British rule in Gibraltar:Should it end?

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>

sceptre

chill wrote:

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 ?

I'd support this (if it's what the inhabitants wanted). However, the Treaty of Utrecht is pretty clear that in the event of the British Crown relinguishing its claim on Gibraltar, Spain gets offered it first. Gibraltar already has control over quite a lot of its own business - pretty much anything that doesn't include foreign relations, defence, financial security and internal security (I suppose they could take on their own internal security). A literal reading of the Treaty would appear to indicate that if Britain moves out, Spain gets to move in regardless. Which currently appears to be the opposite of what the inhabitants want - over 99% of the population voted to reject the last referendum (in 2002) on joint sovereignty. Caught between a rock and a hard place (pun partly intended).

chill

sceptre wrote:

I'd support this (if it's what the inhabitants wanted). However, the Treaty of Utrecht is pretty clear that in the event of the British Crown relinguishing its claim on Gibraltar, Spain gets offered it first. Gibraltar already has control over quite a lot of its own business - pretty much anything that doesn't include foreign relations, defence, financial security and internal security (I suppose they could take on their own internal security). A literal reading of the Treaty would appear to indicate that if Britain moves out, Spain gets to move in regardless. Which currently appears to be the opposite of what the inhabitants want - over 99% of the population voted to reject the last referendum (in 2002) on joint sovereignty. Caught between a rock and a hard place (pun partly intended).

Well the thing is... that Gibraltar and Britain are free to renegotiate the Treaty however they want. Yes Gibralter do control a lot of their business but I don't believe that is codified. In a new treaty this could be formalised ina transition period.

sceptre

chill wrote:

Well the thing is... that Gibraltar and Britain are free to renegotiate the Treaty however they want.

Of course. I've my doubts about whether Spain would go for it but I think your idea/plan/call it what you will is pretty sound. In any case, a self-governing Gibraltar (or a power-sharing Gibraltar, or an independent Gibraltar) would be better than what Spain reckons it has at the moment. The original treaty stated that there was to be no cross-border trade with Gibraltar except in the case of emergency. I'm not too sure how much this has been abandoned since the border was re-opened but it must have been changed (effectively re-negotiated to some degree), at the very least effectively due to the number of people from Gibraltar buying property in Spain and vice-versa so there's even a short history of this particular treaty being re-evaluated even in a small way with regard to Gibraltar in particular.

Yes Gibralter do control a lot of their business but I don't believe that is codified.

Correct, it isn't. There's a new (early) draft constitution on the table AFAIK (I don't have a copy) which apparently includes the codification of what they're already doing (and presumably a little bit more). I suspect there's a little bit of heel-dragging in Whitehall due to the lack of movement on the powersharing issue.

David-[RLD]-

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.

Ireland was part of the UK for hundreds of years; almost a millennium. Would you say "no, keep Ireland as part of the UK, it's been under British control for almost a thousand years" if the Brits were still in control? And weren't the IRB, ICA and Irish Volunteers technically, in the eyes of others (but not my eyes), terrorists?

secret_squirrel

There is one major difference between the basque region and Ireland though, Ireland is a land mass in its own right, which made it simpler to divorce us from the UK. It also helps preserve culture and ethnicity.