MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
UK tells Spain: ‘no sovereignty negotiations with which Gibraltar is not content’
Britain has enshrined, in a written statement to the United Nations, its commitment that it will not enter into a process of sovereignty negotiations with which Gibraltar is not content. And it has also reaffirmed its sovereignty over Gibraltar and its territorial waters, according to the Gibraltar Chronicle. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesIt is quite simple really, there is nothing complicated about it all. I suppose it will just come down to how far Spain want to push it and the consequences they are prepared to risk.
Oct 03rd, 2013 - 10:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The UK again shows the world how it's done.
Oct 03rd, 2013 - 10:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0José Manuel García-Margallo: “There has been progress but I am not going to say what. I am learning to be diplomatic,”
Oct 04th, 2013 - 02:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0A very very interesting quote, if correct. In the future could we see a joint bid by Spain and the UK to remove the protected status of Gibraltar waters, the blocks lifted out of the water, and more land reclaimation by Gib?
Perhaps with Spanish ministers now learning about diplomacy we will see much greater cooperation in all areas. Perhaps a joint Gibraltar / Spanish bid to host the FIFA World Cup. Gib would obviously let Spain host the final, they are not greedy.
Oct 04th, 2013 - 04:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Wouldn't it be wonderful to see England knock Argentina out in the quarter finals at an upgraded Victoria Stadium.
@3 Highly unlikely. To the point of being “impossible”. One wonders how one removes “the protected status of Gibraltar waters”. “the 2006 Gibraltar Constitution provides for a modern and mature relationship between Gibraltar and the UK.” Difficult to see how the UK would renege on that. Besides “sovereignty” includes the territorial waters determined under UNCLOS. Neither can I see the UK siding with Spain to have the artificial reef removed. What I CAN see is Gibraltar dropping more artificial reefs in the illegitimate Spanish “environmental protection area” within Gibraltar territorial waters. How “co-operative” of Gibraltar to add more environmental protection! But more land reclamation is a definite possibility. Once Gibraltar has set up its systems to import materials by sea, might have barges off-loading their cargos directly where required. Hundreds of tons going in at a time. The whole of the eastern side of Gibraltar being pushed out anything up to 12 miles. And then another 12 miles of territorial waters on top. And another 12 miles of reclamation to the south. And another 12 miles of territorial waters. Wow! Gibraltar could finish up more than 50 times its current size.
Oct 04th, 2013 - 11:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0The trouble is spaniards are a bit slow on the uptake. Over 300 years on and they still can’t understand they ceded Gibraltar in perpetuity. Tiresome and foolish in the extreme. Whatever progress has been made it will certainly have nothing to do with sovereignty.
Oct 04th, 2013 - 01:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just like China ceded Hong-Kong island for perpetuity.
Oct 04th, 2013 - 07:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(and the new territories for 99 years)
There is no perpetual ceding, every extension of the empire will fully break away eventually. Its only a question of when. Scratch India, African colonies, USA colonies, Ireland, Hongkong, Canada and Australia (who also will be dropping the majestic ones as soon as Charlie puts on the furry hat).
7TIT
Oct 04th, 2013 - 11:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Idiot.
Hong Kong was LEASED from China for 99 years, and returned, per the agreement.
Commonwealth nations are independent, could disassociate themselves from UK, but choose to stay . A relationship that has endured with Canada for over 140 years. That's almost as long as Argentina has existed LOL
Sorry Troy - hong kong island was formally ceded IN PERPETUITY.
Oct 05th, 2013 - 01:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0In 1842 - treaty of Nanking.
Along with the Kowloon Peninsula and Stonecutter's Island, again ceded IN PERPETUITY, this time in 1860.
Perpetuity being up to 1997.
Canada will be dropping the monarchy soon as Elizabeth 2nd passes on.
