THE EU has voted to exclude Gibraltar from draft EU aviation legislation.
MEPs have voted to exclude the Rock from the Single European Sky legislation, which is designed to harmonise air traffic control around Europe.
As a result, Gibraltar will have no say in safety and regulation measures designed to make Europe’s airlines more competitive, share airspace and reduce pollution.
It might also mean that there could be complications for flights coming in to Gibraltar if they need to liaise with Sevilla’s air traffic control.
The vote is the latest in a series of moves by Spanish Prime Minister Rajoy’s Partido Popular government to annul the Trilateral Forum.
The Cordoba agreement of 2006 included Gibraltar in the EU’s ‘Single Sky’ programme.
The first draught will now be debated by the new European Parliament which is due to be elected in May.
A spokesperson for the British Government said that it was disappointed by the vote and described the position as ‘inconsistent’ with EU treaties that state that Gibraltar is part of the EU.
It is also contradictory of recent legislation on Air Passenger Rights, where the European Parliament amended the legislation so it applied to Gibraltar.
“The UK cannot accept a return to the pre-2006 practice of suspending Gibraltar Airport from EU aviation measures,” the UK spokesperson said.
The Gibraltar Government underlined the inconsistencies. “Gibraltar will be excluded from the Air Passenger Rights legislation by the Commission, but then included by the Parliament,” said a spokesman.
“The whole situation that Spain has created for the EU makes no sense whatsoever.”
Spain gets money for providing the enroute ATC service to flights inbound to Gib. If this decision results in a cutback to the number of flights into Gib then Spain lose out as well. Sounds like cutting off their nose to spite their face. That aside, the Single European Skies applies to the enroute phase of flight, not the airport, and Gib doesn’t do much of that so what is the point of excluding or including them?
If spain goes back to pre- cordoba then surely gib can cancel pensions paid to spanish workers agreed upon in said agreement spain can’t have its cake and eat it and this needs to be made clear to Rajoy
Spain is always chipping away at Gib
but i still do not understand why more is not made of the Spanish enclaves in N Africa
ALL THE SAME ARGUEMENTS CAN BE MADE AGAINST Mellila and Ceuta as against Gib
If planes bound for Gibraltar crash into Spanish territory then we’ll know who to blame. Spain is one spiteful country.
Fred if You don´t like Spain I imagine that You´ll never go there.
rob and Fred are right and I would add that Spain are being very shortsighted. They need all the help they can get right now and Gibraltar attracts tourists to La Linea and the surrounding area. The border queues are already alienating people and affecting the local Spanish economy so why make life even more difficult? Spain’s attitude to Gibraltar is not going to help them win friends and influence people, it will simply make matters worse.
The Spanish are just a very shortsighted people, and not much of a democracy – more a police state.
Who needs friends like Britain when they don’t honour treaties like brusells 1994 even Cordoba this airport is built on Spanish land which was not ceded so there less of the bullying towards Spain .Spain is a great nation.ps i would also like to point out that crimeas referedum was not recognised by britain but gibraltars was.doubl.e standards in british politics
bobby – Under International law, Crimea can only legally hold a referendum and break away from the Ukraine with Ukraine’s permission or if Ukraine is failing in its responsibility to protect its citizens in the Crimea from mass murder, genocide, de-housing as per Kosovo.
Whereas Gibraltar has the right to freely associated itself with the UK and occasionally its necessary to that this free association is demonstrated by going to the polls.
Spain recognises Gibraltar’s right to self-determination because it has signed the UN Charter, a constitutional treaty. Article 73 on non-self-governing territories states, ‘that interests of the inhabitants are paramount’ – come before all else. In cases of treaty conflict, the UN Charter prevails.
The PP government insists that the present stringent border controls are not political, they are merely to control smuggling.
I presume they will now state that Gibraltar’s exclusion from the EU aviation legislation is to prevent air piracy!
It is obvious that the PP wants Europe to exclude Gibraltar from the rest of the continent in every possible way in order to bring it to its knees. It is a modern type of siege but, just as every other type of siege directed against Gibraltar, it is doomed to fail.
Unfortunately, the European PP has currently a majority in the council and Gibraltar will just have to weather the storm just as it has done on countless previous occasions.
Just think, wouldn’t having an easily accessible airport be an advantage to the many travellers of the area?
Lack of vision seems to be endemic amongst present Spanish politicians. Perhaps they should all go to Specsavers.
I sincerely hope that all sensible Spaniards remove Rajoy and his gang of thugs at the first opportunity, he seems to think he is some sort of Putin.
@BritBob
Spain does not accept that the current occupants living in the British colony of Gibraltar have the right to self-determination. Neither does the UN whose position on Gibraltar can be summarised in the following points:
•Gibraltar is a colony.
•The colony of Gibraltar destroys national unity and territorial integrity of Spain and is in contradiction with Resolution 1514 (XV), paragraph 6, 1960, on decolonization in general. Gibraltar and the Falklands are the only cases in which the UN has not recognized the right to self determination.
•The Gibraltar issue must be resolved through bilateral negotiations between Spain and the UK, recommended by the UN continuously since 1964.
•The interests and aspirations of the people of the colony must be taken into account in the negotiations.
•The decolonization process is different in those cases where, as in Gibraltar, there is a sovereignty dispute. In the case of Gibraltar, the existence of a sovereignty dispute is an exception to the principle that, in the process of decolonization of dependent territories, there is no alternative to self-determination.
•Only the UN can decide when it has completed the process of decolonization of Gibraltar and until that time, Gibraltar is included in the United Nations list of dependent territories.
Even the British have formally recognised limits to the principle of self-determination for their colonists. According to the latest UK white paper on Gibraltar ‘…The British Government…supports the principle of right of self-determination, but this must be exercised in accordance with the other principles or rights in the UN Charter as well as other treaty obligations. In Gibraltar’s case, because of the Treaty of Utrecht, this means that Gibraltar could become independent only with Spanish consent’.
The conundrum for the UK is that to grant real self-government to its colonists in Gibraltar would be a clear breach of Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht which is the only basis on which the UK has any claim to the Spanish territory of Gibraltar.
@BritBob
The use of referenda to survey British or Russian colonists illegally occupying other nations’territories is simply a clumsy attempt to offer some veneer of legality to an otherwise illegal act.
For the UK to ask the descendants of people they imported to garrison a colony generations before whether they want to maintain their links with the mother country is a no-brainer.
The answer is bloody obvious. It’s a self-fulfilling prophesy designed to obfuscate the underlying territorial sovereignty dispute.
The UN has declared such ‘referenda’ invalid. If you’re confused about this you should refer to UN General Assembly Resolution 2353, which observed that the referendum conducted in the colony of Gibraltar in the 1960s was contrary to the various resolutions which had been adopted previously by the UN General Assembly requiring the UK to decolonise Gibraltar.
I’m not suggesting that the present inhabitants of Gibraltar should relinquish their culture or be deported. However, under international law the right to determine the nationality of a territory does not apply to colonists illegally occupying another nation’s territory. A coloniser cannot legally disrupt the territorial integrity of another State by implanting its own population unto the territory it is colonising. According to the UN this is the case with the British colony of Gibraltar.
In fact, British governments only developed a taste for self-determination after they had been forced to abandon the bulk of their empire and saw a way to hold on to colonised enclaves of dependent populations in places like Gibraltar and Northern Ireland.
But it’s always been a pick and mix affair for the British: for example, there were no self-determination ballots for the people of Hong Kong or the Chagos Islands, expelled by Britain four decades ago to make way for an American air base in Diego Garcia.
About the topic of this article:
I wonder if Gibraltar airport is sure for commercial flights.
The comments of Further Beyond proves my point. Instead of moving forward they harp back to the past where territory was far more important than people. And this justifies any strategy even if it is at the expense of an area’s development and the suffering of all those living within it.
FurtherBeyond. You are still stuck in the 1960s. You comments are irrelevant and have already forgotten the 5 UN ICJ Advisory Opinions (international law) that state that the right to self-determination is applicable to ALL non-self-governing territories. On 17th October 2008, the UN Fourth Committee rejected a proposal from S pain and Argentina to impose conditions on the right, confirming it to be a fundamental human right. It’s as Ban Ki-Moon said in 2010, ‘the 16 remaining territories that still do not govern themselves must have complete freedom to determine their own future status.’ On 12th November 12, the Secretary General also confirmed that the UK was not in breach of any ‘relevant’ UN resolutions. Lol
Hey Spain, Gibraltar doesn’t want to be part of your ineptly run, corrupt, fascist, third world excuse for a country, ok?
Then you better inform the British Foreign Office who according to their latest UK white paper on Gibraltar do not accept that their colonists in Gibraltar have the right to independence with Spanish consent.
None of the ICJ ‘rulings’ you have referred to negate in any way the fact that there are exceptions to the right to self-determination under international law.
The UN certainly believes that this is the case because to this day it steadfastly refuses to recognise any such right for the British colonists living in Gibraltar and the Falklands.
Further Beyond
For the thousands of Spaniards from the surrounding area who rely on Gibraltar for a living , providing for your family takes precedence over “territorial integrity”. And there would be many more taking advantage of the Rock’s economic success if it wasn’t for the PP’s archaic political strategy.
Obviously you argue from a position of comfort.
Forget the past, forget treaties etc. and just move on. It is in the interests of all parties to make it work and there is no mileage in causing a Ukraine type situation.
Spain should try and capitalise on the benefits of Gibraltar in terms of trade and jobs – it is not worth causing a war over it. Please, stop meddling and leave things alone.
In 2006, in their East Timor Judgment, the ICJ made it clear that ‘the right of peoples to self-determination is today a right of erga omnes – applicable to all. In their Kosovo judgment of 2010 the ICJ stated on page 38, para 80, ‘the scope of the principle of territorial integrity is confined to the sphere of relations between states.’
Seriously, a treaty written in 1713 that excludes Jews and Moors cannot seriously be used in the modern age to prevent people from exercising their rights. Any ‘white’ or other papers can quickly change and the Gibraltarians can quickly change their constitution by voting. A suggested amendment ‘if applicable under international law’ can quickly be added to negate any Utrecht clause.
I assume all the rhetoric of Further Beyond also applies to the two Spanish Colonies in Morocco . Cueta and Melilla.
Further Beyond
1. As a descendant of a Genoese trader who freely arrived on The Rock in 1750,the idea of an “imported population” does not apply. Civilians from around the world settled in Gibraltar because they saw an opportunity since Britannia did rule the world at the time and it was at the crossroads of the main trading routes.
Imported populations could apply to, for example, Australia, New Zealand or even the USA. Now, tell an Australian that they should be resettled and the country returned to the Aborigines.
2. Just speculation but please answer if I err.
A. You are not unemployed.
B. You are a supporter of the PP party.
C. You do not live in the surrounding area.
Perhaps you are even employed to write the current Spanish government point of view in English speaking web sites.
The lack of response to my question leads me to the conclusion That Gibraltar airport is not very sure for commercial flights.
My dear Anselmo
Nobody has bothered to answer your question simply because it’s rather silly.
Commercial flights are the mainstay of Gibraltar’s airport and have been for many years. Currently there are at least four incoming/departing flights a day increasing to five next month.
The length of the runway limits it to short/medium range aircraft. Current users include Monarch, Easyjet and British Airways and in the past Iberia had a flight to Madrid.
It is capable of serving a greater number of flights but unfortunately the terminal on the La Linea side has never been built.
The RAF also constantly uses it but the number of military flights depends on defence requirements.
Appropriate web-sites such as Gibraltar International Airport would have clarified the matter negating the need of your comment.
@BritBob
It’s true that the ICJ that‘the right of peoples to self-determination is today a right of erga omnes – applicable to all’. However, you seem to be overlooking the fact that the British colonists currently occupying Gibraltar 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).
Your also correct when you state that the ICJ has stated that the ‘the scope of the principle of territorial integrity is confined to the sphere of relations between states.’ That is precisely why Spain argues, with strong UN backing, that the UN mandated decolonisation of Gibraltar is a matter that needs to be negotiated between Spain and the UK.
In this regard you should note that UN Decision 42/418 of 1987 expressed the hope that the Brussels statement would provide the “definitive solution to the problem of Gibraltar in the light of relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and in the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations.”
This position is re-enforced by the United Nation’s consistent call upon Britain and Spain to settle the issue of Gibraltar’s sovereignty through bilateral negotiation that specifically excludes mention of the inhabitants of Gibraltar. Even after the establishment in 2004 of the tripartite Forum of Dialogue, UN decisions continue to refer to the Brussels agreement as the only forum for negotiation.
This agreement includes an explicit commitment requiring both Britain and Spain, and ONLY Britain and Spain, to discuss the sovereignty of Gibraltar.
The consistent reference to the Brussels agreement in all decisions and resolutions post 1984 means that the UN supports Spain’s argument that only Britain and Spain can discuss the question of Gibraltar’s sovereignty and that self-determination continues to have no bearing on the status of Gibraltar.
As recently as 2013 the UN Fourth Committee issued a resolution that yet again repeated its previous calls, urging both the UK and Spain to reach a definitive solution over Gibraltar, under the 1984 Brussels Declaration. This agreement expressly excludes any role for the occupants of Gibraltar in determining the sovereignty of Gibraltar.
Indeed, the latest resolution, yet again, completely ignored calls by the colony’s Chief Minister that the UN should ignore the Brussels agreement and instead recognise the colonists alleged right to self-determination.
@Ted
Unlike Gibraltar, Ceuta and Melilla are not considered to be colonial enclaves by the UN. They pre-exist the creation of the Moroccan State – they were Spanish hundreds of years before Morocco existed. In contrast Gibraltar was colonised by the UK while it was part of the Kingdom of Spain.
@ El Fifi
Your examples are spurious and intentionally deceptive.
The Australian aborigines are part of the independent nation of Australia. They are currently occupying their ancestral home. More to the point, they have not been displaced by colonists.
I’m not asserting, as you incorrectly surmise, that the current occupants of Gibraltar should be resettled (even though that’s exactly what the UK did to the Spanish population they forcibly displaced in 1704).
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.
Further Beyond
You are talking about 1704,mate. We currently live by 2014 norms.
By using capital letters suggests to me you are getting rather angry. Not the sort of mood to start a week.
The “Spanish” population of the Rock were not forcibly displaced in 1703. Most of them, but not all of them, chose not to remain there. The parish priest stayed on Gibraltar. This is all a matter of recorded fact. However, the Moors who founded the settlement were, in fact, forcibly removed from Gibraltar by those “Spanish”, so hardly their “ancestral” home. The current people of the Rock have been there longer than those “Spaniards”, so by FurtherBeyond’s own measure they have more right to the Rock. Something recognised by the UN. Like most españolitos FurtherBeyond cherry-picks the bits of history which suit his distorted ideas…
Further beyond,
as usual you spout pure poo – the People of the Two Brothers to give them their real name – calling them aboriginals is pure white racist contempt occupy very little of their homeland. All their resources have been stolen by the white invaders. Whole tribes were exterminated and as recently as 1937 in Queensland – not been displaced by the colonists – a complete lie.
No Aryan Spanish belong anywhere in North Africa – the Berber and later the Arabs were there long before any Spanish invaders – go away and study or stop telling stupid lies that are easily rebutted.
‘The point of law is quite simple, but ultimately basic to the international rule of law. It is this: historic title, no matter how persuasively claimed on the basis of old legal instruments and exercises of authority, cannot – except in the most extraordinary circumstances – prevail in law over the rights of non-self-governing people to claim independence and establish their sovereignty through the exercise of bona fide self-determination.’ (Franck, ICJ, Pulau Ligtan & Pulau Sipadan Case, Philippine permission to intervene, page 81, para 2).
Correct Gibraltar was ceded to the UK in perpetuity which I do believe means forever , however the two Spanish colonies were taken originally from the Berbers and being finally handed over to Spain from Portugal , the flag that Cueta flys is a Portuguese flag I believe.
FurtherBeyond
You still have not managed to contradict the 5 UN ICJ Advisory Opinions that state, ‘the right to self-determination is applicable to ALL non-self-governing territories.
You are again clutching at straw by saying that the Gibraltarians are not people. Laughable. The UNESCO have referred to the ‘Kirby definition’ and the ordinary meaning that is adopted by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties which states that ‘the ordinary plain meaning is to be used.
Its very funmy for me to read the comments here…. as a person forced to carry a foreign passport by our current occupiers (spain) I feel the fight of the british amd gibraltarian people. We have been illegally occupied by spain for less time than gibraltar have been british, but of course its gibraltar that needs to be returned? I cannot wait until our time in november… we will leave the fascists and fake democracy for good….. we will enjoy and grow as our own people again. We will see the illegal occupiers return to their own lands for good. I dont think thr people of gibraltar will have to ever worry about being spanish, we together will see the downfall of this masked fascist state…. you will have a strong lasting allie in an Independent Catalunya!!!! Spain will be exposed as the great pretnder as their “democratic”mask slips off…. Catalunya 2014 & Gibraltar are NOT Spain…… the party has just started for us. Spain the party ended years ago.
Further Beyond has gone rather quiet. Not surprising as he has received a good number of broadsides just as his antecedents.
As a Gibraltarian, I am honoured and grateful for the support. Spain is a beautiful and hospitable country currently spoiled by the remnants of a dictatorship disguising themselves as democrats.
@Iestyn ap Robert
Your assertion that: ‘… the “Spanish” population of the Rock were not forcibly displaced in 1703. Most of them, but not all of them, chose not to remain there’. Is wrong.
Do yourself a favour, stop reading sanitized colonist propaganda and have a look at the following excerpts from real historical sources for a balanced history of the sacking of Gibraltar by the British and Dutch in 1704:
George Hills (1974). Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. London: Robert Hale. pp. 173-174. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4
‘Such was the behaviour not only of the men but their officers that the worst fears of the population were confirmed. There were ‘disorders involving persons of the weaker sex with gave rise to secret bloody acts of vengeance’. In consequence, ‘the vanquished deprived many of life and threw the corpses in wells and cesspools. (…) Accordingly, when the garrison and City Council marched out on 7 August under the terms of surrender, all but 70 of the inhabitants of the 1,200 houses in the city took what they could carry of what had not yet been plundered, and then filed through the gate towards the ruins of ancient Carteia’.
Allen Andrews (1958). Proud fortress; the fighting story of Gibraltar. p. 32-33.
‘The conquerors were out of control. (…)Into the raw hands of fighting seamen (…) alcohol and plunder and women passed wildly and indiscriminately. (…)The sack of Gibraltar was memorable through Andalusia for the peculiar fury of the invaders against the servants, houses and ornaments of the Catholic religion. (…) Every church in the city was desecrated save one’.
William Jackson (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (Second ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, United Kingdom: Gibraltar Books. pp. 100–101. ISBN 0-948466-14-6.
‘(…) women were insulted and outraged; Roman Catholic churches and institutions were taken over as stores and for other military purposes (except for the Cathedral of Saint Mary the Crowned that was protected successfully by its staunch vicar, Juan Romero, his curate, and his bell-ringer); and the whole town suffered at the hands of the ship’s crew and marines who came ashore. Many bloody reprisals were taken by inhabitants before they left, bodies of murdered Englishmen and Dutchmen being thrown down wells and cesspits. By the time discipline was fully restored, few of the inhabitants wished or dared to remain’.
(Notes: “outraged” is an euphemism for “raped”[1][2][3]; “bloody reprisals” is also an euphemism for “murders in retaliation”)
Melissa R. Jordine (2006). The Dispute Over Gibraltar. p. 9. ISBN 1-86227-103-8.
‘In addition to destroying, pillaging, and raping, the soldiers and sailors that took Gibraltar in 1704 displayed an unusually strong anti-Catholic attitude and defiled all of the churches on Gibraltar, except the Church of St. Mary, which was defended to the last by its priest. The defilement attracted comments and attention in an age when widespread raping and looting was taken for granted as part of the spoils of war’.
G. T. Garratt (1939). Gibraltar And The Mediterranean. Coward-Mccann, Inc. p. 40. (reedited in 2007 by Lightning Source Inc)
‘English authorities note with surprise, but without any explanation, that almost the entire population of Gibraltar fled from the town, though one of the articles of war specifically promised that ‘the inhabitants, soldiers and officers who may choose to remain in Gibraltar shall be conceded the same privileges they had in the time of Carlos II, their religion and all the tribunals shall remain intact . . .’ The truth would seem to be most discreditable to the English, and has therefore been suppressed in English books’.
G. T. Garratt (1939). Gibraltar And The Mediterranean. Coward-Mccann, Inc. p. 41. (reedited in 2007 by Lightning Source Inc)
‘The Rev. Thomas Pocock was presumably well inured to the habits of his flock, but he was shocked by the wanton destruction of all Catholic churches. ‘Every church in Gibraltar was sacked save one, a good priest staying behind to save the Church of St. Mary,’ Some attempt was made to stop the looting, but not many were punished. A few men were sentenced to death to discourage the others, the choice being made by throwing dice. One British marine ‘was hanged after he had thrown dice with a Dutchman, who had 10 and the Englishman 9.
Anyone who has read contemporary accounts of British soldiers and sailors in the early eighteenth century can imagine what was bound to happen when these alcoholic and sex-starved men were let loose in a southern port. Ayala’s description of the sacking of Gibraltar is borne out by the chaplain’s diary: the destruction of churches and ill-treatment of the civil population closely resembling the orgy which followed the capture of Puerto de Santa Maria. There is no reason to doubt its substantial accuracy’.
@El Fifi
You were the one that referenced the 1700s first mate.
The current position of the UN on Gibraltar can be summarised in the following points:
• Gibraltar is a colony.
• The colony of Gibraltar destroys national unity and territorial integrity of Spain and is in contradiction with Resolution 1514 (XV), paragraph 6, 1960, on decolonization in general. Gibraltar and the Falklands are the only cases in which the UN has not recognized the right to self determination.
• The Gibraltar issue must be resolved through bilateral negotiations between Spain and the UK, recommended by the UN continuously since 1964.
• The interests and aspirations of the people of the colony must be taken into account in the negotiations.
• The decolonization process is different in those cases where, as in Gibraltar, there is a sovereignty dispute. In the case of Gibraltar, the existence of a sovereignty dispute is an exception to the principle that, in the process of decolonization of dependent territories, there is no alternative to self-determination.
• Only the UN can decide when it has completed the process of decolonization of Gibraltar and until that time, Gibraltar is included in the United Nations list of dependent territories.
Even the British have formally recognised limits to the principle of self-determination for their colonists.
According to the latest UK white paper on Gibraltar ‘…The British Government…supports the principle of right of self-determination, but this must be exercised in accordance with the other principles or rights in the UN Charter as well as other treaty obligations. In Gibraltar’s case, because of the Treaty of Utrecht, this means that Gibraltar could become independent only with Spanish consent’.
The conundrum for the UK is that to grant real self-government to its colonists in Gibraltar would be a clear breach of Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht which is the only basis on which the UK has any claim to the Spanish territory of Gibraltar.
@Stuart Crawford
As usual your puerile insults demonstrate that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Your assertion that ‘calling them aboriginals is pure white racist contempt’ is wrong.
Have a look at any reputable reference and get the facts. It’s not that difficult. For example, from Wikipedia: ‘Aboriginal Australians, also referred to as Aborigines, are people whose ancestors were indigenous to the Australian continent—that is, to mainland Australia or to the island of Tasmania’.
While you are correct in observing that ‘[the British] exterminated whole tribes of [Australian Aboriginals]’, the fact remains that once Australia gained its independence from Britain and became an independent nation state, the descendents of those Australian Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders that survived the British genocide are now full citizens of an independent nation state comprising their ancestral home.
In your own words: ‘go away and study or stop telling stupid lies that are easily rebutted’.
@BritBob
None of the ICJ ‘rulings’ you have referred to negate the fact that there are exceptions to the right to self-determination under international law.
Professor Crawford from Cambridge University carefully explains how these exceptions apply in the case of Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands in his monograph -James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979) at 377-85.
Do yourself a favour a read the reference you might learn something about real legal reasoning if you do.
@Ted
The fact remains that, unlike Gibraltar, Ceuta and Melilla are not considered to be colonial enclaves by the UN.
They pre-exist the creation of the Moroccan State – they were Spanish hundreds of years before Morocco existed.
In contrast Gibraltar was colonised by the UK while it was part of the Kingdom of Spain.
The current position of the UN on Gibraltar can be summarised in the following points:
• Gibraltar is a colony (unlike Ceuta and Melilla).
• The colony of Gibraltar destroys national unity and territorial integrity of Spain and is in contradiction with Resolution 1514 (XV), paragraph 6, 1960, on decolonization in general. Gibraltar and the Falklands are the only cases in which the UN has not recognized the right to self determination.
• The Gibraltar issue must be resolved through bilateral negotiations between Spain and the UK, recommended by the UN continuously since 1964.
• The interests and aspirations of the population of the colony of Gibraltar must be taken into account in the negotiations.
• The decolonization process is different in those cases where, as in Gibraltar, there is a sovereignty dispute. In the case of Gibraltar, the existence of a sovereignty dispute is an exception to the principle that, in the process of decolonization of dependent territories, there is no alternative to self-determination.
• Only the UN can decide when it has completed the process of decolonization of Gibraltar and until that time, Gibraltar is included in the United Nations list of dependent territories.
Even the British have formally recognised limits to the principle of self-determination for their colonists. According to the latest UK white paper on Gibraltar ‘…The British Government…supports the principle of right of self-determination, but this must be exercised in accordance with the other principles or rights in the UN Charter as well as other treaty obligations. In Gibraltar’s case, because of the Treaty of Utrecht, this means that Gibraltar could become independent only with Spanish consent’.
The conundrum for the UK is that to grant real self-government to its colonists in Gibraltar would be a clear breach of Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht which is the only basis on which the UK has any claim to the Spanish territory of Gibraltar.
@fabregas
Around the world, there are many places where majority sentiment may favour secession. But most do not meet international legal standards for doing so.
While international law in general speaks about rights of self-determination, in general international law prefers the principle of territorial integrity of states, and only recognizes the right of a people or a group to secede from a larger state in very limited circumstances. Namely, if the government of the larger state has absolutely denied that group or people their rights inside the country or has committed gross rights violations against them.
Plainly this has not happened in Catalonia since the adoption of the present Spanish constitution which was freely adopted by a majority of the people of Spain including a majority of those living in Catalonia.
In this regard Catalonia can be easily be contrasted with Kosovo.
Kosovo was a unique situation, part of the overall break-up of the former Yugoslavia. Kosovo was subject to U.N. supervision under a U.N. Security Council resolution for over a decade.
The Kosovar people had been subjected to gross human rights violations by the Serbians. And after a long period of time to remedy the situation, a specially-appointed U.N. envoy had actually recommended independence for Kosovo. None of those circumstances are present in Catalonia.
Further Beyond,
it’s your stupid and inaccurate comments that are puerile.
To say that the indigenous people enjoy full rights and are treated as equals by the whites is a total lie.
I think you should take your theoretical b/s and downright lies and shove them somewhere the sun does’nt shine.
You must spend all day typing your pathetic quazi intellectual responses – sad you have nothing better to do – just another troll – anyone got the pesticide.
FurtherBeyond. You have failed to produce ANY relevant evidence that contradicts the 5 UN ICJ Advisory Opinions that ALL state that the right to self-determination is applicable to ALL non-self-governing territories. The UN Fourth Committee also confirmed on 17 October 2008 that no conditions were placed on the right, even where there was a so-called sovereignty dispute. It is as Ban-Ki-Moon said in 2010, ‘the 16 remaining territories that still do not govern themselves must have complete freedom to determine their own future status.’ The fact is, all you have in rebuttal is rhetoric and wishful thinking. Lol.
This thread has become ridiculous with the name calling and accusations. It has become that I can no longer read it so deregistering. I would suggest the moderators put an end to this.
@FurtherBeyond
Not one of your references contradicts what I have written, the opposite is true. I am not wrong.
Nobody was forced to leave. Those that chose to go did so of their own free will. They all had the option to remain and that some did in fact remain just proves this.
I think there’s some excellent and very well-informed debate going on here. Pity I haven’t got time to read it all. Tim makes the most pithy and meaningful points.
I was in Gibraltar about five years ago. Everyone was excited about the new airport, which would have exits not only for Gibraltarians on their side, but also a special exit for Spanish citizens directly into Spain, meaning they could make full use of the airport and not have to exit into Gibraltar, and then have to go through the (now horrific) border crossing back into Spain. When I say everyone was excited, I mean people living on both sides of the border. Spanish people could now make use of the airport on their doorstep rather than have to travel up to Malaga or wherever. It was a shining example of how cooperation is a million times more beneficial than confrontation.
Of course, double election loser Rajoy and his Francoist colleagues have stopped all that. Back to the old 1960s siege mentality, harping back to a pre-historic notion of El Cid, Don Quijote and an all-conquering powerful country, citing laws from the 18th century. The only losers being Gibraltarians (of course) but also thousands of Spaniards living close to the Rock.
That this siege tactic doesn’t work and only draws Spain away from her objective of recovering more and eventually full control of Gibraltar has been demonstrated time and time again. Short-sighted is a word never better used than to describe Spanish politicians.
2014: Españoles – Franco no ha muerto.
@BritBob
You’re not listening are you? I have quoted at length from ICJ dicta (see previous posts above) but obviously to no avail.
I’m not just relying on UN C24 reports. I’m relying on ICJ decisions, decisions of the Fourth Committee, and on numerous UN GA Resolutions. I also have the backing of respected International Law Professor James Crawford of the University of Cambridge (James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979) at 377-85).
If colonists living in colonies that are subject to pre-existing sovereignty disputes have a right to self-determination as you assert, why doesn’t the UN recognise that right for the Falklanders or the occupants of Gibraltar?
Why doesn’t the UN simply remove the Falklands and Gibraltar from the list of territories that the UK must decolonise?
@Iestyn ap Robert
You’re delusional if you genuinely believe that the Spanish inhabitants of Gibraltar were not forced to leave by the actions of the British and Dutch during the sacking of Gibraltar in 1704.
Any reasonable, fair minded person reading just some of the following excerpts I’ve copied form the original post would come to a very different conclusion:
George Hills (1974). Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. London: Robert Hale. pp. 173-174. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4
‘Such was the behaviour not only of the men but their officers that the worst fears of the population were confirmed. There were ‘disorders involving persons of the weaker sex with gave rise to secret bloody acts of vengeance’. In consequence, ‘the vanquished deprived many of life and threw the corpses in wells and cesspools. (…) Accordingly, when the garrison and City Council marched out on 7 August under the terms of surrender, all but 70 of the inhabitants of the 1,200 houses in the city took what they could carry of what had not yet been plundered, and then filed through the gate towards the ruins of ancient Carteia’.
Allen Andrews (1958). Proud fortress; the fighting story of Gibraltar. p. 32-33.
‘The conquerors were out of control. (…)Into the raw hands of fighting seamen (…) alcohol and plunder and women passed wildly and indiscriminately. (…)The sack of Gibraltar was memorable through Andalusia for the peculiar fury of the invaders against the servants, houses and ornaments of the Catholic religion. (…) Every church in the city was desecrated save one’.
William Jackson (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (Second ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, United Kingdom: Gibraltar Books. pp. 100–101. ISBN 0-948466-14-6.
‘(…) women were insulted and outraged; Roman Catholic churches and institutions were taken over as stores and for other military purposes (except for the Cathedral of Saint Mary the Crowned that was protected successfully by its staunch vicar, Juan Romero, his curate, and his bell-ringer); and the whole town suffered at the hands of the ship’s crew and marines who came ashore. Many bloody reprisals were taken by inhabitants before they left, bodies of murdered Englishmen and Dutchmen being thrown down wells and cesspits. By the time discipline was fully restored, few of the inhabitants wished or dared to remain’.
(Notes: “outraged” is an euphemism for “raped”[1][2][3]; “bloody reprisals” is also an euphemism for “murders in retaliation”)
Melissa R. Jordine (2006). The Dispute Over Gibraltar. p. 9. ISBN 1-86227-103-8.
‘In addition to destroying, pillaging, and raping, the soldiers and sailors that took Gibraltar in 1704 displayed an unusually strong anti-Catholic attitude and defiled all of the churches on Gibraltar, except the Church of St. Mary, which was defended to the last by its priest. The defilement attracted comments and attention in an age when widespread raping and looting was taken for granted as part of the spoils of war’.
G. T. Garratt (1939). Gibraltar And The Mediterranean. Coward-Mccann, Inc. p. 40. (re-edited in 2007 by Lightning Source Inc)
‘English authorities note with surprise, but without any explanation, that almost the entire population of Gibraltar fled from the town, though one of the articles of war specifically promised that ‘the inhabitants, soldiers and officers who may choose to remain in Gibraltar shall be conceded the same privileges they had in the time of Carlos II, their religion and all the tribunals shall remain intact . . .’ The truth would seem to be most discreditable to the English, and has therefore been suppressed in English books’.
G. T. Garratt (1939). Gibraltar And The Mediterranean. Coward-Mccann, Inc. p. 41. (reedited in 2007 by Lightning Source Inc)
‘The Rev. Thomas Pocock was presumably well inured to the habits of his flock, but he was shocked by the wanton destruction of all Catholic churches. ‘Every church in Gibraltar was sacked save one, a good priest staying behind to save the Church of St. Mary,’ Some attempt was made to stop the looting, but not many were punished. A few men were sentenced to death to discourage the others, the choice being made by throwing dice. One British marine ‘was hanged after he had thrown dice with a Dutchman, who had 10 and the Englishman 9. Anyone who has read contemporary accounts of British soldiers and sailors in the early eighteenth century can imagine what was bound to happen when these alcoholic and sex-starved men were let loose in a southern port. Ayala’s description of the sacking of Gibraltar is borne out by the chaplain’s diary: the destruction of churches and ill-treatment of the civil population closely resembling the orgy which followed the capture of Puerto de Santa Maria. There is no reason to doubt its substantial accuracy’.
My theory is Further Beyond is incapacitated and retired so has nothing better to do or he is actually paid to write his continuous diatribe. Somehow I think it’s the latter
@FurtherBeyond, any reasonable, fair-minded person, reading your references would soon draw the conclusion that there was no official attempt to force out the “Spanish” population of the Rock. The very opposite is true, as your reference, G. T. Garratt (1939), Gibraltar And The Mediterranean, indicates as does the fact that a number of those inhabitants remained on the Rock after the Rock had been taken by the Anglo-Dutch force.
Try to not make the classic mistake of judging past events by current morals and standards.
You took the words right out of my keyboard El Fifi. It’s actually a little bit scary, as well as irrelevant in terms of his/her last post. Citing events over 300 years ago to justify current actions – instead of accepting that such actions have had the opposite to their desired effect when used during the past 50 years. If Spain stopped looking back and tried to look at the present and to the future, only then could its role in Gib change – via dialogue, cooperation and openness.
However, as we all know, these are not three words that the current Francoist rulers of this country desire to understand, preferring to oversee a series of draconian policies placing Spain firmly back in the 20th century or further (if it ever left). Safe in the hands of their often vicious, over-privileged civil servants and out-of-control military police forces.
FurtherBeyond. You have still not, nor cannot produce anything that contradicts the fact that the UN ICJ has produced 5 Advisory Opinions that state that ‘the tight to self-determination is applicable to ALL non-self-govering territories.’ They just didn’t pull this out of the clear blue sky and gave the matter some thought before making their opinions. There are no exceptions. This is international law. Lol.
El Fifi,
If it’s any consolation, Further Beyond writes exactly the same stuff about the Falklands, as BritBob will attest. I don’t think he writes things out any more, he just copies and pastes. Google ‘FurtherBeyond’ and ‘Disqus’, and see for yourself – “http://disqus.com/FurtherBeyond/”
When I had more interest in Gibraltar than I did now, some people did advise me to look for other interests, like bridge or bowls. I didn’t take up either, though I do get out more than him, but with Further Beyond’s best interests at heart, I would recommend that he take up this wise counsel.
There is a way to legally test Spain’s “claim” over the Rock and the Rock’s right to self-determination and that’s go to court. Something that has been offered to our neighbours on countless occasions. Yet they refuse to do so.
I wonder why that might be?
BritBob: Agreed. Great news for Putin though. “What’s sauce for the goose” etc.
Further beyond…. what are you talking about? Sadly for you your defense mechanism of talking rubbish is boring. Basically, I suspect you are another typical fascist extremely confused of what democracy is…. I’m sorry but the conquering days are over and its the peoples choice now……..you will miss us when were gone amd left with nothing but a poor excuse for a country and its franco style govenment.. Catalunya 2014 ….. you make it easier ever time you open your mouth. YES, YES, YES CATALUNYA
@Further Beyond
You score ten out of ten on my books for your comments. You represent the best of the British by putting across the objetive transparent truth about Gibraltar’s current situation and its history. Thank you very much for documenting so accurately the truth about how Gibraltar became a British colony.
What Gibraltarian and some British citizens fail to realize, is that Gibraltar is a bizarre anachronic pain in the ass, not just for Spain, but also for the UK!
@BritBob
Colonial relationships are not permitted under contemporary international law. The UN currently lists Gibraltar as a non-self governing territory that the UK must decolonise.
The International Court of Justice has recognized that there are exceptions to the right of self-determination for populations living in non-self governing territories.
For example, in the Western Sahara advisory opinion several Justices of the Court recognized the existence of territorial limitations in dicta. Justice Singh wrote in a separate opinion that situations could arise in which prior legal ties between a territory and a claimant state would bring into effect paragraph 6 of resolution 1514, and force reintegration of the territory. In another separate opinion, Justice Petren recognized that ‘[where] the territory belonged, at the time of its colonization, to a State which still exists today …[the claim would be] on the basis of [the State’s] territorial integrity.’
Justice Petren also stated that ‘in certain specific cases one must equally take into account the principle of the national unity and integrity of States’.
Significantly, at no point in the opinion did the Court recognize an absolute right to self-determination for the population of Western Sahara, a non self-governing territory. Instead, the Court engaged in an extensive exploration of Morocco’s, Mauritania’s, and Spain’s historical ties to the territory.
Although this analysis had been requested by the General Assembly, the issue would have been moot under international law had the Court recognized the Saharans’ absolute right to self-determination. The Court decided that the historical ties between Western Sahara and Morocco and Mauritania were not sufficient to apply any territorial limitations, but the Court clearly implied that in other appropriate cases historical ties might require territorial reintegration.
As Professor Crawford points out in his recent authoritative monograph (The Creation of States in International Law 2nd Edition May 2007) there would have been no point in the Court’s detailed treatment of the Moroccan claim in that case if no third State claim could prevail over the right to self-determination.
Professor Crawford also notes that where a State undertakes by treaty or otherwise not to dispose of territory except in a certain way, that undertaking will limit its competence to grant independence to that territory. This is the case, for example, where there is a ‘treaty right of pre-emption’, such as with Gibraltar. A treaty right of this kind will constitute a legal barrier to grants of independence.
Professor Crawford observes that the General Assembly has expressly taken the view that colonial enclaves such as Gibraltar constitute in effect an exception to the self-determination rule, and that the only option is for the administering authority (in this case the UK) to transfer the enclave territory to the enclaving State (in this case Spain). The wishes of the population of the enclave are not regarded as relevant.
Professor Crawford concludes that the principle of self-determination has no application, or is relevant only so far as the modalities of transfer of the territory are concerned, in the case of non-self-governing territories which are colonial enclaves that have been created by colonizers on the territory of a surrounding State.
Professor Crawford notes that in modern decolonization practice, various territories have been transferred by the UN to the claiming State rather than being treated as self-determination units; by far the best known case was Hong Kong, but there have been a number of others.
According to Professor Crawford of the remaining sixteen, Chapter XI territories, two, the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) and Gibraltar, fall into this category.
In its resolutions concerning the colony of Gibraltar, the UN General Assembly expressly and unambiguously recognizes territorial limitations to the right of self-determination for the current occupants of the territory of Gibraltar. Gibraltar is currently administered by the United Kingdom. Sovereignty over the territory of Gibraltar is governed by the Treaty of Utrecht. The terms of the treaty provide that the territory of Gibraltar must revert back to Spain before any change in its sovereignty status can take place. The terms of the treaty thus clearly evidence that the territory is part of Spain’s sovereign territory that is currently occupied by the United Kingdom.
Numerous UN General Assembly resolutions have requested that the UK negotiate with Spain the decolonisation of the territory of Gibraltar. None of these resolutions have ever mentioned any rights of the local population to participate in those discussions. Instead, these resolutions consistently support Spain’s argument that the territory falls under the paragraph 6 exception in resolution 1514 which proscribes a right to self-determination in certain particular cases. This is because the UN believes that despite Gibraltar’s status as a non-self-governing territory its occupants are not the true population of the territory but instead are a community artificially created from heterogeneous origins by colonial processes after the treaty was signed.
Resolution 2353 for example, expressely states that rights over the territory of Gibraltar should be resolved without the participation of the local population. Significantly, that resolution followed a plebiscite in which the population of Gibraltar was given a choice between continuing its present ties with the United Kingdom or reverting to Spanish sovereignty. Notwithstanding the fact that the occupants of the territory of Gibraltar voted overwhelmingly in favour of maintaining their present status, the resolution, declared: “[T]he holding of the referendum of 10 September 1967 by the Administering power [was] a contravention of the provisions of [the] General Assembly.”
The desire of the British settlers to maintain their colonial status in a second referendum in November 2002 in which 98.97% voted in favour of sole British sovereignty was similarly not recognised by the UN GA, which called instead for continued negotiations between the UK and Spain (see GA Dec. 57/526 (2002).
In this regard, it is interesting to note that even the current British Government have formally recognised limits to the principle of self-determination for their colonists living in Gibraltar. According to the latest UK white paper on Gibraltar: ‘…The British Government…supports the principle of right of self-determination, but this must be exercised in accordance with the other principles or rights in the UN Charter as well as other treaty obligations. In Gibraltar’s case, because of the Treaty of Utrecht, this means that Gibraltar could become independent only with Spanish consent’.
@BritBob
Before you attempt to undermine Professor Crawford’s views above. Here are Professor Crawford’s qualifications. Tell me again – what are your qualifications?
Professor James Crawford was appointed to the Challis Professorship of International Law at the University of Sydney. He served as Dean of the Faculty of Law from 1990 to 1992.
In 1985 Professor Crawford was elected an associate of the Institut de Droit International (the youngest election in modern times) and was elevated to full membership in 1991.
In 1992, Professor Crawford was elected to the Whewell Professorship of International Law at Cambridge. In a nice piece of symmetry, his opposite number as Chichele Professor at Oxford was his DPhil supervisor Ian Brownlie.
In that year,Professor Crawford was also elected to membership of the United Nations International Law Commission (“ILC”). He served as Special Rapporteur on State Responsibility from 1997–2001 and was also responsible for the production of the ILC’s Draft Statute for an International Criminal Court.
In 2000, he was elected a Fellow of the British Academy. In 1996, Professor Crawford assumed directorship of the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law at Cambridge, serving from 1997–2003 and again from 2006-2010.
Since 2003 he has been a member of the Curatorium of The Hague Academy of International Law and is scheduled to give the General Course in 2013.
Professor Crawford was admitted to practice as a Barrister and Solicitor of the High Court of Australia in 1977, and was called to the New South Wales bar in 1987. He was appointed Senior Counsel in 1997.
Following his move to Cambridge, Professor Crawford was admitted to the English bar in 1999 as a member of Gray’s Inn, and was a foundation member of Matrix Chambers.
Professor Crawford has built a substantial international practice. He has been engaged as counsel in 23 cases before the International Court of Justice, including the contested cases of East Timor (Australia v Portugal), Case concerning the Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v United States of America, Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Barrage System (Hungary v Slovakia), Case concerning Pulau Batu Puteh (Malaysia v Singapore) and Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v Ukraine).
He has also appeared as counsel for various interested parties in the following advisory opinions of the ICJ: Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and Accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo.
In addition to his appearances before the ICJ, Professor Crawford has also appeared before a wide range of other international courts and tribunals. He was counsel for Australia before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the ad hoc tribunal convened under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in the Southern Bluefin Tuna cases, was counsel for Eritrea before the Eritrea/Ethiopia Boundary Commission and counsel for Sudan in the Abyei Dispute to determine whether Abyei was to form part of north Sudan or the area that was in 2011 to become South Sudan. He was also counsel for China before the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organization in the United States – Definitive Anti-Dumping case.
Professor Crawford has also developed a substantial practice as an international arbitrator, and has developed a particular reputation in investor state disputes run by the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (‘ICSID’) and in matters pertaining to the law of the sea, especially maritime boundary delimitation.
Significant disputes in which Professor Crawford has sat as arbitrator include Larsen v Hawaiian Kingdom, Newfoundland/Nova Scotia Maritime Boundary Arbitration, Vivendi Universal v Argentina, Mondev International v United States of America, Yaung Chi Oo v Myanmar, SGS v Philippines, and the MOX Plant arbitration.
In October 2012, Professor Crawford was nominated for election as a Judge of the International Court of Justice, with the support of the Australian Government.
FurtherBeyond writes:
“Significantly, at no point in the opinion did the Court recognize an absolute right to self-determination for the population of Western Sahara”
The ICJ, in its Advisory Opinion on Western Sahara Advisory writes:
“Thus the Court has not found legal ties of such a nature as might affect the application of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) in the decolonization of Western Sahara and, in particular, of the principle of self-determination through the free and genuine expression of the will of the peoples of the Territory.”
and
“[the court] concludes that the decolonization process envisaged by the General Assembly is one which will respect the right of the population of Western Sahara to determine their future political status by their own freely expressed will. This right to self-determination, which is not affected by the request for advisory opinion and constitutes a basic assumption of the questions put to the Court…”
“http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=323&p1=3&p2=4&case=61&p3=5”
Clearly, most of what FurtherBeyond writes is irrelevant fluff.
