The discovery of the islands by a British subject, even if established, would not give Britain any right to sovereignty of the islands. In the case of uninhabited territory it is settlement, not discover, which matters.
Of course, Spain is well known for it’s magnanimity in dealing with Morocco and the Spanish islands and enclaves…Ceuta, Perejil, Melilla etc
Why should the nasty British hold on to Cornwall too? The Cornish people are revolting…(no, really ;))
Maybe the British people would like a referendum to decide if we want to let them stay British…? In fact, we probably don’t need one cos Blair is simply applying the deliberations of a British parliament, and if that means the interests of the majority of British people are served by handing Gibralter over to Spain then fair enough - isn’t that what democracy is all about?* The Gibraltarians might squeak about it, but one doesn’t always get one’s own way…
Maybe we should grant Gibralter complete independence and let them sort things out themselves…
*[sub]I know we don’t really have a democracy over here - I’m not that daft - but it’s nice to pretend sometimes… 
[/sub]
So much ignorance, so much misinformation, so much demagoguery. Complex problems do not have simple solutions. Anyone who sees this as a clear-cut, yes/no, problem, does not know the first thing about the issue.
Point#1 - - Self determination
Let us start with one thing: citizens of any country do not have any individual right to self determination. What they have is a contract with the rest of the citizens to abide by the laws and obtain certain protections in exchange. The right to live in a specific place is not one of those. The rights of a person as a citizen do not extend to living in a particular place. The downtown of Washington DC is in the process of being renovated and thousands of homes and other buildings have been expropriated to make space for new construction. Thousands of people have been displaced against their will by the will of the majority represented by the government.
The desires of the people affected by any measure should certainly be taken into account but it is the will of the majority which counts in the end. If the majority decide it is in the interest of the community to do something that supersedes the narrow interest of the minority as long as all laws (for instance, regarding just compensation) are observed.
The idea that the people of Gibraltar have any right to unilaterally decide the future of Gibraltar is just silly. Nobody is going to strip them of their citizenship which they will continue to enjoy. But the future of Gibraltar is to be decided by the entire GB, not by the narrow interests of the people who live in Gibraltar.
The citizens of any part of the USA do not enjoy the right to unilaterally declare themselves independent or part of another country. That is a decision which can only be taken by the entire country at the highest level. The same can be said of any other country, including Spain and GB.
Hong Kong has been mentioned. GB did not consult the local population. GB deemed it was in the national interest to return HK to China and it did so. British nationals continued to be British nationals with all the rights that entails. Some decided to stay in HK and others decided to move but they did not have the right to veto the return of HK to China.
So, the question here is whether it is in the interest of the entire GB to keep Gibraltar, not whether it is in the interests of the people of Gibraltar. The relations between the UK and Spain are wide and deep and it may be that the UK is beginning to consider that having this friction point with Spain is just not worth it especially when a lot of the friction arises from activities which are illegal anyway.
Territories have changed hands many times in history. The US bought Alaska from Russia but the local population did not have a say. Guantanamo is a US territory in Cuba and the fate of that territory is in the hands of the national government in Washington DC, not in the hands of the people who live in Guantánamo.
Point #2. Historical arguments
GB had free and clear title in perpetuity for Hong Kong and yet it was returned to China because it was considered to be in the better interests of both sides. The treaty of Utrecht which ceded Gibraltar to Britain is much more restrictive and very specifically says that Britain is not free to alienate their sovereignty over the rock except by returning it to Spain. It was not an unconditional cession. Britain just does not have the legal right to allow Gibraltar to become independent or part of any other country other than Spain.
Spain has restricted certain things for good reason. First of all, Gibraltar is not part of the EU free trade zone and is not so considered by the UK so it is kind of silly to ask Spain to consider it as such. Gibraltar has both the advantages and disadvantages of being outside the EU.
Spain has restricted the airport activities of the Gibraltar airport because it was built partly on neutral territory in direct contravention of the cession treaty. Spain is thus not recognizing UK sovereignty over this patch of land. That is all.
The point is that the UK does not have unlimited discretion in what they can do with Gibraltar as they are bound by the cession treaty.
Point #3 - - Practical matters.
The fact is that, in today’s world, neither the UK nor Spain can afford to do anything which would totally alienate the people of Gibraltar and both are trying to find a solution which is acceptable to all three parties.
The fact is that Gibraltar’s economy is very widely based on money laundering, drug trafficking and other illegal activities which are very in detriment of Spain and of the rest of the world. Spain is rightly annoyed by this and Britain does not benefit from protecting these activities.
There was the case of the British nuclear sub which limped in to Gibraltar for repairs and was there for months while the were serious fears there might be leaks of nuclear radiation. The people in the surrounding area would prefer to avoid this type of incident and I don’t blame them. IIRC the sub was finally towed away to the UK, unable to steam under its own power.
