Talk:Status of Gibraltar

For previous discussions see:

• Archive 1 Nov 2004 - Nov 2005
• Archive 2 Nov 2005 - Dec 2005
• Archive 3 Dec 2005 - Nov 2006

Rejection of claim

user:Rebroad says 'not sure you can speak for all Gibraltarians'

in relation to the rejection of Spanish sovereignty, the Gibraltarians speak for themselves, its more a question of listening to what was said in the referendum in 2002, described in the article.

When the result was announced the Chief Minister stated:

A clear message had been sent to the world, and that a democratic politican at his own peril describes this result as irrelevent ... The result is one of democracy at work in its purest form ... The vote is the result of the will of the people of Gibraltar and that the concept of "Joint Sovereignty" is a dead end.

For their part the British Government accept the rights of the people in the 2006 constitution which states:

Her Majesty’s Government will never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes.

Further, Gibraltar being a place which despite the small size has more political parties, societies and groups sometimes for our own good, there is not one which advocates union with Spain.

The situation is very different to that in Northern Ireleand where there are groupings in favour of different things. Whatever our differences on the style of Government etc, in relation to the Spanish sovereignty claim there is unity.

Use of the word 'currently' is inappropriate this implies there may be a change around the corner, there is no sign at present and Wikipedia policy is not to speculate. --Gibnews 11:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I admit I haven't read too much of the article but you only have to read the first line that contains the word "Irredentist" and IMO it's NPOV to say the Spanish claim is irredentist. Yonatanh 15:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

irredentist is a foreign affairs term which encapsulates the Spanish claim to Gibraltar perfectly. I suggest you read the wikipedia article defining it, and appreciate its just a term; it has not got any particular negative or positive meaning attached to it, rather like saying the sky is blue. The wording used to describe the claim as 'outdated' which after 300 years it most certainly is.

Similarly the article about Gibraltar does not have any particular point of view, its an article describing the place, its people and its relations with its neigbours. Because it is British, that may annoy those with an overt anti-British agenda, but it is and its not expressing any particular POV to say so.

--Gibnews 17:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Gibraltar is clearly a classic example of an irrendenta. -- ChrisO 20:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• And i third that Gibnews--Boris Johnson VC 19:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Irridentism has strong meaning to many people, and to try to disconnect it from its connotative base is impossible. However I would also say that the connotative base is to some extent contradictory to different people.Johnpacklambert 09:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Spanish parties

Is the position of Spanish parties unanimous? For example, Izquierda Unida aims to a federation for Spain and, methinks, self-determination for Spanish regions. --Error 18:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter what anyone in Spain thinks, Gibraltar is not part of that country any more than it is part of Albania.

The only parties I want to join have food and drink. --Gibnews 22:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree the article is laced with POV and weasel words.--Vintagekits 15:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. I can't be arsed reading the entire article but in the first part this sentence says it all really, "However, the strategy of ignoring the Gibraltar people has proven to be a dead end for Spain." LOL. Total POV there with no citations. Actually if you hover over most of the few citations in this article they link to pro-British sites. This doesn't surprise me one bit as the Malvinas/Falklands article is also incredibily biased in favor of the British view as on there, yes, the British govt's website is used as a source. It's no coincidence that the same people who do most of the edits on this article and other English Gibralter articles are the same people doing the majority of the edits on the English Malvinas/Falklands articles. --Tocino 01:12 ,26 August 2007 (UTC)

I moved your comment to the end, where it does not dissrupt the discussion on the irredentist nature of the Spanish claim. Its very hard to find any Gibraltar sources which are sympathetic to the Spanish POV, because there do not seem to be any. Despite there being an open frontier and of late reasonably free movement of people and goods, the desire to become part of the Spanish state has simply not developed with a greater acquaintance of it. In the 2002 referendum the international observers noted:

The campaign, which preceded the referendum, was very one-sided. This, we accept, was not the result of the Government of Gibraltar or the political parties trying to stifle debate, but a consequence of the lack of support for the 'yes' option in the referendum..

If you accept that the people of Gibraltar have the right to determine their future, then its that opinion which matters, the rest is simply background information on an outdated historical claim.

In the same way that Gibraltar is different to NI it is quite different to the Falklands, to the situation in Spain's North African colonies and Olivenza. Any attempt to link them shows a lack of understanding of those differences.

--Gibnews 08:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Moving picture

One of the problems with HTML is that it looks quite different to everyone as there is a variation in screen resolutions and type size. The picture of the demonstation should go with the description of the reasons for it. It does on my 800 x 600 screen nicely. --Gibnews 16:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Economy

The only relevance to Gibraltar's economy in this section is the first line. The rest is they said / we said arguing. At best, they are examples of contention between the Spanish media and Government, the British media and Government, and the gibraltarian government and residents.

I suggest a complete rewrite of this section, specifically a cut & paste from the summary of the main article:

Main article: Economy of Gibraltar

The economy of Gibraltar is managed and controlled by the Government of Gibraltar. Whilst being part of the EU, Gibraltar has a separate legal jurisdiction from the United Kingdom and enjoys a different tax system.

The role of the (British) Ministry of Defence, which at one time was the main source of income has declined, with today's economy based on shipping, tourism, finance centre activities, and the Internet.

- Tiswas^(t/c) 13:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

My oops - forgot that this was an article on the disputed status of Gib, not on the Island itself. - Tiswas^(t/c) 13:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Island ? regretably its not ... --Gibnews 17:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

A typo. Albeit possibly accurate in the geopolitical sense. - Tiswas^(t/c) 12:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Its a common mistake made by visiting politicians, and indeed at one stage in its development it was an island, but the area of the isthmus silted up, which is why its flat and sandy. Indeed even in modern times access was via a causeway with the sea on both sides. Digging a canal would be interesting project, indeed given the level difference between the bay and the east side it might be possible to generate electricity from the flow of water taking a short cut. --Gibnews 17:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Relevance

There appear to be a number of citations and references that have little to no relevance to the article title, the disputed status of Gib. There is a preponderance of examples where the Spanish [government|media|population] have complained (sourced or not), but there is little relevance of these complaints to sovereignty. The complaints (where properly cited) may provide evidence of antagonism between the Spanish and the British (and gibraltarian) governments, but they are symptomatic of the overall dispute, and hardly worthy of inclusion in their own right. - Tiswas^(t/c) 14:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The recent history of Gibraltar has many instances of the Spanish Government of the day lieing through its teeth about Gibraltar and introducing all sorts of nonsense arguments to support an ongoing ill founded irredentist claim to the territory;

However, if you want to remove some of this rot, please list it here so we can agree that it is rightly consigned to the dustbin of history.

---Gibnews 14:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

POV material

In contrast to the good governance found in Gibraltar, in the neighbouring province of Spain, politicians are infamous for clear indications of criminality[16] What fascist thing is that? There are corruption wherever, only there aren´t corrupt politicians in places without courts. This article stink is not impartial. - 83.60.168.254 00:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that line is awful - hopelessly biased. I've removed it. -- ChrisO 00:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Its fair comment, The references described Spanish politicians who have been conviced of corruption. Its pretty commonplace there. In terms of the International corruption index, Spain is notable for politicians on the take. --Gibnews 16:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Gibnews, perhaps that's because in Spain judges convict corrupt politicians. It is NOT a fair comment. It is not even accurate. There is corruption in Spain, indeed, but not to a bigger extent than in the rest of european countries which are not tax havens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.59.120 (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

"Gibraltar is member of the European Union"

"The UK and Spain are both members of the European Union, with Gibraltar joining under the UK treaty of accession. The EU is committed to free movement of goods and services and respect for human rights, thus the UK government and Gibraltarians claim that this supersedes any outdated 'restrictions' contemplated in 1704."

"Despite both Gibraltar and Spain being members of the EU, Spain continued to place restrictions on communications with Gibraltar, which affect telecommunications (see Gibraltar telecom dispute) and blocks any EU or international agreements"

Sentences like these appear several times accross the article. They simply seem to "forget" that Gibraltar's status is not like the "normal" any other state would have in the EU. Several treaties treat it specially. Due to UK negotiations, some laws of the UE don't extend to Gibraltar. For example:

- Gibraltar it's outside UE douanes politics. - Gibraltar it's excluded from the Common Agrary Politicals. - Gibraltar is extempt from VAT. - No part of the income of their douanes goes to the EU.

It doesn't seem too fair to invoque the belonging of Gibraltar to the UE and NOT stating that the belonging is "partial", without the full obligations that normally would apply to any other member. It is also a "financial paradise". Since several exceptions apply to Gibraltar, probably it would be fair to quote them fully when stating that it is a "member" of the EU. That could be useful, in instance, to explain why the "free movement of goods and services" doesn't apply the same way to Gibraltar.

-- unsigned comment by 182.19.219.87.dynamic.jazztel.es

But free movement of goods and services DOES apply to Gibraltar and has been illegally interfered with for political purposes by Spain attempting to turn back the clock three hundred years. Gibraltar is not in the customs union, there again neither are the Canary Islands, which are 'an integral part of Spain'.

I have not noticed the 'financial paradise' aspect as the taxes here are higher than in many other places.

In terms of EU obligations, Gibraltar complies 100%. --Gibnews 19:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Bunkering and marine pollution

It seems that the activity of supply of fuel made under the way of "bunkering" its been a source of marine pollution. In my Faculty (of Marine Sciences, in the University of Cádiz) they say to me that its also totally forbidden by the MARPOL, and Barcelona Convention such that practice. Ecologist groups are already complaining oficially to the European Union. I would be grateful if anybody has further information about all this. --Feministo (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The strait is a one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world and ships need to refuel. Their needs are catered for by the port of Algeciras, Gibraltar and Ceuta. No doubt as they develop their new port facilities Morocco will also be significantly involved. There is a certain amount of competition in the bay between Algeciras and Gibraltar, with Spanish groups blaming Gib for any problems usually wrongly.

Notable was Greenpeace boarding a Gibraltar based tanker in protest, and whist they were in court, a fully loaded, Spanish tanker the Spabunker IV sank in the bay.

Although accidents can occur on both sides, its a necessary business and its a pity that reports are dominated by political considerations, and many of the reports of 'oil polution due to Gibraltar' turn out to be unsubstantiated propaganda. I fail to see how bunkering can be made illegal. --Gibnews (talk) 08:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Is not only a matter of sovereignity. The health of people and ecosistem is affected and there're some laws and conventions that are probably been ignored. Water framework directive is including coastal waters in its range of protection and stablish the goal of stop polluting towards making economy not to threaten present health nor future. Oil and fuel are having highly toxic substances that are being dropped to the waters unnecesarly when bunkering is made under the 'cheaper the better' approach. The coordination to fight pollution and to recover environmental quallity in the Bay is strongly needed. I'm trying to find out the legal framework. It seems that under the lackness of agreement about territorial waters, in the three milles beside Gibraltar, Gibraltar's Government decides actually. Is it like that? --Feministo (talk) 07:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobody deliberately drops valuable oil in the sea, and bunkering is done safely and is rigidly controlled, at least in Gibraltar. However there is an element of 'Gibraltar bashing' from Spain where all sorts of stories are published which have no truth behind them. Currently Spain is blocking transit of scrap metal from the MV New Flame at the frontier - which slows down the removal of the wreck. There is no apparent reason for this. There are discharges of oil from passing ships, although satellite surveillance of the straits and logging all ship movements helps identify ships which do this and they face legal action. It is an area where co-operation would help, however Spain does not care to co-operate with the GoG as admitting it exists is not to its liking.

In terms of environmental pollution, there are other bigger issues too !

http://www.esg-gib.net/bay.htm

--Gibnews (talk) 07:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

And in todays news This --Gibnews (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

New Flame

As RedCoat has pointed out, the incident caused a strain between Anglo-Spanish relations and was a subject of discussion in the Tripartite forum. That's absolutely true. However, I don't think any incident between two frontier territories, even if there is a dispute between them, are related to such a dispute. With regard to the New Flame incident, it must be proved that it's somehow related to the sovereignty dispute. There has been other incidents involving Gibraltar, such as that starred by Odyssey, and I can't see a relationship with the dispute. --Ecemaml (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it was discussed at the tripartite forum as its a bilateral matter between Gibraltar and Spain. However, like the Prestige disaster, politicans in Spain seem to like to get hold of any issue to attack Gibraltar.

If its not political, why did Spain refuse to allow the scrap iron cargo from the vessel to pass through the frontier?

Its interesting to compare the coverage given to the Sierra Nava incident to that of the New Flame, search www.europasur.es

a) 46 articles and mentions

b) 231 articles and mentions

The former caused more REAL pollution

http://www.gibnews.net/cgi-bin/gn_view.pl/?ESGX070205_1.xml

And HMS Tireless caused no pollution at all and gets mentioned in detail. --Gibnews (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Gibnews, I'm quoting and commenting your statements:

Gibnews said: "politicans in Spain seem to like to get hold of any issue to attack Gibraltar"

In spite of my poor English, the meaning of "seem" is obviously subjective. What you're stating here is that you (or other guys, which ones?) believe that the New Flame incident was used to attack Gibraltar. However, it's not what the text actually says. Instead, it's in an article named "Disputed status of Gibraltar" and into the section "Recent disputes" without any qualification. Therefore, if Gibraltarians think that the Spanish attitude is related to the sovereignty it must be worded that way, thus respecting the NPOV.

Gibnews said: "If its not political, why did Spain refuse to allow the scrap iron cargo from the vessel to pass through the frontier?"

I don't know, but we're not here to make original research. It's not the deductions you make but simply facts and sources to provide appropriate attribution and therefore comply to the NPOV (BTW, can you provide a link or reference to such a statement? It would be useful in order to find out what really happened?).

Gibnews said: "Its interesting to compare the coverage given to the Sierra Nava incident to that of the New Flame"

Again, your personal research. As you believe this issue is related to the sovereignty dispute, you think wikipedia must account it in such a way. At the end, you're simply confirming that the noneutrality label is right. If you want to include a statement by the Gibraltar government claiming that the New Flame incident is related to the sovereignty issue, please, do it, but don't forget to redact the sentence in a neutral way: "The Government of Gibraltar linked the Spanish protests to the sovereignty dispute".

Gibnews said: "And HMS Tireless caused no pollution at all and gets mentioned in detail"

An edition being wrong does not mean that other editions should be allowed.

I've learned something with you: reversion is easier that editing. Therefore I'll go step-by-step. Once we've solved the New Flame issue we can approach, if you like, the next issue. --Ecemaml (talk) 11:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC) PD: I think that this reference, provided by you, clearly talks about the Spanish position (and I'm not able to see any reference to a sovereignty dispute).

The incident caused a strain in Anglo-Spanish relations precisely because of the sovereignty dispute. The issue was taken to the EU and was on the agenda of the Tripartite forum[1]. Spain also called on the British ambassador rather than the Gibraltar Government - why? Because of the sovereignty dispute; Spain refuses to recognise the GoG as a "competent authority". In any case, the fact that there are differing views over the status of the waters around Gibraltar[2] (something that was brought up at the EU) should be enough to justify its inclusion. RedCoat10 (talk) 12:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think I now understand the key of your position: "Spain also called on the British ambassador rather than the Gibraltar Government - why?"

Possibly because Gibraltar is a sub-state entity and usually a State talks to a State not to a part of a State. Moreover, I remember having read somewhere (would you know where?) that Gibraltar was a "European territory whose external relations the UK government is responsible". As Spain is a "external country" to Gibraltar, what does your statement proves? It seems to me that your statement shows mostly a problem between Gibraltar and the UK (BTW, we have a pending discussion on why wikipedia readers are not able to know which the position of the UK on a possible Gibraltar independence is, but, as said, step-by-step).

On the other hand, the other part of your statement seems rather sensible (and BTW, has nothing to do with the current redaction of the paragraph). What your source states is that the New Flame incident was used by the Spanish opposition (right-wing) to blame on Gibraltar (the funny thing is that what the source says denies your first statement: "Spanish socialist MEPs [I can assume it talked somehow on behalf of the Spanish government] responded by saying that Madrid had been in close contact with Gibraltar and that the wreck was under control, adding that maritime safety was already on the Tripartite Forum's agenda.") and that the EU Commissioner linked the PP MEPs claims to the status of the Gibraltar waters (BTW, it should be interesting to have first-hand sources to know the claims of the PP MEPs... yeah, I know it's a harsh task, but I've done it in the telecom dispute article, so that it would not be so difficult).

To finish, would you like to propose a redaction of the paragraph that focus on real issues (the ones you've mentioned) and not in conclusion-building? Best regards and thank you for providing sources of facts and not sources to build a conclusion --Ecemaml (talk) 13:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact, a source like this (hope you can read Spanish) is much more illustrative of the relationship between the sovereignty dispute and the New Flame incident. --Ecemaml (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC) PS: [*http://www.elpais.com/articulo/espana/Exteriores/corrige/Narbona/admite/New/Flame/aguas/espanolas/elpepiesp/20080214elpepinac_9/Tes this one] also is related to the dispute.

Which I've read and can't see any reason to redact as you suggest, the article points out that Gibraltar has put forward a proposal but it's ignored by the Spanish who want a "unitary" authority (and let me guess - a Spanish unitary authority?) as they don't trust the guarantees provided by Gibraltar. Its plain the accident was the result of the sovereignty dispute that has prevented a sensible working solution to control traffic in/out of the two ports. No, I can see any reason to redact that Paragraph - the incident is a result of the sovereignty dispute. Justin talk 13:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Justin, let's me ignore most of your edition (BTW, I wasn't talking to you but to RedCoat). I don't care about what you guess or not. The article says nothing about the Spanish wanting a unitary authority (that is, you're not telling the truth since it's only the proposal of a small opposition left-wing party), so that, please, refrain from sharing your guesses (which by the way are based on false statements) with us.

On the other hand, the paragraph that I wanted to highlight was this:

“ Las relaciones entre los puertos de Gibraltar y Algeciras se han complicado siempre debido a la histórica reclamación de soberanía del Gobierno español sobre la colonia británica. Por esta razón, ambos puertos se han ignorado oficialmente y han regulado sus movimientos de buques sin relaciones directas. ”

That's what the article must state (along with the information I've provided in my second link... that Spain does not recognize the waters where the New Frame sunk and with the European Parliament information that RedCoat has brought here). However, nothing of what currently is in the article is actually related to the disputed status of Gibraltar. --Ecemaml (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You are missinformed, SPAIN has accepted Gibraltar's territorial waters by signing the UN convention, Some Spanish politicians, who are full of wind and nonsense, may not understand that but WE need to distinguish between the state and statements of politicians of the day, or indeed this case, the regional Government which has no aurhority over matters of state. --Gibnews (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The one who seems missinformed is not me:

“ 2. In ratifying the Convention, Spain wishes to make it known that this act cannot be construed as recognition of any rights or status regarding the maritime space of Gibraltar that are not included in article 10 of the Treaty of Utrecht of 13 July 1713 concluded between the Crowns of Spain and Great Britain. Furthermore, Spain does not consider that Resolution III of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea is applicable to the colony of Gibraltar, which is subject to a process of decolonization in which only relevant resolutions adopted by the United Nations General Assembly are applicable. ”

On the other hand, take this edition by me as a formal cease and desist. I know that you don't like a lot of Spanish people. However, it's not relevant for the purpose of our dialog. This time it's been "some Spanish politicians, who are full of wind and nonsense", but I can quote, if you want all the pejorative sentences about my government, my country... In the same way as me not inserting in every edition (I don't think so, just as example) how stubborn the Gibraltarian authorities are, or how fedup of the money laundering activities of Gibraltar I formally demand you to cease and desist of such mentions on the ground of your continuous violation of the WP:CIVIL guidelines on the grounds of "Taunting; deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves" and "Using derogatory language towards other contributors or, in general, referring to groups such as social classes, nationalities, ethnic groups, religious groups, or others in a derogatory manner". Otherwise, I'll open an incident notice about you and ask for your permanent banning from Gibraltar-related articles, as long as it's pretty obvious that you're not able of behaving in a way according to wikipedia's rules. --Ecemaml (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

To be blunt, this is a co-operative project and you do not get to decide who does and doesn't contribute to a discussion. Also:

Izquierda Unida, por su parte, anunció ayer una iniciativa para pedir que se cree un organismo "unitario" para regular el tráfico en el Estrecho. "No se puede seguir con este descontrol y Gibraltar no ofrece garantías", dijo el diputado de IU Ignacio García.

