UK facing rising tensions with Spain over Gibraltar

murphaph

Reekwind wrote: »

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

I know many here like to belittle Britain but Spain would have its arse kicked if they did anything so stupid. The UK has a weapon that could defeat Spain in a few minutes and Spain had no such weapon. Nobody wants to see this ever used, but Spain knows it can't simply "take Gibraltar" without the real possibility of its own cities being razed to the ground without a frigate setting sail from Portsmouth.

Reekwind

The Corinthian wrote: »

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?

Partly a combination of the (inevitable) Anglocentric nature of Boards and partly because Britain remains the world's pre-eminent colonial power. In terms of scattered islands, at least

And that's where the conflict comes from. These aren't just mere territorial disputes (which are frankly boring) but the last leg in the long, and far more emotive, process of de-colonisation. On the one hand you have those who believe that dismantling the holdovers of Empire can only be a good thing, and on the other there are those who feel threatened by this seeming 'downgrading' of Britain's place in the world. Much like a James Bond film, there the necessity of pretending that the UK is a force in the world; something that Spanish or Slovenes don't really worry about

The post above is a perfect example of the latter. murphaph do you really believe that London would start a nuclear war (against an EU and NATO ally) over Gibraltar? That is just insane jingoism (see also getzls' posts)

The Corinthian

Reekwind wrote: »

Partly a combination of the (inevitable) Anglocentric nature of Boards and partly because Britain remains the world's pre-eminent colonial power. In terms of scattered islands, at least

I'm not sure about that - have you ever compared the French overseas departments and territories with the British ones? If you want to judge it by population, the French would appear to be in the lead.

My guess is that you're half right in that Boards is Anglocentric and whenever topics like civil honours, aristocracy or the like appear, we automatically only think of the UK and thus frame everything on that narrow basis. But I also think that it's something that gets the 'chucks' out of the woodwork too and they tend to promote and highlight such disputes so as to intellectually continue the NI debate by proxy.

murphaph

Reekwind wrote: »

The post above is a perfect example of the latter. murphaph do you really believe that London would start a nuclear war (against an EU and NATO ally) over Gibraltar? That is just insane jingoism (see also getzls' posts)

No I don't think it would come to that because Spain knows that the UK can militarily defeat them if they were to go to war, which is what an invasion of Gibraltar would be considered an act of. Spain sabre rattles about Gibraltar but could not take it militarily from the UK. That's the only point I was making.

BTW, Spain wouldn't be much of an ally if it invaded its supposed ally, now would it?

walshb

jill_valentine wrote: »

It's just bunch of British people live on a little bit of Britain attached to Spain, that Spain would quite like to have.

Little bit of Britain attached to Spain? That says it all. Maybe Britain can grab a few more little bits of land attached to Spain, and before we know it Spain will disappear!

A Dub in Glasgo

murphaph wrote: »

I know many here like to belittle Britain but Spain would have its arse kicked if they did anything so stupid. The UK has a weapon that could defeat Spain in a few minutes and Spain had no such weapon. Nobody wants to see this ever used, but Spain knows it can't simply "take Gibraltar" without the real possibility of its own cities being razed to the ground without a frigate setting sail from Portsmouth.

I can't believe someone is suggesting that using WMD's is an answer if Spain went into Gibraltar

BlaasForRafa

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?

Yeah but they're not British and thats the important thing. If they were British they'd be fascist bullying planters etc.

murphaph

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I can't believe someone is suggesting that using WMD's is an answer if Spain went into Gibraltar

Someone didn't.

Reekwind

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm not sure about that - have you ever compared the French overseas departments and territories with the British ones? If you want to judge it by population, the French would appear to be in the lead

Unfortunately it's judged by column inches. I don't think it's inaccurate to claim that Britain's remaining colonial possessions cause much more diplomatic heat than those of other nations'

But it is worth stressing that the only people, in this thread at least, who have defended (or at least refused to condemn) French or Spanish outre-mer possessions are those who support the British position in Gibraltar. I don't see double-standards on the part of those who object to this; ie nobody is being exclusively anti-British under an anti-colonialism cover

But I also think that it's something that gets the 'chucks' out of the woodwork too and they tend to promote and highlight such disputes so as to intellectually continue the NI debate by proxy.

