously.

They UK are also in dispute about Lough Foyle, the lake lying between Derry and Donegal. Ireland has a reasonable position of claiming half of the lake while Britain says it owns all of it. It's a bit pathetic at this stage.

And they will lose in any court of Arbitration.
Whether they would ignore that as they have the International COurt ruling on the Chagos Islands is another matter altogether.

Little Englanders and belligerent Brexiteers think they are a law on to themselves.

steddyeddy · 12-06-2019 4:15pm

odyssey06 wrote: »

That's not quite the same thing as fishing in the territorial waters though, or is it?

What you quoted would make it clear that the following does not apply to Rockall:
Economic zone is up to 200 miles.
Continental shelf resources.

I'm asking specifically about the territorial waters of 12 miles surrounding Rockall. Territorial waters is a narrower and different concept in law to Exclusive Economic Zone.

But where does the territorial claim come into it? What are the laws about claiming a rock in the sea? Who can claim it and what happens if it's disputed?

steddyeddy · 12-06-2019 4:16pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And they will lose in any court of Arbitration.
Whether they would ignore that as they have the International COurt ruling on the Chagos Islands is another matter altogether.

Little Englanders and belligerent Brexiteers think they are a law on to themselves.

I live in England and the amount of people who don't understand that "claiming" something by putting a flag on it might be something disputed by other countries is fascinating.

odyssey06 · 12-06-2019 4:18pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

But where does the territorial claim come into it? What are the laws about claiming a rock in the sea? Who can claim it and what happens if it's disputed?

All fair questions, The Journal's expert thinks the UK would have a strong claim to it.
https://www.thejournal.ie/rockall-explainer-2-4675451-Jun2019/

The question is whether a rock gets the narrow 12 mile maritime zone AND even if that is granted, whether Ireland could be excluded or would we get 'grandfathered' access to it.

odyssey06 · 12-06-2019 4:22pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Little Englanders and belligerent Brexiteers think they are a law on to themselves.

Remind me which Little Englander or Brexiteer made the speech warning Irish boats away from Rockall?
Or was it a member of the SNP?

FrancieBrady · 12-06-2019 4:26pm

odyssey06 wrote: »

Remind me which Little Englander or Brexiteer made the speech warning Irish boats away from Rockall?
Or was it a member of the SNP?

FFS..they were looking for the votes of Brexiteers, Scottish fishermen who think there are multitudes of sea unicorns waiting to make them rich if they can just get out of the EU.:rolleyes: It's calling 'aping' or 'acting'.

FrancieBrady · 12-06-2019 4:27pm

odyssey06 wrote: »

All fair questions, The Journal's expert thinks the UK would have a strong claim to it.
https://www.thejournal.ie/rockall-explainer-2-4675451-Jun2019/

The question is whether a rock gets the narrow 12 mile maritime zone AND even if that is granted, whether Ireland could be excluded or would we get 'grandfathered' access to it.

PART VIII
REGIME OF ISLANDS
Article 121
Regime of islands
1. An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water,
which is above water at high tide.
2. Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the
contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of an
island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention
applicable to other land territory.
3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of
their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf

ohnonotgmail · 12-06-2019 4:35pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

PART VIII
REGIME OF ISLANDS
Article 121
Regime of islands
1. An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water,
which is above water at high tide.
2. Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the
contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of an
island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention
applicable to other land territory.
3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of
their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf

according to 3 rockall does not have exclusive economic zone or continental shelf and i dont think anybody disagrees with that. well at least i hope they dont. But what about the territorial sea around it?

steddyeddy · 12-06-2019 4:35pm

odyssey06 wrote: »

All fair questions, The Journal's expert thinks the UK would have a strong claim to it.
https://www.thejournal.ie/rockall-explainer-2-4675451-Jun2019/

The question is whether a rock gets the narrow 12 mile maritime zone AND even if that is granted, whether Ireland could be excluded or would we get 'grandfathered' access to it.

No that's the secondary question. The first question is around sovereignty of the island as mentioned in the article:

In the 1950s, the British navy set out to annex the islet and claim it as part of its own territory in a bid to extend the UK’s shoreline as far into the Atlantic as possible — for fishing and seabed exploration benefits.

The claim to ownership, however, has been disputed in the decades since by Iceland, Denmark (on behalf of the Faroe Islands) and Ireland – all of which reject the British territorial claim to the island.

It's clearly disputed that planting a flag on a rock gives you rights over it.