Izquierda Unida (United Left a Spanish political party), meanwhile, announced yesterday an initiative to request that an "unitary" agency regulate traffic in the Strait. "We can not continue with this disorder and Gibraltar does not offer guarantees," said UI deputy Ignacio Garcia.

So why should it be suppressed that Spanish political figures are calling for unilateral action by Spain, in an area of a sovereignty dispute? Do not ever call me a liar again. Also the opening article says:

La seguridad marítima también paga un peaje por el histórico conflicto sobre la soberanía de Gibraltar. A pesar de que casi 30.000 barcos atracan o fondean cada año en Algeciras y Gibraltar, ambos puertos no se informan de las entradas y salidas de estas embarcaciones que navegan por la misma bahía. Ésta fue una de las razones que propiciaron el abordaje entre el New Flame y el Torm Gertrud, ocurrido el pasado 12 de agosto frente al Peñón. Por el estrecho de Gibraltar, uno de los pasos marítimos más transitados, circula el 10% del tráfico mundial.

The historic dispute over the sovereignty of Gibraltar also extracts a toll on maritime security. Despite the fact that nearly 30,000 ships berth or anchor every year in Algeciras and Gibraltar, neither port is informed of shipping leaving or entering the other, although the ships are sailing in the same waters. This was one of the reasons that led to the collision between the New Flame and Gertrud Tormo, which occurred last Aug. 12 near the Rock. The Straits of Gibraltar, one of the busiest shipping lanes, circulates 10% of global traffic.

The accident stems from the sovereignty dispute, it should stay. Justin talk 14:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I could agree, but it's pretty obvious that this has nothing to do with the current redaction. The elements currently included are just wishful thinking. No source claims that the New Flame incident is, in itself, a recent dispute on the sovereignty issue. Moreover, the sources that RedCoat and Gibnews have provided clearly states that the government of Spain has no complaints about the way the Government of Gibraltar has faced the crisis. Even if so (that is, any involved party claims that it is related to the disputed status of Gibraltar) it should be properly attributed.

However, during the discussion, some sources have come out that relates some issues of the whole incident to the sovereignty dispute. So, those issues are the one that should be quoted:

• The first El País source. It clearly states that the incident in itself could have been caused by the sovereignty dispute. As long as there is no formal communication between both ports, and such an incommunication is related to the dispute, it must be quoted that way ("The New Flame incident was .... It has been asserted that the crash between both ship is related to the sovereignty dispute since, because of that, there are no proper communication between the ports of Algeciras and Gibraltar.
• The second El País source that states that, according to the Spanish government, the place where both ships crashed is not in the territorial waters of Gibraltar.
• The unknown Gibraltarian source (please, provide if existent) that states that the Government of Gibraltar has complained because the Government of Spain has contacted the UK government before contacting with Gibraltar.
• The RedCoat's source that states that Spanish right-wing MEP have complained against the Government of Gibraltar in the European Parliament and that, according to the Commissioner, such a complain was related to the territorial waters complains.

All the rest is just POV editing. --Ecemaml (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC) PS: sorry Justin for calling you a liar. In the beginning it was "Spanish [..] want a "unitary" authority (and let me guess - a Spanish unitary authority?)" and now it's "Spanish political figures are calling for unilateral action by Spain" (unfortunatelly, it goes on being wrong; its one political "figure" the one which is calling for a "unitary" agency regulate to traffic in the Strait). However, as long as the Strait involves not only Spain and the United Kingdom but also Morocco, it's yet to be proved that this MAP (Member of the Andalusian Parliament) requires a Spanish agency in charge of it (again, we're not here to speculate...)