I think it works both ways. My very first post in this thread was confronted with baseless accusations of "anti-Britishness" and whataboutisms. Unfortunately it seems that a discussion about British possessions in the Mediterranean is as unlikely to be as productive as one on British possessions in the North. Which is a pity

murphaph wrote:

Someone didn't.

Then what exactly were you referring to when you said that:

"The UK has a weapon that could defeat Spain in a few minutes and Spain had no such weapon. Nobody wants to see this ever used, but Spain knows it can't simply "take Gibraltar" without the real possibility of its own cities being razed to the ground without a frigate setting sail from Portsmouth."

Here you are clearly linking any Spanish military move against this rock with a British nuclear retaliation that would 'raze cities to the ground'. This is just the clearest expression of the 'might makes right' attitude that both established the Empire and (apparently) continues to justify its legacy

murphaph

Reekwind wrote: »

Then what exactly were you referring to when you said that:

"The UK has a weapon that could defeat Spain in a few minutes and Spain had no such weapon. Nobody wants to see this ever used, but Spain knows it can't simply "take Gibraltar" without the real possibility of its own cities being razed to the ground without a frigate setting sail from Portsmouth."

Here you are clearly linking any Spanish military move against this rock with a British nuclear retaliation that would 'raze cities to the ground'. This is just the clearest expression of the 'might makes right' attitude that both established the Empire and (apparently) continues to justify its legacy

You're reading far too much into my response. Quite simply...Spain knows it can't take Gibraltar militarily because the UK is capable of destroying them as the ultimate sanction

riffmongous

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm not sure about that - have you ever compared the French overseas departments and territories with the British ones? If you want to judge it by population, the French would appear to be in the lead.

My guess is that you're half right in that Boards is Anglocentric and whenever topics like civil honours, aristocracy or the like appear, we automatically only think of the UK and thus frame everything on that narrow basis. But I also think that it's something that gets the 'chucks' out of the woodwork too and they tend to promote and highlight such disputes so as to intellectually continue the NI debate by proxy.

Well both the OPs for this and the Falkands thread were created to promote the british case, I think it's a bit rich that people come on then and claim everyone who disagrees is anti-british and should be out highlighting French or Spanish territorial claims, unless both these threads were just intends as flamebaits, which I would guess was the intention :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Yes the politics forum is anglocentric but then the atheist forum is catholic-based for example, those are just the most relevant areas for an Irish forum.

A Dub in Glasgo

murphaph wrote: »

Someone didn't.

Are you sure? so what was your post about then?

A Dub in Glasgo

riffmongous wrote: »

Well both the OPs for this and the Falkands thread were created to promote the british case, I think it's a bit rich that people come on then and claim everyone who disagrees is anti-british and should be out highlighting French or Spanish territorial claims, unless both these threads were just intends as flamebaits, which I would guess was the intention :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Yep, it is quite clear where the thread starter is on this subject

'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 '

The Corinthian

riffmongous wrote: »

Well both the OPs for this and the Falkands thread were created to promote the british case, I think it's a bit rich that people come on then and claim everyone who disagrees is anti-british and should be out highlighting French or Spanish territorial claims, unless both these threads were just intends as flamebaits, which I would guess was the intention :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Sometimes these threads are started by pro-British posters, sometimes anti-British. Either way, once under-way both come out to hack it out. Personally, I've come out on both sides, over the years; having no particular love or hate for the British myself.

I think the question of the Spanish enclaves in Morocco is a fair point to raise, largely as it pulls the moral rug from under the Spanish to a large extent and this is important as you'd be amazed how often the "poor [INSERT COUNTRY], look at the evil British imperialists occupying our country" argument is trotted out. Eliminate that appeal to emotion and the discussion is forced to concentrate on facts alone.

Yes the politics forum is anglocentric but then the atheist forum is catholic-based for example, those are just the most relevant areas for an Irish forum.