Tell me again – what are your qualifications?
And what are yours, given that you use a pseudonym like everyone else? Or are you Professor Further Beyond QC, LLM? Pray tell!
Ciudadanos, Gibraltar can be accused of many things, but being ‘anachronic’ isn’t one of them. En inglés, se dice ‘anachronistic’. There is a lot that I dislike about Gibraltar, including the way that they dupe British public opinion by claiming to be ‘more British than the British’, which usually means bad food and deference to the ruling class. However, I no more think that Spain has a claim to Gibraltar than Germany has to the Russian enclaved of Kaliningrad because it used to be Königsberg in East Prussia.
Interesting to see Rajoy and his francoist cronies asking the EU for 45 million euros yesterday to defend the Spanish colonies of Melilla and Ceuta from illegal immigrants scaling fences to get in. They say the EU has a duty to defend these territories for Spain.
It just defies belief – and this is without taking into consideration what everyone in the EU (including Spaniards) know damn too well – which is exactly where these 45 million euros will end up if they are given to any Spanish public institution! In the back pockets of the same crooks who are asking for them.
Gibraltar will sooner or later be included in the Spanish Constitution and become “La Comunidad Autónoma de Gibraltar”. The citizens of Gibraltar will be able to remain British, become Spanish or take up dual nationality.
In the mean time, we will do our best to fight smuggling, money laundering and other criminal activity on the rock of Gibraltar.
Funny how most major banks are leaving or have left Gibraltar, I wonder why? The Government of Gibraltar has even been forced to set up its very own bank, I wonder what they are going to call it? “Money Laundering LTD”
FurtherBeyond
What you are saying was relevant 40 years ago. Since then there have been 5 Advisory Opinions, Namibia, Western Sahara, East Timor, Palestine and Kosovo that have all stated, ‘the right to self-governing territories is applicable to ALL non-self-governing territories.’ The UN Fourth Committee voted on 17th October 2008 and decided NOT to place ANY restrictions on the right to self-determination, affirming it to be a fundamental human right.
Territorial integrity does not play a part in Gibraltar’s self-determination as it is NOT part of Spain. In any case, the UN Kosovo verdict confirmed that ‘the scope of the principle of territorial integrity is confined to the sphere of relations between states.’
You have also not been truthful in respect of the Palestine ICJ ruling. UN resolution 2625 clarifies that actions legal prior to the UN Charter regime are not affected by the coming into force of the Charter, therefore British actions in respect of Gibraltar would not fall under the provisions of the Charter but those of Israel in Palestine would.
Ciudadanos
I am so pleased people have dreams and I do love your creative writing.
1. Out of the money laundering cases in Spain, and there are many, no account has been traced to Gibraltar.
2. Please specify, with proof. the criminal activity you refer to.
3. Barclays is cutting down its current account operations worldwide, including in Spain. However, it is keeping in Gibraltar its services involving high income individuals which is where the real money lies.
4. Gibraltar is so solvent that its government can afford to set up its own bank, Gibraltar International Bank, to cater for the ordinary citizens, something bigger countries cannot afford to do.
5. As regards smuggling, yes ,it does exist, mostly carried out by Spaniards needing that extra bit of cash in order to put food on the table because they cannot find employment in your country. I am just waiting for the figures to be released regarding smuggling by the EU and compare figures between Gibraltar and Algeciras/Tarifa.
Blogs like these give people like you and Further Beyond something to do, I suppose, but that Union Jack still flies at the top of my Rock.
Keep dreaming, my friends.
Ciudadanos
‘The citizens of Gibraltar will be able to remain British, become Spanish or take up dual nationality’.
Take up Spanish nationality??? We would rather become North Korean, than join your sad excuse of a banana republic.
Do you mean the Banana Republic where approximately one million Brits live permanently and is visited each year by a quarter of the British population?
Think that one day, in the not so distant future, the number of permanent residents will increased by 30000, and I am not talking about new arrivals from the UK.
My dear Ciudadanos
You are indeed a Don Quijote and your favourite song has to be “To Dream the Impossible Dream”. For over three hundred years there have been many Spaniards like you now long interred and their bones turned to dust. Your destiny and indeed, Further Beyond’s, is to join your compatriots.
Where I come from, we woo women in order to obtain their affection. We do not push or batter them as this is morally and legally wrong.
Having said this, even after wooing, our advances might still be rejected but at least it’s a more civilised approach.
Yes, that banana republic.
tim: I love your style!
Tim,
Banana Kingdom please. Republics are way too modern.
Ciudadanos – you don’t even believe it yourself. If they do become (sigh) yet another ‘Comunidad Autónoma’ (groan), does that mean they will get a huge unnecessary parliament like all the others, offical chofer-driven cars for all the most corrupt, their families and general cronies (more official cars in Andalusia than in Holland!), all civil servants will be allowed to do nothing all year round, get private health care and knock off at 2 every day, take huge bribes for everything that is ever decided and get totally away with it etc etc etc etc etc….???
Of course they won’t – such cushy positions would of course be reserved for Spaniards, their friends, families and cronies.
@ El Fifi
Sorry mate, but at this stage we are not interested in wooing anybody, that would be a complete waste of time as Spain has learnt the hard way with the concrete block dumping.
El Fifi:
You answered my question about whether the Gibraltar airport is dangerous, saying that is widely used for commercial and military flights. But I´ll appreciate that you´ll give me your opinion on the following observations extracted from this press article (“http://www.elespiadigital.com/index.php/noticias/politica/4872-cielo-cerrado-sobre-el-peligroso-aeropuerto-de-gibraltar”)
Observations:
1. It is one of the few “Class A airspace” world, in which the landing is to be compulsorily made ??by instruments (IFR)
2. It is considered the most dangerous in Europe and the 5th most dangerous of the world.
The reasons:
a) Very short track
b) few navigation aids,
c) being in the middle of an urban core surrounded
by depots of explosives
d) share the single track, with parking facilities
and an air base
e) It´s track cross a road.
That Professor Crawford’s CV is a bit messy! There are many clever people who have no common sense. There will be Professors who disagree with his views as well. Easy to cherry pick something on every subject, just type your request in google. The entire subject is so moronic considering Ceuta, I just laugh at what you are trying to justify and how. Waste of time replying to this type of person on here, tunnel vision, blinkers on.
Ciudadanos
So it is classified as a “Class A ” and licensed as such. If it was that unsafe wouldn’t it have been declassified and its license revoked?
It has an exemplary safety record.
You should check out Bilbao airport or those on the Canary Islands.
Interesting “unbiased” web site.
According To another newspaper article:
(“http://www.escalofrio.com/n/Curiosidades/Aeropuerto_en_Gibraltar/Aeropuerto_en_Gibraltar.php”) “Airport class A” means an airport in wich the landing is only possible with the help of electronic means,because:
1. The low visibility of the track
2. The short length of this
3. It is located in an urban core.
4. The track cuts literally one of the streets in the area, with lights and barriers Street That close When the landing and takeoff of aircraft is planned to allow the complicated landings.
According to another article, (“http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1451379-los-10-aeropuertos-mas-peligrosos-del-mundo”)
Gibraltar airport is the fourth more dangerous of the world.
I’m glad that Gibraltar airport has a good security record, but I see difficult that it can be maintained over time. So I think that this airport should be closed to commercial flights.
Hahaha! “Should be closed to commercial flights” Hahahaa! The new chestnut. Let’s all pretend it’s the 1960s again, the gates are closed, the Berlin wall back up, airlifts, sieges. What a joke. Was that a wind up Anselmo?
When was the last time Gib airport had an accident (any accident). Let’s compare that to some other airports on the (ahem) Iberian peninsular.
I hope you’re right
@ Mike Málaga
The airfield at Gibraltar is run by the RAF and certified as a military airfield in accordance with MOD requirements which are less than those required for a civilian airfield. The UK CAA (Civil Aviation Authority) would not approve the use of this airfield for commercial operations because it does not meet or comply with CAA standards.
The way around this, is by having a military certified and operated airfield with a civilian terminal. The flying public needs to know that the level of safety at a civilian airfield like Málaga is far greater than that of a military airfield like Gibraltar with many safety issues.
Maybe it is time to get the EU involved with this one!
Ciudadanos
Gibraltar Airport has been operating both military and civilian flights since the 1940’s. Gradually, civilian flights, except in times of crisis, far outnumber military flights.
If it did not have the necessary certification, this could not be the case.
I suggest you should look up air incident web sites to verify the excellent safety record it has and compare it to other airports including Malaga.
Get the EU, UN, USA or whoever you want involved mate.
@BritBob
As usual your comments demonstrate that you really have no idea what you are talking about.
Professor Crawford’s opinion that colonial enclaves such as Gibraltar constitute an exception to the self-determination rule is included in his latest monograph: The Creation of States in International Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press 2nd Edition May 2007.
This is not a view that was ‘relevant 40 years ago’ as you assert. The monograph was published in 2007. According to my calculation, that was seven years ago not forty years. Professor Crawford’s views represent the actuality of international law which is consistent with both UN GA Resolutions and dicta by the ICJ since the 1960s.
In his 2007 monograph, Professor Crawford concludes that the principle of self-determination has no application, or is relevant only so far as the modalities of transfer of the territory are concerned, in the case of non-self-governing territories which are colonial enclaves that have been created by colonizers on the territory of a surrounding State.
Professor Crawford goes on to note that in modern decolonization practice, various territories have been transferred by the UN to the claiming State rather than being treated as self-determination units; by far the best known case was Hong Kong, but there have been a number of others.
According to Professor Crawford of the remaining sixteen, Chapter XI territories, two, the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) and Gibraltar, fall into this category.
As previously stated none of the ICJ opinions you have cited undermine that colonial enclaves such as Gibraltar constitute an exception to the self-determination rule.
This exception to the right of self-determination has been re-affirmed by the International Court of Justice as recently as 2004 when it ruled that ‘…under the terms of Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention … an Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. … Such policy and practices “have no legal validity” and constitute a “flagrant violation” of the Convention and are in breach of international law.’ (see International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004).
@Reap
It’s not just a matter of common sense but of international law. You can choose to go with BritBob’s amateur legal musings if you like but I would recommend you seriously look at what Professor Crawford is saying. He is the leading authority on this aspect of international law.
By the way there are good common sense reasons why there are exceptions to the right of self-determination. Since you are obviously having problems with the logic try thinking of it this way – what if a group of people from say Ireland established an Irish colony on the eastern coast of England and then claimed a right under the principle of self-determination to have the land they are occupying declared a part of Ireland. Can you see the absurdity of the proposition you are advancing now?
@Iestyn ap Robert
You can choose to believe ‘that most of what I write is irrelevant fluff’ as you assert. You have a right to your opinions – even though they’re not correct or based on the facts.
The fact remains that my views are completely consistent with the foremost authority on this aspect of international law.
To reiterate, after a detailed legal analysis , Professor Crawford concludes in his 2007 monograph, that the principle of self-determination has no application, or is relevant only so far as the modalities of transfer of the territory are concerned, in the case of non-self-governing territories which are colonial enclaves that have been created by colonizers on the territory of a surrounding State.
Professor Crawford goes on to note that in modern decolonization practice, various territories have been transferred by the UN to the claiming State rather than being treated as self-determination units; by far the best known case was Hong Kong, but there have been a number of others.
According to Professor Crawford of the remaining sixteen, Chapter XI territories, two, the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) and Gibraltar, fall into this category.
@El Fifi
There are many airfields around the world that are completely military operated and certified but which also allow for civilian commercial traffic. Just because an airfield does not meet civilian standards, does not mean that civilian traffic cannot fly there. RAF Northolt , Brize Norton, Mount Pleasant or Gibraltar are all military airfields that are certified and operated by the MOD but which also allow for civilian commercial traffic. When there is a lot of commercial traffic, a civilian terminal may be justified and this would be certified to civilian standards, you could call it “XXX International Airport” but basically, you would just be naming a building.
In the case of Gibraltar, the shiny new terminal, with a whopping three civilian flights a day, belongs to the Government of Gibraltar while the airfield belongs to the MOD.
FurtherBeyond The fact that you have found one legally qualified lawyer that goes against the grain is irrelevant. Your evidence is pitifully weak and does nothing to contradict the fact that 5 ICJ Advisory a Opinions that state ‘that the right to self-determination is applicable to ALL non-self-govering territories.’ There are NO exceptions to this as confirmed by the UN Fourth Committee on 17 October 2008 when they determined that the right to self-determination was without conditions, even where there was an alleged sovereignty dispute. It is as Ban-Ki Moon said in 2010, ‘the 16 remaining territories that still do not govern themselves, must have complete freedom to determine their own future status.’ As far as Gibraltar is concerned, that is ‘free association’ with the UK. Lol.
FurtherBeyond. Still using the cut ‘n’ paste specials. You have not been truthful regarding the ICJ Palestine judgment which does not apply to territorial gains after the UN Charter regime. Obviously this is a desperate measure on your part. Your man Crawford is just one opinion and you should read judge Dillard’s Advisory Opinion on the Western Sahara Case and judge Franck’s Advisory Opinion on North Borneo, Philippine”s permission to intervene which confirm the right to self-determination and ‘dismiss’ historic title. You can then refer to the New York City Bar Association, Committee of the UN, report of 2012, where 11 element international lawyers dismiss historic title and confirm that the right to self-determination is applicable to ALL non-self-govering territories. Then there are the 5 ICJ Advisory Opinions.
It must have occurred to others but in his last few cut n’ paste marathons F/B has exposed himself and we can see his ‘legal’ arrogance – how dare you plebs argue against my superior legal knowledge.
He is either a retired parasitic lawyer or an equally parasitic academic who has never contributed anything real to society.
He’s quoting international law that never sought to consult the ordinary people, only to dictate to them.
Did International Law stop WW11/Korea/Vietnam/Iraq or Afghanistan. The ICJ is just a feeding ground for lawyers, they have zero interest in justice, indeed this scum just laugh at the concept. F/B is a perfect example of this.
It is time to stop feeding the troll or he will just keep on defecating all over this thread and others.
My dear Ciudadanos
Is Gibraltar been used for commercial flights or not? Unlike the hugely expensive Castellon and Ciudad Real airports which are new but lying idle. In fact, Castellon’s runway is being dug up because it doesn’t meet the required standards.
Please check flight/arrivals for exact figures. And these do not include the number of private planes attracted by Gibraltar’s booming economy.
You do not comment on Gibraltar airport’s excellent safety record. In fact, since its creation, I don’t think that it can be bettered by any other. So much for the argument it’s unsafe.
Further Beyond, let me be so bold as to give you some advice, keep your epistles short and to the point. Sad to see you putting in so much effort and people not bothering
to read them.
FurtherBeyond, you seem incapable of grasping the difference between an opinion, learned or otherwise, and the findings of a court (they only one with relevant jurisdiction in this case).
Down with spain … hooray for the referendum catalunya amd gibraltar united
fabregas,
sadly most foreigners and most Spanish don’t realise that Cataluyna was an independant nation until it was invaded by the pero castillanos in the late 18th century.
You will be well aware that the Catalans in France want the same thing as well – a unified free Cataluyna.
I live about 200K from the Catalan border and many local people choose to speak Occitan, indeed most signs are bi-lingual.
How it must rankle with the Euskadi that they are called Basque in both Spain and France, indeed I have yet to meet a French person that actually knows anything about the history of these people or how they did’nt choose to be a part of either country.
Gibralter will never become a part of corrupt denialist Spain and one day the Euskadi and the Catalans will be free.
The castillanos economy will collapse entirely when both your countries are free to decide their own futures – viva Cataluyna
@El Fifi
The safety record at RAF Gibraltar is relatively good due to a significant number of aircraft being diverted regularly, when the weather is marginal, to much more capable airfields.
@FurtherBeyond
You have definitely stirred up a hornet’s nest,,,,, I just hope the Spanish Foreign Office is reading your objetive reasonable arguments, some of which I am sure we can use in future direct negotiations with the UK.
Thanks once again for your comments!
Ciudadanos
1. Diverting aircraft to alternative airports for whatever reason but particularly due to inclement weather is standard operational procedure worldwide.
2. Gibraltar Airport’s safety record is not just relatively good it’s excellent.
Further Beyond already works for the Spanish Government and only those like you find his arguments reasonable and objective. His comments simply follow established Spanish policy lines.
Obviously you are impressed by his long winded style and constant references to the same references.
In fact, he comes across as rather arrogant, thinking other readers are not intellectually of his level. This is a trait of the current PP government which insists on telling the Spanish electorate that the situation in Spain is improving while the fact is that only in Rumania are there more children below the poverty line and it still has 26 per cent unemployment.
Just reading the leading articles in the main Spanish newspapers, I wonder why “knowledgeable” citizens such as Anselmo, Ciudadanos and Further Beyond do not spend their time and energy on constructively advising their government on how to improve their country’s dire situation instead of concentrating on this little piece of rock.
As if “territorial integrity” is going to put food on the table. Obviously, the aforementioned must be comfortably well off.
Anyway, let’s end this on a positive note. Any news on the visit of the HM the Queen to Gibraltar? How about she visits for the handover ceremony?
Yes I´m sure she will be on the guest list when Catalunya is returned to its rightful owners and the fascist from the Banana republic are sent packing with their egos in a Mercadona bag.
I know many people can not wait to November ….. Catalunya 2014 !! YES YES YES YES YES
No longer will force be applicable….. 2013 vote for Gibraltar, Scotland 2014 and CATALUNYA 2014….
Sorry Spain… Gibraltar, Catalunya and the rest of the democratic world United against Fascist and backwards Spain…. Boycott everything Spanish now. our campaign of Boycott will be launched soon, keep eyes open for when it hits… it wont be missed from Fascist Spain to the four corners of the world. Year for freedom and choice is up on us!! Bye Spain..you wont be missed.x
Yes you’re obviously getting a kick out of winding people up Ciudadanos, which sums up the validity of most of your arguments and makes you look rather silly. Especially now hardly anyone even bothers to read further beyond boring’s copy and pastes.
Fylingdales was also a military airport and is now Doncaster Robin Hood. How’s about that eh?
Anyway, enough time wasted. Back to work. Someone has to keep YOUR country afloat.
Is true, Franco died 40 years ago and the spanish king carlos III died more three hundred years ago too.
Both of them had the same purpose, they had try to come back Gibraltar to Spain. Carlos III wasn’t fascist, he was Spanish. Franco was as Spanish as Spaniards nowadays. Your problem isn’t spanish fascism, it’s Spain. You, Britain, are a thief.
