MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Britain dismisses suggestion of any bilateral negotiations with Spain on Gibraltar
The British Government has dismissed any suggestion of a return to bilateralism with Spain over Gibraltar. In a response to a question tabled in the House of Commons, Europe Minister David Lidington repeated Britain’s long-standing commitment to the people of Gibraltar over sovereignty. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesIn other words, stop lying Spain. It's business as usual.
Nov 13th, 2013 - 10:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Spain, remember Ceuta and Melilla? You have your won colonies to deal with before Gibraltar...
Nov 13th, 2013 - 11:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0Oh, yeah, David Liddington, that minister accused of speaking with “forked tongue”. A reliable person.
Nov 13th, 2013 - 11:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2175692/Ministers-accused-speaking-forked-tongue-British-leaving-EU.html
Same Skinner Box; same rats.
Nov 13th, 2013 - 12:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But these ones fail to learn.
Gibraltar at the HEAD of the table, please.
Spain doesn't have a clue. Unlike Caruana, Picardo knows what he's doing and is far more robust. No doubt the “resolution” recently agreed at the UN and subsequently trumpeted by Spain was aimed at reversing how Spain was made to look, by Gibraltar, at the C24. Let us be totally clear on this. Gibraltar was ceded to Britain in 1713 IN PERPETUITY. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea makes it clear that ALL coastal territories have territorial waters. Lucky for Spain or it wouldn't have any! Attempting to bully Gibraltar will do no good. The people of Gibraltar will not be cowed. But, at this time of economic difficulties, one would have thought that Spain would understand that it needs all the friends it can get. But there is a fault in the latino character. Many Orientals have a similar problem. It's called “face”. They must never be “at fault” or “wrong”. How incredible is it that some people cannot simply stop what they are doing that everyone else sees as wrong, admit they've been wrong and apologise. Isn't that what Germans, Italians and Japanese have done? And how has it hurt them? They are more prosperous than they have ever been. With peace, so that there is little concern that sons/daughters will have to go away and get killed. Gibraltar covers an area of 2.6 square miles. Spain has 195,364 square miles. What real difference does 2.6 square miles make? Of course, Gibraltar does have 30,000 people that don't want to be Spanish. And, the way Spain acts, who would blame them? Argieland isn't really any different. With 1,073,518 square miles, it wants to add the 4,700 square miles of the Falklands. Of course, argieland would like to announce its “Antarctic and South Atlantic Empire”. Would Spain like to “conquer” Portugal (again) and then announce its “North Atlantic Empire”? And just one nation stands in the way. Guess who? We WILL do whatever it takes. and history is clear. Against Brits, latinos never win!
Nov 13th, 2013 - 12:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What a lot of jingoistic racism. Let me quote a world-famous British historian, Arnold Toynbee: “Gibraltar? It is a thorn in Spain. Would British like a Russian or Chinese fortress on Land's End or on the Channel islands?” As for that arrogance that “Against Brits, latinos never win”, let me remember that the worst defeat in British naval history was inflicted by Spain. In 1741, at Cartagena de Indias, a British fleet of 186 ships with 30,000 soldiers and sailors was beaten by a garrison of 3,000 Spanish soldiers, with the result of 50 British ships sunk and about 18,000 dead. King George II forbade to write or even to talk about that apalling beating.
Nov 13th, 2013 - 02:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cartagena_de_Indias
@6
Nov 13th, 2013 - 02:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I can understand why Spain may feel hacked off about the historical situation regarding Gibraltar - when you put it into the context of a similar Spanish enclave at Lands Ends, regardless of signed treaty.
However, Spain's pain is completely hypocritical when you consider Ceuta and Melilla: I don't know the exact history of these, or the rights or wrongs, but I do know Morocco resents these enclaves and see them as a colonial breach of its territorial integrity.
Spain can not have it both ways.
@6 olisipo
Nov 13th, 2013 - 03:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Olisipo - the text in your link reads differently to your edited paste!!!
“The defeat caused heavy losses for the British: 50 ships lost, badly damaged or abandoned, and losses of 18,000 soldiers and sailors, mostly due to disease that also took a heavy toll among the Spanish forces, especially yellow fever”
@7 Well, if you don't know the “exact history ” of these two cities, I would suggest you to read a little about them. Both have depended from whoever have ruled the consecutive political structures in the Peninsula since the Roman Empire. They are part of Spain before Morocco was born like a State. Gibraltar was stolen by Britain taking advantage of a civil war in Spain: “It is hardly to the honour of England that it was unprincipled enough to sanction and ratify the occupation” (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1879, vol. 10, page 586)
Nov 13th, 2013 - 03:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@9 olisipo
Nov 13th, 2013 - 04:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That may be your view of “history”, but I'm sure Morocco could give an equally balanced argument against Spain still holding onto these enclaves in its own backyard. Would you not agree Gibraltar has been independent for longer then the current political Spanish entity has existed?
Anyway, the past is the past and long in theses cases. The people of Gibraltar, and likely Ceuta and Melilla, have the right to self determination. No ifs, no buts, no whataboutry. The days of Monopoly transfers of people and territories is long since dead. Amen.
Britain dismisses suggestion of any bilateral negotiations with Spain on Gibraltar.
Nov 13th, 2013 - 04:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0After all - its their section of Britain, they can do what they themselves decide.
In other news.
Devon decides to become part of China. (its their choice, rest of England have no say)
Birmingham becomes an independent country. (hey its their choice, rest of England have no say)
But of course these examples differ entirely from Gibraltar - simply because Gibraltar, although flying the British flag and making use of the British government and basically being exactly like any other part of Britain .... emm something something...yeah well democracy and that - just like the peoples republic of Devon.
@11
Nov 13th, 2013 - 04:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Urgh?
@12
Nov 13th, 2013 - 04:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Gnurgh ?
@9 Maybe this is a better example of Spain's double standards
Nov 13th, 2013 - 04:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Olivenza had been under continuous Portuguese sovereignty since 1297 when it was occupied by the Spanish in 1801 and formally ceded by Portugal later that year by the Treaty of Badajoz. Spain claims the de jure sovereignty over Olivenza on the grounds that the Treaty of Badajoz still stands and has never been revoked
The area has been under Spanish control since the War of Oranges in 1801, but it is not recognized by Portugal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputed_status_of_Olivenza
Two wrongs.
Nov 13th, 2013 - 04:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@13
Nov 13th, 2013 - 04:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ohh I see, your trying to somehow equate a hypothetical case of Birmingham and Devon doing their own thing a la Gibraltar. I just don't get the connection?
Very, very weak. As a Devils Advocate; don't give up your day job.
@ 10 Can you give me the date when Gibraltar became independent? Do you know that in the Gibraltar Constitution 2006 Britain says that Gibraltar cannot be independent because of the clause of pre-emption of art. 10 of the Treaty of Utrecht. There are many more “ifs” and “buts” that you don't know. Read a little about that “Town and Garrison IN THE KINGDOM OF SPAIN” (its oficial title since 1713 to 1830).
Nov 13th, 2013 - 04:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/the-schlock-of-gibraltar/173/
@17 olisipo
Nov 13th, 2013 - 05:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The UN Charter (which was signed by the UK and Spain) supersedes ANY prior treaty.
The UN Charter gives ALL peoples the right to self-determination. This has been backed up by rulings of the International Court of Justice.
Besides Gibraltar has NEVER been a part of the Kingdom of Spain. Prior to it being captured by a joint British/Dutch action in 1704, Gibraltar was actually a part of the Kingdom of Castile. Prior to that it belonged to the Moors.
Also Spain broke the Treaty of Utrecht within 15 years of signing it, by trying to forcibly retake Gibraltar. That leaves Britain with no obligation to follow the treaty either.
But, as I said, the treaty of Utrecht was superseded by the UN Charter, which means that the people of Gibraltar have the right to determine their own future and their own political allegiance, be that British, Spanish or a completely independent nation in their own right.
It's about time the people of Spain (especially the Spanish government) woke up to that fact, and respect the UN Charter - which is international law.
@17
Nov 13th, 2013 - 05:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0When I said independent I meant independent in the sense of being separate politically from Spain - I.e 1713 onwards. That’s 300 years!
You need to judge the past in the context of the time - NOT today (alas Argentina suffers this same problem). It’s nonsense to say Spain was bullied into giving up Gibraltar. Likely it was, but that's the way the world worked 300+ years ago. How on earth do you think Ceuta and Melilla has remained Spanish for so long, by been nice! No, just bigger and badder than the locals - don't be so naive.
I don't recall the UK bleating about losing Calais recently.
@19 FI_Frost
Nov 13th, 2013 - 05:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We lost Calais?!? Nobody told me! ;D
@20 LEPRecon
Nov 13th, 2013 - 05:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yerh bit of a bugger that one. Perhaps the government could ask Argentina for advice about starting a campaign to get it back....“Give peace a chance France”. We only ask for a negotiated re-annexation....
