The British Politics Thread
-
Not off th hook. I mean, I don't blame you, I had to look it up.
But you know, I was expecting summat less than straightforward. This is obviously nothing to do with Syria. Come on now, really? This was about Iran. It's about increasing the pressure and making sure they fold. I'm just surprised that the UK as a.member of the EU still would not toe the EU line. We didn't want this. The deal was going well. The US hawks killed it. It's bad for international relations.
What it says is: strike a deal with the US, make concessions, and see you in four years when you'll need to make more.
Why strike a deal? We've already taught the world a terrible lesson, courtesy of Libya: abandon nuclear ambitions, join the table, play the game, and in four years we'll tell the mob exactly where you are so they can stick a machete up your arse and mutilate your body.
Lesson? Only a nuclear weapon is insurance against US hegemony.
Absolutely nuts.Don't wank. Zinc in your sperms -
Armitage_Shankburn wrote:
So you have to go through Spanish waters to reach Gibraltan waters.
Why did Spain not seize the tanker then if EU sanctions are the reason? -
Because Spain either did not think there were grounds to do so under EU law / domestic enforcement laws, or were not trusted to do it by the US, is my guess.Don't wank. Zinc in your sperms
-
By the way, this is a cool graphic that shows you why a country like Spain can simultaneously claim Gibraltar based on "territorial contiguity" while at the same time claiming Ceuta and Mellila are Spanish territories because, lol, because they were ceded by treaty just like Gibraltar was. Look at the boost Ceuta gives its territorial waters!Don't wank. Zinc in your sperms
-
Spain is too busy trying to cobble a government together to be bothered with tankers and shit. -
Hey, I'm not saying it was the right thing to do, just that they had justification to do it. If you're saying that the EU sanctions don't provide that justification I'll take your word for it. -
GooberTheHat wrote:Hey, I'm not saying it was the right thing to do, just that they had justification to do it. If you're saying that the EU sanctions don't provide that justification I'll take your word for it.
I'm not quite going that far, I'm saying it is straining the definition of economic resources to do that (plus you have to show it's going specifically to a proscribed destination ie that refinery, not just Syria as a whole). It's arguable, but not strongly arguable and absolutely not clear cut. It's arguable enough to stand up in court if your laws have been amended to make mere suspicion enough to seize, which is I guess what happened in Gib!
I couldn't put it more simply than that link.Don't wank. Zinc in your sperms -
But to be clear, I am saying there are no sanctions on selling oil to Syria. That is 100% not correcr. The justification used here i(by the Gib govt) is that the oil was destined for Banya whatever refinery, a listed proscribed institution, in which case the case must be, since oil is not "funds" , that oil is economic resources. Then you have to decide yourself, is the definition of that term sufficiently wide to capture oil? Given that oil is defined, why was it not simply included in the definition of economic resources?
It's pretty simple. Sanctions are one thing, a blockade is another. Like the man said, a blockade is an act of war under international law. So generally speaking, these kinds of instruments are written tightly.
But you could argue oil in a refinery could become jet fuel. You could argue it becomes soap which soldiers use to wash, etc etcDon't wank. Zinc in your sperms -
LivDiv wrote:That to me reads like oil would be an economic resource because everything is, but I'm shit at legalese so if I'm wrong happy to be told why.
There must also be a caveat that allows aid as all aid could in theory be used to obtain funds, goods or services.
Not sure if this got lost in the page turn but I'm still struggling to understand it. -
Is it an asset which is not funds? Maybe yes. Ok. Next. is it an asset which can be used to obtain funds, goods or services?
I don't know. That definition looks to me like it wants to capture money, or something like money. A bond. A credit note. A bill of lading. Bitcoin.
Is oil used to obtain money, services or goods? Well no, not intrinsically. It can be sold in exchange for money, or bartered for goods, right?
But it is not used to obtain them.
Not like a credit note. A bill of lading. Or any other kind of bearer instrument. Or bitcoin. Do you see where I'm going with this?
And then you have the fact that oil is in there, it's defined, and in some circumstances it is specifically mentioned in the sanctions. As the diplomat puts it, with my emphasis:
So lots of provisions refer specifically to the import and/or export of oil, or jet fuel, to Syria. So the ambiguity of economic resources is accentuated by the fact that other articles do refer to oil, and in the context of export to Syria, to jet fuel.Article 6 prohibits the import, purchase, or transport of oil originating in Syria. Article 7 prohibits the sale and export of jet fuel to Syria. Articles 8 and 9 prohibit the shipment of equipment, technology, and assistance to the Syrian oil industry. There is nothing is this regulation that specifically prohibits the delivery of oil to Syria.Don't wank. Zinc in your sperms -
Armitage_Shankburn wrote:
I don't know. That definition looks to me like it wants to capture money, or something like money. A bond. A credit note. A bill of lading. Bitcoin.
Is oil used to obtain money, services or goods? Well no, not intrinsically. It can be sold in exchange for money, or bartered for goods, right?
But it is not used to obtain them.
Not like a credit note. A bill of lading. Or any other kind of bearer instrument. Or bitcoin. Do you see where I'm going with this?