Now, in 2014, Spain and almost all Spaniards are following with the same purpose. We are here, we are waiting, we don’t forget and we want our Gibraltar .Today Britain doesn’t rule the waves.
I desire that llanitos enjoy their colonial style of life a little more, but their cycle is over. British Empire is over and Gibraltar is going to Spain in next years.
Por las buenas o por las malas.
Pd: Utrech artículo X: España cede Gibraltar.
Utrech árt. XI: España cede Menorca (recuparado). ¿adivina qué falta?
Espanol
If I were you I’d concentrate on not losing Catalonia and The Basque Country.
Dream on.
@Fabregas
I would be more than happy to see Cataluña become an independent communist state ruled by ERC and outside the EU, but regretfully the Spanish Constitution is in the way.
With respect to the boycott you propose, more than 50% of everything that is produced or manufactured in Cataluña is sold to the rest of Spain, so it will be interesting to see who boycotts who.
@Malaga Mike
Some people from the UK still fail to understand that the issue of Gibraltar is not about phony patriotism, but about the anomaly of one European nation having a colony on the soil of another European nation. Spain will never give up its claim on Gibraltar and sooner or later it will be returned to the motherland.
Jeje, oh the constitution that was written by the fascists….the same fascist who deny catalunya was taken by force….. I would worry if I were you…. catalunya will be free and we will fight with passion until the end. Your denial is amazing, and I think you’ll find that there have been move boycotts by you fascist spanish against catalunya than the reverse….but ours will be noticed and hit harder than any of your failled attempts. We will rejoice for many years to come when you go back to your undemocratic side of the border… bye bye spain, bye bye… I cant wait……..umfortunatley for you, spain will never be the same again and that I know is hard for you to contemplate but, we are united with hunger to see spain fall….you of course are united by stupidity and a fascist rule. Down with fascist spain…., the people have spoken….. freedom 2014…… democracy will over ride your fascist constitution any day of the week…..power tot the people….ahh we can wait
Please say me:
1)When was taken Catalonia?
2)And for who ?
Oh boy! Go for it Fabregas. It’s well-known that Catalunya is the work-horse on the Iberian Peninsula. You’ve nothing to lose and everything to gain by getting the rest of Spain off your back. Catalunya historically spills over to present-day France and will have no problem trading with them and the rest of the E.U.
Okie dokie Mr. Fabregas, good luck to you!
I must congratulate the editor for printing this article. It has generated a great number of comments and deviated from Gibraltar airspace to independence for the Catalans.
Further Beyond has not contributed lately. He must have run out of paste for his cuttings or he is already on Spanish Foreign office leave to be combined with Easter week. Such productivity!
Anselmo and Ciudadanos are still there. They probably live in UK so they have to work.
We had a comment from a new contributor called Espanol. He stated Gibraltar would become Spanish “o por las buenas o por las malas”-by fair means or foul. Considering his country is crumbling politically, economically, socially and militarily I don’t think he is in a position to threaten. But there you go, the Don Quijotes don’t die in Spain.
The marriage of Isabella I of Castile andFerdinand II of Aragon (1469) unified Christian Spain; in 1492, the last of al-Andalus was conquered and the Spanish conquest of the Americas began. Political power began to shift away from the Crown of Aragon towards Castile.Over the next few centuries, Catalonia was generally on the losing side of a series of wars that led steadily to more centralization of power in Spain. The most significant conflict was the War of the Spanish Succession, which began when Carlos II died without a successor in 1700. Catalonia supported the claim of a member of the Austrian branch of theHabsburg dynasty (after breaking an oath of loyalty to Philip V from 1702), while the rest of Spain generally supported the French Bourbon claimant, Felipe V. Following the final surrender of Catalan troops on September 11, 1714, Felipe V’s Nueva Planta decrees banned all the main Catalan political institutions and imposed military-based rule over the region. So we will be happy to have it all back….. many thanks.
@stefanjo – great to see intelligent comments its refreshing.
@el fifi – your observations are great, please keep them coming.
@the fascists – well youv pretty much ran out of steam and would be worth working on your own country…catalunya no is spain and never will be…..the people decide.. good luck with what you’ll have left….
Catalunya, gib, basque , cueta, melilla, morocco, uk democracy will win in the end
Mr. Fabregas, do you think that your new found friends (Fifi, Stefanjo, Stuart Crawford) would like to be governed by ERC (Esquerra Republicana de Cataluña)?….I don’t think so!
Ciudadanos
No politician is perfect but we are happy with our lot, thank you very much. If you have a point to raise you can always stop them down Main Street. And if any of them is found to have a finger in the pot, he’d better emigrate. Something apparently not possible in your once grand country.
Fabregas
I think that your last comment is very enlightening. But according to this, it can not be said that
Catalonia was invaded by the rest of Spain, but that She supported a candidate for the throne of Spain wich finally could not succeed.
The Succession War was a civil war within a European war. It is wrong to say that on one side was Catalonia and the rest of Spain on the other.
So we can have it back then? Thought not #fascistspain
We will see what happens…. #catalunya2014
Nothing
When 2m people plus march the streets…..there no going back and its a matter of time only… when 98% vote against something theres no returning…. when you still believe it the opposite you need to look at yourself long and hard.
Thanks for no call me “fascist”
The feelings of the masses, which must be respected, influence the policy, . But, by themselves, are not policy.
You can not to speak about secession ( a thing that frequently involves civil wars,ethnic cleaness and genocides) only because there have been a great manifestation.
Besides, these feelings with the passage of time can change.
Sounds like your clinging on to something you know and can clearly see falling apart. Dont worry you’ll still have a country when were gone….the only differece is you’ll actually be the owners of that one. We will be good neighbors dont worry? #catalunya2014
I’m not worried.
And I do not own Spain, or any region of Spain. Being born in one place or another do not gives me any ownership rights.
This is one thing that can not be decided by no one. And can not be bargained.
No your right at the moment the ECB owns spain for atleast the next decade..(conservative estimate) …
It can be decided and bargained and its called a democratic vote, that exactly what catalunya wants, and its exactly what is deserved? Are you denying a basic democratic right? Are you really that umdemocratic? Thinking sPAIN can keep the conquering rule….. you should be happy to let us go .. sPAIN will be better off accepting the fact and allowing us the basic democratic right of voting! The resentment will only build faster and wider, then it probably wont be such a peacful split a few years down the line. When 2 million can march, theres really not any going back, the world is is becoming more aware of the oppression daily…. sorry sPAIN, it was good while it lasted but now the people are going to decide and not some thieving spanish politician…no justice, no peace in Catalunya…. let us go! #catalunya2014
“Por las buenas o por las malas” says ‘español’. Nearly fell of my chair laughing at that one. Oh, we are all terrified.
The dictatorship mentality coming out again: do it – or we will force you to do it.
“Franco was as Spanish as Spaniards nowadays.” Yes – he was a lovely man. Say it so often and everyone in the world will believe you (no they won’t).
Wake up amigo. We’re in the 21st century now. You’re still in the 20th (and evolving backwards).
It’s no wonder the Catalans have had enough. What will you do when they vote to go? Send the tanks in (again)?
Let’s tell it again:
2014 – “Españoles – Franco no ha muerto.”
Fabregas
Catalonia can not have desires or rights or obligations, because She is an abstraction that exists only in our minds. Just as Europe or Africa .
Democracy can only be applied to those things that can be decided .
You can decide whether you are going to do something and how. It decided , but You can not decide things belonging the realm of experience.
So you can not decide that the Moon is made of cheese , or that the Earth is flat.
Equally You can not decide democratically whether Catalonia is part of Spain ; because it is a fact of existence due to geography , the war called Reconquista , marriages , population movements , and economic movements , etc. .
This is something that has been shaped over five centuries , and that none of your ancestors weren´t consulted .
Why you do have the right to not have your ancestors ?
A right that is not contemplated in nowhere or recognized by any authority and that have no been applied in no where.
And what would happen , in 20 years , if all or a part of the population of a Catalonia independent would return to vote in referendum that wants to be part of Spain, France or Morocco ?
Malaga
After reading your criticism of “español”, I guess You’ll agree that keeping a colony like Gibraltar, besides being an anachronism is a mockery of UN resolutions, and a threat to peace.
A leading politician in the UK stands down over a £5,800 anomaly. The deputy speaker of The House of Commons stands down after being falsely accused.
Yet, Mr Barcenas implicates practically the whole of the PP, including Mr Rajoy, and they are still governing the country.
This is the difference between a mature yet modern and evolving democracy and the sham that is present day democracy in Spain.
I am but a mere layman but can you imagine the image Spain projects?
El fifi,
just to put things straight, Maria Miller actually ripped off the tax payer for over £90K – it was her fellow scumbags that said she only had to repay £5K.
I totally agree about Spanish corruption but I think there are an awful lot of Brits who need to see the truth about the UK.
Our politicians have as much contempt for the ordinary citizen as the Spanish ones but they are’nt as brazen about it. MOD run by old public schoolboys retired generals and admirals on 100% indexed linked pensions shovelling billions of tax payers money to their friends in the armaments industry.
Top Civil Service people who set up private companies in the Isle of Man to avoid nearly all taxes and NI contributions.
Totally support the wishes of Gibraltarians but please don’t make out that Britain is so wonderful because it is’nt, leave that kind of denial and unreality to the Spanish – they are far better at it.