Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Tue Oct 22 16:40:09 2019

Utopia Talk / Politics / Iran attacks UK oil tanker
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Jul 10 22:29:14
Gunboats swarmed the ship and were chased off by a UK frigate and american aircraft?

Lol. Iran is retarded. Lets not just piss off the worlds greatest navy. Lets piss off the previous great navy as well.
Dukhat
Member
Wed Jul 10 22:58:23
If Trump gets involved in the Middle East, he loses re-election. Nobody wants to get involved in the Middle East anymore and everyone outside his cult base knows that Trump caused the situation by pulling out of the treaty.

Stupid fat fuck.
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Jul 11 01:11:09
Pulling out of the treaty does not give iran the slightest fucking excuse to mess with the straights and half the worlds oil.

If they keep this shit up we are going to have to fuck them up.
jergul
large member
Thu Jul 11 04:01:07
Sammy
The UK siezed an Iranian oil tanker a week or so ago. In the straights of Gibraltar.
jergul
large member
Thu Jul 11 04:04:45
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48946051
patom
Member
Thu Jul 11 06:35:17
If you are going to attempt to seize international shipping, you had best be able to out gun those who you are attempting to pirate.
obaminated
Member
Thu Jul 11 07:11:43
what a traitor cuckhat has become.
jergul
large member
Thu Jul 11 07:42:16
Patom
The Iranians figured the tanker was in their territorial waters and economic zone. They do have boarding rights that they can assert if they want to.

It would amount to piracy at the same level that the UK practiced when it siezed a Iranian tanker a week ago.

The UK started it.
jergul
large member
Thu Jul 11 07:45:14
Anyway, their point was made. Insurance providers will not let UK shipping go through the straight without escort any more.

It is quite disruptive.
patom
Member
Thu Jul 11 10:02:44
Well actually I believe Iran started with placing mines on the hulls of oil tankers. The Tanker that the UK seized was headed to Syria. It was in violation of sanctions that were imposed on Iran. It's a pissing contest. Whoever has the biggest bladder can probably out piss the other.

Since most of the oil going through the Straits of Hormuz is headed to China, Japan and S. Korea, I would think that China should be escorting tankers instead of attacking Philippine fishing boats.
Seb
Member
Thu Jul 11 11:20:10
Jergul:

Thats not what the captain says. The Iranian boats ordered the tanker to divert into their waters. Which it did not do.

The sanctions on Syria are EU sanctions in line with a UN mandate and the UK is legally bound to enforce them, the Iranian vessel was in UK territorial waters.

jergul
large member
Thu Jul 11 11:33:34
Seb
It is exactly what the captain is saying. You should not it, you lost a couple cod wars over the principle.

Its the same rules that apply for the siezed Iranian tanker. Up to and including a potential Iranian court order arresting the vessel according to Iranian law.

Perhaps not arrest ships on spurious grounds if you want to be outraged by other nations mirroring the behaviour?

But I will bite. What UN mandate exactly do you think the arrest was in line with?

Patom
You seriously think there is a UN mandate placing Syria under oil embargo?

Also, it is pretty clear the US embargo of Iran is what "started it".

That Iran is leaving all options on the table is something you should be very used to from every president since you were born.

patom
Member
Thu Jul 11 11:40:49
I never said that Syria has sanctions put on it. The sanctions were on Iran.
jergul
large member
Thu Jul 11 11:43:19
Do you seriously think there are any UN sanctions limiting Irans ability to ship or sell oil then?

"We have reason to believe that the 'Grace 1' was carrying its shipment of crude oil to the Banyas Refinery in Syria," Gibraltar's Chief Minister Fabian Picardo said in a statement.

"That refinery is the property of an entity that is subject to European Union sanctions against Syria."

That is why the ship was arrested and why I termed it "spurious" The arrest has been extended 14 days, but I doubt it will stand up to the rule of law.
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Jul 11 12:09:36
"according to Iranian law."

Has no jurisdiction in the sea lanes of hormuz.

That is all.
swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Thu Jul 11 12:44:42
Jonathan Beale‏ @bealejonathan · 5h5 hours ago

More

UK MOD say they will NOT be releasing any imagery from incident in Gulf when @HMS_MONTROSE confronted #Iran IRGC boats . Shame as far as I’m concerned .

5:49 AM - 11 Jul 2019

jergul
large member
Thu Jul 11 12:54:43
Sammy
It does in the same way the UK has jurisdiction over sea lanes in the straights of Gibraltar.

Ships can be arrested, but not for spurious reasons.

If the UK persists in arresting and holding Iranian shipping, then Iran will arrest and hold British shipping.

But I doubt it will come to that. The Iranian vessel should be released within the fornight.

Seb
Member
Thu Jul 11 13:52:31
Jergul:

The Iranian ship wasn't in the sea lanes though. It was in Gibraltan territorial waters where it had stopped. The sea lane doesnt pass through those waters.
Seb
Member
Thu Jul 11 13:57:57
It had stopped for provisions and supplies, so I guess that's the argument for it being a beach of sanctions.
jergul
large member
Thu Jul 11 13:59:36
Seb
A sealane is a navigational feature, not a legal notion.

The vessel had slowed in a holding zone, but that is immaterial. Countries can arrest ships in territorial waters and economic zones.

But expect tat to follow tit if done for spurious reasons.

I fully expect the Iranian vessel to be released within 14 days.
jergul
large member
Thu Jul 11 14:10:47
Seb
I posted the argument for its arrest (the Spanish FM stated that the UK arrested the vessel on instructions from Washington, which would support the spurious nature of the arrest)

Two officers have been detained, but not charged. Indian nationals.

http://www...d-iranian-tanker-grace-1-55529

For timeline.

Shrug. Way to undermine UNCLOS. China must be pleased.
swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Thu Jul 11 14:15:16
On July 10, the ship turned off its transponders for almost 24 hours, making it undetectable by radars. When it switched on its transponders at around 1pm Eastern Time, it appeared to have sailed through the Persian Gulf escorted by the HMS Montrose.

http://edi...ttempted-seize-british-tanker/
Seb
Member
Thu Jul 11 18:19:59
I think you missed my point Jergul. It was not that the ship was on a sea lane, the point is that it stopped and consumed services.


