MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Gibraltar exposed to a repeat of Spanish provocations from a decade ago
Gibraltar appeared to be heading back to scenes of over a decade ago: clashes with Spanish fishermen and politicians. On Monday evening the Spanish ruling Popular Party from neighbouring Algeciras Mayor, Jose Ignacio Landaluce, boarded the vessel ‘Joaquina’ backing a protest sail into Gibraltar waters. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesMalvinas and Gibraltar are fading imperial relics of a sinking not that United Kingdom.
Mar 21st, 2012 - 05:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0you are now the most boring RG i know
Mar 21st, 2012 - 05:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Silly silly Malvinista, the only things that are sinking are Argentina and Spain as they vanish down the toilet u-bend of economic oblivion.
Mar 21st, 2012 - 05:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0In a referendum held in 2002, Gibraltarians rejected by an overwhelming majority (99%) a proposal of shared sovereignty on which Spain and Britain were said to have reached “broad agreement”.
Mar 21st, 2012 - 05:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0The main ethnic groups, according to the origin of names in the electoral roll, are Britons (27%), Spanish (26%, mostly Andalusians but also some 2% of Minorcans), Genoese and other Italians (19%), Portuguese (11%), Maltese (8%), and Jews (3%). There is a large diversity of other groups such as Moroccans, Indians, French, Austrians, Chinese, Japanese, Polish and Danish.
The Gibraltar Census 2001 recorded the breakdown of nationalities in Gibraltar as being 83.22% Gibraltarian, 9.56% “Other British”, 3.50% Moroccan, 1.19% Spanish and 1.00% “Other EU”.
It's a shame these belligerent Iberian governments and their rabid supporters can't accept the simple facts that:
Mar 21st, 2012 - 05:44 am - Link - Report abuse 01. They lost.
2. They're not wanted.
@Marcos Alejandro, do people actually go to the pub with you? seriously, you need some new material.
Mar 21st, 2012 - 07:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0@5 I don't know. It's either their culture or their language, but they seem to not understand what the law is. Same in Argentina, same in Spain.
@4
Mar 21st, 2012 - 07:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0The referendum you refer to is irrelevant (see below for reasons why this is so).
@6
You're the one that seems not to understand the law. There are legal criteria for determining which groups may legitimately claim the right to self-determination. Gibraltarians do not have a right to self-determination for the following reasons:
They do not constitute 'a people', and only 'a people' is entitled to self-determination under international law. Their status as ‘a people’ has never been recognized by the UN, who have consistently called them a ‘population.’ Moreover, they are not a population indigenous to Gibraltar, but were settled there by the UK displacing the Spanish population that previously existed there (after the capture of Gibraltar by Anglo-Dutch troops, only 70 out of the original 5,000 Spanish inhabitants remained in Gibraltar).
The UN General Assembly has passed two resolutions on the issue (2231 (XXI), ‘Question of Gibraltar’and 2353 (XXII), ‘Question of Gibraltar’). The resolutions on the decolonisation of Gibraltar focused on the ‘interests’ and not the ‘wishes’ of the Gibraltarians. The latter resolution states that:
‘any colonial situation which partially or completely destroys the national unity and territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and especially with paragraph 6 of Resolution 1514 (XV) of the General Assembly ... invites the Governments of Spain and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to resume without delay the negotiations provided for in General Assembly Resolutions 2070 (XX) and 2231 (XXI), with a view to putting an end to the colonial situation in Gibraltar and to safeguarding the interests of the population.’
This is the reason why the United Nations includes Gibraltar among those Non-Self Governing Territories which still need to be de-colonised by the UK.
@7
Mar 21st, 2012 - 08:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0No self determination, enshrined in Artlcle 1 of the UN Charter which both spain and Argentina has signed up to is the reason why the status quo will remain.
Neither Gib or the FI are colonies. They are not oppressed and go about their business freely. If they wish to ceded from being a BOT then they can but they exercise the right not to. whats even more interesting is that hardly any of the population is British which is even more telling. Looks like once they get a taste of the British way of life - they like it.
what must really get to both countries is the fact that gibraltar and the FI want absolutely nothing to do with them.
Doesnt matter what people say about the UK the simple fact is that in a free vote the islanders stick two fingers up at Argentina and Spain.
Tells you everything you need to know about the UK, Spain and the RG's.
Gib wants nothing to do with Spain and the FI want nothing to do with RG land.
Spain return Ceuta point and maybe we will talk!! what that its a different situation oh I see...
Mar 21st, 2012 - 08:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceuta
France return the SA COLONY of Guianna (its actually legally a region of france!!!) No these are different case oh ok. Wow this legal stuff is difficult it seems that laws a resolutions and rights only apply to the rest of the world.
@7 I think you'll find that Spain legally signed over Gibraltar to the UK in perpetuity. That's legally enforceable. Try reading a book.