(side note -the region of Quebec came within a whisker of independence, this is due to a strong sense of cultural difference with the Anglo speaking Canadian regions, they are hugely anti-monarchy - give them Charles for king and it'll be at least a referendum and a huge risk of breaking Canada in two) )
@5 Conqueror. Perhaps a clumsy choice of words, but the “the protected status of Gibraltar waters” that I wrote of was a reference to the EU environmental protection area, which is legitimate even if bizarre. The UK has tried and failed to have this lifted alone: a further joint attempt with Spain would logically (if successful) lead to a resumption in Spanish fishing and Gib land reclamation.
Oct 05th, 2013 - 01:25 am - Link - Report abuse 09TIT
Oct 05th, 2013 - 03:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0it was the 99 year lease limit that made it necessary to return all 3 parts as they were inseparable.
BTW, while we are off-topic, Quebec couldn't give a crap, or even notice a change in monarch - sorry to disappoint you.
Are you a “SepraTIT”?
“it was the 99 year lease limit that made it necessary to return all 3 parts as they were inseparable.”
Oct 05th, 2013 - 04:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0They were still ceded IN PERPETUITY.
1842 - treaty of Nanking.
(Quebec most certainly has strong opinions on the monarchy)
I can provide proof of both of the above if you want - would you like it ?
Why would you ask?
Oct 05th, 2013 - 06:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0The inane European Site of Community Interest law does not override the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas which stipulates Gibraltar waters ARE BRITISH and signed by Spain in the 1980s. Spain recently under a nature European act made a false representation at the European Court of Justice because they did not “tick the box” to state the waters they were claiming overlapped another nation’s as per UNCLOS!!!! The appeal by UK and Gibraltar was dismissed on a “technicality”, the technicality being that spain lied!!!! The judge was spanish by the way and would have known only too well that Gibraltar waters ARE British. A bit of a sham and Spain will not agree to go to the International Court of Justice. Obvious why isn’t it!!!
Oct 05th, 2013 - 07:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0@12
Oct 05th, 2013 - 08:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ive got news for you, the clever money is on the Monarchy skipping a generation, don't be surprised if the next monarch(s) are King William and Queen Katheryne. Not that it has f-all to do with you. It is odd that you listed a collection of independent countries as leaving the UK? When they are already independent!
Vestige-12 You are part correct but a big part wrong. Hongkong(as widely named) was unviable and to survive or even exist in the modern world WITHOUT the New territories land area which WAS Leased only for 99 years. Therfore the whole- including the areas “in perpetuity” were returned to China under a negotiated agreement.
Oct 05th, 2013 - 09:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0I have many Canadian friends - look at a map- there is abit more to Canada thatn just the French areas of Quebec.
Look at some now Independent Carribean States - a large no of their people now REGRET taking Indpendence in the 1960s etc as they see that in fact their people would today have been better off staying with the Uk in modern arrangements such as some of the remaining Br Overseas Territories have- which is a far cry from Colonialism of 50 plus years ago.Also read 15 above - he could well be right.
Go easy on Vestige, he has trouble unclenching his teeth long enough to admit that in 2013:
Oct 05th, 2013 - 11:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0-Gibraltar is British and wishes to remain so
---Spain is even further from gaining sovereignty than anytime in the past 300 years
-the Falkland Islands are British and wish to remain so
---Argentina is even further from gaining sovereignty than in anytime in the past 180 years
-Canada is rich, stable and a constitutional monarchy
---with no likelihood of change
-Australia is even richer, even more stable and also a constitutional monarchy
---also no likelihood of change now that an avowed monarchist has just started his first of at least 3 terms as PM.
Welcome to 2013 Vestige! Sucks to be you.
PMSL
Re; “ Monarchy skipping a generation” - Speculative, I've heard assurances saying this is highly unlikely.
Oct 05th, 2013 - 02:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Islander - I am fully correct, HongKong island was ceded in perpetuity. Thats all there is to it. Ceded in perpetuity or not ceded in perpetuity.
Yes or no.
Non-viable or not. It was indeed ceded in *perpetuity* with or without the new territories. It is *now* Chinese.
