British rule in Gibraltar:Should it end?

arcadegame2004

On the 300th anniversary of the British capture of Gibraltar (and the expulsion of most of the native Spaniards who lived there) I am curious as to what Irish people's view on this issue is. The Spanish Government has criticised the British Government for what it regards as provocative visits to Gibraltar to coincide with celebrations in Gibraltar to commemorate the British capture of that Spanish town.

I personally feel that the "British" majority in Gibraltar has as much legitmacy as the Unionist "majority" in NI. In other words, none at all, since their majority was also based on ethnic-cleansing. Nonetheless, I accept the GFA which accepts that a United Ireland won't happen unless a majority vote otherwise, since it is the most realistic compromise available. Even so, I strongly empathise with Spain's animosity to a British colony on a place that is historically Spanish.

How long would a Spanish colony last in Cornwall?
:rolleyes:

What's you view?

Agent Smith

they should just hand it back, all empires are dead now, whats the point?

Nuttzz

what ever the locals are happy with, so what if they are planters they live there now, what difference does it make?? its not as if the Royal Navy are blocking the enterance to the med and charging a toll :rolleyes:

gaizka71

the spanish goverment complains about gibraltar, but what about the colonies they have in Africa....?
I honestly could not care less, and since we are all EU and have a comon Constitution, (or will have) what is going to be the difference?

P.S. Freedom for the Basque Country.

gandalf

I really don't know why the Spanish want it back. I was there this year and its a grimy ****hole full of duty free shops and dodgy souvenirs, not at all what I expected.

ionapaul

The poor old British empire! You know they really want to off-load Gibralter and Northern Ireland, but the troublesome British citizens there arn't having any of it! I think that over 90% of Gibralter residents voted to remain part of Britain in their last referendum. Obviously it wouldn't be the same % in the North, but still more than 50%. Does Spain really want the rock back? Is it a bit like us and the North - the government sometimes say they do, but really don't want to deal with the ugly mess and cost of it all!

ReefBreak

If over 90% of the current population of Gibralter voted to remain with Britain, then that's the way it should stay. There's really no argument to it.

Consider how long the Spaniards have been in Spain, and how long the British have been in Gibralter. Now consider how long Spain/Gibraltar have actually existed - like two ants arguing over who owns a rock.

Micheal Wittman

I dont mind who it goes too myself. Its up too the ppl themselves, Besides the vast majority want to stay with the UK so I think Spain should respect that. In a few years anyway Spain, especially Gibraltar will become too hot anyways for ppl to live in I hear. I'd say a lot will leave eventually.

As for NI, I dont ever want that crowd (Hard core Unionists and Nationalists) in with us. I don't see why They still have arms anyways, There have all disgraced themselves on both sides by using "the war" as an excuse to steal and get involved in organised crime. Freedom fighters my ass.

To be Honest, Its not the "Apartheid" system it use to be up there in the past so I dont see why ppl resort to violence, If some counties vote to join us - I dont mind - But as it is a 32 countie republic is never going to happen.

There doing fine and so are we.

pdh

Yes, the Brits should get out of Gibralter, and the Spanish could follow by clearing out of the Basque Country

Flukey

Of course jurisdiction should be given to Spain.

arcadegame2004

To be Honest, Its not the "Apartheid" system it use to be up there in the past so I dont see why ppl resort to violence, If some counties vote to join us - I dont mind - But as it is a 32 countie republic is never going to happen.

The GFA says differently. If a majority in NI vote to join a United Ireland then it will happen. This is an international legally-binding treaty and we have every right to insist that it be enforced. I think Britain would be unwise to refuse to enforce it, if history iis anything to go bye.

I dont mind who it goes too myself. Its up too the ppl themselves, Besides the vast majority want to stay with the UK so I think Spain should respect that.

