Brexit

[sunday]

 

Nope, only the strict observance of the treaty clauses. No land connection, especially. So let's see the Gib upper crust renouncing their estates in Spain.

 

Ejem, there are other treaties signed since the XVIII century and such... which kind of override Utrecht, and that's why we have never referred the matter to International Courts.

 

 

I was not aware of the unlawfulness of the closing of the border between the 1960s and the 1980s. I found references to the Treaties of Seville, and Paris, but could not find details about the status of the frontier.

 

Could you produce some information on the matter?

Edited June 3, 2016 by sunday

[Stuart Galbraith]

english literature student knows when she hears waffling by Cameron:

 

 

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's Super-Soraya... striking a blow against the PM for voters everywhere! Meet the party-loving student who put 'waffling' Cameron firmly in his place in EU debate (daily mail)

 

 

Journalists should much more often do this and burst politician's empty speech bubbles. Why did a student have to do this?

Because Journalists in Britain are, more often than not,

 

1 In the pocket of the politicians they should be criticising, whether its attending drinks parties, weekend hunting parties, group sex parties. Alright, I made that up about group sex. Probably.

2 They are, by and large, fucking idiots.

 

Cameron is such a bloody fool that even the right wing back bench Tories have noticed. But they cant do anything about it simply because it would mean killing the party, and perhaps derailing the Brexit vote. But the criticism is increasingly vociferous. Ill be greatly surprised if he survives for long past the vote, whichever way it goes.

 

Had Gove on the same debate last night. Lets just say he is about as convincing as a blancmange doing a tapdance. He made much of his dear dad and his crabfood business in Cornwall going bust because of the EU, overlooking of course that just because you leave the EU, that trade wont come back. Not any substance at all, and didnt do himself any favours at all by sticking to the 360million a week claim (which even the most vociferous brexiter seems increasingly to believe is false. Its less than half that apparently, and that overlooks the boost in trade it gives which accounts for a greater number.

 

'But we could do that ourselves!' says Gove. Indeed. But you wont, thats the problem.

[RETAC21]

 

 

 

Nope, only the strict observance of the treaty clauses. No land connection, especially. So let's see the Gib upper crust renouncing their estates in Spain.

 

Ejem, there are other treaties signed since the XVIII century and such... which kind of override Utrecht, and that's why we have never referred the matter to International Courts.

 

 

I was not aware of the unlawfulness of the closing of the border between the 1960s and the 1980s. I found references to the Treaties of Seville, and Paris, but could not find details about the status of the frontier.

 

Could you produce some information on the matter?

 

 

You are going too far. The EU treaties pretty much allow the Free movement of persons, capitals and merchandise, and although it can be suspended temporarily, any closing of the border can be challenged in courts and reversed.

 

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) which has both the UK and Spain as signatories delimits what are the territorial waters and airspace. Obviously there's disagreement between the UK and Spain in its interpretation, we declare that it's not applicable to Gibraltar because it's a colony and the UK asserts its sovereignity over Gibraltar including the territorial waters.

 

Both parties accept the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea as the court to settle the dispute, but neither side has put the case to trial.

 

https://www.itlos.org/cases/list-of-cases/

 

http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_declarations.htm

 

It's pretty obvious that both sides fear loosing the status quo, we don't want to risk having Algeciras bay split in 2 and the UK (specifically Gibraltar) fear that they may loose the bay for anything but innocent passage, killing the bunkering business. Also, a settlement may hit the airport, which is built in land that was NOT granted by Utrecht (specifically recognised as neutral).

Edited June 4, 2016 by RETAC21

[sunday]

 

 

 

 

Nope, only the strict observance of the treaty clauses. No land connection, especially. So let's see the Gib upper crust renouncing their estates in Spain.

 

Ejem, there are other treaties signed since the XVIII century and such... which kind of override Utrecht, and that's why we have never referred the matter to International Courts.

 

 

I was not aware of the unlawfulness of the closing of the border between the 1960s and the 1980s. I found references to the Treaties of Seville, and Paris, but could not find details about the status of the frontier.