As you say the second question refers to whether Rockall is habitable and therefore subject to the 12 mile exclusion. It's clearly not since people have tried to live on it but only managed 42 days.

RobMc59 · 12-06-2019 4:37pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That was not a bit embarrassing, it was a well timed warning about what happens in the real world if the UK goes ahead with it's fantasy no consequences Brexit.

All this talk of "warnings "and Scottish "get back in their box"is very jingoistic and aggressive francie-what has happened to you?

steddyeddy · 12-06-2019 4:39pm

odyssey06 wrote: »

Remind me which Little Englander or Brexiteer made the speech warning Irish boats away from Rockall?
Or was it a member of the SNP?

It might be painted as a Scottish action but questions of sovereignty are a UK matter, not a devolved one. This debate has existed for decades and is a matter for the UK, not Scotland. Sending a representative from the Queen to "claim" an island is as little Englander as you can get I'm afraid. Sturgeon can call herself and honorary member of that group.

FrancieBrady · 12-06-2019 4:41pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

No that's the secondary question. The first question is around sovereignty of the island as mentioned in the article:

It's clearly disputed that planting a flag on a rock gives you rights over it.

As you say the second question refers to whether Rockall is habitable and therefore subject to the 12 mile exclusion. It's clearly not since people have tried to live on it but only managed 42 days.

Living on it doesn't matter either. You can live on the moon if you have supplies.

The core point is whether it can 'sustain human habitation'. And it clearly cannot do that.

FrancieBrady · 12-06-2019 4:43pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

All this talk of "warnings "and Scottish "get back in their box"is very jingoistic and aggressive francie-what has happened to you?

If I 'warn' a child that they will get burned if they put their hand in a fire, I am being kind...not aggressive.

odyssey06 · 12-06-2019 4:45pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

PART VIII
REGIME OF ISLANDS
Article 121
Regime of islands
1. An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water,
which is above water at high tide.
2. Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the
contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of an
island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention
applicable to other land territory.
3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of
their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf

Thanks for posting that.

It looks to me that it could be read that Rockall is an island with a territorial sea and contiguous zone... not sure what that is exactly.
As a rock it does not warrant an EEZ or shelf.

steddyeddy · 12-06-2019 4:55pm

I'm not a Sinn Fein supporter or anything but looking at a list of land disputes in regards to Britain and it makes you wonder will they ever learn?

Right now they ones that leap to mind are:

Northern Ireland
Gibraltor
Falklands

At least two of these have resulted in loss of life. Do they every think that they look like the bad guys at this stage?

odyssey06 · 12-06-2019 4:59pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

I'm not a Sinn Fein supporter or anything but looking at a list of land disputes in regards to Britain and it makes you wonder will they ever learn?

Right now they ones that leap to mind are:
Northern Ireland

Gibraltor

Falklands

At least two of these have resulted in loss of life. Do they every think that they look like the bad guys at this stage?

You could also argue...
Good job they had Gibraltar in ww2.
Falklands was due to Argentine dictatorship... we didnt want a war but they invaded.
IRA were the bad guys... we sent army in to restore order.

So without getting into the actual rights and wrongs of each situation... thats why it doesnt occur to them.

RobMc59 · 12-06-2019 5:06pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

I'm not a Sinn Fein supporter or anything but looking at a list of land disputes in regards to Britain and it makes you wonder will they ever learn?

Right now they ones that leap to mind are:
Northern Ireland

Gibraltor

Falklands

At least two of these have resulted in loss of life. Do they every think that they look like the bad guys at this stage?

Ireland spitting its dummy out over this is heaven sent for Westminster,fair weather friends are no good to Scotland-anyone considering independence and an alliance with Ireland will be horrified Imo.
The list you posted all have one thing in common,they're all still British.

12-06-2019 5:11pm

odyssey06 wrote: »

You could also argue...
Good job they had Gibraltar in ww2.
Falklands was due to Argentine dictatorship... we didnt want a war but they invaded.
IRA were the bad guys... we sent army in to restore order.

So without getting into the actual rights and wrongs of each situation... thats why it doesnt occur to them.

or to put it even simpler, the majority of people that live there want to retain the status quo, which trumps anyone else's claim.

12-06-2019 5:15pm

Aegir wrote: »

or to put it even simpler, the majority of people that live there want to retain the status quo, which trumps anyone else's claim.

And with whom do the people living on Rockall or the Rockhall plateau want to be part of?

