UK facing rising tensions with Spain over Gibraltar

RobitTV

Gibraltar, located off the south-west tip of Europe on the Iberian Peninsula is 426 metres high (1,396 feet).

The Rock is crown property of the United Kingdom and borders to Spain. The sovereignty of Gibraltar was transferred to the United Kingdom by the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. (This was of great significance in the history of Gibraltar).

In referendums held in 1967 and 2002, Gibraltarians ignored Spanish pressure and voted overwhelmingly to remain a British dependency. Since Gibraltar residents voted overwhelmingly by referendum in 2003 against a "total shared sovereignty" arrangement, talks between the UK and Spain over the fate of the 300-year-old UK colony have stalled. Spain disapproves of UK plans to grant Gibraltar greater autonomy.

But lately Spain has increased tensions with Britain after Spanish warships entered the waters of Gibraltar.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2274640/Gibraltar-Tensions-grow-Royal-Navy-confronts-Spanish-warship.html

My opinion on this one though is quite simple, they are British and that's that. This goes way back further then the Falklands and the treaty signed Gibraltar over to Britain in the very early 1700s

This certainly is not a colony and never was.

Manach

Offhand, Spain has two enclaves in North Africa. If they are serious about restoring national integrity along geographical grounds, then perhaps they might return these.

BlaasForRafa

Manach wrote: »

Offhand, Spain has two enclaves in North Africa. If they are serious about restoring national integrity along geographical grounds, then perhaps they might return these.

Ceuta and Melilla, 2 spanish enclaves completely surrounded by Moroccan territory. The Spanish actually consider them as being part of Spain rather than dependancies or colonies or whatever.

Spain needs to just get over Gibraltar, just like the Argentinians need to get over the Falkand Islands thing.

Seaneh

This whole thing reminded me of when Britain accidentally invaded Spain 11 years ago and was repelled by two policemen on a beach :P.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/1385288/Marines-storm-ashore-in-the-wrong-country.html

Jonny7

It's a story in a rag tabloid built around two bored navies having yet another tiny altercation to break their monotonous routines

A Dub in Glasgo

RobitTV wrote: »

My opinion on this one though is quite simple, they are British and that's that.

Why is it 'that's that'? What makes them British?

Cork boy 55

Manach wrote: »

Offhand, Spain has two enclaves in North Africa. If they are serious about restoring national integrity along geographical grounds, then perhaps they might return these.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Ceuta and Melilla, 2 spanish enclaves completely surrounded by Moroccan territory. The Spanish actually consider them as being part of Spain rather than dependancies or colonies or whatever.

Spain needs to just get over Gibraltar, just like the Argentinians need to get over the Falkand Islands thing.

Just whataboutery

There is very little comparison between the two

Spain's enclaves are Spanish for much longer have a far greater population and are just across the water from Spain.


Spain's claim on them is far stronger than the UK claim over a tiny piece of land so far from its country(nearly 3000km). Although is not as ridiculous as their occupation of las Malvinas archipelago based on a planted population the size of a village over 12734 km from Britain.

Captain Chaos

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Why is it 'that's that'? What makes them British?

The vast majority of people living there are happy to live under British rule, suppose that's what makes it.

A Dub in Glasgo

Captain Chaos wrote: »

The vast majority of people living there are happy to live under British rule, suppose that's what makes it.

Living under British rule makes them British?

Iwasfrozen

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Living under British rule makes them British?

Calling themselves British makes them British. Ever heard of self determination? It's fairly big with the UN.

RobitTV

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Why is it 'that's that'? What makes them British?

Well two referendums on remaining a British territory was overwhelmingly voted in favour of by the population. Also not forgetting the referendum on joint soviergnthy in 2003 between Britain and Spain which was overwhelmingly voted against.

Also international law gives them "Self-determination" something everybody on this planet has the right to. And they have the right as a overseas territory of the United Kingdom to choose what they want for the future.

No matter how much Sabre-rattling and propaganda comes their way, they will have the final decision at the end of the day.

They choose to be British Citizens and they are and will be British Citizens!

jill_valentine

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Living under British rule makes them British?

If you've ever been to Gibraltar, you'll see how British they are. There's absolutely nothing Spanish about the place.

It's not like Northern Ireland or something, where there's some dispute or dissent about it. It's just bunch of British people live on a little bit of Britain attached to Spain, that Spain would quite like to have.

gallag

I guess we know why we are building two new aircraft carrier's, GB, the defender of human rights, self determination and the protector against colonists!