 

Could you produce some information on the matter?

 

 

You are going too far. The EU treaties pretty much allow the Free movement of persons, capitals and merchandise, and although it can be suspended temporarily, any closing of the border can be challenged in courts and reversed.

 

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) which has both the UK and Spain as signatories delimits what are the territorial waters and airspace. Obviously there's disagreement between the UK and Spain in its interpretation, we declare that it's not applicable to Gibraltar because it's a colony and the UK asserts its sovereignity over Gibraltar including the territorial waters.

 

Both parties accept the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea as the court to settle the dispute, but neither side has put the case to trial.

 

https://www.itlos.org/cases/list-of-cases/

 

http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_declarations.htm

 

It's pretty obvious that both sides fear loosing the status quo, we don't want to risk having Algeciras bay split in 2 and the UK (specifically Gibraltar) fear that they may loose the bay for anything but innocent passage, killing the bunkering business. Also, a settlement may hit the airport, which is built in land that was NOT granted by Utrecht (specifically recognised as neutral).

 

 

My point is the status of the land frontier. If I am not wrong, the main reason it's open now are the EU dispositions on free movement of people. If the UK exits the EU, then those dispositions would be no longer applicable in the land frontiers of the UK with member countries of the UE.

 

I daresay that a Gibraltar isolated by land would not need much time to be a drag on HM treasury, and creating an opportunity for some kind of UK govts to dispose of the colony, in a similar manner as the Hong Kong territories ceded to the UK were abandoned once the lease on the New Territories expired. UK renouncing her interests East of Aden in 1971 could have something to do with the abandonment, however.

 

But it also could be that the UK still wants to retain a presence in the Mediterranean, but I am not sure of the why.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

 

 

 

 

Nope, only the strict observance of the treaty clauses. No land connection, especially. So let's see the Gib upper crust renouncing their estates in Spain.

 

Ejem, there are other treaties signed since the XVIII century and such... which kind of override Utrecht, and that's why we have never referred the matter to International Courts.

 

 

I was not aware of the unlawfulness of the closing of the border between the 1960s and the 1980s. I found references to the Treaties of Seville, and Paris, but could not find details about the status of the frontier.

 

Could you produce some information on the matter?

 

 

You are going too far. The EU treaties pretty much allow the Free movement of persons, capitals and merchandise, and although it can be suspended temporarily, any closing of the border can be challenged in courts and reversed.

 

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) which has both the UK and Spain as signatories delimits what are the territorial waters and airspace. Obviously there's disagreement between the UK and Spain in its interpretation, we declare that it's not applicable to Gibraltar because it's a colony and the UK asserts its sovereignity over Gibraltar including the territorial waters.

 

Both parties accept the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea as the court to settle the dispute, but neither side has put the case to trial.

 

https://www.itlos.org/cases/list-of-cases/

 

http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_declarations.htm

 

It's pretty obvious that both sides fear loosing the status quo, we don't want to risk having Algeciras bay split in 2 and the UK (specifically Gibraltar) fear that they may loose the bay for anything but innocent passage, killing the bunkering business. Also, a settlement may hit the airport, which is built in land that was NOT granted by Utrecht (specifically recognised as neutral).

 

 

My point is the status of the land frontier. If I am not wrong, the main reason it's open now are the EU dispositions on free movement of people. If the UK exits the EU, then those dispositions would be no longer applicable in the land frontiers of the UK with member countries of the UE.

 

I daresay that a Gibraltar isolated by land would not need much time to be a drag on HM treasury, and creating an opportunity for some kind of UK govts to dispose of the colony, in a similar manner as the Hong Kong territories ceded to the UK were abandoned once the lease on the New Territories expired. UK renouncing her interests East of Aden in 1971 could have something to do with the abandonment, however.

 

But it also could be that the UK still wants to retain a presence in the Mediterranean, but I am not sure of the why.

 

Because we don't trust you Mediterranean fellows to look after it that's why.

 

Seriously though, It makes us a global player in an area thats still wholly unstable. If we gave up Gibraltar, all we would have left would be Akrotyri, and if Turkey and Greece ever kiss and make up and do a deal, like as not we will be turfed out of that as well.

 

It took an Israeli historian to delineate why we went into Suez in 1956. Because it gave us some importance to be in control of one of the worlds most important waterways. We didnt really WANT Egypt, didnt really need the Canal either after losing India. But we wanted because we felt it helped contribute to being a world power. In the end of course, it directly contributed to us stop being one.

 

It also points out to a problem in British Geopolitics others have noted, that we hold onto real estate long after it ceases to be of any significance and becomes a burden for no other reason than we are loathe to get rid of it. Never underestimate the culture of Inertia in British politics. Its more influential than you think.

[JasonJ]

 

 

 

 

 

Nope, only the strict observance of the treaty clauses. No land connection, especially. So let's see the Gib upper crust renouncing their estates in Spain.

 

Ejem, there are other treaties signed since the XVIII century and such... which kind of override Utrecht, and that's why we have never referred the matter to International Courts.

I was not aware of the unlawfulness of the closing of the border between the 1960s and the 1980s. I found references to the Treaties of Seville, and Paris, but could not find details about the status of the frontier.

 

Could you produce some information on the matter?

You are going too far. The EU treaties pretty much allow the Free movement of persons, capitals and merchandise, and although it can be suspended temporarily, any closing of the border can be challenged in courts and reversed.

 

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) which has both the UK and Spain as signatories delimits what are the territorial waters and airspace. Obviously there's disagreement between the UK and Spain in its interpretation, we declare that it's not applicable to Gibraltar because it's a colony and the UK asserts its sovereignity over Gibraltar including the territorial waters.

 

Both parties accept the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea as the court to settle the dispute, but neither side has put the case to trial.

 

https://www.itlos.org/cases/list-of-cases/

 

http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_declarations.htm

 

It's pretty obvious that both sides fear loosing the status quo, we don't want to risk having Algeciras bay split in 2 and the UK (specifically Gibraltar) fear that they may loose the bay for anything but innocent passage, killing the bunkering business. Also, a settlement may hit the airport, which is built in land that was NOT granted by Utrecht (specifically recognised as neutral).

My point is the status of the land frontier. If I am not wrong, the main reason it's open now are the EU dispositions on free movement of people. If the UK exits the EU, then those dispositions would be no longer applicable in the land frontiers of the UK with member countries of the UE.

 

I daresay that a Gibraltar isolated by land would not need much time to be a drag on HM treasury, and creating an opportunity for some kind of UK govts to dispose of the colony, in a similar manner as the Hong Kong territories ceded to the UK were abandoned once the lease on the New Territories expired. UK renouncing her interests East of Aden in 1971 could have something to do with the abandonment, however.

 

But it also could be that the UK still wants to retain a presence in the Mediterranean, but I am not sure of the why.

My guess would be so that the Royal Navy would still have guaranteed access through it and onwards to the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Persian Gulf. With the two new carriers that their building, I think they want to have some naval power in the coming decades. After the carriers are finished, maybe they'll build some more destroyers to better round out their navy.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nope, only the strict observance of the treaty clauses. No land connection, especially. So let's see the Gib upper crust renouncing their estates in Spain.

Ejem, there are other treaties signed since the XVIII century and such... which kind of override Utrecht, and that's why we have never referred the matter to International Courts.

I was not aware of the unlawfulness of the closing of the border between the 1960s and the 1980s. I found references to the Treaties of Seville, and Paris, but could not find details about the status of the frontier.

 

Could you produce some information on the matter?

You are going too far. The EU treaties pretty much allow the Free movement of persons, capitals and merchandise, and although it can be suspended temporarily, any closing of the border can be challenged in courts and reversed.

