4 ms·

It'd be even easier if Gibraltar is returned to Spain to whom it belongs.

ChocolateGod 3mo ago
Russia says the same thing about Ukraine.
obayesshelton 3mo ago
In that context America should be given back, Alaska should be given back, Australia should be given back... the list goes on.
- unkeen 3mo ago
  Well, in theory, they should! :) Imagine a world where expansionist acts of violent injustice could be undone.
  - obayesshelton 3mo ago
    I do not disagree, where does it stop though. We would have to go back to when Homo sapiens and Neanderthals killed each other.
    - unkeen 3mo ago
      We could have stopped right at the moment when ‘need’ was replaced by ‘greed’. I know, illusionary.
    - Sabinus 3mo ago
      It seems to stop when the argument can't be used to attack Western colonialism.
pmnelson 3mo ago
What about Ceuta and Melilla?
- krzyk 3mo ago
  Well, those are even funnier than Giblartar.
- Buxato 3mo ago
  UN
pelagicAustral 3mo ago
Bad precedent for the Falkland Islands... Chagos and then Gibraltar, would force the Falklands issue to be addressed more seriously, and that would be extremely unfair, since the argentine moot argument it's a mere chauvinist temper tantrum, fueled by generation after generation of propaganda conditioning by failed governments.
- ggm 3mo ago
  A reminder the british government explored handing the Falklands over to Argentina before the war. Fisheries and oil, have changed the view but in times last it was not inconceivable to transfer authority.
  - Tuna-Fish 3mo ago
    > Fisheries and oil, have changed the view No. The reason was not economic, the reason was that the government polled the people living there and found that support for remaining British is ~100%. Oil was found later, the fisheries were never worth maintaining the island for.
    - Laurel1234 3mo ago
      > No. The reason was not economic, the reason was that the government polled the people living there and found that support for remaining British is ~100%. The Russians in Donetsk and Luhansk also voted to be part of Russia and not Ukraine, crazy stuff.
      - maccard 3mo ago
        Are you genuinely comparing the referendums in Gibraltar to the current situation in Ukraine?
        Laurel1234 3mo ago
        In both cases the settlers from an imperialist power vote their allegiance to said imperialist power.
dontwannahearit 3mo ago
The Basque region wants a word...
- Buxato 3mo ago
  Facepalm.
Cyph0n 3mo ago
It would also be great if Ceuta and Melilla returned back to Morocco, and if Western Sahara in turn gained its independence from Morocco. As an aside, I have always found it ironic how Spain continuously whines about Gibraltar while doing the exact same thing to Morocco. At the very least, Spain was smart/lucky enough to lobby the UN early on to not include Ceuta and Melilla in the decolonization list.
- froidpink 3mo ago
  Ceuta was never Moroccan. In fact, Morocco didn't even exist when Ceuta became part of Portugal first (1415) and then Spain (either 1580 or 1640). Ceuta was a part of the Spanish Visigoth kingdom in the 7th Century before the Islamic Conquest (which for some reason we don't call colonisation). Ceuta has always had a strong connection with the rulers of Iberia. Gibraltar, on the other hand, was just lost in the War of Spanish succession to the British Empire, and has had a British connection to them since then, but never before
  - Cyph0n 3mo ago
    Yep, it’s always justified by the fact that Morocco never existed and therefore has no claim. But applying this logic universally would change the world map, not to mention that this justification ignores the fact that the concept of a nation state is relatively new as a norm. Regardless, I and many others will continue to ridicule Spain’s paradoxical position on Gibraltar. Hopefully a just resolution is realized for all parties at some point in the future.
- Buxato 3mo ago
  It couldn't be returned to a country that didn't exists before that places belonged to Spain. Its not the same thing, people that lived in Gibraltar was moved out. UN agrees with that, Spain politicians are to dumb to lobby anything. Check how much Spain spends in lobbying in US and how much Morocco (that its not even a democracy) spends.
  - Cyph0n 3mo ago
PaulRobinson 3mo ago
Not according to the people who live there. Or in fact, Spain, who ceded it to the UK hundreds of years ago. Or do you think Spain has a legal right based on geographic proximity to enforce a culture on those people despite existing treaties, laws, culture and democracy?
- Laurel1234 3mo ago
  > to enforce a culture on those people despite existing treaties, laws, culture and democracy? Britain has been doing this to Ireland for the last 800 years. You still continue to hold their land, oppress its people and do your best to exterminate what shred is left of their language. If Chinggis himself rose from the grave, I'd care a lot more about his thoughts on these matters than a Brit's.
  - bbg2401 3mo ago
    Maybe tone down the hatred?
    - unkeen 3mo ago
      No hatred was uttered. Just a view of the world you're apparently opposed to.
    - Laurel1234 3mo ago
      Sorry I hate genocide man. Should I apologize to Cromwell?
  - PaulRobinson 3mo ago
    Well, that's not true, is it? I say this as somebody who is paternally British and maternally Irish. My great-grandfather was in the Royal Irish constabulary, but his eldest daughter (my great Aunt), married a leader of the IRA. Most of my Irish great uncles came to England from Ireland and enlisted in the British Army and the RAF in WW2 while Ireland remained neutral. After the War, some of them returned to Ireland, some of them stayed in England. The real picture of life on the ground is complicated, and I'm going to assume you are not living amongst it, by your use of "their" when talking about Ireland. At the point of Irish independence it was decided that those parts of Ireland who majority wanted to be part of the Irish republic should form a republic, and those that didn't (the six counties of Northern Ireland), would remain part of the United Kingdom. And so it is today. The 100+ years since have held multiple chapters in the story, including murders on both sides, terrorism in the UK (including an attempt on a sitting Prime Minister's life), oppression of republicans in Northern Ireland, and a hard-fought and wrung out peace agreement. The current First Minister of Northern Ireland is the leader of Sinn Fein, a formerly proscribed (read: banned), party that was considered the "political arm of the Provisional IRA" (they are the terrorists who bombed PM Margaret Thatcher). The way we got to that state was the Good Friday agreement in 1998. That allows people in Northern Ireland to express both their Britishness and their Irishness (yes, they can have both! In the same person!), without fear of reprisal or judgement, either culturally or officially. People explore their cultures as they see fit. They vote for people as they see fit, even if London doesn't particularly like the leaders they vote for. They live. And they have a say in how things should be. There is no oppression of the language. Gaelic is slowly flourishing again in the Republic, and those who wish to use it in Northern Ireland can do so. There's no mandate for dual language road signage in Northern Ireland as there is in Wales, but there's no real ask for it either: at some point it might happen, in the same way the Welsh Language Act came about in 1993 (another sign of UK government encouraging self-determination - the Welsh Assembly). Successive recent governments of the Republic of Ireland for their part are happy with this situation: the price of keeping the peace if the six counties were handed over to the Republic today would likely bankrupt the Irish treasury (and it would have been worse during The Troubles): it would break the Good Friday agreement, there would be a rise of terrorism and so on. They know they'd have to ask for external assistance, and then we're just back to the worst of The Troubles. The vast majority accept the right to self determination is the way, now, and for the future. Over time, it's expected the appetite within Northern Ireland to become part of the Republic will grow within the population itself. This is because of demographic change: the unionist population is slowly becoming a minority (funny how when a Catholic demographic of Republicans are told not to use birth control their birthrate is higher than the Protestant population who do use birth control - I am here today thanks to this marvellous papal determination :) ). One day, there will be a vote. One day, change will happen. But it won't be because of something being imposed. Or an imposition being removed. I suggest you do a little more research, and look into what's actually going on with the UK here. The history of it - as with the history of most things - is rich, complex, sad, hopeful, and lived. It's not a slogan. It's not a talk given by a politician at a fund raising event. It's not the quip given by a guy you hear talking about it in a bar or at a dinner table who never set foot in any of the countries he's talking about. Just be a bit more curious.

