Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 20 of 21     «   Prev   17   18   19   20   21   Next
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #286 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
I'm happy to agree to disagree, as long as you openly recognise that you were singularly unable to explain or support how we can have moral responsibility for the crimes of our ancestors. If you are honest you will do this. If you are dishonest and a troll you will not.

I won't accept that the British state isn't morally responsible for its past crimes. You once wanted me to provide a limiting principle concerning righting past wrongs. I will propose this limiting principle: Lawfully established borders ought to be respected, unless the majority of the current population of a disputed territory wants to change the border. I apologize for claiming that the Gibraltarians aren't entitled to national self-determination, because Britain expelled the Spanish Gibraltarians. Spain implicitly renounced the right of return on behalf of the Spanish Gibraltarians by signing the Treaty of Utrecht. 
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,845
Reply with quote  #287 
What does it mean to say the British state has moral responsibilities? This is a parallel issue that we have already touched upon before you transparently ran away from supporting your claims at all. It's the same basic problem. The British state doesn't exist substantially outside those who make it up. To say that it has moral responsibilities outside it's members, especially ones that go back generations, needs explaining.

I see you are still foolishly acting as if the Treaty of Utrecht matters more than the three hundred years of possession by Britain and the Gibraltans. If Spain hadn't renounced Gibraltar implicitly, it wouldn't affect the self-determination rights of the Gibraltans much at all. But that limiting principle is better than before, though I'd question the lawful point.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #288 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
What does it mean to say the British state has moral responsibilities? This is a parallel issue that we have already touched upon before you transparently ran away from supporting your claims at all. It's the same basic problem. The British state doesn't exist substantially outside those who make it up. To say that it has moral responsibilities outside it's members, especially ones that go back generations, needs explaining.

I see you are still foolishly acting as if the Treaty of Utrecht matters more than the three hundred years of possession by Britain and the Gibraltans. If Spain hadn't renounced Gibraltar implicitly, it wouldn't affect the self-determination rights of the Gibraltans much at all. But that limiting principle is better than before, though I'd question the lawful point.

States often apologize for crimes, which happened before living memory:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/five-times-united-states-officially-apologized-180959254/
I admit that you were right on righting ancient wrongs to some extent, because trying to right all ancient wrongs will indeed destabilize international relations. That's why I have proposed a limiting principle concerning righting ancient wrongs. But I won't accept prescription. I won't accept borders being changed, except by cession of territory or by a referendum. 
AaronTraas

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 537
Reply with quote  #289 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi

I won't accept that the British state isn't morally responsible for its past crimes. You once wanted me to provide a limiting principle concerning righting past wrongs. I will propose this limiting principle: Lawfully established borders ought to be respected, unless the majority of the current population of a disputed territory wants to change the border. I apologize for claiming that the Gibraltarians aren't entitled to national self-determination, because Britain expelled the Spanish Gibraltarians. Spain implicitly renounced the right of return on behalf of the Spanish Gibraltarians by signing the Treaty of Utrecht. 


Azadi, please save yourself from typing. Half of this post is visible here:

https://azadi-repeats.traas.org/
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,845
Reply with quote  #290 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi

States often apologize for crimes, which happened before living memory:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/five-times-united-states-officially-apologized-180959254/
I admit that you were right on righting ancient wrongs to some extent, because trying to right all ancient wrongs will indeed destabilize international relations. That's why I have proposed a limiting principle concerning righting ancient wrongs. But I won't accept prescription. I won't accept borders being changed, except by cession of territory or by a referendum. 


What some leaders do is irrelevant. It doesn't prove they need to or should. This has been mentioned to you repeatedly.

Your limiting principle isn't limiting enough, if we are referring to any old agreement or treaty. Many of these have been broken or not applied over the centuries. If you mean modern international law, really starting with the foundation of the UN or at least the League of Nations, that would be better. At least we have an idea of what that law is. But even here, I think prescription should ultimately win out, as those who have inhabited and possessed a land for generations have a much greater stake than those with a purely historical or theoretical claim.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #291 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman


What some leaders do is irrelevant. It doesn't prove they need to or should. This has been mentioned to you repeatedly.