The MV New Flame incident itself could not have been prevented by ANY co-operation or authority as the captain decided to break all the rules. However the hysterical reaction from Spain is a direct result of the dispute and is typical of the need to blame Gibraltar for anything, real or imaginary. It is manifested in a lack of regional co-operation where scrap metal from the vessel is banned from crossing the frontier, and all the allegations of pollution which are made and then cannot be backed up by independent analysis of the oil recovered.

The territorial waters may be 'disputed' but no Spanish warships defended them and Spain signed the UN convention which gives Gibraltar 3 miles minimum that way. A cynic would note that Spain signing aggreements does not mean much, as the Portugeese know with Olivenza. --Gibnews (talk) 11:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

And a cynic would say also that the UK signing treaties does not mean much, as the Spanish know with the Colony of Gibraltar, which now occupies much more terrain than it should according to the Treaty of Utrecht. In fact, the treaty never ceded jurisdiction to Britain, but the propierty. So shut up.

Postscript: Spain signed the UN convention which DOES NOT give Gibraltar any territorial waters. Eccemaml just quoted this, but I'll repeat it for you to -finally- understand: "In ratifying the Convention, Spain wishes to make it known that this act cannot be construed as recognition of any rights or status regarding the maritime space of Gibraltar that are not included in article 10 of the Treaty of Utrecht of 13 July 1713 concluded between the Crowns of Spain and Great Britain. Furthermore, Spain does not consider that Resolution III of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea is applicable to the colony of Gibraltar, which is subject to a process of decolonization in which only relevant resolutions adopted by the United Nations General Assembly are applicable". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.59.120 (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The comments referred to above have no legal significance and do not change the treaty. --Gibnews (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The treaty of Utrecht was signed by Spain and Britain, it does not specify the size of Gibraltar, but it does make it clear the whole territory is British forever. Wikipedia is not really the place for ill informed opinions about a 300 year old treaty in Latin. --Gibnews (talk)

Nope, Gibnews. The Treaty of Utrecht was signed between the Crowns of Spain and Britain, whom never took the people into consideration when bartering land. And that's because the notion of nation-state is quite newer than the feudal notion of "propriety" as ownage of land and it's inhabitants.

The Treaty of Utrecht states: "The Catholic King 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 thereunto belonging; and he gives up the said propriety to be held and enjoyed absolutely with all manner of right for ever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever".

As you may know, there is a difference between the terms "propriety" and "sovereignty". To own something does not qualify you to impose a currency or law on it. Besides, and concerning the size of Gibraltar, it states: "the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging" (then, of course). Maps of that time do exist. And the area occupied by Gibraltar is now much larger.

And last, but not least, just because you do not share a position, it does not make it "ill-informed". While indeed "wikipedia is not really the place for ill informed opinions about a 300 year old treaty in Latin", you should not be surprised if someone responds to your own biased opinions. Or is it fair to say "Spain signing aggreements does not mean much" (because it is OBVIOUSLY a fact, a neutral statement, and it is absolutely necessary in this talk page), but it is inappropriate to answer such a fascist insular oversimplification? So you can dish it out but you can't take it?

With that said, keep nuclear submarines offshore and take care, man! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.59.120 (talk) 12:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to interpret the wording of 300 year old treaties, however I'm pleased you consider the importance of what PEOPLE want. In the 2002 referendum the PEOPLE of Gibraltar made their position in relation to union with Spain well known when 99.3% voted against the idea.

American nuclear submarines regularly visit and are serviced at Rota in Spain, there seems to be no problem with that. And the only nuclear incident in the bay of Gibraltar area has been from Acerinox in Spain.

This is not a debating forum and please do not edit talk archives. --Gibnews (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Gibnews, the Gibraltarians have every right to be British, and nobody will argue that. But as you aknowledge, the UN decolonisation authorities do not recognise legitimity to a referendum held by colonial population. Only the interests of the colonists are safeguarded, but they do not have the right of self-determination.

By the way, -and this is a direct answer to an argument of yours, so don't delete it again- American nuclear submarines may regularly visit Rota, but they are not repaired there. Let's accept it, the "Tireless" did not broke on it's way to Gibraltar. She headed your port because it's "less dangerous" to repair it's cooling system there than in the UK. Yes, you are as disposable as the rest of Spaniards for that matter. Sorry.

Cheers