Thanks Thanks:  13
Likes Likes:  42
Dislikes Dislikes:  3
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 57

Thread: EU Coastguard

  1. #26
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,431
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ODIN View Post
    If the Brexit causes the end to the Common Travel Area with the UK, I'd say there is a good chance that we will
    With all this registering of foreigners etc the CTA could be under threat.

    The last I heard though they wanted to retain it (we need it).

    The CTA can be retained IMHO with BREXIT (but expect more checks).

    If we were to join Schegen the CTA would have to go. Therefore I'd say that we would only join Schegen if they ended the CTA

  2. #27
    Major General
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Would that mean a real coastal CG being deployed here.

  3. #28
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    827
    Post Thanks / Like
    Don't know. Our Navy are filling a sole all-round function in that Department. We could request EU aid, under such a concept to beef up our Border Defence capabilities.
    As we know, we are not in Schengen because the Brits are not in it, the reason being to maintain the Common Travel Area. I do not believe the EU will like our proposal that nothing will change!!

  4. #29
    C/S
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    440
    Post Thanks / Like
    The real use of the CTA these days relates to the border with Northern Ireland. Increased checks will only be useful if either applied at the border, or between NI and the rest of the UK. The border has been, historically, unenforceable for movement.
    The only time any movement controls applied to Ireland (partially suspending the CTA in fact if not declaration) was during WW2 and until ,IIRC, about 1950. It had the effect of Britain treating travellers from NI as if they were coming from the south. Unionists were not happy.
    I'm not sure that technology would really alter that effect if the CTA were to end. There might be a return to as "hard" a border as they can make it, but if the concern is immigration then I believe NI will still have to be isolated from Britain. It is a big can of worms.

  5. #30
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    827
    Post Thanks / Like

    CTA and Border Security.

    Quote Originally Posted by expat01 View Post
    The real use of the CTA these days relates to the border with Northern Ireland. Increased checks will only be useful if either applied at the border, or between NI and the rest of the UK. The border has been, historically, unenforceable for movement.
    The only time any movement controls applied to Ireland (partially suspending the CTA in fact if not declaration) was during WW2 and until ,IIRC, about 1950. It had the effect of Britain treating travellers from NI as if they were coming from the south. Unionists were not happy.
    I'm not sure that technology would really alter that effect if the CTA were to end. There might be a return to as "hard" a border as they can make it, but if the concern is immigration then I believe NI will still have to be isolated from Britain. It is a big can of worms.
    Since retirement I have traveled a lot into Britain and through Britain to USA etc. Because of chaos caused by the prophets followers the depth and degree of checks has grown and evolved into tightly controlled borders and well scrutinised documentation. I think travel will continue with current restrictions but the major problem will be trade and tariffs, currency restrictions, banking, and some goods and services.
    The other conundrum is , will THE IRELAND ACT 1949, continue as before, which granted historic rights, and treated Irish people in the UK, on an equal footing with UK citizens in most crucial areas. They of course have reciprocal rights here.

  6. #31
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Cent Med
    Posts
    141
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Since retirement I have traveled a lot into Britain and through Britain to USA etc. Because of chaos caused by the prophets followers the depth and degree of checks has grown and evolved into tightly controlled borders and well scrutinised documentation. I think travel will continue with current restrictions but the major problem will be trade and tariffs, currency restrictions, banking, and some goods and services.
    The other conundrum is , will THE IRELAND ACT 1949, continue as before, which granted historic rights, and treated Irish people in the UK, on an equal footing with UK citizens in most crucial areas. They of course have reciprocal rights here.
    We've been assured that pre-EU (that's 2004 for us) bilateral arrangements (related to health care, education, working, etc) will remain in force. Obviously, we hold certain rights as members of the Commonwealth. But I think that it will be recognised that historic rights still have utility especially in the case of such close neighbours.

  7. Thanks sofa thanked for this post
  8. #32
    C/S
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    440
    Post Thanks / Like
    The Ireland Act is interesting. Prior to it, the UK did not recognise the Republic as an independent country, Irish citizenship had no legal standing in the UK. That's why they could treat NI and the former free state as similar entities for travel. Mind you,, even during the troubles people could be deported to NI from the rest of the UK. Both that fact and brexit raise interesting questions re exactly where NI fits in the UK.
    Interesting times.
    Last edited by expat01; 11th December 2016 at 19:22.