 

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) which has both the UK and Spain as signatories delimits what are the territorial waters and airspace. Obviously there's disagreement between the UK and Spain in its interpretation, we declare that it's not applicable to Gibraltar because it's a colony and the UK asserts its sovereignity over Gibraltar including the territorial waters.

 

Both parties accept the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea as the court to settle the dispute, but neither side has put the case to trial.

 

https://www.itlos.org/cases/list-of-cases/

 

http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_declarations.htm

 

It's pretty obvious that both sides fear loosing the status quo, we don't want to risk having Algeciras bay split in 2 and the UK (specifically Gibraltar) fear that they may loose the bay for anything but innocent passage, killing the bunkering business. Also, a settlement may hit the airport, which is built in land that was NOT granted by Utrecht (specifically recognised as neutral).

My point is the status of the land frontier. If I am not wrong, the main reason it's open now are the EU dispositions on free movement of people. If the UK exits the EU, then those dispositions would be no longer applicable in the land frontiers of the UK with member countries of the UE.

 

I daresay that a Gibraltar isolated by land would not need much time to be a drag on HM treasury, and creating an opportunity for some kind of UK govts to dispose of the colony, in a similar manner as the Hong Kong territories ceded to the UK were abandoned once the lease on the New Territories expired. UK renouncing her interests East of Aden in 1971 could have something to do with the abandonment, however.

 

But it also could be that the UK still wants to retain a presence in the Mediterranean, but I am not sure of the why.

My guess would be so that the Royal Navy would still have guaranteed access through it and onwards to the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Persian Gulf. With the two new carriers that their building, I think they want to have some naval power in the coming decades. After the carriers are finished, maybe they'll build some more destroyers to better round out their navy.

 

They wont. A study of the declining orders of the Type 26 (which was supposed to make up for the cut in half of Type 45) illustrates a continual problem of 'Jam tomorrow' that never, ever actually arrives

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Combat_Ship

 

Any future use of our Carriers will demand a battlegroup made of a multinational force. Which is going to make having our own naval bases in the Med or the Gulf somewhat irrelevant I fear.

[RETAC21]

 

My point is the status of the land frontier. If I am not wrong, the main reason it's open now are the EU dispositions on free movement of people. If the UK exits the EU, then those dispositions would be no longer applicable in the land frontiers of the UK with member countries of the UE.

 

I daresay that a Gibraltar isolated by land would not need much time to be a drag on HM treasury, and creating an opportunity for some kind of UK govts to dispose of the colony, in a similar manner as the Hong Kong territories ceded to the UK were abandoned once the lease on the New Territories expired. UK renouncing her interests East of Aden in 1971 could have something to do with the abandonment, however.

 

But it also could be that the UK still wants to retain a presence in the Mediterranean, but I am not sure of the why.

 

 

That is true and the locals are worried: http://www.elmundo.es/espana/2016/03/27/56f6e84de2704e2c018b45e2.htmlbut Gibraltar would still be a fiscal haven (even more than now) so they would profit. A bigger issue would be the cutting back of data and telecom bandwidth which would make corporate life difficult.

 

HMG interests (and costs) in Gib nowadays are extremely limited, no dockyard, a single battalion and 2 RN patrol boats, no RAF presence.

[JasonJ]

 

My guess would be so that the Royal Navy would still have guaranteed access through it and onwards to the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Persian Gulf. With the two new carriers that their building, I think they want to have some naval power in the coming decades. After the carriers are finished, maybe they'll build some more destroyers to better round out their navy.

 

They wont. A study of the declining orders of the Type 26 (which was supposed to make up for the cut in half of Type 45) illustrates a continual problem of 'Jam tomorrow' that never, ever actually arrives

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Combat_Ship

 

Any future use of our Carriers will demand a battlegroup made of a multinational force. Which is going to make having our own naval bases in the Med or the Gulf somewhat irrelevant I fear.

13 to 8.. at least the Type 26 is pretty big for a frigate. Not to hard to see them count as destroyers in some ways, not to say that it makes up for the fewer vessels.

