Brexit - merged threads

[oowee]

Just thinking about the growing tension with Iran and the oil tankers. Apparently we don't even have enough ships to provide escort to our tankers through the gulf. 

We can rely on the US keeping our backs, except Trump has reneged on the Nuclear framework with Iran and is at best a bit of a loose cannon when it comes to the special relationship.

As part of a large trading block like the EU we can use the weight of partners to increase diplomatic pressure, except we are trying to leave the EU. 

Suddenly the UK looks very small and isolated. Not long to wait before Boris steps up 😆

[JohnfromUK]

11 minutes ago, oowee said:

Apparently we don't even have enough ships to provide escort to our tankers through the gulf.

Well, Des Browne (Labour's Defence Secretary under Blair and Brown) spent all of the Navy's new ships budget on two massive (and massively expensive) aircraft carriers - only one of which has arrived as yet.  It has recently returned to base following leakage trouble on sea trials.  It has (as far as I know) no aircraft at present as the F35s intended for it were delayed and don't arrive until 2023.  It is expected to be available with "Initial Operating Capability" sometime in 2020.

 

[Rewulf]

32 minutes ago, oowee said:

As part of a large trading block like the EU we can use the weight of partners to increase diplomatic pressure, except we are trying to leave the EU. 

Suddenly the UK looks very small and isolated. Not long to wait before Boris steps up 😆

You mean like the diplomatic pressure the EU is already putting on Iran by circumventing US sanctions ? 😂

The UK as far as I know is still a nuclear armed , prominent NATO member, small and isolated ?
If Iran wants to avoid conflict, why does it appear  to provoke it ? Something doesnt sound right.

[henry d]

Aircraft carriers are not suitable for convoy duties, especially in the straits of Hormuz. I was there in the mid 80's on the Battleaxe and it was a similar situation, light up a few fast patrol vessels and watch them scarper. They did however manage to hit the fwd hold on a tanker (empty hold) with an Exocet which didn't detonate thankfully, as I was standing sea fire party that day and was awaiting the call to board her.

So far it's sabre rattling, hopefully it will continue or lessen, but will BoJo/Hunt have the minerals?

[Rewulf]

12 minutes ago, henry d said:

So far it's sabre rattling,

Bit more than sabre rattling when they kidnapped a couple of ships isnt it?
I thought that was called piracy ?

[poontang]

2 hours ago, oowee said:

 

As part of a large trading block like the EU we can use the weight of partners to increase diplomatic pressure, except we are trying to leave the EU. 

 

I'm pretty sure this all came about BECAUSE of your beloved EU.

It's a tit for tat action over the seizure of an Iranian tanker off the coast of Gibralter as it was thought to be taking oil to Syria... in direct violation of European Union sanctions.

To expect any help from the EU is laughable. There'll be a few mumblings of discontent but nothing more. It's how they work... ******* useless. 

I doubt the situation will escalate very much, but if it does it'll be the Donald who sails to our aid, not the likes of Macaroon and the trembling chancellor. 

[Retsdon]

39 minutes ago, poontang said:

It's a tit for tat action over the seizure of an Iranian tanker off the coast of Gibralter as it was thought to be taking oil to Syria..

Correct.

 

39 minutes ago, poontang said:

in direct violation of European Union sanctions

Mostly US sanctions. The order to seize the Iranian tanker Grace 1 in Gibraltar didn't come from Brussels. 

[pinfireman]

14 hours ago, Retsdon said:

Google is your friend.....

and out of date! The EU is SINKING!

8 hours ago, Raja Clavata said:

I think this captures it well.

I admire the confidence some seem to have in Johnson but really do not believe it is well founded.

We have already seen numerous examples of his contribution to alternative facts, with the latest being the kipper, I mean seriously, what was we thinking. I really do wonder about the cognitive capacity of the people to whom his style is attractive.

As for Farage and the Brexit Party, they did nowhere near as well in the EU elections as some, even many, predicted. I recently read a quote that stated “voting for a populist party is like diving head first into an empty swimming pool because you’re angry there is no water in it” sums it up pretty well I think.

Anger seems to be the operative word here, sure  there are a minority of people who are well informed individuals opposed to the EU with long standing issues with the bloc but in order to get that 52% vote way back in 2016 UKIP were relying on anger and played on it.

So, let’s assume it’s 2025, we’ve been out of the Eu for five years and things aren’t going well. The EU are out of the picture, so who do people focus their anger on?

