Iran 'seizes British-flagged oil tanker' Iran 'seizes British-flagged oil tanker' - Page 3
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Posts 21 to 30 of 61
  1. #21

    My post count is Majestic

    AtW is a fount of knowledge

    AtW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    51,537

    Default

    Gibraltar implemented EU laws and then took action on them whilst the offending ship was in its jurisdiction.

    The problem isn't that - it was all legal. The problem is that Iran does not give a fook, so now they took 2 ships and might simply torpedo others in the future.

  2. #22

    Super poster

    meridian - scorchio!

    meridian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    4,454

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheGreenBastard View Post
    Your own initial response with EU legislation PDF suggests that it being "EU waters" is very much relevant. You did read it of course?

    Being in EU waters is irrelevant? I'm not sure your understanding of meratime law is as comprehensive as you think.
    Yes, I did read it. Did you? If a cargo or a ship is not banned, then where it is in the world is irrelevant.

    Now, perhaps I’m wrong here, but kindly point me to the bit where exporting oil or petroleum INTO Syria is banned?

    Alternatively, point me to any embargo on Iranian oil (an EU embargo, not a US one...)

  3. #23

    Fingers like lightning

    TheGreenBastard 's job has never been outsourced

    TheGreenBastard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    542

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meridian View Post
    Yes, I did read it. Did you? If a cargo or a ship is not banned, then where it is in the world is irrelevant.

    Now, perhaps I’m wrong here, but kindly point me to the bit where exporting oil or petroleum INTO Syria is banned?

    Alternatively, point me to any embargo on Iranian oil (an EU embargo, not a US one...)
    EU Restrictive Measures in Syria – FAQs | Service for Foreign Policy Instruments (FPI)

    This is relevant due to the use of EU territories (including maritime).

    Please re-read your original PDF again.

  4. #24

    Super poster

    meridian - scorchio!

    meridian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    4,454

    Default Iran 'seizes British-flagged oil tanker'

    Quote Originally Posted by AtW View Post
    Gibraltar implemented EU laws and then took action on them whilst the offending ship was in its jurisdiction.
    Oh yeah, no Member State has ever gold-plated regulations when implementing them locally.

    The original regulations list in the annexes the list of people and organisations that can have assets seized; the Gibraltar regulations expand on that, giving the Minister the power to make his own decision on which ships can be seized.

    The problem isn't that - it was all legal. The problem is that Iran does not give a fook, so now they took 2 ships and might simply torpedo others in the future.
    The first problem is that it “possibly” isn’t legal. And that’s all it needs for a rogue state like Iran to kick off an international incident.

    The second problem is that the U.K. is being sucked into another of the USA’s proxy wars. The U.K. is so desperate for friends now, that it has lost any sense of diplomacy.

  5. #25

    Super poster

    meridian - scorchio!

    meridian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    4,454

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheGreenBastard View Post
    EU Restrictive Measures in Syria – FAQs | Service for Foreign Policy Instruments (FPI)

    This is relevant due to the use of EU territories (including maritime).

    Please re-read your original PDF again.
    Page not found?

    I’ve reread it again. Three or four times. And searched the interwebs more.

    I can find plenty of news sites that simply report that the ship was “heading for Syria in contravention of EU embargoes” but no actual regulations that state that the import of oil or petroleum into Syria is against our sanctions.

    Article 6 appears to be the only one that applies, and that only appears to relate to the import of oil or petroleum into the Union (and not the other way around)

    Article 6
    It shall be prohibited:
    (a) to import crude oil or petroleum products into the Union if they:
    (i) originate in Syria; or
    (ii) have been exported from Syria;
    (b) to purchase crude oil or petroleum products which are located in or which originated in Syria;
    (c) to transport crude oil or petroleum products if they originate in Syria, or are being exported from Syria to any other country;
    (d) to provide, directly or indirectly, financing or financial assistance, including financial derivatives, as well as insurance and re-insurance, related to the prohibitions set out in points (a), (b) and (c); and
    (e) to participate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities whose object or effect is, directly or indirectly, to circumvent the prohibitions in point (a), (b), (c) or (d).

  6. #26

    My post count is Majestic

    AtW is a fount of knowledge

    AtW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    51,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meridian View Post
    The original regulations list in the annexes the list of people and organisations that can have assets seized; the Gibraltar regulations expand on that, giving the Minister the power to make his own decision on which ships can be seized.
    Expand on that, yes.

    Expand, the core is EU regulations.

    And it doesn't even matter if it was just UK sanctions - those ought to be enforced as otherwise there is no point.

  7. #27

    Super poster

    meridian - scorchio!

    meridian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    4,454

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AtW View Post
    Expand on that, yes.

    Expand, the core is EU regulations.

    And it doesn't even matter if it was just UK sanctions - those ought to be enforced as otherwise there is no point.
    I agree, if they were U.K. sanctions then they should be enforced, that’s not the question or the issue.

    If the U.K. (Gibraltar) wants to gold-plate regulations, and then use U.K. armed forces to enforce them, then say internationally that this is a U.K. operation to enforce U.K. law. Don’t hide behind (possibly weaker) EU regulations and complain that the EU isn’t enforcing something that is not in EU law.

  8. #28

    Godlike

    BR14 is always on top

    BR14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Under your kitchen sink
    Posts
    8,443

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meridian View Post
    I agree, if they were U.K. sanctions then they should be enforced, that’s not the question or the issue.

    If the U.K. (Gibraltar) wants to gold-plate regulations, and then use U.K. armed forces to enforce them, then say internationally that this is a U.K. operation to enforce U.K. law. Don’t hide behind (possibly weaker) EU regulations and complain that the EU isn’t enforcing something that is not in EU law.
    the UK IS still a member of the EU.

    in case you hadn't noticed, twat.
    Entropy is NOT what it used to be.
    Inertia, however........................

  9. #29

    Godlike

    Mordac is a fount of knowledge

    Mordac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Civilisation-ish
    Posts
    9,009

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheGreenBastard View Post
    UK was obliged to seize it due to EU sanctions.
    You might think so, but:

    EU sanctions only cover imports from Syria to the EU (which used to be almost all Syria's oil exports), not Syria's imports from elsewhere. Since the original uprising (2011), Syria no longer directly controls most of its oilfields, so much so that they now rely on imports, mostly from Iran.

    So yes, there is an oil embargo of sorts, but it's only one-way*. And since Syria no longer has oil to export, it's a fairly pointless one.

    *And there's no way of telling that from the EU's official confirmation of the extension of sanctions against Syria:

    Syria: EU renews sanctions against the regime by one year - Consilium

    Welcome to the Foreign Policy of the future, kids, it's so confusing even the Royal Navy can't fully understand it.
    His heart is in the right place - shame we can't say the same about his brain...

  10. #30

    My post count is Majestic

    AtW is a fount of knowledge

    AtW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    51,537

    Default

    Iran got enough money to hire top London lawyers to contest legality of that ship stopping - instead they go for terrorist tactics: attacking tankers before this seizure happened

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •