Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

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 am not "a Castilian". Castilians, are a small minority in Spain, by the way, who have no political or economic influence as a group.

I was quite obviously joking when I said Portugal was part of Galicia. Sadly, pan-Iberianism is a purely Portuguese affair, and dreams of an Iberian Republic have been restricted to the western side of the border. Spaniards have never taken much interest in what is called their "brother country". Olivenza is an anachronistic border issue as there are among dozens of countries in the world. I feel you dont seem to understand my arguments. In what way is Ceuta attached to Morocco? Is Istanbul attached to Greece rather than "Turkey proper"? Is the Sinai attached to Israel rather than "Egypt proper"?

In any case I am confused. Should Ceuta be rightly returned to Morocco or to Portugal now?

As for the origin of Gibraltarians, they are a mix of Genoese, Maltese, British, Portuguese and Andalusian Spanish. The Spanish element, however, is relatively recent. The language of choice is Spanish because the territory has been, to a large degree, culturally absorbed by the wider Cadiz region, both through intermarriage and economic and cultural exchange. Its Gibraltar not Gibralter, btw. :-).

Whether the original inhabitants of Gibraltar were expelled by force, fled out of fear or suddenly all decided to leave for no apparent reason abandoning their property, moving to nearby refugee camps (which are now the towns of San Roque, Algeciras and Los Barrios) has been debated on this talk page. --Burgas00 10:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I am starting to think you have never lived in Spain, or are not connected to Spain at all. Anyone with any understanding of Iberian politics or history would never make a statement like "Sadly, pan-Iberianism is a purely Portuguese affair, and dreams of an Iberian Republic have been restricted to the western side of the border." P97dav45 13:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you are right. I have only lived 17 years in Spain and a couple in Portugal...Not enough to have such strong opinions as yourself. You claim to love Fernando Pessoa and must also know José Saramago. The strong Iberianism of both intellectuals, among others, has hardly been corresponded by Spanish ones.

A quote from Pessoa:

“All of us here, Portuguese, Castilians and Catalans, will only obtain our civilisation potential and greatness when we create an Iberian Confederation of States. Only then can we leave behind past decades of disgrace and sadness, and face Europe once again.”

A Madrid based Portuguese journalist recently complained in a recent article that "Portugal exists", lamenting the lack of interest, at all levels, Spaniards have in their neighbours. It is sad, in my opinion, that feelings of Iberianism have been so conspicuosly absent in Spain, at least in my lifetime. --Burgas00 14:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Without wishing to get into a debate about Olivenca, apart from noting that Spanish Governments do not respect treaties - I am not inclined to allow the comment about 'original inhabitants' of Gibraltar to stand.

The Spanish here in 1704 were not the first and not the last. They occupied the territory for a mere 200 years. Remind me who the 'original inhabitants' of Al Andaluz were :)

--Gibnews 15:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well the original inhabitants of Andalusia are the same people who are there now. Andalusians: A mediterranean people who are a mix of Paleolithic (the largest element), Tartessian, Phoenician, Greek, Punic, Roman, Visigothic, Berber and Arab people, and who's culture is a blend of all these influences. Its quite simple... Andalusians have always been andalusians, no matter their religion, which changed frequently throughout the 8 centuries of religious conflict in the peninsula and their vernacular language were generally Mozarabic romance dialects, which are the source of the distinctive modern-day Andalusian manner of speech. --Burgas00 15:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Burgass, as well as misguided your position is offensive. As far as you are concerned it follows that Kuwait is "naturally" part of Iraq, and Poland & Austria "naturally" part of Germany, and therefore we should have all applauded when the tanks rolled in. Larger size does NOT give a nation trhe right to annex it's neighbours.

Spanish position.

I am Spanish and I think that we cannot forget that Gibraltar was occupied by the Britons taking advantage of a civil war in Spain. I think that it was not a good start. We cannot forget either the fiscal and economic policies of the Rock. Yet, I think that the traditional attitude of Spain has not been intelligent. Gibraltar is just a small town, a beautiful small down, by the way. I visited it once and was kindly surprised at the people, who are usually very nice. As we know, for years, and during Franco, the Spanish government isolated Gibraltar and their inhabitants. That is not the way Gibraltarians will end up identifying with Spain. Now we are in the European Union. If all doors were open, as they are already among many European countries, people would just live in or out of Gibraltar and go in and out the way they do in any other neighbouring towns and cities. They would interact in a natural way and Gibraltarians would end up identifying with the people of their natural region and would change their attitudes and identity feelings. But for that we should start the sooner the better and obviously be a bit patient, then that would take one or two generations. Just some thoughts. Veritas et Severitas 23:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of this talk page is to discuss material for inclusion on the page about Gibraltar. It is a city, it belongs to the Gibraltarians, they are British not Spanish. The economy is sound and free from corruption, we joined the EU in 1973. Ask again in another 100 years to see if we have changed our minds.

--Gibnews

Gibnews, your position is already clear, you like confrontation. Personally I do not give a damn if you are Spanish or British. The Rock is territory of Spain, stolen by the British in the very honourable way that I have mentioned. Sooner or later it will go back to Spain, it is just a question of principles and time, not because the dry Rock is of much use. Spain is much bigger and much more beautiful than Gibraltar and Britain combined and we have much more territory than you can ever dream of for each of us. But you are here uninvited. I do not agree with the people who want to send you back in Cayucos to wherever you came from. But I do not keep up with provocateurs either. Leave this page alone, so that it can be unprotected. It seems that people do not trust you very much when the page is locked up.

But if you want material for discussion you can add this:

Spaniards have nothing against the presence of Britons in Spain, as can be seen in the latest immigration trends. Along with people from South America, Morrocco or Senegal, thousands of Britons are immigrating in Spain every year, as can be seen in the thousands of teachers struggling with British kids in the schools of many areas in Spain, because they cannot speak Spanish, or in many hospitals in some areas of the country, full of British citizens. And Spaniards are accepting them all.

What Spaniards do not want is people that are here uninvited, like Gibratarians, the legacy of a time when people came from outside to steal from them, taking advantage of Spain's internal problems.

Veritas et Severitas 20:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The whole point of creating pages here is to inform and educate people about things. Read the Gibraltar pages because your 'position' is based on prejudice rather than reality. 'What Spaniards want' is appropriate to pages about Spain. Gibraltar is not part of Spain, it has not been part of Spain for three hundred years (at which time it had been Spanish for only two hundred) and is most unlikely to be Spanish in your lifetime. It might be valuable to consider WHY the Gibraltarians, who by and large understand Spanish and enjoy most aspects of Spanish culture are totally opposed to any political union with an adjacent modern European state. Two factors are the residual arrogant neo-colonial attitude, which values territory over people, and a lack of faith in your democratic institutions.

These pages are about Gibraltar, its Spanish history ended in 1704 - wake up - it is a new millenium! There are important things happening in the world and your attitude is the past. Gibraltar belongs to the Gibraltarians, nada más.

--Gibnews 08:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry about the tone of my previous contribution, but it responded to a tone that I also found arrogant. I understand that Gibraltarians have a different position, but Gibraltarians must also understand that Spaniards see it differently. Spaniards see Gibraltar as a piece of land that was stolen from them. Gibraltarians do not. Both things must be present in the article. I also make the traditional attitude of Spain towards Gibraltarians responsible for the attitude of Gibraltarians. Some people also say that the attitude of Gibraltarians may be related to some fiscal and economic policies and practices that they cherish as a privilege and that would obviously disappear were Gibraltar to become part of Spain again. Some people agree with that, some people do not. But both things have also a place in the article. If you think that you can speak of Gibraltar ignoring Spain and how it is regarded from Spain, then you are basically wrong. Veritas et Severitas 13:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Some people believe that Elvis lives, and others that flying saucers abduct people. None of these have much to do with Gibraltar.

The Rock of Gibraltar has been subject to successive invasions and conquests, the British being the last of many. However today that which comprises 'Gibraltar' includes the infrastructure, the housing, schools, roads, electricity, telephones, NONE of which has been supplied by the Government of Spain and all of which belongs to the Gibraltarians. That along with our institutions and provision for the future is what we will pass on to the next generation of Gibraltarians and it is ludicrous to suggest that Spain has any claim whatsoever on our future. It is unlikely that the next generation of Gibraltarians will feel differently.