Seaneh

RobitTV wrote: »

Well two referendums on remaining a British territory was overwhelmingly voted in favour of by the population. Also not forgetting the referendum on joint soviergnthy in 2003 between Britain and Spain which was overwhelmingly voted against.

Also international law gives them "Self-determination" something everybody on this planet has the right to. And they have the right as a overseas territory of the United Kingdom to choose what they want for the future.

No matter how much Sabre-rattling and propaganda comes their way, they will have the final decision at the end of the day.

They choose to be British Citizens and they are and will be British Citizens!

Just as an example.

If Israel decides to build massive plantations in the west bank and place millions of Israeli jew's in Palestinian lands and then hold a referendum in which the "majority" of people vote to be part of israel. Should that be accepted?

Because that's ecaxtly what happened in placed like Gibraltar, Deigo Garcia, The Falklands, Montserrat, Barbados, ulster, Australia, Canada and a host of other places.

Seaneh

Seaneh wrote: »

If Israel decides to build massive plantations in the west bank and place millions of Israeli jew's in Palestinian lands and then hold a referendum in which the "majority" of people vote to be part of israel. Should that be accepted?

If the Palestinians ceded the territory then started bitching about it 300 years later you'd have a point.

drunkmonkey

As an Irish catholic who visited Gibraltar I'm firmly on the side of the Spanish, visited Morocco on the same holiday.
Sat down with a Moroccan and asked him what the cannons are pointed at he said Spain and cursed the basterdos as he called them.

Have to say there's a pair of them in it but Gibraltar is very much part of Spain in the same way the north of Ireland is very much part of Ireland. I don't think a vote by a incumbent majority is necessarily fair way to decide ownership as the original colonies were diluted.

Seaneh

Deleted User wrote: »

If the Palestinians ceded the territory then started bitching about it 300 years later you'd have a point.

So I have a point about every territory listed other than Gibraltar?

Cavehill Red

RobitTV wrote: »

Also international law gives them "Self-determination" something everybody on this planet has the right to.

Where is the line drawn on this though? Say I'd like self-determination from Ireland because I don't believe I should be paying off bank debts with taxes or something. Why can't I declare my gaff independent and seek UN recognition on the grounds of self-determination?
If not my gaff, what about if the whole street bands together to secede from Ireland? Or the village? Or the county? Where's the line?

Iwasfrozen

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Where is the line drawn on this though? Say I'd like self-determination from Ireland because I don't believe I should be paying off bank debts with taxes or something. Why can't I declare my gaff independent and seek UN recognition on the grounds of self-determination?
If not my gaff, what about if the whole street bands together to secede from Ireland? Or the village? Or the county? Where's the line?

There is no line, you can make the case to secede. You'll still inherit your share of the debt though so there would be no gain.

getzls

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Have to say there's a pair of them in it but Gibraltar is very much part of Spain in the same way the north of Ireland is very much part of Ireland. I don't think a vote by a incumbent majority is necessarily fair way to decide ownership as the original colonies were diluted.

I will give you only half a point, i.e. Northern Ireland is part of Ireland.

Gibraltar is not and never will be part of Spain.

They try to take it by force and they will get the same treatment as the Argies.

Cavehill Red

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

There is no line, you can make the case to secede. You'll still inherit your share of the debt though so there would be no gain.

I'd argue it was odious debt and repudiate it. There are plenty of precedents in international law.
Grand so. The People's Republic of my street will declare its independence shortly!

drunkmonkey

You could probably declare your house a principality, there's nothing in Irish law to stop you, just abide by international rules on creating your own state.

Manach

... just so long as you've the military force to back that new State's claim up.
That offhand there are articles in the Constitution relating to treason, so the Irish state might take a view on the matters.

riffmongous

Manach wrote: »

... just so long as you've the military force to back that new State's claim up.
That offhand there are articles in the Constitution relating to treason, so the Irish state might take a view on the matters.

But won't the UN step in and back his right to self-determination?

What if the city of Derry decided it wanted to join Ireland?

Iwasfrozen

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I'd argue it was odious debt and repudiate it. There are plenty of precedents in international law.
Grand so. The People's Republic of my street will declare its independence shortly!

Grand, come back when you get UN recognition.

Cavehill Red

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Grand, come back when you get UN recognition.

Ah, so sovereignty is defined solely by UN recognition then?

Iwasfrozen

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Ah, so sovereignty is defined solely by UN recognition then?