@17 The “funny” thing about the UK (and yours) “logics” is that you try to have the cake and to eat it. One day, it says that it keeps Gibraltar “forever” because Utrecht, and the next day it is because the wishes of the present inhabitants. It is worse than naive, it is disingenuous. Remember how Britain respected the wishes of the inhabitants of Diego Garcia, who were expelled to lease the island to the United States.
Nov 13th, 2013 - 06:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ 18 Tell that fable about Castile to the UK goverments since 1713 to 1830. They were who gave the official title to the Rock, “The Town and Garrison of Gibraltar IN THE KINGDOM OF SPAIN” (“The Rock of the Gibralarans”, by Sir William Jackson, former governor of Gibraltar*, 1987, page 229).
Olisipo - it seems to me that the jingoist is you!
Nov 13th, 2013 - 06:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ 16 -
Nov 13th, 2013 - 06:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Criticizing someones post as weak, without putting forward any reason, is ironically ... weak.
So in the spirit of your comment - nah nah your comment is weak .. just because.
@21 FI_Frost
Nov 13th, 2013 - 06:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Anjou, Aquitaine, Normandy and Bordeaux all part of Greater England, historically speaking.
@9 olisipo
“Both have depended from whoever have ruled the consecutive political structures in the Peninsula since the Roman Empire. They are part of Spain before Morocco was born like a State.”
So what about Spain and the Moors. When Ceuta, Melilla and Spain were ruled from Morocco, for what, about 800 years or so.
Being a bit selective with your use of history aren’t you.
@22 olisipo
Nothing to do with the Chagoss Islands becoming un-inhabitable then.
You seem to be missing a few fundamentals, like drinking water, food, and soil or even grazing, from your thinking.
Exactly how are they supposed to survive there!
Vestige, your post @11 is weak because.... it is gibberish.
Nov 13th, 2013 - 06:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/dicc/dicc.html
That said, if the population of Devon did have a massive popular uprising demanding independence, and this call for independence was backed up with voting figures, then there is not a great deal the rest of England could do about it without resorting to violence, and England would not go down that route.
That is something the malvinista rabble don't seem to be able to grasp
@1 LEPRecon And after all, what about the credibility of Mr Liddington's words on Gibraltar, being a politician who has been accused many times of having a “forked tonge” about things like the EU referendum?
Nov 13th, 2013 - 07:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For instance.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com.es/2013/04/eu-politics-white-man-speak-with-forked.html
@ olisipo
Nov 13th, 2013 - 07:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Portuguese campaigners have publicly accused Spain of hypocrisy in seeking to reclaim Gibraltar from the UK while retaining a piece of land annexed from Portugal 200 years ago
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/europe/europetoday/letters/020305_aroberts.shtml
@ 28 stick up your junta
Nov 13th, 2013 - 07:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0When you look at it like that, Spain is in dispute with Portugal, Morocco and British Gibraltar three of its five immediate neighbours.
Not to mention Cataluña, it’s soon to be neighbour.
Wonder if they are planning an invasion Andorra yet.
@25 Pugol-H I would suggest you to learn a bit about the history of Spain. The part of Spain which was occupied by Arabians was not ruled from Morocco. Read a little about the Emirate of Cordoba (756-929), which became the Caliphate (929-1031), then the Taifas (1031-1228) and at last the Kingdom of Granada, the last Taifa (1228-1492).
Nov 13th, 2013 - 07:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for the expulsion of the inhabitants of Diego GarcIa, are you trying to do like the Ministry of Truth, of Orwell's “1984”, which rewrote the history every day? It seems that you are trying to change that shameful episode of the British colonial history in a charitable example of largesse.
olisipo
Nov 13th, 2013 - 08:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Is anything I posted a lie?
The UN Charter supersedes ANY previous treaties, does it not?
Spain willingly signed the UN Charter, meaning that Spain recognises that the treaty of Utrecht was superseded AND that people have the right to self-determination, didn't it?
And didn't a recent attempt by both Spain and Argentina to limit the right to self-determination get voted down by the UN general assembly?
The only party here living in the past and having wishful thinking is Spain.
The only LEGAL way for Spain to get Gibraltar is to woo the people of Gibraltar. Make them want to be Spanish.
However, harassing them, threatening then, and trying to isolate them, doesn't appear to be the wisest course of action in order to get them to want to be Spanish. If anything, this course of action appears to be a deliberate attempt to push the people of Gibraltar further away.
One can only assume that Spain is acting in bad faith.
@30 olisipo
Nov 13th, 2013 - 08:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So what example are you trying to set from Chagos Islanders experience:
a) Gibraltarians have no right to self determination? Hence there was no injustice against the Chagos Islanders.
or
b) Gibraltarians should have the right to self determination? Because it was denied to the Chagos Islanders and this is now seen as an injustice.
This constant reference to the Chargos islands - and its use by Argentina and Spain - seems to contradict itself?
So which one is it: a) or b) ??
Britain demands Spain to return Minorca!
Nov 13th, 2013 - 09:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“... the Catholic King for himself, his heirs and successors, yield to the crown of Great Britain the whole island of Minorca for ever ...”
(Treaty of Utrecht between Spain and Great Britain (1713))
@LEPRecon
Nov 13th, 2013 - 10:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Article 2 0f the Un Charter forbids the “use of force against the territorial integrity” of any member state. Since 1945 the UK infringes this article. As recently as August sent to the coast of Spain a task force, in a show of “gun-boat diolomacy”.
The United Kingdom did not back that resolution on which you are writing about because the UK “did not accept the assertion that the people of Gibraltar did not have the right of self-determination”.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2013/gaspd533.doc.htm
@ 9 olisipo &
Nov 13th, 2013 - 10:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ 11 Vestige
- - -
@ 9 olisipo who writes.
”They (Ceuta and Melilla) are part of Spain before Morocco was born like a State.”
Same as the Falkland Islands were British before Argentina was born as a state.
In the small part of Virreinato del Río de la Plata, which was to become Argentina one day, as late as 23 October 1859 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 (with the title 'Supreme Director'))
two senats
two congresses
- - -
@ 11 Vestige who writes:
”Devon decides to become part of China. (its their choice, rest of England have no say)“
Really? How many voted? When?
”Birmingham becomes an independent country. (hey its their choice, rest of England have no say)”
Really? How many voted? When?
@34
Nov 13th, 2013 - 10:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2013/gaspd533.doc.htm
last line:- “The Committee will consider a draft decision on the Question of Gibraltar at a later date.”
@32 FI_Frost
Nov 13th, 2013 - 10:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It seems that you don't realize the utter cynicism of the UK when it says 1) That the right of self-determination in Gibraltar IS its main interest; and 2) that this right IS NOT appliable in Diego Garcia. As a matter of fact its main interest in that archipelago is only a military and economic one:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/alex-morrison/diego-garcia-story-so-far
@34 olisipo
Nov 14th, 2013 - 12:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0As opposed to constant Spanish incursions into Gibraltarian territorial waters, you mean? Including Spanish police opening fire on an UNARMED tourist in Gibraltarian waters, you mean?
Since Gibraltar has NEVER been a part of the Kingdom of Spain, how can it's territorial integrity have been disrupted?
300 years ago Gibraltar belonged to the Kingdom of Castile - the Kingdom of Spain didn't exist at that point - convenient that you forget that.
In fact, Gibraltar has been British longer than it was ever part of the Kingdom of Castile, and prior to that it belonged to the Moors. And because it is British territory the UK has the right to defend it. Look up Article 51 of the UN Charter.
But none of that is really applicable. What is applicable is the FACT that all people's have the right to self-determination. The International Court of Justice reiterated that principle applies to ALL non-self-governing overseas territories.
The International Court of Justice also ruled that the UK had settled with the inhabitants of Diego Garcia: of which those people had ACCEPTED restitution. In other words: case closed.
So again, if Spain wants Gibraltar, the ONLY legal ways to get it are to put their case to the International Court of Justice (which they appear very reluctant to do), or to woo the Gibraltarians and convince them to voluntarily become a part of Spain.
So since Spain won't go to the ICJ, that leaves the wooing. Spain seems to have a funny way of winning people over, doesn't it?
@ 38 LEPRecon
Nov 14th, 2013 - 12:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Spain seems to have a funny way of winning people over, doesn't it?”
Whatza wrong with their method? same as the Argentine, expecting people to love you if you harrass them.
Southern style, I guess. The UK must learn to give other countries what they expect and want - in the Argentina and Spain cases, kick their @sses
@37
Nov 14th, 2013 - 08:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0Are we understand Diego Garcia represents in your view a just precedent for what the UK should be doing in Gibraltar?
In any case, you are not quite up to speed either with the whole story or with current events:
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/british-indian-ocean-territory-policy-review
“This Government has expressed its regret about the way resettlement of BIOT was carried out in the late 1960s and early 1970s. We do not seek to justify those actions or excuse the conduct of an earlier generation. What happened was clearly wrong, which is why substantial compensation was rightly paid. Both the British courts and the European Court of Human Rights have confirmed that compensation has been paid in full and final settlement.