When the frontier was closed we managed very well without contact with Spain, indeed the quality of life was better. However times change and now we have to learn to co-operate. As Spain seem to be able to live with Portugal occupying part of the Iberian peninsular its time to accept that Gibraltar does too and to move forward together instead of regurgitating old nonsense which has no place in a modern Europe.

There is no point speculating about things that might change if 'Gibraltar became part of Spain' because its simply not going to happen. No means no.

--Gibnews 14:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, Gibnews, that is your opinion, which is fine. Millions of other people do not think like you. You can ignore them, but they cannot be ignored. As I said, the article is for all opinions, not only for yours, and I am not the only one who seems to think like that here. Veritas et Severitas 15:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There are over a billion people in China who would not be worried if Spain became a district of France. However when asked to consider joint sovereignty with Spain in 2002, 18176 Gibraltarians voted representing 87.9% of the electorate. 187 Voted YES, and 17,900 voted NO.

It seems that they agree with me and thats what counts. The pages about Gibraltar factually describe the territory, its people and its history and mention the territorial aspirations of a foreign state. Spain lacks the means and thankfully inclination to achieve the 'recapture' of Gibraltar by force, so the best advice is for you to forget the idea.

--Gibnews 18:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I can understand that your feelings are very strong about Gibraltar. Let it be like that. See you another time. I just hope that you follow Wiki rules and standards in relation to the article. Veritas et Severitas 01:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Given the swift transition of Spain from a third world dictatorship to a modern forward thinking European state, I hope that some of the old ideas and lies which still permeate peoples minds go away and are replaced by a feeling of guilt for the way your Government has persecuted the Gibraltarians.

On Monday we are promised a first step down that road with the removal of illegal restrictions on movement and telecommunications. Next UEFA and the EU where the courts are supporting freedom over persecution.

On the positive side, there seems to be a spirit of co-operation on a local level and given the more open nature of communications these days there is no reason for anyone to promulgate inflamatory nonsense about 'stolen Spanish soil' I can assure you The Rock is made of limestone and does not have Spain written through it. It is the home of the Gibraltarians, we assert ownership of it, we have invested in its future and it is ours. In the same way you welcome British ex-pats and the poor of Africa to your country, we welcome Spanish people here. Those who have settled seem to hold the same views about our future as the rest of us.

--Gibnews 09:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Assertions are nothing more than the espression of an opinion, and your assertion is nothing more than you telling us that you consider the Gibraltarians to have ownership of the rock. The truth of this matter is however much more complex, than anyone who has replied on this page is prepared to admit. It is muddled by the fact that rock itself, and a small percentage of it's infrastructure , was stolen from Spain in 1704, but everything on it including the reclaimations, was build by the British.

There's no piont in denying that Gibraltar was stolen by the British, nor is there any point in grasping to straws, such as (300 years > 200 years). If Joe buys a car, and two years later, Tony takes the car from him at gun point, Tony can't really argue three years later, that because he owned the car for 50% longer than Joe, that he is the legitimate owner of the car.

Even if you were to go with that Logic( which I don't ), then it would also have to stand to reason that for the first two hundred years ( 1704 - 1904 ), the territory was rightfully spanish. The argument then fails, because the Spanish had it legitimately for twice as long as the British.

Having that said, the return of sovernty to Spain would be a disaster for Gibraltar. Quite a lot of Gibraltars economy is a house of cards, that can only exist if it is seperate to the rest of Spain. The only way a 3-square-mile town can survive financially is if it is sufficently different to attract the type of attention that Gibraltar can, and a return to Spanish sovernty, would make Gibraltar more like places like La Linea / San Roque / Algeciras.

