MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
UK reaffirms to next Spanish government full support for Gibraltar sovereignty
Just a few days after the Conservative Popular Party swept into power in Spain, the British Government has underscored its long-standing assurance that it will not talk about Gibraltar’s sovereignty against the wishes of its people. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesNo dialogue, as usual :)
Dec 02nd, 2011 - 01:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0Uk is breaching the Brussel process of 1986, in which Spain would open her side of the fence in exchance of bilateral talks on soverignty of Gibraltar.
Dec 02nd, 2011 - 05:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0The “ constitution” of the colony, on the “ self-determination” of the colony is in direct breach of the Treaty of Utretch, Article 10, where it clearly says that Gibraltar can't never be independent.
Uk uphold Utretch by saying that she is honoring Treaty of Utretch, Article X of 1713, by saying that Gibraltar can't achieve independence without Spain's consent.
So what type of “ self-determination” is this? Self-determination without the option of independence? that is an oxymoron !
Do the Kelpers in the Malvinas get the same deal? That they can't have independence if they wish because a 300 year old piece of paper says so?
I think the UN Charter on Human Rights is the ultimate document that will be referred to, you can't have a Treaty signed in 1713 trumping the Charter, if Gibraltar decided to opt for Independence I'm sure they would either defend the matter at the ICJ, or take the matter there themselves.
Dec 02nd, 2011 - 05:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0In addition, just because the matter is a long way from a solution, doesn't mean the UK is breaching anything, the UK is observing the UN Charter, which again trumps any European process started in 1986.
Nothing to talk about Ex-Brain. Gibraltar was legally ceded by Spain. Typically latin of course, they do like to go back on a deal.
Dec 02nd, 2011 - 06:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0Very arguable whether the Treaty remains in force after 300 years.
But the Treaty of 1945 certainly is :-)
The UN Charter changed everything, so expect to see an independent Gibraltar taking a seat at the UN in the next decade or so :-)
@ 3 and you can have the Charter trumping the Treaty? what a ridiculous position of yours, like trying to have sex with a fat woman who can't do the missionary position because her legs are too fat and short.
Dec 02nd, 2011 - 06:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well, the UN Charter pragmatically provides for this very circumstance through Article 103: “ In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail”
Dec 02nd, 2011 - 08:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0Funnily enough Gibraltar has thrown down the gauntlet and challenged Spain to go to the ICJ....
Dec 02nd, 2011 - 09:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0Guess what the answer was?
On the subject of self determination, refer to the 2002 vote on sovereignty. The result on a turnout of 87.9% was 98.48% in favour of remaining British and only 187 people voted to share sovereignty between Britain and Spain.
Dec 02nd, 2011 - 10:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0The hypocrisy of the Spanish position on Gibraltar is staggering when one considers their position on the Spanish enclaves in Morocco.
Spain says that “Ceuta and Melilla aren't ”colonies“ since Spaniards have been living there since before Morocco even existed”.
What's the Spanish for 'two-faced'...........?
@3 - funny how in the same section of the treaty of utrecht the very first paragraph makes it clear that the king of spain gives up all rights and claims to the land forvever. Here's a qoute to remind you - “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, without any exception or impediment whatsoever.”
Dec 02nd, 2011 - 11:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0As for it making it clear that their can be no independence or self determination and should be given instead - Well that would only apply if the british corwn decided to sell the territory, and i again qoute from the treaty itself “And in case it shall hereafter seem meet to the Crown of Great Britain to grant , sell or by any means to alienate therefrom the propriety of the said town of Gibraltar, it is hereby agreed and concluded that the preference of having the sale shall always be given to the Crown of Spain before any others.”
So according to said treaty it is only if we decided to SELL Gibralter, that we must give first right to buy to spain. There is nothing said about if gibralter whats independence.
So if you wish to rely on the treaty of utrecht, then bear in mind the spains demnds for sovereingty are in breach of article 10 of the treaty where they gave up such rights to ownership and were only entitled to first right to buy if and only if the british crown decided to sell the land. So your argument on the treaty of utrecht is flawed. Not only that, and as others here have pointed out, the UN Charter takes precendence now above any previous treaties that were in place prior to the UN charter.
Ceuta and Melilla are nothing compared to the Parsley Island incident in 2002. That was just funny.
Dec 02nd, 2011 - 12:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@9 Teaboy
Dec 02nd, 2011 - 05:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You forgot to mention, that also in Article X, it says ” the city was ceded WITHOUT TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION!
That is something that the pirate usurpers in Gibraltar will NEVER tell visitors to the Peñon. It is very clear in the writing of the Article of TOU that it was a forced treaty of theft, and the Borbons were doing trying to put as many strings as they could.
The colonists have MUCH MUCH land that is outside Article x, like the Istmus, and all the land south of Carlos V wall. They should be paying Spain a LEASE for this additional land stolen outside the Treaty, just like Hong Kong was paying China for Kowloon and New Territories.
The colonists can keep Gibraltar British if they want, but they'll have to give back all land outside of Utretch, and since they scorn Spain so much, and celebrate an ACT OF PIRACY IN 1704, slapping Spain in the face with offensive celebrations, then Spain reserves the right of not letting any of these pirate usurpers set a foot in the rest of Spain.
@11 But what it does say is “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;”
Dec 02nd, 2011 - 09:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now what part of FULL and ENTIRE PROPRIETY of the town and castle, together with the port, fortitficatins and forts tereunto belonging? As i think you will find the lands outside the city were the property of the city, and therefore are classed as being within the ENTIRE PROPRITEY of the town of Gibralter. Please stop misintrepreted treaties to suite your own goals. As back in the those days the lands outsite did in deed below to the city in which they surrounded. Also the forts were along the line of the current frontier (Devil's Tower, El Molino) such that this area was included in the cession when spain handed yielded all “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;” The forts on the current fountier actually did belong to the town of gibralter at the time spain yielded gibralter to the british crown.
So your argument is flawed as you neglect that vital part of the article and the fact the fort belonged to the city or gibralter and were also yielded to the british crown. Not only that but you forget about established international legal precedents that grant property rights over an area that is continually occupied and made sole use of, for an extended period. In practice, the land is now an integral part of the territory of Gibraltar on one side, and similarly on the Spanish side. But on top of that the treaty itself is no longer relevant as the UN charter that grants the people of gibralter self determination takes a legal precedence over any such treaty.
As Domingo quite correctly points out, the Treaty of Utrecht 1713, has been overtaken, indeed killed off, by the UN Charter of 1945. The Gibraltarians' right to self-determination is enshined by the paramountcy of the 1945 Treaty.
Dec 03rd, 2011 - 03:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!