Tension between Britain and Spain reaches new high

Jonny7

Spain now bringing Argentina into this, thus forming the axis of 16th century jingo-ism, tabloids having a field day

Fratton Fred

Jonny7 wrote: »

Spain now bringing Argentina into this, thus forming the axis of 16th century jingo-ism, tabloids having a field day

I wonder if this entente will also be raising the issue of Ceuta with the security council.

I'm actually feeling embarrassed for Spain.

Jonny7

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm actually feeling embarrassed for Spain.

These base political sideshows often have a knack for bypassing common sense with Juan commoner. Just look at Argentina who actually went to war in the eighties over this type of silliness.

Mr.Micro

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I wonder if this entente will also be raising the issue of Ceuta with the security council.

I'm actually feeling embarrassed for Spain.

I suppose it distracts the people from the state of the economy and intensifies patriotism?

Cork boy 55

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I wonder if this entente will also be raising the issue of Ceuta with the security council.

I'm actually feeling embarrassed for Spain.

(1)
Gibraltar is a colony and is recognized as such internationally including the United Nations

The United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories is a list of countries that, according to the United Nations, are colonized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_list_of_Non-Self-Governing_Territories

(2)
Ceuta and Melilla are Spanish territories in Africa and their status is disputed as part of a territorial border dispute between two neighboring states Spain and Morocco

(3)
Comparing Gibraltar to Ceuta and Melilla is just inaccurate whataboutery and is like comparing apples and oranges

(4)
Even IF we class the Gibraltar dispute as a Border issue and not a colonial one.
Spains claim to Ceuta and Melilla is far greater than the britons claim to Gibraltar due to a number of factors including
In every border dispute there are various factors that need to be accessed in order to order to weigh up each sides claim

-3 main ones

(a)
Size of population is far greater 155,000 + compared to 30,000 for gib

(b)
Proximity to Spain,

-Spain is just 19km from Ceuta
-Melila is a bit further out ?

(c)
Length of time held

-Ceuta has been under either Portuguese control since 1415 and Spanish since 1580

-Spain holds Melilla port since 1497

Fratton Fred

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

(1)
Gibraltar is a colony and is recognized as such internationally including the United Nations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_list_of_Non-Self-Governing_Territories

(2)
Ceuta and Melilla are Spanish territories in Africa and their status is disputed as part of a territorial border dispute between two neighboring states Spain and Morocco

(3)
Comparing Gibraltar to Ceuta and Melilla is just inaccurate whataboutery and is like comparing apples and oranges

(4)
Even IF we class the Gibraltar dispute as a Border issue and not a colonial one.
Spains claim to Ceuta and Melilla is far greater than the britons claim to Gibraltar due to a number of factors including
In every border dispute there are various factors that need to be accessed in order to order to weigh up each sides claim

-3 main ones

(a)
Size of population is far greater 155,000 + compared to 30,000 for gib

(b)
Proximity to Spain,

-Spain is just 19km from Ceuta
-Melila is a bit further out ?

(c)
Length of time held

-Ceuta has been under either Portuguese control since 1415 and Spanish since 1580

-Spain holds Melilla port since 1497

So population and length of control are important factors, yet the wishes of the people are irrelevant?

Someone better tell Michael D to hand the keys to Phoenix park back to Liz then.

Cork boy 55

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So population and length of control are important factors, yet the wishes of the people are irrelevant?

Someone better tell Michael D to hand the keys to Phoenix park back to Liz then.

Where did I say that?
The variable "Population size" relates to wishes of said population
The bigger the population the better the claim

A tiny population the size of gibs residing on a tiny enclave 1,800 km
from the Imperial capital is clearly a colony(as recognized by UN) and a fragment of a defunct empire and should be returned
Funny how the british empire got all democratic its in death roll

Fratton Fred

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Where did I say that?
The variable "Population size" relates to wishes of said population
The bigger the population the better the claim

A tiny population the size of gibs residing on a tiny enclave 1,800 km
from the Imperial capital is clearly a colony(as recognized by UN) and a fragment of a defunct empire and should be returned
Funny how the british empire got all democratic its in death roll

Aah, so this is more about sticking it to da Brits than actual common sense.

Cork boy 55

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Aah, so this is more about sticking it to da Brits than actual common sense.

Common sense Says It should be returned to Spain.

Jonny7

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Common sense Says It should be returned to Spain.