A return to Spanish Sovernty would mean:

• no border queues ( because there would be no border )
• fall in Gibraltar Property Prices ( Property in Gibraltar is generally 50% - 75% more expensive than La Linea( Border Town ).
• use of Euro ( Bureau de Changes would go out of business - although they're quite cheap compared to those in the UK, there'd be no demand for them.
• Drop in employment - There'd be no reason to stick to Gibraltar so much, and most of the betting companies( who either directly or indirectly finance most of Gibraltars Economy), would either go elsewhere in Spain, to get cheaper staff, or return to the UK.
• Drop in discrimination - There are two types of people in Gibraltar - Gibraltarians and non-Gibralatarians. The latter generally subsidise the lifestyle of the former. In most countries to gain possession of a home, you find a property you like, and get a mortgage to pay for it ( all of it ). For non-Gibraltarians it's the same in Gibraltar, but Gibraltarians simply join a waiting list, to get the government to pay half the cost of one for them. Most of the income tax that pays for this is paid by people who don't even live in Gibraltar, and very little of it is paid by anyone who has a vote in Gibraltar.

--eexft 20:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You missed the point, Gibraltar is not reverting to Spanish sovereignty any more than Andalucia is about to return to Muslim rule. You are, of course, correct that everything has been built by the British - Gibraltarians are British, Gibraltar is our homeland, its future is ours and it would be nice to have co-operation with our neigbours as we are all Europeans these days.

According to the last census, 90% of the population are Gibraltarian so quite how we would get the other 10% to pay for everything is a mystery greater than the pyramids.

Wikipedia is currently focused on documenting the past and present, and not guesses at the future.

As for the claim that Gibraltar was 'stolen' read the Treaty of Utrecht under which the title to the territory was transferred by Spain in perpetuity.

--Gibnews 21:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't miss the point. I have been immersed in the point for the past few years.

Don't waste your energy with the "Gibraltar is our homeland" rheotric - Your opinion / logic on the matter, whilst flawed was presented to me by yourself(I'm sure), and 30,000 other Gibraltarians, on Sep 10 these past few years.

I didn't expect you to mention the treaty of utrecht - considering that the British are in violation of it, through the presence of Jews and Arabs.

I also illustrated the validity of the treaty of utrect with my metaphor in my last post, like a treaty between a car-jacker and car-owner, in that the car-jacker will not kill the car-owner if the car-owner gives the jacker the car.

--eexft 10:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent discussion, sometimes this kind of information is much more revealing than the article.

It'll be a cold day in hell when a bunch of former Fascists get their greasy daego hands on Crown territory. We've had the Rock for 300 years, and we'll have it for another 300. Simple as that. --Corinthian 01:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Cordoba Agreement

It looks like the Spanish Government under Sr Zapatero seems to have woken up to reality and has acted sensibly, meantime the PP attitude seems burried in the past Sr Rajoy, the PP president, yesterday called on the PSOE Government for an urgent explanation of the airport agreement from the Spanish premier Jose Luis Zapatero. “The important issue with Gibraltar is not co-operation but sovereignty,” said Sr Rajoy.

Gracias España for NOT electing them !

--Gibnews 11:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on that. The PP represents an ugly side of Spain. By the way, look what weird news.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=406108&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true#StartComments

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article1621766.ece

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1393742006

If the Britons are Spanish, what shall we do now about the Rock?. Just joking. Veritas et Severitas 23:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest it should be given back to the Neanderthals, but Sr Rajoy seems to represent them. (also joking) Anyhow I trace my ancestors back to Ulster, long before the remains of the Spanish armada landed in Ireland. --Gibnews

Gib, perhaps you should take a look at this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=406108&in_page_id=1770 note - the caption under the map should say "ancestors" not "descendants" - Cheers. Provocateur 04:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, but I doubt 'Daily Mail' readers understand the difference. --Gibnews

Governor's role

" The Governor is not involved in the day-to-day administration of Gibraltar "- surely the Governor is required to review government papers, sign orders etc? Astrotrain 15:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thats a good point, although all laws are officially approved by the Governor, in the same way the Queen does for the UK, I doubt either actually read them or in practice sign them. The attempt of the wording was to explain that the Governor does not actually Govern, or make policy. Perhaps I should pay a visit and find out what he does do on an average day. All I have ever seen is the ceremonial aspect of the job. --Gibnews

Well the Queen apparently works for several hours a day going through the state papers she recevies- and is required to sign various documents on a daily basis. I would imagine that the Governor would be required to do the same (albiet in a smaller role) in relation to Gibraltar. I would also imagine that the head of government would be required to brief the Governor on a weekly basis? I am surprised that the Governor does not have his own webpage- not much other sources around on his role from what I can see. Astrotrain 09:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Its a good point, I must go round and interview him one morning, I suspect his roll is cheese and ham from the kitchen or the bar opposite. --Gibnews 20:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Gibraltar Town

I can't find an adequate article on the town of Gibraltar itself, as it is not listed as the capital or largest city. It is true to say that Gibraltar has no official capital, but I think there needs to be an adequate article on the settlements, the buildings etc. Is there one, or could one be created?

