On Thu, 10 Jan 2008, www.waspies.net wrote:

I think you'll find that Starbucks are opening an outlet on Rockall in
the next few weeks, as it's the only place in the country that doesn't
have one yet!

Impossible - you must be mistaken. They must be opening two!

tom

as it is not recognised as habitable land despite the efforts of an ex-SAS
man who camped on the rock for a few weeks.

You're right about it not being habitable, and despite the SAS camping
trip, i don't think anybody claims it is, even the UK. As an
uninhabitable rock, it has no effect on the allocation of exclusive
economic zones or continental shelf rights, and so nobody really cares
who actually owns it. Britain annexed because of the rocket testing
thing. Furthermore, AIUI, Rockall just falls within the UK's EEZ, and
so it gets too look after it in terms of mining, ecological protection,
etc.

--
Hubo un vez, un gran rev que tenia muchas tierra un Castillo y tambien
un amor.

On Jan 8, 12:26*pm, James Farrar wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 08:11:22 +0000, Stimpy
wrote:

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 02:08:49 +0000, James Farrar wrote

Another variation on UKIP ? Apparently some bloke called Gary Bushell
is their candidate for the Mayoralty of Greater London :-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Democrats
which seems to mention desires on the territory of a neighbouring
country, a policy which largely fell out of favour in the rest of
Europe about 1938.

What,Monmouthshire?

Some us on this group live inMonmouthshireand are very happy with it being
in Wales!

In which case, you would get your chance to have your say in thereferendum that is proposed!

Is this serious. I must mention this to my brother in Canada. I do
hope he, and his spouse, have remained on the Monmouthshire Electoral
Role.

Adrian

On 10 Jan, 18:23, "Adrian Auer-Hudson, MIMIS"
wrote:

On Jan 8, 12:26 pm, James Farrar wrote:


On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 08:11:22 +0000, Stimpy
wrote:

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 02:08:49 +0000, James Farrar wrote

Another variation on UKIP ? Apparently some bloke called Gary Bushell
is their candidate for the Mayoralty of Greater London :-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Democrats
which seems to mention desires on the territory of a neighbouring
country, a policy which largely fell out of favour in the rest of
Europe about 1938.

What, Monmouthshire?

Some us on this group live in Monmouthshire and are very happy with
it being in Wales!

In which case, you would get your chance to have your say in the
referendum that is proposed!

Is this serious. I must mention this to my brother in Canada. I do
hope he, and his spouse, have remained on the Monmouthshire Electoral
Role.

Adrian

It's as serious as the idea that the English Democrats party might get
in to power so they'd have the power to actually call such a
referendum...

pedant
I presume your brother is on the Electoral Roll as opposed to being a
returning officer or having some other role in the electoral system in
Monmouthshire.
/pedant

On Jan 10, 11:16*am, Mizter T wrote:
On 10 Jan, 18:23, "Adrian Auer-Hudson, MIMIS"





wrote:
On Jan 8, 12:26 pm, James Farrar wrote:

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 08:11:22 +0000, Stimpy
wrote:

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 02:08:49 +0000, James Farrar wrote

Another variation on UKIP ? Apparently some bloke called Gary Bushell
is their candidate for the Mayoralty of Greater London :-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Democrats
which seems to mention desires on the territory of a neighbouring
country, a policy which largely fell out of favour in the rest of
Europe about 1938.

What, Monmouthshire?

Some us on this group live in Monmouthshire and are very happy with
it being in Wales!

In which case, you would get your chance to have your say in the
referendum that is proposed!

Is this serious. *I must mention this to my brother in Canada. *I do
hope he, and his spouse, have remained on the Monmouthshire Electoral
Role.

Adrian

It's as serious as the idea that the English Democrats party might get
in to power so they'd have the power to actually call such a
referendum...

Well that's alright then, no cause for concern.

pedant
I presume your brother is on the Electoral Roll as opposed to being a
returning officer or having some other role in the electoral system in
Monmouthshire.
/pedant-

Electoral Roll, point taken.

Adrian

Adrian Auer-Hudson, MIMIS wrote:

On Jan 10, 11:16�am, Mizter T wrote:
On 10 Jan, 18:23, "Adrian Auer-Hudson, MIMIS"
wrote:

On Jan 8, 12:26 pm, James Farrar wrote:

(snip)

In which case, you would get your chance to have your say in the
referendum that is proposed!

Is this serious. I must mention this to my brother in Canada. I do
hope he, and his spouse, have remained on the Monmouthshire Electoral
Role.

Adrian

It's as serious as the idea that the English Democrats party might get
in to power so they'd have the power to actually call such a
referendum...

Well that's alright then, no cause for concern.

The truth is that whilst a pretty small number of people get very
exercised by notions of a perceived democratic deficit in England, for
the vast majority of the public it simply isn't an issue whatsoever.

IMO what is a shame is the lack of elected regional assemblies in
England. The North East had a referendum in 2004 on whether they'd be
the first region to set up an elected assembly and unfortunately voted
against it - so the whole idea of regional assemblies isn't really on
the table, not at the moment at least. Though I've a feeling that the
idea might surface again at some point in the future - but not for
many (many) years yet.

(Arguably the arrangements for governance in Greater London have some
similarities to the proposed regional assemblies - but in London, the
elected Assembly has an oversight role whilst it is the separately
elected Mayor who is clearly in charge of the Greater London
Authority.)


pedant
I presume your brother is on the Electoral Roll as opposed to being a
returning officer or having some other role in the electoral system in
Monmouthshire.
/pedant-

Electoral Roll, point taken.


Now I feel like a proper petty pedant!

