A British Libertarian State (a tautology in 2009 as I always point out) might want to consider under what justifications it would “hold possibly for weeks” those harmless people “violating” its “territorial integrity”, by yachting into its “waters”.
I have no problem with “territorial waters”. Apart from anything, it means I could protect my fish stocks from robbers whose warlords run their serfs’ lives under a different penal code from mine. But if I was I’madasadinnerjacket, then I would be looking for friends and not alienating them. Not right now when I want to get some toys to play with Uranium Hexafluoride in public.
This “sailors business” smells to me like some ploy for commanding: “We’ll give you back your sailors if you agree to oppose any measures to prevent us playing with Uranium Hexafluoride in any amount and at any time we choose. If you do that, we’ll then agree to only parade them in public in ill-fitting suits for five minutes at a time, to coincide with the “News At Ten” for one full week only, and we’ll ensure the patriotic demonstroids pretending to want their blood will only burn your flag three times out of seven for the benefit of BBC TV reporters, and will only each fire a maximum of 20 AK-47 rounds into the air per News Bulletin.” I bet you 50p that this sort of guff is the stuff of “intense Foreign Office negotiations”.
The buggers think we’re toast, and are treating us like it, to the delight of mountebanks throughout the UN.
People like these governments, staffed as they are by people who like to twist the tails of long-suffering enemies whom they disrespect, are storing up trouble, in my opinion, if and when the powder-keg of Christian liberal toleration fnally blows. There were some rather short windows of opportunity, during the 20th Century, to settle conclusively several questions of this sort, and sadly I feel they were not taken.
The foreign-policy-cost rises with each new incident.