There is no 'Gibraltar town' - Gibraltar is a city. However, as its a very small place and in effect the urban area stretches from the frontier to Europa Point, it is generally considered one entity. The capital of Gibraltar is Gibraltar.

--Gibnews

I understand that the capital of Gibraltar is Gibraltar, but in the gibraltar article there is not much information on the urban area of gibraltar, and o central article where people can go to get information on the settlement itself, so why don't we have an article on the page? It should - in my view be a stub on the page with a link to a main article "the settlement of Gibraltar" which would explain the buildings and the history of the settlement, from its operation as a small naval base for the moors, its short spanish occupation and it under British administration. Do you agree with me?

Segafreak2 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't see your point. Apart from an article on the architecture of Gibraltar the other things are covered in the history of Gibraltar, and the other information presented on the main page, indeed its a better introduction to the subject than you can find anywhere else on the net or in a printed encyclopedia.

Regretably Gibraltar is largely two parts, the nature reserve, (the area up the Rock) and the rest, which is a contiguous urban area.

As this is Wikipedia you can of course write whatever articles you feel should be included, remembering that it will be edited mercilessly.

--Gibnews 12:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Gibraltar is a pretty small place and it basically IS the town, apart from the town there is nothing else apart from the rock and the nature reserve. The vast majority of people are referring to the town when they talk about Gibraltar, not the land-mass itself. It's geography and geology are very simple so no need for a seperate section.Scotbotuk 19:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with some of that however, I think Gibraltar has quite complicated geology with the limeston rock, and interesting geography; having such a high population density, and being located in such a strategic place, but there needs to be an article and I will create one. It will need expanding though!

--Segafreak2

The article is here. It needs adding to and expanding. --Segafreak2

I think it just needs deletion. --Gibnews 17:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand you Gibnews. You're opinionated and unhelpful, you're comments are immature and if you love your stupid rock so much then why don't you help with the articles being suggested, instead of instantly dismissing them without any thought or input. As you live in Gibraltar, why don't you speak from experience in these articles - you have the potential to be an admirable contributor to Wikipedia, instead you embarass yourself with ridiclious comments and unhelpful suggestions. Get a grip. --Segafreak2

You may find This article helpful. --Gibnews 23:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Then you may find This helpful. Segafreak2 18:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

20 Oct 2006 edits by 84.12.141.66

Moved contributions here for review and factual verification. Edits marked in bold:

On April 30, 711, the Umayyad general Tariq ibn Ziyad, a former slave, led a Berber-dominated army across the Strait from Ceuta.

The official language is English, which is used for government and business purposes. Most Gibraltarians also use Llanito, a mixture of English and Andalusian Spanish, incorporating some words not native to either. It is a common mistake that the name Gibraltarian comes from the word gibberish, although this is incorrect.

Tourism is also a significant industry. Gibraltar is a popular stop for cruise ships and attracts day visitors from resorts in Spain. The Rock is a popular tourist attraction, particularly among British tourists and residents in the southern coast of Spain. It is also a popular shopping destination, and all goods and services are VAT free. Many of the large British high street chains have branches in Gibraltar, including Marks and Spencer, BHS, Dorothy Perkins, and the supermarket Morrisons. Gibraltar offers some of the cheapest tobacco and alcohol in Europe. The low cost of tobacco has always encouraged smuggling between Gibraltar and Spain, and still is a bone of contention between the two countries.

The unit of currency in use is the Pound Sterling with notes issued by the Government of Gibraltar although there is an ISO code of GIP for the Gibraltar Pound. The local currency is not accepted in any other country in the world.