Decisions about the future of the British Indian Ocean Territory are more difficult. Successive British Governments have consistently opposed resettlement of the islands - on the grounds of both defence and feasibility.
The Government must be honest about these challenges and concerns. Long-term settlement risks being both precarious and costly. The outer islands, which have been uninhabited for 40 years, are low-lying and lack all basic facilities and infrastructure. The cost and practicalities of providing the levels of infrastructure and public services appropriate for a twenty-first century British society are likely to be significant and present a heavy ongoing contingent liability for the UK tax-payer.
However, the Government recognises the strength of feeling on this issue, and the fact that others believe that the resettlement of BIOT can be done more easily than we have previously assessed. We believe that our policy should be determined by the possibilities of what is practicable.
I am therefore announcing to the House the Government’s intention to commission a new feasibility study into the resettlement of BIOT.”
@37 olisipo
Nov 14th, 2013 - 10:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Again, YOU fail to realise the utter cynicism of using the case of the Chargos Islands to further your agenda.
Again, I ask you: should your example of the Chargos Island (and your view of its injustice) be applied to the people for Gibraltar?
YES or NO?
Please, no more quotes, no more links. Just a simply answer. If you can't, or won't, then stopping using this issue. We live in 2013, not 1713, or even 1960. Times and values have changed.
@41 FI_Frost
Nov 14th, 2013 - 11:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0I have just sent a complete answer to your queries. Apparently, the system hs not published it. I wont repeat this exercise in futility.
42 olisipo
Nov 14th, 2013 - 12:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I am sure you are not avoiding to answer the question, but you brought up the issue of the Chagos Islanders.
Everyone agrees that the Islanders, despite the nature of their tenure on Diego Garcia, were treated in a cavalier fashion (using the excuse,valid or other wise, of cold war politics) to trampling their human rights. BTW, a court case has, or is, currently underway in the UK regarding this matter
Again, hope you can reply simply, but does the case of the Chagos Islanders set a precedent that allows the UK and Spain (and Argentina re: Falklands Islanders) to ignore the rights of the Gibraltarians in the same manner?
Yes or No?
Again, you chose to use this issue to further your cause, but I don't understand how it does.
@42 olisipo
Nov 14th, 2013 - 12:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So you actually don't have an answer for FI_Frost and have come up with a lame excuse?
In that case please explain why Spain won't take it's case to the International Court of Justice? Why does it instead resort to childish, bullying tactics, which will backfire on you?
@ LEPrecon
Nov 14th, 2013 - 01:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ask the administrator of Mercopress why he has chosen not to publish my previous post.
As for your question on the ICJ, it is a show of disingenuous dialectics.
I am sure that you know very well that, like the other permanent members of the UN Security Council, Britain is able to veto the enforcement of cases to which it consented in advance to be bound. Read this report on this issue by the International Action Center, created by the former American Attorney General Ramsey Clark.
http://www.iacenter.org/warcrime21_just.htm
Britain has an apalling record of disobedience to the rulings of international courts. For instance, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in 2005 against Britain and ordered to allow the vote of British prisoners. The UK has chosen not to enforce that ruling.
@45 olisipo
Nov 14th, 2013 - 02:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So now you have run away from the Chagos Islanders, and now bringing up the issue of the UK's 'flagrant human rights abuse' by denying convicted prisoners the right to vote - all to support your argument!
You people are are hilarious, is there any wonder latino politics and institutions are seen as a joke in the gringo world. Is there any wonder why the likes of the Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands feel the way they do.
@46 FI_Frost
Nov 14th, 2013 - 03:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Let me tell you first that you don't know anything about the Diego Garcia issue. Contrariwise to what you have said this case has been rejected on June 11, by the London High Court which has denied to its inhabitants the right to return to that archipelago. That is the British justice!
http://www.jurist.org/paperchase/2013/06/uk-court-upholds-explusion-of-chagos-islanders-in-marine-protected-area.php
How cynical can be the UK that respects the right of self-determination only when it is convenient to its interests. In this case, with the connivance of the judiciary.
@45 olisipo
Nov 14th, 2013 - 03:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You now show your complete ignorance and still ignore my question.
No country in the WORLD has the right to VETO the International Court of Justice. You are confusing it with the UN Security Council which DOES NOT have the POWER to rule on sovereignty issues.
So I assume that by continually ignoring my question, you actually mean that you don't have an answer.
I also assume that by continually diverting the thread to Diego Garcia - which is like comparing apples and oranges in regards to Gibraltar - that you DEFINITELY know you've lost the argument.
For your information, in regards to Diego Garcia, there have never been indigenous human inhabitants because there is NO FRESH WATER on the islands. NONE. It all has to be imported.
The people who call themselves Diego Garcians, were actually people from Mauritius who had been employed to work on the plantations that the French had set up.
Not one of the people who call themselves Diego Garcians OWNED so much as a square inch of the land.
Nor did they have the money to buy so much as a square inch of land.
So, as an example, let's say you own huge estates and you employ a group of people to work on them. They work on the estates, as do their children, does that them mean that the estates suddenly belong to them?
Of course it doesn't, and neither do the islands of Diego Garcia belong to the immigrant workers who were brought in by the French. The French who subsequently sold the whole thing to the British.
Now in an act of generosity, that they didn't have to do, the British compensated the 'Chagos Islanders', and the 'Chagos Islanders' accepted the compensation.
There are now a few people (most of them have never even set foot on the Chagos Islands) who are now saying 'it's not fair'.
Well tough. They accepted the compensation, and the International Court of Justice has said case closed. End of story.
So you see, totally unlike the Gibraltar situation, isn't it? So why do you bring it up?
@48 LEPRecon
Nov 14th, 2013 - 04:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Wrong. For instance, the Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America. The ICJ ruled against the USA for supporting the Contras in their rebellion against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbours on June 27, 1986. On October 28, 1986, USA vetoed a resolution calling for full and immediate compliance of that ruling.
As for your extensive attack against the inhabitants of Diego Garcia, you can read these documents which show how the British goverment told Washington that it would end the “resettlement claims of the archipelago's former residents”.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/207149
You say that it has nothing to do with Gibraltar. It is evident that it shows that Britain invokes self-determination in Gibraltar and that your successive government forgets self-determination when it finds convenient to do it.
@49
Nov 14th, 2013 - 06:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's evident that you're not up to speed with current events. See @40. There may be no legal reason to review the situation of the Chagossians, but that doesn't mean it isn't being done.
And why don't you answer the question you've been asked? Are you suggesting that Diego Garcia is a precedent for what the Brits should be doing to Gibraltar? Will you be happy then?
@49 olisipo
Nov 14th, 2013 - 06:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Wrong. I'm not attacking the Diego Garcians, however, they accepted compensation, they then can't turn around and say 'it's not fair'.
However you never did answer the question posed by FI_Frost. Since you raised Diego Garcia, why don't you answer his question.
Do you support the rights of the Chagosians to self determination and by extension the right of the Gibraltarians to self-determination OR to you support what Britain did by removing those people?
It's a simple question, so why don't you answer?
@ HansNielund
Nov 14th, 2013 - 07:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you think in the announcement of the British government of its “intention” to creta a “study of feasability” for the resettlement of Diego Garcia, ilet me quote a famous proverb: “If you want to kill any idea in the world, get a committee working on it”.
It is a little naive to believe in the sincerity of the British defence of self-determination in Gibraltar with this precedent which involves one of the more strategic base in the world wich began with that shameful expulsion. BTW, when Britain fled from Hong Kong in 1997, including that part of it that Britain held IN PERPETUITY (Treaty of Nanking of 1842, at the end of the First Opium War, that glorious episode of the British Empire, and Convention of Beijing of 1960), it did it without any referendum.
It seems that Britain changes of doctrine on decolonisation depending of the contender. USA or a nuclear and totalitarian China. On the contrary, when Britain left Cyprus, it did it with the exigence of keeping the SOVEREIGN IN PERPETUITY bases of Akrotiri and Dhekelia.
@ LEPRecon
Ditto
@53
Nov 14th, 2013 - 08:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0> “If you want to kill any idea in the world, get a committee working on it”.
The idea was already killed by the court verdict of June 2012. Why bother with a committee at all?
> It seems that Britain changes of doctrine on decolonisation depending of the contender.
Of course it does. That's because not every case is the same. For example, Hong Kong (for the most part) was on a lease. Gibraltar is freehold. You should note, incidentally, that China had Hong Kong removed from the UN list of NSGTs back in the 1970s, precisely so that the inhabitants could not claim the right to self-determination. If Spain seriously wishes to deny self-determination to the Gibraltarians, it should be doing exactly the same.
Pardon me also if I don't think Spain has any lessons to teach the UK on the iniquities of imperialism.
and maybe this time you'll answer the question. Do you think Diego Garcia is a precedent for what the UK should be doing in Gibraltar? Or Hong Kong?
@30 olisipo
Nov 14th, 2013 - 08:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I would suggest you learn a bit about the history of N. Africa, like the Almoravid Berbers, Almohads, Hafsids and the Kingdom of Fez.