Yes and this is the link I was missing so cheers for that.
I was thinking more literally, as in you can absolutely use oil as an asset to gain funds, but not in the legal sense that it isn't a direct form of currency or capital.
In practice it is as good as a credit note, a bond, a stock etc but legally different as it isnt exclusively so. -
Well if I was a lawyer for the other side I'd say "probably not what they intended but arguable", if all the client wants is to hold a ship for 30 days just on suspicion so that the country can sweat a bit, it's good enough. I'll just stand in court and say oil is used to obtain money and assets all the time, that's what's it's for. This oil can be turned to jet fuel, which is prohibited. Bla bla bla. Plenty going the other way.Don't wank. Zinc in your sperms
-
About that free trade agreement with America:
Spent today on Capitol Hill. Overriding feeling/msg I got was - Dems more serious about no UK-US FTA if it creates problems for NI than ppl think (Pelosi/Irish caucus made their mark) + Congress wont approve a deal that cuts out agri. Even *if* the US Govt were somehow minded to
https://twitter.com/AllieRenison/status/1153432676516474883 -
iosGameCentre:T3hDaddy;
XBL: MistaTeaTime -
A bit of an airy piece talking about Johnson's approach to tech and engineering projects, but it's useful as a quick summary of some of the ideas he has attached himself to, and how they were received / perceived:
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-prime-minister-reaction-analysis"I didn't get it. BUUUUUUUUUUUT, you fucking do your thing." - Roujin
Ninty Code: SW-7904-0771-0996 -
In honour of Jo Swinson becoming leader of the Lib Dems I started to feel nostalgic and thought back to what a real soft-Left Lib Dem leader should look like - Charles Kennedy.
He got me to vote Lib Dem, and spoke out when they joined the Coalition. A truly kind man who saw New Labour for what it was. A man who voted for increased EU integration, a man who voted for improved welfare (not cuts!), a man who consistently voted for gay rights, for better disability benefits, against Tuition fees, who voted for proportional representation, and against Trident. Basically, gay rights aside...the opposite of Jo Swinson.
As a leader she may well be different - after all, she may have been towing the party line. But if you're someone considering voting for the Lib Dems purely because they're unequivocally pro-Remain, it'd be strange to say at the same time how much you care for those hit by austerity - austerity she helped enable.
tl;dr
Charles Kennedy was a don. Loved the dude. -
Seeing the Lib Dems join the Tories in giving May a standing ovation today should really stick in the throat of anyone who claims they're a changed party.
-
Holy tits Boris is officially in charge of UK."Plus he wore shorts like a total cunt" - Bob
-
Kazuo wrote:Seeing the Lib Dems join the Tories in giving May a standing ovation today should really stick in the throat of anyone who claims they're a changed party.
Seeing how aggressive they've been against the SNP shows the same thing, too. They're still cunts. -
The fucking delusion on show in this speech. ‘Pluck’, ‘nerve’, ‘spunk’.
It’s like a Dad’s Army episode. “We’ll show Fritz, by jove. You trifled with the wrong country, Adolf.” -
Show networks- @_badhairday_
- Xbox
- Bad Hair Day
- PSN
- Bad-Hair-Day
- Steam
- badhairday247
Send messageSpaceGazelle wrote:Holy tits Boris is officially in charge of UK.
Someone in our office not a fan either.
Actually compliments Larry's post better.
retroking1981: Fuck this place I'm off to the pub. -
SpaceGazelle wrote:Holy tits Boris is officially in charge of UK.
Fuck the cunt. His cabinet will be fucking awful.
And yes, fuck the Lib Dems. Any of them who defend the coalition are cunts. Kennedy was right that it was a disaster waiting to happen. -
Minnesänger wrote:In honour of Jo Swinson becoming leader of the Lib Dems I started to feel nostalgic and thought back to what a real soft-Left Lib Dem leader should look like - Charles Kennedy.
He got me to vote Lib Dem, and spoke out when they joined the Coalition. A truly kind man who saw New Labour for what it was. A man who voted for increased EU integration, a man who voted for improved welfare (not cuts!), a man who consistently voted for gay rights, for better disability benefits, against Tuition fees, who voted for proportional representation, and against Trident. Basically, gay rights aside...the opposite of Jo Swinson.
As a leader she may well be different - after all, she may have been towing the party line. But if you're someone considering voting for the Lib Dems purely because they're unequivocally pro-Remain, it'd be strange to say at the same time how much you care for those hit by austerity - austerity she helped enable.
tl;dr
Charles Kennedy was a don. Loved the dude.
Charles Kennedy was a great man.
Don't wank. Zinc in your sperms -
Diluted Dante wrote:His cabinet will be fucking awful.
Hard to imagine any women in it."Plus he wore shorts like a total cunt" - Bob -
Oh he'll have some I guess but whether he'll listen to them is up for debate."Plus he wore shorts like a total cunt" - Bob
-
He’s claimed he’ll have more than ever before, but seeing is believing.
-
LivDiv wrote:Priti Patel is being heavily rumoured as home sec.
Shes insane, so ideal.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Discussions2,718
- Games1,881
- Off topic837