*Satirical look at Gibraltar culture

--KeithB 14:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Basically vandalism, but:

• Tarik is reported as a former slave[1]

• The word Gibraltarian and gibberish are not releated

• There is no substantive smuggling between Gibraltar and Spain, and there are no complaints about what there is.

• The situation on the currency is complicated, but the comments are incorrect as banks in the UK are instructed to change it 1:1 for UK notes.

• I know the author of the website cited and its a bit of fun and not intended for here.

84.12.141.66 = postbbhq.gotadsl.co.uk

--Gibnews 17:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Spanish population

Hi; in the demographic section, I edited "the Spanish population chose to leave" replacing it by "was compelled to leave" or something similar. It was promptly reverted back. If you may, it would be best to close this matter with a more aseptyc and prudent just "left", without evaluating their will to leave or the absence of the same. I think this is best and more neutral. Apparently, they were given the option to stay. However, we should put ourselves in the context of a very early 18th century: by then it was probably taken for granted that, should they stayed, it would not be an easy life for them, as they would be under severe scrutiny by the British autorities for obvious security reasons, which may equate to be "compelled to". If they really were not officially required to leave, a more neutral point of view (just "left", without guessings on their will) sounds best to me.

Also, it would be interesting that in the economic section someone who knows about it made some reference to economic dependence -if any at all- from goods and workers coming from the Spanish side of the border. I am almost sure there is economic relationship while this is not mentioned at all in this section.

Thanks Mountolive 04:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Its a point which has been discussed at length in san roque They were certainly not expelled. Under the circumstances the choice to leave was a prudent one. Despite favourable surrender terms there were reprisals against the invading forces, and the there was the prospect of being caught in the middle of future military action to recover the territory. Nor was Gibraltar the pleasent place it is today, with a shortage of water and endemic disease, mostly caused by the water supply draining through the graveyard.

As regards 'economic dependence' the quality of life in Gibraltar was better when the frontier was closed. Gibraltar is self-sufficient because it cannot rely on anything from Spain apart from harassment. Even after entering into the Cordoba agreement and getting a large bung from HMG in respect of pensions which were never earnt, and joint use of our airport, nothing changes.

--Gibnews 09:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how intense -if there's any at all- economic relationship between Gibraltar and neighbouring Spain is, still, if someone is able to contribute with this, I think some reference to this would be noteworthy in the Economy section: I'm just guessin that Gibraltar may have some economic relationship with its neighbour, further than the "harassment" you mention. I may be wrong, though. Mountolive 21:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The economic relationship consists of Spanish and other workers in Gibraltar living in Spain. Gibraltar is self-sufficient in all respects, as it would be unwise to rely on anything from Spain. I've finally got access to an authorative text on the economy of Gibraltar and will be adding material from it this weekend. --Gibnews

Are you sure Gibraltar is self-sufficient????. Economic flows between both sides of the frontier are from and into Gibraltar. If we only take into account the period of time in which the border was closed, don´t you believe Gibraltar was being helped finacially by the metropoli?. And I strongly believe no places in the world have been self-sufficient and at the same time have been developing economically for a long period of time.81.35.32.27 00:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Gibraltar Generates its own electricity, water and has control of its telecoms as much as anyone. The economy is robust does not rely on aid. Not sure which planet the 'metropoli' are from but we do not rely on aliens.

--Gibnews 08:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Military Presence

Can someone tell me the military presence, especially naval presence in Gibraltar. It is still not clear whether there is a HMNB Gibraltar, or what. I think the military section, what Gibraltar is most famous for, need expanding.  :) Segafreak2 22:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The military are very much here. However, there has been a change in their role and numbers and HMG is not longer the large employer it used to be. The stone frigate HMS Rooke, was decommissioned and its now just called Rooke but is much the same.

a picture tells a thousand words so heres a few megs

• HMS Illustrious
• Submarines
• HMS Sceptre
• The RAF
• The Army in action

There certainly is a Naval Base, with is a facility for nuclear subs used occasion the Americans too, there is a airfield and there is an army exercise area, with a practice village to attack.

Having an substantial base at the entrance of the Med is a valuable asset, as was shown recently when HMS Ilustrious suddenly went to Lebanon to evacuate Brits. When Sky news showed pictures of her sailing furiously, she was in fact tied up here getting ready to go the next morning.

