Will Britain ever just piss off and get on with Brexit? -mod warning in OP (21/12)

FrancieBrady

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Being a warship does not mean anything you do is an "act of war"!

That is what the poster 'inferred' about the incident, not me.

Dytalus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Alright lads, we'll go with Rob's inference that our ship acting as a 'coastal defence' vessel was actually a 'warship', engaging in an act of war.

Rock on there. :rolleyes:

See though, that is where we agree.

Warships can be used defensively to police territorial waters - and indeed are by numerous navies around the world for simple coastal patrol actions. It's only when it comes to the truly massive nations that the coast guard starts wielding armed craft (the US, for example). The Australian Navy uses armed patrol boats for border protection and fishery policing (or did...my understanding is they had some problems with poisoning the crew).

Arresting those who intrude on our territorial waters is within the purview of our military. It doesn't make it an act of war. Rob's inference was grossly ignorant of the facts and horribly unfair to our armed forces and the right to police our waters.

That also doesn't make you right. Our ships would be used if we went to war (given our neutrality, a formal declaration of war would only ever be against us rather than one we make against another). They are intended to be used as such should the need arise. They are warships used defensively - same as the Japanese navy (who, likewise, cannot be used offensively - only defensively and for peacekeeping efforts).

davedanon

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Who cares?

Speaks volumes

FrancieBrady

J Mysterio wrote: »

Aegir - do you have anything tonsay about Brexit?

In months of reading your posts, it ammounts to 'yeah? Well what about Ireland? Ireland is bad'.

It's incessant at this stage tbh.

Imreoir2

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is what the poster 'inferred' about the incident, not me.

Ok, so this is the posters mistake then. They were correct in saying that our naval vessal is a warship, not that it being a warship makes its intervention in Dundalk an act or war.

FrancieBrady

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Ok, so this is the posters mistake then. They were correct in saying that our naval vessal is a warship, not that it being a warship makes its intervention in Dundalk an act or war.

The intended use is the important thing here when it comes to names. That is what Rob and Aegir are keen to ignore to make implications to suit their 'Ireland is bad' or 'look over there' agenda's.

Noticed by others, not just me.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The intended use is the important thing here when it comes to names. That is what Rob and Aegir are keen to ignore to make implications to suit their 'Ireland is bad' or 'look over there' agenda's.

Noticed by others, not just me.

merely correcting yet another of your mistakes.

You made two very big ones, firstly that Ireland doesn't have warships, the second that it only has coastal patrol vessels.

It wasn't anything like a "Look over there" type statement, it was more of a "Actually, the Irish naval service is far better equipped and capable than you give them credit for".

there is no need to be so paranoid.

FrancieBrady

Aegir wrote: »

merely correcting yet another of your mistakes.

You made two very big ones, firstly that Ireland doesn't have warships, the second that it only has coastal patrol vessels.

It wasn't anything like a "Look over there" type statement, it was more of a "Actually, the Irish naval service is far better equipped and capable than you give them credit for".

there is no need to be so paranoid.

The point is Aegir that it was not in use as a 'warship' in the incident referred to by Rob.
Coastal defence or Offshore patrol was what that incident was about.

What he should have said was:

'Does that advice apply when you're sending an warship offshore patrol vessel to Dundalk bay to threaten arrest two small fishing boats?'

But that wouldn't have suited the patently obvious agenda, would it?

Dytalus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The point is Aegir that it was not in use as a 'warship' in the incident referred to by Rob.
Coastal defence or Offshore patrol was what that incident was about.

What he should have said was:

'Does that advice apply when you're sending an warship offshore patrol vessel to Dundalk bay to threaten arrest two small fishing boats?'

But that wouldn't have suited the patently obvious agenda, would it?

Indeed (although I personally am fine calling it a warship, I take greater issue with the 'threaten' phrase). Technically correct it may be, in the context of the rest of the sentence it comes across as implying belligerence which wasn't present. The ship was policing our waters - nothing belligerent about that at all.

It's the verb that causes the problem, not the noun as such. Warships arrest intruders all the time, all over the world. Combined with the word "threaten" it's no longer just fairly policing our waters - it's bullying someone. It's being aggressive. Neither of which were true.

J Mysterio

"The Naval Service is the State's principal seagoing agency with a general responsibility to meet contingent and actual maritime defence requirements. It is tasked with a variety of defence and other roles."

"The fleet comprises one Helicopter Patrol Vessel (HPV), three Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPV), two Large Patrol Vessel (LPV) and two Coastal Patrol Vessels (CPV). Each vessel is equipped with state of the art machinery, weapons, communication’s and navigation systems."

https://www.military.ie/en/who-we-are/naval-service/the-fleet/

'Warship' is a deliberate misrepresentation of what these ships are and what they are about.
This is whataboutery and a waste of all our time.

