Spain vs Britain

Discussion in 'Western Europe' started by Pro-Consul, Jul 4, 2013.

  1. martin76

    martin76 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    551
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, but the british presence there is not legal.. what is legal is the evacuation of zone (as it was till 1854/1937).

    I don´t think so, when the own Pichardo doesn´t live in Gibraltar but in Spain and when... 800.000 british? are living or had lodging (from appartment to states) in Spain.. It´s a very odd harassment, I think. In fact, I think Spain is the country with more British population in the World outside UK!!!! So I doubt very much any harassment..

    From BBC: Spain is the second most popular destination in the world for emigrating British citizens. Accordign with BBC, Spain has 771.000 british residents

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/brits_abroad/html/europe.stm

    Contrary to popular belief, are not old, but young people, the British residents in Spain.

    I doubt any harassment when there are more british in Spain than in Australia, Canada, USA, France or Italy (by each british in France, there 3 in Spain, by each one in Italy, 29 in Spain)...Like I'm sure you'll agree with me, nobody is going to live in a country where is "harassment", Isn´t it?

    For me the solution is to come back to 2005, everybody uses the waters, fishermen etc. On the other hand I agree with you, Utrecht doesn´t delimits the waters, but 1958 conventions is about sovereing states, I think and Utrecht specifies which are under the King of Spain´s jurisdiction (Catholick King´s jurisdiction, for being exact) and Queen Anne has the property (for ever), no jurisdiction. In this question I think is better to come back to 2005 and leave Status Quo as it was.

    As you well known: The Catholic King does hereby, for himself, his heirs and successors, yield to the Crown of Great Britain the full and entire propriety of the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging; and he gives up the said propriety to be held and enjoyed absolutely with all manner of right for ever (it´s very clear, I think)

    As clear as: The Catholic King wills, and takes it to be understood, that the above-named propriety be yielded to Great Britain without any territorial jurisdiction

    So, 1958 conventions is abot sovereing states... if tomorrow Amancio Ortega buys a island in Great Britain.. he will be the owner of the island.. but he lacked of
    sovereign rights..

    For me the best and most simple solution is to come back to the former Status Quo.

    Regards
     
  2. BritishBoy

    BritishBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2013
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's a tiny island off, there's no oil and the islanders them self proudly defend their status.

    I think the Spanish leadership is struggling and so is trying to gain popularity by harassing Gibraltar.
     
  3. martin76

    martin76 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    551
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well.

    First:

    Gibraltar is not an Island... If Gibraltar is an Island, Spain too!! Gibraltar is a rock, but the issue is not the Rock but the waters.

    Maybe is Pichardo who is trying to attract attention by harassing spanish fishermen in Algeciras waters...It is not Rajoy who harassed any ships and who threw into water 70 blocks I think...

    By other side, people brought by british in XIX - XX century to Gibraltar aren´t "islanders"... I didn´t know that egyptian, albanian, greek, maltese, italian, cypriots brought by british were "islanders" from one "island" named Gibraltar..by the way, to bring these foreign settlers from Eastern Mediterranean, the British once again violated the Treaty of Utrecht.
    Regards.
     
  4. Sixteen String Jack

    Sixteen String Jack New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2013
    Messages:
    737
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes it is. Very much so. And for eternity, too. And there's nothing Spain can do about it.

    Those Brits are propping up Spain's third-world economy.
     
  5. martin76

    martin76 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    551
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    No, It isn´t. And, of, course, you can´t show any treaty or document about that. The Neutral Zone is not British.

    On the contray, Spain can do many things:

    1.- To close the gate and cutting the comunications by land off.
    2.- To close the airport
    3.- To cut the telephones lines by spanish soil or territorial waters
    4.- economic measures against companies established in Gibraltar
    5.- prevent the bunkering...

    Spain can do much economic damage to Gibraltar and can make life not at all comfortable. An expensive water, an expensive food, an expensive electricity, etc etc It´s far better to have good relations... for everybody.

    It´s very difficult, sorry, It is impossible to arrive to Gibraltar without crossing Spanish land, water or air.

    Regards.
     
  6. funinsnow

    funinsnow Banned by Member Request

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    678
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hi Martin76. Let me say that I lived in Spain from 1981-84 when I was 11 to 14 years old and went to a British school in Madrid-King's College. Spain is a beautiful nation (finally visited Spain in 2012 after 28.5 years-Madrid, El Escorial, Segovia, Avila, Salamanca, Fatima (Portugal) and Lisboa (Portugal) It was a 5 day trip but got to see alot and am hoping to visit Spain in May 2013. I also watch RTVE.es. I have also been to U.K. 7 times (have relatives who live there)-1978,1981,1984,1999,2001,2003 & 2005. I like both Great Britain and Spain because with having lived in the 2nd nation and having relatives who live in 1st, guess you could say dual loyalty. Here are my thoughts and hope you Martin76 can give your view because I would like to see this resolved amicably.

