MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, September 26th 2023 - 18:45 UTC



Outraged UK Parliament reacts to Spain's attitude towards Gibraltar and the diplomatic bags indecent

Friday, November 29th 2013 - 07:32 UTC
Full article 132 comments

Outraged British members of Parliament from across the political spectrum reacted with disbelief to the explanations provided by the Spanish Government on the UK diplomatic bags incident at the Gibraltar border and called on the British Government to take a tougher stance in response. Read full article


Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Anglotino

    Haha poor Spain.

    It pretty much set itself up for this fail!

    Nov 29th, 2013 - 08:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Britworker

    I think you had better check your grammar Mercopress, did this junior operative expose himself whilst he was opening this diplomatic bag, haha.

    Nov 29th, 2013 - 09:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    If it ever happens again, the Spanish ambassador should be forced to sit beside the Argentiian ambassador.

    Nov 29th, 2013 - 10:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • mcarling

    Perhaps it's time for Britain to formally recognize Catalan as a sovereign state under Spanish military occupation?

    Nov 29th, 2013 - 11:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • aussie sunshine

    THE SPANISH GOVERNMENT HAS SAID THAT it does not recognise diplomatic bags coming from gibraltar..not this nonsense written in MERCOPRESS.

    Nov 29th, 2013 - 12:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    It's about time we did not recognise the Spanish government !

    Nov 29th, 2013 - 01:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Conqueror

    @5 But then, the “Spanish government” is composed of turds. It is not open to the Spanish turds to decide what it will recognise. But perhaps the UK should break off “diplomatic relations” with the Spanish turds. It could also decide not to “recognise” Spanish national identity documents. Requiring Spanish “nationals” attempting to enter a British territory to enter a special 4-day Spanish queue. With “profiling” to ensure that 70% are returned to Spain. Especial care should be taken with “families” to ensure that either the children or the adults, but not both, are removed. And turds can't be diplomats. so let's open, read and copy everything moving between Spain and its embassies/consulates in the UK.

    Nov 29th, 2013 - 01:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Anglotino

    Why doesn't the Spanish government publicly call this claim by the British government a lie?

    C'mon Aussie c'mon. Why don't they.

    Just think of the humiliation the UK would suffer if Spain denied they said such a thing in private.

    Guess they can't after all.

    Nov 29th, 2013 - 01:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • nigelpwsmith

    It's time that we stood up to Spanish aggression towards Gibraltar by taking the following steps.

    1. Any vessel trespassing in British Gibraltar Territorial Waters would be given one warning to leave. If they didn't, they would be arrested (by force), detained until Spain apologises and the boats confiscated. If their boats refuse to heave to, then they would be fired on. We should all remember that the Guardia Civil were the first to fire when they fired on an unarmed Jet Ski last year. They've still not apologised for that.

    2. All Spanish business at the EU should be vetoed by Britain.

    3. Any & all business at the EU should be vetoed by Britain until the EU Commission recognises the disproportionate and illegal border checks by Spain and forces Spain to stop the queues to cross the border.

    4. A pair of Ocean Patrol Vessels should be built at BAE Portsmouth (using the foreign development aid that we currently send to India £400m) and used to protect Gibraltar as part of a dedicated Gibraltar Squadron. A second pair of OPVs should be built to defend the Falkland Islands, forming part of their fishery protection fleet, as well as defending the oil exploration platforms. The Falklands can help pay for some of this when they have some oil revenue.

    5. In the meanwhile, the Royal Navy should be given some high-performance speedboats, built by Sunseekers or other British ship yards, so they can match the speed of any intruders.

    6. The Gibraltar Government should purchase a pair of ferries and use these to ferry goods to Gibraltar from Morocco and Portugal.

    7. Britain should formally recognise the rights of the people of Catalonia and the Basque country to be separate nations, agree to allow them embassies and support their application to become new members of the EU.

    Spain is a bully. Spain will back down if someone stands up to them and makes them think twice. If HMG interferes with Spain's supply of funds from the EU, then Spain will back down.

    Nov 29th, 2013 - 02:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GeoffWard2

    It is “errors at a junior operational level” that start wars.

    If you believe that it was a 'junior error', you will believe anything!

    This was very much a 'senior calculated act'
    and, as such, it will condition all subsequent dealings with Spain behind the public gaze.

    Spain has moved beyond the forgiveable and will have to accept what is coming its way ... and Nigel's invective has shown some of the ways.

    Nov 29th, 2013 - 03:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pugol-H

    @5 Squatter Bloke
    So there will be a resounding and public denial by the Spanish Gov, of the now public British Gov interpretation of this matter?

    Like the denial by the Spanish Gov of an agreement with Argentina over Gib/Falklands, claimed by Timmerman.

    I’ll look forward to that.


    Nov 29th, 2013 - 05:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    (10) GeoffWard2

    You say...:
    “Spain has moved beyond the forgiveable and will have to accept what is coming its way”

    I say...:
    Is that you Geoff ?....... or has Arnold taken over ? :-)))

    Nov 29th, 2013 - 06:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GeoffWard2

    “What is best in life?
    ... Crush your enemies, and see them driven before you,
    and to hear the lamentation of their women!”

    Heaven help Rajoy if Nigel and I ride the high horse.

    Nov 29th, 2013 - 07:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    This has already been debated on TV ,
    Did you all see it?
    What the MPs want, and what the governments wants are two different things,

    Peace is better than war,

    But appeasement, can cost hundreds of lives,
    Just ask Argentina,
    Who thought they could underestimate us,

    Perhaps the government is sending out the wrong impression,

    We will soon find out.
    sooner or later we will be forced to retaliate ,
    and they will regret that very day..

    Nov 29th, 2013 - 08:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • olisipo

    @ GeoffWard (3)

    I suppose that Nigel is your special friend.

    Nov 29th, 2013 - 08:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • CabezaDura

    What would life be in MercoPress whith out Gibraltar and the islands issue???

    Nov 29th, 2013 - 08:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • nigelpwsmith

    Geoff and I see eye to eye on this matter. The Spanish are no different to the Argentines. They use external disputes to distract their populations from the real problems.

    Rajoy & Margallo are determined to keep up this aggression. The EU Commission's report on the border queues has only encouraged them.

    The British Government is working under the impression that by acting reasonably & complaining diplomatically, the Spanish will get tired of their nonsense & stop it. Furthermore, HMG can show our European partners that at all times we've acted to discourage any escalation.

    Sadly, this is the wrong approach.

    Bullies like Spain (and Argentina) only respect a show of strength. If the Spanish were trying this tactic on the Americans, they would get a far different response with much greater loss of life.

    So far there has been 3 occasions that I know of this year where shots could have been fired.

    The first was the Guardia Civil vessel that collided with the escort that was attending the RFA. Both crews had guns trained on each other & the escort had every reason to open fire, but acted with restraint.

    The second time was far more serious. HMS Tireless, a Trafalgar class nuclear submarine was transferring crew & stores to the Gibraltar escorts when a Spanish Navy vessel passed close by in BGTW. The SSN has standing orders to fire upon any vessel that approaches too close, as if they are terrorists. There is a programme called Submarine on You-Tube where HMS Talent passes through STROG on the surface & warns a vessel closing on them.

    Lastly, the RV Ramon Margalef could have been boarded & arrested by Sabre or Scimitar at any time whilst they were trespassing. The whole point of their 'mission' was to map the concrete reef. The fact that the Divinia Providencia tried fishing in the bay afterwards was proof that they now knew where the reef was located.

    The MPs in the House of Commons are extremely angry & if this continues HMG will have to do something.

    Nov 29th, 2013 - 10:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • olisipo

    @ Nigelpwsmith (17)

    Let me guess. Both of you are the special friends who write in these fora couplets from Conan the Barbarian? You are really frightening.

