RichardIC wrote:mansplaining
You really should stop doing that, you know - she'll get really pissed off if you keep doing it
RichardIC wrote:The response. What does that amount to?
I think it's pretty clear. It could be any one of the assets already mentioned, from civilian FPVs (which are quite capable of stopping fishing boats and arresting their crews - they have done so before), through government-owned vessels (e.g. RRS's etc), RFA's, OPVs all the way up to dispatching a frigate (if the Chinese maritime militia are stupid enough to resort to armed force against UK citizens/ overseas territories citizens) - which would presumably fall within the purview of the FRE. Or more if the situation warranted it. Most of the Blue Zones are in the Atlantic or the British Antarctic region (only BIOT and Pitcairn aren't) - not particularly difficult to get to quickly.
The point is that there is no need to permanently position naval assets around every island on the off-chance that someone will decide to go fishing in a gunboat. As donald-san said, confiscation of fishing gear and boats, along with fines (they may not pay the fine, but the owners could still have other vessels detained and sold to pay off the outstanding fine, deterring them from re-entering a protected zone) and imprisonment of Captains (and even crews in some circumstances) all act as a deterrent to repeat offending.
ArmChairCivvy wrote:did us being in the EU somehow stop us defending our national interest and sovereign rights (and should we exit the UN because they don't always 100% do as we would like them to?)
I admire your determination to shoehorn Brexit into every discussion. Short answer - clearly not for the MPZ's, as they are not part of the Common Fisheries area, so no pooling of sovereign rights and no overruling of UK/ BOT Conservation bodies (CFP Conservation and management is reserved to the EU Commission). All the UK can do with regard to CFP fish stocks, is make representations regarding sustainable stocks and catch levels to the EU Commission, which the EU Commission has frequently ignored since the inception of the CFP, leading to overfishing - is that the inability to defend our rights that you were referring to?).
As for the UN - why would we leave it, when we can simply ignore the resolution (not something that we would be unique in doing)? As you note above, we could even have vetoed it, being on the Security Council and all that, though it would be poor form to do so. I know you are trying to draw a parallel with the EU, but it doesn't quite work.
RichardIC wrote:TBH honest I'd much rather discuss WW2 aircraft than bicker about future overseas patrol.
Agreed that it would be an interesting subject. Maybe not on the "Fiture Overseas Patrol" thread, though
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill