Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 9      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   Next   »
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 794
Reply with quote  #31 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
And as I said, your way of determining who has the best historical claim to Gibraltar is just silly. There's no limiting principle in your position. You seem blind to the fact most nations and parts thereof have changed hands at least several times in recorded history, often with changes of dominant culture, movement of peoples, or even ethnic cleansing. As a general principle, your idea of who has best historical claims would cause chaos in the international system, and many more injustices and issues than it solves. Are you suggesting, for example, that most American's and Australian's return to the Old World?

Now, what about Dumnonia? Surely the evil Anglo--Saxons ethnically cleansed them from their lands, and the dragon banner should fly again over Dorset and Devon? That's clearly the best way to settle the historical claims to the Westcountry. Who cares that it is has been fourteen hundred years or more since that great injustice occurred and it would strike anyone living there today as total bollocks- it must be set right!

In most of the cases, you mention, nobody cares about it today. But Spain still claims Gibraltar, just as Japan still claims the South Kuril Islands, and the UN considers Gibraltar a British colony. You appear to claim, that we ought to forget historical injustices and be satisfied with the current state borders. But a lot of people thinks differently. We Kurds still remember Great Britain stealing South Kurdistan from Turkey, and we have never accepted that utterly wrong decision. The Crimeans never accepted Ukrainian rule, and they were very happy, when Crimea was returned to Russia.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,421
Reply with quote  #32 
Yes, often they don't care because they can't do anything about it. Of course, the people of Dumnonia are gone*, but in cases where the nations still exist, who bets long cold grievances become much hotter if your principle is applied?

A lot of people are wrong then. In terms of wrongs from centuries past, the most stable course is to leave international borders alone. Those involved in the past disputes are long dead, and trying to right those wrongs is likely to cause far more problems that it solves. The world is full of such grievances, and what borders would stand in the winds you would unleash. Simply talking about who cares about what hardly is a proper response to this objection. The exception I would give is that I lean towards self-determination - if an area was conquered long ago, but its people wish to break away (or remain with the conquerors in Gibraltar's case), I lean towards letting them decide. However, even here there has to be an element of pragmatism, lest this introduce too much chaos into the international system. This is generally how the internernational system works. Recent disputes and grievances are a different matter.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 794
Reply with quote  #33 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
Yes, often they don't care because they can't do anything about it. Of course, the people of Dumnonia are gone, but in cases where the nations still exist, who bets long cold grievances become much hotter if your principle is applied?

A lot of people are wrong then. In terms of wrongs from centuries past, the most stable course is to leave international borders alone. Those involved in the past disputes are long dead, and trying to right those wrongs is likely to cause far more problems that it solves. The world is full of such grievances, and what borders would stand in the winds you would unleash. Simply talking about who cares about what hardly is a proper response to this objection. The exception I would give is that I lean towards self-determination - if an area was conquered long ago, but its people wish to break away (or remain with the conquerors in Gibraltar's case), I lean towards letting them decide. However, even here there has to be an element of pragmatism, lest this introduce too much chaos into the international system. This is generally how the internernational system works. Recent disputes and grievances are a different matter.

I don't want Spain to go to war with Great Britain over Gibraltar, because it will endanger the Spanish monarchy. After all, nobody are currently being oppressed by Great Britain in Gibraltar. That's why Gibraltar is different from Kurdistan and Crimea. But if Great Britain wants to keep Gibraltar, because the current inhabitants of Gibraltar prefer continued British rule, Great Britain ought to recognize the reunification of Crimea with Russia, in order to not being hypocritical. In addition Great Britain ought to support Kurdish independence from Iraq in order to repent of its crimes against Kurdistan.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,421
Reply with quote  #34 
Those situations aren't completely parallel. Russia was in charge of Crimea within living memory, and its people actually want to be Russian - the opposite of Gibraltar. Russia also took Crimea by force only a few years ago. Kurdistan has been a part of Iraq as long as there was an independent Iraq.

