Gibraltar ought in justice to be returned to Spain

RebuttalsSorry for the late response, school is just starting up and I am slightly busy. Anways, lets move on to rebuttals! 1. The conquest of Gibraltar was not in the name of England but of a Spanish pretender to the throne (no right of conquest).This argument is flawed due to the fact that it entails a claim that is tied to the Spanish monarchy. If the monarchy felt that it could press its claim on Gibraltar, then maybe Spain would have a legitimate case (even though I doubt that the world would listen). However Spain is basing their claim on Gibraltar solely on the belief that due to the fact that Gibraltar is on the Iberian peninsula and that they had control of the city 300 years earlier, they deserve to have control over Gibraltar. The age of claims that originate out of kings and queens ended a long time ago, and unless Spain feels like bringing these days back, then I am afraid that Spain does not have a strong claim on Gibraltar. 2. The Treaty of Utrecht recognizes no territorial jurisdiction, which amounts to the recognition of a British military base on Spanish territory. The Treaty of Utrecht states that "The Catholic King [King of Spain] does hereby, for himself, his heirs and successors, yield to the Crown of Great Britain the full and entire propriety of the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts..." [1]. Given this statement, it would be assumed that the King of Spain would be giving Great Britain ownership over the town of Gibraltar along with the other mentioned fortifications. Given this, it would be assumed that Great Britain would have a large amount of power within Gibraltar, despite the Treaty's claim that Great Britain would have no territorial jurisdiction. By this logic, the Treaty is contradicting itself when it says that Great Britain will have "...full and entire property" over the town of Gibraltar and yet have no territorial jurisdiction. My proposal on the matter is that given the fact that the Treaty was unclear as of who would have control over Gibraltar, control would default to Great Britain because they supposedly had full control of the region. 3.The terms of the treaty have been repeatedly violated by the BritishThe argument that the UK is "robbing" Spain is technically true, however it is little more that propaganda to raise the Spanish nationalism. The current "expansion" of Gibraltar will take little less than 0.15 square miles of unused land. Also, the treaty seems to be contradicting itself again as it makes no sence to give a town no rights to the surrounding water yet give them rights to a port. As for the expansion into the neutral area, this can be explained by multiple wars between Spain and Great Britain. During the time between the Treaty of Utrecht and modern days there have been five wars between Great Britain and Spain. During these periods of war the neutral land between Spain and Gibraltar is no longer neutral. Therefore the UK's expansion into the neutral zone can be described as right by conquest.Also, I would appreciate it if you could give a source to when the UK changed the border. According to all of the maps I have seen, the neutral zone between Spain and Gibraltar is still intact. 4. 4. Gibraltar cannot be independent as it would entail a change of property from Britain to another (as of yet non-existent) nation, and the treaty states that Spain would have first rights in this case.Your argument is true, Gibraltar will not becoming an independent nation as it would mean that it would have to join Spain. However, as shown by the referendums in 1967 and 2002, Gibraltar clearly does not want to become independent from the UK. However if Gibraltar magically wants to become independent, they would be required by international law to join Spain, however this is not going to happen.Sources[1] http://www.gbc.gi...[2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...