Mar 21st, 2012 - 09:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0@8 You're right. The UN was founded on the principles of self-determination. The UN gave the Falklands people self-determination in 1982 when the Security Council Resolution 502 stated that the people of the Falklands had the right to self-defense (Article 51 of the Charter) from a alien belligerent power. Argentina then chose to ignore the UN demands and became delinquent to the UN charter. They refuse UN demands and refuse to listen to the ICJ to whom they claim has no jurisdiction over them. Ironic that they keep quoting the UN GA resolutions when they are incapable of following any.
@9 You're right. There is no point discussing sovereignty with a morally bankrupt country that has enough of it's own 'colonial enclaves' in Africa to 'decolonise' to self-governance.
It's all Iberian hypocrisy, so better to just ignore them.
what a coincidence, right? I mean just at about the same time that Argentina manages to re-dig from the graveyard of topics, the Malvinas issue, which the UK presented in various fora as a 'closed and resolved' issue, and get it out there at least at regional level, Spain pulls out the Gibraltar card.
Mar 21st, 2012 - 10:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0Coincidence?
Gibraltar has a wonderfully diverse population, a friend who lived their told me (I can't back this up with facts) that most people that live in Gibraltar are not of British descent. A lot of Spanish and Moroccans and Dutch over the years moved their.
Mar 21st, 2012 - 10:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Very Similar to the Falklands Islands situation, the people of Gibraltar would rather be independent than be part of Spain. As their people would be much richer doing so and don't have much in common with Spain.
Gibraltar = GDP - per capita (PPP): $43,000 (2006 est.)
Spain = GDP - per capita (PPP): $29,400 (2010 est.)
http://www.indexmundi.com/gibraltar/gdp_per_capita_(ppp).html
http://www.indexmundi.com/gibraltar/gdp_per_capita_(ppp).html
Gibraltar = GDP - per capita (PPP): $43,000 (2006 est.)
Mar 21st, 2012 - 11:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0United Kingdom = GDP - per capita (PPP): $35,082 (2010 est.)
Spain = GDP - per capita (PPP): $29,400 (2010 est.)
Argentina = GDP - per capita (PPP): $14,100 (2010 est.)
Conclusion: Argentinos are “muertos de hambre”, thanks Cristina
This is how Cristina Kirchner of Argentina and her cronies get votes:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyPC0SD0PGw
@13
Mar 21st, 2012 - 11:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0GDP figures on their own say nothing. Let me rephrase that, they say very little. You have to combine them with other such as the countries cost of living and purchasing power parity (PPP) for them to have some explanatory consequences.
Otherwise is mere masturbation...
@10
Mar 21st, 2012 - 12:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Treaty of Utrecht is beside the point. We are talking about whether the population of Gibraltar has a right to self-determination or not. That Treaty does not change the fact that the current population living in Gibraltar was introduced by a colonising power an therefore does not have a right to self-determination under international law.
UN Resolution 2353 held that the referendum conducted in Gibraltar by the UK in 1967 was invalid for the reasons I mentioned at @7 above.
I suggest that you do a little bit more reading yourself rather than indulging in worn-out rhetoric.
If you're interested in the facts, I suggest you read the following recent publication which exhaustively examines why the principle of self-determination does not apply to the current populations living in both the Falklands and Gibraltar:
R. Laver, The Falklands/Malvinas Case (Nijhoff, 2001);
Betelgeuse, one can always find an academic willing to defend the indefensible, and so arguments from authority are very shaky ground. Why don't you just summarise Laver's reasoning? I am sure it is full of holes.
Mar 21st, 2012 - 01:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 015 Betelgeuse (#)
Mar 21st, 2012 - 02:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The Treaty of Utrecht is beside the point. We are talking about whether the population of Gibraltar has a right to self-determination or not. That Treaty does not change the fact that the current population living in Gibraltar was introduced by a colonising power an therefore does not have a right to self-determination under international law.”
So no implanted population can ever have the right to self determination?
So what your saying then is that an Argentine has no right to Self Determination within Argentina as they are the decendants of an implantation population?
The only poeples of Argentina and who therefore have the right to decide what happens within it's borders are the native population... most of whom were slaughtered by the aforementioned implanted population.
At what point do they stop being implanted exactly and why do you think you have the god given right to decide on this?
And before you argue that Argentina is free from Spanish colonial rule... Your own argument makes that irrelevant. As an inplanted population you never had the right to decide that by an act of self determination.
Can you not see the overwhelming hypocrisy of your argument?
@17 “We are talking about whether the population of Argentina has a right to self-determination or not. That Treaty does not change the fact that the current population living in Argentina was introduced by a colonising power an therefore does not have a right to self-determination under international law.”
Mar 21st, 2012 - 02:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hooray!
@15 The fact is, forgetting epistemology for a minute, every moral and ethical bone in my body says that Argentina is a complete wreck of a mafia run corrupt hell hole, driven by an expansionist political ideology, brainwashed population and terrible system of governance. There is no moral and ethical reason to place a well governed state into the possession of Argentina, in the same way you wouldn't raise a baby in prison.
Get over it.
@15 Betelgeuse (#)
Mar 21st, 2012 - 02:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mar 21st, 2012 - 12:48 pm
When Argentina starts to respect international law, the rest of us will take lectures from Argentina about international law.
@14 Helber Galarga. Agree, but GDP is a good indicator
Mar 21st, 2012 - 03:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@18 GreekYoghurt. Good point
Although it is tiny in size Gibraltar could become an independent nation, similar to Andorra and San Marino.
Does anyone disagree?
15 - Mmmm ok.
Mar 21st, 2012 - 03:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Its been said but hey wanted to say it again...so that means Argentina has no right to self determination due to being an implanted population from a colonial power!! quite a few countries in the world would fall into this category most of SA , USA. But i think i remember reading a extra part of the treaty that says it only applies to the UK so thats ok. Back to the books Rumpole
@7 There is NO recognised acceptable definition of “a people”. However, the people of Gibraltar are referred to as “Gibraltarians”, just as the people of the Falkland Islands are referred to as “Falkland Islanders”. Do NOT set off down the UN General Assembly false trail yet again. How many times do you have to be told that UNGA resolutions are NON-BINDING on anyone. The only UN resolutions that ARE binding are ones by the Security Council. Infamously, argieland ignored UNSCR 502. Remember that? And THAT resulted in a WAR and in you getting your asses KICKED. Remember that?
Mar 21st, 2012 - 04:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@15 Tell you what won't be beside the point. Spanish vessels at the bottom of the sea. Or argie vessels at the bottom of the ocean. When it happens, it will be down to you and people like you, girlie. Don't say you haven't been warned!
@22 Will a day pass when an argentinian hasn't forgotten that they claim the UN ICJ doesn't have jurisdiction over them, and that they ignore all security council rulings? When will that day be?
Mar 21st, 2012 - 04:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0CAN SOMEONE TELL THE SPANISH TO PAY US THE MANILLA RANSOM BEFORE WE TALK ABOUT GIBRALTAR???
Thanks, Iberians.
@23 How much would the MANILLA RANSOM be in today's money?
Mar 21st, 2012 - 04:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm not sure how to work it out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lord_Cornwallis/Manila_Ransom
24 Steve-32-uk
Mar 21st, 2012 - 05:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0More money than Spain has in the bank: they are broke, big time.
CLOSE DOWN THE BORDER NOW. if these people want no part of Spain
Mar 21st, 2012 - 05:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0then close them off. Why come over to Spain and buy up villas, enjoy our health services buy goods in Spain and then say you want nothing to do with Spain?? Total bunch of wankers!!
@26 aussie sunshine
Mar 21st, 2012 - 06:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Referring to Gibraltarians in that way is shocking and unacceptable.
No-one believes you are from Australia, you're probably one of the many trolls employed by the Argentinian Govt that post anti British rubbish on the web.
What is shocking and unacceptable is to have an English colony in
Mar 21st, 2012 - 06:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Europe in the 21st century as well as a Nato Member. That is what is unacceptable to the people who live in Spain. And who have our full support from many down under!!
Forgive the copypasta from wikipoodia.
Mar 21st, 2012 - 06:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The Manila Ransom was a 1763 agreement by Spain to pay Great Britain the sum of £4 million in exchange for the return of the city of Manila, capital of the Phillipines, which had been captured by British forces under William Draper in October 1762. The money ultimately went mostly unpaid”
I know it's expected that any iberian country would renege on an agreement, but one of the reasons we can claim the Falklands is because any Spanish claim that the Argentinians rely on is nullified by their refusal to pay the Manila Ransom.
£4 million in 1763 without interest (using this handy tool http://safalra.com/other/historical-uk-inflation-price-conversion/) is worth £600'000'000. Now we'd need to add compounded interest onto that value, to make it realistic. Bear in mind that this amount is small change to Maximo's Hitler Youth who lost $2.1 Billion when asked to replace the Aerolingus Argentinas fleet.
So if the Spanish want to talk about Gibraltar, they should at least pay the Manila Ransom + reasonable interest that remains unpaid. The fact that this unpaid debt was enough reason to nullify their territorial claims in the south atlantic, hence their successors, seems to be lost on everyone.
fake aussie - Iam sure the Spanish government hate all the foreign investment and injection of cash from the million plus expats (thats a term you prob dont know being a troll) Any health care is paid for by the UK through a resciprical agreement as we are all in the EU, but you obviously would know that as well. So rather than effing off i would imagine the Spanish are extremely happy to have British expats in the country. I would worry more about your Aboriginal under class that are a forgotten people and not treated particularly well by the present government. But i suppose that would be the UKs fault for founding your country, when i say your i mean Autstralia not Argentina. Unfortunately in europe things are done by law and courts and the UN so i would imagine our old friend self determination applies. But again prob not in this case because its the UK. Ceuta Point in morroco belongs to Spain!!! how come???? what the difference
Mar 21st, 2012 - 07:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@28 - Nice disguise, Malvinista. Spain's claim to Gibraltar is virtually non-existent. Why? Because the British still have the documents, signed by Spain's king, handing over Gibraltar to Britain, forever. Case closed. I'm sure Spain has enough to worry about, what with their Irish-style economy blowing up.
Mar 21st, 2012 - 07:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0New approach and recommendation to British government. Deploy a squadron of Apache attack helicopters to Gibraltar. Live fire exercises in visual range of Spanish shore. Constant patrols. Warning to be given to Spanish marine craft found in British Gibraltar Territorial Waters. Warning ignored. Sink it! Actually, blow it to pieces so that the pieces sink. Fun for all Gibraltarians! Can you imagine it “I couldn't be there. Blow up another one!” All bullies are cowards. Bet the Spaniards would change their tune with 10 craft on the bottom. Same for argieland. Said this before. 20 argie “fishing vessels” go to sea. Only 5 return. “Think”.
Mar 21st, 2012 - 08:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@28 'And who have our full support from many down under'
Mar 21st, 2012 - 08:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0pigs arse .... and very woggy english....
7 Betelgeuse
Mar 21st, 2012 - 08:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Total rubbish.
@ there is no English colony in Europe,
There is no English colonies in the
Again it is the same old rubbish, when you are in deep trouble, to try a diversion and pick on the nearest weakest country you can find, and either blame them or claim them,
Britain is seen as weak, and that’s a fact, she is seen as to passive,
And reluctant to act, ??
So let’s not forgets this,
If these instances had been against [france][USA][Russia][china][japan][Irand][Israel][India][pakistan][ and the list goes on, there would very a violent conflict by now,
Trouble is, when you just want to be friends and peaceful, you have to except this,
world,
.
Strange that neither the falklanders nor the gibraltarians (which are mostly latinos) dont like the hispanic culture,something must be wrong with the hispanic way of life viz.the western way of life
Mar 21st, 2012 - 10:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@17 LegionNi
Mar 22nd, 2012 - 01:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0What I'm saying is that international law recognises that there are territorial limitations to the right of self-determination for populations of non-self governing territories where a a precolonial claim of sovereignty exits.
This applies to both the Falklands and Gibraltar. This is the reason why the United Nations formally includes the Falklands among those Non-Self Governing Territories which STILL need to be de-colonised by the UK.
@ Betelgeuse
Mar 22nd, 2012 - 03:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Saying as you seem to know sooooo much on the subject, please anser this simple question:
let us say for arguements sake Uk decides to give RG the falklands (only) what is RGlands legitimate (legal) claim on the south georgia and the south sandwich islands??
We are waiting for your enlightenment
@10 Dude, Ceuta and Melilla are not colonies, Spain is a country in between two continents, Europe and Africa. The same as Portugal, because Madeira Island and the Salvaje Islands are part of Africa, I guess that Portugal should give Madeira to Morocco too, since is an African Island.
Mar 22nd, 2012 - 04:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0How about East Thrace? Is located in Europe, should Turkey give it to Greece or Bulgaria now because Anatolia is in Asia?
Ceuta and Melilla are just across the street from peninsular Spain, How the hell that compares with Gibraltar? Ceuta and Melilla were outposts for Spain to protect herself agains another Muslim invasion that theatnen to slave her Christian population once again.
So what is Britain doing having Ulster in Ireland? what is the legitimacy of a British presence in Ireland, which is much further away than Ceuta? British presence being there since 13th century, supposely to “ rebels from Britain using Ireland as a base to overthrow monarchs in Britain” .
Gibraltar is a whole different beast. It was some pirates taking advantage of a country going throw a civil war to steal land from her. First they tried in the 1600's, but failed, and when the civil war started, it was the perfect opportunity.
How is Spain suppose to stay idle when these colonists today celebrate a pirate like Rook taking over Spanish land and ethnically cleansing her people? Good thing that Spain got to recover Menorca Island atleast, no colonists celebrating piracy there.
Gibraltar is a whole different beast all together. It was some pirate thieves taking advantage of a civil war in a country ( War of Spanish Sucession) to steal land from Spain.
andean
Mar 22nd, 2012 - 05:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why does no Rg want to answer this question:
let us say for arguements sake Uk decides to give RG the falklands (only) what is RGlands legitimate (legal) claim on the south georgia and the south sandwich islands??
Can you enlighten us all please saying as you and @7 seem to know so much abouty pirates and stealing etc
36 Betelgeuse
Mar 22nd, 2012 - 08:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0“17 LegionNi
What I'm saying is that international law recognises that there are territorial limitations to the right of self-determination for populations of non-self governing territories where a a precolonial claim of sovereignty exits.
This applies to both the Falklands and Gibraltar. This is the reason why the United Nations formally includes the Falklands among those Non-Self Governing Territories which STILL need to be de-colonised by the UK.”
In order for that argument to work then Argentina first needs to PROVE that the Falkland Islands were ever a recognised part of the territory of Argentina.
When Jewett supposedly claimed the Islands for Argentina, Argentina was not an internationally recognised country.
Vernets settlement was a PRIVATE venture for which he asked British permission.
Argentinas appointment of Vernet as governor was properly protested as usurption of British sovereignty of the islands. When Argentina ignored the official protests Britain took steps to protects is soveriegnty of the islands.
If Argentina believes differently then it is down to Argentina as the complainent to take the issue to an internationally recognised court, i.e. the ICJ.
And lets be clear it is NOT the UN that keeps the Falklands and Gibraltor on the list of non self governing terriroties it is only the committee of 24, and given that the members of this committe include Iran, Syria and China you will forgive us if we do not take them seriously.
Anyway if we apply your argument:
Argentina in 1810-11 was an inplanted population - therefore had no right to self determination.
The people of Argentina as an inplanted population therefore can't lay claim to territorial intergity.
The native population are not an inplanted population and are the only ones who have the right to self determination in South America.
The Falkland Islands had no native population and so the Natives of South America have no claim over the islands.
38 andean 4000, I don't think I've ever read as contradictory argument as you provided then, well done on achieving that.
Mar 22nd, 2012 - 11:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0First you say that Spain is fine having land in another continent, then you say the UK isn't. Then you say it's okay to keep the land for protection from people who invaded it, then you say the UK cannot do the same with Ireland or gibraltar or what? Then you give the reasoning for people owning places as simply based on distance, which is the same reasoning the Empire of Japan gave.
Learn to hold an argument please.
The fact is, the Spanish signed over Gibraltar to the UK, and they failed to pay the Manilla Ransom, so we were entitled to compensation (Gibraltar, Falklands, wherever). End of story.
@40 Argentina doesn't like anything under the UN framework. It doesn't listen to the demands of the UN Security Council, it says that the ICJ has no jurisdiction (Presumably the same for the Arbitration Court). When the General Assembly tells it to negotiate, it storms out of the negotiations (Nestor did). Then they just rant to this curious poison of a committee called the C24 who has no remit to discuss the transfer of sovereignty, about the transfer of sovereignty of a self-governing territory, which is colonisation.
Saying they want the UK to negotiate under the framework of the UN is just contradictory nonsense, left to fester by the Secretary General.
Better to just ignore those Argies.
@30.There is nothing against the British living in Spain, their case is against the Gibraltans. In refernce to ceuta and melilla do some reading and research before giving your opinion.
Mar 22nd, 2012 - 12:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@32 gibraltar as a military base is lost forever! All US navy ships go to Rota Spain nowadays, they have nothing to do with Gibraltar.by the way, the US is sending over 2000 military personelto Rota and in refernce to cruise ships entering Gibraltar it is non existing all cruise ships are going to Malaga instead....
42- I refer you to the No 41 who is far more eloqent that me.
Mar 22nd, 2012 - 12:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0First you say that Spain is fine having land in another continent, then you say the UK isn't. Then you say it's okay to keep the land for protection from people who invaded it, then you say the UK cannot do the same with Ireland or gibraltar or what? Then you give the reasoning for people owning places as simply based on distance, which is the same reasoning the Empire of Japan gave.
Me again :
Gibraltar seems to be doing ok, flourishing financial district and due to its tax free status a magnet for business. The Royal Navy base for many years has not been a massive injection of cash into the local economy it has 2 small patrol craft. I refer you to your books, try a search on ''The economy of gibraltar'' or ''royal naval dockyard gibraltar a history''
I am allowed to give my opinion on what i want thanks, you have added little or nothing to the debate by telling me to do some research. Now young troll stop pretending to be an aussie.
@43 It really p**** you off that we aussies don´t see eye to eye with your spoils of conquest around the world!! That tax haven in Gibraltar is slowly being turned off by the EU and The USA. Slowly it is being turned into a back water COLONY.
Mar 22nd, 2012 - 01:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@44 It doesn't annoy anyone. You're not an Australian.
Mar 22nd, 2012 - 01:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm relatively sure that any australians would be annoyed that you're fraudulently claiming to be australian, but nothing else is annoying.
@43 Sure, Gibraltar is doing fine without the reverse-midas touch of the Spanish.
@45 what ever gets you through the night!!
Mar 22nd, 2012 - 02:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@46 are you talking to yourself now about your delusion of being Australian. I know many Australians, I've been there enough times to know you're not one of them.
Mar 22nd, 2012 - 02:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Enjoy your delusion!
@41 Greekyogurt You are not familiar with article x of Treaty of Utretch. It says only the property INSIDE the walls are ceded, everything else outside those walls is NOT. that's why it says” the city is ceded ( the city was a very, very small part of the peninsula, not the whole peninsula) along with its defenses ( eg: a watch tower, such as la torre del diablo) WITHOUT TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION, do you get that part? WITHOUT TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. That means, that they can have the watch towers, but all the land surrounding those defenses(towers) outside the CITY WALLS, British don't have any jurisdiction.and belongs to the crown of Spain. The pirate thieves ended up stealing the entire peninsula.
Mar 22nd, 2012 - 03:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0NOW, the colonists in Gibraltar should be paying Spain a lease for all that land outside of the Treaty, like Hong Kong was paying China for all those lands outside that other treaty of piracy, the Treaty of Nanking. Forget about Manila ramson, Spain shouldn't pay jack to pirate thieves.
