Gibraltar - British or Spanish?

ejmaztec

rossie1977 wrote: »

anyway here we are 8 pages in and nobody has mentioned the monkeys

If you'd read the previous 9000 posts, you'd have seen monkeys mentioned at least 5000 times.:(

tr0llface

With the way we're talking about it, you'd think it was Irish.

mattjack

poisonated wrote: »

I like the monkies and the cheap booze in Gibraltar. That is all that matters.

This is one of my favourite lines ever posted ....straight into the 'hall of fame' with you, sir Homer Simpson would look in awe at you..

getz

my wife is from gibraltar,and i can assure you its british,the citizens of gib are more british than the british,spain sold gib to the british ,it was ceded to britain under the treaty of utrect in 1713,spain was given a island in the med and a part of america in exchange[they sold that to the indians] the rock was then populated settlers from malta who worked on the navy base,very few had a ethnic spanish background, the native language is spanish[spanglish] and english,it is the NATO headquarters,spain is not in NATO, on a letter i recieved from the leader of the EU labour party,it said we believe gibraltar belongs to its people,they decide on their future,thats the way it is,and thats the way it always should be, and it has its EU member of parliament ,it has also been a refuge and home to jewish people since records began, now get over it

Sunnyisland

getz wrote: »

my wife is from gibraltar,and i can assure you its british,the citizens of gib are more british than the british,spain sold gib to the british ,it was ceded to britain under the treaty of utrecht in 1713,spain was given a ireland in the med and a part of america in exchange[they sold that to the indians] the rock was then populated settlers from malta who worked on the navy base,very few had a ethnic spanish background, the native language is spanish[spanglish] and english,it is the NATO headquarters,spain is not in NATO, on a letter i received from the leader of the EU labour party,it said we believe gibraltar belongs to its people,they decide on their future,that's the way it is,and that's the way it always should be, and it has its EU member of parliament ,it has also been a refuge and home to jewish people since records began, now get over it

The NATO headquarters are in Brussels, Belgium.

Spain is a member of nato.

On the rest of your post well that's what a UK mp would say.

Re the people deciding and a bit of topic again. The majority of people in hong kong wished to stay with the uk yet the brits let them go back to china against the majority's wishes,What has china got that the Argentina,Spain have not, O wait I get it now.

Fratton Fred

mongoman wrote: »

Brit haters? Now stop that oul bullshít. Alternatively I could say the usually old imperialistic, pro-Zionist, extreme right-wingers will vote for the British. But that would be just making silly generalisations, for some posters anyway.

it's true though.

getz

realies wrote: »

The NATO headquarters are in Brussels, Belgium.

Spain is a member of nato.

On the rest of your post well that's what a UK mp would say.

Re the people deciding and a bit of topic again. The majority of people in hong kong wished to stay with the uk yet the brits let them go back to china against the majority's wishes,What has china got that the Argentina,Spain have not, O wait I get it now.

you are right spain joined NATO in 1982,and gibraltar is only the regional HQ,hong kong was ceded to britain for a certain number of years and britain honoured that,that not the same as the falklands or gib, if you want to know just what the people of gibraltar think[even with a quote from a irish president] go to www.gib-action.com/restrictions.html

R P McMurphy

getz wrote: »

realies wrote: »

The NATO headquarters are in Brussels, Belgium.

Spain is a member of nato.

On the rest of your post well that's what a UK mp would say.

Re the people deciding and a bit of topic again. The majority of people in hong kong wished to stay with the uk yet the brits let them go back to china against the majority's wishes,What has china got that the Argentina,Spain have not, O wait I get it now.

you are right spain joined NATO in 1982,and gibraltar is only the regional HQ,hong kong was ceded to britain for a certain number of years and britain honoured that,that not the same as the falklands or gib, if you want to know just what the people of gibraltar think[even with a quote from a irish president] go to www.gib-action.com/restrictions.html

That quote from Mary Robinson is from her time working with the UNHCR and not in relation to gibraltar

getz

R P McMurphy wrote: »

That quote from Mary Robinson is from her time working with the UNHCR and not in relation to gibraltar

where did i say it was about gibraltar ? you really have a british phobia,dont you ,

R P McMurphy

getz wrote: »

R P McMurphy wrote: »

That quote from Mary Robinson is from her time working with the UNHCR and not in relation to gibraltar

where did i say it was about gibraltar ? you really have a british phobia,dont you ,

No I don't but it was clearly implied that the comment was in relation to Gibraltar and was made by an Irish presodent, why mention it otherwise. Your posts are full of inaccuracies and indeed untruths. It was you was claiming the GAA was siphoning funds from the organisation to give to the IRA, I don't think very much of you (that is very different from having a British phobia)

Paparazzo

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

only the Brits who would so arrogant to claim little pieces thousands of miles from their shore as their own.

gurramok wrote: »

Spanish, stolen from Spain. Resettled with the help of like minded British people to keep it British. Sounds familiar like NI.

