Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 9      1   2   3   4   Next   »
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 648
Reply with quote  #1 
I prefer Gibraltar being part of Spain to Gibraltar being ruled by Great Britain, because Gibraltar was part of Spain for its entire history before the British annexation of Gibraltar in 1713.
It is a great surprise to me, that no members of this forum wants Gibraltar to be part of Spain. From a monarchist point of view, supporting Great Britain against Spain makes no sense, because Spain is a monarchy. King Felipe of Spain supports the reunification of Gibraltar with Spain, and a reunification of Gibraltar with Spain will strengthen the Spanish monarchy, which is currently threatened by strong republican movements. 
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,079
Reply with quote  #2 
Gibraltar wasn't part of Spain for its entire history before passing to Britain. Without delving back into antiquity, prior to 711 it was part of the Visigothic kingdom. In that year it fell to Moorish invaders, and remained under various Islamic polities until 1309, when Castile captured the peninsula. Then in 1330 it was recaptured by Islamic rulers, with whom it remained until Enrique IV of Castile's reconquest in 1462. It stayed in Castile, merging into Spain, until British conquest in 1704, British possession being confirmed by treaty in 1713. So it has been in continuous British possession for 315 years (the anniversary was last month), having before that been in Spanish possession for 232 years, and prior to that in Moorish possession for 751 years less a 21 year interruption. The Visigoths incidentally had it for slightly less than 300 years.

So on your argument, perhaps it should be handed over to Morocco, which after all is also a kingdom. On mine, it is legally British territory, we have held it for longer than Spain ever did, and most importantly the inhabitants wish to remain British. So the territory's current status complies with international law in all aspects, including the United Nations Charter, and also with natural justice, and should continue undisturbed by misplaced and unjustified Spanish irredentism.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 648
Reply with quote  #3 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Gibraltar wasn't part of Spain for its entire history before passing to Britain. Without delving back into antiquity, prior to 711 it was part of the Visigothic kingdom. In that year it fell to Moorish invaders, and remained under various Islamic polities until 1309, when Castile captured the peninsula. Then in 1330 it was recaptured by Islamic rulers, with whom it remained until Enrique IV of Castile's reconquest in 1462. It stayed in Castile, merging into Spain, until British conquest in 1704, British possession being confirmed by treaty in 1713. So it has been in continuous British possession for 315 years (the anniversary was last month), having before that been in Spanish possession for 232 years, and prior to that in Moorish possession for 751 years less a 21 year interruption. The Visigoths incidentally had it for slightly less than 300 years.

So on your argument, perhaps it should be handed over to Morocco, which after all is also a kingdom. On mine, it is legally British territory, we have held it for longer than Spain ever did, and most importantly the inhabitants wish to remain British. So the territory's current status complies with international law in all aspects, including the United Nations Charter, and also with natural justice, and should continue undisturbed by misplaced and unjustified Spanish irredentism.

Gibraltar shared the fate of Spain until 1704. Gibraltar was part of Roman Hispania, the Visigothic Kingdom ruled all of Spain, and the Moors ruled most of Spain (excluding the Kingdom of Asturias). In addition, the majority of the current population of Gibraltar isn't of British origin. The population of Gibraltar is multi-ethnic, and a large part of the population of Gibraltar are descendants of Spanish immigrants. Llanito, the native language of Gibraltar, is a dialect of Spanish.
I agree, that Gibraltar ought to remain under British rule, as long as the inhabitants of Gibraltar wants it, but I personally prefer Gibraltar being part of Spain because Gibraltar originally was part of Spain. The main reason for the strong opposition of the inhabitants of Gibraltar to reunification with Spain is Gibraltar being a tax haven. Spain will likely not allow Gibraltar to be a tax haven. In addition, Great Britain defending the right to national self-determination for Gibraltarians, while opposing Kurdish independence from Iraq and opposing the reunification of Crimea with Russia is hypocritical. 
Spain recovering Gibraltar will strengthen the Spanish monarchy, which is far more vulnerable than the British monarchy. To monarchists in former monarchies, Spain is a source of hope, and the downfall of the Spanish monarchy will be a disastrous blow to monarchism in former monarchies.


Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,079
Reply with quote  #4 
We have obligations to Gibraltarians, and none to Kurds or Crimeans. Or, indeed, the Spanish monarchy, and if we did then sacrificing the wishes of Gibraltarians would not be a good way to fulfil them. I don't pretend to any understanding of the Kurdish question, though I wish Kurds well as I do all peoples. I have no comprehensive knowledge of the Crimea either, though I tend to be sympathetic to the Russian position insofar as it accords with the genuine wishes of Crimeans; it is unrealistic to think that the borders of the former Soviet republics were all so perfectly set that justice would never require a change. As for the tax haven business, if I lived next door to a country which within living memory had been subject to a monstrous dictatorship that lasted decades I could think of more reasons than financial for not wishing to leap into its grasp. Though really why the Gibraltarians wish to remain British is irrelevant; it's enough that they do.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 648
Reply with quote  #5 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
We have obligations to Gibraltarians, and none to Kurds or Crimeans. Or, indeed, the Spanish monarchy, and if we did then sacrificing the wishes of Gibraltarians would not be a good way to fulfil them. I don't pretend to any understanding of the Kurdish question, though I wish Kurds well as I do all peoples. I have no comprehensive knowledge of the Crimea either, though I tend to be sympathetic to the Russian position insofar as it accords with the genuine wishes of Crimeans; it is unrealistic to think that the borders of the former Soviet republics were all so perfectly set that justice would never require a change. As for the tax haven business, if I lived next door to a country which within living memory had been subject to a monstrous dictatorship that lasted decades I could think of more reasons than financial for not wishing to leap into its grasp. Though really why the Gibraltarians wish to remain British is irrelevant; it's enough that they do.

Great Britain has a moral obligation to support Kurdish independence from Iraq, because Great Britain made Kurdistan part of Iraq against the wishes of the Kurdish people. Spain has a far stronger historical claim to Gibraltar than Iraq has to Kurdistan and than Ukraine has to Crimea. Kurdistan was never part of Iraq before 1918, and Crimea was never part of Ukraine before 1954. In addition, the Kurds and the Crimeans have stronger claims to national self-determination than the Gibraltarians, because Great Britain expelled the native Spanish inhabitants of Gibraltar in 1704, while the Kurds are the native people of Kurdistan, and while Stalin deported the Crimean Tatars in 1944, the Crimean Tatars constituted a minority of the population of Crimea before the deportation. The Crimean Tatars were allowed to return to Crimea in 1991, and Crimean Tatar is currently an official language of the Russian autonomous republic of Crimea.
I admire Francisco Franco, because he restored the Spanish monarchy and saved Spain from Communism, and he refused to join World War 2 on the side of Hitler despite receiving significant support from Nazi Germany in the Spanish Civil War. Franco privately despised Hitler. 
I agree, that Gibraltar ought to remain under British rule, as long as the Gibraltarians wants it, despite my personal preference for Gibraltar being reunified with Spain. I hope, that Spain and Great Britain will avoid going to war over Gibraltar, because King Felipe is a very outspoken supporter of the Spanish claim to Gibraltar, and Spain being defeated by Great Britain in a war over Gibraltar might damage the reputation of King Felipe and lead to abolition of the Spanish monarchy.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,079
Reply with quote  #6 
There is no prospect whatsoever of Spain and Britain going to war over Gibraltar, or anything else. Franco didn't restore the monarchy while he was in power, despite having four decades in which to do it. In fact he treated both Alfonso XIII and his heir the Count of Barcelona with open contempt and disrespect, while usurping royal honours for himself and his vile wife. He did not save Spain from Communism, the supposed Communist threat was an invention of Rightists to justify their planned coup, and never in fact existed. He did not keep Spain out of WWII, he was at various times eager to join in but Spain's economic and military weakness meant it would require such heavy support to function as a belligerent that Hitler (whom Franco adored, right to the end of his own life, though it is true that Hitler privately despised Franco) never agreed to it. Franco's Spain did though violate its claimed neutrality in every conceivable way, always in support of the Axis. As for the Kurds, instead of blaming the brief period of British rule for all their troubles why don't you look to your adored Ottomans? They had centuries in charge, not a decade or two, and did not exactly leave an orderly situation behind them.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 648
Reply with quote  #7 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
There is no prospect whatsoever of Spain and Britain going to war over Gibraltar, or anything else. Franco didn't restore the monarchy while he was in power, despite having four decades in which to do it. In fact he treated both Alfonso XIII and his heir the Count of Barcelona with open contempt and disrespect, while usurping royal honours for himself and his vile wife. He did not save Spain from Communism, the supposed Communist threat was an invention of Rightists to justify their planned coup, and never in fact existed. He did not keep Spain out of WWII, he was at various times eager to join in but Spain's economic and military weakness meant it would require such heavy support to function as a belligerent that Hitler (whom Franco adored, right to the end of his own life, though it is true that Hitler privately despised Franco) never agreed to it. Franco's Spain did though violate its claimed neutrality in every conceivable way, always in support of the Axis. As for the Kurds, instead of blaming the brief period of British rule for all their troubles why don't you look to your adored Ottomans? They had centuries in charge, not a decade or two, and did not exactly leave an orderly situation behind them.