The colonists in Gibraltar can do whatever they want with the territory, that doesn't mean the people of Spain have to accept that, once Spain recovers from the deep crisis, they can have their own “ referendum” to close the fence down. celebrating how a pirate took advantage of a civil war to steal land is not a “ friendly” gesture on the Gibraltar colonists' part.
andean 4000
Mar 22nd, 2012 - 04:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Forget about Manila ramson, Spain shouldn't pay jack to pirate thieves.”
In other words you wish to apply one set of rules to Britain and another to Spain.
Are you Spainish by any chance?
Hello everyone. I have had a lot of fun reading all these threads - now it's time to add my bit.
Mar 22nd, 2012 - 05:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@48 It's funny how the Spanish are very quick to forget the part that Britain played in it's independence from French conquest in 1808 when Napoleon put his brother on the Spanish Throne. I don't think at the time the Spanish were to worried about the British Pirates sending thousands of British soldiers to Spain to kick the franchutes out of Spain? If the British were such Pirates, why didn't they try to take control of Spain too, once they got rid of the French? So what about the land granted to the Duque de Ciudad Rodrigo by the grateful Spanish nation at the end of Peninsular War at Soto de Roma? British people might no recognise the name of the Duque de Cuidad Rodrigo, but of course they would recognise the name of the Duke of Wellington.
I am sure at the time they weren't asking for Gibraltar back then?
If it wasn't for the British, you might all be speaking French in Spain now!
Que ingratos!
50 - good points mate...as fake Mick Dundee Aussie sunshine would say fair ''dincum mate'' fake aussie thats a stereotypical quote from a real Aussie. But hey guess pretending to be an aussie is the next best thing to being British. Does CFK's trolls all take the identity of a different country like the village people, ones an aussie tough and fed up after hundreds of years of imperial oppression, ones a chirpy irishman sick to the teeth of them dam english. I might change my identity to Argentine in favour of the falkland islanders right to determination, it may just work.
Mar 22nd, 2012 - 05:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@50 1) Napoleon didn't occupy all of Spain.
Mar 22nd, 2012 - 06:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 02) Britain and Spain became allies, Britain alone wasn't going to be able to defeat Napoleon on the peninsula.
3) The only reason Nelson existed at Trafalgar, was because Spain spared his life after his failed attempt to steal the Canary Islands. Admiral Mazarredo even provided him with some ships so he can return to England, Nelson missing one arm. No Nelson= no Trafalgar.
4) Spain helped the Thirteen English Colonies in North America get independence from Britain, 122 years later, U.S takes away Cuba, Puerto Rico,Phillipines, and Guam, Que ingratos? You don't see U.S having sovereignty of a piece of Spain proper, do you?
United States helped Britain against Germany, right? so I guess it should be alright for the U.S to take a piece of Cornwall as payment for the help, right?
52 -No I think US gained world dominance after ww2 so think they were happy with that. UK was only country to pay back war loans in full (only finishing a few years ago) so think that settles it. How did Spain help the European masses subjected to the nazi jackboot??? Argentina??? well i suppose they kindly harboured many nazi's after the war.maybe we could keep Gibraltar as payment?? Saying that though i feel a little bit embarrassed as Pirates and gulp the Royal Navy used to intercept Spanish treasure ships stacked full of gold stolen from south american natives, so yet again bad UK and blameless Spanish. Iam getting the hang of this now, Spain and Argentina are blameless and not guilty of any discretion ever in the world.
Mar 22nd, 2012 - 06:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have even had conversations with RGs along the lines of it was the British that forced RG to expand into Patagonia and increase their country to the size it is today. Next thing you know, the UK will get the blame for CFK messing up the RG economy.
Mar 22nd, 2012 - 06:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Me parte el culo
Aussi sunhine, where do you get all your info? here are a few FACTS
Mar 22nd, 2012 - 07:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The list below contains the Tax Information Exchange Agreements (TIEAs) signed by Gibraltar.
Belgium-Gibraltar (16 December 2009)
Iceland – Gibraltar (16 December 2009)
Sweden – Gibraltar (16 December 2009)
Faroes Islands – Gibraltar (20 October 2009)
Finland – Gibraltar (20 October 2009)
Greenland – Gibraltar (20 October 2009)
Portugal – Gibraltar (14 October 2009)
France – Gibraltar (22 September 2009)
Austria – Gibraltar (17 September 2009)
Denmark – Gibraltar (2 September 2009)
United Kingdom – Gibraltar (27 August 2009)
Australia – Gibraltar (25 August 2009)
New Zealand – Gibraltar (13 August 2009)
Germany – Gibraltar (13 August 2009)
Ireland – Gibraltar (24 June 2009)
USA – Gibraltar (31 March 2009)
we even have one with Australia in fact with every nation that matters to us. NO LONGER A TAX HAVEN. USA has nothing at all against us.
as for the consequences of the spanish closing the frontier (which they cannot do due to being a member of the EEC as we are), 8000 workers come across that frontier to work due to the high unemployment in spain, 5000 spanish and 3000 british expats and other europeans from EEC countries. 5000 spaniards would have no way of bringing food to their families and would have to live on the poverty line.
