SPAIN has made an official complaint to the British government after accusing Gibraltar of performing a ‘U-turn’ over the fishing ban.

Outraged officials in Madrid sent a memo to London reiterating their stance that the waters around the Rock were not ceded to Britain under the terms of the Treaty of Utrecht.

The protest comes just days after Gibraltar’s government announced it would be maintaining the ban on commercial fishing with nets in its waters.

After receiving the results of a preliminary report by marine experts, it claimed there were a number of ‘serious gaps in the data’ which were hampering further analysis.

It also said the report had identified a number of species that ‘may be over-exploited’ and that it was affecting catches.

The fallout led to long delays at the frontier, while a number of reports over the weekend suggested Spanish fishing boats had continued to flaunt the restrictions by fishing in Gibraltar waters.

La Linea mayor Gemma Araujo described the announcement as a ‘disappointment’ and called for negotiations to continue between the Spanish fishermen and officials in Gibraltar.

A spokesman for the fishermen slammed the findings of the report, accusing the commission of lacking ‘anyone with knowledge about fishing’.

Donate

102 COMMENTS

  1. @ Reality

    Oh but we did comply with the resolution, the only problem was that once the referendum was held Spain declared it illegal! Seems Spain, when confronted with the blatant stark truth that the People of Gibraltar do not want to intergrate with Spain, simply chooses to ignore it or declares it illegal.

    Spain would find it embarrasing to go the International Court of Justice because it knows that it would most likely be defeated on the British Jurisdiction of the waters.
    Gibraltar did hold a Referendum in 1967 and another one on Joint Sovereighty Proposals in 2002.

    “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar_sovereignty_referendum,_1967”

    The options presented to Gibraltarians in the 1967 Referendum were:

    (a) To pass under Spanish sovereignty in accordance with the terms proposed by the Spanish Government to Her Majesty’s Government on 18 May 1966; or

    (b) Voluntarily to retain their link with Britain, with democratic local institutions and with Britain retaining its present responsibilities.
    Gibraltarians voted by 12,138 to 44 to remain under British sovereignty.

    Spain declared the 1967 Referendum Illegal.

    The 2002 Referendum was held with the following question being put to the People of Gibraltar:

    “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar_sovereignty_referendum,_2002”

    “On the 12th July 2002 the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, in a formal statement in the House of Commons, said that after twelve months of negotiation the British Government and Spain are in broad agreement on many of the principles that should underpin a lasting settlement of Spain’s sovereignty claim, which included the principle that Britain and Spain should share sovereignty over Gibraltar. Do you approve of the principle that Britain and Spain should share sovereignty over Gibraltar?

    Gibraltarians voted 98.48% NO and 1.03% votes YES

    International Observers who were invited to witness the intergrity and the process of the casting and counting of the votes said:

    “ The observers were extremely impressed with the organisation of the referendum and particularly welcome that the role of the observers was integral to the process, as distinct from the more passive role of observers in other elections. The meticulous way in which votes were counted exceeded requirements and went beyond requirements adopted for UK elections”

    The Spanish Foreign Minister at the time declared the Referendum as Illegal.

    Mr. Straw declared the fact that Gibraltar had gone ahead and held a referendum on proposals of joint sovereignty as “eccentric.”

    In his evidence to the British Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee in 2008, Jim Murphy MP, Minister of State for Europe, stated:

    “The UK Government will never — “never” is a seldom-used word in politics — enter into an agreement on sovereignty without the agreement of the Government of Gibraltar and their people. In fact, we will never even enter into a process without that agreement. The word “never” sends a substantial and clear commitment and has been used for a purpose. We have delivered that message with confidence to the peoples and the Governments of Gibraltar and Spain. It is a sign of the maturity of our relationship now that that is accepted as the UK’s position.”

  2. Inthename – “Oh but we did comply with the resolution, the only problem was that once the referendum was held Spain declared it illegal! Seems Spain, when confronted with the blatant stark truth that the People of Gibraltar do not want to intergrate with Spain, simply chooses to ignore it or declares it illegal.”

    Ah I actually was not aware of that. Like I said before – I’ve actually never even been to Gibraltar. This is a political situation that I haven’t been following extremely closely. (I’m not even 300 years old yet; I’m way behind the people of Gibraltar on this) I just pop in and try to correct some ideas (perhaps misconceptions) people have about international law. Personally, I think Gibraltar should have the right to determine its own destiny.

    Inthename – “Gibraltarians voted 98.48% NO and 1.03% votes YES”

    That says it all to me. It wouldn’t matter to me if Gibraltar was legal or illegal – you’ve got a population of 30,000 people in a tiny space who want to be left alone the way they are. What more is there really to say? Kick 30,000 people out, ruin their culture, change their government, take away their identity for 6KM(2) of land that is just a bunch of mountains? Sounds like an awful plan.

    Yesterday I saw my uncle (Spanish professional fisherman) walking down the street and I called him over. And I asked him what he thought of Gibraltar. And I said that there were these long debates about it in English and Spanish news forums online. And he basically said, “What? Gibraltar? What about it? I remember when we went fishing over in so-an-so and caught a tuna, blah blah blah…”

    He was only vaguely aware of the situation. I asked him if he thought it should be Spanish or stay the way it is and he said, succinctly “What? This is stupid. For a crate of sardines? Just leave it alone. It’s all political posturing. We don’t need Gibraltar.”

    Now this is an old man, a professional fisherman (former captain of a professional boat, today just recreational deep-sea fishing). And he’s really what you could describe as ultra-conservative. If he didn’t care about Gibraltar – or even give legitimacy to the claim aside from it being Spanish nationalist political posturing – I have a hard to believing this is an important issue for Spain. Aside from perhaps more fertile waters (that will quickly be depleted); what is there to gain?

    And people are talking about closing the borders and even invading?

    I am sure that the people of Gibraltar will send us some of their Barbary macaque monkeys if we ask nicely.

  3. Inthename – “Oh but we did comply with the resolution, the only problem was that once the referendum was held Spain declared it illegal! Seems Spain, when confronted with the blatant stark truth that the People of Gibraltar do not want to intergrate with Spain, simply chooses to ignore it or declares it illegal.”

    Oh I forgot to add something – what you’ve described is completely normal. If two states agree on some form of mediation, be it a referendum with the Secretary General, a hearing in an international court, etc. and it doesn’t come out in the favor of one they almost always just ignore it. The one who ‘won’ says “but we won, it’s international law” and the one who loses shrugs and says, “but it was illegal; we interpret it differently.”

    That’s why international law really has no teeth. It can’t be enforced or assert any authority that is greater than the individual states involved. In fact, we can’t even catch African warlords or Somali pirate kings even tough everyone knows where they are – simply because the governments aren’t handing them over. Charles Taylor is a good example. He ran around relaxing until he ruffled the wrong feathers. And it wasn’t Team International Law that got him in the end. It was the plain, old Liberian police who picked him up at the airport and sent him to the Hague.

  4. @ Reality

    In a Spanish survey 60% of Spaniards who were asked about Gibraltar said they couldnt care less. So basically they are saying the same as your uncle.

    I said somewhere that Spain doesnt really want Gibraltar, they just rattle it when they find it convenient, Franco did it, and so many other subsequent governments have done it to distract from other issues. The problem with the “rattling” is that they use their own people to destroy any attempts at good relations there may be between both cities and in the process destroy in no time at all what has taken years to recreate, any feelings of trust which may have cautiously flourished between the two communities. You have read the comments made by the La Linea Mayor, Mrs. Gemma Araujo from the PSOE, a breath of fresh air, whose continous efforts and Gibraltar’s to have a “normal” relationship, is being continously undermined by the previous mayor PP who wanted to charge a toll for people entering Gibraltar. When he was told that was illegal and that he couldnt he had the beginnings of a toll lane built to get them to pay as they were entering Spain. Unbelievable between two european countries. This was soley so he could refill the cobwebbed coffers in the Ayuntamiento with Gibraltarians and innocent visitor’s money. Wont go into any details, but you can imagine whatever you like and you wouldnt be too far away from the truth. Some research will bring you news of that as it was all published.