Well Ireland is largely anglocentric, in the same way as Australia or New Zealand or Canada are, for historical and cultural reasons, so most fora here will tend to have an anglocentric bias.

What I particularly dislike about this anglocentrism is that it results in a form of tunnel vision where people can't objectively see beyond the 'British example'. For example, we were told earlier that Britain is the "world's pre-eminent colonial power", yet even a simple Google will show that this may well not be the case.

Or the reaction you get to the idea of an honours system in Ireland, in which the British system and it's connection with aristocracy is used to reject it, despite such systems existing in most republics too. It's very myopic.

Reekwind

The Corinthian wrote: »

What I particularly dislike about this anglocentrism is that it results in a form of tunnel vision where people can't objectively see beyond the 'British example'. For example, we were told earlier that Britain is the "world's pre-eminent colonial power", yet even a simple Google will show that this may well not be the case.

This is disingenuous in the extreme. Not only have you ignored my earlier response to this, you've inserted a sneaky word ("may")

You can argue as to whether or not France is the greater colonial power (even though it has less overseas dependencies than Britain) but to present this as an outrageous example of "tunnel vision" is a gross misrepresentation. It's little different little different from BlaasForRafa's hysterics; being just another form of playing the man

The Corinthian

Reekwind wrote: »

This is disingenuous in the extreme. Not only have you ignored my earlier response to this, you've inserted a sneaky word ("may")

How is this disingenuous? I ignored the rest of what you wrote because I was not challenging it in any way - I may even agree with you. All I cited was your claim, stated with absolute certainty, that Britain is the "world's pre-eminent colonial power". Do I really have to go through all your posts if I only disagree with one part in one?

As for using the conditional "may", that's because it depends how you define "world's pre-eminent colonial power" - you certainly didn't say. If based on population of territories/departments/crown lands alone, for example, it's France. If departments or crown lands are excluded, then it's Britain. Area will get us another answer, as will number of territories and so on. I don't know how best to define this and I'm pretty certain neither do you.

What I was pointing out was that your claim was questionable, and your stating it with such certainty both ignorant and arrogant; had you included conditionals yourself, such as "one of the world's pre-eminent colonial power", I'd have agreed, but you didn't and it was this foolish certainty on things you'd clearly had neither defined nor examined that I criticized.

You can argue as to whether or not France is the greater colonial power (even though it has less overseas dependencies than Britain) but to present this as an outrageous example of "tunnel vision" is a gross misrepresentation.

I presented it as such because, as I pointed out, you clearly and in absolute terms made your claim without thought of other possibilities - unless you realize that it may be a false statement and chose to lie to us.

Otherwise, it didn't enter your head to consider France or anyone else (there's certainly a case for the US there), and instead chose an anglocentric position, which is ultimately what I criticized.

getz

in the treatys of utrecht 1704, spain signed away the rock of gibraltar to great britain,spain itself got a med island, and a chunk of florida[which they sold to america]gibraltar is part of the EU and has its own EU members of parliment[dispite the many objections from the spanish] not many of spanish decent live on the rock,but a lot of the rock scorpions [spanish name for gibraltarians] have maltese ancestors,there are also a large number of jewish people living there,in fact in history the jews were the first recorded residents on the rock, as the citizens want to stay british that is their choice and no one has any right to say otherwise,and they now have a irish pub in the town owned by a dublin lad,

Fratton Fred

They should have given back Gib and kept Minorca, much nicer island.

They were so short sighted in the 18th century.

getz

Fratton Fred wrote: »

They should have given back Gib and kept Minorca, much nicer island.

They were so short sighted in the 18th century.

if they get gib,maybe we will get back minorca and cape canaveral.

Reekwind

The Corinthian wrote: »

How is this disingenuous?

