David Cameron 'seriously concerned' by Gibraltar events

[energiewende]

Spain has been compared to North Korea in how it's behaving, but I see many similarities with the way Argentina has been acting like a spoiled child re. the Falklands.

Spoilt child? Let me get this straight: Britain conquered most of the spots in the world that are oddly far away from their own islands by massacring, let me beat that with a literary club into your stupid head, literally massacring less industrialized armies and navies with guns. That's the only "right" it has and ever had to those territories - the right of a brute who took something by force and kept it as his for centuries. Which is an unbelievably apt description of Gibraltar, by the way.

Falklands were previously uninhabited and Gibraltar was taken from a competing great power with no technology or manpower disadvantage. There are certainly examples of what you're talking about but neither of these are good ones. Apart from that Gibraltar is not contiguous there's no difference how it was acquired than how France, Spain, Germany, Russia, italy etc. came to be countries in the first place.

[ArmorPierce]

When a private person mugs someone, we go after them and their fence. We don't wait until the goods have percolated through ten degrees of separation and then expect the last guy who innocently received the goods from someone who innocently received the goods from someone who innocently received the goods from... someone who received stolen goods from a thief to pay the price for that distant crime.

Under Common law, stolen goods given to an innocent party must be forfeit to the original owner. It is then up to the individual who had received the stolen property to go after then individual who had given them the stolen property.

In fact, if the individual even suspected that the property may have been stolen, he may be charged as an accessory to the crime.

[Thanas]

Gibraltar was taken from a competing great power with no technology or manpower disadvantage.

Lol what?

[Simon_Jester]

I think energiewende is looking at the superficial fact that both the British and the Spanish had gunpowder weapons, large oceangoing fleets, and organized national governments (I am quite aware, the Spanish government wasn't in good shape at all during the War of the Spanish Succession).

This contrasts to the typical colonial scenario, where the colonizer had vastly superior technology, economic resources, and persistent organization, and won easily by crushing huge numbers of comparatively helpless natives. The Spanish, by contrast, were an organized nation-state that certainly failed to retake Gibraltar in the face of British brute force, but at least could put up a credible fight for it.

[Thanas]

If the end result of a fight is a foregone conclusion, is it really a fair one? Seems to me that Energiewende is advancing the argument that as long as it is a fair fight nobody should complain, which to me terribly misses the point.

We should rather look for what was acceptable by the standards of the times where those acquisitions were made.

[Simon_Jester]

[blinks] ...What does Saxtonite have to do with it?

So, was the British seizure of Gibraltar acceptable by the standards of 1700s-era Europe? Obviously it was not acceptable to the Spanish, who tried to retake Gibraltar at every available opportunity for decades, because they (with reason) wanted it back. But in what way might other nations of the time have viewed it, compared to other conquests and exchanges of territory?

[Thanas]

[blinks] ...What does Saxtonite have to do with it?

Meant Energiewende, which should have been obvious.

So, was the British seizure of Gibraltar acceptable by the standards of 1700s-era Europe? Obviously it was not acceptable to the Spanish, who tried to retake Gibraltar at every available opportunity for decades, because they (with reason) wanted it back. But in what way might other nations of the time have viewed it, compared to other conquests and exchanges of territory?

Same as everything else back then, you retake it when you can (look how Minorca was also ceded to the British but retaken by the Spanish). People have to keep in mind that the War of Spanish succession ended with the Spanish Empire being carved up like a Turkey. England however is the only nation state still hanging on to the spoils of that war.

[Simon_Jester]

Oh, you meant energiewende? I never would have guessed...

Anyway, let's look at the list of Spanish possessions taken away by Utrecht...
-Gibraltar, currently still in British hands.
-Minorca, fought over repeatedly throughout the 18th century and ultimately returned to Spain as you mentioned, long before the modern form of international law took form.
-The Spanish Netherlands, which ultimately wound up mostly as the independent nations of Belgium and Luxemborg, with some bits going to France and identifying as French today.
-Various portions of Italy, which all wound up united in the country of Italy after the nationalist movement there succeeded.