Point #4 - - Public perception
Contrary to what some have said here, the people of Spain care much less about getting Gibraltar back than the people of GB about not returning it. The Spanish population would generally like to see Gibraltar returned to Spain but nobody believes it is worth even a serious argument with the Brits. The Brits seem to have much more of their national honor riding on this issue than Spain. The British tabloids are the ones making this a huge matter of British honor. You will not see anything of the kind in Spain. The Costa del Sol is full of Britons vacationing or living there permanently and I do not think anyone of them would tell you this is a prime topic of conversation for Spaniards. Spain, unlike the UK, long ago abandoned any imperial pretense or any claim to use military force in foreign relations. (Perejil not withstanding, we already had another thread about that). Spain’s youth are much more against the military use of force than Britain’s by a very wide margin. They are very proud and supportive of the humanitarian and peace-keeping role the Spanish armed forces have assumed in Bosnia, Afghanistan, etc. but there is no support for fighting any wars of any kind.
Conclusion: The idea that Gibraltar is somehow part of the British Empire and should not be given up is just laughable and pathetic. Gibraltar is a bilateral question between the UK and Spain and as time goes by the UK has less interest in keeping it so both parties are working on finding a solution which is acceptable to both sides as well as for the local population.
Excellent post, sailor!
I have a question - how much do the western nations (ie NATO, and especially the US) continue to rely on gibralter for strategic reasons? Is it as vital is it was in past conflicts up to ww2?
If Britain gave up its historic claim to Gibraltar what would it do if the French fleet broke out of the Mediterranean, join the Spanish fleet off Cadiz and sailed for the Channel to cover the French invasion of England? What almost happened in 1805 could happen again. Stand to your guns, my lads. Lord Nelson expects that every Englishman will do his duty.
“I do not say they will not come, Sir. I say they will not come by sea.”
“And what about that damned tunnel?”
But how will they get the boats into the tunnel?
Very impressive post, sailor. I sense you have strong feelings about this subject. A while back you said you would tell me the difference between the Gibraltar situation and that of Ceuta, etc. Maybe now’s a good time to do that?
(Just a nitpick… as I’m sure you know, while HK was ceded in perpetuity, the New Territories were on the 99-year lease; AFAIK it was felt that holding HK island was not beneficial to the population there, since the Chinese would be able to cut off Hong Kong’s water supply on a whim, and might even have invaded. As you say, they weren’t asked…)
I see you post from Hong Kong, and that might be the reason for your position. Seeing that Sailor eloquently explained these fundamental issues, I don’t feel the need to recycling them. Let’s just say I wrote this to acknowledge your post, which I find terribly stupid, BTW.
The people of Gib want it both ways. They want to keep their status as a tax haven, which brings trade and money. But they don’t want a border. Thay want to enjoy the security and protection of Britain, but they don’t want to pay taxes (who does?). As with any such conflict - follow the money. The people in Gib don’t want to be part of Spain, since that would mean losing a lot of priviligies. Tough shit, I say.
Have any of you guys arguing been to Gibraltar?
Yep. What a dive.
For those who believe the wishes of the people are all-important; this example may be tenuous, but not entirely irrelevant as a thought experiment. What would you do if the majority of a part of the UK (or Spain, or wherever) decided that they wanted to be part of another country? Or what if another island, or region, decided it wanted to be part of the UK? Would the wishes of the majority - assuming they are expressed in a similar way to the Gibraltarians - be the deciding factor in such situations?
Silly examples, yes, but surely valid in explaining why the wants of the majority are not always relevant or useful in determining a course of action.
Flaw in your question: the Gibraltarians (and the Falklanders) are trying to maintain the status quo, not trying to secede.
To further analogize, part of (the island of) Ireland wants to be part of Britain [status quo, being honoured]. Part of it wants to be part of (the Republic of) Ireland [big problem].
Oops, very true, but the point is still there: the wishes of the majority are not, have never been and cannot be paramount in every possible situation.
From The Good Friday Agreement (bolding mine)
This is called self determination, and is what the majority of people in NI voted in favour of.
Yep. Although, as jjimm rightly corrected me, this isn’t about independence or asserting control of one’s own affairs; the Gibraltarians want self-determination supported by another country, which sounds like having your cake and eating it. It’s these situations that make me uneasy about generalising that the will of the majority is the sole relevant determinant in making a decision.
Apologies for making my point badly.
Hmm… “this isn’t about independence or asserting control of one’s own affairs”. I think it is about self determination, though.
The Gibraltarians want things to remain as they are. As did people in Hong Kong (it’s analogy city here today). The Hongkies were never asked what they wanted, as has been complained about in an earlier post. What the majority there wanted was the satus quo - to be left alone to go about their business. This involved a Governor and a token Legislative Council, and minimal democracy, but that’s what they wanted at the time, and as such I believe even plumping for being dominated is “self determination”.
When it comes to realpolitik, I don’t doubt that the Gibs’ views aren’t going to be taken into account, but personally I think they should.
I think they should be taken into account too, but I disagree with any commentator saying that those views are a uniquely important factor.
As for “asserting control of one’s own affairs” - the Gibraltarians want to assert control backed by support from the UK. Effectively they want the UK to guarantee their position. It might be “self-determination” but since that usually implies complete independent control of one’s affairs I think it can be a misleadingly emotive term for what’s actually wanted.
We had a war about it. 