Awww, the poor Spanish had a rock taken from them. They would never dream of taking anyone's land. :rolleyes:
Fùck them, they wiped out civilizations is south America and mexico. They make the British look like angels

getz

R P McMurphy wrote: »

No I don't but it was clearly implied that the comment was in relation to Gibraltar and was made by an Irish presodent, why mention it otherwise. Your posts are full of inaccuracies and indeed untruths. It was you was claiming the GAA was siphoning funds from the organisation to give to the IRA, I don't think very much of you (that is very different from having a British phobia)

i take that this is just lies, www.newsletter.co.uk>news>local

tiger55

realies wrote: »

Re the people deciding and a bit of topic again. The majority of people in hong kong wished to stay with the uk yet the brits let them go back to china against the majority's wishes,What has china got that the Argentina,Spain have not, O wait I get it now.

Situation is different. Hong Kong was leased from China on a 99 year lease. The place sure was better than they found it lol

Mike 1972

tiger55 wrote: »

Situation is different. Hong Kong was leased from China on a 99 year lease. The place sure was better than they found it lol

Should have claimed squatters rights TBH

LordSutch

You asked in post#53

realies wrote: »

When did Ireland or Irish carv up the world ?

And I replied as a matter of fact that . . .

"The British Empire was won by the Irish, administered by the Scots, Welsh, and lost by the English" (which admittedly is a trite & simplistic statement), but it still indicates that we as a bunch of islands worked together to create an Empire & colonies all ove the globe.

realies wrote: »

Bit of topic

The British Empire, like a lot of successful empires such as the Ottoman and Roman ones, had a multi-ethnic aspect to it. There were people from modern-day Greece, Algeria and Iraq in Ottoman forces, but no-one would seriously suggest those people had any real responsibility for the crimes of the Ottomans.

The presence of Irish (or indeed Nepalese) troops doesnt detract from the fact the Empire were run for the benefit of the British, in particular the English ruling class (which isnt to deny the Irish got some benefit)

"Multi-ethnic" is neither here nor there, we as a close-knit group of islands set out to form the greatest Empire the world had ever seen.

HavingCrack

passarellaie wrote: »

well if they were so sure of their rights why did they indulge in their usual ethnic cleanseing.The English have no right whatsover to be in South America.Whats spurious about the fact the islands were governed from Buenos Aires easily the cloesest capital.Get over it te Empires over and with Europe in the mess its in now it wont be long until old Admiral Brown will see the Malvinas Argentine again

Why won't you discuss the history of the Falklands??

What ethnic cleansing?

Oh and the Spanish/Portugese/French/Dutch all have/had a right to be in South and Central America?

You know what, you're clearly anti-British regardless and won't even consdier the fact that they have a greater claim to the islands than the Argentinians do so you can stew in your own ignorance for all I care.

HLecter

HLecter wrote: »

The fact that this question exists says a lot.

I suppose im not answering the question itself here.
But just consider what Gibraltar is.
Its 2km sq of strategic territory within a walking distance of a large Spanish town, the people come and go, to and from that town everyday in every variety of business and leisure.
The Spanish neighbors work and travel into and out of Gibraltar with absolute minimum fuss passing through a mini border thing.

Now Gibraltarians can freely live in Spain as they are British and so part of the EU.
However, its not like that for the Spanish (or other EU members), they must approach the Gibraltar govt, their neighbors within walking distance, even though they may commute, work and shop there.

Theres an obvious bias toward not allowing residence of Spaniards in case they begin to take up space and influence the place too much.
They have good reason to assume this would be the case as naturally humans do that especially if they're just down the road and their job is in Gibraltar.

This strange situation exists because London backs the place diplomatically for its own interests, otherwise it would naturally be ruled by the Spanish who are greater in numbers that the residents.

tl;dr

So basically its a private racist fortress with Britain as the doorman, you can be a citizen so long as you're on team Britain and not a spic. You can also live in Spain and make use of all Spain's facilities when you want as the Spanish cant do anything about it or else they'll have problems with Britain.
Plus you can pull the self-determination card for moral effect, even though in fairness its not really a country.

It says a lot about what Britain is, as do the Malvinas/Falklands.

(incidentally both these places probably do more damage than good to Britain)

(well ..except if there's oil in the Falklands)

The anti-Brit sentiment in here is absolutely hilarious. Do you actually know what a 'spic' is? It isn't and never has been a term used to describe Spaniards. It's a term which originated in the United States as a way to describe Latinos. Nobody ever uses it in the UK. I hear a lot of Irish people using it and if I hear it, I think the person is pathetic. Not just because it's a racist term but because no Irish person has any business using that term. It's something they heard off the TV and decided it sounded cool. Most don't even know what it means, you clearly don't.

I think a lot of people here need to take a history class. Sure, the British invaded a lot of countries. But do you really think they're the only ones? Loving the 'poor Spaniards' sentiment here. You do realise they themselves have two territories, Ceuta and Melilla, in Morocco? Have you ever asked yourselves why most of Latin America speaks Spanish? The Spanish are the last people who should be complaining about the Brits taking over anywhere.

Massive LOL at the poster who thinks the British have 'no right to be anywhere in South America', as if the Spanish ever did. There would be no 'Argentina' if it hadn't been colonised by the Spanish. The vast majority of the population are white Europeans, but they have more right to the Falklands than the British do? Do you think 'Isla Malvinas' is a native Latin American name? Thanks for the laugh, needed it this morning.

ejmaztec

HavingCrack wrote: »

Why won't you discuss the history of the Falklands??

