Yes if one compares civil wars throughout the entirety of the 20th century then yes it was no more brutal than others. No it was very different. The war of roses was a war succession for the throne of England and most of the battles were fought here in the North. Whereas the English civil war was in fact a war between parliament and King Charles II with spark coming from the so called ship tax which was one of many new taxes introduced in order to pay for wars within continental Europe. And this was fought throughout the whole country and claimed approximately one million lives. Also there has never been a particularly strong interest in forming a republic in this country and is many ways a dirty word. I've previously highlighted the text which grants the transfer of both territory and sovereignty of Gibraltar. I've also further supported this by stating that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) which when coupled with the UN law of the sea means that irrespective of whether there was a mistranslation or any other inconsistency still means that those waters belong to Britain and not Spain. As such the incursions by the Guardia Civil constitute and act of war and I would recommend that the next vessel that illegally enter British waters be sunk and if that fails then a flotilla should be sent with instructions to shoot at the next military vessel that enters until they surrender or are dead. As for the neutral zone. There is no violation of the treaty of Utrecht as the ground is still neutral as prescribed by the treaty and as such the ground has been claimed and developed legally.
I think that you're not quite au fait with British history because they were not invasions of British territory. Also I had relatives who present at the handover ceremony in 97. And we did indisputably win the Falklands war.
Spain does want the rock why else would this be debated? You clearly have very little knowledge on the subject as you second comment is equally ridiculous. A blockade will be forced open by UN or EU officials if the Spanish ignore that good old british might will kick through their barricades. They didn't want to be British, if any British land doesn't want to be British they can leave (if you remember both the Falklands and Gibraltar had a vote). We will defend every territory that wants us as they themselves are British. We lost ships in the Falklands, it's just a fact of war. The Royal Navy are not idiots in fact they're one of the best navies in the world, if submarines can't go there they won't be sent. What one must also remember is that Gibraltar is very different to the Falklands, the fleet that was sent to the Falklands was on their own. But Gibraltar is seriously close to Britain so I suspect the RAF (Royal Air Force) will be playing a lead role in the invasion. However what one must remember if we can strike them, they can strike us. I have no doubt Britain will win however. Spain will never attack mainland Britian because of course our automatic response will be to strike them back.
One thing I have found online that might change the debate is the fact that SPAIN GAVE US GIBRALTAR IN THE TREATY OF UTRECHT!
Well, I don´t know who answer back first. Maybe the younger: Exactly, Spain doesn´t want the Rock... The debate is about the water, very clear and simple. A blockade would be legal, It is written in Utrecht, and even more as answer to any hostile british action... That good old british might... I don´t know why... but British arrogance... didn´t work too much against the spaniards... nor America nor Europe...British Arrogance and Spanish Pride. . Is It a joke? Hong Kong? When was the referendum? any referendum!!! About Gibraltar, lack of native population... settlers from Easter Mediterranean... like the Pied Noirs in Algerie. RAF is very far from Gibraltar.. invasion? Are you talking to invade Spain? This matter is each day more interesting... The last british landed in Spain... I´m afraid it wasn´t as victorious as the British government had wanted..."" Vice-Admiral John Warren was in charge of a naval force of seven ships, six frigates, five brigs, two slops and one schooner. In all twenty one warships giving protection to 86 transports containing 15.000 soldiers mainly infantry and cavalry"... British Artillery: 16 guns....Faced this forces, spaniards had 6 ships, 4 frigates, 2 brigs and 10 gunboats, 2.000 soldiers and 3 guns... so, 1 spanish each 7,5 british soldier, 1 spanish gun each 5,3 british one. surely some young BritishBoy warrior, thought like you ... We kick spaniards... How disappointing the poor one would take!! I think It would be better to say: I try and kicking... otherwise, maybe one might finish making a fool of himself... “They finally retreated in a disorderly manner. At dawn on the 27th of August, the British Army began to reach Doniños; everybody reembarking as they possibly could” ... Not so easy, really. still (2013) British military historians justify the failure of the Battle of Brion in question like: incordination Navy – Army, the bad relations between naval and army command, failures of military intelligence and the stubborn defense. whatever happened, the fact is that 15,000 and 16 guns failed vs 2.000 and 3 guns. The same year, the British obtained a new failed in another attack against Cadiz... it was the last time the British Army tried any offensive operation in Spain... till today. Regards