    Martin76, I agree with most of el Presidente Mariano Rajoy's views. I agree with him and Jose Manuel Garcia Margallo in their views opposing the referndum in Cataluna which Artur Mas wants to do unilaterally-that vote must be done by all the Spanish communities. I agree with el presidente Mariano Rajoy Brey in fighting ETA and I am against el Pais Vasco being separated from Spain. With Gibraltar, here are my thoughts. Yes, Gibraltar did originally belong to Spain and Great Britain took it by force during the 1704 war. Yes, Spaniards who were living there were expelled and replaced by British inhabitants. I have not been to Gibraltar though did see it from Malga's port in 1982 when I was 12 years old-they as you know didn't open shipping between Spain and Gibraltar until partly in 1982 and fully in 1985 if not mistaken. Here's what I believe should be done with Gibraltar though I know there will be differing views.

    No, the people living on Gibraltar are not original but as people have been born on Gibraltar, it's their birthplace. While I would support Gibraltar going to Spain, I believe that it must be the people born on Gibraltar who must decide their sovereignty. If Gibraltarans want to continue with status quo, then Spain must respect that. If Gibraltarans want to be an independent nation (rock as British call it or el penon as Spaniards call it), then both Spain and Great Britain must respect that. If however, Gibraltarans vote for sovereignty with Spain (Gibraltar if not mistaken has a 25% Spanish population and believe Fabian Picardo is 1/2 Spaniard) then Gibraltar becomes a Spanish community, then Spain's laws apply.

    I know again those living on Gibraltar are not the original inhabitants but as again they were born there and are not responsible for what their ancestors did, it's their birthright and must be respected. I can support Gibraltar being a part of Spain, but that it must be the free will of Gibraltarans to decide if this is what they want. Yes, Spain is original owner of Gibraltar. But to repeat, it must be free will of Gibraltarans to vote in referendum. With Fabian Picardo, while people can differ with him, he was born in Gibraltar.
    Anyhow, let the people who are born on Gibraltar have the vote to decide if they want status quo, independence or Spanish sovereignty. In the meantime, both Spain and Gibraltar should be good neighbors with trade.
     
  7. notme

    notme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    42,019
    Likes Received:
    5,395
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is that so? Gibraltars economy is a lot about banking. Sounds more like a job that is done by people who immigrate to Gibraltar and get that nationality for the heck of it.

    I don't agree. It seems to me Gibraltar is totally British and just a part of the British empire / a colony of the UK. Colonial imports don't get voting rights. As far as I can see is that them people become part of Spain and remain there to live as long as they like to.

    And the main reason, IMHO, they are against to be part of Spain, is because they got this banking paradise going on where criminal money is laundered / money for bribes are moved around. And they will loose that sweet sweet income when they fall under Spanish law. If that would happen, than Gibraltar would crumble into a sleepy town. They wont be making their millions with catching some fish and tourism. It would end their criminal paradise. So them British peeps vote against it. Cry me a river.
     
  8. funinsnow

    funinsnow Banned by Member Request

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    678
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    With your first part, the vote must only be done again by people born on Gibraltar. What this means if people people were born on the Rock or el penon and have lived their entire life there as there are people who have been born there, lived there and never been outside the Gibraltar, then it's their birthright and they must decide. It must be up to the people born there only to decide-it must not be up to people who work there in banking and not for people living in U.K. or Spain to decide.. Gibraltar has 30,000 people & Fabian Picardo was born there. 1 correction-I hope to visit Spain again in May 2014.

    With banking paradise, money laundering, unsure about this-Fabian Picardo says it's propaganda and it's hard to know how much is true and how much is false because as known, both have different stories. But if the people getting this income are those born on Gibraltar, well again it's their matter even if it is illegally. Again, people are right when they say that Gibraltar originally belonged to Spain, but it must be for the people born on Gibraltar and only those born there to decide as people born on Gibraltar are not responsible for what their ancestors did. No, the people living on Gibraltar are not original but as people have been born on Gibraltar, it's their birthplace. If people born on Gibraltar don't want to be part of Spain because being part of Spain would end the $ they make, then it's again their matter. It must be the will of the people born on Gibraltar and only those born on Gibraltar to decide if they want to be part of Spain or if they want to continue status quo even if there is money laundering going on there. I again can support Gibraltar being a part of Spain again, but I also support the free will of people born on Gibraltar to decide if they want to be part of Spain no matter what their reason is even if there is money laundering happening there.