Anglo: I can accept many of your points (some with conditions). Point 2 is incorrect and indeed probably the inverse. Point 6 (change) is truly incorrect, Point 8 is equally as incorrect as point 6.
(another little aside - did you know people had to be bused into Montreal from elsewhere in Canada to help swing the vote, the end overall result in the 95 referendum was 49% - 51% ... 1% from an Independent Quebec.)
@18
Oct 05th, 2013 - 03:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You're fooling no one about what the wider world thinks about the UK's reputation and institutions.
Can you explain why your compatriots cry and whine so much about the events of 1814 and the terrible mistake they made: “...we should have thrown flowers not boiling oil....”, “..we could have been like Canada, Australia instead of a banana republic...”, “ ...we could have been a serious country, first world...”.
Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc. may well drop the Monarch, strong ties will still remain though. Nevertheless, quite remarkable when you think of all these independent countries still clinging to such an 'outmoded' constitutional model after all these years. Probably because it something of a gold standard - If it ain't broke....
Oh, and as for Quebec: the capital of this province may certainty want to dissociate from the rest of Canada and QE2, but the First Nation peoples and population in the vast hinterland of Quebec certainly don't; could be an interesting divorce if it ever comes about.
18 Sepra-TIT
Oct 05th, 2013 - 03:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You have almost been successful in your distraction.
None of the HK, Quebec, or fully Independent Commonwealth states issues have anything to do with the situation in Gibraltar.
Neither do the Falklands, despite “ Timmerman and the Trolls” (pop band?) wishing it were so.
Desperate attempt, and I'm laughing at you for trying it.
LOL !!! Ja ja ja ja ja ja...
19 - Im not trying to fool anyone, I dont know why you'd think this.
Oct 05th, 2013 - 04:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Who are these compatriots you speak of ?
(Perhaps it is broke when you don't get to elect your own head of state)
(who determines if the system is broke ?)
First nations - could indeed be an interesting divorce. I have no opinion on that and would watch with interest. Maybe it would be a good idea, Ive read they (FN) say that if one part can separate then why not another. It would put some power in their hands if they separate, also ironically it would solidify an independent Quebec, although at the cost of land...personally Id take the deal, although Im sure some Quebecois see differently.
Also worth mentioning - changing the rules of succession to skip Charles would require a change of law and a parliamentary vote which (to my knowledge) there has never been any mention.
That Charles becoming king is an issue in itself is very telling of the weakness of true support for the English royalty in other countries.
If Canada goes, Australia and NewZealand will inevitably follow. QE2 being 87 Im giving this 80% odds within 15 years, 60% within a decade.
(ps - I forgot to mention to one of the above posters that UK is even younger than Argentina) (very young - 1920's I believe)
21 Sepra-TIT
Oct 05th, 2013 - 04:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”(Perhaps it is broke when you don't get to elect your own head of state)”
Shows that you don't really know what you are talking about
or
You deliberately repeat misleading inaccuracies to promote a flawed argument.
Now, you admit you don't know what would happen in Quebec, and I sincerely doubt you are an authority on British Law or Succession.
Back on topic:
Gibraltar is a BOT who's Self- Determination is guaranteed and will be defended by, the British (UK) government.
“Shows that you don't really know what you are talking about”
Oct 05th, 2013 - 04:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How so ? - enlighten me.
“You deliberately repeat misleading inaccuracies to promote a flawed argument.” - really ? which inaccuracies ?
“Now, you admit you don't know what would happen in Quebec”
- well thats a bit of a generalization.
If you feel this is some kind of distraction on my part I can tell you that was not my original intention. Im just addressing responses to the point I made earlier that the remaining ties of the empire effectively disappear over time.
Quite frankly in Gibraltar we don’t give a fluck what anyone says or how other countries have settled their disputes. Each territory is different. The fact of the matter is extremely clear in the heading of this article – no sovereignty negotiations ....... and we shall not be moved no matter how much the spaniards cheat, lie rant and rave. Since they envy the British so much and want to speak English and have institutions and everything else like the British they could become British themselves and problem solved!!!! Spain is nothing but a pain.
