Pretty ambiguous, actually.
Ssssssshhhhhh, don't mention Reform.
- Thread starter fillyboy
- Start date
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 24,807
- Reaction score
- 5,356
- Country
better just to turn them around before they reach the shipping lanes. Safer for everyone.
Or better still stop them when they attempt to board the boats.
Its pretty hard to drown standing on a beach.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 24,807
- Reaction score
- 5,356
- Country
What is not clear?
The ambiguity.
Send British troops over to the French beaches and blockade them?
D
Deleted member 323070
We need leaders going in the right direction.
If you had someone who was heading for the cliffs, and they really intended to jump off, and you had someone else heading for a discussion on the rent, the cost of food, the cost of energy, etc, and they had your interest at heart, which one would you follow?
The one heading for the cliff because they made you feel happy?
Or the one who you were aware would not achieve all their aims, but would be heading in the right direction?
- Joined
- 25 Apr 2023
- Messages
- 9,351
- Reaction score
- 6,418
- Country
Oh yeah
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 24,807
- Reaction score
- 5,356
- Country
There is nothing legally ambiguous about the sentence.
"The coastal State may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent."
who = the coastal state
what = the necessary steps
why = to prevent passage that is not innocent
do we have a definition of passage that is not innocent - yes Article 19.
do we understand what the necessary steps are - anything that achieves the goal.
It doesn't say reasonably necessary, or without force or intimidation. Nope its the "necessary steps".
Yes, it applies to all vessels including any British vessel trying to round up migrants and return them to France, which it can’t without agreement
May...? Or it may notThere is nothing legally ambiguous about the sentence.
"The coastal State may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent."
who = the coastal state
what = the necessary steps
why = to prevent passage that is not innocent
do we have a definition of passage that is not innocent - yes Article 19.
do we understand what the necessary steps are - anything that achieves the goal.
It doesn't say reasonably necessary, or without force or intimidation. Nope its the "necessary steps".
Innocent....? Deemed by whom? What is the threshold for innocence?
Neccesary steps to prevent passage....? 'Please go back, because we want you to...'
Très ambiguous with a dollop of grey.
Last edited:
Nowhere does it say France has to take them.
Assisted?
It’s a push back.
He's basically saying that if the people on board cant prove they are hobby sailors, they can ask them to go back to France.
FFS.
That’s most likely the Rio Grande.
Somebody already had that idea.
As a sailor I’m surprised you don’t know the difference between a sea and a river…..
Similar threads