 

Carriers can still patrol in disputed waters with a small number of escorts. One US carrier goes around the Pacific and through the South China Sea with about 3 escorting ships as a show of force. It'll only be the very big campaigns like the Gulf Wars which would require a full battlegroup. So I think Britain would still be in the game of naval power. Certainly not near the level of the US Navy, but at a tier lower along with the other lesser naval powers like Japan, Russia, and China.

[sunday]

 

 

My point is the status of the land frontier. If I am not wrong, the main reason it's open now are the EU dispositions on free movement of people. If the UK exits the EU, then those dispositions would be no longer applicable in the land frontiers of the UK with member countries of the UE.

 

I daresay that a Gibraltar isolated by land would not need much time to be a drag on HM treasury, and creating an opportunity for some kind of UK govts to dispose of the colony, in a similar manner as the Hong Kong territories ceded to the UK were abandoned once the lease on the New Territories expired. UK renouncing her interests East of Aden in 1971 could have something to do with the abandonment, however.

 

But it also could be that the UK still wants to retain a presence in the Mediterranean, but I am not sure of the why.

 

 

That is true and the locals are worried: http://www.elmundo.es/espana/2016/03/27/56f6e84de2704e2c018b45e2.htmlbut Gibraltar would still be a fiscal haven (even more than now) so they would profit. A bigger issue would be the cutting back of data and telecom bandwidth which would make corporate life difficult.

 

HMG interests (and costs) in Gib nowadays are extremely limited, no dockyard, a single battalion and 2 RN patrol boats, no RAF presence.

 

 

An isolated Gibraltar would be like a small, rocky island in the middle of the sea. Would have to import food, and even drinking water. Would not have access to a cheap non-resident workforce for menial jobs. It has little undeveloped estate, unless they make residential caverns. They began already to made artificial land.

 

It will be a very expensive place to live, indeed, and that would drag down its economy. Gib people have now free education, and free healthcare. If the economy tanks, those perks would need to be provided by HM government.

 

Unless the use of IT enables new industries not available during the second half of the 20th century, like the betting sites and so on. But those industries could be also remotely managed, have the high paying jobs in London, and only the janitorial jobs on site.

 

Perhaps the fiscal haven angle could offset that, I do not know. But Pitcairn failed to develop as a fiscal haven, for instance.

[RETAC21]

Pitcairn, no, but the Channel islands have, and Gibraltar still has a port and an airfield, so it would be inconvenient, but locals can get out and about, and if needs be, merchandise can got to Morocco and then to Gibraltar.

[sunday]

Then I wonder what kind of competitive advantage would an isolated Gibraltar have over the Channel Islands, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, or, particularly, Monaco.

[bd1]

 

 

UK protesters try to burn the EU flag, but can't because of EU regulation on flammable materials

http://9gag.com/gag/a1Mz9oR

[Stuart Galbraith]

[cbo]

 

 

 

UK protesters try to burn the EU flag, but can't because of EU regulation on flammable materials

http://9gag.com/gag/a1Mz9oR

 

 

Just another example how the EU erodes the liberties of the British citizen - in this case free speech. Would never have happened if they used good Indian cotton made on a Spinning Jenny. BREXIT!

[Panzermann]

I always wanted to build a franchise of shops for pre impregnated flags (mostly the stars & stripes and danebrog) including a match ready to be lit up all across the Levante.

[Stuart Galbraith]

I always wanted to start a business selling Boris Johnson voodoo dolls, but it would be a waste of time. He has the kind of face that cant be parodied. He is a bit like a Hogarth sketch on 2 legs.

[sunday]

Points for using PVC in those flags so they emit chlorine when burnt.

[Stuart Galbraith]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3625475/Nigel-Farage-says-security-Britain-risk-stay-EU-ISIS-promise-flood-Continent-jihadists.html

 

Nigel Farage has claimed that British women will be at risk of mass sex attacks by gangs of migrants if we vote to stay in the EU.