No, no it isn't it's defined by self determination. We've been through this. But if you want the Irish government to take you seriously you're going to need UN recognition for your state to prevent the Irish government hauling your ass to jail for not paying your taxes.

murphaph

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I'd argue it was odious debt and repudiate it. There are plenty of precedents in international law.
Grand so. The People's Republic of my street will declare its independence shortly!

When the rest of Ireland builds a wall around your street, cuts off our water and electricity and our DSL, you won't come crying will you? After all, you wanted to secede. That's the line...the line is determined by common sense. Spain did close the border for many years, but the Gibraltarians carried on. Could your street carry on with no access to the rest of the world?

Cavehill Red

murphaph wrote: »

When the rest of Ireland builds a wall around your street, cuts off our water and electricity and our DSL, you won't come crying will you? After all, you wanted to secede. That's the line...the line is determined by common sense. Spain did close the border for many years, but the Gibraltarians carried on. Could your street carry on with no access to the rest of the world?

Let's say that, like Gibraltar, and unlike Lesotho, my street also borders another state, or can be served from the sea.
What then? Do I require an army to enforce our secession, or UN recognition, or what?

Reekwind

So hang on, let me get this straight. Britain invades Gibraltar, expels its native population, forces the Spanish government to sign it over via treaty and then ships over a few settlers of its own. This is all okay because the descendants of these settlers consider themselves to be British? Really?

riffmongous wrote:

But won't the UN step in and back his right to self-determination?

No. Contrary to what some people on this site believe, there is no such thing as a blanket right to self-determination. Nations and peoples have this right (depending on whether one takes their lead from Lenin or the UN) but even then it's controversial - Kosovo's declaration of independence remains unrecognised by the UN and much of its membership

So you and I do not have the right to secede and votes by settler populations in the Falklands or Gibraltar carry no weight. Even if it could somehow be said that these were eligible for self-determination, that principle does not carry all before it and does not overrule international law. There are plenty of examples of nations abusing self-determination to further or justify expansionism; the most obvious examples being the Nazi plebiscites in Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland and the Saarland

So can people please stop treating settler votes on self-determination as if they meant something? It's particularly perverse when defending British colonies and contrasted against British treatment of other (non-white) populations, such as the population of Diego Garcia

BlaasForRafa

Reekwind wrote: »

So hang on, let me get this straight. Britain invades Gibraltar, expels its native population, forces the Spanish government to sign it over via treaty and then ships over a few settlers of its own. This is all okay because the descendants of these settlers consider themselves to be British? Really?

Right, so the Finns get Viipuri back and the Germans get Danzig and Konigsberg yeah?

The anti-Britishness of some people on this forum is absolutely unreal, it makes some lose all sense of logic altogether.

Cavehill Red

Too simple.
That's like those people who reach for the race card in relation to any topic about race, in order to stymie discussion.
It's hardly anti-British to point out that the sovereignty of a rock, many miles away from Britain, jutting off the bottom of Spain, only a couple of miles wide, which the Spanish have consistently claimed for centuries, might be open for debate.
Given that Britain has, at some point or another, claimed jurisdiction, usually by force of arms, in 80% of the nations on Earth, your argument would seek to deny the possibility of anyone disagreeing with any of those invasions, occupations, annexes, imperial adventures or quests for lebensraum and empire, on the grounds that to do so would be 'anti-British'.
Britain (and France are the other big one here) retains ownership of a series of former imperial colonies. We are now long into the postcolonial era, and it is only correct that the future of such anomalies are discussed, preferably rationally, and preferably without people reaching for accusations of bigotry to stifle debate.

Reekwind

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Right, so the Finns get Viipuri back and the Germans get Danzig and Konigsberg yeah?

I'm glad that you used the Danzig example because according to the warped logic displayed in this thread, the Poles should have handed it over meekly in 1939. What with 'self-determination' and all that

The anti-Britishness of some people on this forum is absolutely unreal, it makes some lose all sense of logic altogether.

Yeah, because it's impossible to have objections to colonialism without being an anti-British nutjob who froths at the mouth and the brain. Everyone who doesn't agree with your brilliant reasoning must somehow motivated by reflex 'anti-Britishness', right?

junder

Reekwind wrote: »

I'm glad that you used the Danzig example because according to the warped logic displayed in this thread, the Poles should have handed it over meekly in 1939. What with 'self-determination' and all that

Yeah, because it's impossible to have objections to colonialism without being an anti-British nutjob who froths at the mouth and the brain. Everyone who doesn't agree with your brilliant reasoning must somehow motivated by reflex 'anti-Britishness', right?