    Nov 29th, 2013 - 10:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • nigelpwsmith

    For those that are interested:

    The Astute class have the Americans in awe. In recent joint exercises, they were astounded at the capabilities of this SSN. Raises the game to a far higher level.

    The Russians have been suggesting that the Astutes have loads of problems, but in truth, it's the Russians that have problems, because nothing they are building can even match the Astutes, let alone the American boats.

    Nov 29th, 2013 - 11:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • olisipo

    @ Nigelpwsmith (19)

    Do you mean THAT

    Nov 29th, 2013 - 11:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GFace

    @16 Well it WOULD be nice to read stories about all that great business opportunities that Argentina and the Islands, or Spain and Gibraltar, could and SHOULD share as civil and cordial neighbors to mutual benefit so all could make loads of money and make neat ideas real and working. The Islands and Gibraltar are keen to it. Unfortunately Spain and Argentina on the other hand seem to have less productive priorities.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 02:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Troy Tempest

    20 Olispo, or whoever you are,

    This was discussed not two months ago, but you will regurgitate this crap just like the Chagos, Vernet, etc.

    This regrettable incident in way reflects on the capabilities of the Astute.


    Nov 30th, 2013 - 02:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • olisipo

    @ GFace (21)

    It is really a show of cheek to ask that Spain should have a “cordial” relationship with a military-base-cum-smuggler's-nest which tries to widen its territory on our land, and which is used during years for repairing British nuclear submarines, like the Tireless, when they have radioactive leaks, putting at risk the inhabitants of the colony and those of the people who live all around the Bay.

    @ Troy Tempest (22)

    I beg to differ. THAT is not a submarine, but an amphibious vehicle.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 07:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DanyBerger


    Not even Spain seems to take Britons clowns seriously....

    May be tine to get rid of CaMoron?

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 09:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund


    Good points all, apart from the following :
    - most of the military has been withdrawn from Gibraltar years ago
    - it's none of your business anyway
    - Gibraltar is occupying no territory which is not legally its own
    - there was no leak of radioactivity from the Tireless
    - the smuggling issue has been seriously exaggerated to inflame the gullible

    But it's always possible, I suppose that your campaign against the people of La Linea and the Campo will bear some kind of fruit, it's just rather hard to see what that is, apart from some kind of psychological fulfilment for those with bile to vent.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 10:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GeoffWard2

    Olisipo #18

    I'm sad that you are frightened by me and by the Arnie-teasing between Think and I.
    There is no bile in me (literally), and I am normally a gentle soul;
    but get me UPSET, my friend .... !!!

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 10:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • nigelpwsmith

    The commanding officer of HMS Astute was found guilty at the Courts Martial for the unintentional grounding of his submarine. It was not the fault of the design that the boat went aground, it was the fault of the person in charge.

    Although there were a few changes to the engineering specs, these were nothing in comparison with other vessels which were the first in their class.

    The Type 42 destroyers did not work correctly for years after building. They only managed to fix them before they went to the South Atlantic for the Falklands War.

    Indeed, the Type 22 frigates had major problems with their Sea Wolf missile system even while they were fighting the war. If they had worked every time, then twice as many Argentine aircraft would have been shot down.

    As HansNiesund pointed out, there was no release of radioactivity from HMS Tireless. The Spanish exaggerated the problem to cause unwarranted concern amongst the Spanish populations nearby and the environmentalists.

    Spain should be far more concerned about the nuclear weapons accidentally released above Spanish territory in the past. Spain does not kick up a fuss about that (despite the actual contamination) or the American nuclear vessels that visit her ports. Or for that matter about the French nuclear vessels that also operate near her coast. They only complain about the British ones because it serves their purposes for the continued aggression against Gibraltar.

    As my friends have pointed out on this board, Gibraltar rightfully owns the territory on which it stands. It has not 'stolen' any land. If Spain had not repeatedly tried to re-invade Gibraltar, contrary to their obligations under the Treaty of Utrecht, then it would not have been necessary for both sides to have a neutral zone, the British side of which contains the airport.

    Spain has only themselves to blame for their stupidity.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 12:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • olisipo

    @HansNiesund (23)

    You say: “Most of the military has been withdrawn... it is not business of you anyway”.

    I say: It is my business, old chap, don't be so Palmerstonian, and look at this:

    You say: “There was no leak of radioactivity from the Tireless”.

    I say: john-laforge-and-bonnie-urfer.html

    You say: “Gibraltar is not occupying territory which is not legally its own”.

    I say: All the territory occupied, among other facilities, by the air base, was gradually encroached since 1815, after asking Spain leave to raise in it a temporary hospital for British soldiers dying in two successive outbreaks of yellow fever. Instead to giving it back to Spain, the UK, as usual in many other similar cases all over the world, remained in it until today

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 12:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    Personally I think the Spanish are spying!

    They are hoping that if they get close enough to a real submarine, they may discover the secret of making them come back up again!

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 01:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • nigelpwsmith

    The status of the territory between the North Front of The Rock & La Linea was settled militarily & diplomatically over 200 years ago.

    In 1713, at the time of the cession of Gibraltar in perpetuity to the British Crown, various fortifications were established & occupied by British troops in the area which came to be known as 'the British Neutral Ground'. This was the area to the North of Gibraltar, militarily conquered & continuously occupied by the British except, during time of war.

    After the Spanish attack (in breach of Spain's written promise in the Treaty of Utrecht) in 1727 was repulsed by the British, the Treaty of Seville (1729) was the scene of long arguments between Spain & Great Britain as to how far North the 'undoubted right' of Britain extended from the North face of the Rock.

    It was finally accepted that a distance of 600 Toises, being more than 2 cannon shots distance between the British guns & the Spanish guns, would be considered 'the neutral ground', & so it continued thereafter. A Toise is equivalent to 1.949 metres

    After the 14th siege ended in 1783, the British resumed the occupation of the British half of the neutral ground & at least since 1838, when permanent sentries were posted along the line of the then existing frontier, the entire area has been exclusively occupied and administered by the Gibraltar authorities.

    In 1908 the British constructed a fence along 'the British edge of the neutral territory at Gibraltar' (actually, to avoid offending Spain it was put 1 metre inside the British territory) & for reasons of courtesy, gave notice to the Government of Spain before doing so.

    The Governor of Algeciras was instructed by his Government to complain that the fence encroached 1 or 2 metres inside Spanish territory, but it was pointed out to him that the fence was actually 1 metre INSIDE Gibraltar territory & that Spain had actually gained 1 metre.

    The hospital you refer to was set up on British territory in the neutral zone.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 01:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Anglotino

    And what happened to the Spanish side of the neutral ground?

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 01:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    Maybe you are right Dany. We should get rid of him for someone who will severely kick Argentian and Spanish ARSE.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 02:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund


    Thanks for confirming my point. Signals, training, local defence, etc, not even an aeroplane permanently based. What kind of a fortress is this?

    Your radiation link doesn't work. Try this instead :

    Refer to nigelpwsmith for the demolition of the hospital myth.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 02:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • olisipo

    @ 31 Anglotino @30 Nigelpwsmith

    Let me first say hello to the alleged Aussie who does't know anyting about he history of Australia. Then I will try to put the link which didn't work in my previous post about the radioactive leakings in the Tireless, which was repaired during a year in Gibraltar.

    All what Nigelpwsmith tells about the isthmus is untrue. King Felipe V issued a Royal Decree in 1728 establishing a ground of 400 “varas” (approximately so many yards, not 800 toises, which mean a double length) which could not be occupied by Britain or Spanish forces in order to avoid clashes. There is not a northern part of this ground.