So territorial enlargement through conquest is ok? So I assume then you won't object to the US making Iraq the 51st State of the Union? Hmm...I understand a lot of people on this forum oppose the imperial expansion of Israel regarding the Occuped Territories, yet you seem to think its ok for the settler community in Gibraltar to benefit from their ancestors war-crimes? Kind of like Lebensraum.

Originally posted by gaizka71
the spanish goverment complains about gibraltar, but what about the colonies they have in Africa....?

I agree with you totally on that. Spain should practice what it preaches.

flogen

arcadegame2004 wrote:

So territorial enlargement through conquest is ok? So I assume then you won't object to the US making Iraq the 51st State of the Union?

well, we're not discussing if its right or wrong to invade a country, naturally it is all a matter of reasons and needs. Gibralar does not compare in the slightest to the current Iraq war.

Saying that, if in years to come the vast majority of Iraqi's said they wanted to be classed as a state of the US, then let them, who are you to tell them what to want?

the people of Gibraltar are happy with British Rule, a smaller majority of NI is also happy with British rule, when this changes, hopefully the situation will too. I feel that NI is historically and geographically a part of Ireland, not Britain, but the people want british rule, so let them have it (but not at the cost of those who do not). I'm sure Spain feel the same about Gibraltar, but as a democratic country it should listen to the will of the people it claims are its own.

flogen

Yes, the Brits should get out of Gibralter, and the Spanish could follow by clearing out of the Basque Country

As for the Brits in Gibraltor, personally, I can't see what the problem is. Most people in Gibraltor speak spanish as their first language, and follow the spanish customs. Its only when it comes to patriotism that they separate.

As for the Basque area. You have got to be joking? Get out of that region? hardly. Grant them proper rights to language and culture, yes. But clear out no way. That area has been part of mainland Spain for hundreds of years. Anyway I don't like to see any government bend their heads to terrorists.

Micheal Wittman

I don't know how u can compare the US invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2004 to The British taking Gibraltar in 1704.

arcadegame2004

I don't know how u can compare the US invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2004 to The British taking Gibraltar in 1704.

Both were part of wars waged against a country with the purpose of overthrowing the country's ruler.

Gibraltar was seized in the War of the Spanish Succession (1700-1713). The British, Austrians and others waged war on Spain because the dead king of Spain, Carlos II, had left Spain to Phillipe, Duc D'Orleans, the nephew of the French king Louis XIV. The British, Austrians, Dutch and others objected to this because Phillippe was in the line of succession to the French throne and they felt that the balance of power in Europe would be threatened if France, Spain, Spanish America, the Phillipines and Spain's European possessions in Italy and Belgium were under one ruler. However, that to me is still not justification for invading Spain.

Britain has a very hypocritical national mindset in the sense that its people constantly moan about EU "interference" in their internal affairs, but they have throughout history had no problem with interfering in the affairs of other countries.

ionapaul

arcadegame2004 wrote:

So territorial enlargement through conquest is ok? So I assume then you won't object to the US making Iraq the 51st State of the Union? Hmm...I understand a lot of people on this forum oppose the imperial expansion of Israel regarding the Occuped Territories, yet you seem to think its ok for the settler community in Gibraltar to benefit from their ancestors war-crimes? Kind of like Lebensraum.

Come on now! Let's kick the white man out of Australia and the Americas, the Black Africans out of the Pygmies former territories, the Celts out of Ireland and Scotland (might be a few peoples around with genetic links to the former inhabitants of these islands), the Anglos out of Britain, the Lombards out of Italy, etc etc etc...

The British have been there for long enough, both in Gibraltar and in the North, don't you think, to be allowed to stay? Otherwise I might have to leave Ireland - I am decended from a famous Norman family (one of the first to become more Irish than the Irish themselves) and might have to head back to Denmark or Norway via England and France!

Merrion

Gibraltar belongs to the Barbary apes. All the humans are but blow-ins

arcadegame2004

The British have been there for long enough, both in Gibraltar and in the North, don't you think, to be allowed to stay? Otherwise I might have to leave Ireland - I am decended from a famous Norman family (one of the first to become more Irish than the Irish themselves) and might have to head back to Denmark or Norway via England and France!

With regard to NI, the GFA says clearly that if a majority there vote to join a United Ireland, the British Government must bring that about.

They were in Ireland for 700 years. If being "there" on its own should mean Britain being forever entitled to remain here, then by that reasoning the Republic of Ireland should still be part of the UK now. I strongly disagree.

I am not calling for ethnic-purity. The descendents of the NI planters should have assimilated like the Normans did, instead of demanding partition.

You don't seem terribly patriotic. I am confident that the vast majority of Irish people would vote in favour of a United Ireland in a referendum (except the Anglophiles of course).

ionapaul

arcadegame2004 wrote:

With regard to NI, the GFA says clearly that if a majority there vote to join a United Ireland, the British Government must bring that about.

They were in Ireland for 700 years. If being "there" on its own should mean Britain being forever entitled to remain here, then by that reasoning the Republic of Ireland should still be part of the UK now. I strongly disagree.

I am not calling for ethnic-purity. The descendents of the NI planters should have assimilated like the Normans did, instead of demanding partition.

You don't seem terribly patriotic. I am confident that the vast majority of Irish people would vote in favour of a United Ireland in a referendum (except the Anglophiles of course).

I have no doubt that should the majority in NI vote to join the Republic the British would do what they could to facilitate that - they don't want the money-draining place as it is. We'd probably only take it if we could convince someone else to pay for doubling/trebling/whatever the size of our security forces to deal with the loyalist 'civil rights' marches, terror, and for the Irish army to tackle the IRA for the last time.

The other plantations in Ireland were not as successful as the Ulster plantation, that is why we are not all British-Irish right now instead of just Irish. They must have had some influence though, as we speak their language, drive on the same side of the road as them, watch their TV programmes, listen to their popstars, and follow their football teams with great excitement!

You want the 'planters' in the North to assimilate? Weren't you speaking of Lebensraum a few posts back? Why should they assimilate, multi-culturalism is what we look for in Ireland at the moment I thought. Real republicans would love to be out forcing the Brits to learn Gaeilge I bet!

You are correct, I am not particularly patriotic. I was probably overly influenced by the strong streak of 'revisionism' running through the Irish historical establishment while I was there. I just have always felt that the specific country you were born in is merely an accident of birth and no reason for (what history has shown to be dangerous) pride, patriotism, or nationalism - all countries have there good points and their bad points, and everyone loves where they were born.

arcadegame2004

I never said anyone had to learn Irish! Please do not misrepresent me.

Having endured centuries of oppression the Irish people are entitled to seek ultimate freedom from the country which oppressed them. The Northern statelet is artificial and as far as I am concerned the Unionists should consider it a concession that we agreed to the consent principle under which a majority in NI would need to vote yes to reunite the Six Counties with the Motherland.

They are an artificial majority. For decades they practiced tyranny on those who regarded themselves as Irish. I have no wish to seek revenge by supporting similar methods against them in a United Ireland, which I believe should treat all citizens equally.

You refer to the IRA as if you believe it would continue to exist in a United Ireland. As a supposedly Republican organisation, the IRA's raison-d'etre would have theoretically ended in a United Ireland. You also refer to security-costs, ignoring the possibility that the result of the referendum would be accepted by Unionists if NI voted to join a United Ireland. Opinion-polls some time ago found that 73% of Unionists would accept the result of such a referendum, while the remainder were divided into dont knows and no's. As someone who regards British rule in NI as the root cause of the violence there, I feel that the eventual re-unification of Ireland would be extracting a cancer from the body-politic of this island, allowing the patient to recover.

Boston

arcadegame2004 wrote:

With regard to NI, the GFA says clearly that if a majority there vote to join a United Ireland, the British Government must bring that about.