The EU regulations make it an offence to transfer crude oil from a third party to Syria and vice versa. I imagine if it had not stopped, then it would not have been considered transiting through
Union territory.


We shall find out soon enough.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Jul 11 20:28:08
"The EU regulations make it an offence to transfer crude oil from a third party to Syria and vice versa."

The EU turned a blind eye to illicit armaments flowing to jihadi headchoppers in Syria for years. Let's not pretend it's a bastion of neutral, warranted lawmaking.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Jul 11 20:28:54
Oh, and let's not forget Turkey buying ISIS oil - but Cyprus drilling, OH FUCK
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 12 01:16:46
You know Turkey isn't an EU state right?
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 12 01:17:47
And when you say turned a blind eye, what do you mean exactly? Ignored it's own sanctions policy?
jergul
large member
Fri Jul 12 05:59:59
Seb
The seizure authorization was for the ship entering territorial waters. The ship had not stopped, nor was taking on supplies when boarded.

See link provided.

Do you have any reason to doubt that the arrest was made on US instructions like the Spanish FM claims?

The "vice versa". I would like to see a link for that.

You seem to be missing my point. Countries can arrest ships in their territorial waters and economic zones. It is best not to do so for spurious reasons because otherwise expect tit for tat.
jergul
large member
Fri Jul 12 06:02:25
You get it right? Would it matter to you if Iran passes legislation placing the UK under sanction policy and starts using that legislation to arrest British ships?
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 12 06:46:38
Jergul:

https://gcaptain.com/seized-supertanker-grace-1-at-full-capacity-with-crude-gibraltar-says/

She was on a prearranged stop for provisions.

So I imagine the trigger for jurisdiction is purchase of services.

" you have any reason to doubt that the arrest was made on US instructions like the Spanish FM claims?"

Yes. There would be no legal basis for Gibraltan police to act, which in any case do not answer to the UK government, to take operational instruction from the US. They would need some form of warrant or order to perform arrest, which would need to come from a judge, which again isn't going to do something on instruction from the US.

The US may have provided intelligence, but they certainly would not have instructed anyone to do this, and if they had they'd have been ignored.

You keep suggesting that the reason is spurious, though it's clear enough that the reason is breach of EU sanctions that prohibit the transfer by third parties through Union territory etc. etc.

Take it up with the EU. We are bound to follow EU directives and law.

"Would it matter to you if Iran passes legislation placing the UK under sanction policy and starts using that legislation to arrest British ships?"

Like I said, presumably this wouldn't have happened if the ship simply traversed the straits.


jergul
large member
Fri Jul 12 07:37:17
Seb
The ship had not stopped for provisions.

You do not have to imagine. The arrest was authorised and the trigger was entering territorial waters.

The legal basis is a judge order. As provided earlier in a link. The motivation for giving such an order could easily be as the Spanish foreign minister claimed.

Where in your special relationship do you have "ignoring" as a policy, and when has the US administration ever shown any restraint in communcations whatsoever.

The arrest is a big deal and can easily be seen as part of the US economic war on Iran.

Again, the trigger was entering waters. So you would not mind if Iran operated by the same legal principle?

Which in fact it did, but the ship did not heed its instructions.

I fail to see why you think weakening UNCLOS is beneficial at all to long term Western interests.

I would worry more about how China is viewing this new understanding, than I would the potential arrest of a few British ships (you have about 15 in transit at any given time, so escorting them is not feasible, nor is repelling a serious boarding if the Iranians felt like using special forces to board ships).
jergul
large member
Fri Jul 12 07:40:09
Say, Russia has sanctions on Crimea, right? So there is probably legislation that would allow it to arrest Ukrainian ships entering contested territorial waters too (the arrest took place in waters contested by Spain btw).

You are fine with that, or is the distinction you draw not with what is done, but by who does it?
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 12 08:32:26
Jergul:


You don't know that. Firstly you are using a source that believes the Gib police and judiciary take instruction from the US.

Secondly you've clearly failed to appreciate that while the authorisation to arrest might stipulate "when they enter our water" the criminality might have occurred when they made an agreement to stop over. Likely once they agreed the stop over, particularly if a financial transaction occurred, thats when they broke the sanction. Entering the waters is just the earliest point an arrest could be made.

The idea that our judges take instruction from the US executive (they've often frustrated them on other issues) or our own is silly. The Spanish have an axe to grind on Gibraltar.




Seb
Member
Fri Jul 12 08:54:12
Jergul:

Funny. You were perfectly happy with Russia detaining Ukrainian ships in contested waters only a few months ago.
jergul
large member
Fri Jul 12 09:43:09
Seb
Your memory is flawed. I understood why the ships were arrested. and do not accept proceedings that followed.

The civilian vessel should have been escorted to the holding area for passage with a pilot on board.

The military vessels should have been escorted out of the contested waters to return to their home ports.

But sure. Attack the man, not the argument. Why not? It is what goes for debating in this forum.
jergul
large member
Fri Jul 12 09:48:34
Seb
I am using a source that says your Government will bend over backwards to oblige the Americans. I am sure government channels were followed and there was no direct interaction between the US and the Royal Marines, the Gibraltar police, and the Crown judiciary.

But you seem fine with countries asserting their domestic law at sea.

Perhaps lay low on the outrage when countries in fact do that?
jergul
large member
Fri Jul 12 09:49:45
Do you need any examples of your government bending over backwards to oblige the Americans?
jergul
large member
Fri Jul 12 09:52:09
I still don't get why you would support this.
swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Fri Jul 12 09:57:55
"Dangerous Game": UK Deploying 2nd Warship To Protect Tankers In Gulf

http://www...d-warship-gulf-protect-tankers

jergul
large member
Fri Jul 12 10:11:38
Jesus. A world where Iran is the voice of reason. Just release their god damned ship.
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 12 10:23:42
As I've pointed out, neither the police nor the judiciary are in the governments chain of command. Both routinely tell the UK govt no on all matter of things that the govt feels is vital. So, err, why are they going to do it now. It's not like the current FS or PM have any pull or clout.