What ethnic cleansing?

Oh and the Spanish/Portugese/French/Dutch all have/had a right to be in South and Central America?

You know what, you're clearly anti-British regardless and won't even consdier the fact that they have a greater claim to the islands than the Argentinians do so you can stew in your own ignorance for all I care.

It's all very confusing, on the one hand he mentions that the English had no right to be in South America, and on the other he mentions the Irish Admiral Brown who set up the Argentine navy. Using his argument must mean that Admiral Brown had no right to interfere there either.

R P McMurphy

getz wrote: »

i take that this is just lies, www.newsletter.co.uk>news>local

What exactly am I looking for in that link?

Batsy

Those 46.01% of people who believe that Gibraltar is Spanish need to start doing a bit more studying.

tiger55

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Should have claimed squatters rights TBH

The bailiffs would come...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHZIUdHm6b4

Batsy

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

So a load of Spaniards come and settle of an island off England and claim it as Spanish? No they can't, so a bit like the Falklands, only the Brits who would so arrogant to claim little pieces thousands of miles from their shore as their own.

The Spanish have already done something similar elsewhere in the world.

Spain claims ownership of Perejil Island - which is off the coast of Morocco, not Spain.

Morocco believes it should have the island.

The Spanish base their claim on the fact that the island was originally under joint Spanish/Portuguese rule (Portugal and Spain became joined in 1580) before it ever became Moroccan.

When that Iberian Union split in 1640 Perejil island became ruled solely by the Spanish.

And it is that argument which the Spanish use as the basis for their claim of the island.

Hypocritically, despite the fact that the British use the very same argument when it comes to their claim of the Falkland Islands - that England and then Britain claimed the islands before Spain ever did and before Argentina ever came into existence - this didn't stop the Spanish supporting Argentina during the Falklands War.

Also, if countries should have an automatic right to lay claim to neighbouring islands that would give the British the right to lay claim to the island of Ireland.

Batsy

And those who are holding out hope for Gibraltar being returned to the Spanish will be waiting a long time.

The 1714 Treaty of Utrecht ceded Gibraltar to Britain "in perpetuity" - in other word, for ever.

parrai

Batsy wrote: »

Also, if countries should have an automatic right to lay claim to neighbouring islands that would give the British the right to lay claim to the island of Ireland.

Of course, using the same logic, Ireland would have the right to claim Britain also

Mike 1972

Layne Famous Chairlift wrote: »

I hear a lot of Irish people using it and if I hear it, I think the person is pathetic. Not just because it's a racist term but because no Irish person has any business using that term.

FYP (otherwise spot on though !)

tiger55

Gibraltar sovereignty referendum, 1967




A=Join Spain
B=Remain British

(a) 44 Votes 0.36%

(b) 12,138 Votes 99.19%

Spoiled ballots 55 0.45%

Total 12,237 100%

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

I would call this pretty decisive!!!!

tiger55

Gibraltar sovereignty referendum, 2002

The people of Gibraltar, the small, fiercely British colony at the tip of southern Spain, overwhelmingly rejected the idea of shared sovereignty between London and Madrid in a vote whose results were announced early this morning.

In totals shortly after 2:30 a.m., the no vote was 98.9 percent, with 17,900 no ballots cast, 187 yes votes and 72 blank votes.


http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/08/world/gibraltar-rejects-power-sharing-between-britain-and-spain.html?pagewanted=1


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


This vote was to share power with Spain (joint sovereignty), again this is pretty decisive!

Mike 1972

Mike 1972 wrote: »

FYP (otherwise spot on though !)

Of course nobody should use it, nobody should ever use any racist term. I meant that it's somehow even worse to use it when you have absolutely no knowledge of the culture and history behind it and no idea what it means. Just jumping on the bandwagon, using words you heard from the telly. Even worse when you try to imply that another nationality (in this case, the British) use this term when they don't. The only time I've ever heard the word 'spic' uttered outside the US was when Irish people used it, trying to sound cool. People from places like Rathfarnham and Rathgar who have probably never met a Puerto Rican or Dominican in their lives. Really sad.

Sunnyisland

LordSutch wrote: »

You asked in post#53



And I replied as a matter of fact that . . .

"The British Empire was won by the Irish, administered by the Scots, Welsh, and lost by the English" (which admittedly is a trite & simplistic statement), but it still indicates that we as a bunch of islands worked together to create an Empire & colonies all ove the globe.



"Multi-ethnic" is neither here nor there, we as a close-knit group of islands set out to form the greatest Empire the world had ever seen.

The way you post that its like you seem to forget that the brittish control of Ireland & the Irish was achieved by conquest and colonisation; indeed, Ireland can justly be called the experimental laboratory of an Anglo-Scottish project to `plant' British culture in strategic overseas outposts.



Suppose this topic is for another thread.:)

Acacia

For some reason, when I was younger I used to think the Rock of Gibraltar was off the coast of Scandinavia.

So I guess it's Swedish.