They were in Ireland for 700 years. If being "there" on its own should mean Britain being forever entitled to remain here, then by that reasoning the Republic of Ireland should still be part of the UK now. I strongly disagree.

I am not calling for ethnic-purity. The descendents of the NI planters should have assimilated like the Normans did, instead of demanding partition.

You don't seem terribly patriotic. I am confident that the vast majority of Irish people would vote in favour of a United Ireland in a referendum (except the Anglophiles of course).

Why should the spanish get Gibraltar, After 300 years what calim do they have to it. while I agree with most of what you said. Independence over british rule would seem to make more sense. Also the people there want to remain british, mainly due to the way successive spanish goverments have treated them. You say that Gibraltar shouldn't be part of britian, but subjecting a people to the control of the spanish when they don't want to be is just a wrong as the british first capturing it, even more so now since there is ment to be a pretense of democracy.

Boston

arcadegame2004 wrote:

With regard to NI, the GFA says clearly that if a majority there vote to join a United Ireland, the British Government must bring that about.

They were in Ireland for 700 years. If being "there" on its own should mean Britain being forever entitled to remain here, then by that reasoning the Republic of Ireland should still be part of the UK now. I strongly disagree.

I am not calling for ethnic-purity. The descendents of the NI planters should have assimilated like the Normans did, instead of demanding partition.

You don't seem terribly patriotic. I am confident that the vast majority of Irish people would vote in favour of a United Ireland in a referendum (except the Anglophiles of course).

Why should the spanish get Gibraltar, After 300 years what calim do they have to it. while I agree with most of what you said. Independence over british rule would seem to make more sense. Also the people there want to remain british, mainly due to the way successive spanish goverments have treated them. You say that Gibraltar shouldn't be part of britian, but subjecting a people to the control of the spanish when they don't want to be is just a wrong as the british first capturing it, even more so now since there is ment to be a pretense of democracy.

Speaking of the basque lands, which was an independent contry with a captial and which is only a part of spain now because of the ations of franco, a majority of the region would prefere independence over spanish rule, so why shouldn't they have it.

mike65

ionapaul wrote:

I just have always felt that the specific country you were born in is merely an accident of birth and no reason for (what history has shown to be dangerous) pride, patriotism, or nationalism - all countries have there good points and their bad points, and everyone loves where they were born.

Ah that kind of commen sense won't play well in the bars and lounges of this Isle! Regarding Gibraltar, its the people who are soverign.

Mike.

arcadegame2004

Speaking of the basque lands, which was an independent contry with a captial and which is only a part of spain now because of the ations of franco, a majority of the region would prefere independence over spanish rule, so why shouldn't they have it.

Agreed.

Just to show I am not being inconsistent here, I do feel that Spain should agree to surrender Melilla and Ceuta to Morocco aswell.

If you put your own people onto land stolen from the natives, then of course you are going to have a "majority" there wanting to remain part of your country.

I'm sure the Nazi German colonists of Hitlers "Living Space" in conquered Poland, Czechoslovakia etc. also wanted to stay ruled by Germany aswell.

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Agreed.

Just to show I am not being inconsistent here, I do feel that Spain should agree to surrender Melilla and Ceuta to Morocco aswell.

If you put your own people onto land stolen from the natives, then of course you are going to have a "majority" there wanting to remain part of your country.

I'm sure the Nazi German colonists of Hitlers "Living Space" in conquered Poland, Czechoslovakia etc. also wanted to stay ruled by Germany aswell.

So you also want the US and Canada given back to the natives who lived there? Australia? New Zealand?

Hey...now that I think about it....the Celts aren't actually from Ireland. Nor are any of the other peoples from whom most of us are descended. So what happens there? SHould we all just leave? Or should we accept that total genocide gives you the right to remain in a nation you've occupied, whilst partial genocide/ethnic cleansing means it shouldn't ???

These are the implications of your logic.....so I'm sure you have an answer for them.

jc

arcadegame2004

Bonkey your post just now is unfair. I am not calling for anyone to be forced to return to the lands of their ancestors. And regarding the arrival of the Celts in Ireland, DNA evidence has indicated that almost all of us have some DNA from the people inhabiting this island 10,000 years ago (In Leinster the breakdown is 73% of those with Celtic names, 83% of those with Viking names, 62% of those with seemingly English-names, and 52.5% of those with Scottish surnames). So it is clear that genocide was not committed against the pre-Celtic population. Rather, intermarriage occurred. Indeed it is argued by some historians that the Gaelic Irish language may include some words derived from whatever language was originally spoken. And anyway going back to ancient history is to ignore the advent of the nation-state, an institution cherished by the vast majority of the world's population.

What I am referring to is sovereignty, not ethnic-purity.

Regarding the so-called "New World" countries, there wasn't even an AustralianAmerican/Canadian/Mexican etc. nation before the Europeans arrived and with the exception of the Falkland Islands (which were never part of Argentina) there are no territorial-disputes among these countries or involving them. American Indians are actually the majority in some Latin American countries e.g. Nicaragua, and exist in many millions there, with their languages often surviving and thriving.

If partial genocide were justification for the colonial power staying put, then Spain would still have a huge empire stretching from the Phillipines to Mexico to Argentina. Are you advocating that?

dubhthach

gilbrater was given up by Spain by actual treaty so i don't know what they are complaining about, anyways the spanish had it for less then 300years themselves you don't hear the "moors" complaining about it do you? (Gilbrater is actually two arabic words)

As for the y-chromosone studies, well this bears out the fact that the irish "celts" were basically a ruling class who took over and then impose their culture over the bulk of the inhabitants, think of what us irish did in scotland with the Picts same story if you ask me. (the manuscripts even talk of picts in ireland)

arcadegame2004

DNA evidence in Scotland surprising shows that only a minority are of Celtic origin. The vast bulk are either of Danish Viking or Anglo-Saxon origin. Just correcting you there.

Originally posted by dubhtacht gilbrater was given up by Spain by actual treaty so i don't know what they are complaining about, anyways the spanish had it for less then 300years themselves you don't hear the "moors" complaining about it do you? (Gilbrater is actually two arabic words)

The king of Spain at the time was a Frenchman who was a puppet of his grandfather Louis XIV of France. It was the latter's wish to end the war that forced concessions like that.

In my opinion, having fought for 700 years to liberate their country from the Moors, the Spanish are entitled to Gibraltar.

Raskolnikov

Micheal Wittman wrote:

Besides the vast majority want to stay with the UK so I think Spain should respect that. .

Actually the trend in Gibraltar is towards autonomy with some kind of loose association with the UK. If that ever happens, then Spain might as well relinquish any hope of claim on the rock.

So in answer to arcadegame's question, yes, I think it should end in accordance with the wishes of the populace.

dubhthach

you forget that 700years before then the spanish didn't exist, it was a visigoth (The Goths) kingdom, though most of the population did speak vulgar latin. Spain as a kingdom and also as a nation only exists from the 15th century with the union of Castille and Aragon through marriage.

Also the place was originally built by the Moors there wasn't any town there before they built it in the 1190's

my point on Scotland was not to do with DNA, but on how the irish form a ruling class and assimilated the majority of the population (picts) which is generally believed to have been the same situation here in ireland, this explains why genetically ireland shows very little in the way of population inflow in the last couple of thousand years

ionapaul

dubhthach wrote:

my point on Scotland was not to do with DNA, but on how the irish form a ruling class and assimilated the majority of the population (picts) which is generally believed to have been the same situation here in ireland, this explains why genetically ireland shows very little in the way of population inflow in the last couple of thousand years

Hopefully our lack of genetic diversity will be 'cured' by a decent influx of immigrants here (not the paltry amounts seem so far). Our pale skin is heaven for skin cancer!