Whatever might concern Whitehall, there's very limited practical reason for police or Judiciary to care. Particularly police and judiciary of an overseas territory. It suits Spain to keep banging on about Gibraltar as though it were run by Whitehall and a tool of imperialism. But it should be taken with a punch of salt.

To repeat again, likely the beach of the order wasn't merely entering the territorial waters, it was likely making a contract to stop over. It would be making the contract with the EU based entity.

I wouldn't have too much problem in the same circumstances. However merely travelling through the waters isn't the same thing. In any case Iran has detained ships doing this. In fact they still have one of our RIBs.

Should we also not stop drug smugglers our territorial waters?

Seb
Member
Fri Jul 12 10:27:04
Jergul:

Let me get this straight. Iran is openly trying to randomly grab a UK flagged tanker in a tit-for-tat and they are the voice of reason?
jergul
large member
Fri Jul 12 12:29:52
Seb
The words of reason were actually from their government. You can find it in STs link.

"Formally defence, foreign policy and internal security are the responsibility of the Governor; judicial and other appointments are also made by the Governor on behalf of the Queen in consultation with the Chief Minister"

That is pretty direct control, though I will accept that the judge was only under indirect pressure to sign the arrest order.

According to wiki, the Governor is still an active officer in the Royal marines in case you were wondering how the 30 man contigent came into being.

You could make the argument that the Governor is doing Washington's bidding if you want to.

You keep on repeating something that is not relevant to anyting other than internal EU law.

Iran can easily have as many internal legal arguments for why it should infact arrest ships.

I will ignore the ad absurdum. You don't have to use a checklist of unsavoury debating techniques you know.

Arresting lost naval boats in territorial waters is fine. Innocent passage can then be established and the zodiacs released (or the crews at least if small boat transfer is impractical).

You really should release the god damned ship.

You have been given fair warning on tat for tit.
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 12 14:33:59
Jergul:

Yes. The Queen also appoints our prime minister. Surely you are not all ill informed or naive to think this actually means direct control?

You are hanging a lot of weight of a very thin peg. That being the ambiguous translation of what is likely an exaggerated position taken by a Spanish politician that has a long standing policy of attempting to hype up Gibraltars status as a direct extension of Westminster, and who in any case would not be privy to the information to confirm the claims he is making.

The plausible scenario is that the Americans provided a general alert regarding the ship to mediterranean states, and Spain's FM is grousing about Gibraltar.

"Arresting lost naval boats in territorial waters is fine"

But arresting this parties that are illegally contacting Union facilities to transit goods subject to embargo isn't?

Maybe we should do what the Iranians did, and take the tanker and put it in a museum after confiscation of the personal goods of the crew, after parading then in front of the press and requiring then to record false confessions?

If tit for tat is ok, it's hard to see your basis for objection.
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 12 14:35:24
third parties contracting.

Thank you Google for your unnecessary assistance.
jergul
large member
Fri Jul 12 15:19:29
Seb
I already said it was perhaps unfair of me to consider the Governor an extension of your government as he is merely appointed by the government (in 2016) and is just an active service member in the Royal Marines (the same organization that mustered 30 men to take point on the raid) that is controlled by government.

Military vessels have limited rights in territorial waters. In practice it means they have to prove innocent passage if they enter, and entry can be denied.

You should have gotten your zodiac back. I would bet you money that stranded on the practicalities of transfer (who in God's name takes personal effects along on a Zodiac mission?) And this happened when? 15 years ago?

Sam's sense of proportionality is rubbing off on you.

I am not taking issue with the arrest per se (nations are responsible for policing their waters after all), but I want the goddamned boat released now.

I still don't understand why you do not see why subordinating UNCLOS to domestic legislation is hugely problematic.

Perhaps you will see it clearer when Iran or China does it.
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 12 18:39:06
Jergul:

The governor of Gibraltar does not direct the police so I'm wondering why you are going on about him.

The Gibraltan police force reports to the police commissioner who is independently appointed by the Gibraltan police authority.

As I said, you need to make quite the leap to go from UK govt to Gibraltan govt to Gibraltan police to Gibraltan judiciary.

All of those bodies are independent of each other.






Sam Adams
Member
Sat Jul 13 00:43:44
"then Iran will arrest and hold British shipping."

Lol. Try it.
jergul
large member
Sat Jul 13 05:14:36
Seb
The Governor is in fact responsible for internal and external security. But the mainstay of the force were the 30 Royal marines that escorted the customs and policemen (or man. The number are small and undefined)

Getting an arrest order is rather trivial in any event. Particularly when you consider the size and population of Gibraltar. I live in a small town on a small island. The island and population are 3 times larger than G. I imagine a rather small social clique running things there.

I imagine it as that Caribean island your nazi king went to during world war 2. Except smaller and more tight knit.

Sammy
It would take less time than a swat team breaking into a crack den. Tankers are not prepared for helicopter boardings.
Seb
Member
Sat Jul 13 06:41:52
Jergul:

Yes. But this was a criminal issue, not a security issue.
Seb
Member
Sat Jul 13 06:42:37
The marines provided technical capability to board the vessel.
jergul
large member
Sat Jul 13 08:45:23
Seb
Here is the regulation Gibraltar created the day before in order to sieze the ship:

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

The trigger clause from a law passed in March 2019:

"Where the Chief Minister has reasonable grounds to do so, he, with the consent of the Governor, maymake sanctions regulations—(a)for a purpose within subsection (2); or(b)for the purposes of compliance with any international obligations."

b is cited. EU regulations are not actually international obligations. What what foreign entity would it then be referring to?

Its pure government in other words. So discount a judge being involved the the siezure.

jergul
large member
Sat Jul 13 08:50:58
Radio Free Europe summary of events so far:

"British Royal Marines on July 4 boarded the Grace 1 off the coast of Gibraltar and seized it over suspicions it was breaking sanctions by taking oil to Syria.

Tehran warned of reciprocal measures if the tanker was not released, with a commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp (IRGC) threatening on July 5 to seize a British ship in retaliation.

On July 11, Britain said three Iranian vessels “attempted to impede” a British oil tanker in the strategic Strait of Hormuz, which connects the Persian Gulf with the Arabian Sea, but backed off when confronted by a British warship.

Iran denied trying to stop the British tanker.