All the civil war in Medieval were succession wars. In any case both wars were fights between english and/or british. Also for me the word republic is dirty. The Monarchy is the traditional system in Spain... from Roman Empire to nowadays, Spain was a Monarchy save 1873/74 and 1931-1939. No, It isnt the text, It´s your interpretation. Utrecht is written what´s written: Again: El Rey Católico por sí y por sus herederos y sucesores cede por este tratado a la corona de la Gran Bretaña la plena y entera propiedad de la ciudad y del castillo de Gibraltar, juntamente con su puerto, defensa y fortalezas que le pertenecen, dando la dicha propiedad absolutamente para que la tenga y goce con entero derecho y para siempre The text in English: The Catholick King does hereby, for himself, his Heirs and successors, yield to the Crown of Great Britain, the full and intire Propiety of the Town and Castle of Gibraltar, togehter with the Port, Fortifications and Forts, thereunto belonging; and he gives up the said Propiety, to be held and enjoyed absolutely, with all manner of Right for ever Article X, Treaty of Utrecht, continuous Quiere el Rey Católico y supone que así se ha de entender, que LA DICHA PROPIEDAD SE CEDE A GRAN BRETAÑA SIN JURISDICCIÓN ALGUNA TERRITORIAL y sin comunicación alguna abierta con el país vecino The Text in English: The Catholick King Wills, and takes it to be undestood, that the ABOVE NAMED PROPIETE BE YIELDED TO GREAT BRITAIN, WITHOUT ANY TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION and without any open comunication by the Land with the Contry round about. Utrecht is very simple, clear and easy to be understood... a different question is the bad will of British goverment.. Great Britain lack of Soverign rights over the Rock.. and without sovereign rights... is impossible to have Territorial Waters. As 100% human can read the Treaty of Utrecht...The own means of the words is very clear. The transfer by virtue of the Treaty of Utrecht was purely territorial (WITHOUT ANY TERRITTORIAL JURISDICTION is Written in Utrecht and Signatured by British Delegation), property, Utis Possidetis, without any assumption of of sovereignty and, therefore, without their inherent attributes. In aid of this interpretation is not only this article in Utrecht Treaty, "without territorial jurisdiction and the right of first refusal in favor of Crown of Spain for the case Britain gives, sells or transfers in any way the Property of the City of Gibraltar, but also, and especially, the historical context of the treaty: (the difference between Ownership and Jurisdiction/ sovereignty): 1.- Treaty of Peace, October 24, 1648, between the Kaiser Ferdinand III and the Holy Roman Empire , into the Congress of Münster. 2.- Treaty of Versailles, March 9, 1701 between the King of France and the kurfürst of Bavaria. 3.- And the most important for this issue, the Spanish-British Preliminary Treaty of Peace and Friendship, signatured in Madrid, March, 27, 1713, where it was clear that the jurisdiction would be in the hands of the Catholick King and the ownership in the hands of the Queen of England, France and Hibernia ... and the British delegation didn´t object, on the contrary, would ratify in Utrecht, months later. In British diplomacy seems to be a common place that Spain ceded full sovereignty of Gibraltar in 1713, which is far from true. If we compare the cases of Gibraltar (Article 10 of the Treaty of Utrecht, PROPERTY) and Minorca (Article 11) would see an important nuance. Again more: Article 10: "the above-named PROPRIERTY be yield to Great Britain without any territorial jurisdiction. By contrast, Article 11 (Minorca), mention to the sovereignty is obvious: "all rights, and the most absolute dominion over the the said island." What does this mean? Well, in 1713 Gibraltar was ceded without territorial Jurisdiction, and therefore, without territorial waters. UK lack of rights because lack of Jurisdiction over the waters. As much of a right of way. Spain has always respected: 1st: The British Propertys is limited by Utrecht to town and fortress of Gibraltar (the Rock since the Treaty of Seville, 1729). 