In that period, even when Ceuta and Melilla were ruled from Spain, it was by a Moorish Kingdom not a Spanish one.
Your statement:
“Both have depended from whoever have ruled the consecutive political structures in the Peninsula since the Roman Empire. They are part of Spain before Morocco was born like a State.”
Is completely incorrect, misleading and just plain wrong.
Also look up Phillip V, and the making of Spain into a single Kingdom, beginning in 1707 ending in 1715.
After the British captured Gibraltar from the Kingdom of Castile in 1704.
You haven’t explained how the Chagoss Islands have suddenly become habitable, and are not in fact sinking beneath the waves?????????
Or can we just “Flying Nun” the Chagossians somewhere over the Indian Ocean, and say there repatriated, eh what.
@HansNielund
Nov 14th, 2013 - 08:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are right, Britain has a glorious history of respect to the wishes of the inhabitants of its colonies. Read for instance “The Untold Story of Britain's Gulag in Kenya”, by Caroline Elkins, Jonathan Cape, 2005, which won the Pulitzer Prize and which renders an account of the concentration camps in that country. After all, Britain created that system of peacekeeping in South Africa many years before Hitler.
As for the way of obtaining military bases all over the world, you can read it
http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2013/08/07/the-geo-politics-of-military-bases-empire-and-independence/
@55
Nov 14th, 2013 - 08:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And your point is what? It's really unfair that we haven't put the Gibraltarians in a Gulag?
@Pugol-H
Nov 14th, 2013 - 08:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Given your ignorance about the History of Spain, I wont waste my time about, for instance, the official name of the heads of State since 1516, Kings of the Spains.
As for your fable about Castile and Gibraltar, I could say that the present “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”, created by the Acts of Union of 1801, it is not the same which signed the Treaty of Utrecht. As you can see, everybody can play the game.
@57 olisipo
Nov 14th, 2013 - 10:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The official name of the heads of State since 1516, Kings of the Spains.”
“Kings of the Spains”
“Spains”
Gibraltar has never been part of the Kingdom of Spain (singular) a different entity entirely from the Kingdom of Castile (or Aragon for that matter).
Therefore a disruption of the territorial integrity of Spain (singular) is not possible, is it!!!!
Not a fable, just the simple facts, unless the above dates are wrong, evidence to the contrary please!!!!!!!!
Sorry, which “Act of Union” are you referring to????
And by the way, you haven’t answered a single question put to you here.
You just spout more rubbish, end of.
@Pugol-H
Nov 14th, 2013 - 11:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 01) It seems that you don't know the history of your own country, if you are Briton, or perhaps you are a Gibraltarian, this kind of funny people who define themselves as “150 per cent Britons” or “more British than the English”.
The “Acts of Union” created in 1800 the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”, which substituted the previous “Kingdom of Great Britain”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1800
2) The title of Kings of Spains was maintained as late as 1800, when, according to your “logic” had elapsed a century since the creation of an unified Spain.
3) Would you kindly spare me your string of insults? Thanks a lot.
@59 olisipo
Nov 15th, 2013 - 09:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0Its seems you like to throw the kitchen sink and various other random out of context issues into your argument to support your case.
I find it amusing that you accuse others of been jingoistic and racist on here, together with your liberal use of obscure articles attacking the UK's 'human rights abuses', 'war crimes' etc, when your own nationalism and resentment stand out easily. One thing is for sure, you care little for the Chagos Islanders other then seeing them as an opportunity.
So, tell me, not that I expect a simple clear answer: what future would you like to see for the 30,000 Gibraltarians?
FI_Frost (#16)
Nov 15th, 2013 - 10:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0@13
'Ohh I see, your trying to somehow equate a hypothetical case of Birmingham and Devon doing their own thing a la Gibraltar. I just didn't get the connection?'
This had often crossed my mind ... unfettered entry to the UK by the Indian sub-continent builds up up a majority population, say, north of Luton and south of Newcastle; lowland east of England develops a majority population of eastern Europeans - but England would remain titled 'England'. Communities would locally re-name themselves based on the links with the homelands - like much of the New World; but so what?
No,
the better analogy would be if the Spanish Armada had conquered and kept by perpetual treaty, the Isle of Wight (a bit like the Brits hold possession of the Channel Isles, only a bit closer to the mainland).
Would the English blockade the Isle of Wight Ferry?
Would steely-eyed sentries do the slow goose-step either side of the painted line on the pontoon marking the Solent EEZ?
Would the IoW Euro be accepted in Portsmouth?
There are elements of such farce in these musings - worthy of Gilbert and Sullivan, and perhaps presaging a resurgence of the English Music Hall.
But it is no farce for the daily workers at the Gibraltar Crossing.
They are being punished by their government for having a steady 'British' income while those working on the mainland suffer in the Spanish Collapse.
An obscure article like this one?
Nov 15th, 2013 - 12:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKBRE9AE0FI20131115?irpc=932
As you can see, the European Union has rejected Mr Cameron's accusation against Spain.
If you think that UN resolutions, cables from Wikileaks, reports on the London High Court, legal studies about the ICJ, are “obscure”, well, tell me what you need.
Oh, I see. You don't like this report which was originally published here:
http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKBRE9AE0FI20131115?irpc=932
What in this article is untrue? Gibraltar is only an example among many about how Britain got its network of military bases across the world.
@62 olisipo
Nov 15th, 2013 - 01:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The UK, like Spain has an imperial past. Spain has military/intelligence assets in Ceuta and Melilla to protect its interests.
Gibraltar, if it so wished, has the authority to go its own way and kick out the UK from its territory - just like Malta did years ago.
You are obviously a keen advocate of human rights and civil liberties and a champion of the Chagos Islanders cause.
Ok, the UK is a hypocritical nosy-parker. But I ask you again, what about the people of the Gibraltar, not the UK government’s misdemeanours , the people of Gibraltar, the 300+ years of heritage. Tell me about them and what future they should have???
You simply will not answer the question. Why? Because it would utterly contradict your do-gooding, holy than thou, self-appointed 'defending' of the people liberties persona.
SPAIN WINS IN THE BORDER CONTROL: EU BACKS SPAIN .
Nov 15th, 2013 - 01:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@64
Nov 15th, 2013 - 02:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So for the many, low income unemployed in La Línea, is that good news or bad news?
@63 FI_Frost
Nov 15th, 2013 - 02:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As you have seen, the European Union backs Spain against Britain on Gibraltar.
All that would't have happened if the idea of Mr Blair in 2002 would have got a chance. The Gibraltarians keeping their British cizitenship with a joint sovereignty of the territory. They could keep their political and judicial system. But they chose otherwise.
Quoting Prof. Toynbee, Britain wouldn' t allow something like that if it was at the receiving end on Land's End. But this is a trait of many Britons. They cannot understand the feelings of other people in Spain, Cyprus, etc. You will have to live with the consequences of your behaviour.
@66 olisipo
Nov 15th, 2013 - 02:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0NO, the European Union does not back Spain against Britain on Gibraltar. The EU Commission rules that checks by Spain at its border with Gibraltar did not infringe EU law. Big difference.
Again, I'm not interested in what Prof. Toynbe says, I'm not interesting in what the UK government does or says. I'm interested in what YOU have to say regarding what the future of Gibraltar should be?
No more quotes, no more links. What do YOU think should happen to the 30, 000 Gibs and its political status?
You have an opinion on so many of the UK's 'abuses', but can't, or won't offer a solution to this issue?
@67 FI_Frost.
Nov 15th, 2013 - 02:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Apparently, you cannot read. The future of Gibraltar should be, at the least, the joint sovereignty on the territory, where the Gibraltarians would keep their British ciitizenship and most of their political and judicial system, not the shady financial one that for instance allowed a Tory minister, like Mr. Hammond, to buy a £500.000 villa in Portugal through an off-shore Gibraltarian society without paying taxes in Britain.
As for the decision taken today by the EU, read it like you wish. In my view it means a resounding slap on Mr Cameron's face. Some Gibraltarians have reacted asking the withdrawal of Britain from the EU.
@68
Nov 15th, 2013 - 03:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0At last, you speak! So like the Chagos Islanders, Gibraltarians have no say in determining their own future. They have no right to self-determination. Spain and the UK will decide what’s best for them, regardless. So much for your libertarian principles! Spain is seems is exempt from any such criticism.
It’s interesting you bring up Mr Blair’s - 'the butcher of Basra' - idea in 2002 (actually it was Peter Hain). Do you know what happen to this idea? Well, the people of Gibraltar held a vote; lucky people, the poor Chagos islanders never had that chance. And what was the outcome of the vote? No I won't bore you with details, besides its irrelevant now, the UK and Spain will now call the shots.
BTW, re: the EU Commission's judgement: “The Commission reserves the right to revise its view on the legality of Spanish action and pay another visit to the Spain-Gibraltar crossing point if necessary”. So best make sure the Guardia Civil keep on their toes and play fair - for the next six months at least.