I don't accuse Great Britain of oppressing the Kurds. It's the Iraqis, not the Brits, who have oppressed us. But Great Britain made a major mistake by making Kurdistan part of Iraq. Great Britain ought to correct that mistake by supporting Kurdish independence from Iraq. In the Turkish National Pact, which the Ottoman Parliament approved in 1920, Turkey claimed South Kurdistan as part of Turkey, while renouncing Turkish claims to the Arabic-speaking territories of the Ottoman Empire, but Great Britain refused to return South Kurdistan to Turkey. In 1925, the League of Nations accepted the British theft of South Kurdistan from Turkey, because the League of Nations didn't dare to defy mighty Britain. The Ottoman Empire was tolerant towards Kurdish culture and the Kurdish language, while Saddam tried to exterminate us.
According to the UN, the current Gibraltarians aren't entitled to the right to national self-determination, because the native Gibraltarians were expelled from Gibraltar in 1704. That makes Gibraltar different from Kurdistan and Crimea concerning the right to national self-determination. Spain has a far stronger historical claim to Gibraltar than Great Britain has. 
Without Franco, the Spanish monarchy would never have been restored, and Franco actually despised Nazism, which he considered pagan and anti-Christian. Franco was a devout Christian unlike Hitler and Mussolini. Even if you dislike Franco, that's not a good reason to oppose reunification of Gibraltar with Spain, because Spain is a stable democratic constitutional monarchy today.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,338
Reply with quote  #8 
Franco was a monster. There's no getting around that. He killed hundreds of thousands of people. Still, I don't think that the Republic can quite so easily separated from the communists and anarchists. It is certainly true that prior to the war, and for some time at the beginning, the Republic wasn't simply dominated by communists and anarchists. But it is also true that the radical left did have an outsized and ominous influence, including in committing atrocities. This is seen, if from nothing else, from how quickly they organised once war began. The Nationalists may have jumped the gun, but their claims about radical left influence weren't entirely outlandish. Who knows how things may have worked out if the coup had not occurred.

On Gibraltar, it has been British longer than it was Spanish, and the people overwhelmingly wish to be British. There seems no reason to return it to Spain, except some idea of long gone injustices. But, again, it seems to be a mistake to try and organise the world around righting what you think are historic injustices, whilst ignoring current circumstances.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 648
Reply with quote  #9 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
Franco was a monster. There's no getting around that. He killed hundreds of thousands of people. Still, I don't think that the Republic can quite so easily separated from the communists and anarchists. It is certainly true that prior to the war, and for some time at the beginning, the Republic wasn't simply dominated by communists and anarchists. But it is also true that the radical left did have an outsized and ominous influence, including in committing atrocities. This is seen, if from nothing else, from how quickly they organised once war began. The Nationalists may have jumped the gun, but their claims about radical left influence weren't entirely outlandish. Who knows how things may have worked out if the coup had not occurred.

On Gibraltar, it has been British longer than it was Spanish, and the people overwhelmingly wish to be British. There seems no reason to return it to Spain, except some idea of long gone injustices. But, again, it seems to be a mistake to try and organise the world around righting what you think are historic injustices, whilst ignoring current circumstances.

It's true, that Franco was a brutal dictator, but in order to defeat a leftist revolution, you have to kill a lot of people. If the White Army had won the Russian civil war, hundreds of thousands of Communists would likely have been executed by the Whites. If the White Army had won the Russian Civil War, Russia would likely have become a right-wing military dictatorship. Russia being a right-wing military dictatorship would have been far better than Russia being a Communist dictatorship. The forced collectivization of agriculture and the persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church would have been avoided. The Russian monarchy would likely have been restored as a figurehead monarchy. Today, Russia has finally obtained an authoritarian right-wing regime, which supports the Russian Orthodox Church, and the Russian monarchy being restored is far from impossible. In Hungary, the right-wing Horthy regime executed or imprisoned leftists after the defeat of the Communist Bela Kun regime in 1919. Currently, PYD, the Syrian branch of the Communist Kurdish terrorist movement PKK, controls parts of Syria. The members of PYD must be executed or imprisoned in order to save Kurdistan from Communism. 
Franco's regime mellowed in the mid-1940's, and it wasn't particularly brutal in its later years. In the 1960's, Spain was a prosperous country, and execution of dissidents rarely happened.
The claim, that Gibraltar has been British longer than it has been Spanish is wrong. Gibraltar was part of every state, which ruled Spain, until 1704. It was part of Roman Hispania, Visigothic Spain and Moorish Andalus. I agree, that trying to right every historical injustice doesn't make sense, but Spain still claims Gibraltar.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,338
Reply with quote  #10 
I would suggest not implying fellow posters are liars, especially on such flimsy grounds. I was clearly talking about post-Muslim Spain. I don't see any reason to lump in all the other states you do. The Spanish defeated the Moors and forced them to leave or convert. It doesn't seem to me that modern Spain is an unproblematic descendant of Al-Landalus and Granada. Anyway, by such logic, Portugal should be part of a United Iberia.

