Talk:Status of Gibraltar/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

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 The wording used to describe the claim as 'outdated' which after 300 years it most certainly is.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)

"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)