Those who prevented us getting out sooner, with a better deal? Those who deliberately blocked a better deal?  And bear in mind, they might be angry, but they will be in a sovereign, independent state, where they can help make laws, and change laws! That will NEVER happen within the EU.

[pinfireman]

5 hours ago, Raja Clavata said:

The government that gave them what they apparently wanted some ten years previously without confirming the specifics?

A government / parliament that tried to halt the process of self harm?

I think what is happening with Trump across the pond is a reasonable indicator of where the anger may be focussed. If the recent polls of opinion of Conservative party members is anything to go by then the seeds have already been well and truly sown.

I believe this is part of the reason elements of Parliament are trying to thwart Brexit now, nothing to do with snouts in the trough (that phrase has interesting roots by the way) and more to do with preventing Brexit being the thin end of the wedge which could lead to much deeper hatred and division in our society.

Some people will always be angry and frustrated and look to apportion blame for that on others, it’s just their nature.

Oh! Here we go.....let,s bring up the old racist smear tactics! When all else fails, Remainers fall back on this! It,s rubbish!

[pinfireman]

4 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Absolutely correct.

Cameron believed UKIP were stealing tory votes (they were) so tried to get them back by offering a referendum (which worked)
The problem is , the referendum exposed just how bad anti EU sentiment was, and now you simply cant put that jack back in the box.

Blame the tories if you like, but all they  have done is given the disenfranchised a voice, and a platform.
Blame Farage if it makes you feel better, but you would never know his name if there werent millions of people sick to the back teeth of EU meddling, and the slow march to loss of national identity .

Raja and oowee can talk about reconsidering or reforming , and 'going back to the people' they are tactics designed to stall and overturn the vote.
The remain MPs are just the same 'Its not in the best interests of the nation !' they say, then why did you pass the bill to have a referendum ? Why did you vote to trigger article 50 ?

Quite simple, because it was in THEIR best interests to do so, lest they be seen to be undemocratic, now they hide behind the 'best interests' cause.
But its still about them, not about who they are supposed to represent , THAT is a national disgrace, for which there should be an immediate GE.

But they wont vote for that either, because they know half of them will lose their seats, its always been about staying in control.

At what point will they either deliver Brexit, or put themselves up for scrutiny, and the resultant blood bath.

Excellent post! Next week will confirm all lot of what we expected, when the Tories open up on tv as to what happened ......Hague openly admits the Referendum was given to beat Tory rebels, and the emerging power of UKIP! They got it badly wrong! Serves them right! They took us for granted, and it blew up in their faces!

4 hours ago, toxo said:

If there is an extension there will be a general election and then the numbers will change. THEN these rogue politicians who "respected" the result will feel the wrath of at least 17.4 million (which will have increased in my book by then) real people. And then watch the numbers change.

Correct!

[pinfireman]

4 hours ago, oowee said:

Just thinking about the growing tension with Iran and the oil tankers. Apparently we don't even have enough ships to provide escort to our tankers through the gulf. 

We can rely on the US keeping our backs, except Trump has reneged on the Nuclear framework with Iran and is at best a bit of a loose cannon when it comes to the special relationship.

As part of a large trading block like the EU we can use the weight of partners to increase diplomatic pressure, except we are trying to leave the EU. 

Suddenly the UK looks very small and isolated. Not long to wait before Boris steps up 😆

Diplomatic pressure? That,s a hoot!  Iran will do as it pleases, and the only thing that might change their minds is the threat of military action from someone they cannot beat! The reason why we are impotent, is because successive governments (with their useless civil servants) have denuded the military (in this case the Royal Navy) of men amd equipmant!

And we are still in the EU (sadly) yet they have done and said nothing! As usual.

[poontang]

56 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

Correct.

 

Mostly US sanctions. The order to seize the Iranian tanker Grace 1 in Gibraltar didn't come from Brussels. 

The only people who think the order to seize Grace 1 came from the US is Iran and it's allies, including those in this country.

https://www.gibraltarlaws.gov.gi/articles/2019s132.pdf

https://www.gibraltarlaws.gov.gi/articles/2019s131.pdf

The EU sanctions are not the same as the US sanctions imposed on Iran. The ship was seized not because it came from Iran, but that it was suspected of travelling to Syria, which is against EU sanction. 