2nd: The control between the two docks, the old and the new 3rd The right of way to all vessels. However, Britain has never respected the Treaty. In a succession of fait a Complait, GB, whom: 1st: Changing the name: In the year 1830, in full crisis in Spain, between Liberal and Absolutist, became what before was called "The City and Garrison of Gibraltar in the Kingdom of Spain" in "the Crown Colony of Gibraltar. (so till 1830, nobody in Britain doubt about the jurisdiction... City...of Gibraltar in THE KINGDOM OF SPAIN. 2nd: Illegaly occupied in 1854 the southern part of the neutral zone of the Treaty of Seville in 1729. 3rd: Stated (from 2006) as his own by way of the facts on the waters around the rock that, as established in the Treaty of Utrecht, never were ceded by Spain. Like U.N. say (Resolutions 2070 (1965), 2331 (1966), 2353 (1967) and 2429 (196 Gibraltar lack of self-determination right because lack of native population. Are you talking about articles 31 and 32? First, if Spain would admitted any transfer of Sovereignty, according to the contemporanean international law, the assignment is exclusively limited to the territorial domain is in Treaty of Utrecht, specifically article X that delimited the yielded territory: city and Castle of Gibraltar together its Harbor, defenses and fortress (The Rock). The assignment is not extended other land and maritime areas, ilegally ocuppied by Britain and without any law support. The Guardia Civil continue going through Spanish waters.. and if you attack, you are going to do an act of War: to attack a Spanish ship in Spanish waters and I woul recommend to blockade of Gibraltar, to close the airport and attacking any british navy ship in Spanish waters till they surrender or would be sunk. The moderation is better. For everybody. Maybe you´re right. Hong Kong was British Territory (What is not Gibraltar, Utrecht says). And It was yielded. Suez Canal was under British Control (although never was British). Nasser nationalized the Cannal and Britain (and France and Israel) attacked. Everybody knows what happened after... Minorca was a British Territory. Spaniards attacked, retook and now Minorca is Spain. Like you can read in Wikipedia: During the American War of Independence, the British were defeated for a second time, in this instance by a combination of French and Spanish forces, which regained the island after a long siege of St. Philip's Castle in Port Mahon on 5 February 1782. The British ceded the island back to Spain the next year in the Treaty of Versaille When you are writting "WE"... Do you mean yourself or the Britons? I don´t think You were in Falklands. At least you are between 50 to 75 years old...My parents taught me that one can only arrogate to himself what he has done.. Spain is European and World Champions in football;: Three titles in a row... done by nobody in history of that stupid sport...Does it means I am World Champion? .......Me? I have not played football ever in my life, and I am unable to watch more than five minutes of a game (the most boring sport exists) But I am World Champion!!!!! For me very strange way of thinking... With that way of thinking ... "You" beat the Argentines and I have driven British out from Malvinas... The British settlement, like that of the French, was short-lived. The Spanish autorities in Buenos Aires...finally entered Port Edgmont on 10 june 1770.... I promise I did not participate in this short and victorious campaign in the Falklands ... But according with you said... I drove you out from Falklands... The man who keeps the golden mean is named sober and moderate. (Aristoteles) Regards
Britain came into being in 1707. The English civil war which included British people was in the 1640's This supports the British position. And you'll see why when you read on. This is on the Spanish side. It's not actually setting the terms for the transfer but stating what is negated by Spain. In fact we would many contradictions in the treaty if this really was the case. If no communication was to be allowed from Britain to Spain then this part of Article X would be null and invalid. Res 2070 does not say anything of the kind. It's more of an invitation to discuss Gibraltar. Anyway the native population argument is also invalid as prior to 1991 the term was "tribal populations" And if this was the case then From Canada to New Zealand would not have any water at all. Even if the neutral was deemed illegally occupied, it still would not negate the waters around Gibraltar. Ergo it's valid. No. The canal zone is administered by a private company and is not under any one nations jurisdiction. Britain did however have an obligation to ensure the internationality of the Canal. Britain. The use of "we" is for expediency.