Because you're presenting as evidence a conditional. This is fairly obvious: Britain may or may not be the pre-eminent colonial power. I don't really care. But the statement makes sense, it is reasonable and the underpinning logic is obvious. That I didn't spell that out gives you cause to argue the point with me but not to present it as an "ignorant and arrogant" statement that belies some inherent bias on my part

If I had said that "Britain still rules half the world" or "Britain is prepared to nuke Spanish cities over the rock" then yes, these are statements that are so fundamentally ridiculous that they betray a certain worldview. Asserting that Britain is the pre-eminent colonial power in the world today (in terms of "scattered islands") is not

As for using the conditional "may", that's because it depends how you define "world's pre-eminent colonial power" - you certainly didn't say

Really? I'm fairly sure that I wasn't referring to the 200k+ people of French Guiana when I referred to "scattered islands"

But you're right in that I also didn't say that I was measuring it by land area or economic size or any of the other countless indicators I could have used. Indeed my response to your post (where I half-tongue in cheek suggested using column inches as a measure) should have been enough to show that I wasn't particularly wedded to notion; it was not something that I would care to argue for hours about

To have presented such an off-hand assertion, which you just happen to disagree with, as "ignorant and arrogant" and presented it as evidence for some sort of deep-rooted anti-British "tunnel vision" is a complete misrepresentation of my position. That should be clear from my repeatedly stressing my opposition to Spanish, and indeed French, colonies. It is in fact nothing more than a cheap attempt to tar me as fundamentally unreasonable due to some perceived bias

Otherwise, it didn't enter your head to consider France or anyone else (there's certainly a case for the US there), and instead chose an anglocentric position, which is ultimately what I criticized.

Or to reference my response to your post I chose to highlight the nation with the most controversial of colonies; which currently comprises one shooting war within the past few decades and two ongoing diplomatic stand-offs

The Corinthian

Reekwind wrote: »

Because you're presenting as evidence a conditional.

What nonsense are you on about? You came out with an claim stated as fact, I pointed out this may in reality not be a fact (hence the conditional) and even started the post with the words "I'm not sure about that" - and what I wrote certainly put into question your claim, conditional or not. That's all I argued.

This is fairly obvious: Britain may or may not be the pre-eminent colonial power. I don't really care.

Don't you? You cared enough to spout it as some form of 'fact' earlier on, now you're backtracking because, I presume, you can't admit you were wrong, so your bruised ego has demanded that you attack me and now claim that it was never really important.

But the statement makes sense, it is reasonable and the underpinning logic is obvious. That I didn't spell that out gives you cause to argue the point with me but not to present it as an "ignorant and arrogant" statement that belies some inherent bias on my part

Yet stating that Britain is "world's pre-eminent colonial power" is a fundamentally ridiculous claim when it is so easily put into question. There's nothing reasonable in what you said, it was just a propagandistic sound-byte.

Really? I'm fairly sure that I wasn't referring to the 200k+ people of French Guiana when I referred to "scattered islands"

So the number of islands makes you the "world's pre-eminent colonial power" now? You should start an entry on Wikipedia on that, just to make sure it's official.

But you're right in that I also didn't say that I was measuring it by land area or economic size or any of the other countless indicators I could have used. Indeed my response to your post (where I half-tongue in cheek suggested using column inches as a measure) should have been enough to show that I wasn't particularly wedded to notion; it was not something that I would care to argue for hours about

Well, given the vitriol you employed in your reply, you are clearly wedded to something; otherwise you wouldn't have taken such offence, or even bothered replying.

To have presented such an off-hand assertion, which you just happen to disagree with, as "ignorant and arrogant" and presented it as evidence for some sort of deep-rooted anti-British "tunnel vision" is a complete misrepresentation of my position.

I mentioned nothing about ignorance or arrogance until your last reply attacking me. Indeed, my original response was very tame; I didn't even suggest you were wrong or talking out of your arse, only at worst that people here often go first to the British example automatically, without considering what they're posting as fact.

And oddly enough, you weren't considering what you were posting, by your admission; or is an "off-hand" remark well considered now?

Or to reference my response to your post I chose to highlight the nation with the most controversial of colonies; which currently comprises one shooting war within the past few decades and two ongoing diplomatic stand-offs

The most recent perhaps, but it pales in comparison to what France's colonies have gone through since World War II - remember Vietnam and Algeria? How do they compare with the Falklands in terms of shooting wars? It's laughable to hear you suggest that Britain has had the 'most controversial of colonies'.

Or was that comment just another "off-hand" remark of yours?

Duggys Housemate

murphaph wrote: »

You're reading far too much into my response. Quite simply...Spain knows it can't take Gibraltar militarily because the UK is capable of destroying them as the ultimate sanction

Maybe Spain should join NATO to stop a nuclear attack?


Oh, wait.

Fratton Fred

No one is going to go to war over Gibraltar.

At worst this argument is like when a mate forgets to give you back the tenner he borrowed.

gallag

What is the history here? I have never really read much about Gibraltar, did spain trade it to the UK? If so what is the argument?

Reekwind

The Corinthian wrote: »

What nonsense are you on about? You came out with an claim stated as fact, I pointed out this may in reality not be a fact (hence the conditional) and even started the post with the words "I'm not sure about that" - and what I wrote certainly put into question your claim, conditional or not. That's all I argued.

And that's fine. What's not is holding this disputed fact up as 'proof' of some sort of rabid anti-Britishness

It's the difference between saying 'actually that may not be true because...' and 'you believe X and thus are an idiot' when 'X' has not been disproved in any way and remains a perfectly valid hypothesis. I really cannot stress how little I care about whether Britain or France gets that imaginary title; what annoys the hell out of me is the misrepresentation of my position

Don't you? You cared enough to spout it as some form of 'fact' earlier on, now you're backtracking because, I presume, you can't admit you were wrong, so your bruised ego has demanded that you attack me and now claim that it was never really important.

At what point did I give the impression that it was important? The bit where I flippantly referred to column inches rather than getting bogged down in an honest to god debate on the size of each nation's respective colonial holdings?

Frankly, if you expect me to feel to strongly about such a minor nuance then it may be you who has the obsession with Britain and how people perceive it

Yet stating that Britain is "world's pre-eminent colonial power" is a fundamentally ridiculous claim when it is so easily put into question. There's nothing reasonable in what you said, it was just a propagandistic sound-byte.

That's nonsense. If I claim that Manchester United are the most successful team in English football then some people will of course disagree with me. And they'll have grounds to do so. The discussion would range across a host of criteria (history, silverware, players, etc) but at no point would someone be entitled to simply dismiss my opinion out of hand as evidence of tunnel vision or as "fundamentally ridiculous"

So the number of islands makes you the "world's pre-eminent colonial power" now? You should start an entry on Wikipedia on that, just to make sure it's official.

And it's no less valid than your criteria because...

Actually, don't bother. That boat has sailed

Well, given the vitriol you employed in your reply, you are clearly wedded to something; otherwise you wouldn't have taken such offence, or even bothered replying.

I'm pretty fuming to see myself held up as an example of anti-Britishness when I have repeatedly stressed that my position in this case is informed by a universal anti-colonial agenda. You have done so by misrepresenting my position entirely. I have clearly and unequivocally stated that I condemn Spanish enclaves in Africa and any other such colonial holdings. Yet apparently I'm anglocentric and have "tunnel vision"

If I cared half as much about who's the bigger, badder colonist then I'd have responded in such fashion to your original post on the subject

The most recent perhaps, but it pales in comparison to what France's colonies have gone through since World War II - remember Vietnam and Algeria? How do they compare with the Falklands in terms of shooting wars? It's laughable to hear you suggest that Britain has had the 'most controversial of colonies'.

Or was that comment just another "off-hand" remark of yours?

No, I used the present tense for a reason. Or are you trying to misrepresent me again?

This is the issue: according to your logic we cannot have this debate. One of us is either narrow-minded, ridiculously wrong or just plain lying. And the other person (you) is right. That's not an honest discussion

The Corinthian

Reekwind wrote: »

And that's fine. What's not is holding this disputed fact up as 'proof' of some sort of rabid anti-Britishness

Go and actually read what I wrote in that post:

The Corinthian wrote: »

My guess is that you're half right in that Boards is Anglocentric and whenever topics like civil honours, aristocracy or the like appear, we automatically only think of the UK and thus frame everything on that narrow basis. But I also think that it's something that gets the 'chucks' out of the woodwork too and they tend to promote and highlight such disputes so as to intellectually continue the NI debate by proxy.

All that I say is that we tend to jump to anglocentric arguments erroneously. I also believe that it's a bandwagon that chucks jump on, but there is absolutely no implication there that one automatically follows from the other. Go on, read it.

At worst, I only accused you of thinking anglocentrically, which in fairness you did, coming out with that silly claim.

I really don't have the patience to deal with some kid with a bruised ego, TBH, and the more you post, the more this is what it looks like.

Reekwind

My name is my name

At worst, I only accused you of thinking anglocentrically, which in fairness you did, coming out with that silly claim.

So we've gone from "I'm not sure about that..." to a "silly claim" which is completely unreasonable and can only be construed as "...a form of tunnel vision where people can't objectively see beyond the 'British example'"? Really?

And, to tie it back into the thread, it's a sign of how some posters have attempted to portray those who object to the British position as being somehow compromised by a flawed anglocentricism or anti-British bias. As I said, I don't think there's much difference in the above guff and BlaasForRafa's talk of "fascist bullying planters"

The Corinthian

Reekwind wrote: »

So we've gone from "I'm not sure about that..." to a "silly claim" which is completely unreasonable and can only be construed as "...a form of tunnel vision where people can't objectively see beyond the 'British example'"? Really?

It's not gone from anything to anything. I reposted what I wrote and asked you to read it again and even explained it to you. If still can't get it, that's not my problem.

oppenheimer1

Like in almost every international row, ultimately what this boils down to is economics. I'm guessing the spanish don't really care for Gibraltar as a piece of land. The have enough territory either side of the rock to control the strait if they wanted to, so its strategic position is meaningless these days.

What they do care about though is the damage the enclaves tax regime does to the Southern Spains economy. Given that taxes are so low or non existent in Gibraltar, an awful lot of revenue is lost to the Spanish region, making the area around Gibraltar a relative economic wasteland. Ceuta and the Spanish enclaves in Morocco do not have this kind of status, so it is not comparing like with like.

If the UK harmonised taxes in Gibraltar with those in Spain (or indeed the UK), most of the sovereignty issues the Spanish have would disappear.

murphaph

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Like in almost every international row, ultimately what this boils down to is economics. I'm guessing the spanish don't really care for Gibraltar as a piece of land. The have enough territory either side of the rock to control the strait if they wanted to, so its strategic position is meaningless these days.

What they do care about though is the damage the enclaves tax regime does to the Southern Spains economy. Given that taxes are so low or non existent in Gibraltar, an awful lot of revenue is lost to the Spanish region, making the area around Gibraltar a relative economic wasteland. Ceuta and the Spanish enclaves in Morocco do not have this kind of status, so it is not comparing like with like.

If the UK harmonised taxes in Gibraltar with those in Spain (or indeed the UK), most of the sovereignty issues the Spanish have would disappear.

Andorra is a tax haven and Spain doesn't rattle on about them. Gibraltar means far more to Spanish national pride than anything else IMO.

Spain could return to resorting to closing the border if they felt Gibraltar was doing them such harm.

oppenheimer1

murphaph wrote: »

Andorra is a tax haven and Spain doesn't rattle on about them. Gibraltar means far more to Spanish national pride than anything else IMO.

Spain could return to resorting to closing the border if they felt Gibraltar was doing them such harm.

They can't. Whilst Andorra is not an EU territory, Gibraltar is. Spain can exercise controls on what comes into Spain from Andorra if it wants to, it doesn't have the same control with Gibraltar. Andorra is also a co-principality essentially under the protection of both Spain and France. This makes its relationship very different to Gibraltar.

Also the Spanish north is much wealthier than the south, and having a tax haven so close by doesn't cause as much jealousy or problems. National pride does play a role of course, but its not the driving factor.