--Gibnews 09:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Constitutional Name

From the constitution

Citation, commencement and interpretation

1.-(1) This Order may be cited as the Gibraltar Constitution Order 2006.

No mention of the City of Gibraltar.

--Gibnews 17:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You have to go to Regulation 2 of the Order in Council for a reference to the City of Gibraltar:

"2. With effect from the appointed day –
(a) the Constitution set out in Annex 1 to this Order shall (subject
and other provisions set out in Annex 2 to this Order) have effect
of Her Majesty’s dominions, known as the City of Gibraltar;
..."

Although, with the exception of the oaths the term "Gibraltar", rather than "City of Gibraltar" is used throughout.

However, the constitution does not have an article saying what Gibraltar's name is, so I think the idea of there being any "constitutional name" is just plain wrong, jguk 17:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe the villagers of Catalan Bay although they live in Gibraltar, would not agree they live in the City. I'm debating the constituton tonight so have been reading up on it. --Gibnews 19:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The 1969 Constitution Order was started with (2a) "Gibraltar shall be known as the City of Gibraltar" i.e. making it the name from 1969. The 2006 Constitution Order says "the Constitution set out in Annex 1 to this Order shall (...) have effect in Gibraltar, a part of Her Majesty’s dominions, known as the City of Gibraltar", keeping it the name. Both Constitutions (1969 and 2006) say the Governor swears to serve in the "office of Governor and Commander-in-Chief of the City of Gibraltar", a minister is a "member of the Council of Ministers of the City of Gibraltar", and the judges ("Chief Justice/Puisne Judge/President of the Court of Appeal/Justice of Appeal of the City of Gibraltar") swear that they "will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of the City of Gibraltar without fear or favour". I think it is fairly clear what the constitutional name is. --Henrygb 00:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

OK then thats the constitutional name. The practical name would however be the territory of Gibraltar, which comprises the city and the village of Catalan Bay. That leaves some other bits, outside the city walls. I guess its a bit like London -v- the City of London on a smaller scale.--Gibnews 01:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That is a Spanish argument. But in British terms, the City of Gibraltar is the whole of Gibraltar up to the "fence/frontier": the Governor, ministers and judges cover the whole of Gibraltar including Catalan Bay. --Henrygb 00:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh No that a Gibraltar perspective. The territory if Gibraltar is that land between the frontier and Europa point and the sea three miles south.--Gibnews 08:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Tercentenery

"In 2004 Gibraltar celebrated the tercentenery of its capture by British forces. To honour them for their effort and in recognition of the long association as a naval base, the freedom of the City was awarded to the Royal Navy."

Its capture?

Capture (according to the Oxford Dictionary:

"Take into one’s possession or control by force".

Very revealing. And they were honoured for their effort. No comment.

The purpose of this page is to discuss things for inclusion or change on the page about Gibraltar, rather than trying to make inscrutable points, in poor English. --Gibnews

Which part do you find impossible to understand or interpret, Gibnews?

As for my English, I have come across many llanitos in London, and believe me, their English left a lot to be desired. They were bilingual in the sense that they could speak both English and Spanish very badly.

In any case, when you have something to say, come with something better than a pathetic comment about someone else's mastery of the language of Shakespeare. Make a point.

I believe I have made two points, firstly the purpose of this page, and secondly that your use of English resulted in a statement that meant nothing and even when corrected adds nothing.

The availability of Gibraltar as a forward base for the Royal Navy, assisted in them defeating the combined Spanish and French fleets at Trafalgar, and allowed the British to develop their economy free of foreign interference. It took three hundred years to honour them for liberating the territory from Spanish oppression.

http://www.gibnet.com/images/tcent.htm

Have a nice day. --Gibnews

Liberating Gibraltar from Spanish oppression thats a good one:-) They liberated India from Indian oppression and Africa from African oppression as well while they were at it. Is nothing going to be added on the recent referendum in Gibraltar? I believe it was today...--Burgas00 18:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Gibnews, it seems that you are quite uncapable of reading between the lines. Besides, let me know how can you reconcile the terms "capture" and "liberating". Either Gibraltar was captured or liberated, you can't have it both ways. I apologise for my English, not being an anglospeaker I try to do my best. But that does not invalidate my arguments. They can be discussed but not dismissed because of my language skills.

