British rule in Gibraltar:Should it end?

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.

beer enigma

sceptre wrote:

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?

And even the Woodman became an evil despot who pillaged & plundered the Land of the Winkies until they could take no more.....

R.I.P winkies of Winkyland

dubhthach

monument wrote:

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.

As the expressions goes "Empires have long half lives", a prime example would be the roman empire which in my opinion is basically ancestor of what one could call "Western Society"

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I am against the idea of rewarding ethnic-cleansing.

Would you consider that an absolute principle? Doesn't look like it...

arcadegame2004 wrote:

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

And what about those Germans who did not participate in mass genocide? Did they get what they deserved?

Would you go further, and dismiss the rape and slaughter of German civilians by Russian forces as justifiable, because of German actions in Russia?

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

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

Your point was that Spain should be given back Gibraltar. I don't see how saying that Spain comitted genocide and should lose acquired territories like the Germans makes that point at all, when Gibraltar is another acquired territory.

jc

arcadegame2004

bonkey wrote:

Your point was that Spain should be given back Gibraltar. I don't see how saying that Spain comitted genocide and should lose acquired territories like the Germans makes that point at all, when Gibraltar is another acquired territory.

jc

Germany did not commit genocide in Gibraltar though.

Also the Spanish genocide occurred in South America hence they deserved to lose it.

Much of the territories lost by Germany after WW2 were originally grabbed by Prussia during the 3 Partitions of Poland in the 18th century, so it could be argued they were returning what was not originally there's and that argument is consistent with the Spanish withdrawal, and with any future British withdrawal from Gibraltar.

If the British army invaded and captured Waterford, and expelled the entire Irish population, before shipping in colonists, would that mean that Waterford should remain under British rule because "the majority of the people there" wanted it?

Kindof like what Israel is arguing with respect to their colonisation and ethnic-cleansing of the West Bank.

elivsvonchiaing

The only reason I can see why Gibraltor remains British is the Falklands war. If this hadn't happened they would now (by gov consent) be Las Malvinhas, Gibraltor would be Spanish and the locals in either case wouldn't have a say in it. Dunno about about Bermuda and BVI - probably would still be British.

This is all about maintenance costs - Bermuda - they have a governor whose duties include: meeting the Queen if she ever visits - following his favourite football team from overseas - OK various bull**** protocol stuff - maybe a day a week?? Falklands and Gibraltor are higher maintenance. Troops don't work for free. What I don't know is whether the Bermuda government pay for Warwick Camp (The Bermuda Regiment). If they don't they could well fit in with Gibraltor.

I reckon Gibraltor will be the first to go. Falklands last - it will have to be at least 2030! Think about it.

steviec

arcadegame2004 wrote:

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.

I don't understand how this is a reward?

Nobody involved in that is alive now. It is of no relevance today. 'Owning' Gibraltar is not rewarding any British person for any wrong doing. All it is doing is allowing the people of Gibraltar to live how they want to live.
The people who were kicked out of Gibraltar in 1704 are no longer alive. It's not like they're all sitting on the border waiting to get back home. Their homes are no longer there.

The history of practically every territory on the planet is plagued with conflict and disputes - so what? Shouldn't people alive today in a democratic society have the right to choose how their country is governed instead of being 'punished' for something done by people from their ruling empire many generations ago? I don't understand why two democratic governments are fighting over a territory. Don't people choose their government nowadays and not the other way round?

monument

sceptre wrote:

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?

As dubhthach pointed out "empires have long half lives", so at least some empires are not as evil now as they were in their hay day, and at the very least they can sometimes be a force for good – but yes the “evil” usually outweighs the “good” so the short answer is no.

And of course, I was supposed to type ‘un-democratic’ – thanks for the correction Mike.

chill

All the Anti British and Anti Colonial stuff is all well and good, and I ain't no fan of Colonialism.

However the simple fact remains at the end of the day that the vast majority of the people living in Gibralter don't want to be part of Spain and therefore it would be completely undemocratic and wrong to simply hand over Gibralter to Spain tomorrow.

However I would support a third way ..... Gibralter gets overall sovereignty but there is a very high level of self rule and some kind of joint authority with the British, who get to maintain a military base there, for a period of, say, ten years ?

monument

chill wrote:

All the Anti British and Anti Colonial stuff is all well and good, and I ain't no fan of Colonialism.

However the simple fact remains at the end of the day that the vast majority of the people living in Gibralter don't want to be part of Spain and therefore it would be completely undemocratic and wrong to simply hand over Gibralter to Spain tomorrow.

However I would support a third way ..... Gibralter gets overall sovereignty but there is a very high level of self rule and some kind of joint authority with the British, who get to maintain a military base there, for a period of, say, ten years ?

Agreed.

<this text is for message shortness script>