What else could it be? In both the case of Gibraltar and the Falklands the settled populations have decided and voted unanimously to remain part of the wider family of the United Kingdom. In neither case are they 'ruled' by Britain but have thier own elected governments but it seems that this is not good enough. Dispite the choice of the populations britian is at fault and should hand back both Gibraltar and the Falklands and screw the people in both. Ironic that in this situation it involves the Spanish in one dispute and the descendents of the Spanish in the other dispute

Cavehill Red

junder wrote: »

What else could it be? In both the case of Gibraltar and the Falklands the settled populations have decided and voted unanimously to remain part of the wider family of the United Kingdom. In neither case are they 'ruled' by Britain but have thier own elected governments but it seems that this is not good enough. Dispite the choice of the populations britian is at fault and should hand back both Gibraltar and the Falklands and screw the people in both. Ironic that in this situation it involves the Spanish in one dispute and the descendents of the Spanish in the other dispute

The invalidity of settler population votes was laid to rest earlier in the thread. If I move nine of my relatives into your house and we have a vote and decide we own it now, in what way is that legitimate?

jill_valentine

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Too simple.
That's like those people who reach for the race card in relation to any topic about race, in order to stymie discussion.
It's hardly anti-British to point out that the sovereignty of a rock, many miles away from Britain, jutting off the bottom of Spain, only a couple of miles wide, which the Spanish have consistently claimed for centuries, might be open for debate.
Given that Britain has, at some point or another, claimed jurisdiction, usually by force of arms, in 80% of the nations on Earth, your argument would seek to deny the possibility of anyone disagreeing with any of those invasions, occupations, annexes, imperial adventures or quests for lebensraum and empire, on the grounds that to do so would be 'anti-British'.
Britain (and France are the other big one here) retains ownership of a series of former imperial colonies. We are now long into the postcolonial era, and it is only correct that the future of such anomalies are discussed, preferably rationally, and preferably without people reaching for accusations of bigotry to stifle debate.

So say Gibraltar is handed over to Spain tomorrow. What then happens the entire population of Gibraltar?

They're not Spanish, don't feel Spanish and don't want to be Spanish. So then, in order to retain the citizenship and identity of their birth, are they then expected to have to move to mainland Britain, a place many or most them have never actually been?

Duggys Housemate

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Right, so the Finns get Viipuri back and the Germans get Danzig and Konigsberg yeah?

The anti-Britishness of some people on this forum is absolutely unreal, it makes some lose all sense of logic altogether.

The pro-British bias is entertaining. Argentinas claim on the Falklands is one of proximity. The counter arguments are based on might - the British took it over so it's theirs now. In which case an Argentinian invasion, the excursion of the British, would be seen as a fait accompli after a time?

Bear in mind it's not the 1980's. The UK is in relative decline, the Argentinians are growing. Military power follows economic power. Which means Argentina will get it back sometime.

Duggys Housemate

jill_valentine wrote: »

So say Gibraltar is handed over to Spain tomorrow. What then happens the entire population of Gibraltar?

They're not Spanish, don't feel Spanish and don't want to be Spanish. So then, in order to retain the citizenship and identity of their birth, are they then expected to have to move to mainland Britain, a place many or most them have never actually been?

This is what happened to the original Spainish. After a time history forgets. A bit like its forgotten most of the British Empire

jill_valentine

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

This is what happened to the original Spainish. After a time history forgets. A bit like its forgotten most of the British Empire

Many hundreds of years ago. We can't fix that, our "job", in this hypothetical scenario, is to figure out what's best for the most people going forward. Geographical proximity doesn't automatically grant sovereignty or there would be no such thing as borders anywhere.

Will the Spanish then politely pay the favour forward with Ceuta?

Cavehill Red

jill_valentine wrote: »

So say Gibraltar is handed over to Spain tomorrow. What then happens the entire population of Gibraltar?

They're not Spanish, don't feel Spanish and don't want to be Spanish. So then, in order to retain the citizenship and identity of their birth, are they then expected to have to move to mainland Britain, a place many or most them have never actually been?

What happened the British populations in their many other imperial holdings?

Duggys Housemate

jill_valentine wrote: »

And I suppose the Spanish will then politely pay it forward with Ceuta?

Who cares. That's whataboutary. If the Spainish lose Ceuta militarily, yes. Or alternatively if they agree to hand it back. I believe the French colonials were expelled from Algeria( to a frosty reception at home).

We can oppose all colonialism. Hand them all back, where reasonable.

Duggys Housemate

jill_valentine wrote: »

Many hundreds of years ago. We can't fix that, our "job", in this hypothetical scenario, is to figure out what's best for the most people going forward. Geographical proximity doesn't automatically grant sovereignty or there would be no such thing as borders anywhere.

Will the Spanish then politely pay the favour forward with Ceuta?

Many centuries will pass again.

jill_valentine

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Who cares. That's whataboutary. If the Spainish lose Ceuta militarily, yes. Or alternatively if they agree to hand it back. I believe the French colonials were expelled from Algeria( to a frosty reception at home).

We can oppose all colonialism. Hand them all back, where reasonable.

It's a directly comparable situation. And not an unrelated one, I mean you could skip a stone from Gibraltar to Ceuta. Either Spain believes it has a legitimate case for a claim on the rock of Gibraltar - in which case Morocco has an equally valid one - or it's just engaging in a little diplomatic trolling where it suits because it, too, is a would-be colonial power and it has its eye on that tidy little harbour and it's juicy little matching airport.

If Spain wants anybody to take their claim on the place - a place that's considered itself part of somewhere else for generations before anybody alive was born - seriously, then they are obliged to recognise the same principals in kind. If their only intention is to build up their own property portfolio at the expense of others, then what is that but craven colonialism by diplomatic channels?

murphaph

Reekwind wrote: »

I'm glad that you used the Danzig example because according to the warped logic displayed in this thread, the Poles should have handed it over meekly in 1939. What with 'self-determination' and all that

Danzig didn't belong to Poland in 1939. It was a free city with its own parliament etc. Going back in history is pointless. The modern day residents of Gibraltar want to keep the current set up. I've been to Gibraltar. I think it's interesting the way it is. The ****hole Spanish town of La Linea right next door would make anyone living on the rock want to keep it the way it is.

BlaasForRafa

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

The pro-British bias is entertaining. Argentinas claim on the Falklands is one of proximity. The counter arguments are based on might - the British took it over so it's theirs now. In which case an Argentinian invasion, the excursion of the British, would be seen as a fait accompli after a time?

The British didn't take it from the Argentinians, Argentina didn't exist at the time. Argentina were the ones to try and take it away from the British and got their a***s spanked. I'm not pro-British, I'm just not anti-British which is a stance that makes a person pro-British in the eyes of the anti-British nutters around here.

Bear in mind it's not the 1980's. The UK is in relative decline, the Argentinians are growing. Military power follows economic power. Which means Argentina will get it back sometime.

If you think that Argentina will get it back then you know NOTHING about the state of the Argentinian military. The argentinians would have FAR less chance in a war now and aren't making the investments in their military which would give them the capability in the future.

Reekwind

murphaph wrote: »

Danzig didn't belong to Poland in 1939. It was a free city with its own parliament etc

The demand for Danzig's return (which while under a League of Nations mandate was part of a Polish customs union) was put before the Polish ambassador in August 1939

Going back in history is pointless

I entirely disagree. That's a victor's creed designed to stifle any dissent. Cuba can't complain about Guantanamo Bay and there is to be no return to Diego Garcia because, hey, that's all 'ancient history' now. How very convenient for those who have profited from their historic pilfering

jill_valentine wrote:

If Spain wants anybody to take their claim on the place - a place that's considered itself part of somewhere else for generations before anybody alive was born - seriously, then they are obliged to recognise the same principals in kind

And surely the same applies to the UK? Nothing reveals the pure hypocrisy of London's stance on these islands than their treatment of the people of Diego Garcia

So say Gibraltar is handed over to Spain tomorrow. What then happens the entire population of Gibraltar?

They're not Spanish, don't feel Spanish and don't want to be Spanish. So then, in order to retain the citizenship and identity of their birth, are they then expected to have to move to mainland Britain, a place many or most them have never actually been?

They'll all be rounded up into cattle trucks and sent to forced labour camps

Oh no, wait, this isn't the 1930s. Instead they'll become citizens of an EU nation under what would likely be a federal self-governing arrangement. Spain is quite good at accommodating regions that "don't feel Spanish". I think we can all agree that this would be a much more tolerable solution than that offered to the original inhabitants of the island

Although I'd have to question just how desperately attached these people are to a country that you contend most have never actually visited

Cavehill Red

Again, I'd ask the question, what happened to those identifying as British in their OTHER former colonies?
In some, they stayed and became citizens of the new regime. In others, they retained their British citizenship and stayed, or assumed dual nationality, or they migrated to Britain, or to one of Britain's other holdings.
In other words, every instance had its own unique solution. It would be no different with Gibraltar, or the Falklands. Both would require and receive bespoke solutions.