@ FI_Frost
Nov 15th, 2013 - 03:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Gibraltarians have the right of deciding about everything but the future of the Spanish territory where they live. It is very clear that you are unable to understand what it was so well described by Arnold Toynbee. You only understand what you wish. BTW, read the opinions of many Gibraltarians who are asking the British withdrawal of the EU because of this decision.
@70 olisipo
Nov 15th, 2013 - 04:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So we end at the beginning.....
Gibraltar was ceded 300+ years ago in the Treaty of Utrecht so is NOT Spanish territory.
Bit like Olivenza (Portuguese?) - which apparently is Spanish territory.
Bit like Ceuta and Melilla (Moroccan?) - which apparently is Spanish territory.
Tut, tut; hypocritical double standards Spain! You are one of us after all - come join our club ;)
@68
Nov 15th, 2013 - 04:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That's a solution that might just work, if only Spain wasn't doing everything possible to alienate the only people who could sanction it, namely the Gibraltarians themselves.
That's the curious thing. Spain could have Gibraltar tomorrow. All they have to do is convince the Gibraltarians they'd be better off associating with their largest, closest, neighbour. Why is that so hard?
@59 olisipo
Nov 15th, 2013 - 07:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The equivalent in British history you are looking for, would be the Act of Settlement 1701. England and Scotland had shared the same Monarch for some time, but this was the point at which they became one Kingdom.
I am of an Anglo Saxon background, “Briton” would imply a Celtic background. Definitely not a Gibraltarian.
The fact remains that when the Kingdom of Castile became part of the Kingdom of Spain, it did not include the territory of Gibraltar, and the subsequent Kingdom of Spain, did sign several treaties at various times recognising British sovereignty over Gibraltar.
Therefore no disruption of the territorial integrity, of the Kingdom of Spain, can be argued in this case.
Don’t complain about insults when you refer to Gibraltarians (or anyone else for that matter) as “this kind of funny people”, condescending or what!
Do you also refer to the Falkland/Malvinas Islanders as “Ocupas”, try answering this question!
aussie sunshine says:
Nov 15th, 2013 - 08:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“SPAIN WINS IN THE BORDER CONTROL: EU BACKS SPAIN”
YAY! Spain finally gets Gibraltar back……..
Hang on a minute…….
That's it? Spain creates longer border crossings and that's it? Nothing more? No transfer of sovereignty? No caving in by Gibraltar?
Oh God save us from stupid people who think that this is a win.
Nothing has changed for Spain.
Nothing has changed for Gibraltar.
@73 Pugol-H
Nov 15th, 2013 - 09:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 01) This is not an academic forum, but let me underline that you are forgetting that the Acts of Union 1800 created an until then nonexistant “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland” instead of “Great Britain”, which was the official name of that new political strcture, according to the article 1 of the Acts of Union 1707
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Act_of_Union_1707
Thus, if you insist in the untrue assertion that Gibraltar did no belong to the Kingdom of the Spains (Hispaniarum Regnum, its name in Latin) I can imitate you fallacy and say that the Great Britain which signed the Treaty of Utrecht is not the same which exists now, with all the legal consequences of that fact.
As for the Gibraltarians I could find adjectives much harsher than “funny” to describe those persons who define themselves as “more Britons than the English” with such variegated names like Picardo, Caruana, Garcia, etc.
@75
Nov 15th, 2013 - 09:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So ethnicity determines nationality and culture? That's a new one on me.
@HansNiesund
Nov 15th, 2013 - 11:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Don't try to put words in my mouth. That is an old trick, mein Herr. Many Gibraltarians describe themselves as MORE Britons than any English, very often with a deep Andalusian accent. This is plainly funny.
@77
Nov 15th, 2013 - 11:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's the logical conclusion to be drawn from your last statement.
But isn't it interesting that people with names like Picardo, Caruana, Garcia, etc., are so determined not to live under Spanish sovereignity? Why do you think that might be?
It is very easy to understand it. People coming above all from Mediterranean places like Picardo (Genoa), Caruana (Malta), Hassan (Morocco), have won a lot of money with the system of tax-haven, which has only been partially softened since 2009,see the case of the British minister Hammond), the online gambling, which gives employment to thousands if Gibraltariand and that according to Picardo concentrates a SIXTY PER CENT of that “industry”, often linked with the Mafia, FROM ALL THE WORLD, and things like that.
Nov 16th, 2013 - 12:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0The UN supports Spain. The EU supports Spain. Now Spain should take Gibraltar to the courts on its bunkering industry...
Nov 16th, 2013 - 12:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Next time Picardo should think twice before he throws concrete into the harbour...
@77 olisipo
Nov 16th, 2013 - 12:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0Franco may have died several decades ago but his legacy lives on. There are likely more Union Jacks fluttering in Gib (and without question) fewer inter-marriages because of his actions in 1969. That's a fact. This likely explains Picardo et al's attitude.
What Spain (and Argentina fail to realise) is bully takes generations to be forgotten and even longer for trust to rebuilt. I have zero empathy for Argentina, but I do understand why Spain feels aggrieved at this historical anomaly. However, given the length of time the way things have been, the Gibs have rights, the UN says so. No UK government would survive going against these or selling them out.
* 81 The only bully in this picture is Great Britain when it placed a British colony
Nov 16th, 2013 - 12:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0on Spanish soil!!! Good for the Spanish people to do everything they can to get
that British colony out of Europe and back into Spanish hands......How would Great Britain react if they had a Spanish colony in their backyard??!! The original Spaniards who were living in Gibraltar when it was conquered also had RIGHTS but they were pushed out to make way for the British colonists.
@82 Fake Tan
Nov 16th, 2013 - 01:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yee gods, you want go argue the toss about what happened 300+ hundred years ago!?!
Why are you still in Morocco?
Man-up Spain, decolonise Ceuta and Melia , set us all an example on how to behave in the 21st centaury.
@ 75 olisipo
Nov 16th, 2013 - 02:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0Please allow me to explain, “The Union” was created by the Act of Settlement 1701, this is the point at which British history began.
Subsequent “Acts of Union”, of which there were a few, and at different times, defined its extent and scope.
Sir, you obfuscate, my assertion is that Gibraltar belonged to “the Kingdoms of Spain”, but not “the Kingdom of Spain”, the modern entity claiming “a disruption of its territorial integrity”, it simply cannot justify (I suggest you re-visit your Latin, particularly the grammar).
Surely, how they choose to define themselves (the Gibraltarians), is their choice and their business only, how would you feel if someone TOLD you who you were, and what you had to be. Whatever your Surname, over which you ultimately had no control.
“Harsher”, don’t make me laugh, so you think its “funny” to degrade people, to reduce their worth, so you can excuse to yourself for not thinking they have the same value and rights as you do!
Funny as F*ck mate, whenever you’re ready girls bring it on, this ideology has to be opposed, end of.
Answer the question, “do you also refer to the Falkland/Malvinas Islanders as Ocupas”, I’ll give you a clue, it’s a YES or NO answer, can you manage that??
@82 aussie sunshine
Wot, like you “squatter Blokes” “pushed out” the Abos, so you could live a comfortable life on their land.
Is that what you mean???
#80 You're not very clever are you. The UN does not support Spain, and EU in fact supports the UK (British Sovereignty over Gibraltar, and the Falklands, is referenced the Treaty of Lisbon).
Nov 16th, 2013 - 07:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0#79 #80 and others. Spain, no longer has any legal or moral right to Gibraltar. Are you somehow suggesting we should return all territory to the state that held it ~300 years ago?
@79
Nov 16th, 2013 - 08:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0Certainly most sane people would rather live in a vibrant economy than a collapsing one. But this would only explain the rejection of Spain these last couple of decades. What was the reason before? Do you think the Civil War and the 50+ years of fascism that followed might have put people off just a little? Do you think maybe the resurgence of Falangist attitudes might be having a negative effect now too?
I mean, you don't seem too embarassed to argue that the inhabitants have no right to determine their own future, due to the origins of their forebears some hundreds of years ago. There are few mainstream politicians in Europe that would countenance such a thing these days. Fortunately.
And yet yours can, and pretend to be anti-imperialist at the same time.
@ Pugol-H
Nov 16th, 2013 - 12:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I realize that you are recycling with me the arguments that you use with Argentinians contenders about the Falkland/Malvinas issue about the existence of several political entities in the first years of the history of that country.
To show how absurd is your fallacy let's say that Russia, after aiding a Jacobite pretender in 1700 against William III, took a fortress in the English coast. Now, the UK asks Russia to return that place and Putin says that the UK has not any right to invoke the principle of self-determination, because England does not exist anymore as an independent Kingdom.
Please, don't answer me. I am fed up with your tricks.
@87 olisipo
Nov 16th, 2013 - 03:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In both cases, Gibraltar and The Falklands, self-determination over-rules any question of territorial integrity anyway.
Gibraltar and The Falklands right to self-determination, is enshrined in the UN charter, and resolutions.