As for cruise ships no longer coming to GIB hahaha I have a perfect view of the harbour, check
www.cruisecompete.com/vacations/visits/gibraltar/1
And you are definititely not an Australian but most probably a spanish immigrant who went there to find a job.
But if it’s the truth you want,
Mar 22nd, 2012 - 07:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Read
http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/2012/02/question-of-the-falkland-islands-uk-response/
Rather than listen to propergander,
Who would you believe?
The British government
Or
The CFK government,
This is the official British reply to the UN .
.
56 - Finally the full uk statement
Mar 22nd, 2012 - 07:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0read it RG's any points you would like to make ?? its seems pretty clear.
And all the recent agreements you broke on fishing and hydrocarbons. Was it the case you could not be arsed to finance exploration so pulled out, but once falklanders hit oil you start the moaning.
52 andean 4000
Mar 22nd, 2012 - 08:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“United States helped Britain against Germany, right? so I guess it should be alright for the U.S to take a piece of Cornwall as payment for the help, right?”
Well firstly Germany declared war on the US after the Japanese bombed pearl harbor so Britain and America were Allies in the war.
Secondly Britain repaid EVERY PENNY with interest of it's war debt to America, making the final payments only a few years ago.
Britain repays its debts.... something Argentina can't lay claim to!
52 andean 4000 (
Mar 22nd, 2012 - 11:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0More rubbish im afraid,
Its not our fault you were beaten by the best military in the world, is it not,
.
@23
Mar 23rd, 2012 - 02:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ 49
The so called “Manila Ransom” extracted by English corsairs from the Archbishop of Manila under threat of mass murder, rape and pillage was never recognised by Spain or its legitimate representatives on the ground in the Philippines.
Check out the following excerpt from Wikipedia and get your facts straight in the future:
“The surrender agreement between Archbishop Rojo and the British corsairs guaranteed the Roman Catholic religion and its episcopal government, secured private property, and granted the citizens the rights of peaceful travel and of trade 'as British subjects'.
Under the agreement Manila would remain under British control, and continue to be governed by the Real Audencia, the expenses of which were to be paid by Spain.
However, legitimate Spanish authority in the Philippines rested with [Visitor-General] Don Simón de Anda y Salazar who refused to recognize any of the agreements signed by [Archbishop] Rojo as valid, claiming that the Archbishop has been made to sign them by force, and were therefore, according to the statutes of the Council of the Indies, invalid.
He also refused to negotiate with the British until he was addressed as the legal Governor-General of the Philippines, returning to the British the letters that were not addressed to that effect.
All of these initiatives were later approved by the King of Spain, who rewarded Anda and other members of the Audiencia, such as José Basco y Vargas, [who over two years successfully fought against the English corsairs limiting their area of influence to Manila and the port of Cavite and forcing their withdrawal.]
[In the end the British were unable to achieve their objective to conquer the Philippines.] Severe disagreements broke out between Dawsonne Drake and the military commanders who replaced Draper and Cornish, preventing either effective military action or fruitful negotiations with Anda.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_occupation_of_the_Philippines
@ 44 'we aussies'?????
Mar 23rd, 2012 - 03:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0what gives you the right to speak for 20 million Australians wogboy?
@40 '...In order for that argument to work then Argentina first needs to PROVE that the Falkland Islands were ever a recognised part of the territory of Argentina.'
Mar 23rd, 2012 - 07:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0You should really do a bit more research if you want to be persuasive rather than simply relying on tired old rhetoric to make your case.
The 1713 Treaty of Utrecht gave Spain the right to control the sea and islands in the New World, which was later confirmed in the 1763 Treaty of Paris. This means that when Britain established Port Egmont on the islands in 1766 they were in fact trespassing on Spanish territory. Indeed, the Spanish protested and in 1770 drove the English trespassers out.
At the Nootka Sound Convention in 1790, Great Britain acknowledged Spanish sovereignty and relinquished their rights to establish colonies on the southern ocean just off the mainland. Furthermore, for almost sixty years between 1774 and 1833 Britain made no attempt to occupy the Falklands.
In the meantime, Argentina became an independent state in 1817 and sovereignty was passed from Spain to Argentina, who took formal possession of the islands in 1820, and in 1823 appointed Luis Vernet to set up a colony which he did in 1826.
@40 '...And lets be clear it is NOT the UN that keeps the Falklands and Gibraltor on the list of non self governing terriroties it is only the committee of 24'.
I'm afraid that you have the wrong end of the stick here as well mate. It's not just the C24 who advocate that the UK should decolonise the Falklands. For example, UN General Assembly Resolutions 2065 (XX) and 3160 (XXVIII) specifically declared the “aim of bringing to an end everywhere colonialism in all its forms, one of which is the case of the Falkland Islands”.