    While I would support Gibraltar going to Spain, I believe that it must be the people born on Gibraltar who must decide their sovereignty. If Gibraltarans want to continue with status quo, then Spain must respect that. If Gibraltarans want to be an independent nation (rock as British call it or el penon as Spaniards call it), then both Spain and Great Britain must respect that. If however, Gibraltarans vote for sovereignty with Spain (Gibraltar if not mistaken has a 25% Spanish population and believe Fabian Picardo is 1/2 Spaniard) then Gibraltar becomes a Spanish community, then Spain's laws apply. I know again those living on Gibraltar are not the original inhabitants but as again they were born there it's their birthright and must be respected. I can support Gibraltar being a part of Spain, but that it must be the free will of Gibraltarans to decide if this is what they want. Yes, Spain is original owner of Gibraltar. But to repeat, it must be free will of Gibraltarans to vote in referendum. With Fabian Picardo, while people can differ with him, he was born in Gibraltar.
     
  9. notme

    notme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    42,019
    Likes Received:
    5,395
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Since, IMHO, they are ethnically and culturally identical to people in the UK, means that they should not get a vote at all. They remain immigrants. My country got ex-colonies as well. But them people got a black to dark brown skin colour, they speak a different language etc. Nothing suggest that they are Dutch in a sense of a white person on cloggs. If such a difference would be with Gibraltar than they should have a right to vote. But Gibraltar is way passed even some grey area. Them chaps are British, and so should not have a vote on a piece of land that should not be British.

    Gibraltar refuses to comply with the OECD Anti-Bribery convention prinicpals / acts. This also deals with corruption. That says everything. And that isn't propaganda. And I doubt not that if they had to comply with that according to Spanish laws / EU-laws than their banking paradise is over. And than I doubt not that this is the reason they are so fierce to be refuse to be part of Spain. It will become just an other little poor town in the south of Spain when its without the ability to earn massive amounts of money by being the banker of the devil.
     
  10. funinsnow

    funinsnow Banned by Member Request

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    678
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is a 25% Spanish population living there. But you are right about most of population being ethnically English. My view again, it must still be the will of the people born there as it's their birthland and the fact they aren't original inhabitants is irrelevant to me. My views are the same with Falkland Islands-let the people born there decide-honestly main reason Argentina wants Falkland Islands is because of fish and natural gas there. With Gibraltar, what you say about history is right but again my view is if you are born in a place, lived there your whole life and raised family there, then your view is what is most important, no matter what wrong 1s ancestors did. Rest is copy/paste as anything else said by me repeats- If Gibraltarans want to continue with status quo, then Spain must respect that. If Gibraltarans want to be an independent nation (rock as British call it or el penon as Spaniards call it), then both Spain and Great Britain must respect that. If however, Gibraltarans vote for sovereignty with Spain (Gibraltar if not mistaken has a 25% Spanish population and believe Fabian Picardo is 1/2 Spaniard) then Gibraltar becomes a Spanish community, then Spain's laws apply. I know again those living on Gibraltar are not the original inhabitants but as again they were born there it's their birthright and must be respected.
     
  11. notme

    notme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    42,019
    Likes Received:
    5,395
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Right, so say I move to some Island of the UK where nobody lives. My wife gets a kid, and so the kid will vote that the island now belongs to the Netherlands or is independent from the UK. That is in my opinion ... just wrong.

    Colonists should never be able to vote. And them British chaps on Gibraltar are colonists, just like the ones on the Falklands / are not indigenous people... because they are just like the people from the UK. Where they were born is totally irrelevant and just some emotional argument.

    And I do apply the right to self determination of those people in Gibraltar. (A UN thing) I just do not see them as different people from the UK. So that is where their determination and rights are and not in the south of Spain.
     
  12. funinsnow

    funinsnow Banned by Member Request

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    678
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Respecting right of people born in a place and living there their whole life to decide their sovereignty is not an emotional argument. If you are born in a place, then you are a citizen of your birthplace unless you move to another nation and become a citizen of that nation. If you are born in the USA, then you are an American citizen even if your parents illegally immigrated here.