FrancieBrady

Dytalus wrote: »

Indeed (although I personally am fine calling it a warship, I take greater issue with the 'threaten' phrase). .

I don't see a reason to call them other than what we define them as ourselves - OPV's - Offshore Patrol Vessels.

It avoids the confusion Rob seems to be having!

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The point is Aegir that it was not in use as a 'warship' in the incident referred to by Rob.
Coastal defence or Offshore patrol was what that incident was about.

What he should have said was:

'Does that advice apply when you're sending an warship offshore patrol vessel to Dundalk bay to threaten arrest two small fishing boats?'

But that wouldn't have suited the patently obvious agenda, would it?

you could have merely pointed out that Naval Ships boarding and arresting fishing vessels is not uncommon. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/03/wales-fisherman-caught-fishing-illegally

The Royal Navy has a fisheries protection squadron, all River Class OPVs.

They are all lightly armed (less so than the Beckitt Class OPVs) but they are still warships.

J Mysterio

J Mysterio wrote: »

"The Naval Service is the State's principal seagoing agency with a general responsibility to meet contingent and actual maritime defence requirements. It is tasked with a variety of defence and other roles."

"The fleet comprises one Helicopter Patrol Vessel (HPV), three Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPV), two Large Patrol Vessel (LPV) and two Coastal Patrol Vessels (CPV). Each vessel is equipped with state of the art machinery, weapons, communication’s and navigation systems."

https://www.military.ie/en/who-we-are/naval-service/the-fleet/

'Warship' is a deliberate misrepresentation of what these ships are and what they are about.
This is whataboutery and a waste of all our time.

oh sweet jesus.

links to the military website, quotes that the ships have state of the art wepaons but claims that they aren't warships:rolleyes:

FrancieBrady

Aegir wrote: »

you could have merely pointed out

Rob could have 'merely' informed himself and stopped the 'look over there' bollixology maybe?

J Mysterio

Aegir wrote: »

oh sweet jesus.

links to the military website, quotes that the ships have state of the art wepaons but claims that they aren't warships:rolleyes:

Wouldn't be much use as patrol ships if they didn't have weapons. Ireland doesn't go to war very often, so we don't look need or require 'warships'.

J Mysterio

J Mysterio wrote: »

Wouldn't be much use as patrol ships if they didn't have weapons. Ireland doesn't go to war very often, so we don't look need or require 'warships'.

Ok, fine.

Nip over to the military forum and tell the lads there that they aren’t really soldiers, because they’ve never been to war.

FrancieBrady

Aegir wrote: »

Ok, fine.

Nip over to the military forum and tell the lads there that they aren’t really soldiers, because they’ve never been to war.

Poster will now deflect to quoting something that was never actually said. :rolleyes:

J Mysterio

Aegir wrote: »

Ok, fine.

Nip over to the military forum and tell the lads there that they aren’t really soldiers, because they’ve never been to war.

That doesn't make any sense. More whataboutery.

I respect the soldiers we have, and they are well trained. Of course, they mostly engage in peacekeeping on a multilateral basis. I'm proud of that too.

Have you got any opinions about Brexit?

Bannasidhe

Aegir wrote: »

so, whatever happened, there were no guarantees that an independent Scotland (or even an independent England) would automatically be members of the EU?

The only way to secure this (at the time), was by voting no to Scottish independence?

The Anti Scottish Independence campaign certainly claimed that Scotland would not be able to remain in the EU on the grounds that it was UKGB who had joined. They failed to mention that by the same logic Eng + Wales (as they would not technically still be UKGB) would also be out.

I don't recall any comment either way by the EU but it is possible I missed it.



It is ironic that had Scotland voted for independence than it is possible that England would have gotten it's Brexit - or ENWexit to be precise.

Even more ironic would have been EngWal arguing with Scotland that they wanted to retain the UKGB EU membership in the event of a divorce.

Imreoir2

J Mysterio wrote: »

'Warship' is a deliberate misrepresentation of what these ships are and what they are about.
This is whataboutery and a waste of all our time.

Sorry, but this is nonsence. Any armed ship opperated by any navy in the world is considered to be a warship. A patrol ship is just a type of warship, like a frigate or destroyer.

Can you guys please grow up and shut the fuk up about definitions of boats. It's embarrassing.

Bannasidhe

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Who cares?

People who believe facts are important.
So not you apparently.

FrancieBrady

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Sorry, but this is nonsence. Any armed ship opperated by any navy in the world is considered to be a warship. A patrol ship is just a type of warship, like a frigate or destroyer.

Last word on this: It/they are not 'warships' in the sense that Rob used the word and the context of 'threat' that he set it in.

As it was the comment that was being responded to, the generic title of these type of ships is not important.

McMurphy

Anyone else see the headlines on the Express?

EU agrees to Northern Ireland-only backstop - a deal they pedalled from the very start..