Tehran on July 12 again called on Britain to immediately release the oil tanker.

"This is a dangerous game and has consequences...the legal pretexts for the capture are not valid ... the release of the tanker is in all countries' interest," Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Musavi said, according to state news agency IRNA."

I think "British Royal Marines boarded" is a much fairer representation than "The marines provided technical assistance to board".

Its also less wordy.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Jul 13 10:43:01
First round goes to Putinbot.

2 min break then we go again.
Sam Adams
Member
Sat Jul 13 12:06:09
"Tankers are not prepared for helicopter boardings."

Iran is not prepared for what comes after that.
jergul
large member
Sat Jul 13 12:12:34
Sammy
Harshly worded letters from the British Foreign ministry?

If they were smart, they would link the issues. "We have siezed the ship for violations of our regulations prohibiting foreign ambassadors from madmouthing the Trum administration".
Seb
Member
Sat Jul 13 13:53:53
Jergul:

1. You realise the chief minister is directly elecred not appointed right? And the governor of a territory withholding consent is a constitutional crisis (cf Australia in the 70s).

2. EU regulations are of course international obligations. Their force is via treaty. Why do you think it isn't an international obligation?

"The marines provided technical assistance to board".

Which of course isn't the wording I used. The marines were involved at the request of the Gibraltan police who don't have the technical capability to board a vessel in that way.




jergul
large member
Sat Jul 13 14:37:58
Seb
1. I realize that. Directly elected by what? An electorate of 15 000 people? Could you please desist in fragmenting responsibility, or I will ask that you respect the inner workings of Iranian politics in the name of repriocity.

2. I think that the EU is a a political, geographical and economic union. What did you think it was?

"The marines provided technical capability to board the vessel" was exactly the wording you used.

I think we will go with VoA's wording on the issue ahead of yours if you don't mind:

"British Royal Marines on July 4 boarded the Grace 1 off the coast of Gibraltar".

It seems fair, balanced and succinct.
jergul
large member
Sat Jul 13 14:40:16
The only real question is who is wagging Gibraltar?

The US administration, or the UK government.
Seb
Member
Sat Jul 13 15:45:12
Reading the link you cited, it clearly states a judicial prefer is needed to detain a ship more than three days.

The ships owners can appeal for release.

Further, nothing in this regulation allied the arrest off the two individuals which would need a court order.

If you realise the person making the order is elected, why are you going on about another guy in a different role being appointed?

The EU is a legal entity. From a lethal perspective, EU laws are an international obligation.

"seems fair, balanced and succinct"

Procided you retract your insinuation that the governor being an ex marine is relevant or that this was a security matter. The marines were acting on police authority, police being charged with these matters.

Seb
Member
Sat Jul 13 15:45:34
The only question is why you are all conspiratorially minded.
Forwyn
Member
Sat Jul 13 15:58:45
The only question is why you think one governmental entity is able to freely seize civilian merchant ships based on its own declared rules, but another isn't.
swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Sat Jul 13 17:09:50
http://twitter.com/ShoebridgeC/status/1150108871484203010
Paramount
Member
Sat Jul 13 17:43:16
That’s what I have been saying all long. The US are gangsters. A mafia regime.
Seb
Member
Sat Jul 13 18:18:29
Forwyn:

Hush, the grownups are talking.
Forwyn
Member
Sat Jul 13 19:08:56
peddling one-sided propaganda*

ftfy
jergul
large member
Sat Jul 13 19:20:09
Forwyn
That is actually the essence. Though the issue in a broader sense is that States should follow Westphallian principles. Like I have been harping about since 2002.

Seb
The Governor is an active high ranking Royal Marine from what I can see. It is not unreasonable to see his role as instrumental in putting together a 30 man detail to act on a regulation that passed and came into effect the day before the Royal Marines boarded the vessel.

I frankly think any police and customs involvement was purely symbolic.

The EU is certainly a member of numerous international organizations and is a signaturary to many international treaties. However, the laws it passes are done through a representative, democratic system.

You realize that Gibraltar has an electorate of 15000 people? I think the assumption of an old boys club with a relatively small clique of people is fair to make.

Assuming and independent judiciary in this case is naive at best.

But yes, the justice extended the arrest for 14 days.

Police do not need a court order to arrest or detain people (all 4 have been released without charge btw).

Why can't you see that the ship should be released?

This is crazy shit.
jergul
large member
Sat Jul 13 19:26:28
Holy fuck. Gibraltars expat electorate is huge. 107 000 votes for a population of 32 000 in the last election there.

What an incredible banana republic.
jergul
large member
Sat Jul 13 19:32:59
I think we migh coin the term "anti-conspiracy nutter"

It is sometimes reasonable to think that formal and informal networks can act in concert to follow an agenda.

Though seldom are examples as clear cut as here.
jergul
large member
Sat Jul 13 19:37:52
ST
Yah, I had already checked the EU sanction. It does indeed only apply to oil leaving Syria.

I encouraged Seb to tell me exactly what sanction the ship was breaking earlier. But he did not bite.

Its still immaterial to the greater principle.

Should or should not UNCLOS be subserviant to whatever domestic laws and regulations countries might choose to pass?

jergul
large member
Sat Jul 13 19:41:28
The next shoe to drop is some petition from the US arguing the ship is subject to seizure by US law and that treaties oblige Gilbraltar to honour transfer to US custody.

I think only institutional resistance has delayed this so far (because arresting the ship was crazy and anyone educated in relevant fields knows this).
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Jul 14 04:29:24
Jergul
”I encouraged Seb to tell me exactly what sanction the ship was breaking earlier. But he did not bite.”

I am shocked.
jergul
large member
Sun Jul 14 06:03:58
Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt has said the Iranian tanker detained by Royal Marines near Gibraltar could be released, if the UK is guaranteed the oil is not bound for Syria.

The tanker, seized on 4 July, was suspected of breaking EU sanctions.

Iran claimed the seizure was "piracy". Iranian ships later tried to impede a British tanker, the UK claimed.

After "constructive" talks with Tehran, Mr Hunt said he was encouraged Iran has no desire to escalate the situation.

He said he reassured Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif that "our concern has always been destination, not origin of the oil" and that the UK would facilitate release "if we received sufficient guarantees that it would not be going to Syria".

BBC

================

Good. "facilitate release" and direct negotiations with the UK does away with the any pretense that Gibraltar is acting independently?
Seb
Member
Sun Jul 14 11:38:33
Jergul:

The Governor is retired from the marines Jergul. It's in the first line of his wiki biography. Some thorough research.

You do understand the role is similar to the governor general in Australia? A largely symbolic role of acting in for the crown. His approval is needed in the way that, e.g. the Queen works approve proroguing parliament.


"However, the laws it passes are done through a representative, democratic system. "

Right, but you are referencing a piece of Gibraltan legislation, and the EU law, the entire body of it, has the status of an international obligation in that context as Gibraltar and the UK are bound to follow EU law as a consequence of the treaties we have signed with the other members.

So it is not correct to say, as you did, that from the perspective of Gibraltar, an EU directive or regulation isn't an international obligation.

You are free to make all the assumptions you like, they just aren't particularly good ones.

I mean, if its an old boys club of 15,000 and entirely a local stitch up; why on earth would the current chief minister care for anything May or Hunt, both of whom are political corpses, or indeed anyone else in Westminster ask them to do to please the Americans?

I haven't expressed an opinion on whether the ship should be released jergul so I'm struggling to discern why you are engaging in this non sequitur. It couldn't possibly be a straw man argument?

The only thing I've taken issue with is your frankly silly insinuations alt the process and basis for the detention of the ship and this odd ideas you have here about giant conspiracies where the 15,000 strong electorate, judiciary, executive and governor are somehow engaged in a giant conspiracy on the behest of political corpses in London that can't even get their own cabinet to work with them, as part of a sinister American plot to ... delay a single oil tanker?


Re the sanctions regs, there are a number and a fuck load of amendments and at least one of the EU sites doesn't show the current text but the bar texts plus amendments as separate docs. So take it with a grain of salt that when you see the 2012 document you have read the full scope of the sanctions. This is why I didn't bite earlier. I don't see a good reason here to believe this is a lie.

" direct negotiations with the UK does away with the any pretense that Gibraltar is acting independently?"

It's an overseas territory, so the UK does have official channels by which to affect such things.

The point in any case isn't that Gibraltar is acting independently of the UK, the point is that contrary to suggestions there are a number of independent institutions that need to work together to do this, so the idea is being done on the nod and the wink of the Americans arbitrarily and spuriously doesn't really add up.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Jul 14 11:47:49
Granted I have not read the regulatory document in detail, but where does it say that third parties may not sell oil to Syria? That is no longer an embargo, it is bordering on a blockade.
Seb
Member
Sun Jul 14 11:55:42
Nimatzo:

The ship in question arranged to stop over in Gibraltar and purchase supplies available spares. My guess it is that which is the beach in the sanctions regs (similar to e.g. US wire fraud rules). Had they simply sailed then UNCLOS would apply instead.


Seb
Member
Sun Jul 14 12:03:42
Btw, given reference to the specific refinery and it's owner, I suspect this is actually falling under the EU targeted sanction against individuals and entities involved in the chemical attacks (that jergul thinks the regime is innocent of).
swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Sun Jul 14 12:11:54
lol.
jergul
large member
Sun Jul 14 12:47:42
Seb
Or you could entertain the possibility that the arrest was based on ad-hoc legislature passed the day before the arrest specifically in order to arrest that vessel and that the regulation contained no clause other than the vessel had to be in contested territorial waters.

They just made up a regulation in order to arrest the ship. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
jergul
large member
Sun Jul 14 13:03:23
Seb
I rather do suspect that Syrian service members threw all kinds of industrial nastiness (including rat poison) into explosive barrels.

I also do suspect that the number of incidents are over reported. Not only due to likely false flag episodes, but simply because modern warfare is toxic warfare. A large jug of chlorine or boxes of rodent kill can easily be spread by being bombed and would leave a suitable chemical trace along with victims.

Do I think the Syrian government planned and authorized the use chemical weapons? I do not. Or if it did, then it did so only once before fully learning how counterproductive and dangerous that was.

The regime did after all have a strategic stockpile and a doctrine to go with it.

I view the incidents as about as serious as using WP in urban areas. Which is also something I doubt western governments had planned and authorized.
jergul
large member
Sun Jul 14 13:06:46
The reason I responded is because if we are going to go into the nuances of decisionmaking for the UK and Gilbraltar, then it seems only fair that we look at Syria in detail too.

Ie I am sure some Syrian servicemembers did some bad stuff. Your point?
Seb
Member
Sun Jul 14 13:20:08
Jergul:

Regulations are a secondary or tertiary form of legislation that stipulates the process/procedural elements.

The Sanctions Act 2019 (passed in march, in effect from April) provides the powers.

It is likely they rushed through the regulation nether though they have the powers, the regulations under the act hadn't been passed yet.

So, yes, in a sense, they did it to arrest that vessel; but not because of some sinister agenda to ad-hoc legalise a random act of piracy, rather in line with the intent of the act passed months earlier having realised they hadn't yet enacted the secondary or tertiary legislation to create a legal process by which to implement the Act, leaving the minister open to challenge of failing to uphold the law.

As to why the regulations weren't passed earlier, the entire UK and Gibraltan legislative timetable is chock full of secondary legislation going through. Indeed the sanctions act 2019 is only necessary as a result of the fact that the EU council regulation would have ceased to have legal force in and of it itself on the 31st March (now 31st October).

Basically the reason for this regulation is "brexit", had the UK and Gibraltar not begun the process of incorporating EU law into domestic law in preparation for EU law (and thus repealing the acts that previous regulation derived their legal authority from) then they'd have just used their old sanctions regulations.

But I do understand how a suspicious and uncharitable mind might leap to a different conclusion. Especially when the governor is an ex-marine and the marines were involved. Plus if you take James, the governor's first name, assign each letter a number based on its alphabet position, sum them, you get 35. And 1935 is when the Shah changed the name of the country to Iran. Coincidence? I think not.


Seb
Member
Sun Jul 14 13:23:38
Btw, you are badly misreading the regulation. The ship has to be listed, to be listed there has to be good reason to believe it is breaching EU sanctions.

It empowers the Gibraltan authorities to detain the ship if in Gibraltan waters.

However the order must comply with the sanctions act.

How this led you to the conclusion that there was no "clause other than it needed to be in territorial waters", I'm not sure. Were you drunk?
jergul
large member
Sun Jul 14 15:00:51
Seb
I am actually not sure you should be using the plural "they" given the size of Gibraltar (population 35 000) and the limited number of people that would be involved. Hence ad-hoc. Some guys getting together to make a regulation to do something they want to do.

This is not some beauracratic monolith acting under its own lethargy. More likely than not, the plan came together at some bar or club where these kind of people meet.

I think it fair to say that the regulation was rushed through to specifically target a vessel.

Why do you keep repeating that the Governor is an ex-marine? It does not look like they resign their commission when become governor (he is far from the first Royal marine to inherit the position so to speak).

A 30 man Royal marine detachment was dispatched to arrest the ship less than 24 hours after the regulation was written up.

Of course the Governors role as a high ranking Royal Marine officer was key to that. Though it would actually be worse if he was using informal influence to fire off the detachment on extremely short notice.

An arrest does not need to comply with the sanctions act. The term cited is "international obligations".

You are trying to find way to much professionality in a document that was more likely than not put together over a working lunch.

There are not a lot of independent institutions working together here. Its a tiny old boys club kind of decision.

Hence your FM backwalk on it.

I still have to ask who is pulling the strings here. It could be as simple as business wanting a Trump hotel of gulf course or something.

You should try to get a grip. You are being tremendously insulting without cause (other than to bolster your argument).
jergul
large member
Sun Jul 14 15:14:15
The smallest London burough has 5 times the population of Gibraltar.

Here is its home page: http://www.rbkc.gov.uk/

We can read about garbage collection there.

Are you starting to get the feeling of how small a community Gibraltar is?
Seb
Member
Sun Jul 14 18:19:23
Jergul:

I'm sorry this is just conspiratorial nonsense Jergul.

The empowering act holds sway was enacted in April, and the regulations merely give force to them (they are substantially identical btw) you have judicial oversight mechanisms.

Your entire argument now is based on the idea that everyone in Gibraltar decides to jump to because the Americans says so. But what leverage does the US or UK have of Gibraltar is entirely stitched up local clique?

"
Why do you keep repeating that the Governor is an ex-marine"

Oops, looking at the predecessor that Google seems to prefer as the first result.

But it is interesting to see that the predecessor resigned from being governor because it was purely ceremonial.

Again, not sure you appreciate the point I'm making.

The Americans provided intelligence, at which point the Gibraltan govt realised that in passing the Sanction act to provide the primary legislation in UK law for EU sanctions in preparation for Brexit, they'd invalidated the previous sanctions regulations which derive their force from the EU council directive, and rushed through replacements.

If they had not done so, a detention under the previous regulation would be ruled illegal by the courts as the Sanctions Act replaces the EU legislation, meaning that there is no lawful basis for that regulation. Equally there would be no due process for the Gibraltan authorities to detain the vessel under the new Act.

"arrest does not need to comply with the sanctions act"
"An arrest does not need to comply with the sanctions act. The term cited is "international obligations"."


Of course it does. The sanctions act is what gives the chief minister the powers to issue the regulations. The regulations clearly state he can lists ships for the purpose of the regulation, and the regulation is specifically to enforce EU sanctions under the relevant clause of the sanctions act.

You can't make a regulation unless you have an underpinning act (primary legislation) - the executive can't grant itself powers.


Such is the joys of these things.

"Of course the Governors role as a high ranking Royal Marine officer was key to that"

Why, exactly, do you think that should be the case? Are you suggesting that the UK govt would not have provided marines had he not been one?

You realise by endlessly banging on about how Gibraltar is a tiny self knit community that looks at eachother through informal networks makes it look even more ridiculous to claim outside pressure is driving events. I mean, what is the threat here? TM or Jeremy Hunt will damage their careers? The Americans will be mean to London? If they are as cliquish as you suggest, they wouldn't give a flying fuck.
jergul
large member
Sun Jul 14 19:27:11
Seb
I am sorry, but you are incorrect. But thank you for taking the time to mansplain glaring obvious stuff (like what, the basics are not understood, or is the idea just to bore readers to death and try to wring a stalemate out of this discussion that way?)

You are trying to paint a shitty little post colonial town into a system with advanced and sophisticated separation of both formal and informal power.

The wording cited "international obligations" from the sanction act. It does not specify enforcing EU sanctions.

Less than 24 hours is not long enough for your government to evaluate the legality of the regulation, let alone give the go-ahead for a rather large boarding operation.

The Governor/high ranking Royal Marine officer played an instrumental role in the fast reaction between issuing the regulation and acting on it.

Asking who the clique (as you called it) might be obliging and for what benefit is certainly relevant.

Gibraltar is a dodgy tax haven in addition to everything else, so I imagine the motives are a mix of all kinds of things.
Seb
Member
Mon Jul 15 02:11:47
Jergul:

"The wording cited "international obligations" from the sanction act. It does not specify enforcing EU sanctions."

On the regulations:

"Purpose. 3. These Regulations are made for the purpose of implementing the EU Regulation."

"
(3) The Chief Minister may issue a Notice pursuant to subregulation (1) only where he (a) has reasonable grounds to suspect that the ship he has designated in the Notice as a Specified Ship is, has been, or is likely to be, involved in a breach of the EU Regulation; and

(b) considers that it is appropriate for that ship to be specified, having regard to the purpose of these Regulations."

This is justiciable.


So the test under the regulation as to whether a ship can be listed is: Does the chief minister have reasonable belief it is in breach of the Syria sanctions. Specifically Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 as amended.

The regulation also says it is made under the sanction act 16(1)b, which states:

"(b)for the purposes of compliance with any international obligation"

It is clear the obligation in question is the EU council directive which in domestic law has the form of an international obligation.

The sanctions act is what contains the meat of the control framework as to what the regulations can and cannot do, who can review them and decisions made under them.

It is incorrect to suggest, as you did, the EU regulations are not an international obligation, and it is further incorrect to say that the chief minister can do this spuriously.