    The status created by this decree was not changed in the Treaty of Seville, 1729, nor in the Treaty of Versailles, 1783. Since 1815, the British forces, taking advantage of the Spanish kindness for the soldiers dying from yellow fever, gradually occupied all that ground and much more than that.

    You are a gullible chap who believes all the British propaganda, which has been rejected by neutral books, likeb“The Status of Gibraltar”, of the American Howard S. Levie or even by British historians, like George Hills.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 02:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    Taking advantage of the Spanish kindness. What you mean like at:


    and hundreds of other lesser places.

    You mean taking advantage of the Spanish like that, do you?

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 03:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • olisipo

    @ HansNiesund (33)

    I see, you are a selective reader. Let me quote what the MoD says abouts the role of the Army in Gibraltar: “There are Army sub-units in Gibraltar with responsibility for signals* and infrastructure... Along with other services, the Army in Gibraltar retains the Rock as a PERMANENT JOINT OPERATING BASE FOR UK OPERATIONS IN THE REGION”.

    And please don't forget what RAF Gibraltar says about its role: “The Sation remains at EXTREMELY HIGH READINESS TO SUPPORT UK MILITARY OPERATION”

    As for the Navy, I think useless to remid how Gibraltar is visited almost every week by nuclear submarines and even by a task-force sent to intimidate Spain.

    * Everybody knows the role that Gibraltar, along Akrotiri and Dhekelia, the SOVEREIGN IN PERPETUITY bases in Cyprus, plays in the scandal of the interception of all kind of signal all over Europe, directed by the GCHQ.

    As for the report published by the MOD, in connivance with the local authorities, tryng to whitewash what happened with the Tireless, it is really laughable.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 04:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    Duh, you are telling us something the entire world as known for more than a century.

    WTF do you think we refer to it has the ROCK OF GIBRALTAR!

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 04:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GeoffWard2

    It's my understanding, Oli, that the Royal Navy barely thinks about Spain; their attention is on the Middle East and North Africa.

    And, as for Cyprus communications interception, this is not directed at Europe, but towards the Middle East - where Kantara is only 50 miles away from Syria. Cyprus is way beyond Europe; much closer to Asia and Africa.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 04:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    From personal experience, I can categorically say you got that right!

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 05:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • olisipo

    @ GeoffWard2 (38)

    The trouble, Geoff, is not so much how worried the RN is about Spain, but the fact that it uses almost every day Gibraltar for its surface vessels and submarines, some of them very rusty.

    The role of Gibraltar as a basis for the spying system of the GCHQ is very well knoen. BTW, the GCHQ facilities in Cyprus are used, too, for spying the Balcanic area, Greece and even Italy.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 05:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    Hey Osi.

    Here's an epiphany for you, the Royal Navy have never been and never will be worried about the Spanish. For that matter, they usually spent all their time, when they could not find the French, hunting the Spaniards.

    Might have something to do with them consistently kicking the shit out of them both, to be fair, the only navy that ever gave them any problems, we're the yanks and those brave bastards had fuck all to fight with!

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 06:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • olisipo

    @Reality Check (41)

    It's funny, in the UK everybody knows about Trafalgar (1805), but nobody knows about the worst British naval defeat in its history. Cartagena de Indias (1741) where a fleet of 183 British ships commanded by admiral Vernon was defeated by a garrison of 3,000 Spanish soldiers. 50 of them were sunk, or so badly damaged that they did not return. 18,000 British soldiers and sailors died. King George III forbade to write or even to talk about it.

    A regal kick in your collective ass. Ask yourself why in your text books doesn't appear the defeat of Effingham at the Azores islands in 1581, beaten by Bazan, or the surrender of Campbell to Gálvez in Florida in 1782, or how Nelson fled from Tenerife in 1797, after losing an arm, and so on, and on,

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 06:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    You cannot keep going on and on abt the past,
    How many times have Spain been told,

    Gibraltar is not Spain full stop,
    They have no wish to be part of Spain,
    They wish to remain British,

    Spain like all the rest, joined the European Union as friends,
    Yet Spain still clings onto it’s colonial past,

    Yet accuses the UK of that very same thing,
    But to be fair, if you get Gibraltar back, [does that make you happy]
    Then you must give back what is not yours,
    That includes part of the Balearic islands, and a few bit of territory in north Africa,

    Now that is fair is it not?

    You can’t have it both ways,
    You won’t have it both ways,
    So stop using Gibraltar as an excuse for your own government’s failures and corruption to blame others…

    you could always fxck the EU and go to war,
    very childish and immature, a bit their claim..

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 06:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • olisipo

    @ Briton (43)

    Gibraltar is Spanish. Full stop.


    Nov 30th, 2013 - 06:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund


    The issue here isn't my selective reading, it's your propensity for posting links which undermine your own argument. There are about 500 British military personnel in Gibraltar, for the most part signals, infrastructure, training, local defence as previously stated. I'm actually quite flattered that you seem to regard this as an existential threat almost as great as the 1500 who we are supposed to believe are currently terrorising the whole of Latin America, but in terms of a fortress it's pretty small potatoes.

    If I were you, I wouldn't be too worried about submarines visiting the port. Submarines tend not to attack people when they're in friendly ports, probably because most of the other stuff around is on the same side as them. It's the subs out at sea you ought to be worried about, but only if you're contemplating, for example an economic blockade, or a seaborne invasion, or an attack on the Royal Navy.

    You're almost certainly right that GCHQ has operations in Cyprus. Indeed, I believe it's for this reason that the UK wanted to keep the sovereign bases in the first place. You don't have to be Albert Einstein to work out why. The Middle East was and remains the most likely flashpoint to get us all into WW III, and it's only prudent to attempt some forewarning of what's going on there. I would imagine that some of the material coming from there finds its way to our NATO allies and those who pretend to be, and you might like to check with your own side whether they are throwing their hands up in horror at it.

    I'm not aware of any listening post in Gibraltar, but I doubt one would be necessary to figure out what Spain is up to.

    Regarding the Tireless, I'm sorry to have to repeat this, but anglophobia on its own counts as neither proof not evidence. Give us a geiger counter reading and maybe then you've got something. As it is, all you have is missed opportunity to make common cause with the Gibraltarians versus the dastardly Brits.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 07:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    then in that case we are wasting out time talking to Spain then,

    seeing as you own it , administer it , and have Spanish military there,
    on the other hand ??

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 07:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pete Bog

    “Gibraltar is Spanish. Full stop.”

    Catalonia isn't Spanish. Full Stop.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 07:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    nice one..

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 07:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • olisipo

    @HansNiesund (45)

    Keep on reading only what it befits to you. I have put a link which shows without any doubt that that piece of museum, the Tireless, suffered a very serious radioactive leak, and it was not sent to HMNB Clyde, putting at risk all the people in the Rock and in the surrounding towns.

    You can see there (I wont repeat it) that the evidence of that leak was reported by many papers in the UK. After that, the Tireless suffered another radioactive leak off the Scottish coast on February 7, 2013. If you are trying to persuade me that I should not worried with that kind of submarine in Gibraltar, you are failing miserably.

    I consider that the existence of a base like Gibraltar, leaving aside for a moment the political side of this conflict, ready to an almost instant reinforcement of troops and ships sent from the UK is intolerable.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 07:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    You have a right to be in fear of nuclear power,

    After all accidents happen,
    UK sub,
    Having said that, you also have the French nuclear base not far of Spanish territory,

    So to be fair,
    To just pick on the British is being rather unfriendly is one not..