IN 2002, 99% of the population of Gibraltar rejected joint sovereignty of Spain and UK, that is really what dictates the situation.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Jonny7 wrote: »

IN 2002, 99% of the population of Gibraltar rejected joint sovereignty of Spain and UK, that is really what dictates the situation.

this is true.
Spain has the right however to protect its border and to take all such action as it deems necessary to limit smuggling across that border.
Stopping and searching vehicles to defeat smuggling and other illegal activities is reasonable, just look how seiously the UK engages in it.

Fratton Fred

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

this is true.
Spain has the right however to protect its border and to take all such action as it deems necessary to limit smuggling across that border.
Stopping and searching vehicles to defeat smuggling and other illegal activities is reasonable, just look how seiously the UK engages in it.

Is that why the UK stops and searches every car heading up the M1 and charges €50 to get off the ferry in holyhead?

Jonny7

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

this is true.
Spain has the right however to protect its border and to take all such action as it deems necessary to limit smuggling across that border.
Stopping and searching vehicles to defeat smuggling and other illegal activities is reasonable, just look how seiously the UK engages in it.

That's just a political move

junder

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Where did I say that?
The variable "Population size" relates to wishes of said population
The bigger the population the better the claim

A tiny population the size of gibs residing on a tiny enclave 1,800 km
from the Imperial capital is clearly a colony(as recognized by UN) and a fragment of a defunct empire and should be returned
Funny how the british empire got all democratic its in death roll

Funny how some Irish republicans / nationalists get all undemocratic when the issue involves Britain

Cork boy 55

junder wrote: »

Funny how some Irish republicans / nationalists get all undemocratic when the issue involves Britain

Headcounts of tiny populations are merely figleafs to justify a military base 1800 km from london.
Democracy and the right to self determination of this tiny population have nothing to do with the current british colony and bases there it is related to its strategic position and its military importance combined with british stubbornness and some misplaced imperial jingoism and their warlike nature.
The same attitude which led to the slaughter in the South Atlantic in 1982
over a population the size of a village.



I am all for the rationalization of human frontiers and the decolonization process to be completed. Whether it be the remnants of the british empire
The unification of Korea and Cyprus or the return of Guantanamo Naval base Bay to Cuba and scores of other examples.

junder

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Headcounts of tiny populations are merely figleafs to justify a military base 1800 km from london.
Democracy and the right to self determination of this tiny population have nothing to do with the current british colony and bases there it is related to its strategic position and its military importance combined with british stubbornness and some misplaced imperial jingoism and their warlike nature.
The same attitude which led to the slaughter in the South Atlantic in 1982
over a population the size of a village.



I am all for the rationalization of human frontiers and the decolonization process to be completed. Whether it be the remnants of the british empire
The unification of Korea and Cyprus or the return of Guantanamo Naval base Bay to Cuba and scores of other examples.

Right so it was the British fault for the argentines invading the Falklands? Nothing to do with a miltary junta trying to hold onto power. Would you have supporterd he falkland islanders being handed over to the arguntine junta then? Just who would Cyprus of Korea be unified under exactly?

Jonny7

Does the decolonization include getting the Spanish out of South America?.. or where do we draw the line in this medieval whataboutery

Dear Guadeloupe, French Guiana, and Reunion you may now cast off your chains of French colonial oppression and be rightfully returned to whatever landmass is geographically closest. Oh Guiana, what's that, you democratically chose to stay linked to Paris? you leave the Spanish colonists no choice but to use force to claim what is rightfully theirs

Fratton Fred

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Headcounts of tiny populations are merely figleafs to justify a military base 1800 km from london.
Democracy and the right to self determination of this tiny population have nothing to do with the current british colony and bases there it is related to its strategic position and its military importance combined with british stubbornness and some misplaced imperial jingoism and their warlike nature.
The same attitude which led to the slaughter in the South Atlantic in 1982
over a population the size of a village.



I am all for the rationalization of human frontiers and the decolonization process to be completed. Whether it be the remnants of the british empire
The unification of Korea and Cyprus or the return of Guantanamo Naval base Bay to Cuba and scores of other examples.

There's really no need to respond to this point by point. You clearly make your stance obvious.

Remind us all again why the Falklands belongs to Argentina?

FTA69

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Comparing Gibraltar to Ceuta and Melilla is just inaccurate whataboutery and is like comparing apples and oranges

It isn't though really is it? Ceuta and Melilla are remnants of an imperial age whereby European powers claimed dominion over north Africa and regarded it as either their own personal sphere of influence or else integral parts of their own country. Ceuta is no more an integral part of Spain than Algeria was an integral part of France. If you are using the "common sense" argument regarding Gibralter then it also applies to Ceuta and Melilla which are obviously part of Morocco.

(a)
Size of population is far greater 155,000 + compared to 30,000 for gib

Semantical nonsense. Either they have a claim to the place or they don't, population has nothing to do with it.

Proximity to Spain,

-Spain is just 19km from Ceuta
-Melila is a bit further out ?

It's across the sea on a different continent and in the middle of territory belonging to a different country. It's hardly next door in real terms.

(c)
Length of time held

-Ceuta has been under either Portuguese control since 1415 and Spanish since 1580

-Spain holds Melilla port since 1497

Again, wholly irrelevant. By your logic the Brits just have to hold Gibralter for another few years and their claim is then watertight?

Spanish posturing over Gibraltar is nonsense. This isn't a case of imperialist Britain attempting to bully some nation 'yearning to be free', rather a resurgence of an ugly jingoistic and ultra-nationalistic strain that runs through Spanish society. They themselves hold colonies in Morocco and have the brass balls to state they're part of Spain while at the same time throwing a hissy fit over Gibraltar. This is the same state that also bans newspapers, youth groups, mandated political parties and has sponsored death squads back in the 1980s all in pursuit of its chauvinistic ideal of a 'one, pure Spain'.

Is Gibraltar a cynical colony at this stage? Of course it is, but this is a row between countries up to their necks in imperialism and neither of them have any semblance of the moral high ground.

RobitTV

Whenever Gibraltar comes up, Ceuta and Meilla also crop up.

But it seems, even the Spanish forget to mention - many might not even be aware - that Spain has MORE THAN TWO ENCLAVES in the Moroccan coastline.

Ceuta and Melilla are of course Autonomous cities, but there are FOUR other areas known as "Sovereign Places" (Plazas de Soberania).

Islas Chafarinas
Isla Congreso
Isla del Rey
Isla Isabel II

Peñón de Alhucemas (which also includes, Isla de Mar and Isla de Tierra)
Peñón de Vélez de la Gomera

All of the above are militray outposts and no civillians live there.

Also, the Isla del Perejil which laughinly was at a centre of a massive dispute a few years back and is probably the last time the Spanish military saw any action.

RobitTV

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Headcounts of tiny populations are merely figleafs to justify a military base 1800 km from london.
Democracy and the right to self determination of this tiny population have nothing to do with the current british colony and bases there it is related to its strategic position and its military importance combined with british stubbornness and some misplaced imperial jingoism and their warlike nature.
The same attitude which led to the slaughter in the South Atlantic in 1982
over a population the size of a village.



I am all for the rationalization of human frontiers and the decolonization process to be completed. Whether it be the remnants of the british empire
The unification of Korea and Cyprus or the return of Guantanamo Naval base Bay to Cuba and scores of other examples.

Come off it, Netherlands has territories in the Caribbean which was their's since around the early/middle 1600's and have a population of just over 300,000. Are you going to tell me they have have those islands so they can build large military bases? :pac:

Even our American friends have 1 or 2 territories in the pacific that was captured from Japan, i don't see you condemning that!

And France which has numerous territories like Britain, i suppose they are perfect are they?

You are so deluded and just another anti-brit basher. The kind of people who put Ireland to shame.

I Hope you have learnt today that Britain isn't the only empire - France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Netherlands and even Germany for a short period and i'd add the USA aswell.

RobitTV

Jonny7 wrote: »

Does the decolonization include getting the Spanish out of South America?.. or where do we draw the line in this medieval whataboutery

Dear Guadeloupe, French Guiana, and Reunion you may now cast off your chains of French colonial oppression and be rightfully returned to whatever landmass is geographically closest. Oh Guiana, what's that, you democratically chose to stay linked to Paris? you leave the Spanish colonists no choice but to use force to claim what is rightfully theirs

Or even Argentina, The so called "claim" over the falklands.

I swear Spain and France for goodness sake even have more claim to the Islands then Argentina will ever have.

Since Britain, France and Spain have all owned the islands in it's history. Oh and not forgetting even America did own them for a brief period.

I say we let the islands go from the British and leave the French and spanish colonists to use force to claim what is rightfully theirs. :pac:

Or Spain should invade South america Yes great idea! Because............ Spain own's it anyway. :pac:

We MUST comply with the Self-Determination of the Native American's who want ALL of their land back because it is rightfully their's and i'm being serious

Cork boy 55

FTA69 wrote: »

It isn't though really is it? Ceuta and Melilla are remnants of an imperial age whereby European powers claimed dominion over north Africa and regarded it as either their own personal sphere of influence or else integral parts of their own country. Ceuta is no more an integral part of Spain than Algeria was an integral part of France. If you are using the "common sense" argument regarding Gibralter then it also applies to Ceuta and Melilla which are obviously part of Morocco.

Semantical nonsense. Either they have a claim to the place or they don't, population has nothing to do with it.

It's across the sea on a different continent and in the middle of territory belonging to a different country. It's hardly next door in real terms.

Again, wholly irrelevant. By your logic the Brits just have to hold Gibralter for another few years and their claim is then watertight?

Spanish posturing over Gibraltar is nonsense. This isn't a case of imperialist Britain attempting to bully some nation 'yearning to be free', rather a resurgence of an ugly jingoistic and ultra-nationalistic strain that runs through Spanish society. They themselves hold colonies in Morocco and have the brass balls to state they're part of Spain while at the same time throwing a hissy fit over Gibraltar. This is the same state that also bans newspapers, youth groups, mandated political parties and has sponsored death squads back in the 1980s all in pursuit of its chauvinistic ideal of a 'one, pure Spain'.

Is Gibraltar a cynical colony at this stage? Of course it is, but this is a row between countries up to their necks in imperialism and neither of them have any semblance of the moral high ground.

First of all you have abused the multi-quote function and shredded my constructed original post. leaving out key information. As I pointed out
Gib = colony as recognized by UN
Spain's African territory's are a Border dispute
I then went on to compare a hypothetical situation where Gib could be considered a border dispute and compared. The United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories do not consider those Spanish territories to be colonies, whereas it does declare Gibraltar as a non-decolonized territory.
The Spanish position states that both Ceuta and Melilla are integral parts of the Spanish state, and have been since the 16th century, whereas Gibraltar, being a british Overseas Territory, is not and never has been part of the United Kingdom

Secondly
I never said Spains claims to Moroccan enclaves where watertight just that they where far better than britain's to gibs

Thirdly
The history of these enclaves and further European advances into North Africa in 19th century are two completely different phases of history
There where taken at a very different time in history The moors only left Spain in 1492.

Fourthly
You don't seem to understand how territorial disputes are attributed by the UN and countries Of course these factors( and others) are important

Cork boy 55

RobitTV wrote: »

Come off it, Netherlands has territories in the Caribbean which was their's since around the early/middle 1600's and have a population of just over 300,000. Are you going to tell me they have have those islands so they can build large military bases? :pac:

Even our American friends have 1 or 2 territories in the pacific that was captured from Japan, i don't see you condemning that!

And France which has numerous territories like Britain, i suppose they are perfect are they?

You are so deluded and just another anti-brit basher. The kind of people who put Ireland to shame.

I Hope you have learnt today that Britain isn't the only empire - France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Netherlands and even Germany for a short period and i'd add the USA aswell.

So..
no counter claim that britian retains gib for military strategic purposes
to project power at a key strategic location due its jingoistic and warlike nature and that gib is a colony and recognized intentionally as such

so engage in more whataboutery and name calling and personnel abuse

Sand

The other key problem for the Spanish is that they entirely ceded Gibraltar to the British in the Treaty of Utrecht. By challenging the terms of that treaty, they are giving permission to everyone else to re-examine and arbitrarily revise treaties that they may have signed with Spain. Undermining respect for sovereign treaties is a dangerous game.

Long term, bad Spanish-British relations are a worse problem for the Spanish. If British tourists are even dully aware of some aggro, they may go to Portugal or France or Cyprus or wherever instead to spend their money with knock on effects for the Spanish tourist industry/economy. I don't think you'll see a boycott (though who knows with The Sun) but why Spain would want to discourage any tourists (even the British...) is inexplicable. On the other hand, will the British even notice a blockade of Gibraltar?

pablomakaveli

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

First of all you have abused the multi-quote function and shredded my constructed original post. leaving out key information. As I pointed out
Gib = colony as recognized by UN
Spain's African territory's are a Border dispute
I then went on to compare a hypothetical situation where Gib could be considered a border dispute and compared. The United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories do not consider those Spanish territories to be colonies, whereas it does declare Gibraltar as a non-decolonized territory.
The Spanish position states that both Ceuta and Melilla are integral parts of the Spanish state, and have been since the 16th century, whereas Gibraltar, being a british Overseas Territory, is not and never has been part of the United Kingdom

Secondly
I never said Spains claims to Moroccan enclaves where watertight just that they where far better than britain's to gibs

Thirdly
The history of these enclaves and further European advances into North Africa in 19th century are two completely different phases of history
There where taken at a very different time in history The moors only left Spain in 1492.

