Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

EU Coastguard

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    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.

    Comment


    • #32
      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; 11 December 2016, 20:22.

      Comment


      • #33
        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.

        Comment


        • #34
          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; 12 December 2016, 13:49.

          Comment


          • #35
            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

            Comment


            • #36
              Schengen area

              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.

              Comment


              • #37
                I wouldn't say hot air. It's still relevant what our neighbours are doing

                Comment


                • #38
                  There are precedents for a multinational entity operating a unit like that. NATO AWACS springs to mind

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    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; 15 December 2016, 16:19.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      The idea being the EU pays for it and allows say Greece to use it

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        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

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              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.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Might not the EU indemnify Member unit involved?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X