You guys still don't get it. If we assume there is a war hawks faction (Grey, Churchill, Lord Northcliffe) they will interpret the Hague as they want. Now it is possible that Asquith and Llyoyd George rein in the most war hawks so once the first vessel is interned they form token convoys with an old RN cruiser or two for protection. If those are attacked the war hawks win.
Actually one thing to bring up. Again let us turn to Halpern:
http://books.google.com/books?id=6hwb6ovvYCcC&pg=PA1&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
Cruiser warfare may work better for the MN than the KM as there are 19 French AC to 7 German AC.
I do understand your position, and this is why I generally think Germany made the right call invading Belgium because the UK would not really be neutral. The UK keeping the Germans out of the channel, effectively protects the Atlantic coast of France, so they question is does the UK then prevent France from interfering with German flagged merchant ships? Probably not IMO, but the prewar information I have seen indicates that few people had thought through either how cruiser rules work in the 1914 world or how the UK being half-in/half-out of the Entente works.
The strict interpretation of cruiser rule per Captain Mahan would mean that NO ship could be stopped in the war due to no nation being able to maintain a close blockade, which generally means 2 capital ships within gun range of the "closely blockade port". So after the Entente and CP reflagged theirs ships to neutral countries, no AMC, no U-boats, no cruisers doing merchant warfare.
So it appears to me that various posters are assuming various interpretations of cruiser rules, and talking past each other with looking at the critical assumptions.
As the ships are UK flagged, the UK would come up with whatever justification meet their own needs.
As a 'neutral' power UK ships couldn't be just seized especially as the law on the subject was cloudy to say the least. I could see the UK getting very picky about prizes especially without a close in blockade.
Again I see the UK twisting things to suit their objectives as needed.
Michael
Under one set of rules, the UK ships could not be seized, and this is the USA interpretation. Under the UK interpreted prewar rules, the ships could be seized. Now I agree the UK would find a way to avoid its ships being seized, and the most likely way would be using the low countries (Antwerp, Rotterdam). Now the UK might also insists its ships could sail from Halifax to Brest without any risks, and they likely have the power to make this happen, but they would also have to consider they are adopting the USA rules, which the UK would not like it whatever its next war happens to be. A lot depends on what one believes the objects of the UK cabinet would be during the war, and how powerful the business interest are in the UK. If the UK will sell to both sides, the UK will have an economic boom like the USA did in OTL, pre-1917.
There is also the issue of the USA, which will could conceivably enter the war if its perceived merchants rights are violated. In a case of the UK following the its prewar rules, and accepting its ships can't dock at French ports without risk, the USA might still insists its ships be allowed to sail to France, and might enter the war on France's side anyway if Germany harassed USA ships.
The truth of this subject is their are many opportunitistic countries and a lot of quick decision points, and we can't say with much confidence what happens much after December 1914. There are multiple possible UK responses, multiple Ottoman responses, and a lot of other butterflies we are not even looking at such as which day the Kaiser changes his mind on going east and how fast the Russians realize Germany has switched war plans.