He has to have reasonable grounds that a ship is breaching the specific sanctions stated in the regulation, and the empowering act provides further constraints and options for review.

The fact the regs were made a day before the ship was detained is most likely driven by the fact that the sanctions act, being new legislation supplanting EU law made new secondary legislation necessary and they realised they would not be able to legally enforce the sanction.

If, as you claim, the ship doesn't fall under the EU sanctions, it is trivial to get the order overturned, as it can only be held for the purposes of enforcing that action.

Note a ruling on the applicability of the sanction can in principle be brought in any EU member states court.

Tl;Dr stop weaving conspiracy theories based on assuming bad faith just because it is convenient to do so; talk to the EU. They made the sanctions.
jergul
large member
Mon Jul 15 06:06:00
Seb
"In March, Gibraltar enacted the Sanctions Act 2019, which provides for “automatic recognition and enforcement of UN, EU and UK sanctions"

The sum of it all is that persons may be convicted and sentenced to jail if it can be proven they knowningly violated sanctions.

There is no legal basis for holding the ship.

The regulation has to cite the law paragraph that authorizes it. The other stuff is just preamble with no standing.

Hence my working lunch comment.


The fact that the regulations were written up the day before is almost certainly because the Governor and his buddies wanted to sieze that specific ship and wanted the legal basis to do it.

Hence my working lunch comment.

I am claiming that UNCLOS should not be subserviant domestic law. The clique (as you called it) is interferring with the passage of goods.

TL;DR. Stop trying to turn a little post colonial shithole (pop 35 000) into something it is not.

Some guys got together and did something they wanted to do.

Release the goddamned ship already.
Seb
Member
Mon Jul 15 07:36:25
Jergul:

Automatic in the sense that primary legislation need not be enacted.

Automatic because it allows a minister of the crown to immediately make regulations.

UK legislation 101. Primary legislation confers powers on the crown, secondary and tertiary legislation set out the defined process by which those powers are enacted.


"There is no legal basis for holding the ship."

Sanctions Act 2019:

Section 16:
16.(1)Where the Chief Ministerhas reasonable grounds to do so, he, withthe consent of the Governor, maymake sanctions regulations—(a)for a purpose within subsection (2); or(b)for the purposes of compliance with any internationalobligation.
...

16(5) In this section “sanctions regulations” means regulations which do oneor more of the following—(a)impose financial sanctions;(b)impose immigration sanctions;(c)impose trade sanctions;(d)impose aircraft sanctions;(e)impose shipping sanctions;

...

"Shipping sanctions.25.(1) For the purposes of section16(5)(e) regulations “impose shippingsanctions” if they impose prohibitions or requirements for one or more ofthe following purposes—(a)****detaining within BGTW, or controlling the movement withinBGTW of—(i)disqualified ships (see subsection (8)), or(ii)specified ships (see section30);****"

"The regulation has to cite the law paragraph that authorizes it."

It does so. You are incorrect that the piece in italics is somehow not relevant. This is how all secondary legislation is drafted. I'm depressingly familiar with it.

"The fact that the regulations were written up the day before is almost certainly because the Governor and his buddies wanted to sieze that specific ship and wanted the legal basis to do it."

They wanted to seize that ship because they had reason to believe it was in violation of the sanctions, and realised they had not yet drafted regulations under the new act (see the previous sanctions orders in Gibraltan legislation). The powers to do existed already (Sanctions Act), the legality obligation to do so comes from the EU. But examining the issues it's pretty clear the regulation wasn't written to target that ship or Iran for any other reason than they believe it to be in violation of the EU sanctions.

"I am claiming that UNCLOS should not be subserviant domestic law."

I don't believe it is so here. UNCLOS does limit the rights of ships moving prohibited goods (e.g. drugs) even outside of UN sanctions; this isn't without precedence.

"TL;DR. Stop trying to turn a little post colonial shithole (pop 35 000) into something it is not."

I'm not. You are though. Your entire argument is that this is a self contained organisation which we can safely assume cannot have separation of powers because it's inconvenient for your argument otherwise.

But if it is a self contained entity with a sham democracy, sham judiciary that are all defacto directed by a Marine (though the previous incumbent quit this ceremonial role), the question is why on earth would such a oligarchy feel any need to do anything the Americans (or Brits) asked? They have no leverage.

As you've shown, with prompting you are perfectly able to get to a reasonable position without this tidlewave of bullshit; so just spare us the bullshit next time.

The EU has imposed sanctions that Gibraltar is legally required to uphold.
The Americans provided intelligence.
The Gibraltans realised their old Sanctions order had been invalidated by the brexit preparations and had to scramble to issue a new regulation under the new act. The ship has been impounded under those powers that date from April.

The ships owners etc can appeal through at least two channels.

You think these powers are incompatible with UNCLOS.

There is no need for this utterly ridiculous attempt to invent a deep conspiracy whereby Gibraltar is run by a secret conspiracy of current and ex marines and the judiciary must be corrupt. I mean Norway has a population of only 5m - barely a decent sized city. What should we think of your governance by these standards.
jergul
large member
Mon Jul 15 08:30:15
Seb
You are really misunderstanding my argument. I see no deep conspiracy. I see a Governor and his buddies getting together to do something they want to do.

Then they did it.

Upholding an EU regulation is not usually a factor that demands immediate regulatory action (and it smacks of entrapment - A ship that could not have been arrested suddenly can) I wonder if the regulation was signed with the flourish of a felt pen.

There is no way to wiggle out of the regulation being written less than 24 hours before the ship was arrested.

They had their reasons. As I pointed out earlier, it is likely an unholy mix of reasons. Given Gibraltars status as a very small post colonial town (pop 35 000).

The regulation stipulates that a ship can be held. Of course it does. The whole purpose of the regulation was to hold a ship. "Specified ship".

There is actually no recourse until there is a finding. What is the legal penalty?

The EU specifies that countries define the penalty. The UK penalty is prison time, not siezure or freezing of assets.

So you could charge and convict the captain if you feel he knowingly violated the regulation passed less than 24 hours earlier.

But it all amounts to domestic legislation surplanting UNCLOS.

If a shithole like Gibraltar (population 35000) can write up legislation to sieze ships, then anyone can.