If we follow the precedent, the obvious thing to do is to leave possession of Gibraltar up to the people who live there.
-Various South American colonies, which all wound up part of South American countries after the nationalist movements there succeeded.

[energiewende]

If the end result of a fight is a foregone conclusion, is it really a fair one? Seems to me that Energiewende is advancing the argument that as long as it is a fair fight nobody should complain, which to me terribly misses the point.

We should rather look for what was acceptable by the standards of the times where those acquisitions were made.

I was responding to Stas Bush' claim that Britain was victimising helpless bystanders. Spain was a great power in its own right, a willing player in the game of European power politics, and allied with the then most powerful country in Europe.

I don't believe that might makes right, so the outcome of a fair fight does not necessarily grant a moral claim of ownership. The question for me is, what then is Spain's claim? The means of acquisition is at least not more immoral than the consolidation of the Spanish state itself, the population of Gibraltar don't want to be part of Spain, and Britain is a free country that does not mistreat its citizens. If we're saying that Spain is allowed to claim any territory that is contiguous and was once ruled by the Spanish monarchy regardless of the wishes of the inhabitants, why can't Spain annex Portugal?

Same as everything else back then, you retake it when you can (look how Minorca was also ceded to the British but retaken by the Spanish). People have to keep in mind that the War of Spanish succession ended with the Spanish Empire being carved up like a Turkey. England however is the only nation state still hanging on to the spoils of that war.

Belgium and Italy are in fact still very much not part of Spain.

[Thanas]

I don't believe that might makes right, so the outcome of a fair fight does not necessarily grant a moral claim of ownership. The question for me is, what then is Spain's claim? The means of acquisition is at least not more immoral than the consolidation of the Spanish state itself, the population of Gibraltar don't want to be part of Spain, and Britain is a free country that does not mistreat its citizens. If we're saying that Spain is allowed to claim any territory that is contiguous and was once ruled by the Spanish monarchy regardless of the wishes of the inhabitants, why can't Spain annex Portugal?

Spain's claim is that they always tried to get it back so they never surrendered their territorial claim. I don't think it particularly strong, though.

Belgium and Italy are in fact still very much not part of Spain.

Because they are nations in their own right.

[energiewende]

I don't believe that might makes right, so the outcome of a fair fight does not necessarily grant a moral claim of ownership. The question for me is, what then is Spain's claim? The means of acquisition is at least not more immoral than the consolidation of the Spanish state itself, the population of Gibraltar don't want to be part of Spain, and Britain is a free country that does not mistreat its citizens. If we're saying that Spain is allowed to claim any territory that is contiguous and was once ruled by the Spanish monarchy regardless of the wishes of the inhabitants, why can't Spain annex Portugal?

Spain's claim is that they always tried to get it back so they never surrendered their territorial claim. I don't think it particularly strong, though.

They surely surrendered it in black and white in the Treaty of Utrecht. I don't think that "We really, REALLY wish we hadn't signed that treaty (so long as we got to keep all the advantages we gained from it)" is any sort of claim at all.

Belgium and Italy are in fact still very much not part of Spain.

Because they are nations in their own right.

As I understand it, Gibraltar is treated as a nation in its own right on constitutional questions. It simply voted to remain a British territory. If Britain had annexed it to the mainland, like French Guyana, then maybe there would be more of a case.

[Thanas]

They surely surrendered it in black and white in the Treaty of Utrecht. I don't think that "We really, REALLY wish we hadn't signed that treaty (so long as we got to keep all the advantages we gained from it)" is any sort of claim at all.

Why not? It is after all the same claim by which the French hung on to Calais and Spain had the reconquista. Heck, that even had gotten way back. Surrendering in a treaty is clearly not seen as giving up all claims.