Also it was decided by the IC decades ago that self-determination is a fundamental human right, and territorial integrity is not, therefore self-determination overrules territorial integrity.
And this has been applied by the UN in every case since.
As to the specifics of the claims, Spain undeniably signed away, on several occasion any claim it may, or may not, have had.
In Argentina’s case, the Islands were British territory before Argentina ever existed in any form, and long before Argentina conquered Patagonia/T d F to become our neighbours in that part of the world.
None of the S. Atlantic islands have ever legitimately been part of the sovereign territory of Argentina (by any name), no violation of Argentina’s territorial integrity is possible.
In the hypothetical case you quote, the decision as to whether to be UK, Russia or independent would be up to the inhabitants.
Can’t imagine they would want to stay part of Russia, any more than the Russians in the Baltic States did.
@ 88 Pugol-H
Nov 16th, 2013 - 04:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I said that I don't wish to hear more from you, because of your tricks about the history of Spain. I answer for the last time because you have forgotten that childish fallacy about Castile.
In the contrafactual history, Russia wouldn't appeal to the wishes of the inhabitants of its fortress. Putin would repeat your fallacy about the defunct Kingdom of England, no matter how absurd it is.
As for the UN Charter, please red article 2 about territorial integrity.
The last resolution of the UN Fourth Commission was not backed by Britain because it “the United Kingdom did not accept the assertion that the people of Gibraltar did not have the right of sef determination”.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2013/gaspd533.htm
Goodbye
@89
Nov 16th, 2013 - 05:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Indeed you're right. The United Kingdom did not accept the assertion that the people of Gibraltar did not have the right of self determination. What you have omitted to mention is that the assertion in question was made by Spain, not by the UN.
@HansNiesund
Nov 16th, 2013 - 06:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mein Herr, read it again: “The representative of the United Kingdom called the approach of the Decolonization Committe 'outdated' because it failed to take into account how the relationship between the United Kingdom and its Overseas Territories had modernized. Also, he added, the United Kingdom did not accept the assertion that the people of Gibraltar did not have the right of self-determination”.
That is a blanket attack against the United Nations and its position on decolonisation.
BTW, your suggestion, in a previous post, that I am a racist is, as usual, a distortion of what I have said about the different origins of the Gibraltarians. Again, as usual, you put words in my mouth. This method has a very ugly name. A fallacy.
@91 olisipo
Nov 16th, 2013 - 06:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So, “do you refer to the Falkland/Malvinas Islanders as Ocupas”, yes or no.
#91 Do you really have any argument? If Gibraltar or the Falklands Islands choose to become independent they will be supported by the United Kingdom. Until they choose to do so the status quo will remain. Unless the inhabitants choose to do so they will never pass to Spanish or Argentine sovereignty.
Nov 16th, 2013 - 06:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There really is nothing else to talk about, is there? On what basis could you possibly see these territories being transferred? Or would you prefer that we just roll all international borders back to how they were at some arbitrary date? Perhaps you, like Dany Berger, would prefer to international borders as they were in 1942.
@91
Nov 16th, 2013 - 07:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You seem to have some difficulties with reading comprehension. Take these paragraphs :
”That text would have the General Assembly reaffirm that, in the process of decolonization, there was no alternative to the principle of self-determination, which was also a fundamental human right, as recognized under the relevant human rights conventions. ....
... Speaking in explanation of position after the text’s approval, the question was raised about the application of principles other than that of self-determination to the Territories. The representative of Spain said that although the delegation had joined the consensus on the draft because it supported the right to free self-determination, the principle of territorial integrity should also be applied in some cases, such as in that of Gibraltar.
Also speaking on that draft was Argentina’s representative, who expressed support for the right of self-determination in the Territories as outlined in the omnibus draft resolution, but, drawing attention to General Assembly resolution 1514 (1960), said that the principle of self-determination was only one of two guiding tenets applicable to Non-Self-Governing Territories. .....
.... the representative of the United Kingdom, called the approach of the Decolonization Committee “outdated” because it failed to take into account how the relationship between the United Kingdom and its Overseas Territories had modernized. Also, he added, the United Kingdom did not accept the assertion that the people of Gibraltar did not have the right to self-determination.”
It is perfectly clear that the assertion being referred to by the UK rep is the assertion made by Spain (or Argentina or both). It can't possibly be an assertion in the UN document, since the UN document states exactly the opposite.
and BTW, I didn't say you were a racist, only that you believe some people have lesser rights due to the origins of their forebears. Is that not true?
@ inthegutter
Nov 16th, 2013 - 07:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What a fitting nick. I have explained my position on the future of Gibraltar in a previous post. Can you read?
As for your proposal of an independent Gibraltar, you are wrong. The UK government says in the Constitution of Gibraltar 2006, that it is impossible because the clause of pre-emption in the Treaty of Utrecht.
Spain and Britain proposed a solution in 2002. Read a little about it. If the UK tries to defend in Gibraltar a right which has not respected in other colonies like Diego Garcia or Hong Kong (please, don't come with the old lie of the 99 years lease, because a good part of HK was held IN PERPETUITY according to the Treaty of Nanking 1842, at the end of the glorious First OPIUM WAR, and by the First Convention of Beijing, 1860, at the end of the second OPIUM WAR), Britain will have to endure the consequences.
#95 “fitting nick”? And now your position isn't clear, other ignoring the wishes of the current inhabitants.
Nov 16th, 2013 - 07:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In reality if Gibraltar demanded independence it is likely the Treaty of Utrecht would be completely ignored.
Yes, and in 2002, that was decisively rejected in a referendum by the people who it concerned. Therefore the British government abandoned the proposal - what about this is unclear? The people of Gibraltar exercised their right, as enshrined in the UN constitution, to self-determination.
Hong Kong was different. Yes, HK islands and Kowloon were ceded in perpetuity. However, the New Territories, which made up the vast majority (86%) of the area of HK, were on a lease. Because the NTs and HK island + Kowloon were closely integrated it would have been virtually impossible to split these up.
Diego Garcia is also very different. I won't bore you with the details as they been mentioned here a number of times. One thing I'd like to add though is that the events surrounding DG were 50 years in the height of cold war.
@ inthe gutter
Nov 16th, 2013 - 09:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ HansNiesund
I have just sent a long post to both of you. The system has again decided not to publish it. I wont repeat it. I will only say to you to consultnthe resolution on Gibraltar of the Fourth Committee of Ictober 28 which doesn't speak about self-determination and which urges Spain and Britain to negotiate according to the declaration of Brussels of 1984, which includes the negotiation of the sovereignty of the Rock.
Goodbye.
Why do people lie?
Nov 16th, 2013 - 09:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“As for your proposal of an independent Gibraltar, you are wrong. The UK government says in the Constitution of Gibraltar 2006, that it is impossible because the clause of pre-emption in the Treaty of Utrecht.”
Because I just had a look through the Constitution of Gibraltar and it DOESN'T say that at all.
Indeed here is what it does say in the Order:
“Her Majesty’s Government will never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes”
And more importantly within the actual constitution itself:
“Whereas all peoples have the right of self-determination and by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status”
So great, here we have ANOTHER new poster who just makes sh!t up.
Haven't seen that before….. a dozen or more times.
@97
Nov 16th, 2013 - 09:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's quite an extraordinary link you posted.
First of all both Spain and Argentina put their names to a text which states quite unequivocally and without qualification that there is “no alternative to the principle of self-determination” which is a “fundamental human right”.
And then immediately after the document is adopted, both step forwards to declare ah yes, but that's not really what we meant at all, what we meant is yes there is an alternative, and no, it's not a fundamental human right. Not in our cases anyway. Wherever did you get the idea we might have thought otherwise?
How is anybody supposed to take this seriously? It's perfectly clear that after the total failure of the joint Spanish/Argentine attempt to limit the right of self-determination in 2008, you don't dare take your cases to a UN vote any more than you dare take it to the ICJ.
And this being so, the only way you can maintain the pretense that the UN supports you is to write one thing and say another.
The only problem is that nobody is fooled by this but yourselves.
How is anybody supposed to take this circus seriously?
#97 Uh huh, sure.
Nov 16th, 2013 - 09:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 01) No UK government will negotiate away the sovereignty of Gibraltar against the will of the inhabitants. It would be political suicide (same with the Falklands).
2) The ICJ is unlikely to transfer sovereignty to Spain against the wishes of the inhabitants.
So, no, nothing is going to change until the people of Gibraltar want it to. Do go try and oppress someone else...
(97) olisipo
Nov 16th, 2013 - 10:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0About your “dissapearing” posts ................
You are suffering the same technical problems many of us had in the beginning...
To avoid them, I would recommend you to always “Block & Copy” your text BEFORE submitting your comment...
Another possibility could be writing your comment in “Word” and then pasting it in here...
Hoping to read some more of your intelligent comments...
El Think, Chubut, Argentina.