You'd want to have some neck to claim a big stone out in the Atlantic and expect everyone for a 12 mile radius to back off.

lawred2 · 12-06-2019 5:15pm

odyssey06 wrote: »

You could also argue...
Good job they had Gibraltar in ww2.
Falklands was due to Argentine dictatorship... we didnt want a war but they invaded.
IRA were the bad guys... we sent army in to restore order.

So without getting into the actual rights and wrongs of each situation... thats why it doesnt occur to them.

and shoot a few people in the back for good measure

lawred2 · 12-06-2019 5:16pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

Ireland spitting its dummy out over this is heaven sent for Westminster,fair weather friends are no good to Scotland-anyone considering independence and an alliance with Ireland will be horrified Imo.
The list you posted all have one thing in common,they're all still British.

when did that happen?

12-06-2019 5:17pm

lawred2 wrote: »

and shoot a few people in the back for good measure

With friends like them!

steddyeddy · 12-06-2019 5:18pm

odyssey06 wrote: »

You could also argue...
Good job they had Gibraltar in ww2.
Falklands was due to Argentine dictatorship... we didnt want a war but they invaded.
IRA were the bad guys... we sent army in to restore order.

So without getting into the actual rights and wrongs of each situation... thats why it doesnt occur to them.

You could argue that O but it would be of a mindset of colonial simplicity. I can understand one or two disputes as such but Britain seems to jump at the chance for them.

It's not sustainable to have colonies in far flung places in the world anymore.

The last point:

IRA were the bad guys... we sent army in to restore order.

Hardly worked out. The army just shot innocent people, it ignored the reasons for unrest - i.e loyalist terrorising Catholics and finally the elected government of the region is the political wing of the provisional IRA. The army hardly did a stellar job. Hence the fact that there's lessons to be learned.

A Dub in Glasgo · 12-06-2019 5:20pm

Some facts
1. Rockall is situated in the UK EEZ (it does not have an EEZ of its own)
2. Rockall is claimed by the UK as territory and the 12nm area around it is declared by the UK territorial waters. Internally in the UK, Rockall has been allocated to Scotland
3. Fishery protection is devolved to Scotland
4. Three countries dispute the UK claim and do not see the 12nm territorial area as valid therefore under the CFP, they can fish there

Here is the Irish Times podcast with has a Glasgow based Irish journalist on it and this gives you the context of what is happening

https://twitter.com/IrishTimesAudio/status/1138791831259504641

Some facts

FrancieBrady · 12-06-2019 5:32pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

You could argue that O but it would be of a mindset of colonial simplicity. I can understand one or two disputes as such but Britain seems to jump at the chance for them.

Indeed. There were articles about how the diplomatic corp almost invited Argentina to invade back in the day. Thatcher used that whole escapade to bolster her falling popularity. The lives it cost, collateral damage.
Not hard to see where this is coming from, a jolly good old excursion for the rulers of the wave would suit Westminster now the UK is in unprecedented chaos, probably hoping the EU wade in too.

RobMc59 · 12-06-2019 5:35pm

lawred2 wrote: »

when did that happen?

Just as soon as Scotland had the audacity to stick up for their own fishermens livelihoods.

RobMc59 · 12-06-2019 5:38pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Indeed. There were articles about how the diplomatic corp almost invited Argentina to invade back in the day. Thatcher used that whole escapade to bolster her falling popularity. The lives it cost, collateral damage.
Not hard to see where this is coming from, a jolly good old excursion for the rulers of the wave would suit Westminster now the UK is in unprecedented chaos, probably hoping the EU wade in too.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it was Ireland who resorted to "gunboat diplomacy"earlier this year when they sent a warship to arrest two small NI fishing boats off Dundalk bay?

lawred2 · 12-06-2019 5:42pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

Just as soon as Scotland had the audacity to stick up for their own fishermens livelihoods.

So no example of where this 'dummy' was spat out no?

RobMc59 · 12-06-2019 5:44pm

lawred2 wrote: »

So no example of where this 'dummy' was spat out no?

Turning on Scotland isn't very clever if Ireland wants to be friends down the line is it?

lawred2 · 12-06-2019 5:47pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

Turning on Scotland isn't very clever if Ireland wants to be friends down the line is it?

So no, you don't have any examples then. Grand.

FrancieBrady · 12-06-2019 5:48pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but it was Ireland who resorted to "gunboat diplomacy"earlier this year when they sent a warship to arrest two small NI fishing boats off Dundalk bay?