    If we accept your view, then most Americans should move out of their house because the house they are living on is on land taken from some1 centuries ago. Incidentally, American Indians got their land by waging wars against other American Indians so even here the American Indians who lost their lands are not the original inhabitants in that they took it from other Native American tribes before them. Most people living in Argentina are not the original inhabitants but as they were born there and lived there for centuries, it would be wrong to ask Argentines to move out of their birthplace because of what happened centuries ago. So for same reason Falkland Islanders and Gibraltarans should not have to move out of their birthplace.

    Besides, people born and living in the U.K. have no right to vote on Falkland Islands or Gibraltar especially as most of them never have and never will go there. However to repeat, Falkland Islanders and Gibraltarans must have right to vote on their sovereignty because again it's their birthplace and there are many of them who never have been to the U.K. It would be wrong to ask Falkland Islanders and Gibraltarans to give up their house and places they have lived their whole life because of past wrongs. Spain is the original owner and the 1704 war should not have happened. But though it was wrong what happened, asking people born on Gibraltar to move out of their house, give up their businesses and go somewhere else is also wrong. If Falkland Islanders and Gibraltarans voted to make Falkland Islands and Gibraltar independent nations, then the colonialist view becomes irrelevant. My view again, it must still be the will of the people born there as it's their birthland and the fact they aren't original inhabitants or even colonists is irrelevant because they are colonists born on Gibraltar. Let it be free will of Gibraltarans and Falkland Islanders to decide their sovereignty. Spanish businesses such as SEAT could work in Gibraltar and things can be done which benefits economies of both Gibraltar and Spain. If Gibraltarans in future voted to become a part of Spain by their own free will, then fine. But if Gibraltarans and Falkland Islanders don't want their sovereignty to change, then their free will whether 1 agrees or differs with them must be respected. Finally here is a column by a Spaniard who shares my view on Gibraltar http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/uk-gibraltar-dispute-sovereignty-view-spain-498983
     
  13. notme

    notme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    42,019
    Likes Received:
    5,395
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Massive amounts of countries do not agree with that. A child that gets born from parents who illegally entered a country becomes an illegal immigrant itself. Do take that into account.

    Do as well take into account my previous example, of the absurd way the UK can loose parts of their country,... when a foreign colonist settles on an uninhabited island, gets a child... and according to you that child can vote to become independent. That is the argument you apply. It's nonsense. Colonists should never get the right to vote. That includes their offspring. Untill the offspring are a distinct different people from their old homeland.

    Of course not. You can switch nationality according all kinds of set rules. That is done all the time all over the world.

    Fundamental flaw. The rights to properties have nothing to do with nationality of the owners or in what country the property it is in. If Gibraltar becomes Spanish, than the people of Gibraltar will NOT loose their private property and will NOT loose their British nationality. It has nothing to do with it. The only thing that will change is that Spanish and EU laws get applied on their life. That is it.
     
  14. Pro-Consul

    Pro-Consul Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2012
    Messages:
    1,965
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Both Gibraltar and the Falklands have had referendums and both have wished to remain a part of the UK.

    Spain has no right over Gibraltar nor Argentina over the Falklands.
     
  15. funinsnow

    funinsnow Banned by Member Request

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    678
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Agree with you Pro-Consul that it must be free will of people born and living in Falkand Islands and Gibraltar to decide their sovereignty. Only let's be honest about the history of Gibraltar in that it did originally belong to Spain. Rest is copy/paste as this topic repeats. No, the people living on Gibraltar are not original but as people have been born on Gibraltar, it's their birthplace. While I would support Gibraltar going to Spain, I believe that it must be the people born on Gibraltar who must decide their sovereignty. If Gibraltarans want to continue with status quo, then Spain must respect that. If Gibraltarans want to be an independent nation (rock as British call it or el penon as Spaniards call it), then both Spain and Great Britain must respect that. If however, Gibraltarans vote for sovereignty with Spain (Gibraltar if not mistaken has a 25% Spanish population and believe Fabian Picardo is 1/2 Spaniard) then Gibraltar becomes a Spanish community, then Spain's laws apply.

    I know again those living on Gibraltar are not the original inhabitants but as again they were born there and are not responsible for what their ancestors did, it's their birthright and must be respected. I can support Gibraltar being a part of Spain, but that it must be the free will of Gibraltarans to decide if this is what they want. Yes, Spain is original owner of Gibraltar. But to repeat, it must be free will of Gibraltarans to vote in referendum. With Fabian Picardo, while people can differ with him, he was born in Gibraltar. Anyhow, let the people who are born on Gibraltar have the vote to decide if they want status quo, independence or Spanish sovereignty. In the meantime, both Spain and Gibraltar should be good neighbors with trade.
     