The reason we all have pre-Celt genetic heritage may not be the result of intermarriage, rather mass rape by the Celts or the maintaining the existing Irish natives as a subject race and taking the women at will. Not saying that is the reason, but it certainly could be. I don't think my Norman forefathers did a whole lot of good for the Celts they lorded over 800 years ago!

beer enigma

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I am confident that the vast majority of Irish people would vote in favour of a United Ireland in a referendum (except the Anglophiles of course).

Dont be so quick to judge....the twist in this thread actually fits me to a tee....I was born in Gibraltar, and have a lot of family still living there. By a strange quirk in the family history, I also have a large number of family living in NI....As for me, I now live in Cork.

The Gibraltar issue is sensitive, but it should be a majority vote - to hand Gibraltar back to the Spanish against the wishes of 90% of the people would not be fair - yeah, it may not have been the best way to have taken a country, us Brits have never been too pc about that & the days of the Empires are thankfully long gone. But history is history & many things have changed. I personally would be horrified to be under Spanish rule.....some things die hard, I still have my old Blue British hardback passport & am proud to be British. Dont tell me that I should suddenly become Spanish if I don't want to be. The flipside of this is that I hold dual nationality & am an Irish passport holder too, of which I am equally proud. Not by marriage, although I do qualify through that route, but by the longevity of my residence in Ireland. My childern are Irish & I'm damned proud of that & they will know all about the history between our two countries.

It's strange, most English are ignorant of the facts relating to the English 'invasion' of Ireland, mainly as its not on the school curriculum - even in modern history. I have nieces & nephews in England and they learn WW1, WW2, Boer War, Iraq, but not a sniff of Ireland - that's a travesty that they have to correct if they want unity between the countries. Without understanding, there can be no harmony.

As regards the North, most of my 'Anglophile' relatives are quite happy to have a united Ireland - so long as there is peace. They accept that they are in the minority and do not expect everything to hinge around them, however, they should be allowed to continue their faith & they should be respected.

secret_squirrel

So to sumarise your argument then ArcadeGame

Gibraltar : evil 300 years worth colonial brits out - because spain was a 'nation'

US/Canada : nice fluffy brits/french/irish/dutch/african (approx 300-350 years also) can stay coz the native americans werent a 'nation'. Im sure many native americans might disagree.

Also bear in mind that the sheer number of lives lost in the ethnic cleansing of N America compared to the tiny amount lost in the explusion of the spaniards from Gibraltar

Does this not strike you as a bit hipocritical, chopping definitions to suit your own arguements?

The problem you always get when you come up with simplistic solutions to complicated problems is that they dont bloody work. As other posters have pointed out - where do you draw the line? You can't. Maybe we should kick the normans/romans/vikings/saxons out of britain whilst we're at it?

Or were you just looking for a soap box for a thinly veiled anti-brit rant?

vector

gaizka71 wrote:

the spanish goverment complains about gibraltar, but what about the colonies they have in Africa....?

Yes Ceuta etc!

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by dubhthach
Also the place was originally built by the Moors there wasn't any town there before they built it in the 1190's

What? The Romans founded nearly every town in Spain. Cordoba, Toledo, Cartagena (derived from Carthago Nova), Segovia, Salamanca, Seville, etc.

Originally posted by Secret_Squirrel
Maybe we should kick the normans/romans/vikings/saxons out of britain whilst we're at it?

How many times do I have to repeat that my point is not an ethnic one? :rolleyes:

Raskolnikov

arcadegame2004 wrote:

What? The Romans founded nearly every town in Spain. Cordoba, Toledo, Cartagena (derived from Carthago Nova), Segovia, Salamanca, Seville, etc.

Toledo was founded by the Visigoths and Segovia was originally founded by the Celts.

Dubh is right by the way, Gibraltar was founded by the Moors, as someone already pointed out, the name Gibraltar comes from Arabic.

arcadegame2004

Toledo was founded by the Visigoths

No Toledo was originally Toledum and was the capital of Roman Spain.

monument

Deleted User wrote:

As for the Brits in Gibraltor, personally, I can't see what the problem is. Most people in Gibraltor speak spanish as their first language, and follow the spanish customs. Its only when it comes to patriotism that they separate.