Fourthly
You don't seem to understand how territorial disputes are attributed by the UN and countries Of course these factors( and others) are important

Given it was under Portuguese control before that should the Spanish return Ceuta to Portuguese control as well? Or is it only countries you don't like who need to hand over territory despite the wishes of the populace?

RobitTV

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

So..
no counter claim that britian retains gib for military strategic purposes
to project power at a key strategic location due its jingoistic and warlike nature and that gib is a colony and recognized intentionally as such

so engage in more whataboutery and name calling and personnel abuse

Where in Gibraltar is there a significant military base with tanks, Artillery, Fighter jets? Please tell us!

They couldn't even fit one for goodness sake. Project power? you talk like Britain is the only nation to do this.

China is currently expanding its power by trying to claim islands in the pacific and south china sea. I think china is acting warlike!

You have no evidence to support your claim that Britain has some sort of Military base with the power to strike anywhere in the Med and North Africa. I'm sorry but it's just complete rubbish!

What do you mean a key strategic location? It's a small piece of land in Southern Europe! I Don't think North Korea or Argentina will be threatened much by it's incredible strategic location! :pac:

You are basically saying the French keep its territory in South america so they can have a significant military presence in a region that is influenced highly by the USA.

Do you think the USA or it's South American partners would be happy if the French started placing Long Range missiles and several thousand troops and warships on the territory? No.

Spain will go crazy if Britain did it. So that's why there isn't a significant military presence in Gibraltar.

The Falkland islands have much more protection then Gibraltar i'd say Gibraltar is probably the least defended.

The People want to remain BRITISH! The Territory is legal under UN and International law! Self-determination is Legal and The People decide their own future. It's a recognized territory under legal international Law!

There isn't much more that can be said. Just because you are anti-british does not mean you have to Ignore the true facts!

Fratton Fred

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

First of all you have abused the multi-quote function and shredded my constructed original post. leaving out key information. As I pointed out
Gib = colony as recognized by UN
Spain's African territory's are a Border dispute
I then went on to compare a hypothetical situation where Gib could be considered a border dispute and compared. The United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories do not consider those Spanish territories to be colonies, whereas it does declare Gibraltar as a non-decolonized territory.
The Spanish position states that both Ceuta and Melilla are integral parts of the Spanish state, and have been since the 16th century, whereas Gibraltar, being a british Overseas Territory, is not and never has been part of the United Kingdom

Secondly
I never said Spains claims to Moroccan enclaves where watertight just that they where far better than britain's to gibs

Thirdly
The history of these enclaves and further European advances into North Africa in 19th century are two completely different phases of history
There where taken at a very different time in history The moors only left Spain in 1492.

Fourthly
You don't seem to understand how territorial disputes are attributed by the UN and countries Of course these factors( and others) are important

So in other words, if the UK dissolved the Gibraltar government and made it part of the UK, it wouldn't be a colony, but because they are self governing, they are?

You ignored my question by the way, why should the Falklands belong to Argentina?

Manach

The European convention of Human Rights is the main rights based treaty that Spain and the UK both signed and implemented. Explicit in that is a emphasis on the democratic values a modern state must embrace - "a fundamental feature of European public order" according to the Court. Hence it does not matter what the UN recognised status is, the democratic wishes of that political unit of Gibraltar (which is included in the convention )are clear - being part of the UK polity. Only if that changes,then Spain might have a case.

WakeUp

The British will not hand back control of Gibraltar anytime soon to the Spanish. It isnt just them who view its location as strategically important so do the Americans and NATO. The most important aspect of the military base for the British is its ability to support their nuclear submarine fleet. It also gives them direct access to the eastern Atlantic. In theory controling the straight of Gibraltar gives the British the ability to exercise control of everything that enters and leaves the Mediterranen. The US/NATO view the straight of Gibraltar as one of five choke points, somewhere that a numerically defending inferior force can prevent a much larger force bringing their superior numbers to bear. The base and Gibraltar maybe small but it remains extremely important to the British and the US and I cant see it being returned to the Spanish anytime soon. Spain will not want to start a war the tensions will receed eventually and the status quo will remain the same I would think.