    If you are saying that Spain would again ignore the ICJ’s even if UK took the case to it for resolution, then why does Spain fear going? The Chief minister has publicly challenged Spain to do so.

    We are a patiet people, and very resillient. It must be in our genes from 300 years ago. So, we will wait and see how things go. However no amount of wooing or threatening will change our minds…not now and not in the foreseeable future. I cant say about the future generations..it will then be their call.

    ;) About the Macaques..Quite a few have been shipped to various destinations,you may have read, Spain being one of them.

    But the best way to see the is in their home ground. Sad to see the one in Jerez in a cage, broke my heart the saddness in that poor little chap’s eyes.

  5. Inthename – “If you are saying that Spain would again ignore the ICJ’s even if UK took the case to it for resolution, then why does Spain fear going?”

    It’s probably better not to have anything at all hanging over your head than to have to make excuses if things don’t go in your favor. That’s my guess. Why risk it, basically. Like you said – Spain doesn’t really want Gibraltar. It’s actually more strategic to keep it as a talking point than to have a ruling against Spain, or to have the ICJ say Spain has a right to a colony the people don’t actually want.

    Basically, it’s an intentional strategy to keep a bit of controversy between countries. Give the Spanish ultra-nationalists a talking point.

  6. Reality

    You’re the one that doesn’t like to respond to substantive points. Firstly, the fact remains that various UK governments have done everything in their power over a number of years now – including resorting to the royal prerogative – to deny any semblance of justice to the Chagossians.

    The fact that the Chagossians have had to turn to the European Court of Human Rights is evidence that the UK has completely failed them, as the European Court of Human Rights is not a UK institution.

    The UK is required by its own domestic law to enforce decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. Of course, as implied in your last response, the UK could again choose to ignore the rule of law and resort to the royal prerogative to again ignore judicial decisions, but this would only serve to highlight its primitive constitutional arrangements and belie its claim to be a State governed by the rule of law – acclaim that it often likes to make.

    You do not need to lecture me about international law. I am fully aware of its limitations. Of course only a nation State or a collection of nation States can actually enforce international law. But that does not detract from its legitimacy. Moreover, CIVILISED nations do respect it, if only because acting in compliance with it confers a measure of legitimacy.

    Legitimacy is important in at least two regards – the external legitimacy of the action, i.e. the views of the rest of the civilised international community. One cannot argue for one’s rights under international law if one is unwilling to recognise its validity when it doesn’t suit you.

    Internal legitimacy is also important, i.e. domestic perceptions as to the rightness of the action. Acting lawfully is a defining characteristic of a civilised State and this puts internal pressure on governments. Also international law may be important to the government because those that the government requires to carry out or support its actions (i.e. the military and the civil service) regard it as important. The point is important because it emphasises that it is erroneous to regard the State as a unitary entity and to regard it as one distinct from the individuals involved. What is classified as State interests will be what emerges from the decision making process of a group of individuals and entities internal to the State. The views of those individuals on what is legitimate is therefore of importance.

    Thirdly, and this is a relevant consideration for the UK, international law matters because it is internalised not only in the public consciousness but also in UK law, in this case, in UK soft law. The Ministerial Code (Code of Conduct and Guidance on Procedures for Ministers issues by the Prime Minister, 1997) specifically requires Ministers to comply with the law, including international law (see p. 10) and requires Ministers not to ask civil servants to act in a way which would be contrary to the Civil Service Code.

    You appear to have missed my point about my reference to the ICJ. I’m also an advocate for international disputes to be resolved by that court. In the case of Gibraltar the ICJ will obviously have to rule on the limits of the right to self-determination. In this regard you should note that the ICJ has already stated that there are limits in cases analogous to that of Gibraltar. For example, in the Western Sahara case the ICJ found that some pre-existing legal ties of a third state to the territory colonized by some other state could in principle affect the decolonization of the territory (see para. 162 in particular). On the facts of that case, the Court did not find that such legal ties existed between Morocco and the Mauritanian entity and Western Sahara, and therefore it did not specify what the precise effect of such ties could be. Arguably, however, if a third state had title over the territory, which was usurped by the colonizer, this would have an effect of limiting the right of a people of that territory to internal, rather than external self-determination, as is indeed normally the case.

    All I was saying was that the UK also has the option of referring Gibraltar’s sovereignty to the ICJ if it so chooses. However, the UK is unlikely to do for the reasons I have provided.

    You also have completely missed my point with respect to the referendum conducted by Gibraltar in the 1967. UN adopted Resolution 2353 (XXII), noted that the referendum conducted by the people of Gibraltar was contrary to the various resolutions which had been adopted by the UN General Assembly requiring the UK to decolonise Gibraltar and therefore invalid. That resolution serves to reinforce that the right of self-determination is limited and does not apply to transplanted populations living in colonial enclaves where a pre-colonial claim of sovereignty exists. This is the case with Gibraltar.

  7. FurtherBeyond – “Moreover, CIVILISED nations do respect it, if only because acting in compliance with it confers a measure of legitimacy.”

    “…this would only serve to highlight its primitive constitutional arrangements.”

    “Moreover, CIVILISED nations do respect it…”

    “…the rest of the civilised international community…”

    Why is it that whenever a country doesn’t conform to the standards we expect we say “Oh, but the ‘civilized’ countries do this…” I see this in reference to Spain a lot; contrasting Spain as uncivilized versus the “civilized” UK. But the UK is not one of the civilized countries suddenly because of Gibraltar? Which are the civilized and uncivilized countries exactly? It’s something I hear frequently on colloquial speech from the British (and in comments here) And it is disturbing – because it was the, “Oh, but they aren’t civilized. We must civilized them” argument that was a key justification for colonization (and worse) in the history of the Great Britain.

    So who exactly are these civilized nations? France, that has secret special-ops militias of foreigners stationed in countries all around the world? The USA, with its huge prison population, death penalty and unilaterally invading countries? China, with its 20x higher pollution levels despite being a signatory? Russia, with a president/dictator/KGB agent assassinating political dissidents?

    Surely not the majority of UN member nations – the vast majority of which are totalitarian regimes, oligarchies, dictatorships, theocratic states, or military regimes.

    So who are these majority of ‘civilized’ nations respecting – and creating – international law?

    FurtherBeyond – “You’re the one that doesn’t like to respond to substantive points. Firstly, the fact remains that various UK governments have done everything in their power over a number of years now – including resorting to the royal prerogative – to deny any semblance of justice to the Chagossians.”

    If you’ve made some point I missed that you want me to respond to just ask and I will. I think every post you made referenced resolution 2353 as the core claim, which I’ve responded to – and the resolution doesn’t say what you have been claiming it says.

    And as far as I know regarding the Chagossians, I agree with you. But what exactly does this have to do with the current state of Gibraltar? How does this fit into the debate here? “The UK was bad in the past, so it is bad here?” This is the fallacy of poisoning the well. How do you justify the decolonization of Gibraltar based on the UK forcefully decolonizing Diego Garcia – which we all seem to agree was a bad thing (an understatement). It seems like you are essentially endorsing the same thing for Gibraltar that happened in Diego Garcia.

    And here is one thing I’d really like your option on, FurtherBeyond. I’d like to know this more than anything – since a majority of the Spanish don’t want Gibraltar and a majority of the inhabitants of Gibraltar don’t want to be Spanish, does that mean anything to you?

  8. @Reality

    Ceuta and Melilla are two enclaves/colonies which were artificially populated by Castillians and were subjected to a referendum a few years later, Do you want to be part of Portugal (Ceuta belonged to the Portugese King and was taken over by the Castillians) or do you want to stay with Spain? Guess what the answer was? No points for guessing. Portugal must have been then more democratic, as it respected the will of the people and the results of that particular referendum, which wasnt what Portugal wanted to hear am sure, and not subject to the United Nations resolution of 1967 either. (Might be worthwhile for you to take a look at who was sitting at the UN at the time and voted against the rights of Gibraltarians to self determination, might throw some light into the matter.)