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 07:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • olisipo

    @ Briton (50)

    The only French nuclear submarine base that I know is L'Ile Longue, in Normandy, very far from Spain. The Gibraltar base is surrounded by Spanish towns. If you think that we must look at this situation in a “friendly” manner, sorry, I don't understand anything. A colony with a nuclear base in our territory? I think that you are joking.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 08:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund


    Sorry, but you have yet to provide any evidence of a leak. You have provided only claims of a leak. You do know what evidence is, don't you?

    If 500 British military personnel stationed at the British Death Star in Gibraltar is intolerable, imagine how the poor Moroccans must feel with 7000 Spanish troops stationed in Ceuta and Melilla.

    Speaking for myself, I'm a little concerned about that all that Spanish naval might stationed in Rota and San Fernando, Andalucia. I'm a little reassured that you're a NATO ally, and a fellow member of the EU, but I'd be less worried if you subscribed to the principle of universal human rights. Perhaps you might like to think about that some time.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 08:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    A colony with a nuclear base in our territory?
    1, its not a colony,
    2, its not a nuclear base,

    3, does not Spain have nuclear reactors,
    if they do, what if one leaked.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 08:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • olisipo

    @ HansNiesund (52)

    Oh, I see. If The Sunday Times or other British quality papers report about this, if officers of the RN say the same, it is not enough for you. It sems that you demand a proof with a reading of a Geiger counter. Do you live in the real word?

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 08:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund



    Nov 30th, 2013 - 08:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • olisipo

    @ Briton (53)

    Read sections 34 and 47 of the Gibraltar Constitution 2006. After that (exclusive powers of the Governor in defence, foreign affairs, internal security, designation of judges and the Police Commissioner, ability of passing laws against the wishes of the local Parliament( and saylagain after that is not a colony. The UN keeps Gibraltar in its list of colonies.

    If you lack the empathy for understanding how the Spaniards feel with a colony where nuclear submarines moor almost each week, the worse for you.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 08:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund


    1) How do you think Gibraltar got onto the UN list of colonies in the first place?

    I'll save you some time researching the answer. It's because the Brits put it there.

    2) Why do you think it's still there?

    It's because the C24 isn't doing the job it's supposed to be doing.

    I didn't know we had so many nuclear submarines we could moor one there almost every week. That's very reassuring.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 08:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • olisipo

    # HansNiesund (57)

    As a matter of fact, the composition of that list was less simple than you think. Try to investigate it. The C24 is doing its job.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 09:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund


    Perhaps you could point me to where the C24 has informed the Gibraltarian government of the measures it considers necessary for Gibraltar to be delisted?

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 09:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • olisipo

    @ HansNiesund (59)

    Are you asking for my help?

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 09:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    do you not think that Spain its self should give independence to all its overseas territories.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 09:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • olisipo

    @ Briton (61)

    Spain has not overseas territories.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 09:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund


    Yup. I can't find anything of that nature anywhere.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 09:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • olisipo

    Well, in that case.... The C24 has rejected the delisting of Gibraltar because it considers that its constitutional situation has not really changed. It seems that it doesn't believe that a territory where the more important aspects remain in the hands of a person (almost always a high ranking soldier) whose designation depends of the whims of a metropolis is a colony.

    The problem for Gibraltar is that the UK has rejected since the Hattersley memorandum the integration, the free association and the independence, precluded by the Treaty of Utrecht, the only other way for leaving that list.

    The C24 rejects the so called, in Gibraltar, “taylor-made” solution, which in fact is the keeping of the present status. According to a report of a legal advisor in the Commons, Gibraltar is in a state of “suspended animation”, even from a British point of view.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 09:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    Spain is in Europe and Ceuta and Melilla are in Africa. That sounds pretty overseas to me ! Should the Canary islands not be decolonised also as they are off the coast of Africa, some 1030 kms from mainland Spain ? Just a thought !

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 09:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    “It seems that it doesn't believe”

    It seems that it doesn't consider the provision of clear guidelines for delisting o be part of its job. Since its job is precisely to foster and support the delisting of the NSGTs on the list, it seems that it is not doing the job it is supposed to be done.

    Could it be that this evident lack of concern for the populations it purports to represent is related to the composition of the committee, consisting largely as it does of former and actual dictatorships, often Spanish speaking?

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 10:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Anglotino

    Being on the UN's decolonisation list doesn't hinder Gibraltar in the least.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 10:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • olisipo

    @ So sorry, but Ceuta is locateds about 14 kilometers from the Peninsula (according to your theory, the Orkney Islands, 16 kilometers from Caithness, should be an overseas territory). Melilla is about 50 kilometers. Both, like the Canary Islands, are integrated provinces, like Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily, Crete, etc.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 10:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • nigelpwsmith

    It appears that this fool 'insipido' is rushing headlong into a conflict they will regret.

    Just like the fools who made the Nazi salute in Algeciras the other night. You see those pictures went out around Europe, identifying these fascists as exactly the same that the world had to defeat in WW2.

    Spain made a lot of enemies the other night by identifying themselves with the Nazis. Especially so in Russia. They still hold a holiday every year to celebrate the victory over the Nazis.

    Rajoy & Margallo are determined to push this all the way to a war, but the only people who will suffer in the end will be the Spanish. Catalonia and the Basque country will seize the opportunity to take their freedom, whilst the rest of Europe will blame Spain for inflaming the dispute. This will jeopardise Spanish recovery, because there is absolutely no way that Germany would give any aid to help Spain, if Spain were responsible for encouraging the UK to pull out of the EU.

    If Spain thinks they can militarily win a war against the United Kingdom, then they are living in cloud cuckoo land & need to be committed to a mental hospital.

    Insipido tries to claim that our nuclear submarines are rusty, but wait a minute... Spain doesn't have any! The most recent submarine that Spain built cannot even dive, because they miscalculated the buoyancy. It now requires hundreds of millions in alterations to be used & won't be ready for years. If Spain was foolish enough to attack Gibraltar or the United Kingdom mainland, then Britain could rain down Tomahawk missiles on Spain until Rajoy surrendered. Spain's military is antiquated and many of their units lack spares or fuel to run them. One of the reasons they are flogging the Mirages to Argentina, because Spain cannot use them.

    If Insipido wants to rant on about Gibraltar, he only advertises his stupidity. The rest of the world accepts that Gibraltar is British which is why Spain has never contested this in the International Courts of Justice.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 11:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • olisipo

    @ HansNiesund (66)

    I suppose that you know what is a “preconception”. C24 has TEN countries which are English-speaking members of the Commonwealth: Antigua and Barbuda,, Dominica, Fiji, Grenada, India, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vicent and the Grenadines, Sierra Leone and Tanzania, and only SIX Spanish speaking members: Bolivia, Chile, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela.

    It looks that your theory that the votings in C24 depend from Spanish-speaking countries ir rather unfounded. It looks also that the Commonwealth countries don't share the British position on Gibraltar.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 11:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    Someone ought to tell this guy that the resolutions of the C24 are non binding.

    What is with these RG's ?

    They can no way be that stupid, it's not possible? No fucking way, no one is that thick!

    WTF do they think the UK does not even bother to turn up!

    Now piss off you RG pricks and try attending a UN meeting that actually does any good!

    Otherwise, see you twats there next year and the year after that, the year After that, the year after that, the year after that, the year after that, the year after that.

    Getting boring ain't it, bit like the last 31 years really.

    Don't like swearing but you, just like your government, are one useless Cnut!

    Dec 01st, 2013 - 12:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • aussie sunshine

    *71 Gosh!! where were you educated?? in a slump?? cause your English education comes out loud and clear!!hahahaha.

    *69 hey fool!! instead of spending so much money on war games try and spending that money on the thousands who are going hungry in Britain right now!!!!!
    The Red Cross is launching a campaign this winter to feed the hungry in a scale that has not been seen since WWII.and this troll is talking about Nuking Spain!!!!
    *43. Hey Mr lights on but nobody home! “Spain holds onto its colonnial past”

    Dec 01st, 2013 - 02:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund


    Try reading what I actually said.