Your limiting principle isn't limiting enough, if we are referring to any old agreement or treaty. Many of these have been broken or not applied over the centuries. If you mean modern international law, really starting with the foundation of the UN or at least the League of Nations, that would be better. At least we have an idea of what that law is. But even here, I think prescription should ultimately win out, as those who have inhabited and possessed a land for generations have a much greater stake than those with a purely historical or theoretical claim.

It proves that my stance on apologies for crimes, which were committed before living memory, isn't unreasonable. You may disagree with my stance on apologies for crimes, which were committed before living memory, but your stance on apologies for crimes, which were committed before living memory, isn't the only reasonable approach to dealing with crimes, which were committed before living memory. I disagree with you on apologies for crimes, which were committed before living memory, but I don't claim that your stance on this matter is unreasonable. Let's agree to disagree on that matter.
Old treaties have indeed often been broken, but it doesn't matter concerning the validity of borders. What matters is, whether a territory has been ceded. Spain has ceded the Rock of Gibraltar, but Spain has never ceded the Isthmus of Gibraltar. 

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,500
Reply with quote  #292 
The Utrecht Treaty failed to specify the exact extent of the land ceded. That a portion of the isthmus was included is a reasonable interpretation of the treaty language according to the customary law and practice of the period. Spain building a line of fortifications (from which the present-day La Linea is named) half-way across the isthmus seems to indicate that Spain tacitly accepted this at the time. At any rate Britain has long since taken occupation and control of the part of the isthmus their side of the old fortifications, as Spain has the land on its side. This is the situation that has prevailed for very many years now, and it will continue to prevail. You have made your view amply clear, as we have ours, and there is really no point in continuing to hammer at each others' entrenched positions. Especially as it does not make the slightest difference to anything that is going to actually happen what any of us think.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #293 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
The Utrecht Treaty failed to specify the exact extent of the land ceded. That a portion of the isthmus was included is a reasonable interpretation of the treaty language according to the customary law and practice of the peiod. Spain building a line of fortifications (from which the present-day La Linea is named) half-way across the isthmus seems to indicate that Spain tacitly accepted this at the time. At any rate Britain has long since taken occupation and control of the part of the isthmus their side of the old fortifications, as Spain has the land on its side. This is the situation that has prevailed for very many years now, and it will continue to prevail. You have made your view amply clear, as we have ours, and there is really no point in continuing to hammer at each others' entrenched positions. Especially as it does not make the slightest difference to anything that is going to actually happen what any of us think.

Britain ceding the Isthmus to Spain in exchange for Spain supporting removing Gibraltar from the UN list of non-self-governing territories will be a reasonable compromise. 
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,500
Reply with quote  #294 
Which would completely wreck Gibraltar's economy and viability. Isn't going to happen, and should not. British sovereignty over the isthmus as well as the Rock is perfectly legally defensible, and exists in practice. Spanish sovereignty over the whole of the isthmus is defensible only by a very weak argument, and has not existed in practice for over three centuries. As for the UN, it can stick its list where it would do most good.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #295 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Which would completely wreck Gibraltar's economy and viability. Isn't going to happen, and should not. British sovereignty over the isthmus as well as the Rock is perfectly legally defensible, and exists in practice. Spanish sovereignty over the whole of the isthmus is defensible only by a very weak argument, and has not existed in practice for over three centuries. As for the UN, it can stick its list where it would do most good.

I don't care about the economy and viability of Gibraltar. I have admitted that Spain unilaterally annexing the Rock of Gibraltar is wrong, but I still want Britain to cede the Rock of Gibraltar to Spain, because the Rock of Gibraltar was part of Spain before it became a British colony. 
VivatReginaScottorum

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 366
Reply with quote  #296 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi

I don't care about the economy and viability of Gibraltar. I have admitted that Spain unilaterally annexing the Rock of Gibraltar is wrong, but I still want Britain to cede the Rock of Gibraltar to Spain, because the Rock of Gibraltar was part of Spain before it became a British colony. 

And before that it was under the rule of the Moroccan Marinid dynasty, but you are clearly uninterested in restoring Gibraltar to Moroccan rule. Let's cut the cr*p and be honest about this- you want Gibraltar to be handed over to Spain because you are prejudiced against the British and in favour of the Spanish. There's no higher principle at work here.