    The fact that both Ceuta and Melilla had belonged to Mauretania and then the Kingdom of Fez, and was not part of any treaty conceding the territory in Perpetuity so on and so forth, (no mention of waters or airspace either for that matter obviously), does not seem to alter the fact that Morrocco wants it back and has for years made noises about it. The last time by the Moroccan Foreign Minister this spring in Madrid itself. I can provide a link, but am feeling a bit lazy today.

    I wonder what FarBeyond would say in the event that Morocco took Spain to the ICJ over these colonies/enclaves?

    Would he champion the people who lived in the Chagos islands too then and place them as an anchor piece in his arguments against the People of Melilla and Ceuta not wanting to revert to Morocco and denying them self determination? Like Gibraltar’s flag has the colours and the shield that the Queen Isabella herself embroidered, a copy of course, the original was taken by the people to San Roque after the Anglo/Dutch fleet took over Gib), the flag of Ceuta too has the colours and the shield of King Pedro II of Portugal, former conquistadores of the the land, which I might add does not form of the intergrity of spanish territory.

  9. Reality

    The ‘primitive constitutional arrangements’ reference refers to the fact that under the British constitution the royal prerogative can trump a judicial decision. This is what the UK government did when several British courts ruled in favour of the Chagossians (see my earlier posts for full details).

    This is consistent with my other comments that ‘civilised’, or if you like ‘more advanced, less primitive’, governments accept the rule of law as well as respect international law even when there is no one there to enforce it.

    My reference to the UK’s abysmal treatment of the Chagossians was in turn a response to a number of posts by clearly biased contributors who were attempting to trumpet how the UK, unlike Spain, acted like a ‘civilised’ State.

    I’m definitely not advocating that the Gibraltarians be treated in the same way that the UK treated the Chagossians. That is simply a slur that some of the less scrupulous contributors are attempting to ascribe to me in order to undermine and obfuscate my substantive arguments.

    My exact words in response to these slurs were: ‘I would also appreciate if you could stop verbal-ling me. At no time have I ever suggested that the current inhabitants of Gibraltar should be displaced (even though that’s exactly what the UK did to the Spanish population they forcibly displaced in 1704 – and the inhabitants of Diego Garcia in 1971). What I am saying is, that as a matter of common sense and international law, a coloniser cannot legally disrupt the territorial integrity of another State by implanting its own population unto the territory it is colonising. In cases such as these, the inhabitants of the territory have no right to UNILATERALLY DETERMINE THE NATIONALITY OF THE LAND THEY OCCUPY’.

    My reference to UN Resolution 2353 is only meant as further evidence in support of my central point that the right to self-determination is limited.

    To summarise for your benefit from my previous posts – under international law there are territorial limitations to the right of self-determination for transplanted populations living in colonial enclaves where a pre-colonial claim of sovereignty exists. This is the case with Gibraltar which is listed by the UN as a territory that needs to be decolonised by the UK.

    A coloniser cannot legally disrupt the territorial integrity of another State by implanting its own population unto the territory it is colonising. In cases such as these, the inhabitants of the colonised territory have a right to have their ‘interests’ considered but they have no right to unilaterally determine the nationality of the land they live in.

    Gibraltarians’ right to self-determination is dubious for the following reasons:

    They do not constitute ‘a people’, and only ‘a people’ is entitled to self-determination under international law. Their status as ‘a people’ has never been recognized by the UN, who have consistently called them a ‘population.’

    Moreover, they are not a population indigenous to Gibraltar, but were settled there by the UK displacing the Spanish population that previously existed there (after the capture of Gibraltar by Anglo-Dutch troops, only 70 out of the original 5,000 Spanish inhabitants remained in Gibraltar).

    The UN General Assembly has passed two resolutions on the issue (2231 (XXI), ‘Question of Gibraltar’and 2353 (XXII), ‘Question of Gibraltar’). The resolutions on the decolonisation of Gibraltar focused on the ‘interests’ and not the ‘wishes’ of the Gibraltarians. The latter resolution states that:‘any colonial situation which partially or completely destroys the national unity and territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and especially with paragraph 6 of Resolution 1514 (XV) of the General Assembly’.

    When the current occupants of Gibraltar conducted a referendum in 1967 declaring their wish to remain British, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 2353 (XXII), questioning the validity of the referendum noting that the referendum was contrary to the various resolutions which it had previously adopted. Thereby confirming the view that the right to self-determination is limited in the case of the current occupants of Gibraltar.

    In response to your final question, I suggest that you refer to my comments above. All Spanish governments since 1704 have without exception continually called for the UK to decolonise Gibraltar. The current democratically elected government has again called for the UK to honour its previous commitments to discuss the decolonisation of Gibraltar.The UN continues to call for the UK to decolonise Gibraltar.

    Perhaps the UK should honour its commitments under the Brussels Agreement and heed the UN’s calls for it to meet with Spain to discuss how Gibraltar can be decolonised while fully protecting the interests of its current inhabitants.

  10. @ FurtherBeyond

    I will try to make make this short and sweet lest I risk the wrath of your words once more.

    1) Although the House of Lords/Supreme Court is the final national court of appeal in the UK, the European Court of Justice is the final court of appeal to the UK (even though it is an EU institution)- it has this official status in the UK. The UK has always followed these rulings and accepted them even when not satisfied with the outcome.

    2) The European Court of Human Rights is a different entity, although it is also indirectly linked to the EU and the member states. The UK usually follows these findings, but can make a ‘declaration of incompatibility’ if there are good reasons not to follow a decision (in reality these are very are, and usually for good/valid reasons).

    3) Please, please address the Ceuta and Melilla point – is there anything you can say on this that will not make you sound hypocritical? Oh, let me guess…there are no UN resolutions on these territories so Spain is acting in accordance with the law, how convenient!!

    (But seriously, I look forward to your thoughts on the Spanish colonies/enclaves, or whatever you want to call them to make them seem different to Gibraltar).

  11. FurtherBeyond – “My reference to the UK’s abysmal treatment of the Chagossians was in turn a response to a number of posts by clearly biased contributors who were attempting to trumpet how the UK, unlike Spain, acted like a ‘civilised’ State.”

    I apologize – I believe I misconstrued what you said completely then. We’re definitely in agreement at least on this one point. The UK certainly has a history of taking equally abysmal – or worse – actions than a lot of the countries criticized as being “uncivilized.” You’re example with the Chagossians is certainly one of those.

    Anyway, we’ve gone back and forth over international law enough by this point I think we’re both just repeating ourselves. Maybe we can switch the theme and discuss Gibraltar from a slightly different view. Because there are a few things I want to understand:

    Let’s say it is completely illegal for Gibraltar to remain a colony, or for them to be independent because they are not technically a “people.” I’m not necessarily sure this is true, but just for the sake of discussion let us assume it is. And let us assume everything else you’ve said is correct in respect to international (and domestic) law from this point forward.

    Although not a “people” legally – there are some 30,000 individuals there. And they don’t want to be Spanish. And the Spanish don’t want them to be Spanish. Culturally they are completely distinct. So, even if legally they are required to decolonize, should they actually do so? Even if legally required under international law is it the moral, the ‘right,’ thing to do?

    Because, in my opinion, it is fine to ignore or violate a bad law. And it seems like – assuming international law requires decolonization and disallows independence for this group of 30,000 individuals living on the rock – that is just a bad law. There is no benefit for them to be Spanish. They don’t want it; the Spanish don’t want it. It’s basically bad for everyone.

    Now, there is an ethical position that would state it is morally ‘right’ simply because it is the law. “We must respect the law. Respecting the law is moral. Breaking the law is immoral.” But then to be consistent we must assert that we are required to respect any law, at any time (that is applicable to us). And that includes bad laws. What if a law is bad or just plain evil? In this ethical framework, we would still be required to abide by it. In fact, we couldn’t even say “that’s an evil law” because, by definition, it is “good” because it is the law.