    Dec 01st, 2013 - 07:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • olisipo

    @ Reality Check (71)

    If you trying to imply that the UK refuses to cooperate with C24, and with the other UN bodies which discuss decolonisation, let me to help you in order to clear your ideas.

    The UK keeps which HMG itself terms as “informal cooperation” with that Committee, presents every year reports on each one of its 16 NSGT to the Committee and attends every meeting of the Fourth Commission on Decolonisation.

    Your pathetic attempt to get rid of the importance of the UN C24 resolutions saying that they are not binding, seems to suggest that the UK will not comply any resolution of the United Nations, like the Fourth Commission, the General Assembly, etc., with only an exception, the Security Council, where the UK can veto anything. Very convenient and very cynical.

    @ HansNiesund (66)

    It seems that you are trying to dismiss the resolutions of C24 calling most of them former and actual dictatorships. Wow, how many dictatorships are members of the Commonwealth, according to your blanket accusation.

    @ Nigelpwsmith (69)

    You are as crazy as a bat, with your threats of nuking Spain.

    @ Aussie Sunshine (72)

    Well told. Gibraltar is a shameful “last remaining colony in Europe”.

    Dec 01st, 2013 - 01:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    Let me see, Ceuta and Melilla are enclaves in the sovereign country of Morocco, on a DIFFERENT continent from Spain.
    So, by your reasoning because Gibraltar is joined to Spain by an isthmus, it should belong to Spain.
    However, two of your colonies in Africa, not physically joined to Spain, surrounded by Morocco should.
    By your twisted logic the rules you are trying to apply to Gib. do not and should not apply to Spain ?
    If you look at a map of the British isles you will notice that the Orkneys and Shetlands are geographically part of the said isles whereas the Canaries are located off the coast of Africa which would make them a colony of Spain.

    Dec 01st, 2013 - 01:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund


    Last time I noticed, there were no members of the Commonwealth demanding the right to seize any present or former BOT.

    It is certainly true that you can get an easy majority of the C24. This consists largely of your fellow implanted Iberian colonial cousins in Latin America, the lunatic fringe of North Korea and Iran, unreconstructed dictatorships such as Belarus and Syria, and a smattering of others like China, Russia, and India which reject the principle of self-determination either because they covert or already occupy a certain territory against the wishes of the inhabitants.

    However, when you have gone outside the confines of this unsavoury company to the 4th Committee and the wider GA, as in 2008, when you to get a vote limiting the principle of self-determination, you failed miserably. Since then you don't any more dare go to the GA with this hangover from a previous age, than you dare go to the ICJ with it.

    Dec 01st, 2013 - 02:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • olisipo

    @ Clyde15 (74)

    Your theories are so absurd that I don't waste but some words for them. The Canary Islands are a integral part of Spain since the 15th century, like the Azores or Madeira are an integral part of Portugal. They have the same legal position as Seville, for instance. Ceuta and Melilla are part of Spain centuries before than the creation of Morocco as a State.

    @HansNiesund (76)

    The resolution of C24 demanding the return of Gibraltar to Spain was passed by 16 votes against 2 (UK and Australia) and 6 abstentions. Several CW countries abstained in this vote: “African and Asian members [of the CW] had rejected Gibraltar's almost unanimous decision to remain under British sovereignty.”

    You admired Fourth Comission has approved by consensus, with the British backing, on October 28 a resolution which urges a defintive solution for the conflict in the spirit if the joint Brussels declaration of 1984 in which the UK accepted to discuss the sovereignty.

    To my knowledge North Korea has never been a member of C24.

    Dec 01st, 2013 - 05:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund


    I was referring to what happened when you tried to take an attempt to limit the right of self-determination outside the C24. You lost miserably. Among your supporters were those I mentioned. That should be giving you pause for thought.

    The C24, of course, is supposed to be assisting the populations of the NGSTs reach independence, free association with another state, incorporation into another state, or some form of relationship with the former administrating power sanctioned by the population. The C24 is quite blatantly and absurdly doing precisely the opposite, but is being held in check by the 4th Committee and the General Assembly, who obviously have a much lower embarrassment threshold.

    The UK, as I am sure you know, has never refused to discuss sovereignity. The UK has simply rejected a Spanish demand to discuss Gibraltar without reference to the Gibraltarians. Apparently this attempt to exclude the people most directly concerned is justified by the origins of their great great great grandparents. It's disappointing to find that that kind of shit still flies in Europe, but perhaps it's only those of us who actually participated in the Second World War that learned any better.

    Meanwhile, in other news, El Pais has unearthed a nest of smugglers on the North African coast, supported apparently by some thousands of military personnel.

    Whilst at the same time, the Gibraltarian government enforces the rule of law

    Dec 01st, 2013 - 06:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    You are like these argie bloggers, everything is yours and nothing is anybody else’s,

    You go on about Spains overseas territory as being parts of Spain,
    We their was and is a very good reason for than,
    My fine feathered friend,
    And no doubt you will object to that,

    But tell me this,
    Do you accept that as your overseas territory are now part of Spain, and they are run from Spain , taxes ect , they should not be mentioned at all,
    You reply would be very interesting,

    Remembering that the British government can make all 16 overseas territory part of main land Britain,
    But it chose to make them [in time] self sufficient, whilst you and the French incorporated yours into your main frame,

    So and I don’t know why my government refuses,
    But perhaps if Gibraltar and the Falklands and the rest, was directly run from Westminster, and they sent MPs and paid taxes,
    Then your argument fall dead unless you decide its all rubbish and like indoctrinated people you refuse to accept the status quo…


    Dec 01st, 2013 - 06:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • olisipo

    @ HansNiesund (78)

    Do you mean that CW countries which don't support the British stance on Gibraltar are, ipso jure, dictatorships? That is a novel theory.

    As I am sure you know, the first time when the UK accepted to discuss sovereignty in Gibraltar was in 1984. This time, the United Nations have taken that joint Anglo-Spanish declaration (which did not become a real discussion on this matter) and has incorporated it in a resolution as a UN doctrine.

    Oh, and your theory about the role of C24 forgets a very important issue. This committee doesn't accept that funny Gibraltarian theory, according to which keeping the present status (a Governor with exclusive powers in defence, foreign affairs, internal security, designation of judges and the Police Commissioner, and above all, to pass bills against the wishes of the local Parliament) IS A REAL WAY OF DECOLONISATION.

    BTW, when you say that you are one “of us who really participated in the Second World War”, (a) do you mean that this fact gives you a divine right to have a colony in Spain? and (b) I suppose that you are writing in a figurative way, or you are a very, very old person.

    Dec 01st, 2013 - 07:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    you cannot decolonise Gibraltar,

    as spain would almost certainly invade it.

    unless you know something we don't..

    Dec 01st, 2013 - 07:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GeoffWard2

    Olisipo to HansNiesund (78)
    I suppose that you are writing in a figurative way, or you are a very, very old person.

    Dec 01st, 2013 - 07:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • olisipo

    @ Briton (79)

    Sorry, but I don't understand you. Try to write in a comprehensible way, please.

    Dec 01st, 2013 - 07:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    Sorry it should have read…..