Stop blocking the passage of goods. Release the goddamned ship.
jergul
large member
Mon Jul 15 08:32:57
The irritating thing about debating you is that your convictions seem based on who does what, not on what was done.

I look forward to discuss the nuances of Syrian, Russian, Iranian, or Chinese decision making within their legal frameworks at all future relevant junctures.
Seb
Member
Mon Jul 15 11:18:52
What you are describing: a bunch of people getting together and hatching a scheme to seize a ship for their own purposes and conniving to circumvent separations of powers is very clearly a conspiracy.

The regulations we bought in a day prior because they realised they'd neglected to pass them as required by the change in lethal resume brought about by brexit preparations. Irrespective of domestic law governing Gibraltar is bound by EU law to enforce sanctions so being unable to do so due to a failure to enact the legislation is the narrowly avoided problem.

This is not evidence of malfeasance as you claim. The EU sanctions were passed in 2012 and repeatedly upheld, the Gibraltan act passed in march and in force from April.

As for it being unreasonable, from any time from 2012 until April 2019, the ship could have been expected to be found in breach of sanctions, so your claim this is entrapment seems thin.

Inventing sinister motives isn't necessary for your argument, and isn't supported by asserting corruption is to be expected because the territory is small. After all, what's Norway but a rogue bit of Denmark and Sweden thats fallen off? We'd just be arguing about the precise level of dimiutiveness if that was the basis for deciding whether a county should assumed to be incapable of acting in good faith.

"There is no legal basis for holding the ship."

"The regulation stipulates that a ship can be held. Of course it does."

You see why I say you are restoring to a tidal wave of bullshit?

"There is actually no recourse until there is a finding."

I see nothing to support that. The sanctions Act allows a court to be petitoned to review the specification of a ship under any regulation, and it also allows the regulation to be reviewed.

If, as you have asserted, the shipment isn't in breach of EU sanctions then it would be trivial to make such a request, and indeed an appeal can be made to the CJEU in this instance.

The penalty in question varies. It does allow forfeiture of the ship and vessel but only by the order of the Supreme court, subject to several tests that aren't likely to be met here, and after application bu the attorney general, which he hasn't made.

So seems rather besides the point here.

"The irritating thing about debating you is that your convictions seem based on who does what, not on what was done."

It's funny becayse you've repeatedly defended Iran's rights to stop and sieze ships.

And here you are, oddly obsessed with the idea of a sinister motive of Gibraltar, ignoring the fact these are EU sanctions and the EU court ultimately has sway.

The EU was immediately notified. You seem incapable of processing where legal authority here lies.
Seb
Member
Mon Jul 15 11:32:54
It's kinda sad, because of tyre unnecessary bullshit approach we've spent absolutely ages going into extraneous and frankly irrelevant nonsense.

It boils down to this: you don't think the EU sanctions as enforced by Gibraltar are consitent with UNCLOS.

The thing is, by endorsing Iranian tit for tat (or at least justifying it) - you are strangely dismissive of the fact Iran already had illegally detained and confiscated a British vessel. Iran ought to abide by UNCLOS itself no? But your advice appears to be "oh, that was ages ago". But the law is the law right?

Doesn't this open you to the very charges you lay against me?
Seb
Member
Mon Jul 15 11:34:48

The regulations *were* bought in a day prior because they realised they'd neglected to pass them as required by the change in *legal regime* brought about by...
Seb
Member
Mon Jul 15 12:13:41
Also, Iran hasn't ratified UNCLOS.
jergul
large member
Mon Jul 15 12:17:26
Seb
Your order of magnitude is out of whack in addition to your understanding of UNCLOS.

A military vessel of any size does not have an automatic right of passage in territorial waters.

Arresting the military Zodiac in Iranian territorial waters was entirely consistent with UNCLOS.

The crew was released after the principle of innocent passage was established (the zodiac was not actually trying to invade Iran). The small semi-rigid craft should have been returned to you, but there may have been practical issues about collecting it (how exactly would that take place?)

The same argument you made with equating a tiny post colonial town with Norway.

It boils down to my thinking the Governor and his buddies smacked into place some adhoc regulation in order to arrest a specific vessel.

"Realizing they neglected to" sort of underlines my shoestrings over a working lunch concept to do what the Governor and his buddies wanted to do.

Why they would want to do that remains speculation.
jergul
large member
Mon Jul 15 12:27:14
Seb
It does not matter if Iran has ratified UNCLOS. If it did, then it would mean Iran was freer to arrest ships than would otherwise be the case.

UNCLOS in defacto law everywhere except perhaps in a few paria states.

Seb
Member
Mon Jul 15 12:30:59
Jergul:

There's no order of magnitude here, it's a question of principle. If Iran exercises forfeiture, it can hardly complain.

"The same argument you made with equating a tiny post colonial town with Norway."

Who sets the cut off then? A town versus a loose bit of Denmark that fell off? Both are teeny tiny entities smaller than a large city. If we can assume one is corrupt, why not the other? I think we should set the threshold at say, 10m?

You can be think what you like, but it doesn't really hold up.

I think they wanted to comply with the EU sanctions, and if you are worried about a dodgy conspiracy, it would be trivial to demonstrate in an EU court that the actions were not consistent with the council regulation and therefore there is no legal basis in Gibraltan law. So, you know, not really stacking up as a sinister plot.

I think their sole concern was upholding EU sanctions. It's one of the criteria for the extension that the UK continue to abide by EU law, and an EU requirement in any transition and future agreement that the UK continue to align with, amongst other things, EU sanctions policy.

I think that weighed on their minds much more than anything else given the impact of no deal on Gibraltar and the potential of Spain to argue that Gibraltar is a separate entity to the UK that could have its membership extension revoked independently.

But why let a little bit of context get in the way of a good bullshit session.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Jul 15 12:40:58
"But thank you for taking the time to mansplain glaring obvious stuff"

"You are really misunderstanding my argument."

"The irritating thing about debating you is that your convictions seem based on who does what, not on what was done."

You see it now right, clear as day? Because a couple of years ago your exact words were "mine and sebs disagreement is philosophical". It is actually a hygien level practical issue.
show deleted posts
Bookmark and Share