THE European Union is ready to offer Boris Johnson the Northern Ireland-only backstop in a desperate bid to strike a Brexit deal.

David Sassoli, the European Parliament’s president, said the bloc was ready to make the offer if the Prime Minister can secure the support of MPs. He fumed that British negotiators have failed to put forward any new proposals to prevent customs checks on the Irish border. The measure would see Northern Ireland kept in the EU’s customs union and parts of the single market

The British people don't stand a chance when their media spins any auld sh1te at them.

Jesus Christ.

Imreoir2

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Last word on this: It/they are not 'warships' in the sense that Rob used the word and the context of 'threat' that he set it in.

As it was the comment that was being responded to, the generic title of these type of ships is not important.

They are warships, the implication that Rob tried to take from this was not valid.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The Anti Scottish Independence campaign certainly claimed that Scotland would not be able to remain in the EU on the grounds that it was UKGB who had joined. They failed to mention that by the same logic Eng + Wales (as they would not technically still be UKGB) would also be out.

I don't recall any comment either way by the EU but it is possible I missed it.

do you mean the UK of GB&NI? you keep leaving Northern ireland out of this.

The Spanish PM made some comments. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-25132026

Manuel Barroso also commented https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scottish-independence-eu-bid-extremely-difficult-says-jose-manuel-barroso-9131925.html

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It is ironic that had Scotland voted for independence than it is possible that England would have gotten it's Brexit - or ENWexit to be precise.

Even more ironic would have been EngWal arguing with Scotland that they wanted to retain the UKGB EU membership in the event of a divorce.

England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

threeball

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Anyone else see the headlines on the Express?

EU agrees to Northern Ireland-only backstop - a deal they pedalled from the very start..




The British people don't stand a chance when their media spins any auld sh1te at them.

Jesus Christ.

Its the Express, a less successful daily mail. People will read whatever suits the agenda they have. They want newspapers that confirm their beliefs not ones that challenge them.

Kidchameleon

threeball wrote: »

Its the Express, a less successful daily mail. People will read whatever suits the agenda they have. They want newspapers that confirm their beliefs not ones that challenge them.

Indeed, the BBC et al are plastered with news about yellow hammer and the Scottish legal case. Both of which are complete BS when one takes a little time to do some research. Yellow hammer is a false flag created as a contingency by the May government in case someone with balls like Boris got into office. Its funny how it got "leaked" after she left. I have seen most of it debunked and as for the parts that have not been debunked, well nobody, not even Boris, Moggy or Farage have denied that there may be bumps on the road. I mean come on, we are not going to see riots on the street, deaths, medicine, fuel or food shortages. We are not going to massive backlogs at ports. Its just NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!! And of course this Scottish legal challenge will be thrown out of the supreme court straight away. The prorogation is perfectly legal.

Bannasidhe

Aegir wrote: »

do you mean the UK of GB&NI? you keep leaving Northern ireland out of this.

The Spanish PM made some comments. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-25132026

Manuel Barroso also commented https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scottish-independence-eu-bid-extremely-difficult-says-jose-manuel-barroso-9131925.html





England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Sweetest divine. It's not rocket science.

I am specifically talking about the Great Britain part - NI is an adjunct to that which is why it is not relevant.

It is not the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland because in 17fecking07 Great Britain was created when the English parliament (which administrated Wales as well) united with the Scottish parliament to create the parliament of 'Great Britain'. A new State with a new name.

In 1801 the Irish parliament voted to join the union which created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

In 1922 26 counties of Ireland left the union which created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Should NI leave it would be the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

Should Scotland leave then the union which created 'Great Britain' is over so technically what you are left with is England (plus Wales) and NI - which do not comprise Great Britain because it was the union of Scotland and England (plus Wales) into a new state which created GB in the first place.

Ireland is not relevant because Ireland was never part of Great Britain. It was part of the 'United Kingdom'.

You seem to have missed my point that since England +Wales + NI are not technically 'UKGB' then the argument could be made that they would also have had to leave the EU on the grounds that it was UKGB who were members - not England + Wales + NI.

Odhinn

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Indeed, the BBC et al are plastered with news about yellow hammer and the Scottish legal case. Both of which are complete BS when one takes a little time to do some research. Yellow hammer is a false flag created as a contingency by the May government in case someone with balls like Boris got into office. Its funny how it got "leaked" after she left. I have seen most of it debunked and as for the parts that have not been debunked, well nobody, not even Boris, Moggy or Farage have denied that there may be bumps on the road. I mean come on, we are not going to see riots on the street, deaths, medicine, fuel or food shortages. We are not going to massive backlogs at ports. Its just NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!! And of course this Scottish legal challenge will be thrown out of the supreme court straight away. The prorogation is perfectly legal.

...but if they leave - particularily in the early period - there's bound to be delays with regards to paperwork and so on. Shortages and backlogs because of this are possible and probable.