Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 4

message: I would Buy what Burgas is selling a lot more easily if he would apply the logic that he uses to other locales.  Burgas,
Please write a lengthy argument about why Spain should return Olivenca to Portugal, and Ceuta to Morocco.  If your philisophical positions are supported by anything other than Castilian nationalism, then you can't justify why the UK shouldn't hold on to Gibralter (which was given to them by Spain by treaty, but Spain should hold on to Olivenca, which was occupied by Spain during wartime, promised to be returned by treaty in 1815, but never given back.  That's actualy more of a bare bones land grab than gibralter was (given that Portugal never surrendered it, and Spain promised to leave) but I don't see Spaniards lining up to demand that the injust siezure of Olivenca be rectified.  So, how about it Burgas?
--Justiceiro
:Interesting thouigh this may be, its not really appropriate to the discussion of Gibraltar, and there already is a wikipedia aericle about olivenza so we should keep to the topic here, rather than engaging is general debate about Spanish policy.
--Gibnews
Justiceiro: Firstly, I never claimed Gibraltar should be returned to Spain. That is not my position. Ceuta has been linked to (or has been part of) Spanish kingdoms since before the Muslim invasion of Iberia in 711AD and has been under Spanish rule (insofar "Spanish" is restricted to Christian Spain) roughly as long as other cities in southern Spain such as Malaga, Granada or Almeria. Morocco has no valid claim over the city other than a tenuosly geographic one. Bulgaria or Greece have a much more valid claim over Istanbul than Morocco over Ceuta. Olivenza or Olivença may have been ceded to Spain on a perpetual basis in 1801 in the Treaty of Badajoz but it had been previously ceded to Portugal (by force) by the Kingdom of Castile in 1297. Olivenza was "reconquered" from the Muslims by the last King of Leon in 1230 and is thus naturally part of Spain. (in the same way that Portugal is naturally part of Galicia;-) ) 
The UK has no historical connections to Southern Spain or to its people and its conquest of the Andalusian town of Gibraltar can only be seen as colonialism. That is why it was repopulated with foreigners. In the same way, if Spain still owned Bruges or Amsterdam, or Manila for that matter, it would also be a case of colonialism. But that is not the case. 
Gibnews is a Gibraltarian and as such, I respect his defence of his territory from possible Spanish ambitions, even though I get angry at his (understandable) bias on some matters. However, you should read some history before making such claims, as well as learn how to spell the territories in question.
Burgas00
Thanks for the snarkitude Burgas, I am well aware  how to spell 
Olivenca, and I am obviously writing with a keyboard that lacks portuguese characters- I assumed you would figure that out/
The reason I birng up Olivenca is because its a perfect comparison with Gibralter- and it usually unmasks spanish crypto-nationalists.  I love that comment that Portugal is naturally part of galicia- which alos means its naturally part of Spain, right?  Of course.
Olivenca should remain spanish because all the people there want to remain spanish; and popular will is the only proper justification for rule by any government.  If you want to get legalistic about it, however, then Spain is clearly illegally occupying Olivenca.  The point is that Spain fails in its claims to Gibralter on 2 points- it has no legal claim, having ceded it; it has no popular claim, the residents of Gibralter detesting the idea of Spanish rule.  And as for them all being "foreigners", odd, but a great number of prefer Spanish as their language of choice.  They must have been shipped in from Finland with all the other foreigners.  
As for reading history, I hardly think I need to take any advice from you on that front.   If you identify The Visigothically administered ex Roman Province of Hispania with modern Spain, then, well that's your problem.  If so, you'd better rush over to Rome to pledge your alliegience to an empire that no longer exists.  Your claims about Ceuta "always being Spanish" are totally baseless- the first post-visigothic european control of Ceuta was established when it was conqoured in 1415 by Portugal.  It was then ceded to Spain in 1668.  But of course, Portugal really being a "natural part" of Galicia, and thus a natural part of spain, I guess, by some convoluted route, one could consider a portuguese conquest to be a spancih conquest.  I wonder why you don't claim Bruges and Manilla as well. 
I would hardly call Morrocco's claim on Ceuta tenously geographic.  It's attached to Morrocco and not attached to "Spain" Proper (the whole area was once administered by Visigoths and Vandals under nominal Roman authority, so I guess that makes it Spanish, right?  I would love to visit Spanish Tunis!); its also chock full of Morroccans.  Always has been.  So I guess the question is, do the people that live in Ceuta want to be ruled by Spain.  My guess would be yes.  
My point in all of this Burgas is that I am, depressingly, not surprised to find a castilian preaching not just double standards, but triple standards and more.  Apin has enough centripetal forces without going and seeking out more, don't you think?  Or do you want yet antoher restive population ruled from Madrid?P97dav45 22:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Olivenca

message: From the constitution
Citation, commencement and interpretation
1.-(1) This Order may be cited as the Gibraltar Constitution Order 2006.
No mention of the City of Gibraltar.
--Gibnews 17:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to go to Regulation 2 of the Order in Council for a reference to the City of Gibraltar:
"2. With effect from the appointed day –
(a) the Constitution set out in Annex 1 to this Order shall (subject
and other provisions set out in Annex 2 to this Order) have effect
of Her Majesty’s dominions, known as the City of Gibraltar;
..."
Although, with the exception of the oaths the term "Gibraltar", rather than "City of Gibraltar" is used throughout.
However, the constitution does not have an article saying what Gibraltar's name is, so I think the idea of there being any "constitutional name" is just plain wrong, jguk 17:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe the villagers of Catalan Bay although they live in Gibraltar, would not agree they live in the City.  I'm debating the constituton tonight so have been reading up on it. --Gibnews 19:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: OK then thats the constitutional name.  The practical name would however be the territory of Gibraltar, which comprises the city and the village of Catalan Bay.  That leaves some other bits, outside the city walls. I guess its a bit like London -v- the City of London on a smaller scale.--Gibnews 01:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a Spanish argument.  But in British terms, the City of Gibraltar is the whole of Gibraltar up to the "fence/frontier": the Governor, ministers and judges cover the whole of Gibraltar including Catalan Bay.  --Henrygb 00:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh No that a Gibraltar perspective. The territory if Gibraltar is that land between the frontier and Europa point and the sea three miles south.--Gibnews 08:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Constitutional Name

message: What explains the low turnout and the relatively high proportion of votes against the new constitution. It is, to say the least, surprising! Particularly when compared to the last referendum...--Burgas00 18:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Referendum

message: In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on Southern Europe at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Southern Europe whose scope would include Gibraltar. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed WikiProject