Ssssssshhhhhh, don't mention Reform.

[motorbiking]

"The French would have to grant express permission for UK vessels to carry rescued people through their territorial waters and to leave them ashore in France".

Are you suggesting that a UK flagged vessel needs permission from French authorities, to enter French waters and rescue a vessel/people in distress and take them back to France? or are you going the snip out of context sentences from a BBC news article and dishonestly post them arguing they mean something different?

 

[noseall]

Are you suggesting that a UK flagged vessel needs permission from French authorities, to enter French waters and rescue a vessel/people in distress and take them back to France?

Two shipping law fellas disagree with your made up blarney...

According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), external and the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR Convention), external, states are allowed to pick people up from boats if they are "found at sea in danger of being lost".

But these laws do not allow them to be taken to another state without that country agreeing.
In fact, Article 19 of UNCLOS says that if a "foreign ship" enters another country's territorial waters it will "be considered to be prejudicial to the peace" if "it engages in the loading or unloading of any... person contrary to the immigration laws" of that country.
BBC Verify spoke to two experts in maritime law.
James M. Turner KC, a shipping lawyer at Quadrant Chambers, told us: "The French would have to grant express permission for UK vessels to carry rescued people through their territorial waters and to leave them ashore in France".
Ainhoa Campàs Velasco, a maritime law expert from the University of Southampton, said migrants could not be returned to French shores, "unilaterally, and without prior agreement with France".

Quit whilst you are behind boyo.

 

[motorbiking]

Two shipping law fellas disagree with your made up blarney...

According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), external and the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR Convention), external, states are allowed to pick people up from boats if they are "found at sea in danger of being lost".

We know

But these laws do not allow them to be taken to another state without that country agreeing.

Key point "another state".

In fact, Article 19 of UNCLOS says that if a "foreign ship" enters another country's territorial waters it will "be considered to be prejudicial to the peace" if "it engages in the loading or unloading of any... person contrary to the immigration laws" of that country.

We know. "Take backs" would require agreement. This has nothing to do with rescuing people.

BBC Verify spoke to two experts in maritime law.
James M. Turner KC, a shipping lawyer at Quadrant Chambers, told us: "The French would have to grant express permission for UK vessels to carry rescued people through their territorial waters and to leave them ashore in France".
Ainhoa Campàs Velasco, a maritime law expert from the University of Southampton, said migrants could not be returned to French shores, "unilaterally, and without prior agreement with France".

Quit whilst you are behind boyo.

So you are going to dishonestly quote snippets from an article about "take backs" and claim it applies to rescuing people at sea. How dishonest of you.

 

[motorbiking]

Are you suggesting that a UK flagged vessel needs permission from French authorities, to enter French waters and rescue a vessel/people in distress and take them back to France?

@noseall do you have an answer? a Yes or No is fine.

REGULATION 33 - Distress messages: Obligations and procedures

1 The master of a ship at sea which is in a position to be able to provide assistance on receiving a signal from any source that persons are in distress at sea, is bound to proceed with all speed to their assistance, if possible informing them or the search and rescue service that the ship is doing so. If the ship receiving the distress alert is unable or, in the special circumstances of the case, considers it unreasonable or unnecessary to proceed to their assistance, the master must enter in the log-book the reason for failing to proceed to the assistance of the persons in distress, taking into account the recommendation of the Organization, to inform the appropriate search and rescue service accordingly.

where does it say - seek permission? oh wait it doesn't its says - they must proceed with all speed.

 

[motorbiking]

is gone quiet

 

[noseall]

We know

Key point "another state".

We know. "Take backs" would require agreement. This has nothing to do with rescuing people.

So you are going to dishonestly quote snippets from an article about "take backs" and claim it applies to rescuing people at sea. How dishonest of you.

How else would you define it? Unless they are rescuing them, what else are they doing?

According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), external and the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR Convention), external, states are allowed to pick people up from boats if they are "found at sea in danger of being lost".
But these laws do not allow them to be taken to another state without that country agreeing.
In fact, Article 19 of UNCLOS says that if a "foreign ship" enters another country's territorial waters it will "be considered to be prejudicial to the peace" if "it engages in the loading or unloading of any... person contrary to the immigration laws" of that country.
BBC Verify spoke to two experts in maritime law.
James M. Turner KC, a shipping lawyer at Quadrant Chambers, told us: "The French would have to grant express permission for UK vessels to carry rescued people through their territorial waters and to leave them ashore in France".
Ainhoa Campàs Velasco, a maritime law expert from the University of Southampton, said migrants could not be returned to French shores, "unilaterally, and without prior agreement with France".