See: http://www.thepicaproject.org/?page_id=750
62 - A treaty that gave Spain a colonial power rights and ownership to the whole of South America, wow and this is not colonialism???? can you see the point here
Mar 23rd, 2012 - 07:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0@60 & 62
Mar 23rd, 2012 - 09:29 am - Link - Report abuse 01. Since when has wikipedia ever been a statement of fact? I suggest you find more accurate sources. You only have to look at the differences between the spanish and english versions of Wikipedia over the falklands. Your repeated reference to “British Corsairs” undermines your arguement as they were no more pirateers than the Spanish conquistadors in south america. Anyhow, Spain and Britain were at war at the time of the taking of Manila.
2. The Treaty of Utrecht gives no exclusivity over the seas around South America, and Britain never accepted any restriction of access to seas and oceans in any treaty, and the Treaty of Paris is irrelevant with regard to the Falklands as they were unihabited at the time.
3. Nookta sound also does not apply it applied only to the continent of south america and islands off the coast “already occupied by Spain”. As soon as Spain left the Islands in 1811 and no longer had a presence there, that treaty no longer applies to the Falklands. Also, during the 1770 dispute that was settled in the Treaty of Madrid, the question of soverignty was left open to dispute between Spain and Britain.
4. How can sovereignty be passed from Spain to Argentina, or whatever it was called at the time, in 1817, when Spain did not recognise the independence of Argentina until the 1860s? As stated before, Vermet's activities on the Islands were a private expedition to catch wild cattle, and he sought permission from the British to do so.
5. The UN is a completely political organisation. When China is one of the 24 it makes a mockery of the whole committee (Tibet???). Anyway, the Islands are not a colony. There are no subjugated people there. Nobody was forced to go there, and no native populations were removed during the settlement of the Islands. They are no different in nature to the the US which is not considered to be a colonial land even though the people are not really a native population.
Sorry!
62 Betelgeuse
Mar 23rd, 2012 - 09:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0I feel I have no need to point out your errors regards Nootka and Utrecht - txiki has already done so in post 64.
I will add though the following:
As Argentina is not a signatory of either Nootka or Utrecht it can claim no benefit from them.
Both are irrelevant anyway as they are both superseded by the later Convention of Settlement of 1850 which settled ALL difference between Argentina and Great Britain.
Only the Committee of 24 states the Falklands is a colonial situation. Not ONE UN resolution refers to the Falklands being a special case. The only time this is mentioned is in DRAFT resolutions put forward by the defunct Committee of 24.
The Falklands are a SELF GOVERNING overseas territory of the UK, NOT a colony. The UK has stated numerous times the Islanders are free to decide their own fate. Hardly the act of a Colonial master no is it?!
@65 good summary, but you know Argies don't like the truth.
Mar 23rd, 2012 - 03:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina must surely hand their country over to Spain?
Mar 23rd, 2012 - 09:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Peace
Mar 23rd, 2012 - 10:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Moors invaded Spain in the year 711. They officially left in 1492 as per a treaty signed with Ferdinand and Isabella. (This freed up money that had been supporting the military to be used for exploration. That's why Columbus was able to sail in 1492.)
And as such The Moors ruled Spain for about 700 years.
So Spain must then be handed back to them, must they not,
So in fact if not for the moors, Spain would not have found south America,
And thus Argentina would not the there today.
Oh dear.
.
@65 'The Falklands are a SELF GOVERNING overseas territory of the UK, NOT a colony'.
Mar 24th, 2012 - 02:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0You can keep maintaining that the Falklands are not a colony until you go blue in the face, but it doesn't make it true. A colony is still a colony even if you decide to call it a self-governing territory.
Evidence for this is readily apparent to any unbiased observer. All they need do is to observe that the Union Jack flies everywhere over the islands.
You may be able to convince yourself but not the world. The fact remains that according to the United Nations the Falklands is a Non-Self Governing Territory which needs to be de-colonised by the UK.
You may be interested in reading the following article published in the Guardian which adopts a much more balanced and far less rhetorical approach to this issue:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/25/falklands-sovereignty-argentina-britain
The Falklands were listed as a non self governing territory with the UN by Great Britain. The committee of 24 was set up to ensure colonies were granted the right to choice their own destiny and future and to ensure self governance if the people of said territory wished it.
Mar 24th, 2012 - 10:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0Britain has granted the people of the islands self governance in accordance with the above.
The fact that the committee of 24 at Argentine prompting believes it can overs step the remit handed to it by the UN and call for sovereignty negotiations before it can be delisted as a colony is hardly the fault of the UK or the islanders.
The committee of 24 is a joke which is ignored every single year by the UN as the irrelevance it now is.
And given that it has been pointed out to you that Argentina has no claim to sovereignty, that your statements of facts regards treaties in support of that sovereignty claim are inaccurate (which you seem to have accepted since you have gone quite on the subject) what business's it of Argentina if it is a colony of the UK anyway. That is between the UK and the islanders.
Argentina has no claim. It is none of Argentinas business.
Oh and the Guardian? Really? You choice this rag of a paper to help your cause? Just how desperate are you?
she must be really desperate, and her bloggers
Mar 24th, 2012 - 09:13 pm - 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!