    Just one exception – one bad law – demonstrates that “it’s the law” really isn’t a very good ethical foundation for our morality.

    Instead, we make laws to enforce what we believe to be an innate, utilitarian or at least conceived “good.” The “good” isn’t birthed into existence due to the creation of a law. We assume it is evil to murder because murder is inherently evil, not because there is a law that says it is illegal. If all laws against murder disappeared and we were all free to kill at will, People would still say “murder is evil.” (Although you can bet people would start killing each other left and right.)

    So basically what I don’t understand is, even if we assume all of your arguments are correct legally, why do you actually support the decolonization of Gibraltar? Do you really want to see it decolonized or is this just an intellectual argument on it being illegal? Is decolonization really a good thing for anyone? What are the benefits and the consequences, both for the people of Spain and of Gibraltar? These Gibraltar fellows seem like they are pretty happy living in their little colony. How can we ethically – not just legally – justify taking that away from them?

  12. Reality

    As previously mentioned, at no time have I advocated the removal or displacement of the people of Gibraltar. In a decolonised Gibraltar they would of course be free to live where they do now.

    A decolonised Gibraltar would be treated by Spain like any other Spanish autonomous region. The Gibraltarians would continue to have their own regional government much as they do now. The regional government would be elected by the people of Gibraltar. That government would be responsible for the administration of schools, universities, health, social services, culture, language, urban and rural development and policing. The people of Gibraltar would also have separate representation in the European Parliament.

    The only substantive difference, apart from the fact that Gibraltar would once again be formally part of the Kingdom of Spain, would be that Spain rather than the UK would be responsible for defence and foreign policy.

    Of course a decolonised Gibraltar would also allow complete freedom of movement between Gibraltar and the rest of Spain. It would also result in significantly improved relations between Spain and the UK.

    It’s worth noting Between 1984 and the early 2000s, discussions over sovereignty took place in the framework of the Joint Communiqué Agreed by the Foreign Ministers of the United Kingdom and Spain of 1984 (‘Brussels Declaration’). Gibraltarian representatives participated in the Brussels process as part of the UK delegation, until December 1987, but did not do so after that date.

    The aim of the Brussels process is to resolve all differences between the governments over Gibraltar, including sovereignty.

    In 2002 the UK and Spain agreed on a tentative plan for sharing sovereignty over Gibraltar. In exchange, Spain would guarantee enhanced local autonomy to Gibraltar, protect its local culture, and tax regime. Also under the plan, Gibraltarians would retain British nationality.

    The Report of the British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw to Parliament ([12 July 2002] [2002] 408 House of Commons Parliamentary Debates 1166) stated that even though no final agreement had yet been reached, the government was in broad agreement with Spain on many of the principles that should underpin a lasting settlement.

  13. For FurtherBeyond – Thank you for clarifying the motivations and giving me an insight into your point of view on it If all of that is true, it sounds to me like life really would not change much for people of Gibraltar were it to become Spanish. So just to sum up, basically they would still keep their British citizenship (and assume Spanish citizenship as well I am guessing), elect their own government as an autonomous region in Spain, continue with the same tax regime, etc. Based on this – it doesn’t sound like much would change or they would have anything to lose. Or much to gain (except for improve international relations / cross the border).

    There was one point that I am not sure you addressed that is important to me – isn’t it true that is that the people of Gibraltar don’t want to be Spanish (and most Spanish don’t want Gibraltar)? How do you feel about that?

    From the other side (Inthename, John, etc.) perhaps a rebuttal. Again, aside from any legal issues, what are the arguments against Gibraltar becoming Spanish? In what ways would this be bad for the people of Gibraltar? And why don’t the people of Gibraltar want to be Spanish?

  14. Inthename – “Do you Reality want to be. say, Chinese against your wishes?”

    No, and good point. But I am sure there is more than just that. Would you be willing to go a bit more in depth, perhaps some other ways life would change for the people of Gibraltar, or other motivations behind it?

    Because I don’t even know anyone from Gibraltar to ask them how they feel or what life is like in Gibraltar. So I assumed maybe – aside from having suddenly acquiring a new nationality, which is a big issue – they didn’t want to be subject to certain controls of the Spanish government, perhaps financial/tax issues, property laws, etc. Maybe a risk of cultural loss. I am aware that we’ve got 90%+ of people in Gibraltar who don’t want to be Spanish, so I just want to kind of put myself in their shoes and understand where they are coming from.

  15. @ Reality

    There are many non-legal reasons, a non-exhaustive list is as follows:

    1. The Gibraltarian people are not Spanish and many have no Spanish roots at all, those that do don’t want to be Spanish either.

    2. Gibraltar (the territory) is not Spanish (and has not been for over 300 years).

    3. Our culture is not Spanish (although it has a Latin flavour).

    4. Gibraltarians do not want to be Spanish.

    5. Due to historical reasons (as well as modern Spanish politics) Gibraltarians do not trust Spain, or its agenda toward Gibraltar.

    6. Spain has traditionally harassed Gibraltar in any way it can, from challenging Gibraltar legislation in the EU, to proclaiming to other states that Gibraltar is a drug haven and fiscal paradise – if we become Spanish, Spain will no longer have to go through these channels and will be able to dictate what we can and cannot do (as it presently tries to do).

    Spain, also, is a financially corrupt country with much poorer governing standards than the UK. Gibraltar would actually gradually become everything they wrongly profess it to be at present.

    7. The surrounding Spanish lands are, in fact, the poorest and most backward in the whole of Spain. By a process of osmosis Gibraltar’s high standard of living would be eroded away over time until we become the same. Our education etc will probably be tied to Spain instead of UK, and this is not good for Gibraltar.

    8. Spain will gradually try to claim more and more rights off the Gibraltarian population, until they have none left at all. As Gibraltarians leave Gibraltar, Spaniards will then legally transplant the locals. (See the history of the Basque country).

    9. In times of peril (i.e. 1st world war, 2nd world war and other modern conflicts) 9 out of 10 times Spain backs the undemocratic and losing side. At present Spain is supposedly a modern democracy…but, as of yet, she has not actually stood the test of time.

    10. Even in modern times, if there is a dispute between Gibraltar and Spain, Spain either creates delays at the frontier or closes it off altogether. This cuts off Gibraltar from the rest of the world. If it actually owned the territory of Gibraltar, what recourse would the British Gibraltarians have?

    11. Have I already said that Gibraltar does not trust Spain, and even if it did, given Gibraltar’s history and identity, it still would never want to be Spanish.

    12. There is no way that Gibraltarians would want to change their nationality – why would a citizen with a great respect for his/her nationality ever want to change it?

    13. Gibraltarians live in a British Gibraltar, why would they want to live in a Spanish one instead?

    14. Gibraltar’s finance center reputation would be totally destroyed (instead of being financially linked to the UK it would be linked to far less successful Spain), and with it the hard work of many generations of Gibraltarians.

    Maybe I have repeated myself, but I think you get the jist of the arguments.

  16. Thanks John,

    Wasn’t up to expanding on the answer. But the “Hong Kong” issue which Farbeyond keeps exposing as “similar,” which it is not, comes handy in this case. Why did thousands of Hong Kong citizens prefer to flee the country rather than stay, even for the time it took to formally hand over Hong Kong to rhe Chinese?

    Culturally, they were much akin to the Chinese, yet they preferred to pack up their things and leave their homeland for the very same country whose flag they had been under for so many years.

    Asking yourself why, would give you the same answers John has kindly exposed. We might look alike, we might also speak the language, to what an outsider would sound the same, but the difference in culture and everything else is abysmal. We are tourists in Spain, Reality. Home is when we cross the frontier back into Gibraltar. The feelings of relief, well being and safety in your own home ground needs to be experienced to be understood, no matter what a jolly time you had in Spain. No outsider would ever be able to understand this fully.