  9. Likes DeV liked this post
  10. #33
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    827
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by expat01 View Post
    The Ireland Act is interesting. Prior to it, the UK did not recognise the Republic as an independent country, Irish citizenship had no legal standing in the UK. That's why they could treat NI and the former free state as similar entities for travel. Mind you,, even during the troubles people could be deported to NI from the rest of the UK. Both that fact and brexit raise interesting questions re exactly where NI fits in the UK.
    Interesting times.
    Collaterally with THE IRELAND ACT we now have EU 2016/1624 Regulation on EU Border and Coast Guard Agency. It's aspiration includes giving technical and operational assistance to beef up individual Member States ability to control stated Border infringements such as trafficking and migrant smuggling . This, to me has potential to be divisive and will require certain Members to provide Port , Detention, Processing, Judicial, and Punishment facilities. Does technical support include Member States intervening in any maritime area. It would be more palatable for the EU to provide assistance to smaller Navies to build specific ship types such as enhanced OPV's.

  11. #34
    C/S EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    332
    Post Thanks / Like
    We have to be clear, the days of EU handouts for the Naval Service are in the past. With the rest of the EU raising their defence budget to 2%, we can not expect a handout when our budget is by 0.4%!

    The P80/90 design we have is a very effective low cost vessel which could be a standard for the EU Coast guard. We need to decided EU or CTA, which is the more important for the future of the nation. Prehaps this is a chance to finally become stronger nation.

    As for the so called assurances, do they mean anything? The Ukranian had a treaty with USA, UK, France and Russia to protect its borders in exchange for giving up it Atomium weapons, did not stop an invasion by one of the signatories!
    Last edited by EUFighter; 12th December 2016 at 12:49.

  12. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, Tempest liked this post
  13. #35
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,431
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Collaterally with THE IRELAND ACT we now have EU 2016/1624 Regulation on EU Border and Coast Guard Agency. It's aspiration includes giving technical and operational assistance to beef up individual Member States ability to control stated Border infringements such as trafficking and migrant smuggling . This, to me has potential to be divisive and will require certain Members to provide Port , Detention, Processing, Judicial, and Punishment facilities. Does technical support include Member States intervening in any maritime area. It would be more palatable for the EU to provide assistance to smaller Navies to build specific ship types such as enhanced OPV's.
    As I understand it this only applies to the Schegen area

  14. #36
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    827
    Post Thanks / Like

    Schengen area

    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    As I understand it this only applies to the Schegen area
    You are right. Around paragraph 61 of EU 2016/1624. Ireland is specifically excluded from the provisions of this Treaty regulation, as are our neighbours in para 60. Sorry for the hot air.

  15. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  16. #37
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,431
    Post Thanks / Like
    I wouldn't say hot air. It's still relevant what our neighbours are doing

  17. #38
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    300
    Post Thanks / Like
    There are precedents for a multinational entity operating a unit like that. NATO AWACS springs to mind

  18. #39
    C/S
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    440
    Post Thanks / Like
    I don't see the proposed EU coastguard getting into the water as anything other than a watery battlegroup. Sorry, immigration group. The EU as an entity would need to acquire the capacity to raise and maintain an armed force. Physical space, hacked out of the sovereign territory of a state or states is needed to base its vessels. That's a whole federal move beyond where anyone is ready to go.
    Edit: I see I'm wrong, the proposed craft would be flagged to a member state but at the disposal of the renamed frontex. That sounds legally strange, a French flagged vessel on permanent immediate call to the EU, what does it do when not required?
    Specifically relates to Schengen states so not Ireland's concern for the moment.
    Last edited by expat01; 15th December 2016 at 15:19.

  19. #40
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,431
    Post Thanks / Like
    The idea being the EU pays for it and allows say Greece to use it

  20. #41
    C/S Galloglass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    388
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    The idea being the EU pays for it and allows say Greece to use it
    Surely Greece as a NATO member has enough Naval assets to patrol her own waters.....as does Turkey another NATO member (yet between them they seem unable to police a few ribs)...........not very impressive despite the money spent supporting the arms industry, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5VV3BEcCQQ

  21. #42
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    831
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Galloglass View Post
    Surely Greece as a NATO member has enough Naval assets to patrol her own waters.....as does Turkey another NATO member (yet between them they seem unable to police a few ribs)...........not very impressive despite the money spent supporting the arms industry, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5VV3BEcCQQ
    What?
    I find it fairly understandable that their "high end" frigates are being used for other duties (for Greece watching Turkey), while Turkey is increasingly looking at the Russian deployment's in the Black Sea. Also for Turkey they aren't overly concerned about the movement (considering the numbers they are currently supporting it's not surprising that they aren't eager to stop the movement), meanwhile as you can see from their ship lists they don't have large numbers of "OPV" class hulls.