@ 98 anglotino
Nov 16th, 2013 - 10:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Constitution of Gibraltar, 2006, page 64
“Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht gives Spain the right of refusal should the United Kingdom ever renounce sovereignty. Thus, it is Her Majesty's Government that there is not constraint to that right [self-determination] EXCEPT INDEPENDENCE WOULD BE ONLY AN OPTION FOR GIBRALTAR WITH SPAIN'S CONSENT”.
Oh poor olisipo
Nov 17th, 2013 - 06:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0I see why Think is so enamoured with you. You make him look good.
So let's look at this.
“Constitution of Gibraltar, 2006, page 64”
There is no page 64 to the Gibraltan Constitution. Your limited intelligence (that so attracts Think) failed to realise that you are quoting from the “Despatch Note”. That isn't part of the actual Constitution. Think of it as a cover letter.
Then you have added sheer idiocy to your limited intelligence and partially quoted. Just naughty, but for you it was stupid. If you start a quote midway through a sentence you should include an ellipse at the start to show that - Think can show you how. When you don't, you are misquoting and let's face it, you make yourself look incompetent, stupid and deceitful. Though that was perhaps your aim. Or it may be just another day for you.
What Margaret Beckett form the FCO wrote was:
“…Gibraltar enjoys the individual and collective rights accorded by the Charter of the United Nations. Her Majesty's Government therefore supports the right of self-determination of the people of Gibraltar, prompted in accordance with the other principles and rights of the Charter of the United Nations, except in so far only as in the view of Her Majesty's Government, which it has expressed in Parliament and otherwise publicly ON MANY OCCASIONS, Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht gives Spain the right of refusal should the United Kingdom ever renounce sovereignty. Thus, it is Her Majesty's Government that there is not constraint to that right except with Spain's consent.
Her Majesty's Government takes not that Gibraltar does not share the view that this constraint exists and that their acceptance of this Constitution is on the basis.”
The UK sticks to a Treaty even though Spain doesn't and if you were intelligent, you'd realise that the above lets Gibraltar declare independence without the approval of London. It is quote common for new states to declare independence without permission.
Next…...
#103 Nice work, :)
Nov 17th, 2013 - 07:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks you @104, but honestly he isn't any challenge really.
Nov 17th, 2013 - 12:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0He'll just ignore this thread or change the topic now.
At least there is one manufacturing industry that both Argentina and Spain share excellence in….. producing less than intelligent nationalistic clones!
@ anglotino
Nov 17th, 2013 - 01:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0First, let's see the key words that you have decided to delete in the relevant sentences. I will write those words in capital letters.
“Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht gives Spain the right of refusal should the United kigdom ever renounce sovereignty. Thus, it is Her Majesty's Government position that there is no constraint to that right [self determination] EXCEPT INDEPENDENCE WOULD BE ONLY AN OPTION FOR GIBRALTAR with Spain's consent”
We were writing about independence, or perhaps you have forgotten it.
The following paragraph is a condescendent way of saying that HMG knows that the Gibraltar government has other point of view. Practically speaking, nobody can believe that if Gibraltar would declare UDI, violating Utrecht, it would happen without very serious consequences, even from the UK. Remember Rhodesia.
This document has been included in the PDF distributed under the title “Gibraltar Constituton 2006”. It seems that you don't know how the British diplomacy works. Many times the more important part of its agreements appear in their appendices.
Lastly, I wont debase myself reciprocating all the expletives that you have thrown upon me. A bad night?
(106) olisipo
Nov 17th, 2013 - 02:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You write...:
“It seems that you don't know how the British diplomacy works. Many times the more important part of its agreements appear in their appendices.”
I say...:
In the appendices indeed, Mr. Olisipo....
Regarding Mr. Anglolatino...:
Don't pay much attention to his manners...
Is his way of flirting, you know...
@Think
Nov 17th, 2013 - 03:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A very rude way of flirting. Poor chap. He ought to learn manners.
BTW, if you live in Chubut, I suppose that you are an Argentinian, aren't you?
In that case, muchas gracias por su respaldo. Sigo a diario la actualidad de su país.
(108) olisipo
Nov 17th, 2013 - 05:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Juppp....... I'm a proud first generation Argie, pissed by the Anglo Colonial haughtiness in the South Atlantic.
Ps:
Like your style of not debasing yourself by reciprocating the expletives that the “Turnips” throw at you....;-)
~Awww, don't get pissed/piss yourself, Think.
Nov 17th, 2013 - 06:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just because I'm haughty doesn't mean I'm wrong ;-)
Proud Argy Planter, ocupas in Patagonia, Creol Republic of, with greedy little eyes looking enviously towards the British territories in the S. Atlantic/Antarctic.
Nov 17th, 2013 - 07:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Problem is that unlike Atahualpa the Mapuche, Selknap or Qom, the Brits have more than just bows and arrows with which to defend their territory.
Whoooosh!!!
Oh my dear olisipo
Nov 17th, 2013 - 08:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It matters not how you choose to reply to me because you seem to wear your ignorance as a badge of pride. Kudos to you.
I did indeed fail to transpose a full sentence and for that I apologise. See how easy it is do that when you have done something wrong. Probably a new idea for you.
Again though you fail to post the full quote youself though. I may have missed the words but I freely admit that the UK policy, which they have publicly stated more than once, is that they not only see that Gibraltar can only gain independence “SHOULD THE UK RENOUNCE SOVEREIGNTY”.
The full quote then with the word capitalised that I missed:
“Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht gives Spain the right of refusal should the United Kingdom ever renounce sovereignty. Thus, it is Her Majesty's Government that there is no constraint to that right except THAT INDEPENDENDE WOULD ONLY BE AN OPTION FOR GIBRALTAR with Spain's consent.”
What you clearly ignore is the following gems and by leaving them out, you distort what you claim. Whereas what I left out doesn’t distort it as my post still said that Spain has rights to sovereignty should the UK ever renounce sovereignty. Emphasis on renounce.
“Gibraltar enjoys the individual and collective rights accorded by the Charter of the United Nations”
Missed that one!
Question: does it or does it not appear and therefore have equal legal weight?
“Her Majesty's Government therefore supports the right of self-determination of the people of Gibraltar”
Missed that one too!
Question: does it or does it not appear and therefore have equal legal weight?
“Her Majesty's Government takes not that Gibraltar does not share the view that this constraint exists”
Oooh missed that one Seems the UK Government accepts that Gibraltar see the world differently.
Question: does it or does it not appear and therefore have equal legal weight?
Violating the Treaty of Utrecht would have no serious consequences. Name a single one.
Nov 17th, 2013 - 08:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just a single one if that dusty piece of history that is now clearly superseded by modern international law and especially the UN Charter.
“Practically speaking, nobody can believe that if Gibraltar would declare UDI, violating Utrecht, it would happen without very serious consequences, even from the UK. Remember Rhodesia.”
Rhodesia. You mean the independent country of Zimbabwe. That is now not part of the UK? You mean its declaration of independence lead to…… independence?
How freaky was that hey!
Hmmmm can we think of anymore unilateral declarations of independence? Wow most of the New World.
Argentina didn’t have the right to declare independence. Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, United States, Cuba…. None of them.
I tell you what, for every single example you give of a former European colony that declared independence illegally and was then overturned, I will give you an example of a now existing sovereignty entity that succeeded.
We’ll see whose list runs out first.
Maybe something more modern? Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia perhaps.
Whatabout Kosovo? Unilateral.
Better yet, what about UN aided independence such as East Timor and South Sudan?
Oh you’ll probably trot out the line that Gibraltar cannot do that because it is a special case. Well I dare you to find the proof of that because many have searched and none have found. The UN clearly supports the granting of independence to any UN recognised Non-Self Governing Territory. You won’t even find Think will support you on claiming otherwise.
“This document has been included in the PDF distributed under the title “Gibraltar Constituton 2006”
Oh you probably mean this document:
http://www.gbc.gi/upload/pdf/NewGibraltarConstitution.pdf
“It seems that you don't know how the British diplomacy works. Many times the more important part of its agreements appear in their appendices.”
Nov 17th, 2013 - 08:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now you are just making crap up. I will quote you from above:
“The UK government SAYS in the Constitution of Gibraltar 2006”
The emphasis is mine (another good quoting technique along with ellipses). You were wrong. The quote you provided is not PART of the Constitution but is part of a document uploaded to the internet.
And what has this got to do with “British diplomacy”, this is not diplomacy, it is not between two independent states. What you are probably attempting to misrepresent is that this “Despatch Note” is an appendix. That is false and you should admit so.
Is the Despatch an appendix? Yes or no? Nice quick reply will be sufficient.
The Gibraltan Constitution is an Act of Parliament, I know how this works because that is how my constitution started. The Constitution is an ANNEX to the Order.
The “Despatch Note” is NOT an annex. Margaret Beckett who wrote it was the Foreign Secretary. While what she wrote can be used to interpret and represent UK government policy, it is not part of the Constitution.
What you have failed (familiar feeling yet?) is how British diplomacy works (Ok I’ll admit I plagiarised that). What happens if Gibraltar declares independence and the UK does NOT renounce sovereignty?