Exactly... What do you mean "to get lost"? I don´t think nobodoy is lost...relations between Spain (Hispania, Spanaan) and the British Isles are from the dawn of time, ... and I do not mean the oldest embassy in the world (the Spanish one in London) .. but thousands of years ago ... So, It is very difficult to get lost now... I think... Three examples: 1.- Mr Dreamin´gal... Have you ever heard about Beaker culture? It arrived to Britain from Hispania.. about 2.200 B.C. (40 centuries ago) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaker_culture There is no clear division between the Stone and the Bronze Age in Britain. Around 2500 BC the Beaker people (originally from Spain) began to immigrate to Britain and brought metal-working skills with them. They made gold, copper and bronze implements and ornaments. 2.- The enigmatic Kingdom of Tartessos (South Spain, Andalucia nowadays) appears in the Bible .. came to Britain and Ireland ... VIII Century Before Christ!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartessos ...that earlier cultural commonality, defined by bronze swords, spearheads, cauldrons, flesh-forks and spits, stretched from Tartessos to Galicia, Brittany, Britain and Ireland. In the eighth century BC a new élite arose rapidly amongst the native trading partners of the Phoenicians. These Tartessian potentates are known primarily from necropolises of tumulus burials, awash with luxury grave-goods from the eastern Mediterranean, including jewellery, cosmetics, portable images of deities, ornamented chariots, wine and oil. So, the relations between Spain and the British Islands... are ascertained by: a.- Pottery b.- The greek and roman historians reports c.- Mt DNA So... For sure, nobody is lost...
Hong Kong was leased by the British for 99 years in 1898. Or, to be more precise, part of it was. The British were under no obligation to hand all of Hong Kong back to China in 1997. Britain could have kept hold of parts of it. That's because Hong Kong consists of three parts - Hong Kong Island, Kowloon Peninisula, and the New Territories. The Treaty of Nanking ceded Hong Kong Island to Britain in perpetuity (forever) in 1842. In 1860, Kowloon Peninsula was also ceded to the British forever. Only the New Territories were leased to the British for 99 years in 1898. So, in 1997, the only part of Hong Kong Britain was obliged to give back to China was the New Territories. Britain had every right to hang on to Hong Kong Island and Kowloon Peninsula, and could have done so forever - like Gibraltar - yet we still decided to hand them over to China in 1997 out of the goodness of our hearts. Had it been Spain rather than Britain, Spain would have kept them.
Exactly so It was. You have well told the history of British possesion in Hong Kong but you ought to remember that Great Britain yielded because neither the government nor the British society was determined to go to war against China in 1997 ... if it had been in 1850, in 1900, even in 1956, Great Britain had not hesitated to defend Hong Kong, said what It was said by the treaties... Britain did not respect any treaty with China since the First Opium War (1839-1842) ... It isn´t question about countries but It depends on the coordinate space - time, society living the problem at that particular historical moment.. Under Franco, for example, in 1974, for sure Spain had defended every street and every house in Hong Kong, under the contemporanean politics Not... It had been like Britain.. maybe still worst.. one example: Turbot War in 1995 Spain allowed an act of canadian piracy that it´s been unthinkable in 1950 ... or 1890 ... or 1740 ... Any Catholic King had sent his army to Canada and had hung the pirates like a warning in the world ... 1995, Spain did nothing against Canadian pirates ... Great Britain ceded Hong Kong because Royal Navy wasn´t in 1997 (and It not nowadays) the same navy was in 1914 (The Two Power Standar), or in 1820...Spain had yielded Hong Kong in 1997, because nowadays the Armada Real is not the same one was in 1804...and It isn´t the same society. It all depends on space and time.. It today Britain lost 2.000 men in one day would be a disaster: political, parliament, demonstrations etc etc ... in Mons lost 2,000 men and no one said nothing... is the difference between 2014 and 1914... Regards
Why would China have gone to war over Britain if Britain had kept the two parts of Hong Kong that China itself ceded to Britain for eternity?