But, actually, I would favour both Crimea being Russian and Kurdistan being independent. The first should perhaps take time, to not reward Russian aggression, but I would do nothing to take Crimea away from Russian control. I would happily recognise Kurdistan today. It has been de facto independent a long time, and has handled itself well, in comparison to Iraq.
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,288
Reply with quote  #35 
Quote:
That's surprising. I know, that the vast majority of the current inhabitants of Gibraltar prefer Gibraltar remaining under British rule, but I don't expect Gibraltar to be culturally British, because the population of Gibraltar is multi-ethnic, and a large part of the inhabitants of Gibraltar are descendants of Spanish immigrants. . 


London is a multicultural city, should we also not expect London to be "culturally British"?  



__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 794
Reply with quote  #36 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethiomonarchist


London is a multicultural city, should we also not expect London to be "culturally British"?  



People of Anglo-Celtic origin are a minority in Gibraltar. The majority of the population of Gibraltar is of Spanish, Portuguese or Italian origin. The Portuguese and the Italians are culturally far closer to Spaniards than to Brits, because the Portuguese and the Italians are Latin peoples like the Spaniards. In addition, the native language of the Gibraltarians is a Spanish dialect called Llanito. In addition to Llanito, most Gibraltarians speak English and Standard Spanish.
The vast majority of the population of the Falkland Islands are of Anglo-Celtic origin, the vast majority of the population of Crimea are native speakers of Russian (77 % of the Crimeans are native speakers of Russian, 10 % of the Crimeans are native speakers of Ukrainian and 12 % of the population of Crimea are Crimean Tatars) and the vast majority of the population of Kurdistan are ethnic Kurds.

azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 794
Reply with quote  #37 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
Those situations aren't completely parallel. Russia was in charge of Crimea within living memory, and its people actually want to be Russian - the opposite of Gibraltar. Russia also took Crimea by force only a few years ago. Kurdistan has been a part of Iraq as long as there was an independent Iraq.

But, actually, I would favour both Crimea being Russian and Kurdistan being independent. The first should perhaps take time, to not reward Russian aggression, but I would do nothing to take Crimea away from Russian control. I would happily recognise Kurdistan today. It has been de facto independent a long time, and has handled itself well, in comparison to Iraq.

Iraqi rule of Kurdistan has never been legitimate, because the Kurds never wanted to be part of Iraq. In addition, Turkey has a legitimate claim to South Kurdistan, because Turkey didn't cede South Kurdistan in the Treaty of Lausanne, which defined the current borders of Turkey. South Kurdistan being part of Iraq is a result of British imperialism. I support South Kurdistan becoming independent, but it ought to be ruled by a Shah from the Osmanoglu family (the House of Osman). The legitimate royal dynasty of Kurdistan is the Osmanoglus, not the Hashemites.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,094
Reply with quote  #38 
I think the wishes of the Gibraltarians are of rather more importance than their ethnic origins. And it is not exactly as if they have failed to make those wishes clear. What you are saying is that people's fate ought to be determined by their racial classification. There's a name for that, and it's not a very nice name.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 794
Reply with quote  #39 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
I think the wishes of the Gibraltarians are of rather more importance than their ethnic origins. And it is not exactly as if they have failed to make those wishes clear. What you are saying is that people's fate ought to be determined by their racial classification. There's a name for that, and it's not a very nice name.