RandomName2

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Again, I'd ask the question, what happened to those identifying as British in their OTHER former colonies?
In some, they stayed and became citizens of the new regime. In others, they retained their British citizenship and stayed, or assumed dual nationality, or they migrated to Britain, or to one of Britain's other holdings.
In other words, every instance had its own unique solution. It would be no different with Gibraltar, or the Falklands. Both would require and receive bespoke solutions.

I wonder what possible solution they could find for the peaceful, happy, economically successful Gibraltar? I suppose ceding it to a foreign bankrupt power which hasn't quite got over its spectacular imperial collapse in South America and the Pacific would seem a workable solution... if only those colonialists in Whitehall would listen!

Jeez, just as well we have a tiny land bridge with Donegal, else we would have to give back our colony to the UK, regardless of the feelings of the inhabitants.

I think the Spanish would do better looking to keep Catalonia, than attempting to gain Gibraltar.

Hotblack Desiato

Reekwind wrote: »

So hang on, let me get this straight. Britain invades Gibraltar, expels its native population, forces the Spanish government to sign it over via treaty and then ships over a few settlers of its own. This is all okay because the descendants of these settlers consider themselves to be British? Really?

So, hang on, let me get this straight. Spain invades the Canary Islands, exterminates the entire population, settles it with Spanish colonizers and then claims it as its own territory? This is all okay because the descendants of these settlers consider themselves to be Spanish? Really?

No. Contrary to what some people on this site believe, there is no such thing as a blanket right to self-determination. Nations and peoples have this right (depending on whether one takes their lead from Lenin or the UN) but even then it's controversial - Kosovo's declaration of independence remains unrecognised by the UN and much of its membership

Let's not beat about the bush here. The boundaries of every nation in the world are set by force of arms or the credible threat of force of arms. Nothing else.

Reekwind

ninja900 wrote: »

So, hang on, let me get this straight. Spain invades the Canary Islands, exterminates the entire population, settles it with Spanish colonizers and then claims it as its own territory? This is all okay because the descendants of these settlers consider themselves to be Spanish? Really?

And who do you suggest that Spain gives the islands back to? The now extinct aborigines?

I don't even have to go into hypotheticals here: I fully support the calls for the Spanish enclaves in Africa to be returned to Morocco. In the case of the Canaries there is no such modern claimant. C'est la vie

But then I've been perfectly clear on that my stance is driven by anti-colonialism, regardless of the offender. You, and others here, are merely throwing up whataboutisms to try and deflect from Britain's historic bullying

Let's not beat about the bush here. The boundaries of every nation in the world are set by force of arms or the credible threat of force of arms. Nothing else.

So you want to throw us back to the 1930s, when borders were changed with blood and no real regard to international law? Because that's your rule of the jungle; what's mine is mine unless you can take it from my cold dead fingers

Thankfully the rest of the world has, largely, moved beyond such barbarism. We have a little thing now called 'international law' which, while it can still be flouted, governs changes to international boundaries. Which is a good thing for Britain because there is little doubt that the Spanish military could seize this rock if they wanted to

The Corinthian

Personally I found Gibraltar to be a thoroughly unpleasant place; culturally is is very British, to the point of being a parody of Britishness, except with far better weather and full of apes. Additionally it has a thriving population of Barbary macaques amongst its fauna.

Spain's claim is based upon geography and that it was originally a possession of the Spanish crown. Yet it did sign it away and oddly rejects the same arguments from Morocco, in relation to Melilla - which was originally Moroccan (also signed away) and geographically Moroccan.

One could argue that at least it is much closer to mainland Spain, than Gibraltar is to mainland Britain, of course; but I'm not sure how valid such an argument is, unless you want to apply it to Northern Ireland too, and I can't see many wanting to do that here.

And that's really what I find disturbing about some of these threads here, that they seem to be all about Britain - you don't see a lot of threads here about territorial disputes started unless Britain is a party. There are dozens of territorial disputes throughout Europe alone, before you consider irredentist movements that are not government backed - what is our obsession with the British?

Of Gibraltar and Melilla I believe it are legally open and shut cases, in favour of Britain and Spain respectively. Ceuta is fuzzier as it was 'retained' when Spanish Morocco got independence.

However, on aesthetic grounds, I'd happily see Gibraltar Spanish. Of course, those are probably not sufficient grounds to merit consideration...