As I understand it, Gibraltar is treated as a nation in its own right on constitutional questions. It simply voted to remain a British territory. If Britain had annexed it to the mainland, like French Guyana, then maybe there would be more of a case.

Gibraltar is not a nation that is historically grown. It is a result of English settlement policies. It is not the same as in the case of the Belgians, who lived there for thousands of years.

[energiewende]

They surely surrendered it in black and white in the Treaty of Utrecht. I don't think that "We really, REALLY wish we hadn't signed that treaty (so long as we got to keep all the advantages we gained from it)" is any sort of claim at all.

Why not? It is after all the same claim by which the French hung on to Calais and Spain had the reconquista. Heck, that even had gotten way back. Surrendering in a treaty is clearly not seen as giving up all claims.

They forced those settlements by waging further wars. While they could in principle try for another round against Britain, Spain gave up the sovereign right to wage aggressive war when it joined the UN.

As I understand it, Gibraltar is treated as a nation in its own right on constitutional questions. It simply voted to remain a British territory. If Britain had annexed it to the mainland, like French Guyana, then maybe there would be more of a case.

Gibraltar is not a nation that is historically grown. It is a result of English settlement policies. It is not the same as in the case of the Belgians, who lived there for thousands of years.

Who conquered it and killed the native inhabitants long enough ago that they're too dead to complain about it. However I am not convinced the British did resettle Gibraltar. Of the seventeen members of the Gibraltar Parliament, I count one and a half British surnames and fifteen and a half Spanish surnames.

[Ultonius]

Who conquered it and killed the native inhabitants long enough ago that they're too dead to complain about it. However I am not convinced the British did resettle Gibraltar. Of the seventeen members of the Gibraltar Parliament, I count one and a half British surnames and fifteen and a half Spanish surnames.

At least some of those names look Italian rather than Spanish. According to Wikipedia, the original post-capture population were Catalan and Genoese in origin, with subsequent immigrants including Moroccan Sephardic Jews, Maltese, Portuguese, Minorcans, British and Italians, as well as subsequent immigrants from mainland Spain. The Spanish cultural impact on Gibraltar can be seen from the fact that the local day-to-day language, Llanito, is a dialect of Andalusian Spanish, albeit influenced by English, Genoese, Hebrew, Maltese and Portuguese.

[Thanas]

They forced those settlements by waging further wars. While they could in principle try for another round against Britain, Spain gave up the sovereign right to wage aggressive war when it joined the UN.

But it did not give up claims, it merely gave up one of many options to settle them.

Who conquered it and killed the native inhabitants long enough ago that they're too dead to complain about it. However I am not convinced the British did resettle Gibraltar. Of the seventeen members of the Gibraltar Parliament, I count one and a half British surnames and fifteen and a half Spanish surnames.

None of that changes the fact that people who try to claim a piece of land far detached from the mainland is a naturally grown part of that nation are probably not from the sanest part of society.

Do I think England by now has the better claim? Sure. But it is nowhere near as strong as the claim of nations to their main territory.

[Marko Dash]

what do you think the reaction would be if Russia decided it wanted Alaska back? different circumstances on how the land was acquired in the first place but same overall premise.

[energiewende]

They forced those settlements by waging further wars. While they could in principle try for another round against Britain, Spain gave up the sovereign right to wage aggressive war when it joined the UN.

But it did not give up claims, it merely gave up one of many options to settle them.

They gave up any legal claim, and any means of forcing Britain to concede a new legal claim. They can of course ask Britain nicely to give them one...

My feeling is that Spain actually doesn't want Gibraltar back; if they did, they'd avoid these confrontations like the plague, and simply quietly funnel tourists, immigrants and money into Gibraltar, pay for Spanish language lessons and trips to Spain for anyone who wanted them, generally try to make Gibraltar as much de-facto part of Spain as possible, and then fund a peaceful political movement for a referendum to join Spain. Instead they seem to be using it as a convenient distraction from their internal problems and alienating the Gibralteans further. I suspect that now Gibraltar is not really a strategically important military base it is more useful to them like that.