  16. Pro-Consul

    Pro-Consul Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2012
    Messages:
    1,965
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yep and that's the been position of government for donkeys years.
    True but it has spent more time as an English/British possession than a Spanish one and at that time it was up to the Spanish crown as to what to do with it rather than the people.

    Ultimately the Gibraltarean public have spoken and they have explicitly said that they wish to remain a part of the UK.

    But what's happening now is harassment of the maritime borders which Spain believes that it belongs to it due the absence of the formal transfer of sovereignty outlined in the treaty of Utrecht.

    While the UN law of the sea as well as several international treaties support Gibraltar having waters of it's own.

    I personally believe that Spain is disingenuous about the pursuing these claims and is looking to instil national unity.
    I've met with many Spaniards who feel that the economic situation in Spain is incredibly difficult and strenuous with some saying that there may be a return to the situation that prompted the brutal civil war in the 30's.
    That latter item is not an isolated opinion.
     
  17. martin76

    martin76 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    551
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Dear funinsnow,

    I understand your point of view but I can´t share it. Things are what they are and the story is what it is. People brought by british in XIX-XX centuries to Gibraltar, aren´t "Gibraltarians"... Settlers are not gibraltarians, and of course, lack of right to decide nothing (I´m sure you right with me about Utrecht).. They are Settlers are aliens, like european settlers in Rhodesia or in Algeria. Settlers came from Egypt, Albania,Cyprus etc etc from Eastern Mediterranean... not from Gibraltar. People from Gibraltar (DNA illuminate us in this question) are in San Roque and La Linea, not in the Rock. And, of course, Britain broke the Treatry when brought people to the Rock... Utrech says what says... It´s a issue between two crowns: British Crown is the ownership and Spanish Crow is the Soverign... by other side, Gibraltar was never taken by British Army.. In a Spanish Civil War (between Habsburg and Bourbon candidates to the Crown) a Habsbourg´s Force (british, austrian, dutch, spanish (catalonian mostly)) took Gibraltar with a Spanish Ensing and in the name of a Spanish King (Charles III Habsburg).. It is not like Jamaica or Trinidad. That´s the reason because I think British Quee is not Sovering but Rock´s Owner... Utrecht is very clear in this question.

    Dear Pro-Consul,

    I know It´s written before but It wasn´t Rajoy or Spain who broke the Status quo the last summer. The Issues is not the Rock but the waters. Spain needn´t Gibraltar to be united... in fact, never It has been any Secession War in Spain (yes in USA). And, of course, the "brutal" spanish civil war wasn´t harder than one of the English civil war... (Two Roses, for example), or any oher European civil war in XX century (Russian, romanian, Greek, french, italian, finland, hungarian, polish etc etc) It is true that communists, socialists and nationalists (after all, totalitarian) wanted to conquest the power by violence in the streets... but civil war only is possible when two armies are involved and when society is divided and that doesn´t happen in Spain.
    About time is not important: Florida, Texas, California, Cuba, Carolinas, Marianas, Philppines, Trinidad or Argentina, for example, have spent more time under the Spanish Crown than under any other political institution... And What? Like Phillipines has been Spanish from 1521 to 1898 and like has been independence country only from 1946 to nowadays... Does it means Spain has right to come back to Philiippines? Maybe is time the dutch come back to Batavia (Yakarta) and the portuguese to Timor?

    Regards.

    Time is not argument when the legal situation is very clear.
     
  18. funinsnow

    funinsnow Banned by Member Request

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    678
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thank you Martin76 for your view. Yes, you are historically right and yes they are settler descendants. But even so, as they were born on Gibraltar, they are Gibraltarans by birthright though their parents settled there. Many wrong things happen in history. But to say people born in a place should have no say as to sovereignty is wrong. If you are born in a place, then you are a citizen of your birthplace unless you move to another nation and become a citizen of that nation. If a person was born on Gibraltar, lived their whole life, raised families there, then their view is what is important. Treaty of Utrecht if not mistaken allowed slavery-my view is the Utrecht Treaty is wrong and must be changed as it allowed slavery. I agree with you Martin76 with what you say about history of Gibraltar (in fact you educated me), but even knowing this (& I know people including you will differ), I still believe it must be free will of those born on Gibraltar to decide if they want to continue status quo, become a part of Spain or an independent nation. Most people living in Argentina are not the original inhabitants but as they were born there and lived there for centuries, it would be wrong to ask Argentines to move out of their birthplace because of what happened centuries ago. So for same reason Falkland Islanders and Gibraltarans should not have to move out of their birthplace. Incidentally, American Indians got their land by waging wars against other American Indians so even here the American Indians who lost their lands are not the original inhabitants in that they took it from other Native American tribes before them.