Oct 05th, 2013 - 05:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@24British Always
Oct 05th, 2013 - 06:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Since they envy the British so much and want to speak English and have institutions and everything else like the British they could become British themselves and problem solved!!!!”
Or they WORK for it, themselves.
Is that unrealistic?
@9, 12 If you had an atlas, and enough brain, you'd be able to see the geographical and political realities. I won't bother to explain. It would be obvious to a turd-bacteria.
Oct 05th, 2013 - 07:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@10 No, it's not legitimate. Go figure placing a Spanish “environmental protection area” inside British Gibraltar territorial waters. All given the current “nod” on a “technicality” by a Spanish judge. Clear moves ahead. Impeach the Spanish judge for failing to disqualify herself. Repudiate the European “Court” of “Justice” for being composed of kangaroos. Advise Spain that a point will come when the UK/Gibraltar will lose their patience. At that point, UK/Gibraltar forces will open fire. There will be no warning. The first indication will probably be the British machine-guns, followed by British cannon. Then British torpedos. British bombs. Perhaps Gibraltar will grow. Trust me on this. Spain is on the edge. One more wrong decision/action could see a “strong” response. And why should the Spanish be allowed to continue to poach in BGTW? And no-one has stopped Gibraltar land reclamation.
@18 Ahhh, got it. Another “Canadian”. Name wouldn't be “Vargas”, would it? How close to “arg” & “arse”.
@21 I think you've forgotten note, as any incontinent argie would, that there are legal mechanisms that link England to Britain, Great Britain, Great Britain & Ireland and Great Britain & Northern Ireland. And, therefore, the United Kingdom can be, legally, traced back to around 1000 AD. A “legitimate” argieland cannot be traced back to more than 1856. Or, perhaps, current argieland can't be traced back earlier than 1994. Deciding the “origin” of argieland depends on who remembers where they dropped the bog roll.
@23 Perhaps you'd like to comment on why 10,000 Spaniards cross the border, twice, every day into the remnant of Empire. Might be that the Empire set out to equip its territories? And Gibraltar understood. Therefore, it is so much better than the peasants of Spain. Margallo, Rajoy!
@ 21 Vestige who wrote: ”I forgot to mention to one of the above posters that UK is even younger than Argentina (very young - 1920's I believe)“
Oct 05th, 2013 - 08:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You confuse state and name.
The United Kingdom has existed as a state since 1707 when the kingdoms England and Scotland created a union named the ”United Kingdom of Great Britain“ or simply ”United Kingdom“.
The formal name ”United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland“ was used from 1801 when the two separate kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland were united, and until 1927, when the Irish Free State seceded.
The formal name ”The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland“ has been used since 1927 - usually just called ”The United Kingdom”.
Argentina, on the other hand, did not exist as a state until 1859.
As late as 23 October 1859 (even as late as 17 September 1861, although this can be disputed) there were:
two states (La Confederación and Estado de Buenos Ayres)
two capitals (Paraná and Buenos Ayres)
two constitutions (1853 (La Confederación) and 1854 (Estado de Buenos Aires))
two de facto presidents (Urquiza and Alsina (called the supreme director))
two senats
two congresses
St John
Oct 05th, 2013 - 09:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Vestige has backtracked, shown to be lacking, scored no points, and now looks like an ass.
Nothing changes.
:-)
Whats the name of your country StJohn?
Oct 05th, 2013 - 10:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The answer is on the front of your passport StJohn - and that country didn't exist til the 1920's.
It simply didn't.
(and as for the current country aka GB+NI ... well... it wont exist soon)
29sepra-TIT
Oct 05th, 2013 - 10:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just saying it is so, ad infinitum, does not make it true.
Sorry Toby, you're off-topic, again.
Gibraltar, a BOT, will remain a BOT until the inhabitants decide otherwise.
The UK government will back their right to Self-Determination, no matter what, regardless of what a now third-world country in South America thinks.
In fact Ghana, an emerging nation which has rule of Law and an independent Judiciary, could teach you a few things.