[pinfireman]

3 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

Well, Des Browne (Labour's Defence Secretary under Blair and Brown) spent all of the Navy's new ships budget on two massive (and massively expensive) aircraft carriers - only one of which has arrived as yet.  It has recently returned to base following leakage trouble on sea trials.  It has (as far as I know) no aircraft at present as the F35s intended for it were delayed and don't arrive until 2023.  It is expected to be available with "Initial Operating Capability" sometime in 2020.

 

Correct! Typical Labour government! The same government that saddled the NHS with new hospitals built under the Private Finance Initiative! Now the NHS cannot afford to pay the interest on the scheme! Yet both Labour, and the Con / Limp/Dumb governments were prepared to squander £60 Billion (and rising) on HS2

3 hours ago, Rewulf said:

You mean like the diplomatic pressure the EU is already putting on Iran by circumventing US sanctions ? 😂

The UK as far as I know is still a nuclear armed , prominent NATO member, small and isolated ?
If Iran wants to avoid conflict, why does it appear  to provoke it ? Something doesnt sound right.

Very true.

3 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Bit more than sabre rattling when they kidnapped a couple of ships isnt it?
I thought that was called piracy ?

It is.

1 hour ago, Retsdon said:

Correct.

 

Mostly US sanctions. The order to seize the Iranian tanker Grace 1 in Gibraltar didn't come from Brussels. 

and you know this......how?

5 minutes ago, poontang said:

The only people who think the order to seize Grace 1 came from the US is Iran and it's allies, including those in this country.

https://www.gibraltarlaws.gov.gi/articles/2019s132.pdf

https://www.gibraltarlaws.gov.gi/articles/2019s131.pdf

The EU sanctions are not the same as the US sanctions imposed on Iran. The ship was seized not because it came from Iran, but that it was suspected of travelling to Syria, which is against EU sanction. 

Correct!

[henry d]

It didn't come from just the EU, and it didn't just come from the US, it came from both, if you think that one or the other acted without consulting the other then you are just following your own political worldview. None of this happens in a vacuum.

[oowee]

4 hours ago, Rewulf said:

You mean like the diplomatic pressure the EU is already putting on Iran by circumventing US sanctions ? 😂

The UK as far as I know is still a nuclear armed , prominent NATO member, small and isolated ?
If Iran wants to avoid conflict, why does it appear  to provoke it ? Something doesnt sound right.

Circumventing? The sanctions were agreed jointly with the US. It is the US that unilaterally changed it's mind. We are not about to use are nuclear 'deterant' on Iran. This is about diplomacy and economic muscle. Our US partner has gone awol and we are about to cut ourselves adrift from the trade body that brings us international weight. Good move?

1 hour ago, pinfireman said:

Diplomatic pressure? That,s a hoot!  Iran will do as it pleases, and the only thing that might change their minds is the threat of military action from someone they cannot beat! The reason why we are impotent, is because successive governments (with their useless civil servants) have denuded the military (in this case the Royal Navy) of men amd equipmant!

And we are still in the EU (sadly) yet they have done and said nothing! As usual.

Good time to be leaving the EU then when we impotent and the US has gone awol. 

[henry d]

Iran is Donald Duck'd, inflation at 40-50%, food scarcities and sanctions biting, doing as it pleases my left one, they are trying to get noticed on the world stage and show their country people that they are still a strong nation, even though they can see through it.

[pinfireman]

1 hour ago, henry d said:

Iran is Donald Duck'd, inflation at 40-50%, food scarcities and sanctions biting, doing as it pleases my left one, they are trying to get noticed on the world stage and show their country people that they are still a strong nation, even though they can see through it.

I would not argue with that....

2 hours ago, oowee said:

Circumventing? The sanctions were agreed jointly with the US. It is the US that unilaterally changed it's mind. We are not about to use are nuclear 'deterant' on Iran. This is about diplomacy and economic muscle. Our US partner has gone awol and we are about to cut ourselves adrift from the trade body that brings us international weight. Good move?

Good time to be leaving the EU then when we impotent and the US has gone awol. 

Perhaps it,s time to build some fast attack boats, to shepherd our tankers then? Pay for them by scrapping HS2, and Heathrow 3rd runway, and how about  cutting foreign aid by 50%? Let,s face it, countries with space programmes, and nuclear weapons do NOT need our aid!

[Stonepark]

11 hours ago, Rewulf said:

If Iran wants to avoid conflict, why does it appear  to provoke it ? Something doesnt sound right.