  17. Reality, if you like, ask yourself this question. What does being British mean to you. Surely its not the colour of your skin, the colour of your hair, whether you hate or love the weather, whether its cheaper to buy a villa in Spain than it is to buy an attic in Picadilly? Surely above all these things, if you scratch below the skin, there is something else that binds you to your country that you wouldnt change for anything in the world?

    If you can find those sentiments and ideals I am speaking of, I am sure you will, look no more. You have solved the riddle.

  18. John

    UK treatment of the Chagosians

    The UK has done everything in its power including
    using the royal prerogative to trump decisions of its own courts that have gone in favour of the Chagossians.

    The fact that the Chagossians have had to turn to the European Court of Human Rights is evidence that, contrary to your assertions above, the UK has completely failed them, as the European Court of Human Rights is not a UK institution.

    Ceuta and Melilla

    As previously mentioned, under international law there are territorial limitations to the right of self-determination for transplanted populations living in colonial enclaves where A PRE-COLONIAL CLAIM OF SOVEREIGNTY EXISTS.

    This is the case with Gibraltar which was colonised by the UK while it was an integral part of Spain but not with Ceuta and Melilla which were Spanish hundreds of years before the Moroccan State existed.

  19. FarBeyond

    Well, there are those who feel that Ceuta and Melilla should be returned to form part again of the territorial integrity of Morocco, and they dont think, like you that the “transplanted” population of these colonies have a say in the matter either, as you can see from this news item on yesterday’s Spanish press. See how you can convince these activists who represent a movement with your same thinking about Gibraltar and its People. Maybe you will use our same arguments and just change the name of the territory.

    “http://ecodiario.eleconomista.es/espana/noticias/4211297/08/12/Detenidos-cuatro-activistas-marroquies-que-asaltaron-con-banderas-el-Penon-de-Velez.html”

    Its not the first time its happened that activists from Morocco have moved in with flags and all into what they consider to be “stolen” territory, first there was Perejil now its Penon de Velez in La Gomera. And you may remember that it always happens when Spain starts to get stroppy about Gibraltar. Strange isnt it?

  20. I just found out recently that there were these native inhabitants of what we now know as North and South America. They used to live all over. Then some Europeans came over and started creating territories.

    Maybe we need to return these places to their rightful owners. Or at least switch the government and administration over to control of the Native peoples.

    In all seriousness – what is done is done. You’ve got a 300 year old population in Gibraltar. Transplanted or not – it was 300 years ago. Most of the world’s population has been transplanted to where they are at some point in the past. So you’ve got a stable community, an actual distinct “people” by anthropological definition (regardless of what the UN may classify as a “people”) and a consistent history of such over the last three centuries. This was all well and in place before the UN even existed.

    FurtherBeyond, all of your arguments seem to center around international law and the legal status of Gibraltar. I know we do not all agree on the interpretation of the law here (you’ve cited at least one attorney on it, I have as well in previous posts). You can debate if it is legal or not, under international law, or if a 300-year-old treaty that was valid 300 years ago is in fact “illegal” today, but you’re missing the forest for a tree.

    There must be an ethical and moral reason behind it, in my opinion – simply saying ‘Resolution X” doesn’t tell me if something is right or wrong. Example: Resolution 914 in Rwanda, which reduced security presence (preceding the Rwandan genocide) or Resolution 819 which facilitated the Srebrenica massacre. So saying “it is law” is not enough. Especially if it is non-binding law from an organization with blood on its hands.

    Why does Spain really deserve that 6KM(2) stretch of land more than the people who have lived there for the last 300 years?

  21. Right lets go back into recorded history for the sake of those that think of themselves as the indigenous people of Iberia. No disrespect intended, just facts.

    Who were the first Iberians?

    “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberians”

    Who were the Visigoths

    “http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/imperialism/notes/visigoths.html”

    From the Visigoths to 1492 (The Christian Reconquista)
    (Note that they did not call themselves Spanish but Christian against Moors)

    “http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?ParagraphID=ecs”

    The Napoleonic era
    “http://countrystudies.us/spain/13.htm”

    The Peninsular War

    “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsular_War”

    The Duke of Wellington?s involvement in throwing the French out of Spain.

    “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Wellesley,_1st_Duke_of_Wellington”

    Spain becomes a Nation in 1812

    “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutions_of_Spain”

    The Treaty of Utrecht which gave Gibraltar over to England in Perpetuity was signed in 1714, even before Spain constituted itself as a Nation.

    If legally we went by the year Spain became a nation, then Gibraltar has been British for longer than Spain has be known as such.

    Simple but factual.

  22. Reality

    I have already answered this question. But, because you have asked nicely, I will try to do so again, as clearly as I can.

    Firstly, no person with any knowledge of history could possibly deny that Gibraltar was Spanish before it was colonised by the UK (I’m aware that some contributors stubbornly and somewhat perversely continue to do so, however).

    Morally and legally one cannot allow any nation or group to forcibly occupy another nation’s territory, displace its population, confiscate that populations’ property, transplant its own population and then proclaim that it has a right either moral or legal to declare the occupied territory to be part of nation responsible for the occupation.

    Why don’t you try to put yourself in the shoes of the other for once and see were logic takes you. It is not just a matter of international law and simple morality but also common sense.

    The reason why there are territorial limitations to the right of self-determination for transplanted populations living in colonial enclaves is precisely because otherwise it would be lawful (but never moral unless you believe that theft is okay) for a group of people from say Ireland to establish an Irish colony in a town on the eastern coast of England, displace that town’s population by force, confiscate that populations’ property (both real and personal) and then claim a right under the principle of self-determination to have the land they have occupying declared a part of Ireland.

    Can you see the absurdity of the proposition(both from a moral and legal perspective)now? Oh, by the way, the passing of time does not excuse, or sanitise the crime.

  23. Further Beyond

    What crime for goodness sake? Why are others contributions “perverse”? And as for stubborness I must say you take the prize!

    I have tried, without the least intention of being disrespectful, to point out to you and those that think like you that Spain itself could be considered a transplanted population with my last post. The same could be said for England if you go through history. The English queen hails from Germanic royal blood, her husband is a Greek Prince. Spain’s own royalty is another example. French royalty mixed with Greek making their descendants what? Do we only apply your “law” from 1704 onwards? What makes Spain different to Gibraltar? How many ethnic groups make up what Spain is today? Why are people in the north of Spain lighter in the colour of their hair and there are more blue eyes than down the down in Andalucia? (barring the tourists of course.) Australia is a transplanted population and so are so many other countries as is USA which is younger in its roots than Gibraltar itself. Do we apply your law there too?

    As Rolf Harris said in his song ..”My boomerang won’t come back” and like the veritable boomerang Spain threw it away 300 years ago, and it too, won’t return to them that threw it away by Treaty, not by theft, no matter in how many commentators would wish it so. Isn’t accusing somebody of theft “illegal” when they have a signed document in their hands which is public knowledge?

  24. This will be my last contribution to this Item:

    Let me try to give Mr. FarBeyond a lesson in what a truly Gibraltarian People went through during the Second World War Evacuation of the “useless mouths” of Gibraltar.

    Let me point out that, unlike the Ilois people of the Chagos archipelago, there was NO COMPENSATION, or BUYING OUT of copra plantations.

    Those that were forced to leave Gibraltar, left with one suitcase each.

    ALL the women, the aged, the infirm and the children were forced to leave their homes, their possessions, the tombs of their loved ones unattended, and what is more important, their husbands, their sons and their fathers, except those not required for the war effort, who were also forcibly evacuated.

    All of 16,000 tearful, frightened souls. I have no option but to post links here, or else the post would be interminable, so I hope the moderators will allow again and I thank them in anticipation.

    These 16,000 Gibraltarians were not slaves brought in by the French in the late XVIII, they were not a leper colony, they were not a French fishing industry, they were a People from different ethnic backgrounds,just like most countries today, who had been living in Gibraltar for generations, since 1704.