    You go on about Spains overseas territory as being parts of Spain,
    but their was and is a very good reason for why we did not incorporate ours ,, ,

    But tell me this,
    Do you accept that as your overseas territory are now part of Spain, and they are run from Spain , taxes ect , they should not be mentioned at all,
    You reply would be very interesting,

    Remembering that the British government can make all 16 overseas territory part of main land Britain,
    But it chose to make them [in time] self sufficient, whilst you and the French incorporated yours into your main frame,

    So and I don’t know why my government refuses,
    But perhaps if Gibraltar and the Falklands and the rest, was directly run from Westminster, and they sent MPs and paid taxes,
    Then your argument fall dead unless you decide its all rubbish and like indoctrinated people you refuse to accept the status quo…

    At the end of the day, Gibraltar has a right to decide its own future,
    and not spain….


    Dec 01st, 2013 - 07:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • olisipo

    @ Briton (84)

    Well, the same post without the reference to Argentine bloggers. Putting it in a short answer, I don't like to write about hypothetic questions. Tell me, as you like this kind of dialectics, what would you feel if you were at the receiving end of the inverse situation, with a Spanish military base-cum-smuggling-nest-with- money-laundering-center? As for this last issue, you can read this report published a month ago.

    Dec 01st, 2013 - 07:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund


    No, I don't mean that the CW countries which don't support the British stance on Gibraltar are, ipso jure, dictatorships, I mean that the countries who support the Spanish stance on Gibraltar include a good number of unsavoury dictatorships, ipso jure and de facto, former and actual, which is what I said. Fortunately all round, there aren't enough of them to carry a vote in the UNGA, as we saw already in 2008.

    The UK does not have a divine right to have a colony in Spain. Fortunately it doesn't have a colony in Spain either. A small part of what was formerly Spanish territory was ceded to the UK by treaty some 300 hundred years inter alia in exchange for another piece of territory. It is now a self-governing British Overseas Territory, a constitutional arrangement for which the inhabitants have repeatedly expressed their approval.

    Democratic Spain has maintained that the inhabitants in question have not right to even express this opinion, but this only goes to show that when your only argument is that your opponent has no right to be heard, you have lost. And what is more you ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

    The UN doesn't have doctrines. It has a Charter and resolutions, some of which has resulted in customary international law. The UK is in breach of NO UN resolution. Spain would be in breach of the Charter, if it got its own way, but it won't.

    The C24, as we already established, has not said what it accepts or not, which is part of the problem and one of the reasons that is conspicuously not doing the job which it is supposed to be doing. There is no decolonization outcome recognised by the UN which allows for the former colonial power to be replaced by a new colonial power. The UN kind of frowns upon subjecting people to foreign domination these days, and rightly so in my view

    I am not a very, very old person, at least not today, but I do have a time machine. If I lend it to you, do you think it might help you acquire some 21st century values?

    Dec 01st, 2013 - 09:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DanyBerger

    Another British politician avoiding taxes why I'm not surprised?

    Dec 01st, 2013 - 09:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • aussie sunshine

    *86 Let´s call things by their names..and Gibraltar is a British colony in the EU and worse when Spain and The UK are NATO members......disgrace

    Dec 01st, 2013 - 09:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund


    What most people understand by the term colony, is a territory that is occupied by an alien power against the wishes of the inhabitants. This is what Spain now seeks to impose, apparently because it believes it made a bad deal 300 years ago, and considers depriving 30000 people of a fundamental human right to be suitable recompense for its own mistake.

    This kind of thing was considered acceptable some centuries ago, but most of the world has evolved since then to a more enlightened view.

    Dec 01st, 2013 - 09:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • aussie sunshine

    *89 No!!no!! no!! Spain does not want to take away any right from the Gibraltans!! It has never said that.It has said that the Gibraltans can have their why of government and culture.What Spain wants is to share sovereign with The UK!! And that to me sounds like a good idea!! But THe Gibratans want the cake and eat it to.......

    Dec 01st, 2013 - 10:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund


    You can have joint sovereignity, or sole sovereignity, or any other arrangement you like, whenever you like. All you have to do is convince the inhabitants. Why is that so hard?

    Dec 01st, 2013 - 10:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • aussie sunshine

    *91 It is not a question to put to the inhabitants. It is a question to be resolved by the two countries who signed the agreement three hundred years ago...... The tenants have no right in the selling of the property between seller and buyer.

    Dec 01st, 2013 - 10:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    @90 “ Spain does not want to take away any right from the Gibraltans!!”.

    @92 “The tenants have no right in the selling of the property between seller and buyer.”

    Make your mind up.

    If it gets too hard for you, you might like to consider that the Gibraltarians aren't the tenants, they are the owners. Then you might be able to figure out what you should be doing, instead of what you are doing, which is the opposite.

    The Gibraltarians aren't the tenants. They are the owners.
    Make your mind uo which it is.

    Dec 01st, 2013 - 10:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • aussie sunshine

    * The gibraltans are the tenants.......The country that pays the upkeep of the rock is the UK and that makes them landlords.......

    Dec 01st, 2013 - 10:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund


    You're claiming to be a buyer but all you do is demand a non-existent right to seize back a property you already sold 300 years ago, apparently because you have the hump that you made a bad deal, and this overrrides any legal rights of the owners and/or tenants of the property.

    And you apparently believe you can best achieve this agenda by pissing them all off for 300 years.

    No wonder your real estate market is so fucked. Perhaps you should try another analogy.

    Your English is slipping badly for a purported aussie by the way.

    Dec 01st, 2013 - 10:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • olisipo

    @HansNiesund (86)

    I am fed up with your constant fallacies. The UK respects the right of self-determination, depending of the contender. It didn't respect it in Hong Kong, nor in Diego Garcia, nor in the bases in Cyprus, obtained under coertion.

    Gibraltar is a colony, with a Governor who can pass Bills against the wishes of the local Parliament.

    You would only “respect” a resolution of the Security council, where the UK can veto whatever doesn't pleases HMG.

    It is untrue thar all the countries that back Spain in this issue are dictatorships. Even member countries of the CW disagree with the UK.

    You can be sure that the relationship betwwn the UK and Spain will suffer until the end of that shameful situation.

    Dec 01st, 2013 - 10:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund


    Cognitive dissonance can be a terrible thing. You have all my sympathy.

    When you're feeling a little stronger, I'd suggest you actually read the Constitution of Gibraltar, and compare the role of the Governor there to that of the Governor in other former colonies. Then check up on the number of UN resolutions the UK has actually vetoed,, and the reasons why Ban-Ki Moon has stated that the UK is in breach of no UN resolution. Then look at who actually did support you in 2008, and who didn't. Then look up which among Hong Kong, Cyprus, Diego Garcia, and Gibraltar is an NSGT recognised by the UN and thereby has the indisputable right of self-determination.

    To give you a clue, it's only one among the 4. Personally, I think that a wrong was done to the Chagossians, and I am pleased that this has been officially recognised by successive UK governments who are seeking to make amends. However I do not understand how redress for the Chagossians can be obtained by visiting the same wrong upon the Gibraltarians, or how you can be claiming the moral high ground over the UK by demanding precisely that. Perhaps you could explain that one to me some time.

    But you might be right about one thing, your last sentence. But then again, who knows? Perhaps one day you will reach the same level of maturity with respect to fundamental rights as has been recently demonstrated by Sudan, for example.

    Dec 01st, 2013 - 11:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • olisipo

    @ HansNiesund.

    How patronising of you.

    I know perfectly well the Gibraltar Constitution, and if you think that the powers vested on the Governor are not of a colonial nature, you are o ly achieving to deceive yoursel

    I also know that in 1972, Britain, with the connivance of Chhina, achieved the delisting of Hong Kong from the list of NSGT. If you think that this legal trick deprived its inhabitants of the right to self determination you are again only deceiving yourself.

    Diegio Garcia? There is a book entitled: “Diego Garcia: where the International Law Stops”, which I recommend for a visit.

