Ssssssshhhhhh, don't mention Reform.

[motorbiking]

It cannot do that legally.
You are basing your arguments on your false premises.

It can see Article 25.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

you seem to be struggling with Article 19 - see paragraph 2, clause (g)

View attachment 382203

Read the first sentence "Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State.”
Unloading refugees who intend to apply for asylum is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State

 

[Deleted member 323070]

It can see Article 25.

You're just being silly going round in circles. Dick Turpin has taught you well.

Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State.”
and
It would seem that passage is to be presumed innocent until shown otherwise
and
A right of passage in respect of private persons, civil officials and goods in general, and not be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal States are considered to be innocent.

The Right of Innocent Passage in the UN Convention

The term Innocent Passage is defined under international law referring to a ship or aircraft’s right to enter and pass through another’s territory.

www.lawteacher.net

 

[motorbiking]

Read the first sentence "Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State.”
Unloading refugees who intend to apply for asylum is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State

this is just your belief. There is no concept of "intending to apply for asylum". They are upon a vessel operated by people traffickers. Clause (g) fits perfectly.

 

[motorbiking]

You're just being silly going round in circles. Dick Turpin has taught you well.

we are going around in circles because you wont accept being wrong... again.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

this is just your belief. There is no concept of "intending to apply for asylum".

if their passage is innocent, that is sufficient. Their intention is irrelevant.

They are upon a vessel operated by people traffickers. Clause (g) fits perfectly.

The traffickers will not be in the boat.
Therefore the circumstances of how the refugees acquired the boat, or were given passage, or the condition of the boat, is irrelevant.
I have presented numerous times that the status or circumstances of those in distress is irrelevant.

 

[noseall]

They can't legally.

Correct, unless France agrees...

"...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..."

 

[Deleted member 323070]

we are going around in circles because you wont accept being wrong... again.

It is not my belief, it is the explanation given by nautical experts.
I have quoted several. You just keep misinterpreting the regulations.

 

[Highway Man]

oh look, lightbulb changing Nan has shown up

How sweet

Ps are you manoeuvres with the TA this weekend

Oh this is all bringing me out in a rash now. I can’t do with your demeaning behavior. You argue with me over military matters and you argue with mbk over legal and sailing matters. It’s all too much. I am off to put some cream on.

 

[Notch7]

it doesn't need to, it prevents entry to UK territorial waters.

does your story ever stop changing

So this is the latest iteration of your claim:

now you are saying a British vessel would stay in British waters and poke the migrant boat with a long pole to keep them in French water

wot a load of bolox

 

[Highway Man]

does your story ever stop changing

So this is the latest iteration of your claim:

now you are saying a British vessel would stay in British waters and poke the migrant boat with a long pole to keep them in French water

wot a load of bolox

OMG

 

[MNW67]

now you are saying a British vessel would stay in British waters and poke the migrant boat with a long pole to keep them in French water

TBF, I thought that had been the contention all along. Shooting the boats to puncture them was a new development!

 

[noseall]

You argue with me over military matters and you argue with mbk over legal and sailing matters.

I'm glad you made the connection....

Billy bullshít birds of a feather.

 

[Notch7]

TBF, I thought that had been the contention all along. Shooting the boats to puncture them was a new development!

MBK has been making a whole load of different claims, this is just the latest

 

[Notch7]

I'm glad you made the connection....

View attachment 382208

Billy bullshít birds of a feather.

oh dear