Who conquered it and killed the native inhabitants long enough ago that they're too dead to complain about it. However I am not convinced the British did resettle Gibraltar. Of the seventeen members of the Gibraltar Parliament, I count one and a half British surnames and fifteen and a half Spanish surnames.

None of that changes the fact that people who try to claim a piece of land far detached from the mainland is a naturally grown part of that nation are probably not from the sanest part of society.

Do I think England by now has the better claim? Sure. But it is nowhere near as strong as the claim of nations to their main territory.

idk how are we defining main territory here. Why is Portugal not part of Spain's main territory, or Navarre not part of France's? Or Gibraltar not part of the Morocco for that matter - the Moors occupied it longer than the British, who have now occupied it longer than the Spanish?

I know what you mean, it certainly feels like Gibraltar ought to be part of Spain, but to what rational principle can we reduce this feeling? Or is it just some emotional artefact that has no real meaning?

[K. A. Pital]

By different circumstances you mean no violent capture and resettlement, right?

[Metahive]

what do you think the reaction would be if Russia decided it wanted Alaska back? different circumstances on how the land was acquired in the first place but same overall premise.

A: "Hey, dude, how about you give me the car back I sold to you?"
B: "Hey, dude, how about you give me the car back you jacked after you clobbered me with a tire iron?"

Really need to be told that there's some significant difference between A and B? So much in fact that you can't call it "same overall premise"?

[Thanas]

what do you think the reaction would be if Russia decided it wanted Alaska back? different circumstances on how the land was acquired in the first place but same overall premise.

A) This is colonial territory, for which different rules applied for centuries and the law of war was nonexistent, as agreed upon by all colonial powers.
B) Not the same overall premise at all. One was sold between consenting parties. I'll let you figure out which one.

They gave up any legal claim, and any means of forcing Britain to concede a new legal claim.

How did they do that? You do realize that giving something up in a treaty does not mean you also concede all claims?

I think this is the main contention here. You seem to think that once nations give up a territory per treaty, they then surrender all claims to that territory per treaty. This is not the case.

My feeling is that Spain actually doesn't want Gibraltar back; if they did, they'd avoid these confrontations like the plague, and simply quietly funnel tourists, immigrants and money into Gibraltar, pay for Spanish language lessons and trips to Spain for anyone who wanted them, generally try to make Gibraltar as much de-facto part of Spain as possible, and then fund a peaceful political movement for a referendum to join Spain. Instead they seem to be using it as a convenient distraction from their internal problems and alienating the Gibralteans further. I suspect that now Gibraltar is not really a strategically important military base it is more useful to them like that.

Maybe and this definitely is true for some politicians. OTOH, there are also those who really want to get that territory back.

idk how are we defining main territory here. Why is Portugal not part of Spain's main territory

Because the Portugese have a distinct culture and took care to preserve their independence.

or Navarre not part of France's?

? But the kingdom of Navarre is part of France. The northern part, to be precise. After all, the French king was actually Le Roi de France et de Navarre (and no, this was not just a titular kingdom).

I know what you mean, it certainly feels like Gibraltar ought to be part of Spain, but to what rational principle can we reduce this feeling? Or is it just some emotional artefact that has no real meaning?

I'd say there are three indicators:
- Geography
- Nationality
- Political sovereignty and historical alignment

Two of these are in the favor of the brits today (less so in the centuries before), which is why I consider the British claim to be superior for now. Doesn't mean I consider the Spanish claim invalid though, it just ranks lower to me in order of precedence. Kinda like how I consider the Polish claim to Danzig higher in precedence than the German one (or would, had Germany not surrendered her claims in 1990).

[energiewende]

Well, I do agree that if Britain were to vanish tomorrow Spain probably would have the best claim.