The UKIP leader said he believes that a failure to control our borders from an influx of migrants from North Africa and Eastern Europe will result in an increased vulnerability for the female population, reports the Sunday Telegraph.

Farage claimed that a difference in 'cultural' issues would contribute to the attacks and paid reference to the rapes and sexual offences alleged to have been carried out by a gang of migrants in the German city of Cologne last New Year's Eve.

Sigh.

[Ssnake]

Last time I checked (two weeks ago) Britain was controlling every flight passenger's passport, including those from the EU. How can these dolts say that Britain can't control immigration, the controls are already there. You're on an effin' island, how can you NOT be in control of your borders?

As far as Intra-European migration is concerned, Britain has voluntarily joined a contract (and later negotiated amendments). Also, Polish plumbers, I heard, were very welcome ten years ago because they actually did their job, on time, in better quality, and at a lower price than the British incumbents (who apparently still don't understand the concept of a mixing faucet, judging by what I'm still seeing as the norm in British hotel rooms). While I understand why jobless British plumbers might join the anti-EU sentiment (rather than getting their act together and start improving the quality of their work again), I fail to understand why the majority of victims of British plumbing would agree that Polish Super Marios are the problem, rather than the solution. Must be some sort of a twisted Stockholm syndrome.

Edited June 5, 2016 by Ssnake

[cbo]

I always wanted to build a franchise of shops for pre impregnated flags (mostly the stars & stripes and danebrog) including a match ready to be lit up all across the Levante.

 

Giving that there seems to be no lack of those flags for the purpose, I'd suggest you start elsewhere. Hire a comedian/artist/author from a little known country, make the relevant flags and have them ready at the relevant point of grievance, give him a good script, and fill the suddenly emerged niche with your product. Say, Burnfast Lichtenstein Flags.

[Ssnake]

For a maximum propaganda value you'd probably want flags that burn reliably, but not too fast. Slow photographers need a chance too. I suppose you'd want a material mix where the lower end of the flag catches fire quickly, but it burns slower and slower the closer you get to the flag pole. I see a project for industrial R&D here to get the optimal mix of volatile materials and fire retardant agents...

[JasonJ]

Plenty of other ways to use a flag in protest. Stamp on it, tear and rip, smear in black ink or red blood...

[cbo]

For a maximum propaganda value you'd probably want flags that burn reliably, but not too fast. Slow photographers need a chance too. I suppose you'd want a material mix where the lower end of the flag catches fire quickly, but it burns slower and slower the closer you get to the flag pole. I see a project for industrial R&D here to get the optimal mix of volatile materials and fire retardant agents...

 

..and you could commercialize the idea further by making chemistry sets that allowed you to work with different qualities of flames: The Little Flagburner Set and the companion set of The Little Book Burner , with supplemental sets of either bibles, korans or Rushdie novels.

 

"Hate Inc." - a company tailored to a world populated by idiots. Buy stock now.

 

I would....

[Soren Ras]

Just more opportunity to market flag variants.

 

"This flag is actually highly flame resistant, but presoaked in gasoline, thus ensuring maximum flame and smoke and of a long-lasting duration to enhance visual appeal and increased probability of even slow photographers getting good shots in."

 

"Over here, you have your basic tearables. If you'll note there are tiny markings indicating where the stitching is made to make tearing the flag easy to perform. But we guarantee that the markings will be invisible on your average youtube vid. We have versions that extend the guarantee to 4k video as well, but frankly, they do cost quite a bit more. And these have extra stitching to avoid the embarrassment of being left with only a tiny sliver of the flag after ripping it. They will always rip in a telegenic fashion, or my name isn't Honest Abdul!"

 

"Of course doing real foot-stomping of a flag can be exhausting work and to avoid having your friends laugh at you because you failed to set decent footprints, we have a set of flags with pre-printed dirt and footprints available. Footprints can be ordered to match leading manufacturer's patterns, such as Nike, Adidas, Doc Martens, Ecco, and many others. Custom prints can be ordered special."

 

--

Soren