    They were forced to leave on ships, crammed to the holds, sailing through U-boat infested Atlantic waters into unknown and unfamiliar territory. They DID NOT GO ON SHOPPING SPREES REGULARLY to those territories, in fact most had never left Gibraltar, and much like the Greek and Romans leaving their Beloved Bay of Gibraltar was like entering Hades.

    “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Gibraltar_during_World_War_II”.

    The idea was to gradually irk out the People of Gibraltar from their beloved Rock, as secret papers, freed and held in the Archives in UK, have now shown.

    What those in power did not take into account then was the strength and resilience of the People of Gibraltar to fight back to return, and during the war the AACR Association for the Advancement of Civil Rights was formed.

    It was this Association together with all the men folk of Gibraltar who had every single evacuee back, and they achieved their aims by 1952, twelve long years since the first ones had forcibly departed our shores in May 1940.

    Many died in their new destinations and never saw Gibraltar again. Their bones lie in well attended graves and monuments to their ordeal in Madeira, Jamaica, United Kingdom, and Northern Ireland. They made the most of the time away as they were able, they created theatre plays, wrote songs, and those that could contributed to the war effort in any way they were able.

    “http://www.rhul.ac.uk/geography/documents/pdf/currentstudents/fieldtrip/gibraltar.pdf”

    No COMPENSATION was asked for and none was offered or given. All they wanted was to get back home. There was no recrimination; there was only joy and relief. They had contributed to the war effort with their pain, their loneliness and their tears and their work.

    There is a book which was written and compiled by Mr. Joe Gingell, all proceeds go to five Cancer Charities, which contains the stories, the pictures and the history of the evacuation, all from the personal experiences of these evacuees.

    It’s called “We thank God and England” and is edited by the Gibraltar Records Archivist Mr. Dennis D.Beiso. ISBN 978-0-9569756-0-7.

    I would have called it “We thak God and our love for our homeland” but that is besides the point.

    Now that is what I call truly a People of Gibraltar – let no one argue differently.

  25. FurtherBeyond – “Morally and legally one cannot allow any nation or group to forcibly occupy another nation’s territory, displace its population, confiscate that populations’ property, transplant its own population and then proclaim that it has a right either moral or legal to declare the occupied territory to be part of nation responsible for the occupation.”

    I think that you conflate “morally” with “legally.” Because, although you claim that there is a moral issue, you seem to fall back on “it’s illegal” to explain why “it’s immoral.” The two are not twins – in fact, often they are opposites.

    Many would argue – in fact, most probably would – that it is “moral” in some cases to displace a population and take the land. This is, in fact, a foundation principle in both the Bible (with the early Kingdom of Israel) and in the Quran (With Medina and Mecca). So already you can find that there are, in fact, moral exceptions. At least for the approximately 4 billion human beings who follow one of the Big Three monotheistic religions and use that as their source of moral authority. And all you need is one exception to break a rule.

    I do not believe this addresses the real point though. Let us assume that the creation of Gibraltar was, in fact, an immoral act in every way imaginable. Does this make it, therefore, moral to return it to its original state? Logically, no, due to the principle of conversion. Just because an initial act was “immoral” does not mean that attempting to rectify it in some way – even if by doing the exact opposite of the initial act – is going to be moral.

    It could be moral, but you would have to justify it separately. Logically, due to the principle of conversion, we couldn’t claim something is now moral because its opposite was immoral. Just like you can’t claim all mammals are cats, just because all cats are mammals. It’s the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

    Thus there is a need to justify any moral actions on Gibraltar in the moment. It can’t be dependent, logically, on the history of Gibraltar due to conversion. It isn’t as simple as, “That was bad, thus this is good.” There are now a new people in Gibraltar – they are not the ones who existed 300 years ago. And to take any actions upon this group requires a moral justification apart from “Well, 300 years ago…” You’re talking about punishing the children for the sins of their fathers, so to speak. Not simply punishing an old man for a crime he committed when young, but punishing his descendants for simply being born to that man.

    Anything that harms the people of Gibraltar has to have a moral justification behind it; saying “it’s the law” alone is not sufficient. No one has a moral obligation to respect a bad law. Saying, “it is territory” is not a moral argument either, but a legal one. The only real moral argument (“they displaced a people”) is only applicable to the original colonists, not the descendants ten generations down the line.

    How would this be morally different, than, say, taking away something from any other non-native population who took the land by force and kept it (which describes, as far as modern history, all of the Americas, Australia and most of Southeast Asia)?

    And what about the fact that the majority of the Spanish agree with Gibraltar – they don’t want it. Isn’t the will of the people to be taken into the moral equation in this case, or should it be decolonized despite the fact that is not the will of the people on either side?

  26. Let me break my intention not to post with one more fact that Reality might not be aware of to strengthen the arguments against the fact that there was any forcible expulsion of the people who lived in Gibraltar before 1704. Gibraltar or Mons Calpe or el Penon as it was known then was populated after the Muslims who had occupied Iberia were finally thrown out, to make sure that there would not be a third onslaught from Africa’s shores. Those that came were convicts, ne’re do wells, and some merchants well paid for their troubles. Before then it was only used by shepherds to graze their goats, much as Perejil. There was no indigenous population of Gibraltar per se. There was on the mainland. And this “transplanted” populatio, when told that if they wanted to stay they would have to swear allegiance to the King of England, declined to do so, so they were “allowed” to leave. Those that did swear allegiance stayed, there are records to prove this, because censuses were made. Some even returned and swore allegiance and fought shoulder to shoulder with the British. So there is nothing morally wrong..there was a you take it or you leave it. They preferred to leave. Their choice, their loss.

  27. Inthename,
    I think most Olive Press readers would agree with your views on Gibralter as I do and are tired of the legalistic and historical poo which comes in a never ending stream from two posters and we all know who these two unrelenting boors are.

    However on many posts you and others are not being factual on Iberia or Europe’s history as a whole and quoting wikipaedia which is far from accurate and indeed many contributers use it to score political or racial points.

    I believe your’s and others ‘blind spot’is the result of being taught a pack of lies in school.

    The Euskadi (their correct name) lived across most of western Europe for over 40,000 years. 6000 years ago the first of the Celtic peoples arrived – The Gaels, next came the Gallia,who constitute the bulk of the population of modern France, then the Britonnic, who make up the majority of Cymryu and lowland Scotland and last the Belgia, whose DNA most of the western ‘English’ have.

    So if you are going to talk about Iberia and it’s inhabitants you must start with the Euskadi, then the Celts and Catalans and the Moreno’s who never get a mention at all.

    The only place that the Latins have an absolute right to live is Italy (and not all of that either). In 300 BC the Celts sacked the then small city of Roma. Unfortunately they did’nt slaughter all the Romans, a mistake that was to cause their descendants to lose control of most of western Europe.

    The Celtic heartlands were what is now Germany/Austria/The Czech Republic and France. The Celtic islands were on the Celtic periphery.

    The Visigoths (Cortes) and the Goths (Pizarro) and the rest of the Ayran savages did’nt arrive in the Iberian peninsular until Charlemaine got lucky in Gaul against the armies of Islam.

    It’s always the victors who get to write history which is mainly a pack of rascist lies and it is the oral cultures that tend to teach the truth.

    The two countries that have the most brainwashed peoples in all Europe are the ‘English’ and the ‘Spanish’. Most ‘English’ are’nt ‘English’ at all but small Saxons/Zeelanders and Jutes. The tall ‘English’ are mainly Frieselanders or primitive Vikings from Bergen and Stavanger or Rus vikings from what is now Sweden. There are some ‘English’who really are English – they are tall and thin and are from northern Germany. Most ‘English’ cannot accept (denial syndrome) that they are Germanic people. Many ‘English’ refer to themselves as British which they most definately are’nt.

    The Spanish say they are Latins – but for around 2% this is completely untrue. Recent DNA studies have proved completely that the ‘Spanish’ are 45%+/- Arab/Jewish Semites, 15% Catalans,15-17% Euskadi,20% Celtic,1-2% Morenos. Other mixed race peoples account for the rest.