It is not Iran wanting the conflict, they are in the same position Japan was at the beginning of WWII, i.e. the USA trying to cut the country off and break it economically because it does not agree with their position on a number of matters, historically OIL and GAS but now also, nuclear power, nuclear weapons, Israel and Religon.

Considering the USA and GB are responsible for the entire middle east mess (including the Shah Coup,  the resultant countercoup by guided by religeous leaders, Iraq-Iran war) etc, and considering this Iran has been exceptionally tolerant and only later after UK pirated one of the oil tankers transporting Iranian oil, Iran is simply retaliating.

The USA and EU through sanctions have effectively declared WAR on a number of countries for that is what sanctions are when you try to control coutries and who they can can interact with and try and prevent trade with other 3rd party countries.

 

 

Edited July 20, 2019 by Stonepark

[poontang]

5 hours ago, henry d said:

It didn't come from just the EU, and it didn't just come from the US, it came from both, if you think that one or the other acted without consulting the other then you are just following your own political worldview. None of this happens in a vacuum.

It's possible, even probable that the US would have been consulted, why wouldn't they be? The simple fact however is that the head honcho in Gibraltar received intelligence that the tanker was headed for Syria. As a member of the EU and subject to the sanctions imposed by the EU he then requested the seizure of said vessel. It has nothing to do with a 'world view' just the simple fact that the boat was seized as a direct consequence of the UK still being in the EU, and therefore carrying out its duty as a member state, and enforcing the EU's rules. 

[KB1]

4 minutes ago, Stonepark said:

Considering the USA and GB are responsible for the entire middle eat mess

🙄

[henry d]

47 minutes ago, poontang said:

It's possible, even probable that the US would have been consulted, why wouldn't they be? The simple fact however is that the head honcho in Gibraltar received intelligence that the tanker was headed for Syria. As a member of the EU and subject to the sanctions imposed by the EU he then requested the seizure of said vessel. It has nothing to do with a 'world view' just the simple fact that the boat was seized as a direct consequence of the UK still being in the EU, and therefore carrying out its duty as a member state, and enforcing the EU's rules. 

Head honcho in any arena looks around to the next, unless they want the appendage removed, and no matter what they think of the height of their appendage, they look for a common goal.

[Gordon R]

Brilliant post - saying nothing. 

[poontang]

1 hour ago, henry d said:

Head honcho in any arena looks around to the next, unless they want the appendage removed, and no matter what they think of the height of their appendage, they look for a common goal.

...and in English?

[Retsdon]

14 hours ago, poontang said:

The ship was seized not because it came from Iran, but that it was suspected of travelling to Syria, which is against EU sanction

Well, the real issue is that it was seized contrary to long standing maritime legal precedent. Under international law, all shipping has a right of unimpeded passage through restricted straits and channels even when, on account of their narrowness, those channels impinge on national waters. The Gibraltar government passed a law the day before the ship was seized overriding this international convention. So it's no wonder that the Iranians have reciprocated. Maritime law firms in London were predicting a fit for tat response as soon as the Grace 1 was impounded.

https://tathamlaw.com/knowledge/boarding-of-the-grace-1-exposes-british-tankers-to-action-by-iran/

Edited July 21, 2019 by Retsdon

[poontang]

4 hours ago, Retsdon said:

Well, the real issue is that it was seized contrary to long standing maritime legal precedent. Under international law, all shipping has a right of unimpeded passage through restricted straits and channels even when, on account of their narrowness, those channels impinge on national waters. The Gibraltar government passed a law the day before the ship was seized overriding this international convention. So it's no wonder that the Iranians have reciprocated. Maritime law firms in London were predicting a fit for tat response as soon as the Grace 1 was impounded.

https://tathamlaw.com/knowledge/boarding-of-the-grace-1-exposes-british-tankers-to-action-by-iran/

The Grace 1 had left international waters and was in Gibraltar waters when arrested. It had made a request for provisions and was just 2 miles from Gib when detained. 

The ship was suspected of carrying crude to the Banyas refinery in Syria. The refinery is subject to EU sanctions.

No law was passed the day before the seizure overriding any international convention. The Chief Minister of Gibraltar issued Regulations and notice to enforce the sanctions on 4th July.

So, in summary, the Grace 1 was suspected of carrying crude oil from Iran to the Banyas refinery in Syria, in direct contravention of EU sanction 36/2012. The boat was freely and voluntarily in Gibraltar (EU) waters when detained. The sanction relates to the destination of the oil, not the origin of the cargo.