Ssssssshhhhhh, don't mention Reform.

[Notch7]

do we have a definition of passage that is not innocent - yes Article 19.

and that definition includes

UNCLOS A19 g

"the unloading of any person contrary to the customs, immigration and regulations of the coastal state"


which means British vessels cant enter French territorial waters with the intent of picking up migrants by any means and drop them in France

 

[blup]

that would probably mean another 5 years of Labour.

That would be a hilarious outcome

 

[motorbiking]

pathetic

nowhere does it say France has to accept them

apart from points 4, 5 and 6. Your denial is quite amusing. Now is the time to accept you didn't know and are wrong.
If it's not the contracting state obligation to take them, how do they deliver on point 5 and 6? Phone a friend?

you are

Reform party is....which you support

I've said the strategy needs tweaking. I've suggested how.

Nonsense pathetic analogy. I dont deliberately endanger lives when buying building materials. Nor am I trying to prevent other builders (that may or may not be shoplifters) from doing so.

Your scenarios ard muddled and unworkable. Probably why none of what you say has been implemented.

Deterrent value 0/10.

and neither will a push back.

you cant push a boat back if its in distress

if you push a boat back and put it in distress you have a duty to rescue

given that the boats are non sea going inflatables that are way overloaded with people, it doesnt take at genius to work out that those boats are highly likely to not cope with being pushed back

a boat in distress can be rescued under SOLAS reg 33.
A good reason for the French to stop them to save lives, but they don't.

and that definition includes

UNCLOS A19 g

"the unloading of any person contrary to the customs, immigration and regulations of the coastal state"


which means British vessels cant enter French territorial waters with the intent of picking up migrants by any means and drop them in France

SARs conventions say they are exempt. when rescuing seafarers in distress.

all arguments already covered. You are going in circles and your argument is dead.

 

[motorbiking]

Nonsense pathetic analogy. I dont deliberately endanger lives when buying building materials. Nor am I trying to prevent other builders (that may or may not be shoplifters) from doing so.

Your scenarios ard muddled and unworkable. Probably why none of what you say has been implemented.

Deterrent value 0/10.

I try to explain things in a way you might understand. It's not easy.

 

[noseall]

argument is dead.

Correct.
Your proposals and scenarios ard a confused jumble of unworkable nonsense. None of it serves as a deterrent. No one takes you seriously with your disjointed ramblings.

 

[Notch7]

apart from points 4, 5 and 6. Your denial is quite amusing. Now is the time to accept you didn't know and are wrong.
If it's not the contracting state obligation to take them, how do they deliver on point 5 and 6? Phone a friend?

please show me the exact words where it states France (coastal state) must accept them

I've said the strategy needs tweaking. I've suggested how

their policy is towing small boats back to France

they cant do that

there are no scenarios where they can do that see UNCLOS 19

 

[Notch7]

a boat in distress can be rescued under SOLAS reg 33

thank you for finally admitting pushbacks are not legal

 

[Notch7]

SARs conventions say they are exempt. when rescuing seafarers in distress.

they do not

Ive asked you numerous times to provide a quote that shows that...........you have not done so because you cant

 

[Notch7]

You are going in circles and your argument is dead.

you have gone round in circles so many times you cant remember what your last lie was

 

[motorbiking]

please show me the exact words where it states France (coastal state) must accept them


their policy is towing small boats back to France

they cant do that

there are no scenarios where they can do that see UNCLOS 19

I have done and I've explained the meaning. You are pretending I haven't because its your last attempt to avoid being wrong.

thank you for finally admitting pushbacks are not legal

dishonest post.

they do not

Ive asked you numerous times to provide a quote that shows that...........you have not done so because you cant

Article 98 UNCLOS, Reg 33 SOLAS and the SARs convention sec 2. You are pretending the words don't mean what they say. They have an obligation to disembark the people rescued to a safe space. They are in their territory and it is their responsibility. If they were in ours, it would be ours.

 

[motorbiking]

seems Reform, have got Labour on the run.

Politics latest: UK played 'key role' in Gaza peace deal but won't put troops on ground, minister says

The UK played a key role behind the scenes of the Gaza peace plan, but has no plans to put British troops on the ground, Bridget Phillipson told Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips

news.sky.com

Why is he doing these political campaigns? Its a bit early.

 

[Notch7]

Article 98 UNCLOS, Reg 33 SOLAS and the SARs convention sec 2. You are pretending the words don't mean what they say. They have an obligation to disembark the people rescued to a safe space. They are in their territory and it is their responsibility. If they were in ours, it would be ours.

you said and keep repeating this:

Article 18, 24 and 98, UNCLOS plus SOLAS reg 33. says they must accept them
it does not say "they must accept them"

1) you say: "They have an obligation to disembark the people rescued to a safe space." that does not mean they have to accept them in France

2) you say: "They are in their territory and it is their responsibility." -that does not mean they have to accept them in France



If you want to claim ""they must accept them", then please provide the quote

 

[blup]

seems Reform, have got Labour on the run.

Politics latest: UK played 'key role' in Gaza peace deal but won't put troops on ground, minister says

The UK played a key role behind the scenes of the Gaza peace plan, but has no plans to put British troops on the ground, Bridget Phillipson told Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips

news.sky.com

Why is he doing these political campaigns? Its a bit early.

Far rage has announced some fairly left wing policies/soundbites which Kieth must respond to, tne only thimg missing is the hi vis jacket. Labor should be shifting to tne left before its too late

 

[motorbiking]

1) you say: "They have an obligation to disembark the people rescued to a safe space." that does not mean they have to accept them in France

2) you say: "They are in their territory and it is their responsibility." -that does not mean they have to accept them in France



If you want to claim ""they must accept them", then please provide the quote

Do you accept 1 and 2? yes or no?

 

[motorbiking]

Far rage has announced some fairly left wing policies/soundbites which Kieth must respond to, tne only thimg missing is the hi vis jacket. Labor should be shifting to tne left before its too late

shifting to the left? Like Corbyn did?