    Britain obtained Akrotiri, Dhekelia and Ayios Nikolaos under coertion after four years of guerrilla warfare, led by Colonel Grivas. If Cyprus wanted to obtain its independence, it was obliged to cede them IN PERPETUAL SOVEREIGNTY. A very similar case to Utrecht where, BTW, Spain did not obtain any territory in exchange, as you have said.

    According to you the UK has never vetoed a resolution in the Security Council. The UK has vetoed THIRTY TWO resolutions, seven of them on Rhodesia.

    I suggest you a little less arrogance and much more respect for the other people, who are more knowledgeable than you think.

    Dec 02nd, 2013 - 12:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Musky

    @98 olisipo
    Dear oh dear, the Treaty of Utrecht allowed Spain to survive. Were it not for britain and its partners in the Spanish Wars of Succession, Spain would have become part of france. Britain and its partners in an effort to maintain the balance of power (and remember that europe was full of warring countries) succeeded through treaty in getting the french heir to the throne to renounce his french titles and thus the balance was maintained. Without this treaty wars would have continued and Spain would have been been broken up by Britain and its partners, so Gibraltar was a small price to pay in which you kept your country. In other treaties, Britain ceded back places like Minorca. We are not harassing you for the return of Minorca, we are not impeding your border traffic, we are not trying to unilaterally break a treaty. Britain stays by its word and keeps its integrity, but things are difficult when Spain acts like a sulking child, a delinquent whose only true aim is to blind its people to the truth... that the economy is up shit creek without a paddle.

    Dec 02nd, 2013 - 09:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • olisipo

    @ 99

    Your ignorance is so abysmal that I will only answer three blatantly lies in your post.

    (1) What Britain feared in 1700 was not an absorption of Spain by France, but an alliance between both countries.

    (2) Britain was not able to break Spain in 1713. Since 1707, Britain was consistently defeated in Spain in battles like Almansa, Brihuega, Villaviciosa, and so on, where thousands of British soldiers were taken prisoner, including general James Stanhope. In 1713 there were no British troops in Spain, except in Gibraltar and Minorca, which was recovered by Spain during the war of 1779-1783.

    Dear, oh dear, write about things that you know, if they exist.

    Dec 02nd, 2013 - 11:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • El capitano

    Erm....“Take my drum to England hang it by the shore.”..etc etc.....!!

    Dec 02nd, 2013 - 01:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund


    There must have been an awful lot of conniving going on with respect to Hong Kong, sine the delisting was voted through by the entire General Assembly Perhaps this is because most members are capable of understanding what a lease is?

    I'm sorry, but I'm also struggling with the logic here. Apparently it wasn't ok for the UK to “connive” with the Chinese over self-determination for Hong Kong, but it would be perfectly OK for the UK to “connive” with Spain over self-determination for Gibraltar? In fact, it's grossly unfair that we haven't already done so. Is that what you want me to believe now?

    Dec 02nd, 2013 - 02:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • olisipo

    @ HansNiesund (102)

    It is unbelievable. You are trying to argue with the old FCO lie that ALL the territory of Hong Kong was on lease. I am sure that I don't need to present the facts about the Nanking Treaty, 1982, or the First Convention of Beijing, which ceded the island of Hong Kong, a good part of the Kowloon Peninsula and the Stonecutters' Island in PERPETUAL SOVEREIGNTY.

    In 1972, China and Britain asked the delisting of ALL Hong Kong with the untrue assertion that the colony had achieved a “CHANGE OF STATUS”. All this was a dirty trick in order to deny the people of Hong Kong itself the right of self-determination. The UN, for reasons of their own, chose to believe that.

    BTW, anything to say about the “inexistent” THIRTY TWO vetoes of the UK in the Security Council, seven of them to protect the racist Ian Smith's regime?

    Dec 02nd, 2013 - 03:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice


    “The UN, for reasons of their own, chose to believe that.”

    Probably to prevent a war between China and the UK...then Nato would have to join in.....and then.....
    I did read somewhere that the British PM looked to see if Hong Kong was defensible against the Chinese...
    There is without a shadow of a doubt that it would have meant an escalating war...
    Did you want that...was Spain a Nato ally?

    Dec 02nd, 2013 - 04:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • olisipo

    @A_Voice (103)

    Right, you are at least confessing the true aim of that Anglo-Chinese plot. Having to contend with a nuclear China, the UK throws through the window those priciples which it invokes daily in Gibraltar,

    @ El Capitano (101)

    Do you know the origin of that song: “Take my drum to England...”. In this defeat of the British Navy which tried to invade Spain and its American territories.

    Dec 02nd, 2013 - 04:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    There is a difference between a war between Spain and the UK and a possible nuclear war with China that could easily have been the WW3....

    I did ask you if you would have preferred that to happen...your answer please...
    If your answer is No then you should be praising the UK decision to give up the rights of a few to prevent Armageddon...I would think..

    It would be good for the soul for you to confess that the UK being ranked as No.5 in Global firepower and being a major part of the nuclear umbrella protecting Nato members including Spain ...... whilst Spain being of no military significance...

    Dec 02nd, 2013 - 05:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • olisipo

    @ A_Voice (107)

    Sorry, but you are wrong. In the case of a war between China and the UK there would not any obligation for Spain or for any other Nato member country if the fight was limited to territories which were not included in the area defined by article VI of the Washington Treaty, i. e., the European region, north of the tropic of Cancer, and North America.

    If you are asking that Spain, in that hypothetical case, should fight in Asia along the same troops which are occupying Gibraltar....

    Dec 02nd, 2013 - 05:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    You still haven't answered the question if you preferred the Armageddon scenario...are you a politician?
    You will need to provide a link for me to read where a Nato ally is not obligated to respond to other Nato members....
    A Chinese Nuke fired at the UK would pretty much land in Europe..would it not?

    Dec 02nd, 2013 - 05:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pugol-H

    @98 olisipo
    The “troubles” in Cyprus had more to do with “Enosis”, or union with Greece, than independence from Britain.

    You are confusing a “struggle of succession”, with an “independence struggle”. A common mistake.

    In simple terms, the argument was about what was going to happened after the British left, not if the British were leaving, that was already decided.

    The creation of an independent Cyprus was the compromise between Greek desires and Turkish interest, on and off the island.

    However you try and portray it, the war of Spanish succession culminating with the treaty of Utrecht, was the end of Spain as any sort of a European power, and reduced it to being a fourth rate colonial power at best.

    After that they were reduced to riding on French coattails.

    Hong Kong Island was ceded, it was the New Territories that were leased, no one is, or has ever denied that.

    The British position was that one was not viable without the other, Hong Kong Island could not survive on its own.

    I really don’t see what your problem is with understanding that, or what significance you think it has?

    As for Rhodesia, I don’t think Smith would agree, see “the great betrayal”.

    Do you think Mugabe was an improvement for ordinary Zimbabweans?

    Dec 02nd, 2013 - 06:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • olisipo

    @ A_Voice (108l

    Your link:

    As for your hipothesis of an Armageddon, with a nuclear Chinese attack against the UK itself instead a limited war in the Asian area, you are doing only that, a hypothesis.

    BTW, I see that you think that “the rights of a few” (a few million) are a negligible factor to consider.Reading that, I don't believe in your sincerity when you defend tooth and nail what the present inhabitants of Gibraltar desire. It seems that it is a very biased and selfish reasoning.

    Dec 02nd, 2013 - 06:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    85 olisipo
    it would have been settled decades ago,

    Dec 02nd, 2013 - 07:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund


    Try looking at a map of Hong Kong and perhaps even you will see what the answer is.

    But in any event, I thought you guys were all in favour of negotiated settlements? Are supposed to understand now that in the case of Hong Kong, you would have preferred a war in one of the most densely populated urban areas on the planet?

