Talk:Gibraltar

If anonymous or newly registered users wish to make a comment or propose a change, please do so here.

---

Archives
2004 – March 2006 March 2006 - June 2006 June 2006 - Sept 2006

Telecom

Hi Gibnews,

I guess you are right that Gibraltar badly needed a complete overhaul of its economy at the time and that Bossano did a good job of it even if he did attract some sleaze in the process.

I wanted to ask you a question, considering you live in Gibraltar and you seem to work in telecommunications and/or computer sciences. I was surprised to read in a Spanish source (this time I admit that it is a source with limited credibility) that Gibraltar has something like 300, 000 telephone lines and that in every agreement between Spain and Gibraltar Spain grants even more lines from the Cadiz network, e.g. in the 90s the PP gave 100,000 extra lines. Is there any truth behind this? I may have got the exact facts wrong, I read this some time ago... I cant remember even if it was said in the context of a criticism of Gibraltar. --Burgas00 16:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I seem to have missed that - however see Gibraltar telecom dispute and http://www.gra.gi

There is a big difference between the numbering plan and the number of lines. It should not be up to the Spanish Government to 'grant' anything. The PP offered a Spanish area code for Gibraltar giving a five digit number, and the offer was declined on technical grounds as inadequate.

--Gibnews 12:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Spanish departure

There seems to be a campaign to label the Spanish residents of Gibraltar who chose to leave as 'refugees'. The phrase 'sought refuge' is certainly incorrect as it implies they were attempting to escape persecution. This was not the case, although some may have been seeking to avoid punishment for their crimes.

The whole thing is exagerated as an attempt to give some credibility to the idea that todays residents of San Roque have some claim to the territory of Gibraltar. Let us recall that when they left they had only occupied the territory for 200 years, 50% less time than it has been British.

The language currently is sufficiently neutral, they were not thrown out but chose to leave. It is not claimed that they were cowards who ran away to avoid conflict, although undoubtedly those who remained suffered more in subsequent years when the territory was attacked illegally by Spain contrary to the peace treaty.

At the point that they left they cease to form part ofthe history of Gibraltar, and it is only at the insistence of the Spanish editors of this page that there is any mention of them. I doubt the history of the Jewish community in Morocco is detailed on the Wikipedia page about Spain after their expulsion, which was more traumatic and involved real persecution.

--Gibnews 08:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Certainly to describe their leaving to "seek refuge" smacks of POV unless there is some genuine evidence that they were actually leaving to seek refuge - which is to say they must have been looking for refuge from something which would have been a threat to them in some way. The current edit which describes the movement as a 'relocation' is entirely neutral unless - as previously stated -there is some genuine evidence they were forced out in some way or other. siarach 09:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of first hand accounts by Gibraltar residents from the time which show how the inhabitants all left together in great fear for their lives. Whether this fear was justified is another issue. It is unlikely that these people would have left all together without some form of coercion. People were very attached to their home towns and homes in those days and had the British been nice and polite (as they generally are) I think more would have stayed. Plus it is quite offensive to say people moved or relocated to refugee camps. But that is just my opinion. Lets not return to this discussion.

I think it all generally boils down to what would happen if the Spanish or Moroccan military shelled and conquered Gibraltar by force tommorrow. Would Gibnews (who is a modern-day Gibraltarian) move to the UK or seek refuge in the UK?

We both know the answer. Lets keep the article NPOV. --Burgas00 10:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

OK then if its contentious and its also totally irrelevent to the future of Gibraltar, there is no point in any mention of Spanish history here after 1704.

you could however, include a link to the pages on San Roque and Algeciras indicating where the Spaniards went.

--Gibnews 22:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I cannot believe you, Gibnews... How can you be so biased in your approach to such petty things? Its not that you deny verified facts (a whole population fleeing military conquest to refugee camps) but you twist wording for clearly political reasons. You are an activist as your user page clearly shows. I dont dislike you for it but I dont think wikipedia is the best place for you, at least in matters related to Gibraltar. --Burgas00 23:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I certainly do deny that.

The Spanish residents of Gibraltar were given the choice of staying or leaving, they chose to leave. Personally I think that was a reasonable decision as by doing so they avoided future conflict. Nor was Gibraltar at the time a very desirable place to live. It was rife with disease, there was a problem with the water supply and many of the people here at the time were in effect sent to Gibraltar as a punishment from other parts of Spain. By contrast San Roque and the surrounding area of Algeciras would have been then, as they remain today, a very nice place to live.

Indeed if anyone from San Roque wants to come and live in Gibraltar tomorrow, they are free to do so, yet the current trend is for Gibraltarians and other residents of Gibraltar to buy homes there.

The territory of Gibraltar begins at the frontier and ends 3m out at sea. There already is a section about San Roque, which needs more current material as the place has a good mix of old buildings and new facilities.

Naturally there is a high level of distrust in Gibraltar of the intentions of the Spanish Government, currently we have pronouncements of the MAE that they will move heaven and earth to prevent Gibraltarians playing football on a level field. That a foreign ministry is involved in sport is shameful, but these are the important issues of today, not what happened in Spain in 1704.

--Gibnews

Olivenca

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)

I