    I hope that some of you with open minds will check out what I have stated – trust no one and especially not what you were brainwashed into believing in school – every culture will try to brainwash it’s children into believing and accepting the status quo.

    So, forget all the historical and legal b/s – The peoples who inhabit Gibralter whatever their origins do not want to be a part of Spain – end of story.

  28. Reality

    Firstly, your claim that: ‘…and what about the fact that the majority of the Spanish agree with Gibraltar – they don’t want it’, is stretching the truth somewhat isn’t it? Where is the proof for this astounding exaggeration? How do you reconcile your assertion with the fact that every Spanish government since 1704 to this day have continually sought to have the UK decolonise Gibraltar?

    Indeed some of the more myopic contributors above have asserted that the reason why the current Spanish government is more vigorously pursuing this objective at the moment is to distract the majority of the Spanish population from other issues. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. This could only happen if it though this was a populist position to take – surely?

    Your assertion that: ‘Many would argue – in fact, most probably would – that it is “moral” in some cases to displace a population and take the land. This is, in fact, a foundation principle in both the Bible (with the early Kingdom of Israel) and in the Quran (With Medina and Mecca). So already you can find that there are, in fact, moral exceptions. At least for the approximately 4 billion human beings who follow one of the Big Three monotheistic religions and use that as their source of moral authority. And all you need is one exception to break a rule’. Is really stretching a long bow – don’t you think?

    The religions you refer to base their views, rightly or wrongly, on their belief that the entire world belongs to God and presumably God, as the original and rightful owner of the world, can do whatever he/she likes with his/her property.

    It is certainly not a justification for stealing someone else’s property. Indeed both religions believe that stealing is morally wrong. Both religions also believe that restitution is the bare minimum remedy for theft.

    The answer to your question: ‘How would this be morally different, than, say, taking away something from any other non-native population who took the land by force and kept it (which describes, as far as modern history, all of the Americas, Australia and most of Southeast Asia)?’ is that it isn’t.

    Even though the original States responsible for those colonisations have long been displaced, there is still a moral need for restitution, in all those cases. That is the reason why, in most cases now, accommodations have been reached with the original first nation peoples in those States.

    However, this is not the case with Gibraltar which still needs to be decolonised by the UK. This is why the UN and the EU are strongly advocating that the UK should meet its moral and legal obligations , and its commitments under the Brussels process, and sit down with Spain to discuss how Gibraltar can be decolonised while fully protecting the interests of its current inhabitants.

  29. Hey one of my comments was removed. Whats that about? i dont swear or insult, yet somehow one comment has gone. i guess it was mistake by a moderator – maybe you can fix it.
    (especially as the mountains of ranting and opinionated nonsence above is allowed!)

    As for the silly commenters above, consider this: what if the Gibs shut the border?
    Have you any idea what problems this would cause to spain? Very quickly the few noisy anti-gib spaniards would be running for the hills, chased by fellow spaniards with sticks, for ruining a good thing for the spaniards that have anything to do with gib.

  30. Never say Never again!

    @ Stewart Crawford.

    I appreciate your support, am not too sure about the historical sequence of events as to ethnicity, since you provide no links to support them, whether from Wiki or elsewhere, although I respect your beliefs, to each his own. I for one, other than finding it boring, firmly believe that there is much to be learnt from history, a subject which I have always found extremely interesting and culturally enriching.

    @ “others”
    You might like to take a look at the following maps: The veracity of Wikipedia is not an issue here, neither is myopia. Apart from the fact that the tagged Map of the south of “Spain” is really the north of Morocco, it shows where these are situated, and its not precisely downtown Madrid!

    Isla de las Nubes (Spain), Isla de Perejil (Spain) Ceuta (Spain) Penon de Velez de la Gomera, Penon de Alhucemas (Spain) Melilla (Spain) Islas Chafarinas (3 islands) All these Spanish possessions along the coast or directly on the coast of another continent.

    “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mapa_del_sur_de_Espa%C3%B1a_neutral.png”

    Then there is the Isla de Alboran also in “Spain”:

    “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isla_de_Albor%C3%A1n”

    The Canary Islands and the “Spanish” Sahara also in “Spain”:

    “http://www.balagan.org.uk/war/spanish-sahara/timeline.htm”

    Other “myopic” contributors might not like to be reminded of the People of the Sahara and their rights to self- determination as stated by the United Nations and the ICJ:

    “http://www.unostamps.nl/country_spanish_sahara.htm”

    The ICJ also delivered its verdict in 1975 in favour of the Saharaui People. This might explain why Spain, with the experience of the failure of Morocco to claim the land in the name of territorial integrity, and the sword of Damocles hanging over its own head if the Saharawi go down the road of independence, may not want to risk the same outcome of the ICJ in favour of the People of Gibraltar.
    Morocco should have consulted on the “famous” self serving law exposed here by others.

    As to the “crime” “theft” morality or “immorality” of UK’s treatment of the “indigenous” people (or not so indigenous) of a conquered land, a short history , attached below, exposing the “moral” treatment of the Guanches by the Spaniards in the Canary Islands, will put paid to so much nonsense spewed on these pages, and will, in comparison, beatify the actions of their UK counterparts. Makes interesting reading.

    “http://www.lonelyplanet.com/canary-islands/history”

    My thanks to OP and moderators for their patience. Cheers.

  31. @ Inthename

    I for one am grateful for this interesting literature. I cannot access all of the info from my present location, but will read it later on. I have always been vaguely aware of what you say…it is good for me to gain a deeper understanding of these issues.

    This clearly rubbishes many of the false allegations made by FurtherBeyond and others and gives insight into the hypocrisy of Spanish foreign policy.

  32. @InTheName: referencing some unknown bloke’s website, and at best wikipedia – which is the classic example of the one eyed man being king – is not supportive to your arguments. If anything it negates your opinions.

    To seriously dicuss Gib, you’ll have to first agree to surrender all non mainland spain territories.

    And secondly, if the brits left Gib, it wouldnt be worth having.
    If you got hold of Gib what exactly would you do? – make it like La Linea, or maybe Benedorm. There’s not much space left for more illegal housing. And apparently spains already taken all the fish…

  33. @ John

    Well glad my research is of use to somebody, and is not considered spam. You are very welcome. Goes to show that you can learn something new every day and with the fabulous resources of the internet, books and sometimes personal experience, if you have the time, there is still much to learn, if only to expose other’s misrepresentations and half truths, and so much more enriching than listening to “hearsay” without foundation others might want to spew to damage Gibraltar’s and its Peoples’ image of course.

  34. David M

    Like the saying goes “Read up or Shut up.” You obviously havent read any of the other posts. Posting wikilinks as opposed to other arguments, which there are, is for the ease of reference of people who obviously dont like to read more extensive stuff!

    I am a Gibraltarian!!

  35. Failte – Inthename,
    I looked with interest at all the Gib posts and nowhere does anyone start with the original inhabitants of the Iberian peninsular – why?

    The history of peoples in western Europe is very easy to access but no one including yourself starts at the beginning – now how could that be?

    I don’t think you are trying to create a false picture but I question what you were taught in school.

    The Aryans have always tried to airbrush the Celts from history – were you ever taught the historical facts at school?

    As late as 1800 years ago there were no Aryans anywhere in mainland Europe – they were still on the Steppes. The first Arayns entered the peninsular sometime after the battle of Tours which were won by the Frank/Charlemagne.This was only possible after the Franks slaughtered 3 Roman legions made possible because they chose the type of killing ground totally unsuited to precise formations – the secret of Roamn success in warfare, as individual soldiers they were rubbish.

    You have only quoted, like others the Romans/the Arabs and the ‘Spanish’ and you have started rather late in the day.

    DYK – that the Iberian Celts arrived in the peninsular about 4000 years ago. They crossed over to north Africa via what is now called Gibralter, where they encountered the only authentic indigenous people – the Berbers and this was long before the Arabs left their homelands in what is now Saudi Arabia and the Middle East.

