Expressing a position only ever articulated on the Left where mainland British parties, rather than newspapers, are concerned, James Hallwood writes:
The rekindling of the dispute over Gibraltar is a
big step backwards after the progress made by Spain’s previous socialist
government’s growing acceptance of Gibraltar’s independence.
At a time when Spain faces record
unemployment levels, exceeding 25 per cent, it is depressingly unsurprising
that the government should opt for an irredentist approach to Gibraltar so as
to divert public anger.
I have written previously on how President
Kirchner has used the Falklands to try and distract Argentinians from the
country’s economic woes.
Meanwhile far-right parties in Europe spur on
irredentist nationalism. Jobbik
advocate a ‘Greater Hungary‘ and Golden Dawn call for the liberation
of southern Albania.
A basic reading of 20th century history reminds
us how potent a mix economic uncertainty and irredentism can be.
While Spain is far from the extreme fringes of
expansionist nationalism, it is nevertheless unfortunate that time and time
again the people of Gibraltar are subject to delegitimisation, isolation, and
burdens placed on them by Madrid.
For forty years the border with Spain was closed
after the fascist dictator, Franco, reasserted Spain’s claims over the Rock.
Since then Gibraltarians have had their territory violated by the Spanish air
force and navy,
challenges placed to their right
to vote in EU elections, opposition
to joining UEFA , excessive
border checks, and now threats to charge a fee for crossing the
border and the preventing
of flights to Gibraltar from using Spanish airspace.
Gibraltar has been British since the Treaty of
Utrecht in 1713, a treaty recognised in international law.
Even if one
questions Britain’s actions in the War of Spanish Succession, bear in mind that
southern Spain wasn’t ‘Spanish’ until the Reconquista – a process that led to
the forced assimilation and inquisition of the Moorish and Jewish inhabitants.
If it seems hypocritical of Spain to question
Gibraltar’s independence on that basis, then how much more inconsistent is it
that Spain currently occupies Ceuta and Melilla in Morocco – despite the fact
Morocco claims them?
We must respect that the majority of the
inhabitants are Spanish and for that reason Spain, rightly, refuses to
negotiate their freedom away – but why does Spain continue to insist that the
future of Gibraltar does not concern the Gibraltarians and is simply a
bilateral issue?
Referendums held in 1967 and 2007 showed 99.64
per cent in favour of British sovereignty and 98.48 per cent against dual
sovereignty, respectively.
The British government has now refused to negotiate
on the future of Gibraltar without the permission of the inhabitants.
In 2000, Gibraltar issued a statement that called
for ‘neighbourly relations with Spain’ and, crucially, that ‘Gibraltar is
neither Spain’s to claim nor Britain’s to give away’.
The Socialist Labour Party is the governing party
of Gibraltar – one of three major parties – none of which advocate any change
from the status quo.
Spain on the other hand has separatist movements in seven
regions, a protracted
conflict in the Basque Country and a growing push for independence in
Catalonia – with a million
taking to the streets calling for secession.
Does Spain really need another territory that
doesn’t want to be Spanish?
This year marks 300 years of British rule in
Gibraltar – a
cause of celebration across the Rock.
With this anniversary in mind, it is
time for Spain to grow-up and accept the will of the people of Gibraltar.
"only ever articulated by the Left".
ReplyDeleteThen you haven't been reading very much.
On another issue, UKIP's repeated suggestion that we should have a collective Overseas Territories MP, or one for each, is a great one.
To save Gibraltar, we should do what UKIP have long advocated (below).
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2328746/Give-Falklands-Gibraltar-MP-says-Nigel-Farage-UKIP-leader-says-territories-voices-dangerously-muted.html
Cont...
ReplyDeleteNigel Farage points out in that piece that Britain lost Malta partly because we once refused to give them an MP-a worrying omen, if we don't do something about our other Territories.
Spain has a complicated but semi-valid legal case which you should address.
ReplyDeleteWhen English forces (this was pre-Union) seized the Rock, they were fighting on behalf of a claimant to the Spanish throne. The place was never incorporated into the UK, in the manner of Ceuta and Mellila being incorporated into Spain, because the justification was that the British were holding territory on behalf of the legitimate (Hapsburg) King of Spain.
This justification vanishes if the U.K. recognizes the Bourbon dynasty as the legitimate Spanish dynasty. And the population is really too small for the self-determination argument to carry much weight.
Strategically, it would be important to hold Gibraltar to keep the Spanish from closing the Mediterranean to British warships.
Nigel Farage pointed out that we lost Malta because we refused to allow it to have its own MP's.
ReplyDeleteUKIP have long suggested we should welcome our Overseas Territories into the Houses of Parliament-it would bring their concerns home to us and help cement their ties to us.
I suspect the British Establishment is scared of upsetting Spain-they were bending over backwards to say the Royal Navy visit was just a "routine patrol" this week, even as Spain continuously invades our waters.
Nigel Farage can say whatever he likes.
ReplyDeleteBut if we must, he obviously knows nothing about the British Overseas Territories, or else he would know that only Gibraltar could possibly have such a thing, and even then only if she wanted one, which none of the others ever would, anyway.
The other side in Malta boycotted the referendum on incorporation into the United Kingdom, thereby effectively rendering the result meaningless. Still, it is interesting to ponder what Britain would have been like with Maltese MPs, as it is to ponder what Britain would have been like with a hundred Irish MPs.
Ed, if the Falkland Islanders are sufficiently numerous to exercise self-determination, then absolutely anyone is.
Absolute nonsense-we could easily have an MP for the Territories covering all of them.
ReplyDeleteAnd Malta was only ever going to get three MP's-hardly a takeover of Parliament.
The point was that our refusal to grant that wish, despite them voting for it, lost us Malta.
It wasn't until I went to Gibraltar a few years back (to attend a wedding there) that I grasped - on speaking to local people from a variety of backgrounds - just how strong the feeling is among Gibraltarians to remain British subjects. The vehemence with which they rejected any prospect of being integrated into Spain came as a real shock to me, and one man insisted with remarkable passion that he would lay down his life to resist such a development. I had no reason either to disbelieve him or regard him as some kind of solitary crank.
ReplyDelete