    Rest is copy/paste. No, the people living on Gibraltar are not original but as people have been born on Gibraltar, it's their birthplace. While I would support Gibraltar going to Spain, I believe that it must be the people born on Gibraltar who must decide their sovereignty. If Gibraltarans want to continue with status quo, then Spain must respect that. If Gibraltarans want to be an independent nation (rock as British call it or el penon as Spaniards call it), then both Spain and Great Britain must respect that. If however, Gibraltarans vote for sovereignty with Spain (Gibraltar if not mistaken has a 25% Spanish population and believe Fabian Picardo is 1/2 Spaniard) then Gibraltar becomes a Spanish community, then Spain's laws apply.

    I know again those living on Gibraltar are not the original inhabitants but as again they were born there and are not responsible for what their ancestors did, it's their birthright and must be respected. I can support Gibraltar being a part of Spain, but that it must be the free will of Gibraltarans to decide if this is what they want. Yes, Spain is original owner of Gibraltar. But to repeat, it must be free will of Gibraltarans to vote in referendum. With Fabian Picardo, while people can differ with him, he was born in Gibraltar. Anyhow, let the people who are born on Gibraltar have the vote to decide if they want status quo, independence or Spanish sovereignty. In the meantime, both Spain and Gibraltar should be good neighbors with trade.
     
  19. Pro-Consul

    Pro-Consul Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2012
    Messages:
    1,965
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I did not designate the Spanish civil war as being unique in the history of civil war.

    The war of the roses was a war of succession. You may be thinking more of the English civil war in the 1640's which is estimated to have claimed somewhere in the region of 1 million people.

    When I mentioned the Spanish civil war I was merely repeating what other Spaniards have told me and does not necessarily reflect my own opinion.

    It makes a difference as it is a culture that is more British and is different from Spanish culture; courtesy of the amount of time it has spent as a British possession.
    No not in the modern world. But even if it were possible then you couldn't restore every colony to it's previous owner as they are all different.

    This is one of the reasons why almost all of Britain's colonies were self governing. the French and Portuguese often made the mistake of believing that their overseas territories were organic extensions of the motherland.

    No, you're right about that. So I reviewed the legality of the subject again.

    http://www.gibnet.com/library/gs1_tou.htm
    The link refers to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969.

    Article 31: General rule of interpretation
    1. A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the
    terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.

    Even the text of article X in the treaty does not forego the transfer of sovereignty and does support the transfer of water for the of the harbour.

    I think that legally Spain cannot claim that the waters belong to it. Although the airport of Gibraltar is suspect due it's position within the neutral zone but that was established with the explicit purpose of dividing the military and not the civilian population.
     
  20. martin76

    martin76 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    551
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sorry my delay, Mr Funnisnow. You are right, they are settler descendents from eastern Mediterranean have rights, but civil right, right to be british, right to be owner etc but not selfdetermination rights... NU was very clear about that. Only aboriginal people have that right ..that´s the reason because the Pieds Noirs (French, Spanish and Italian settlers bornt in Algeria) lacked of right to vote and were expelled in 1962-1964 by the Algerian FLN.
    For me it is very simple. Gibraltar belongs to the Queen of Great Britain forever, but can not have territorial waters, because the Queen of Britain is not Sovereign of Gibraltar. Utrecht is clear: the King of Spain is the only Sovereing of Gibraltar. So Britain has no Gibraltar waters because it has the property of the Rock, but not sovereignty. So there can be no self-determination, because the Sovereign belongs to the King of Spain. Britain can not transfer sovereignty, and that by a legal principle says nobody can transfer what it hasn´t. So the Rock is British forever, but not the waters and not any right of seldetermination that It´s not in Utrecht and not (according with U.N.) have the settlers in any place (Pieds Noirs, Algerie, 1962).


    Therefore, I argue once again that there are two solutions: To come back to the former Status Quo unilaterally broken by local authorities or recognise British Sovereignty (with territorial waters and the right to transfer the selfdetermination right to the eastern Mediterranean settlers brought by british to Gibraltar) in exchange for evacuating the illegally occupied neutral zone.