The people don't want to be ruled by Spain.

Deleted User wrote:

As for the Basque area. You have got to be joking? Get out of that region? hardly. Grant them proper rights to language and culture, yes. But clear out no way. That area has been part of mainland Spain for hundreds of years. Anyway I don't like to see any government bend their heads to terrorists.

The people don't want to be ruled by Spain.

I don't like to see people bend their heads to governments they don't want. I wouldn’t see it as giving into terrorists, but giving into the peoples wishes.

Raskolnikov

arcadegame2004 wrote:

No Toledo was originally Toledum and was the capital of Roman Spain.

Oops, my mistake.

My point was that the Romans weren't the only ones to go founding cities, the Celts, Goths, Basques, Moors all built cities too.

Raskolnikov

Deleted User wrote:

Most people in Gibraltor speak spanish as their first language, and follow the spanish customs.

http://www.andalucia.com/gibraltar/languages.htm

Jews, Muslims, Protestants and Catholics all living on a tiny little rock, we could learn a little from these guys!

dubhthach

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Cartagena (derived from Carthago Nova),

Cathagena as then name implies was found by the Carthaginians and not by the romans
:rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar wrote:

Evidence of human inhabitation of the Rock dates back to the Neanderthals. A Neaderthal skull was discovered in St. Michael's Cave in the nineteenth century, indeed prior to the discovery of the "original" discovery in the Neander Valley.

The Phoenicians are known to have visited the Rock circa 950 BC. The Carthaganians also visited, however neither group appears to have settled permanently. The Phoenician name "Calpe" may be derived from the verb "kalph" meaning to hollow out and may refer to St. Michael's Cave. Plato refers to Calpe as one of the Pillars of Hercules along with Jebel Musa on the other side of the Strait.

Gibraltar was next visited by the Romans who called it Mons Calpe. Again no permanent settlement was established. Following the fall of the Roman Empire Gibraltar was visited by the Vandals and later the Goths. The Vandals' stay was temporary, however the Goths were to remain on the Iberian peninsula from 414 to 711. It was in that year that the Rock first got its present name. Tariq ibn Ziyad, leader of the Berbers, landed at the southern point of the Rock from present-day Morocco in his quest for Spain. The mountain was named Jebel Tarik (Tarik's mountain). Over time the final syllable was dropped from the name and corrupted to Gibraltar.

Little was built during the first four centuries of Moorish control. However in 1160 Abdul Maman ordered that a permanent settlement, including a castle be built. The main tower of this castle remains standing today. Despite the fortification, the rock was overrun by Spanish forces in 1462. The rock was temporarily owned by the King of Castile, but later taken by the Duke of Medina Sidonia and passed to his son. Queen Isabella of Castile had her army besiege and re-take Gibraltar for the Spanish kingdom in 1501.

An Anglo-Dutch force led by Sir George Rooke seized the Rock in 1704. The territory was ceded to Great Britain by Spain in the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht as part of the settlement of the War of the Spanish Succession. In that treaty, Spain ceded Great Britain "the full and entire propriety of the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging ... for ever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever."

So basically the Rock has been in British hands for longer then it ever was in the hands of the Kingdom of Spain, i don't see why it should be thus returned to Spain.

arcadegame2004

Out of the 1,500 persons living in Gibraltar in 1704, all but 20 were expelled by the British. I am against the idea of rewarding ethnic-cleansing.

dubhthach

So do you also propose the return of Prussia to Germany, after all after 1945 serveral million germans were expelled when the polish borders were moved west to the Oder-Neisse line :rolleyes:

arcadegame2004

So do you also propose the return of Prussia to Germany, after all after 1945 serveral million germans were expelled when the polish borders were moved west to the Oder-Neisse line

No because having committed mass-genocide Germany got what it deserved.