Personally, I'm very interested in the EU's opinion, of course.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 648
Reply with quote  #11 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
I would suggest not implying fellow posters are liars, especially on such flimsy grounds. I was clearly talking about post-Muslim Spain. I don't see any reason to lump in all the other states you do. The Spanish defeated the Moors and forced them to leave or convert. It doesn't seem to me that modern Spain is an unproblematic descendant of Al-Landalus and Granada. Anyway, by such logic, Portugal should be part of a United Iberia.

Personally, I'm very interested in the EU's opinion, of course.

I have never claimed, that modern Spain is an unproblematic descendant of Andalus. But Gibraltar shared the fate of Spain until 1704. I apologize for implying, that you are a liar. But the claim, that Gibraltar has been British longer than it has been Spanish is wrong. You claimed, that I want to right historical injustices whilst ignoring current circumstances. But Spain currently claims Gibraltar, and the UN, the EU and Russia support Spain on Gibraltar.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,338
Reply with quote  #12 
But it isn't wrong, depending on how one defines Spain. Gibraltar was only captured by Castile in 1462. To make your claim, you have to define Granada and its forebears as Spain. I disagree with the meaningfulnes of such an attempt. But, anyway, there is no disputing that Gibraltar has been British for three centuries and more.

Those are certainly current circumstances - although they are fundamentally based on Spain preferring to ignore centuries of history and the views of the people Gibraltar - but I don't think they matter much. That Spain acts like a child and can get some others to support it, for various reasons, means little to me personally. I don't see that Spain has grounds for its claims.b
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 648
Reply with quote  #13 
The Southern Kuril Islands dispute between Russia and Japan is similar to the Gibraltar dispute. The four Southern Kuril Islands (Kunashir, Iturup, Shikotan and Habomai), which previously belonged to Japan, was annexed by Russia in 1945. They had never been part of Russia before. According to the Treaty of Shimoda of 1855, which established diplomatic relations between Russia and Japan, the Southern Kuril Islands belonged to Japan, while the Northern Kuril Islands belonged to Russia (Russia ceded the Northern Kuril Islands to Japan in 1875 in exchange for Japan renouncing its claim to Sakhalin. The Northern Kuril Islands were reunified with Russia in 1945 and aren't claimed by Japan).
Russia expelled the Japanese population from the Southern Kuril Islands, and the current inhabitants of the Southern Kuril Islands support continued Russian rule. 
Russia is currently considering returning Shikotan and Habomai to Japan. Great Britain ought to emulate the civilized behaviour of Russia. 
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,040
Reply with quote  #14 
Franco a monster? You don't have to be enamoured with his regime to recognised that the Nationalist victory in the Civil War saved not only Spain but the Western democracies in general from Communism.

The Spanish Republic was not a normal democracy. It was a highly ideological state in which the Left and Republicans were intent on liquidating opponents. By 1932, many had become so disillusioned with it that even those who initially supported the republic turned against it. By 1936, the targets of the Left included even liberal, centrist politicians. So much for "democracy".

Let me give you a few links:
https://www.abc.es/opinion/abci-desmemoria-historica-201908222337_noticia.html
http://www.identitanazionale.it/Sesia_Payne_eng.pdf
https://dinoalarepublica.jimdo.com/
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,079
Reply with quote  #15 
Both preceding posts are absolute rubbish. How is it 'civilised behaviour' to hand an unwilling and long-established population over to another country? Leaving aside the fact that the last thing Putin, who acts like a murderous gangster in international relations, should be called is civilised. He is as civilised as his buddy President Trump is veracious. Or indeed as David's post is. Franco's victory saved no one including Spain from Communism, it only doomed Spain to decades of murderous oppression. And the objection of the generals and their oligarchical and clerical supporters to the elected government of the Spanish Republic to which they were sworn was that they feared it would reduce their own privileges and power. Which was long overdue, as they had uniformly misused their power in appalling exploitation and mistreatment of common people.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.