Russia says the same thing about Ukraine.

In that context America should be given back, Alaska should be given back, Australia should be given back... the list goes on.

unkeen 3mo ago
Well, in theory, they should! :) Imagine a world where expansionist acts of violent injustice could be undone.
- obayesshelton 3mo ago
  I do not disagree, where does it stop though. We would have to go back to when Homo sapiens and Neanderthals killed each other.
  - unkeen 3mo ago
    We could have stopped right at the moment when ‘need’ was replaced by ‘greed’. I know, illusionary.
  - Sabinus 3mo ago
    It seems to stop when the argument can't be used to attack Western colonialism.

pmnelson 3mo ago

What about Ceuta and Melilla?

krzyk 3mo ago
Well, those are even funnier than Giblartar.
Buxato 3mo ago
UN

pelagicAustral 3mo ago

Bad precedent for the Falkland Islands... Chagos and then Gibraltar, would force the Falklands issue to be addressed more seriously, and that would be extremely unfair, since the argentine moot argument it's a mere chauvinist temper tantrum, fueled by generation after generation of propaganda conditioning by failed governments.

ggm 3mo ago
A reminder the british government explored handing the Falklands over to Argentina before the war. Fisheries and oil, have changed the view but in times last it was not inconceivable to transfer authority.
- Tuna-Fish 3mo ago
  > Fisheries and oil, have changed the view No. The reason was not economic, the reason was that the government polled the people living there and found that support for remaining British is ~100%. Oil was found later, the fisheries were never worth maintaining the island for.
  - Laurel1234 3mo ago
    > No. The reason was not economic, the reason was that the government polled the people living there and found that support for remaining British is ~100%. The Russians in Donetsk and Luhansk also voted to be part of Russia and not Ukraine, crazy stuff.
    - maccard 3mo ago
      Are you genuinely comparing the referendums in Gibraltar to the current situation in Ukraine?
      - Laurel1234 3mo ago
        In both cases the settlers from an imperialist power vote their allegiance to said imperialist power.

dontwannahearit 3mo ago

The Basque region wants a word...

Buxato 3mo ago
Facepalm.

Cyph0n 3mo ago

It would also be great if Ceuta and Melilla returned back to Morocco, and if Western Sahara in turn gained its independence from Morocco. As an aside, I have always found it ironic how Spain continuously whines about Gibraltar while doing the exact same thing to Morocco. At the very least, Spain was smart/lucky enough to lobby the UN early on to not include Ceuta and Melilla in the decolonization list.

froidpink 3mo ago
Ceuta was never Moroccan. In fact, Morocco didn't even exist when Ceuta became part of Portugal first (1415) and then Spain (either 1580 or 1640). Ceuta was a part of the Spanish Visigoth kingdom in the 7th Century before the Islamic Conquest (which for some reason we don't call colonisation). Ceuta has always had a strong connection with the rulers of Iberia. Gibraltar, on the other hand, was just lost in the War of Spanish succession to the British Empire, and has had a British connection to them since then, but never before
- Cyph0n 3mo ago
  Yep, it’s always justified by the fact that Morocco never existed and therefore has no claim. But applying this logic universally would change the world map, not to mention that this justification ignores the fact that the concept of a nation state is relatively new as a norm. Regardless, I and many others will continue to ridicule Spain’s paradoxical position on Gibraltar. Hopefully a just resolution is realized for all parties at some point in the future.
Buxato 3mo ago
It couldn't be returned to a country that didn't exists before that places belonged to Spain. Its not the same thing, people that lived in Gibraltar was moved out. UN agrees with that, Spain politicians are to dumb to lobby anything. Check how much Spain spends in lobbying in US and how much Morocco (that its not even a democracy) spends.
- Cyph0n 3mo ago

PaulRobinson 3mo ago

Not according to the people who live there. Or in fact, Spain, who ceded it to the UK hundreds of years ago. Or do you think Spain has a legal right based on geographic proximity to enforce a culture on those people despite existing treaties, laws, culture and democracy?