I'm not proposing, that people's fate ought to be determined by their racial classification. National identity ought to be based on culture, language and shared history, not on race or ethnic origin. I was merely responding to Ethiomonarchist claiming, that Gibraltar is culturally utterly British. That sounds unlikely to me, because most Gibraltarians are of Latin origin. You haven't mentioned the fact, that the native language of the Gibraltarians is a Spanish dialect. To me, language is far more important than ethnic origin concerning national identity. I don't understand, why the Gibraltarians don't want to join Spain, when they aren't culturally British unlike the Falkland Islanders. Gibraltar is adjacent to Spain, while being very far from Great Britain, and until Franco closed the border, close ties existed between the Gibraltarians and the Spaniards. A lot of Spanish workers immigrated to Gibraltar, and intermarriage between Gibraltarians and Spaniards was common. Spain is a democratic constitutional monarchy and an EU member. 96 % of the Gibraltarians voted Remain in the Brexit referendum. 
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,094
Reply with quote  #40 
Ethiomonarchist wasn't claiming, he was observing. His observation came from having been there, which you have not. I am sure it does not matter to the Gibraltarians in the least what you do or do not understand. They understand their own circumstances perfectly well, and have made their choice, resoundingly and repeatedly. You would do well to respect that choice. Even if, according to you, due to something that happened over 300 years ago they do not have the right of self-determination granted to all other peoples. That argument is a load of old codswallop, which is not dissimilar to many other arguments you have made.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 794
Reply with quote  #41 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Ethiomonarchist wasn't claiming, he was observing. His observation came from having been there, which you have not. I am sure it does not matter to the Gibraltarians in the least what you do or do not understand. They understand their own circumstances perfectly well, and have made their choice, resoundingly and repeatedly. You would do well to respect that choice. Even if, according to you, due to something that happened over 300 years ago they do not have the right of self-determination granted to all other peoples. That argument is a load of old codswallop, which is not dissimilar to many other arguments you have made.

The current inhabitants of Gibraltar not being entitled to national self-determination isn't merely my personal opinion. According to the UN, the right to national self-determination only applies to native peoples like the Kurds. But Spain ought to avoid going to war against Great Britain, because it will endanger the Spanish monarchy. Gibraltar being returned to Spain isn't of urgent importance, because nobody are currently being oppressed by Great Britain in Gibraltar. But I hope, that Great Britain won't go to war against Spain, if Spain invades Gibraltar, because Spain loosing a war over Gibraltar to Great Britain will endanger the Spanish monarchy. The fate of the Spanish monarchy is far more important to me than the fate of Gibraltar. The Spanish monarchy is currently threatened by Marxists and republican Catalan nationalists. Puigdemont and Pablo Iglesias, the leader of Podemos, a republican Marxist political party in Spain, wants to establish a Third Spanish Republic. The Catalan nationalists tries to blackmail Spain into becoming a republic by making abolishing the Spanish monarchy a condition for Catalonia staying part of Spain. I fear the resurgent republican current in Spain. Spain is extremely important to monarchists in former monarchies as an example of a restored monarchy. A Spanish-style restoration of the Russian monarchy is far from unlikely to happen, when Putin dies. To me, two or perhaps even three (Russia being the third) large European countries being monarchies rather than just one large European country being a monarchy is far more important than the fate of Gibraltar. As a British monarchist, do you really want to destroy the Spanish monarchy for the sake of Gibraltar? Despite my support for the Spanish claim to Gibraltar, I'm willing to accept Gibraltar remaining under British rule for the sake of the Spanish monarchy. Are you willing to accept a Spanish annexation of Gibraltar, despite supporting the British claim to Gibraltar, for the sake of the Spanish monarchy? 
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,094
Reply with quote  #42 
Obviously, the UN's views on the matter are in flagrant violation of its own Charter. No reasonable body could ever come to such a view. I therefore disregard their position entirely. While noting that Spain has five exclaves in Morocco, all of which the Moroccan kingdom vigorously claims while Spain and indeed the UN take no notice. Spain also has an exclave in France, which France doesn't care about but which certainly violates France's territorial integrity (one of Spain's arguments for claiming Gibraltar is its own apparently sacred territorial integrity). And continues to retain an illegitimately acquired slice of Portuguese territory despite having promised by solemn treaty to return it. But that's all alright, since it's Spain doing it. What can never be alright is Britain doing the same thing once. Perhaps if we did it seven times that might be OK?