    Pro-Consul

    thanks, because many people think SCW is something like brutal... and its not more brutal than others civil war in Europe in XX century. Not even It was the most brutal civil war in the history of Spain... that It was the First Carlist War (1833-1840), by the way, the last time, Spaniards (the Catholic and Royal Army) fought against British (a British Expeditionary Force was sent to Spain to support the Liberals and Queen Isabella II of Spain ...) I think it was the last time the british army was defeated by spaniards (Battle of Oriamendi) in this case by Spanish Royalist:
    About Two Roses was a Civil war, I think, between White and Red Roses (York and Lancaster), like the Civil war in XVII century between republican and royalist.
    But pro-consul the issue is in the transmission or not the sovereignty by the Treaty of Utrecht. Personally I think It would be a good idea to recognize British sovereignty (which was not done in Utrecht) in return for evacuating the neutral zone (where are the blocks and the airport).

    Bye.
     
  21. funinsnow

    funinsnow Banned by Member Request

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    678
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks Martin76 for your reply. You are smart and have thought about Gibaltar and the surrounding waters. Before I get to Gibraltar (more so waters), the other Spanish speaking nation that I have visited outside Spain (except for visiting Mexico's border town Nogales for shopping) is Costa Rica-took a 6 day trip there in Sept. 2013. Costa Rica is a beautiful nation and they abolished their military in 1948-NATO defends Costa Rica. I would not visit most Iberoamerican nations because nations such as Bolivia (Evo Morales), Argentina (Cristina Fernandez Kirchner) and Venezuela (Nicolas Maduro) are run by Communist dictators. I don't have interest to visit Guatemala, Honduras and Colombia because there is so much poverty and crime there. Colombia as known has had a long civil war with FARC and ELN 19 and don't think negotiations will work. Other Iberoamerican nations just have not interested me. But Costa Rica did and that is the Spanish speaking nation I would recommend for people to visit outside Spain. Costa Ricans are easy to understand while Cuban Spanish is the hardest-difficult to recognize the words. I could visit Mexico (Canada and Mexico are 2 nations most visited by Americans). Anyhow to your other comments.

    With Algeria, yes Algeria got independence from France in 1962 following the 1954-62 Independence War. Algerians wanted independence and won this. I believe it was wrong to expel French, Italians and Spaniards who were born in Algeria. If after independence, if French, Italians and Spaniards born there wanted to move to France, Italy and Spain, then it should be their choice. But they also should have had choice to live in Algeria and follow Algerian law if they did not want to move as this was their birthplace. Goa India got independence from Portugal in December 1961 with few deaths after India's war declaration threat. People born in Goa on or before Dec. 17, 1961 had the choice to either go to Portugal or if they decided to live in Goa, they would be subject to India's laws and be Indian citizens. The same right should have been given to Italians, French and Spaniards born in Algeria after Algeria won independence.

    With Gibraltar, you are right that the main dispute over Gibraltar has been surrounding H2O. Let's do hope for an amicable solution to this. With the Rock or el penon, if in future people born on Gibraltar want to be a part of Spain, then I will support their free will. Fabian Picardo was born on Gibraltar and he has said that he does not want Gibraltar to be a part of Spain. As most people born there share Mr. Picardo's view, then I will respect their free will to remain a British overseas territory as this is what they want. Fabian Picardo should moderate and what Fabian Picardo should say is let the people born on Gibraltar decide if they want to continue status quo, be a part of Spain or be an independent nation. Honestly, President Mariano Rajoy Brey woud like for Gibraltar to be a part of Spain and yes, Gibraltar did originally belong to Spain, so the interests are more than the waters surrounding Gibraltar. I like both the U.K. and Spain (again having lived in Spain and having relatives who live in U.K.), and I would like to see an amicable solution to this. We don't have to agree with choice people born on Gibraltar make on their sovereignty, but I believe that we should respect the free will of the people who are born on Gibraltar. Wish I could give a better answer to the H2O dispute surrounding Gibraltar, but again, I do hope the matter is amicably resolved.
     
  22. Sixteen String Jack

    Sixteen String Jack New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2013
    Messages:
    737
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The people of Gibraltar have already decided what they want their territory's status to be.

    The 7th November 2002 the Gibraltar sovereignty referendum asked the people of Gibraltar their opinion in the following words:

    On the 12th July 2002 the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, in a formal statement in the House of Commons, said that after twelve months of negotiation the British Government and Spain are in broad agreement on many of the principles that should underpin a lasting settlement of Spain's sovereignty claim, which included the principle that Britain and Spain should share sovereignty over Gibraltar.
    Do you approve of the principle that Britain and Spain should share sovereignty over Gibraltar?


    The result:

    Of the 18,176 Gibraltarians who voted (a turnout of 87.9% out of a total electorate of 20,678 ) 17,900 (98.48%) voted NO and 187 (1.03%) voted YES. There were 89 (0.49%) invalid or blank votes.