Apart from that I suscribe Burgas' comments 100%. Bye.

You 'comments' can be dismissed because they are immaterial; in the same way that a three hundred year old claim by Spain on MY homeland can be dismissed as it has no legal basis and Spain has been incompetent at recovering the territory by means of force -and- diplomacy. If you are interested in the subject take some time to learn the true situation as opposed to the lies promulgated in the Spanish media. This is not a bulletin board.

--Gibnews 09:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Gibnews, whatever you say buy you don´t answer my question . First you talk about "capture". Then you say that Gibraltar was liberated. You can't have it both ways, my friend. The Falklands were captured by the Argentinians and liberated by the British (that could be a British point of view). But you cannot liberate a territory if that means that their inhabitants must leave. What a liberation!!. I'm sure that the Gibraltarians of the time (Spanish, as they were) enjoyed their liberation very much!!!

As for Spain claim to YOUR HOMELAND I couldn't care less. I have made no mention of it but you seem to jump to conclusions without any reason for it. Keep you Rock foy yourself, I'm happy as it is.

In any case it's very funny to read that this is not a bulletin board when you use it as such all the time, always so sure about who is telling the truth (you, of course) and who is not (those who don't think like you).

Don't forget to explain in your perfect English the difference between capture and liberate. For educating purposes, that is.

.........

You mean educational purpose, anonymous user of bbvamovil.com --Gibnews

Still no answer to a direct question, Is your continuous reminder of my poor English the only thing you can throw at me?. Your English is very good but even a non English speaker knows the difference between capture and liberate. Give us your opinion, please. By the way, apart from the English skills, do you discriminate people for any other reasons? Race, religion, gender, being Spanish or just foreign? Bye...

Referendum

What explains the low turnout and the relatively high proportion of votes against the new constitution. It is, to say the least, surprising! Particularly when compared to the last referendum...--Burgas00 18:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

60% is generally considered an excellent turnout in an election in Europe, the recent 2004 election for the European Parliament achieved 58% here with a more intense and sustained campaign.

The 2002 referendum and the 1967 one were called in relation to very important and immediate issues. Trying to explain the value of a new constitution that is not a lot different to the previous one which most people have never read is hard.

As for the actual voting, there was a well organised no campaign and when people don't really understand the issue, its always safer to vote no and maintain the status quo.

The international media have not picked up the story, which is reflected in a quiet day on my website. The publicity from the tercentenary generated a sharp spike od 100x the usual number of hits.

It would be easy to dismiss it as a 'non event' but it was important and it will now be enacted. --Gibnews 20:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

And what was the NO campaign about? What were the arguments given?--Burgas00 20:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll do a report on my website about the whole thing, for details of the no campaign see this - its mostly about paranoia in relation to Spain, which I don't share :) ... So I voted yes --Gibnews 21:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems from the link you have provided, that there is a political cleavage in Gibraltar between what one could call "Unionists" and "Independentists"... Is that the case? --Burgas00 21:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No, in fact some of the 'no campaign' want more union and others less.

The 'no campaign' is largely a political reaction against the Chief Minister who is unpopular with some because they believe he has made concessions with the Cordoba agreement. However, as in Spain the current government won the election but a significant percentage of the population did not vote for them and would like someone else in charge. Putting up with it is better than the solution to opposition taken in some south American countries.

Iberia land officially next week, I hope the flight is not diverted to Malaga :)

--Gibnews 22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I heard that British airways used to fly in from Madrid every Thursday until not long ago. Is this true?--Burgas00 11:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

They did in the late seventies, I often got that flight - on occasion it went to Madrid, Barcelona, Bordeaux and took for ******* ever. There was also a flight LON>MAD>GIB too. That generally went OK.

For last Saturdays fun see:

http://www.gibnews.net/cgi-bin/gn_view.pl/?GPIX061216_1.xml

--Gibnews 15:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject

In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on Southern Europe at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Southern Europe whose scope would include Gibraltar. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)