So basically the Rock has been in British hands for longer then it ever was in the hands of the Kingdom of Spain, i don't see why it should be thus returned to Spain.

Ireland has been ruled by Britain longer than an Irish state existed. Are you saying we should have remained part of the British Empire?

dubhthach

And spain did not commit mass genocide both in the americas and at home when they set the inquistion on both the moors and the jews as well as anyone who became protestant? you know there are actually people living in turkey who speak ladino which is a jewish language based on medieval spanish, they were ethnically cleansed from spain because they didn't fit in with the "spanish nation" sounds quite familar to Germany during the third Reich eh?

As for ireland you can technically argue that the "Kingdom of Ireland" was in existance for a equal if not longer time then the period that Ireland was fully part of the british empire which didn't occur until the end of the nine year war in 1603 so your counter argument is flawed. Yes i know ireland was a patchwork of warring kingdoms however the highkingship of the Uí Neill dates to the 5th century and was an exclusively Uí Neill perserve (shared between the southern and northern dynasties) until Brian Boru muscled in on the action in 1004.

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by dubhthach
And spain did not commit mass genocide both in the americas and at home when they set the inquistion on both the moors and the jews as well as anyone who became protestant? you know there are actually people living in turkey who speak ladino which is a jewish language based on medieval spanish, they were ethnically cleansed from spain because they didn't fit in with the "spanish nation" sounds quite familar to Germany during the third Reich eh?

That is why Spain deserved to lose its colonies. You are making my point for me.

Originally posted by dubhthach
As for ireland you can technically argue that the "Kingdom of Ireland" was in existance for a equal if not longer time then the period that Ireland was fully part of the british empire which didn't occur until the end of the nine year war in 1603 so your counter argument is flawed. Yes i know ireland was a patchwork of warring kingdoms however the highkingship of the Uí Neill dates to the 5th century and was an exclusively Uí Neill perserve (shared between the southern and northern dynasties) until Brian Boru muscled in on the action in 1004.

But the "king" of the "kingdom of Ireland" was the English and later British monarch. I wouldn't call that "Ireland being ruled by the Irish".

dubhthach

arcadegame2004 wrote:

That is why Spain deserved to lose its colonies. You are making my point for me.

Your making contradictory remarks, you said that Germany deserve to loose lots of territory to Poland cause of it's action in world war 2, i made the same point about Spain and gilbrater, let you claim that they should receive it back

But the "king" of the "kingdom of Ireland" was the English and later British monarch. I wouldn't call that "Ireland being ruled by the Irish".

I wasn't talking about the "kingdom of Ireland" as setup by Henry VIII (in 1536 if i recall, before that it was the lordship of Ireland) i was talking about the highkingship which one could say was more titular if anything until the era of "kingship with opposition" (1006 to 1170) and before you say that it didn't make ireland a state, well you could say the same about the "Holy Roman Empire" (The 1st Reich) though there's probably alot of people who would argue that point with you.

Lennoxschips

It's not an issue that I can get hot and bothered about, seeing as the Madrid government don't have a history of respecting other people's rights anyway. (Euskadi, Catalunya, Galicia, Canary Islands, Moroccan territories etc.)

Two former empires getting annoyed with each other? Who cares.

monument

Lennoxschips wrote:

Two former empires

Why does everyone think the meaning of the word ‘empire’ has to include “evil” and “un-democracy”? Ok, so, maybe the perception is acceptable.

The British, and Spanish, empires are still empires. They were made in the past, but they are still there.

sceptre

monument wrote:

Why does everyone think the meaning of the word ‘empire’ has to include “evil” and “un-democracy”?

Off the top of my head the only empire I can think of where the guy in charge made a point of being nice was when we learned the Tin Woodman became Emperor of the Winkies in The Marvellous Land of Oz. Anyone got a non-fictional example?

mike65

"un-democracy" ?????

Mike.