Oh yeah, you aren't likely to be welcomed there unless you pay up front for your visit.
@ 29 Vestige who wrote:
Oct 06th, 2013 - 01:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Whats the name of your country StJohn?
The answer is on the front of your passport StJohn - and that country didn't exist til the 1920's. It simply didn't.”
Boy-o, you must be completely off your rocker.
Which country are you “talking” about?
PMSL
Oct 06th, 2013 - 05:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0How many things can one poster get wrong on a single forum?
Slowing stripping away the last vestige of credibility. Good job guys.
Well you tell me whats the name of your country John.
Oct 06th, 2013 - 10:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0And then tell me what it says on the front of your passport.
And then tell me when that name was first used.
Thats the challenge.
St John
Oct 06th, 2013 - 01:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Do you remember what it was that Einstein said was the “definition of insanity?”
How about a Gibraltarian’s definition of insanity. In a nutshell Mariano Killjoy and all the other rabid spanish ministers and people who say Gibraltar is xpanish. As insane and obsessive about Gibraltar’s status as they come.
Oct 06th, 2013 - 01:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ 33 Vestige
Oct 06th, 2013 - 02:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 01. Danmark
2. Danmark
3. year 453 ±2
Really - you're Danish ?
Oct 06th, 2013 - 02:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Or are you too scared to answer the questions honestly?
Ill try Troy - same questions Troy. Try not to avoid or dodge them.
Well you tell me whats the name of your country.
And then tell me what it says on the front of your passport.
And then tell me when that name was first used.
Good try, Vestige Toby
Oct 06th, 2013 - 02:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Tell me first what it says on the front of YOUR passport.
@ Vivezza Vestige Criolla,
Oct 06th, 2013 - 03:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, I am Danish, born in Danmark, have lived the majority of my life in Danmark, have a Danish perception of honesty which differ so much from your Vivezza criolla (as in: Or are you too scared to answer the questions honestly?), as is humanly possible - something you can barely understand.
Ja, jeg er dansk, født i Danmark, har levet i Danmark hovedparten af mit liv, har dansk opfattelse af hæderlighed, som afviger så meget fra dit vivezza criolla (som det fremgår af: Or are you too scared to answer the questions honestly?), som det overhovedet er muligt - noget du næppe kan forstå.
Ill take that as 2 dodges then.
Oct 06th, 2013 - 06:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0really?
Oct 06th, 2013 - 09:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@29 Just as a thought, argieland has three names officially recognised in its constitution. That's three “current” names. It's useful to note that the “Republic of Buenos Aires” is not one of those names. Why useful? Because when Vernet was proclaimed “Military and Civil Commander of Falkland Islands and the Islands adjacent to Cape Horn” it was done by the Republic of Buenos Aires. A state not recognised by Britain and, apparently, also not recognised by argieland. So why should the name of the United Kingdom be of significance, especially to you? We can trace our identity through legal acts.
Oct 06th, 2013 - 09:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@40 No. Answer the question. What “right” do you think you have to go around demanding information? If you were open, honest, straightforward, people might not mind. But you aren't. You deliberately misrepresent and think you've made a point.
Maybe you “confuse state and name”.*
Oct 06th, 2013 - 10:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0*(StJohn Crica 2013)
Hmmm, Vermillion Credenza Vestige,
Oct 06th, 2013 - 10:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Methinks you “dodged” the question of your own passport!
You tell us you already know what mine says, but you don't understand what it means.
Now, WHAT DOES YOUR PASSPORT SAY?
No answer??
I thought so.
You never will answer that one. Am I right?
You're probably right.
Oct 07th, 2013 - 12:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0However, our motivations to know which country are different.
Vestige -> ignore list
Oct 07th, 2013 - 01:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0@46 St John
Oct 07th, 2013 - 02:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Vestige -> ignore list”
Yup, he has no credibility or accountability for his statements.
Then butt out of the Scottish referendum - English hypocrisy at its best
Oct 09th, 2013 - 08:25 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!