I do not understand your weird obsession with profoundly unlikely wars. Spain is not going to invade Gibraltar, period. And no, I am not willing to surrender the interests of people for which Britain is responsible in order to give the Spanish monarchy for which Britain is not responsible a hand. I naturally hope the Spanish monarchy will endure, and actually I expect it to, there are obvious difficulties at present but none that seem insurmountable. We shall see on that. As for restoration of the Russian monarchy, that I fear is not at all a serious prospect.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 794
Reply with quote  #43 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Obviously, the UN's views on the matter are in flagrant violation of its own Charter. No reasonable body could ever come to such a view. I therefore disregard their position entirely. While noting that Spain has five exclaves in Morocco, all of which the Moroccan kingdom vigorously claims while Spain and indeed the UN take no notice. Spain also has an exclave in France, which France doesn't care about but which certainly violates France's territorial integrity (one of Spain's arguments for claiming Gibraltar is its own apparently sacred territorial integrity). And continues to retain an illegitimately acquired slice of Portuguese territory despite having promised by solemn treaty to return it. But that's all alright, since it's Spain doing it. What can never be alright is Britain doing the same thing once. Perhaps if we did it seven times that might be OK?

I do not understand your weird obsession with profoundly unlikely wars. Spain is not going to invade Gibraltar, period. And no, I am not willing to surrender the interests of people for which Britain is responsible in order to give the Spanish monarchy for which Britain is not responsible a hand. I naturally hope the Spanish monarchy will endure, and actually I expect it to, there are obvious difficulties at present but none that seem insurmountable. We shall see on that. As for restoration of the Russian monarchy, that I fear is not at all a serious prospect.

The position of the UN on the right to national self-determination isn't solely about Gibraltar. It's about the right to national self-determination being limited to native peoples as a general rule.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,094
Reply with quote  #44 
There is no such definition in the Charter. In practice the UN has defined 'peoples' inconsistently and in accordance with temporary political aims, which has prevented any agreed definition from emerging. So you cannot blanket rule out Gibraltar's rights on the grounds that the Charter excludes cases of this kind; it quite simply does not, nor is there any kind of 'general rule' that has emerged from practical application. Fortunately, while the General Assembly has always done as it pleases without regard to reason or justice and no doubt will continue to, its erratic decisions are not in any way legally binding and those that would otherwise be affected are free to ignore whatever bile it spews.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 794
Reply with quote  #45 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
There is no such definition in the Charter. In practice the UN has defined 'peoples' inconsistently and in accordance with temporary political aims, which has prevented any agreed definition from emerging. So you cannot blanket rule out Gibraltar's rights on the grounds that the Charter excludes cases of this kind; it quite simply does not, nor is there any kind of 'general rule' that has emerged from practical application. Fortunately, while the General Assembly has always done as it pleases without regard to reason or justice and no doubt will continue to, its erratic decisions are not in any way legally binding and those that would otherwise be affected are free to ignore whatever bile it spews.

In an earlier post, Wessexman compared a Spanish invasion of Gibraltar to the Falklands War. But Spain is a member state of the EU unlike Argentina. If Great Britain goes to war against Spain in order to retake Gibraltar, the EU will support Spain. The Lisbon Treaty introduced a mutual defense clause, which obliges the member states of EU to assist a member state, whose territory is attacked by a state, which isn't a member of the EU. If France, Germany and Italy join the war on the side of Spain, Great Britain will inevitably loose. 
If the current inhabitants of Gibraltar are entitled to national self-determination, why does Russia, which staunchly supports the right to national self-determination, support the Spanish claim to Gibraltar?
The Russian monarchy being restored, while far from being certain to happen, isn't unlikely to happen, because a significant monarchist current exists in Russia, unlike in Germany, France and Italy. In addition, parts of the Kremlin establishment, including Valentina Matviyenko, the chairwoman of the Federation Council, and Sergey Aksyonov, the governor of Crimea, are monarchists, and part of the Russian Orthodox clergy, including Vsevolod Chaplin, are monarchists.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.