• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

Vixen said:
Think about what a conscious abstention means. To do nothing is just as much an option as voting for or against. Reflect on what statement Russia, for example, is making when it abstains from UN votes, or an MP under Whip. It is not an accidental oversight, is it?
Click to expand...
You still haven't actually answered the questions:

Why do you think it's significant that the UK signed the treaty?

What "involvement" regarding the UK are you implying or claiming?

Can't you just answer some dang questions in plain English instead of playing these silly games? Tell us what you actually think is the significance of the UK signing the treaty, Germany not signing the treaty and what "involvement" you're implying.
 
Last edited:
catsmate said:
Oh good grief this is ignorant nonsense, as usual.

There is long-term cooperation between the UK and Germany over the Baltic, including RN involvement in naval patrols. You may have heard of Russia?
The UK also leads the Joint Expeditionary Force which includes several nations with interests in the Baltic region.
Next there are joint efforts with the Scandinavians and Germans to monitor Russian submarine activity in the Baltic Sea
Finally there are various bilateral UK defense cooperation arrangements with (for example) Norway, Denmark, and Estonia.

Try educating yourself before spouting ignorant drivel.
Click to expand...
Also the Baltic shipping trade has always been important going back centuries
 
junkshop said:
Click to expand...
As a follow up to that video, for some reason this one comes to mind (from the same artist)


And although I think the above is on topic, here is a take on why Norway didn't sign from a professor of international law at Helsinki Uni, with a speculation that the same reason might apply to Germany.

Norge skulle ha varit tvungen att göra ändringar i sin straffrätt för att anpassa sig till avtalet och valde därför att inte underteckna avtalet.

Detta är troligtvis också orsaken till att flera länder inte anslöt sig
Click to expand...

My/google translation:

"Norway would have had to make changes to its criminal law to adapt to the agreement and therefore chose not to sign the agreement.

This is probably also the reason why several countries did not join."

ETA: Added missing link
 
Last edited:
JesseCuster said:
You still haven't actually answered the questions:

Why do you think it's significant that the UK signed the treaty?

What "involvement" regarding the UK are you implying or claiming?

Can't you just answer some dang questions in plain English instead of playing these silly games? Tell us what you actually think is the significance of the UK signing the treaty, Germany not signing the treaty and what "involvement" you're implying.
Click to expand...
Any country not signing the treaty is obviously in on "it". Also, any country signing the treaty is obviously in on "it". Presumably, any country that splunged signing the treaty is also in on "it".
 
Here_to_learn said:
As a follow up to that video, for some reason this one comes to mind (from the same artist)


And although I think the above is on topic, here is a take on why Norway didn't sign from a professor of international law at Helsinki Uni, with a speculation that the same reason might apply to Germany.



My/google translation:

"Norway would have had to make changes to its criminal law to adapt to the agreement and therefore chose not to sign the agreement.

This is probably also the reason why several countries did not join."

ETA: Added missing link
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link. However, Norway is surely a red herring as it - like the UK - is on the other side of the Danish straits and faces the North Sea, not the Baltic.

1762164617910.png


We have had the conversation before as to how the ship [conveniently?] sunk in international waters.
 
Vixen said:
Thanks for the link. However, Norway is surely a red herring as it - like the UK - is on the other side of the Danish straits and faces the North Sea, not the Baltic.

View attachment 65445


We have had the conversation before as to how the ship [conveniently?] sunk in international waters.
Click to expand...
Look, a squirrel!


Don't change the subject, please tell us what is significant about the UK signing the treaty.
 
Reformed Offlian said:
Any country not signing the treaty is obviously in on "it". Also, any country signing the treaty is obviously in on "it". Presumably, any country that splunged signing the treaty is also in on "it".
Click to expand...
So were England, Northern Ireland and Scotland decreed part of the Union Treaty and Wales was not but did include Malawi, you don't consider there is any reason for anyone to query the reasons why. Perhaps the deficit in comprehension is not with the person asking after all.
 
Vixen said:
So were England, Northern Ireland and Scotland decreed part of the Union Treaty and Wales was not
Click to expand...
Wales was not an independant nation, it had been part of the Kingdom of England since 1536
Vixen said:
but did include Malawi
Click to expand...
I have found no evidence of this. Could you enlighten me?

Also, and more importantly, please answer the question: what is significant about the UK signing the treaty?
 
Last edited:
junkshop said:
Wales was not an independant nation, it had been part of the Kingdom of England since 1536

I have found no evidence of this. Could you enlighten me?

Also, and more importantly, please answer the question: what is significant about the UK signing the treaty?
Click to expand...
Exactly. So were it to happen it would be a perfectly pertinent question.

Please refer to the issue of Estonia cargo and subsequent diving teams. The UK clearly has an interest in this vessel. As for Germany, seems rather unfriendly to not agree to a Baltic nations grave peace treaty. Russia signed it.
 
The way it worked was that in 1995, Sweden, Finland and Estonia signed the agreement. Here is the Swedish version of the document (with english translation).

In 1996 they signed an addendum to that. Here is again the Swedish version, including English text.

This is an "open invitation" with the intent to strengthen the protection.

All states, wishing to do so, may accede to the agreement...
Click to expand...

I don't know how this was distributed - might be via IMO (UN) but that is a guess from my side.

Some countries apparently decided to sign - others apparently said that it would take changes to their laws to be able to sign it, and decided that it was not worth it. Without digging in to the complexity of each of the national laws that might be affected, I don't see that it's possible to draw any conclusions based on who signed, and who didn't.
 
So what is significant about Germany not signing?

What is significant about the UK signing? A famously maritime nation with traditional links to the Baltic Trade and a history of signing maritime treaties concerning grave sites,
 
Here_to_learn said:
As a follow up to that video, for some reason this one comes to mind (from the same artist)


And although I think the above is on topic, here is a take on why Norway didn't sign from a professor of international law at Helsinki Uni, with a speculation that the same reason might apply to Germany.



My/google translation:

"Norway would have had to make changes to its criminal law to adapt to the agreement and therefore chose not to sign the agreement.

This is probably also the reason why several countries did not join."

ETA: Added missing link
Click to expand...
So very rational reasons. As usual.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom