"Gibraltar" Topic

What to do with it?

* leave it as-is
* fully incorporate it into Great Britain
* give it back to Spain
* grant independence
etc.

Use a drone and a 3-D printer to make the most awesome siege scenario ever.

Leave it as it is – as that's what the people who live there want. (Same as The Falkland Islands, too).

The people of Gibraltar most firmly wish to remain part of the UK, as my wife is Gibraltarian and her father was a former government minister, l can say this with a fair degree of confidence.
There is an issue over the Brexit vote, this is being addressed by talks on Gib joining the Schengen Zone in a limited capacity, this should eliminate the border queues as the border will be removed, the EU's beloved freedom of movement will then be applied to Gib.

Tony Blair was attempting to give Gibraltar to Spain when he was Prime Minister, assisted by Peter Haine, neither had actually consulted the people of Gibraltar over this.I

As soon as the Chief Minister, Sir Peter Caruana, sniffed out their plan, a lightning referendum was held on integration with Spain, less than 50 votes were cast in favour of becoming Spanish, Blair and Haine are still held with contempt on the Rock

Better leave it as is, politicians are always trying to curry favor by someone pretending to undo past wrongs. It could potentially be the world's biggest toll booth.

I'm with John the Greater on this one!

Leave as is.

Let the people of Gibraltar decide, which sounds like they want to leave as is.

I thought there used to be a "no politics" rule on these boards? Considering that the Spanish and British politicians have been pushing the topic back and forth very recently, I don't think this really falls into the "more than 10 years ago" category (even though the Treaty of Utrecht was more than 300 years ago).

That said, I think the subject should be best decided by the Gibraltarians themselves.

Arm the apes.

Let the people of Gibraltar decide, which sounds like they want to leave as is.

Even the British colonists? Do they deserve a vote?

Gibraltar is registered with the UN as a Non-Self-Governing Territory, and therefore comes under the de-colonisation process laid out by the UN back in 1960.

In theory this lays out a few ways in which NSGT's can be de-colonised – full independence as a sovereign state, integrating with a sovereign state, or free association with a sovereign state. A later addition suggests that any political status agreed by the inhabitants would suffice. The ultimate choice lies in the hands of the inhabitants, through their right of self-determination.

I say 'in theory', because the process is subject to the whims of the UN De-colonisation Committee, or C-24, which hasn't actually de-colonised anything for decades and counting.

Back in the 60's and 70's, it did some great work as various empires dissolved. Now it presides over 17 NGST's with a total population of around 2 million, and inevitably, is stuffed with the usual experts on freedom, democracy and self-determination – like China, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and Syria. Iraq and Nicaragua are in the mix too, just for jollies. Keen not to lose a useful platform for finger-wagging at the US, UK and France, they stonewall by insisting that all NGST's should be aiming for full independence – ignoring the fact that the majority of the remaining NGST's are tiny places with no interest in sovereign statehood – they prefer some other option.

On paper, the C-24's mandate call for it to act in the 'interests' of the inhabitants. The C-24 works its magic by insisting that 'interests', does not mean 'wishes'. What the people want is irrelevant – the benevolent masters of the C-24 will decide what's best for them. I'm sure NGST inhabitants must be so glad the C-24 is there to protect them from their colonialist oppressors.

Other than the fact that the UN Decolonisation Committee fights tooth and nail to avoid de-colonising anything, Gibraltar has an added complication. The Treaty of Utrecht states that if Britain relinquished sovereignty over Gibraltar, then sovereignty reverts to Spain. Spanish recidivists point to that article as meaning that any act of de-colonisation for Gibraltar is a relinquishing of sovereignty. The counter-argument is that the inalienable right to self-determination – as laid out in the UN Charter – over-rides something written in a 300-year-old Treaty.

In short, it's not really as simple as 'let's have a vote, and that'll sort it'.

Even the British colonists? Do they deserve a vote?

Um – Gibraltar isn't run like an 19th Century Sri Lankan tea plantation, with a handful of Sahibs drinking pink gin and kicking the natives around. The 'British colonists' are now simply the Gibraltarians – exclude them, and there's no-one to actually vote.

Musketballs you are in danger of spoiling a political argument by introducing a balanced set of facts. That will reduce the post count and stop ranters entering the arena. Please note that folk want to demonstrate their truth not "the" truth.

martin (smiley face)

To bring some miniatures gaming into this thread, if anyone visits Gibraltar then be aware that just over the border in the town of La Linea, in Calle Sol, is the E-Minis shop.
While the shop itself is small, they have a large warehouse packed with miniatures and games, you can pre order via their website and collect from the shop.
They recently sent out an email advising their Gibraltarian customers of an app that allows them to claim the Spanish VAT back!

Even the British colonists? Do they deserve a vote?

Almost like saying do the non Native Americans deserve a vote!

Tally Ho!

California.

What to do with it?

* leave it as-is
* fully incorporate it into Great Britain
* give it back to Spain
* grant independence
etc.

Ceuta.

What to do with it?

* leave it as-is
* give it back to Morocco
* grant independence
etc.

The US had the fortune of geography that its colonies were physically attached to it

Except for Alaska – well, and Hawaii

I think the good people of Gibraltar have spoken

The US had the fortune of geography that its colonies were physically attached to it

However, the former Spanish colonies obtained in 1898 were not: Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico and Cuba.

California.

What to do with it?

* leave it as-is
* fully incorporate it into Great Britain
* give it back to Spain
* grant independence
etc.

You forgot:
• Set off nukes along the San Andreas Fault and turn Arizona and Nevada into beachfront property.

The US had the fortune of geography that its colonies were physically attached to it

The US is currently on the hook for Guam, US Virgin Islands and American Samoa.

It also has the privilege of regularly receiving the C-24's expert opinions on Puerto Rico – which no doubt it finds extremely helpful.

"You forgot:
• Set off nukes along the San Andreas Fault and turn Arizona and Nevada into beachfront property."

I certainly hope no whales will be injured!
Other than that I'm good with it.

it existed in the past the Condominium, applied in Sudan and New Hebrides, well in the first example of course sure that Egypt was rather like Panama for US, being occupied by the British Army,
it could offer an option not listed yet with a shared sovereignty for Spain and Great Britain, I wonder if the future of Northern Ireland would not be in this way too
as Spain is also a very decentralised country, Gibraltar as futher autonomous community with special status negotiated between the three parties involved doesn't seem me the last nonsense,
the opinion of Gibraltarians yes of course, but the inhabitants of democratic Hong Kong and Macao nobody asked them their opinions at the moment to join a totalitarian communist country, so the legitime historical rights recognized for China in a case and not for Spain
I don't think that the British would appreciate a Spanish colony on the isles of Wight or Portland or Argentina on the Isle of Man

As for Hong Kong, major issue was that the lease of New Territories, accounting for the majority of the land area of the colony, was by the original treaty fixed for 99 years, terminating in 1997. In theory the Brits could have split the colony, returning the New Territories while maintaining Kowloon and Hong Kong Island, but such division would have probably neen rather unwiedly in practice. As for the citizens of Hong Kong, many decided to vote with their feet and emigrated to other parts of the world in the 90's (IIRC Canada being one popular destination).

Macao, on the other hand, seems to have been granted as a perpetual colony to Portugal in the 19th century.

I have not heard any clamor from Gibraltar on this. Unless I have been missing some pressing issue. (Which is always possible). Otherwise leave it alone.

Hi

I spent a week working in Gibraltar back in the late 90's and took the opportunity to walk across the border into Spain. Looking back at the Rock with the Union flag flying on top I could kind of understand the Spanish point of view (no pun intended). That said, leave it to the people who live there to decide.

Cheers Paul

We should defer the conversation until Melilla and Ceuta have been sorted out.

Then the Spanish might appear a little less hypocritical on this subject…

Some time later-
-"I don't think that the British would appreciate a Spanish colony on the isles of Wight or Portland"

- I think that was tried before.

(+1 @ Musketballs)

Hong Kong is so better off thanks to Maggie Thatcher and her obsession with giving away Hong Kong. Fight a war with Argentina for the Falklands and condemn the people of Hong Kong to a totalitarian regime.

Much as I would have preferred the people of Hong Kong not be be taken over by China, in practice there was no way Britain could have prevented it given the latter's population and military strength. Whereas Britain did have sufficient military muscle to defeat the Argentinian invasion of the Falkland Islands.

As Prime Minister Harold Wilson is reported to have said, 'Politics is the art of the possible.'