MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Strong reply to Spanish King: Gibraltar is the most important voice in dialogue
The comment about Gibraltar made by the King of Spain in his address in Westminster Hall places the focus on bilateral dialogue between London and Madrid as the way forward to address Spain's differences with the UK over the Decolonization of Gibraltar. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesThe same can be said of the FALKLAND ISLANDS.The population have a right for SELF-DETERMINATION as in GIB.
Jul 13th, 2017 - 10:19 am - Link - Report abuse +3“Spanish king” still has a Monty Python sound to it. No doubt his mother was a hamster, and his father smelt of elderberries.
Jul 13th, 2017 - 01:44 pm - Link - Report abuse +3So much for the bluster from some MPs who threatened to walk out if Gibraltar was mentioned.
Jul 13th, 2017 - 02:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Spanish conquistadors want everything their own way, not content with oppressing Catalonia & the Basques along with their Notrh African colonies (which incidentally refuel the Russian navy in spite of Spain pretending to be a NATO ally) they want to back out of a treaty they signed with Britain, and have done even before the ink dried.
30,000 British subjects can't be handed over to be oppressed and subdued by a corrupt far right Spanish government which only pretends to be a democracy in order to suck funds from the EU.
TWIMC...
Jul 13th, 2017 - 06:00 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Fact is..., that this Great-great grandchild of (geman) Queen Victoria got a minute standing ovation and a deep “VIVA EL REY” from the Engrish Parliament after his speech about Gibraltar... an other stuff...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BmYlu3Q7PTY
Chuckle..., chuckle...
Think- have you never heard of a basic level politeness in a state visit? He said what it was expected he would say - he of course like the Spanish PM knows full well that the only real talks are those that involve 3 governments.
Jul 13th, 2017 - 08:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I had not realised you were that dumb either- the King was at Westminster- the home of the the British -or UK and Northern Ire Paliament- there is no such thing as the English(you cannot even spell can you)Parliament - might have been one a thousand years ago perhaps?
Just the same as the Argentine Govt may say one thing about talks over any issue to do with just the Falklands - but it knows full well that any such talks will involve also the Falkland Islands Govt and simply will never ever happen otherwise.
Before you mention ICRC- they came first to see THREE Govts - then once base lines were established FI Govt left it to UK to sort as purely a humanitarian issue relating to dead servicemen identification and nothing involving politics.
@Twink. by any reasonable definition, Queen Victoria was not geman[sic]. Holding a title does not confer nationality. For instance, Queen Victoria held the title “Empress of India”. Did that make her Indian? Victoria was the daughter of Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn, the fourth son of King George III. George III was the third British monarch of the House of Hanover, but unlike his two predecessors, he was born in Britain, spoke English as his first language, and never visited Hanover. Therefore, he was British. And so was Victoria. Go back long enough, Twink, and your “ancestors” were Neanderthals. And your “line” doesn't seem to have changed. Why do you think most of your “ancestors” died out? You were overtaken by a better species. Much like Britain overtook Spain. There are just a few remnants left. any number of whom scatter around the world hoping that they won't be noticed.
Jul 13th, 2017 - 08:15 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Oh, and there is no “English” Parliament. It's the Parliament of the United Kingdom and it has members of a number of “nationalities”. Even Scots and Irish are allowed in.
Since when is dirt (soli) stronger than blood (sanguinis) in them British Isles...?
Jul 13th, 2017 - 08:44 pm - Link - Report abuse -3tinkle “ ...a minute standing ovation...”
Jul 13th, 2017 - 10:23 pm - Link - Report abuse +2I can see how tinkle is confused on this issue. He is accustomed to the unspeakable rudeness of a argentine legislature so impeccably crude and corrupt that it is habitually populated by legions of unrepentant felons seeking years of immunity from serving much-deserved prison sentences.
The modern British parliament, we are told, is typically somewhat more courteous and respectful towards foreign dignitaries, even when their messages are demonstrably silly.
@Think
Jul 14th, 2017 - 12:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0You should ask it the other way around. Britain had jus soli until 1983, and until the sixties there was no legal distinction between citizens in Britain and the rest of the empire.
Mr.DemonTree...:
Jul 14th, 2017 - 01:16 pm - Link - Report abuse -1You say...:
“until the sixties there was no legal distinction between citizens in Britain and the rest of the empire”
I say...:
Geeeeeeeeeeeeeed... lad...
You really know nothing' about your Engrish Empire...huhhhh...?
Why don't you ask any Kelper in here if “there was no legal distinction between citizens in Britain and the rest of the empire”...
Think & DT
Jul 14th, 2017 - 03:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Before 1949, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the English and later British Crown was, based on common law, an English and later British subject. To be a subject required only that a person be born in any territory under the sovereignty of the Crown
From 1 January 1949, when the British Nationality Act 1948 came into force, every person who was a British subject by virtue of a connection with the United Kingdom or one of her Crown colonies (i.e. not the Dominions) became a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC).
On 1 January 1983, upon the coming into force of the British Nationality Act 1981, every citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies became either a British citizen, British Dependent Territories citizen or British Overseas citizen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_subject
Hope that helps
kind regards
Mr. Darragh...
Jul 14th, 2017 - 03:41 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Subjects they were before 1949... indeed... Subject to any kind of arbitrarities for the dubious honour of serving the Engrish King...
Ask any Kelper if they could live in the UK legally before 1982...
Ask any Paki if they could live in the UK legally before 1950...
Ask any Wailer...
Interesting article here, Think:
Jul 14th, 2017 - 03:47 pm - Link - Report abuse +1https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/birthright-citizenship-donald-trump-england/403159/
Apparently 'dirt' has been important since James I was king of England.
Maybe it seems surprising to you because the Scandinavian countries have always based citizenship on blood?
As Darragh says, Falklanders would have been British subjects until 1949, and Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies after 1949. So would people born in Britain. Only in the 60s and 70s, when the UK government was trying to limit immigration from the Commonwealth, did this cease to be true.
If any Falklanders are here, please do tell us if there was any difference in citizenship before the 60s?
Also, what the heck is a Wailer?
Q...: What the heck is a Wailer?
Jul 14th, 2017 - 04:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A...: Ever heard of Bob Marley... and the ....... ?
Heh, did you come up with that just now? I suppose if you can't find some slangy and preferably disparaging term for a people you just have to invent one.
Jul 14th, 2017 - 05:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It would be pretty hard for Pakistanis to live in the UK before 1950 as the country was only formed in 1947. But I know there wasn't very much immigration to Britain before WWII, from India or Jamaica or anywhere else; afterwards there was a labour shortage and the government encouraged it.
And then because of all the immigration people started objecting and the government changed the law, which also affected the Falklanders.
The question is why is this piece appearing in Mercopenguin, a British government propaganda organ supposedly devoted to America, South America and the “South Atlantic”?
Jul 17th, 2017 - 06:07 am - Link - Report abuse -2Hepathetic is back. Same words, new veil.
Jul 17th, 2017 - 01:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!