No, Ireland acted on the law as it stood at the time. The law has since been amended.

The Scots/UK would be breaking international laws of the sea to enforce this megaphone rant.

RobMc59 · 12-06-2019 5:49pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, Ireland acted on the law as it stood at the time. The law has since been amended.

The Scots/UK would be breaking international laws of the sea to enforce this megaphone rant.

Oh dear...justifying gunboat diplomacy...I'm shocked at your double standards.

Working class heroes · 12-06-2019 5:50pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but it was Ireland who resorted to "gunboat diplomacy"earlier this year when they sent a warship to arrest two small NI fishing boats off Dundalk bay?

Dundalk is habitable. Just....

RobMc59 · 12-06-2019 5:52pm

lawred2 wrote: »

So no, you don't have any examples then. Grand.

The example is all the wailing and whinging to the EU which is embarrassing as well as an example of spitting out a dummy.

FrancieBrady · 12-06-2019 5:52pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

Oh dear...justifying gunboat diplomacy...I'm shocked at your double standards.

Justifying? Ireland acted within the law at the time. If it was unlawful please show us where?

If a complaint is made our security forces have to act.

Das Reich · 12-06-2019 5:56pm

odyssey06 wrote: »

You could also argue...
Good job they had Gibraltar in ww2.
Falklands was due to Argentine dictatorship... we didnt want a war but they invaded.
IRA were the bad guys... we sent army in to restore order.

So without getting into the actual rights and wrongs of each situation... thats why it doesnt occur to them.

That dictatorship was set there in cold war by a golpe supported by both USA ("ally" of England) and USSR. They wanted to remove the peronists so they could both fight for control. Same happened in Brazil in the 50's when they removed Vargas and any sort of nationalism. Then the USSR sent loads of Czechoslovakian spies and USA spent million with media propaganda on the media alarming about the "communist danger".

By all those regimes went out of hand with Geisel in 1975. He started to trade with communist countries as Hungary or China. Then Brazil voted against the new settlements of Israel in palestinian territory, the only country to vote against on UN. This pissed off USA that thought they would do anything ordered. Pinochet in Chile also turned to be a nationalist and not a submissive, increasing the relation with other pacific countries like Japan and Cina. End of the story for the regimes was the Malvines War, where the regimes were replaced by weak and corrupted democracies, with large debt. This was much more efficient.

lawred2 · 12-06-2019 5:57pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

The example is all the wailing and whinging to the EU which is embarrassing as well as an example of spitting out a dummy.

The wailing and whinging to the EU?

Ireland is a member of the EU. I presume you mean discussed a fisheries matter with fellow EU member states.

However I'll let you have it your way.. it is a known British affliction to speak of the EU as a foreign entity... Can you provide the sources that you have for these wailing and whingings 'to' the EU? Be handy to read the content too.

RobMc59 · 12-06-2019 6:03pm

lawred2 wrote: »

The wailing and whinging to the EU?

Ireland is a member of the EU. I presume you mean discussed a fisheries matter with fellow EU member states.

However I'll let you have it your way.. it is a known British affliction to speak of the EU as a foreign entity... Can you provide the sources that you have for these wailing and whingings 'to' the EU? Be handy to read the content too.

I saw it on RTE news yesterday evening.Also,there's nothing wrong with Scotland protecting its fish stocks from unscrupulous and irresponsible fishing practices...
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/eu-critical-of-severe-weaknesses-in-ireland-s-fisheries-controls-1.3686231

12-06-2019 6:04pm

Deleted User wrote: »

And with whom do the people living on Rockall or the Rockhall plateau want to be part of?

I don't know, have you tried phoning them?

lawred2 · 12-06-2019 6:10pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

I saw it on RTE news yesterday evening.Also,there's nothing wrong with Scotland protecting its fish stocks from unscrupulous and irresponsible fishing practices...
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/eu-critical-of-severe-weaknesses-in-ireland-s-fisheries-controls-1.3686231

Who said there was?

You jumped in with claims of Ireland spitting a dummy out. Which evolved into wailing and whinging.

None of which you can back up. Official Ireland has not 'spat' anything out nor gone wailing to anyone. The only statement from the Taoiseach was that a rock in middle of nowhere is not something for Ireland and Scotland to fall out over.

Ireland hasn't changed position on Rockall either by the way. The position held is decades old.

It wouldn't surprise me if Irish trawlers were acting without scruples by the way.. fishing in general is unscrupulous.

Rock on, Rockall! (it's back)

Comments