    Peter Caruana, the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, said of the result that:

    A clear message had been sent to the world, and that a democratic politician at his own peril describes this result as irrelevant... The result is one of democracy at work in its purest form... The vote is the result of the will of the people of Gibraltar and that the concept of "joint sovereignty" is a dead end.

    The waters surrounding Gibraltar are, according to international law, Gibraltarian waters. This is stated quite clearly in international law.
     
  23. martin76

    martin76 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    551
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    thanks Mr Funnisnow, in fact we´re writing the same. Really I don´t care to change Utrecht and by first time to recognize British sovereignty (and thus self-determination) but only in the part yielded by Utrecht. The neutral zone should be evacuated because it is not British under any law or treaty (and that includes the airport and the water where the blocks are). As you well say, the issue is not the rock or the population (Spaniards do not want the people are in Gibraltar like spaniards) but the water... I think
    Spain never accept British territorial waters until the treaty of Utrecht is changed and to change the treaty of Utrecht, will be necessary to evacuate the illegally occupied neutral zone ... We are in a vicious circle. That's why I think it's better sometimes return to the former Status Quo.

    Mr Sixteen,

    No, any international Law recognized any territorial waters by the simple issue doesn´t exist any British sovereignty over Gibraltar, no sovereignty, no territorial waters. Utrecht is very clear about that: Soveregnty belong to the Catholick King. The Ownership belong to the British Queen. In any case:
    A.- Sovereignty and Territorial waters in exchange for evacuation the Neutral Zone
    B.- To come back to the former status quo: Remove blocks fron waters aren´t British not even in the case one day the British sovereignty over Gibraltar is recognized.

    Regards.
     
  24. BritishBoy

    BritishBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2013
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    British sovereignty is recognized... They're British waters, so the British can do what they want with the waters,end of discussion. To be honest I would like Spain to invade Gibraltar, just so we can kick their ass like we kicked Argentina's and send a message that British people and British land will always be defended.
     
  25. martin76

    martin76 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    551
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Dear Britishboy

    Really?, why Don´t you show it in the forum? I have shown what is written in Utrecht: Sovereignty for the Catholic King, Property and enjoyment for the Queen of England, France and Hibernia. And what I can maintain nobody can argue me by document... Facts, facts.

    Without Sovereignty It is not possible to have Sovereing Waters.. It´s very simple and easy to be understood.



    With their waters yes, but not with Spanish Waters... and in Gibraltar, british ownership under Spanish soverignty... (Utrecht said) Is too much difficut to do what they want...Spaniards do not respect those waters... so, or It comes back to former Status Quo (from Eighteenth Century to XXI century) or It can establish negotiations: British Sovereignty in Gibraltar and Territoral Waters in exchange for evacuation of the Neutral Zone.

    What we have here! a British Warrior! I think Spain doesn´t need to invade Gibraltar, First, because Spain doesn´t want the Rock, second, because It would be better to blockade: No airport, nor comunication, nor water, nor food, nor telephone lines through spanish waters or land.. everything coming from Britain or from Morocco... very expensive for British pay taxer, really.

    There are many joint interests: Spain has major investment in UK. On the other hand 16 million Britons visited Spain in 2013 (very important for the Spanish tourism sector)... and 800.000 britons live in Spain (with their property, money etc..in that country)..so many interest.

    Who knows? Depend many factors... the real British superiority is in the submarines... but if they make mistakes and they close the submarines to shallow water ... or if they attack right in Algeciras Bay....I don´t think so... No submarines, no real superiority. If One submarine were sunk... and the situation would change very fast.

    I don´t think so. I think you are very young for have been in Falklands in 1982...the men who won Falklands war nowadays are between 52 to 70 years old... To write you kicked Argentina is to much arty ... as ridiculous as saying that I conquered Southampton, Plymouth or Portsmouth because the Spaniards took these cities in the past .. yes, those Spaniards today are very, very "old men".

    And by other side, I´m afraid, Spain is not Argentina…In fact, If you are writing about Falklands... I recommend that you read what happened in the Falklands the only time that Spanish and British sides met there ... No, dear, that matter didn´t finish like in 1982, not for the britons, I think...

    My young teen ... do not be so many warmongers impulses, moreover like I always say threats do not impress Spaniards...By other side, If you allow me... Don´t use arrogance, it's not good adviser in the war (nor in life) ... and I´m afraid that many British disasters have been originated in the English arrogance.

    Like It was defended Hong Kong in 1997? Like Suez, 1956?

    Regards.
     

Share This Page