__________________
That which concerns the mystery of the King's power is not lawful to be disputed; for that is to wade into the weakness of Princes, and to take away the mystical reverence that belongs unto them that sit in the throne of God. - James VI and I of England, Scotland and Ireland
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #297 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivatReginaScottorum

And before that it was under the rule of the Moroccan Marinid dynasty, but you are clearly uninterested in restoring Gibraltar to Moroccan rule. Let's cut the cr*p and be honest about this- you want Gibraltar to be handed over to Spain because you are prejudiced against the British and in favour of the Spanish. There's no higher principle at work here.

I have actually changed my mind on Gibraltar. I once claimed that Spain will right a wrong, if Spain unilaterally annexes Gibraltar, but I have admitted that Spain unilaterally annexing Gibraltar is wrong. 
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,500
Reply with quote  #298 
Probably, Vivat. And perhaps even Azadi would admit that Britain has a duty to care about the economy and viability of Gibraltar. He of course has no such duty, but then he has no legitimate interest in the question at all. A point I hadn't thought of is that Spain would oppose the latest of his series of ludicrous 'compromises' almost as firmly as Britain would. Spain ceasing its agitation to keep Gibraltar on the list of non self-governing territories, where no reasonable person could possibly think it belongs, would be tantamount to recognising the Gibraltarians' right to self-determination, which Spain will never do.

That is because the one undoubted right Spain has over Gibraltar is the right of reversion, should Britain ever choose to relinquish sovereignty. If the Gibraltarians were acknowledged as being self-determining, that right would be superseded, and theoretical as it might be Spain is not going to relinquish it. But I don't know why I bother making such arguments, Azadi will either come up with something else as silly in response, or carry on as if I'd never spoken.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,845
Reply with quote  #299 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi

It proves that my stance on apologies for crimes, which were committed before living memory, isn't unreasonable. You may disagree with my stance on apologies for crimes, which were committed before living memory, but your stance on apologies for crimes, which were committed before living memory, isn't the only reasonable approach to dealing with crimes, which were committed before living memory. I disagree with you on apologies for crimes, which were committed before living memory, but I don't claim that your stance on this matter is unreasonable. Let's agree to disagree on that matter.
Old treaties have indeed often been broken, but it doesn't matter concerning the validity of borders. What matters is, whether a territory has been ceded. Spain has ceded the Rock of Gibraltar, but Spain has never ceded the Isthmus of Gibraltar. 



How does it prove your stance is unreasonable? I'm not even sure what that means here. If it isn't unreasonable, how come you have run away by supporting it with a direct argument, instead of in this indirect, opaque way?

You disagree with me on the responsibility for crimes one has never committed, but you have singularly failed to show how your position makes sense.

Much of the world changed hands without treaties at some point or other. Again, where is the limiting principle?
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #300 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Probably, Vivat. And perhaps even Azadi would admit that Britain has a duty to care about the economy and viability of Gibraltar. He of course has no such duty, but then he has no legitimate interest in the question at all. A point I hadn't thought of is that Spain would oppose the latest of his series of ludicrous 'compromises' almost as firmly as Britain would. Spain ceasing its agitation to keep Gibraltar on the list of non self-governing territories, where no reasonable person could possibly think it belongs, would be tantamount to recognising the Gibraltarians' right to self-determination, which Spain will never do.

That is because the one undoubted right Spain has over Gibraltar is the right of reversion, should Britain ever choose to relinquish sovereignty. If the Gibraltarians were acknowledged as being self-determining, that right would be superseded, and theoretical as it might be Spain is not going to relinquish it. But I don't know why I bother making such arguments, Azadi will either come up with something else as silly in response, or carry on as if I'd never spoken.

I admit to being prejudiced in favour of Spain, but I'm not prejudiced against Britain. I support the Spanish claim to Gibraltar, because I like Spain, not because I hate Britain. You claim that I have no legitimate interest in the question at all. That's wrong. I'm not a Spaniard, but I have a legitimate interest in the question, because of the ties of my family to Spain and because I'm a staunch supporter of Catholic monarchies.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.