Keep dithering boyo, its hilarious.

 

[motorbiking]

What part of that process results in them being taken to another states waters?

I find them in France, I have a right to take them back to France. I do not have a right to find them in France and take them to the UK without permission.

 

[noseall]

What part of that process results in them being taken to another states waters?

I find them in France, I have a right to take them back to France. I do not have a right to find them in France and take them to the UK without permission.

Nonsense.

 

[motorbiking]

Nonsense.

So SOLAS reg 33, got it all wrong.

Why do you keep doing this to yourself

go back and read the text you are referring to:
But these laws do not allow them to be taken to another state without that country agreeing.

I am already in French waters when I rescue them, so I am not taking anyone to another state.

In fact, Article 19 of UNCLOS says that if a "foreign ship" enters another country's territorial waters it will "be considered to be prejudicial to the peace" if "it engages in the loading or unloading of any... person contrary to the immigration laws" of that country.

I cannot round up illegals in the UK and ship them to France - we agree.

I can however, rescue them in French waters and take them to France and I can prevent a vessel from entering UK waters if its full of illegals.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

is gone quiet

I suffered the usual problem of debating with idiots, and was dragged down to their level.
For the last 40 odd pages, all you've done is misinterpret the rules of rescue at sea.
And it's become tedious.

Then there's MWN being incrementally absurd:
"What if they're near the border?"
"But what if they're just a few meters from the border?"
It was obvious what was coming next: "What if they're half in and half out?"

Then there's Dick Turpin standing on the sidelines, throwing in abuse from time to time to amuse himself, because he has no positive contribution to make to the debate.

In reality, the rescue services are there to save lives, which they do most expeditiously, not to get into a spat over SOLAS, UNCLOS or any other regulation.

Push backs are potentially illegal otherwise UK would be operating such a scenario, and then there would be not only another international legal wrangle, there would also be a loss of cooperation with the French, and UK would become a pariah state in the event of any fatalities..

 

[Deleted member 323070]

I can prevent a vessel from entering UK waters if its full of illegals.

You cannot legally interfere with the passage of an innocent vessel.
An inflatable boat full of refugees would be deemed as innocent. They are protected by UN charter.

 

[Brigadier]

You cannot legally interfere with the passage of an innocent vessel

Let him give it a whirl, and report back

 

[motorbiking]

I suffered the usual problem of debating with idiots, and was dragged down to their level.
For the last 40 odd pages, all you've done is misinterpret the rules of rescue at sea.
And it's become tedious.

Then there's MWN being incrementally absurd:
"What if they're near the border?"
"But what if they're just a few meters from the border?"
It was obvious what was coming next: "What if they're half in and half out?"

Then there's Dick Turpin standing on the sidelines, throwing in abuse from time to time to amuse himself, because he has no positive contribution to make to the debate.

In reality, the rescue services are there to save lives, which they do most expeditiously, not to get into a spat over SOLAS, UNCLOS or any other regulation.

Push backs are potentially illegal otherwise UK would be operating such a scenario, and then there would be not only another international legal wrangle, there would also be a loss of cooperation with the French, and UK would become a pariah state in the event of any fatalities..

It's "potentially illegal otherwise they'd be doing it". Is a weak argument.

and of course the only ones misrepresenting the rules are the ones who are pretending that a boat full of illegal immigrants are an innocent vessel. If their passage was innocent they'd have bought a £22 ticket for the ferry rather than pay thousands to people smugglers.

 

[motorbiking]

Let him give it a whirl, and report back

No need - Reform have a plan

 

[motorbiking]

You cannot legally interfere with the passage of an innocent vessel.
An inflatable boat full of refugees would be deemed as innocent. They are protected by UN charter.

nonsense.

On the one hand you want to correctly argue that a ship that is full of illegals that have been rounded up and sent to France requires French cooperation and at the same time claim that the UK has no right to stop a boat full of illegals doing the same.

An inflatable boat full of illegal immigrants, that have paid people traffickers, is specifically defined as not innocent. Article 19, 2 (g).