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:01:52 -0800 (PST), Mizter T
wrote:

IMO what is a shame is the lack of elected regional assemblies in
England. The North East had a referendum in 2004 on whether they'd be
the first region to set up an elected assembly and unfortunately voted
against it - so the whole idea of regional assemblies isn't really on
the table, not at the moment at least.

Mostly because people are uninterested in expensive talking shops. At
least Scotland gets a Parliament (and Wales is on the way to it) --
but, frankly, I'd be surprised if regional assemblies ever get
anywhere, as the vast majority of people in England, I suspect, feel
no identity with their "region".

On Wed, 9 Jan 2008, Charles Ellson wrote:

On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 02:00:16 +0000, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Charles Ellson wrote:

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 19:46:22 +0000, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Charles Ellson wrote:

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 12:46:16 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

Arthur Figgis wrote:
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 16:51:57 GMT, "www.waspies.net"
wrote:

Who are the Hillingdon English Democrats...POWER TO THE
PEOPLEEEEEEEE!
Another variation on UKIP ? Apparently some bloke called Gary
Bushell is their candidate for the Mayoralty of Greater London :-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Democrats
which seems to mention desires on the territory of a neighbouring
country, a policy which largely fell out of favour in the rest of
Europe about 1938.

Spain, Ireland and various Balkan places at least have laid claim to
territory since then, and Russia has annexed territory.

Not forgetting the UK's annexation of territory in September 1955, "the
final territorial expansion of the British Empire" according to
Wikipedia. (The territory was the island of Rockall.)

It was for practical purposes only a paperwork annexation which was also
attempted by Iceland and the Irish Republic. These claims have all been
declared invalid by the United Nations

I don't think that's true. Can you cite a source for that?

The disputing countries seem to have acknowledged the International
Convention on the Law of the Sea (a UN device) by ratifying the
relevant treaties rather than "going to court" over the matter.

It's certainly true they've all ratified that treaty, and that it's a UN
effort (it's actually called the United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea, not the International etc), and that signing the treaty meant
relinquishing any EEZ claims based on Rockall; i don't think i'd say that
counts as the UN declaring anything invalid, but at this point we're
splitting hairs.

Also, having had a look through the treaty, i don't think there's anything
in there which has any effect on sovereignty over islands; it's true that
it says that who owns Rockall is irrelevant to the apportionment of EEZs
and the continental shelf, but it doesn't seem to say anything about who
does own Rockall.

Here's article 121:

Article 121 - Regime of islands

1. An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water,
which is above water at high tide.

2. Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the
contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of
an island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this
Convention applicable to other land territory.

3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of
their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.

Note that paragraph 3 *doesn't* stop Rockall generating a region of
territorial sea or a contiguous zone, just EEZ and shelf. FWIW.

IIRC the catch is that Rockall has in law a territorial sea of its own
but it is too isolated from the next bit of sovereign territory to act
as an extension to that territory.

Yes. If the UK were to declare itself an archipelagic state, it could draw
its baseline round the outside of all its various islands, including
islands such as Rockall - it doesn't matter that it's uninhabited
(Jamaica's done this). Such a baseline would generate the whole gamut of
territorial waters, EEZ and shelf rights. However, there's a limit of 125
NM on the length of an individual baseline segment, and Rockall is 162 NM
from St Kilda.

You are allowed to draw baseline segments to places that only dry out at
low tide, provided you have lighthouses built on them. If there happened
to be something like that to the west of St Kilda, on the edge of the
continental shelf, we could stick a lighthouse on it, use it to stage the
baseline to Rockall, and so nab a large chunk of the North Atlantic.
Sadly, i strongly doubt that there is.

And unfortunately, manmade islands don't count. Of course, if there just
happened to be a volcanic eruption there which created a new island, and
we were to build a lighthouse on it, to warn people about it ...

Sadly, paragraph 3 of article 47 spoils all such fun:

3. The drawing of such baselines shall not depart to any appreciable
extent from the general configuration of the archipelago.

Boo!

tom

--
When I see a man on a bicycle I have hope for the human race. --
H. G. Wells

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:42:46 +0000, Tom Anderson wrote

IIRC the catch is that Rockall has in law a territorial sea of its own
but it is too isolated from the next bit of sovereign territory to act
as an extension to that territory.

Yes. If the UK were to declare itself an archipelagic state, it could draw
its baseline round the outside of all its various islands, including
islands such as Rockall - it doesn't matter that it's uninhabited
(Jamaica's done this).

Jamaica's claiming Rockall?? :-)

On 11 Jan, 19:05, Stimpy wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:42:46 +0000, Tom Anderson wrote



IIRC the catch is that Rockall has in law a territorial sea of its own
but it is too isolated from the next bit of sovereign territory to act
as an extension to that territory.

Yes. If the UK were to declare itself an archipelagic state, it could draw
its baseline round the outside of all its various islands, including
islands such as Rockall - it doesn't matter that it's uninhabited
(Jamaica's done this).

Jamaica's claiming Rockall?? :-)



Roll on the Rockall Reggae festival. ;-)

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008, Stimpy wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:42:46 +0000, Tom Anderson wrote

IIRC the catch is that Rockall has in law a territorial sea of its own
but it is too isolated from the next bit of sovereign territory to act
as an extension to that territory.

Yes. If the UK were to declare itself an archipelagic state, it could draw
its baseline round the outside of all its various islands, including
islands such as Rockall - it doesn't matter that it's uninhabited
(Jamaica's done this).

Jamaica's claiming Rockall?? :-)

Doh! Some particularly careless phrasing on my part there.

tom

--
24-Hour Monkey-Vision!