I don't think that they would have. China in the modern age has been thought of as being aggressive due to Mao and the preceding 100 or so years of instability. Nowadays it has that stability and has no real reason to acquire new territory. Even the official position over Taiwan has no real substance. But for Britain we've moved on and no longer require overseas territories to create wealth and we still have a serious financial presence in HK. So really it was better to shed the responsibility and still benefit to a lesser degree from HK but not only that it's also a goodwill gesture which seems to have borne fruit. In fact Britain and China are actually becoming closer.
Because no great power allows foreign presence in its area of influence, consider it a discredit... Macau was ceded for eternity... not leased.. However China demanded the delivery of the territory in 1999...for the same reason It wouldn´t have tolerated the British presence in Hong Kong ...after 1997, the decision to stay or leave Hong Kong was no longer in the hands of the British government ...Britain held three successful wars against China in 60 years, but in 1997 it knew he had no chance of winning. In the worst of the option, China had attacked the British areas in Hong Kong and had finished with the British presence in the Area... something like India in the forgotten Indo-portuguese war in 1962 (India attacked the Portuguese territories: Goa, Diu, Damao etc etc)...and forced the delivery of the French Territories (Like Pondichery)... Chinese have not forgiven at all what the British (and Russian and French and japanese) made in XIX century... Where the British who "invented" the drug trade (from India to China).. and who used the drug trafficking to open China...in fact, today, 2014, the traffic of drug is capital punishment in China, like in Lin Zexu time...China lacks of friend.. only interest.. nothing more. Regards
I think It would be better to say It´s what British traders wanted.. Opiun was banned in China... British knew and they used the Opium grew in India to open China to the British trade..just like today make some Mexicans, Colombians, Iranian etc. .. By other side, I think. it would have been more honest the military conquest of the Chinese Empire.
I know but there was a public demand for opium beforehand which is why I said that it was what they wanted. And it wasn't just British merchants selling opium as Americans were also there selling Turkish produced opium.
Ok, I understand now.. by other way I didn´t know americans also sold opium... I could´t imagine... American are so moralist! I am happy the day I learn something. the British and Russian in the nineteenth century as the Spanish in the sixteenth / seventeenth century had the chance to conquer China ... another parallel between Spain and Britain .. for the british was very easy to defeat the numerically superior Chinese armies in XIX century.. another parallelism with Spain.. also It was very easy for Spaniards to defeat the chinese armies.. so easy that It was a project to conquest the Chinese Empire...
My fault. I should have been clearer. I think one may find that some people of all nationalities will enter into questionable businesses. It's just human nature to sometimes discard morality. I don't think that it's possible to conquer China. I mean we invaded them twice on our own but we didn't conquer them because it was too large to administer and it wasn't as stable as people think particularly in the onwards from the 1850's which they've relatively recently recovered from. Even the Russians had trouble keeping control of their own soldiers in Asia. Adding more territory without significant advantage would have been an enormous problem. Technologically most of China was still stuck in the middle ages up until the bloody rule of Mao. And of course by the time of the opium wars and the 8 nation intervention in the Boxer rebellion, the Chinese armies and Navy was very much stuck in time. However to their credit they were brilliant ship builders during the later middle ages but unfortunately for them they stopped there.
Pro-Consul wrote I think It´s a great truth.. All right.. but Maybe It would be possible after the victory in First Opium War...when Taiping Rebellion begun...Had Britain helped the Heavenly Army and promote the civil war... chinese was so weak than the far superior quality British Army, supported by Royal Navy (at the age the best and the most powerful navy in the world).. had been able to conquest everything in the coast and then... who knows if a progressive inward invasion towards central Asia... Spain planned the conquest of the Chinese Empire, it was thought than chinese were bad soldiers...because they were very easy defeated in Philippines, Formosa (Taiwan), Malay etc etc.. Like Portuguese in Macau or British in Hong Kong, also the Emperor of China gave an enclave to Spaniards in Fujian coast... finally China was free of a Spanish conquest by a fact: The revolt of Netherland... The idea of a military expedition to conquer China was never explicitly abandoned. But nothing was done....Thus the great opportunity was lost. The age of Spanish expansion was almost at an end. Christianity did not, alas, become the dominant religion of China as it had become in New Spain. Regards