    But even more curiously, if what Britain did in Hong Kong wasn't OK, why are you clamouring for it in Gibraltar?

    Dec 02nd, 2013 - 07:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • olisipo

    @Briton 111

    When you write that if the UK would have a Spanish Gibraltar on its coast, it “would have settled decades ago”, are you speaking about a military attack as a way of settling it? In that case don't complain if Spain applies a less bellicose way.

    @Pugol-H (109)

    I would have answered you in a polite manner, but I am not prepaared to waste my time with a person who writes about my country with such a contemptuous language.

    @ @A_Voice (110)

    As i see that my link with the Treaty of Washington doesn't work, I will try to pass its text in Spanish. In articles 5 and 6 you will see that the geographical sphere in limited to Europe and North America.

    Dec 02nd, 2013 - 07:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    113 olisipo
    military has nothing to do with it,
    we now live in the 21st century,
    and Spain, like the uk, joined the EU as friends and allies,

    is this the way you treat your allies,

    at the end of the day,
    when ether you agree or not,
    Gibraltar has a fundamental right to choose what it wants to do,

    it chooses to remain British,
    and that is their choice..

    that's democracy for you, is it not..

    Dec 02nd, 2013 - 07:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    I got it to work...eventually by retyping it put a . instead of /

    Article 6 (1)
    For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
    on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
    on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.”

    Kowloon being 22 degrees and the tropic of Cancer being 23 that your point?
    A war between China and the UK would have been a modern affair vessels, aircraft would need to be over the Tropic of Cancer to get anywhere near Beijing...
    Just one ship attacked would be enough to bring in Nato legitimately ...

    Dec 02nd, 2013 - 07:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    Spain may not come to Britain's aid,
    but Britain would certainly come to the aid of Spain,

    for this is modern Cameron appeasement Britain,
    we are friends with all the world, [just ask him]

    he gives our money to others whilst his own people go without,
    now that's one helleva stupid kind fool,

    is he not...

    Dec 02nd, 2013 - 08:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • olisipo

    @HansNiesund (112)

    I have merely underlined hoy hypocritical is your attitude. You say one thing in Gibraltar and you DO exactly the contrary when dealing with a nuclear power. As another blogger has said, you have sacrificed the rights of “a few” million in China, because it has been convenient for your military and commercial interests.

    @ Briton (114)

    Another incomprehensible post. I only understand that, according to you, a country, like Spain, which has a British colony in its territory, must be “a friend” of the coloniser. A very strange way of thinking, indeed.

    Dec 02nd, 2013 - 08:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund


    The NATO Treaty, if I remember correctly, only obliges the signatories to “consult” in the event of an attack upon one of them.

    I doubt very much if anyone would have come to our aid if we had been stupid enough to try and hold the Chinese back at Boundary Street, although it seems some of our Spanish friends might have appreciated the spectacle.

    Dec 02nd, 2013 - 08:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    “ As another blogger has said, you have sacrificed the rights of “a few” million in China, because it has been convenient for your military and commercial interests.”

    I didn't say that..I said to prevent a global and possible nuclear conflict...this is China (we don't mind killing a few million of our own) to control the Country let alone a war...

    Dec 02nd, 2013 - 08:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • olisipo

    @ A_Voice (115)

    No, sir. You have minderstood what is very clear in both articles. NATO countries are only obliged to act when another member is attacked in North America, in Europe or in the areas of the ATLANTIC OCEAN located at the North of the Tropic of Cancer. Nothing to do with any other area in the world.

    BTW, the part of that Treaty which included the French departments in Algeria was modified after the independence of this African country in July 5, 1962 This area is no longer part of the NATO sphere of action.

    Dec 02nd, 2013 - 08:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    No they are obliged to defend...
    Article 5
    The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
    Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .
    This applies to naval vessels..take a look at the the event of war with China any concentrated attack on Beijing at 39 degrees...Cancer at 23 degrees...
    Are you saying the Brits wouldn't have naval vessels in that theatre of operation?

    Article 6 (1)
    For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack: on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories ......

    What kind of a war just defends.... the Brits would need to cut the head off the snake not defend Hong kong....

    Dec 02nd, 2013 - 08:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund


    Article 4
    The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.

    Article 5
    .. each of them will assist .... by taking forthwith ... such action as it deems necessary ...

    There is no obligation to defend.

    Dec 02nd, 2013 - 08:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    Article 4 refers to when a member is threatened not attacked...
    Article 5...Why not finish the sentence..
    ... they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
    ...this doesn't leave a do nothing option....would doing nothing restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area? there is an obligation to restore and maintain how would that be achieved without force?

    Dec 02nd, 2013 - 09:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • olisipo

    @ A_Voice (121)

    What in these sentences you don't understand: “an armed attack on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America... in the North Atlantic area North of the Tropic of Cancer, on the forces, vessels or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over THESE TERRITORIES”?

    Dec 02nd, 2013 - 09:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund


    “Such action as it deems necessary” is a get-out clause.

    Dec 02nd, 2013 - 09:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    ....are you saying in a war, all vessels stay at home and all aircraft stay away from the vessels in the South China sea....
    The Chinese only attack the British when they are South of the tropic of Cancer....
    Strange war.... China only attacking targets South of Cancer....especially as most of the targets would need to be north of it.....seeing as China itself is North of it....
    As far as I can see any Nato members vessels that are attacked when North of Cancer.....Nato means an attack on all Nato....
    It maybe, but I didn't see anyone getting out of it when the Yanks called it after 9/11....

    Dec 02nd, 2013 - 09:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • olisipo

    @ A_Voice (126)

    No, sir. If a war would erupt OUTSIDE these areas, a NATO member could participate in it by all means, of course. What it would happen is that this country couldn't DEMAND the help of other NATO members.: Otherwise, any member of NATO could help by its own, but without any obligation. That was what happened, for instance, in the two Gulf wars and in Afghanistan.

    Dec 02nd, 2013 - 09:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    Well you may be right, but there seem to be a lot of grey areas in defining European Nato Libya...North Africa, Afghanistan, Nato operations in the Indian Ocean and Turkey...not exactly in Europe..
    I think the Yanks would have felt obliged...but all hypothetical...
    I do think pulling out of Hong Kong though was the only sensible option for the prevention of an escalating war as there is no doubt the Chinese have scores to settle with Japan....the Brits were probably under pressure from the Yanks to let it go....the puppeteer....

    Dec 02nd, 2013 - 10:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • olisipo

    @ A Voice.

    About Turkey, when this country adhered to NATO the article 5 of the treaty of Wahington was modified to include all the territory of Turkey in the NATO sphere of actuation

    As for Lybia, the operation Unified Protector was carried out on the orders of the UN Security Council, and there were NATO member countries which did't intervene in it.

    Dec 02nd, 2013 - 10:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    plain English then,,

    Gibraltar has a democratic right to choose her future,
    she wishes to be British,
    her choice,
    not Spain's.

    Dec 03rd, 2013 - 07:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • olisipo

    @ Briton (130)

    Keep singing you song. We are amused.

    @ A_Voice (128)

    I have already clarified about Turkey and Lybia. As for “”Operation Atalanta”, off Somalia, is not a NATO operation, but one of EU-Navforce, the Naval branch of the EU. The French and Spanish Operation in Mali is a UN operation, as a part of MINURSA. ISAF in Afghanistan is a voluntary operation of several NATO members, which operate without any Treaty obligation, as it happened in the two Gulf wars.

    Dec 03rd, 2013 - 10:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    131 olisipo
    you may be amused,but
    the union jack flies over Gibraltar,
    and not the Spanish flag

    as for the song,
    we don't need it,..
    and that is very amusing

    Dec 03rd, 2013 - 06:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!