Laurel1234 3mo ago
> to enforce a culture on those people despite existing treaties, laws, culture and democracy? Britain has been doing this to Ireland for the last 800 years. You still continue to hold their land, oppress its people and do your best to exterminate what shred is left of their language. If Chinggis himself rose from the grave, I'd care a lot more about his thoughts on these matters than a Brit's.
- bbg2401 3mo ago
  Maybe tone down the hatred?
  - unkeen 3mo ago
    No hatred was uttered. Just a view of the world you're apparently opposed to.
  - Laurel1234 3mo ago
    Sorry I hate genocide man. Should I apologize to Cromwell?
- PaulRobinson 3mo ago
  Well, that's not true, is it? I say this as somebody who is paternally British and maternally Irish. My great-grandfather was in the Royal Irish constabulary, but his eldest daughter (my great Aunt), married a leader of the IRA. Most of my Irish great uncles came to England from Ireland and enlisted in the British Army and the RAF in WW2 while Ireland remained neutral. After the War, some of them returned to Ireland, some of them stayed in England. The real picture of life on the ground is complicated, and I'm going to assume you are not living amongst it, by your use of "their" when talking about Ireland. At the point of Irish independence it was decided that those parts of Ireland who majority wanted to be part of the Irish republic should form a republic, and those that didn't (the six counties of Northern Ireland), would remain part of the United Kingdom. And so it is today. The 100+ years since have held multiple chapters in the story, including murders on both sides, terrorism in the UK (including an attempt on a sitting Prime Minister's life), oppression of republicans in Northern Ireland, and a hard-fought and wrung out peace agreement. The current First Minister of Northern Ireland is the leader of Sinn Fein, a formerly proscribed (read: banned), party that was considered the "political arm of the Provisional IRA" (they are the terrorists who bombed PM Margaret Thatcher). The way we got to that state was the Good Friday agreement in 1998. That allows people in Northern Ireland to express both their Britishness and their Irishness (yes, they can have both! In the same person!), without fear of reprisal or judgement, either culturally or officially. People explore their cultures as they see fit. They vote for people as they see fit, even if London doesn't particularly like the leaders they vote for. They live. And they have a say in how things should be. There is no oppression of the language. Gaelic is slowly flourishing again in the Republic, and those who wish to use it in Northern Ireland can do so. There's no mandate for dual language road signage in Northern Ireland as there is in Wales, but there's no real ask for it either: at some point it might happen, in the same way the Welsh Language Act came about in 1993 (another sign of UK government encouraging self-determination - the Welsh Assembly). Successive recent governments of the Republic of Ireland for their part are happy with this situation: the price of keeping the peace if the six counties were handed over to the Republic today would likely bankrupt the Irish treasury (and it would have been worse during The Troubles): it would break the Good Friday agreement, there would be a rise of terrorism and so on. They know they'd have to ask for external assistance, and then we're just back to the worst of The Troubles. The vast majority accept the right to self determination is the way, now, and for the future. Over time, it's expected the appetite within Northern Ireland to become part of the Republic will grow within the population itself. This is because of demographic change: the unionist population is slowly becoming a minority (funny how when a Catholic demographic of Republicans are told not to use birth control their birthrate is higher than the Protestant population who do use birth control - I am here today thanks to this marvellous papal determination :) ). One day, there will be a vote. One day, change will happen. But it won't be because of something being imposed. Or an imposition being removed. I suggest you do a little more research, and look into what's actually going on with the UK here. The history of it - as with the history of most things - is rich, complex, sad, hopeful, and lived. It's not a slogan. It's not a talk given by a politician at a fund raising event. It's not the quip given by a guy you hear talking about it in a bar or at a dinner table who never set foot in any of the countries he's talking about. Just be a bit more curious.