The UK government clearly says “Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht gives Spain the right of refusal should Britain EVER RENOUNCE SOVEREIGNTY”.
So what if it takes a decade or two to renounce it? I mean it is academic because the UN Charter clearly allows Gibraltar to declare independence anyway.
“Lastly, I wont debase myself reciprocating all the expletives that you have thrown upon me. A bad night?”
Nov 17th, 2013 - 08:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh that is fine with me. You have debased yourself many times over already on this forum by your ignorance and lack of intelligence. It is probably best for you that you refrain from compounding it. As you can see, that doesn’t stop Think whose favourite term is to call people a turnip. No idea why. I mean, he can’t even get my own portmanteau correct which I guess is his way of debasing his comments after all he rarely replies to me any longer after trying the same thing that you have done. (Oh, that reminds me, if you want to run with the cool kids such as Think, Stevie and DanyBerger; then you have to call me Anglolatino and not Anglotino – it seems when you get argued to a stand still that it pays to needle instead of argue head on).
But to Think, who I have no problem replying directly to; you should know by now that I am attracted to intelligence first and foremost, which is why our new member of the forum is so clearly ruled out. But after the arsewhupping I gave you last time you attempted that line of attack, I would have thought you had learnt your lesson. But if your government can never learn from its mistakes, then it isn’t surprising that their largest supporter in Chubut can’t either.
It is nice to see that you posts have continued their downward spiral in standards and always glad to see you posting to correct facts and rectify misrepresentations. Funny that you never had the balls to do the same to you own major faux pas on the museum thread, but then again you running away from an argument you have lost is again not surprising. You’re so clearly Argentinean I just want to squeeze your cheeks!
Didn't really need that picture in my head.
Nov 17th, 2013 - 08:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(108) olisipo
Nov 17th, 2013 - 09:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Didn't I say at (107) that Anglolatino was flirting with you....?
Now, after four consecutive posts adressed to you he wants to “Squeeze your Cheeks!”
Careful...:
“He's just a little tease.... You're number thirty-seven, have a look.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjjDmX9Tkss
@ truth
Nov 17th, 2013 - 09:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have just seen that “thing” which Anglotino has concocted during about seven hours. Do you know if he is completely sane?
I suppose that he writes these kind of abstruse posts very often, and that you are used to it.
As I am a brand new member of this I am not sure if I am supposed to answer that endless litany. I will mull it over.
(118) olisipo
Nov 17th, 2013 - 09:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say...:
“I suppose that he writes these kind of abstruse posts very often, and that you are used to it.”
I say...:
Jupppp, I am......
That poor monolingual Ozziee lad even tried his German on me once...
He shouldn't have...;-)
Think, that cheek squeezing was for you as the only person who gets jealous when I direct my attention elsewhere. You acted like this when Stevie appeared too. I told you then that you are too old for me. Nothing has changed.
Nov 17th, 2013 - 11:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ 118 olisipo
Nov 18th, 2013 - 12:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well you haven’t answered any other questions so far, so why should this be any different, mull it over why don’t you, and take your time.
@ Stink
Monolingual Kebab eaters, running amok in your area soon. Chuckle chuckle.
Pugol-H
Nov 18th, 2013 - 04:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Olisipo can't answer questions as he is clearly in way over his head and too confused.
Our posts are too “abstruse” for him.
Especially when he thinks the posts I typed over breakfast would take seven hours to compose. Though it has been seven hours since I posted and I guess he is working on his reply....... still.
@ Anglotino
Nov 18th, 2013 - 11:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0As I don't wish to imitate your verbosity, I will go straight to the point, but previously let me to dispel one of your many confusions. I am not an Argentine (“clearly Argentinean” [sic], you wrote) although I like these people, and I have never visited that country. I am a Spaniard living in Madrid, where I was born, with a direct interest in Gibraltar. I have been there several times and I a have a personal knowledge of several of its leaders. It seems that your guessing ability is rather poor.
1) As for Britain's respect of its commitments, I will use one of your quotes and misquotes. In post # 98, you remember this from the Constituton 2006:
Oh olisipo
Nov 18th, 2013 - 01:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thank you thank you thank you. I love it when new posters like you appear.
”I will go straight to the point, but previously let me to dispel one of your many confusions. I am not an Argentine (“clearly Argentinean” [sic], you wrote)“
I never said you were Argentine. You clearly are in way over your head and seemingly confused by my ”verbosity“.
You were however right, my posts are obviously too ”abstruse“ for your limited abilities.
You will notice that my second last paragraph begins with these simple words:
”But to Think…“
I was to talking to your new friend from Chubut and not you.
Perhaps you missed those three words, however it would be difficult for anyone except those deficient in intelligence to miss that I was talking about you in the third person by then:
”which is why our new member of the forum is so clearly ruled out” (that's you btw)
Also I am unsure how you thought this was directed at you:
“But after the arsewhupping I gave you last time you attempted that line of attack, I would have thought you had learnt your lesson.” (not you)
Then I even spoke about Chubut….. you still didn't twig?
This line didn't confuse you?
“Funny that you never had the balls to do the same to you own major faux pas on the museum thread” (again not you)
Nope? None of the above made you think twice before attempting another poor reply?
But the best bit is that not long after I wrote this “You’re so clearly Argentinean I just want to squeeze your cheeks!”, I wrote to your new friend Think down in Chubut, Argentina (who also made the same silly mistake), “Think, that cheek squeezing was for you”
And supposedly I'm the one that is confused!
You will learn just as Think did, that I do not guess.
Now I think you were talking about someone's rather poor abilities….. yourself perchance?
@ anglotino
Nov 18th, 2013 - 03:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have tried once and again to put the second part of my post in this thread. You will found it in the other forum about Gibraltar in the news item “EEC calls on Spain and Gibraltar”.
As for your logorrhea, I used to believe that real Britons were rather laconic. Are you sure that you are not Half Gipsy?
Wrong guess!
Nov 18th, 2013 - 07:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But we can add racist to your stellar performance now.
(125) olisipo
Nov 18th, 2013 - 08:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Don't tell anybody that I told you.....
He's a shackle dragger....
@Think
Nov 18th, 2013 - 09:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Really? An Aussie from Down Under? One of those who chased and killed Aborigenes? Wow
Yep!
Nov 18th, 2013 - 10:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Too true...
@anglotino
Nov 18th, 2013 - 11:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It all fits together now.
Oh olisipo.... I, and every other person who has ever dealt with you, severely doubt that anything fits together for you.
Nov 19th, 2013 - 12:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0At least not quickly and easily.
Kudos for trying though.
@127 Think
Nov 19th, 2013 - 06:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Shackle dragger”?
That sounds kind of...gnarly.
... is a term of abuse by the Bok acromegalics, aka rugby union players.
Nov 19th, 2013 - 08:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0@133 Geoff
Nov 19th, 2013 - 09:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0I bet that sounds much nastier in Afrikaans.
(132) Heisenbergcontext
Nov 19th, 2013 - 07:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say...:
“Shackle dragger”? That sounds kind of...gnarly.“
I say...:
Not at all!!!
If I wanted to sound ”gnarly“ I could have used ”Roo Roo...“
Or even ”C C C”
;-)
No you couldn't really.
Nov 19th, 2013 - 09:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Truth
Nov 20th, 2013 - 12:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0You ought to listen the amusing dialogue of the captain of the Spanish Navy ship which stayed during 20 hours about 100 meters from the detached moke of Gibraltar and the officers of two small British patrol boats.
http://www.laprensasa.com/309_america-in-english/2304457_britain-calls-in-spanish-envoy-over-gibraltar.html
As we say in Argentina...:
Nov 20th, 2013 - 01:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Rebenque a la Inca la Perra”
I think that it is from “Martin Fierro”, it isn't? I have a copy of ithis book, but I cannot find it.
Nov 20th, 2013 - 11:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0BTW, you can listen here the dialogue in which the Spanish captain (in a rather poor English) when he is told by the British officer in the patrol boat that his ship is in Gibraltar territorial waters, answers “Thank you for the information” in a very phlegmatic tone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnKXIxPwx-Y
That's it?
Nov 20th, 2013 - 07:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Spain is reduced to needling?
Spain's actions are diplomatically juvenile and are indicative of some tiny tinpot Third world nation from the 1970s and not a developed European country in the 21st century.
Spain plays to its domestic audience only in a bid to deflect them from their problems. Not a single act by Spain has advanced its claim or desire a single millimetre.
Compare Gibraltar to one year ago, 10 years ago, 30 years ago and 100 years ago. The one constant is that it is now FURTHER away from being part of Spain than the time listed before.
Credit where credit is due, Spain is responsible for at least half of this movement away.
So let Spain sail ships into Gibraltan waters, let them create border crossing delays; because the reaction over the long term by the UK and Gibraltar will be to move even further away.
Because the stick has immediate consequences and reactions, Spain has deluded itself that the carrot should too.
And Spain's inability to recognise its past failures means it will keep repeating them; to the benefit of Gibraltar.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!