    Ironically I saw last night on Sky there is a historical series starting called ‘The British’ and guess what it starts with the arrival in ‘Britain’ of the Romans LOL.

    Of course the History professor is ‘English’ LOL.

    This is the latest attempt to airbrush the Celts and the Euskadi out of the picture and to indoctrinate another generation in the lies.

    Hey professor – the history of ‘Britain’ begins with the Euskadi who built ‘Stonehenge’ – wait a minute prof. when the world heritage monument was constructed the Saxon savages were still on the Steppes – so how come it has a Saxon name which is an outrage to the original builders.

    So nowhere will the stone or Bronze age peoples be mentioned and whose blood runs through people living in the not united kingdom today – your Aryan brother Dr. Goebbels would be jealous of such a great lie.

    So, I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that your postings are out of ignorance of the historical facts and not from a malicious lying basis. Try reading some books (there are plenty) that you were’nt given to indoctrinate you at school.

    I believe you said that you were orignally of ‘English’ blood, then go and buy a copy of Dr. John Davies – the Welsh. first written in Britonnic and then in English.

    This a factual history not only of the Welsh but of ‘Britain’ in general – in no way will it be anything like the Aryan lies you were taught at school – all lowland Scots should read it as well, it will come as a great surprise to them as well and here is the real root of the Catholic/Protestant warfare.

    Proof – there have been 2 DNA studies that I know of that proove conclusively the points I have made about Iberian Celts and the genetic makeup of modern Spain today.

    Stop talking about illegal invaders such as the Romans/Visigoths et al. Any agreements that they or others made about Gibralter are irrelevant.

    Since apart from the Celts of Galicia/Cantabria/Asturias, all others having been subsumed into the ‘Spanish’ only these ‘Spanish’ have any right to comment on the Gibralter issue.

    Indeed all ‘English’ should buy John Davies book – it will make uncomfortable reading as it will for many Celts as a lot of Celtic myths are blown away as well. Of course only those who want to know the truth about their origins will buy, others are too frightened to deprogramme themselves.

    BTW – there are over 170 million Celts across the world – supposing we all decided to take back what is ours – an interesting idea!

    Good luck to all the Gibraltarians – you are going to need it – remember – never trust a whoring politician, they will always sell you down the river if it’s worth their while.

  36. Stuart, your comments will fall on deaf ears.

    I once pointed out the stark and obvious similarities between northern spain, and irish, traditions/cultures, to a Spanish Teacher. I thought a conversation about the Gaels, and other West Coast civilizations would be of interest.
    Boy was i wrong, the teacher was as offended as a joke about mothers is to an Italian. She made it very clear for days that any idea that northern spain was not totally unique in culture was not acceptable.
    At the time i assumed it was just her…

  37. @Stuart
    Sorry,I dont have a drop of English blood in me..so your beliefs are erroneous, and you also seem to forget I am bi lingual so I have had the opportunity to read both English and Spanish history books, from a very early age, as well as English and Spanish literature. My history teacher, a Gibraltarian, started with the Iceage…no inculcation of the “English” historical point of view as to Gibraltar, ever, as there you can find in the Spanish version of it in Spanish schools, so there goes your theory down the drain.

    I am well acquainted with the Celts,(never heard them called Euskadis anywhere but here by you – that the Euskadis have Celtic origin yes) as I am with the fact that the “savage hordes” that came across the Pyrenees were germanic in origin The fact that I called them Goths and Visigoths is because that is what they called them in the history books I have read both in English and in Spanish. Now with the advent of the Internet there is so much more you can find out that your local school and City library could not offer in my days.

    @David M you seem to jump on the nearest bandwagon to you. If your teacher was deaf and dumb as well as ignorant, dont try to blanket your opinion about her onto everyone else.

    How stark and obvious is it that the root of flamenco is muslim in nature? Yet they have been denying the fact for years up until some twenty years ago someone from Dos Hermanas near Seville made it obvious to everybody?

    How true is it that the root of Spanish cooking can be found everywhere on the Mediterranean coast? Being insular is typical of a people who have never left their shores and think they are the centre of the universe, and that everything is unique to them.

    How many times in Callejeros Viajeros the Spanish programme which speaks to Spaniards living abroad have you heard the journalist ask the person concerned … “what do you miss most of Spain? That question to somebody in the Amalfi Coast for example. Or… When are you coming back to Spain…? Only to be left with egg on their face when those questioned say “Well, we might visit some day..but we are very happy here” or “the French food is wonderful!” and the journalist then asks “But surely, nothing like Jamon Serrano!!!!! Its just the same as an Englishman demanding fish and chips in Paris.

    In Gibraltar we pride ourselves on the diversity of our cuisine. You might like to come along to Gib one day to our “Calentita Night” where you can sample the varied dishes that makes up our Gibraltarian cuisine Moroccan, Indian, French, Maltese, Genoese, British, Jewish,Spanish…The difference is we dont hide the fact that we are a mixed cocktail of ethnicity! And proud of it and proclaim it to the world.

  38. @ Stuart Crawford:

    You didnt look hard enough ….

    Inthename
    August 31st, 2012 8:59 am

    Right lets go back into recorded history for the sake of those that think of themselves as the indigenous people of Iberia. No disrespect intended, just facts.

    Who were the first Iberians?

    “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberians”

  39. Angling For Change!

    The Gibraltar Government has announced that work on regulations to control fishing and other marine leisure activities is at an advanced stage. The Gibraltar Federation of Sea Anglers are said to be very pleased that these regulations are nearly ready to be put in place. After two years of working on their campaign “Angling For Change” the GFSA say that the government are very close to meeting their aims. An interim report shows that Gibraltar’s marine environment is under threat by over fishing and that Gibraltar must stand firm to protect it. The GFSA also state that the government should stand firm against threats made and aggression shown by the Spanish government. They have recommended that a legislative framework be put in place to dispel and disprove all the accusations made by Spain that Gibraltar was using environmental excuses to prevent Spanish fishing in Gibraltar territorial waters. They also urge the British government to take decisive action and to openly show support for Gibraltar in this latest conflict.
    Source: “http://www.gibbook.com/magazine/read/gibraltar-news-14th-september-2012_258.html”

  40. The Spanish race amuses me.

    They have so many resources but their stone age mentality impedes them from growing both financially and socially. Let us remember that Spain has the highest domestic violence ratio in the whole of Europe.

    Furthermore there is so much CORRUPTION taking place in the higher echelons of their society that they tend to use smokescreens on a weekly basis to divert attention from such stated corruption and misuse of Government funds. In essence attempting to make the masses less aware. That’s were Gibraltar comes in handy every single time (lucky them).

    We must remember that Spain is only a young democracy and it shows.

    Gibraltar employs over 10 000 Spaniards (officially) who come to Gibraltar to be able to feed their families beause there is little employment opportunities in Spain. Yet their Government submits these same people, their OWN people, to tedious border queues. Sometimes up to 6 hours in length just to irritate the Government of Gibraltar. This should have no place in a modern democratic Europe.

    The Spanish Government has shown time after time in recent weeks it doesn’t really care about its people. It just wants to divert attention from the REAL problems. Though the Spanish people are starting to catch on now….finally.

    The Nazi sympathizer, fascist that was Franco is dead but his proteges who litter the Partido Popular Government are still very much alive and kicking.

    On a final note, to all those “Gibraltar is Spanish” preachers. Please explain to me how Spain could ever take care of Gib, when it cannot even TAKE CARE OF ITSELF AND ITS OWN PEOPLE?

    And to all those FRANCO wannabes I say………YOU CANNOT IMPOSE YOUR WILL UPON 30 000 PEOPLE, THE PEOPLE OF GIBRALTAR DO NOT WANT TO BE SPANISH. THEY VOTED THEY SAID NO. THAT IS DEMOCRACY!!! NO TO FASCISM!! DEAL WITH IT!!!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.