  22. #43
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Cent Med
    Posts
    141
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by expat01 View Post
    I don't see the proposed EU coastguard getting into the water as anything other than a watery battlegroup. Sorry, immigration group. The EU as an entity would need to acquire the capacity to raise and maintain an armed force. Physical space, hacked out of the sovereign territory of a state or states is needed to base its vessels. That's a whole federal move beyond where anyone is ready to go.
    Edit: I see I'm wrong, the proposed craft would be flagged to a member state but at the disposal of the renamed frontex. That sounds legally strange, a French flagged vessel on permanent immediate call to the EU, what does it do when not required?
    Specifically relates to Schengen states so not Ireland's concern for the moment.
    One fatal flaw in all the reasoning of the Commission. For a vessel to be considered as a State vessel, and thus enjoy all the enforcement rights provided for under UNCLOS, it has to be a vessel owned by or operated on behalf of that State. FRONTEX (or whatever fancy name it's now called) is not a State and thus cannot make use of those rights. Just sticking the flag of a Member State on it, as is the case for countless merchant vessels doesn't solve that particular problem.

    The other side of the coin is the fact that, even should a Member State accept to operate the vessel and thus exercise it's State rights, at least some of those rights may only be exercised in protection of the operating State itself and not on behalf of a supranational regional body. Even worse, any liability incurred by the actions of the vessel, such as financial losses caused by a boarding that resulted in the negative, would fall squarely in the lap of the operating State.

    Obviously, mere legal niceties such as these have been conveniently glossed over by the Eurocrats but a minimum of thought quickly reveals problems.

  23. #44
    C/S Galloglass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    388
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    What?
    I find it fairly understandable that their "high end" frigates are being used for other duties (for Greece watching Turkey), while Turkey is increasingly looking at the Russian deployment's in the Black Sea. Also for Turkey they aren't overly concerned about the movement (considering the numbers they are currently supporting it's not surprising that they aren't eager to stop the movement), meanwhile as you can see from their ship lists they don't have large numbers of "OPV" class hulls.
    Well perhaps we should donate LE Aisling to them....
    Greece watching Turkey? These two are NATO allies on the "frontline" of defending "western" values from rampaging Russia. The mind boggles.

  24. #45
    Major General
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Might not the EU indemnify Member unit involved?

  25. #46
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    831
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Galloglass View Post
    Well perhaps we should donate LE Aisling to them....
    Greece watching Turkey? These two are NATO allies on the "frontline" of defending "western" values from rampaging Russia. The mind boggles.
    Why? They could easily build OPV's, however they are spending their defence budgets on warships more than Patrol ships, since they are both NATO members that most likely the best spend.
    You are aware of the history between them right? They've had air intercepts and naval clashes before and still have a "difficult" working relationship. I doubt they are the first NATO members that have worked together even with disputes between them.

  26. #47
    C/S Galloglass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    388
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yes I know their histories and NATOs......The principal reason for the existence of NATO is the purchase of armaments.

  27. #48
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    831
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Galloglass View Post
    Yes I know their histories and NATOs......The principal reason for the existence of NATO is the purchase of armaments.
    I was going to give an answer but I feel it's going off topic, so let's just say I think you are "misguided".

  28. #49
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    moving rapidly away.......
    Posts
    2,533
    Post Thanks / Like
    Let's stay on topic please, which incidentally has nothing to do with anyone trying to drag NATO through the mud...
    "We will hold out until our last bullet is spent. Could do with some whiskey"
    Radio transmission, siege of Jadotville DR Congo. September 1961.
    Illegitimi non carborundum

  29. #50
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    300
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    We have to be clear, the days of EU handouts for the Naval Service are in the past. With the rest of the EU raising their defence budget to 2%, we can not expect a handout when our budget is by 0.4%!

    The P80/90 design we have is a very effective low cost vessel which could be a standard for the EU Coast guard. !
    I'd do an analysis and see what can be learned from the Med mission. Gut feeling I'd say probably more accommodation and a bigger hospital? Otherwise it really seems to be an excellent design.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •