There was a poll done in Gibraltar, and most of the residents there voted to remain British. Hence it is still part of the UK, so when Britain considers taking action wrt Gibraltar they are not, in any meaningful sense, butting in elsewhere.

Well, it's not part of the UK but it's not worth getting into the details there.

The simple fact is that the Gibraltarians virtually unanimously do no want to become Spanish. That really ought to settle it, right? Add in the fact that international law is squarely on Britain's side and all you have is a way for Spanish prime ministers to distract their public from economic crises every few decades.

There's no reason they'd want to become Spanish when the pound is thriving and, well, Spain is Spain. Who would want to go from that economic situation to the exact opposite on the spectrum?

I simply don't understand the British interest. In the Falklands, specifically, the only thing they could have used it for was a military base, and if they are going to pull back out of international affairs, which situations like that in the Falklands push them to do, why would they need it anyway? Gibraltar is similar; it's a bridge to the Mediterranean, but I don't quite understand what use they have for being down there.

Other than oil, of course. Everything is "other than oil."

What's the interest in Wales? Or the North of England? You don't see them giving that up.

As an American I can't understand why anyone would want to be under British rule. The tyranny of it all. As far as the claims to Gibraltar did anyone consider the original occupants, the Neanderthals?

As an American, if I was forced to choose a foreign country to be under, it would be Britain or Germany over Spain or Greece. The financial situations are just so much better in the former two than the latter two.

If you're going to be colonized by someone, Britain is the way to go. Being colonized by Spain sucks.

Invictus: I'm in Spain now. Nobody is distracted from the economy or the corruption by Gibraltar. And by international law, all that was ceded was the fortress and a small, town. If you want to apply that, sure, go ahead: Gibraltar would have no airport, no rights to expand their holdings into the sea and no territorial waters. And the United Nations clearly considers Gibraltar colonized territory; that isn't a rosy picture.

Spain, by the way, is not even close to an economic disaster like the rest of Southern Europe and Ireland . . . yet. (No thanks to Germany or the IMF, though.)

AverageWhiteBoy: Think again. Why do you say that?

I think the British commonwealth should be broken up and the old colonies become independent countries. However we have certain areas where nosy neighbours might want to interfere e.g. Argentina with Falklands, Eire with Northern Ireland, Spain with Gibraltar, any more?

I'm basque (north of spain) and I like Gibraltar remains being part of UK. I like to see spanish journalists and politicians hysterics.

@Nigee: don't forget Chagos.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/28/britain-tribunal-chagos-islands-marine-area

As I understand it, "owning" the Falkland Islands gives us rights to a wedge of the antarctic and the mineral wealth (oil!) under that wedge.

Owning Gib was about our maritime expansion centuries ago and tweaking the nose of our then enemy, Spain. Keeping it is about the British people there remaining British because they want too.

It never fails to amaze me how enthusiastic some people get about taking a population happy with their nationality and their way of life, and imposing foreign rule upon them. Seriously, what's in it for you? Why campaign to make happy people miserable when the world is full of the genuinely oppressed and impoverished crying out for people to help them?

Am I the only one who doesn't see the link between playing diplomacy and knowing where Gibraltar is?


I mean, it's not on the standard map...

@steephie you are so 2012 - obviously you can be forgiven for not knowing about Gibraltar if you're one of our American cousins. Check out the new maps man, Gibraltar is really happening in 2013.

The people want to be British. I can't see how it needs to go any further than that.

The British aren't 'butting in elsewhere'. I most cases independence was granted long ago or the population wants to remain British (after having been given a choice, incidentally). Spain uses the same argument with Ceuta and Melilla.

NigeeBaby: I knew about Gibraltar (and where it is) way before 2012, however, I don't see why he says "You all play Diplomacy... you know where Gibraltar is." since there's no real link between this game and Gibraltar. Of course I know where it is. And of course that's not because I play Diplomacy. That's my point.

@Hereward - "The people want to be British. I can't see how it needs to go any further than that."

Whilst the wishes of the people are very important they are not th be all and end all of the matter. Suppose the residents of Chinatown in Birmingham UK wanted to become its own republic or to come under the protection of China - I don't think their wishes would be granted do you?

Also consider the proposed new settlements in the West Bank will these always be Israeli because the new inhabitants want it to stay that way?

Also whilst I'm keen to defend the Gibraltans whilst it is obvious that not a shot will be fired, I'd be less inclined to defend them if it came to an all out European war. Territories that are taken by conquest are prone to be retaken, it would be humiliating for UK to concede Gib if the Spanish actually invaded, but would I want my sons fighting and dying to defend a treaty signed 300 tears ago? I think not.

Make it an independant state, like Falklands, and remove all British assauge over it

@ Maniac

There's not a square inch of land in Europe that hasn't been taken by conquest. Gib has enjoyed its current status for over 300 years, which makes it one of the more established and stable corners of Europe.

I see a disturbing pattern arise where, whenever a Spanish speaking country gets into economic trouble, it will start harassing British overseas terrain to divert attention.

redhouse, henceforth, will officially support a British claim on the Kingdom of Spain until the harassment is over.

hmmmm....I Think there are a few square inches in Sweden that have never been conquered.

Whilst Gib has had its current status for 300+ years, it hyas always been disputed.

In a related story, Gibraltar was recently granted official FIFA recognition:

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/rock-on-gibraltar-become-uefa-memeber--but-will-be-kept-apart-from-spain-during-qualification-for-euro-2016-8631242.html

However, Gibraltar and Spain will be kept apart in Euro qualifying for political reasons - much like Russia/Georgia and Armenia/Azerbaijan.

Fair point Maniac. Self-determination isn't everything (though it's certainly a major factor).

I don't think this is equivalent to Israelis for a host of reasons. I would point out that Gibraltar has been British for longer than it has been 'Spanish'.

I consider a Gibraltarian/Falkland Islander as British as I am. I would happily fight or have my sons fight for my fellow British citizens, wherever they be. It is very unlikely to come to anything like that in my lifetime or even my offspring's lifetime.

"I would happily fight or have my sons fight for my fellow British citizens, wherever they be. It is very unlikely to come to anything like that in my lifetime or even my offspring's lifetime."
If you're sons were smarter they could become diplomats and negotiate a solution, the problem with Brits is they always think they have to fight to resolve a problem, at the end of every war there is some kind of diplomatic resolution. Why not have that at the beginning and save the carnage?
If you were smarter you wouldn't insist they fight and risk their own lives for something they may not believe in.

@Nbaby: the problems in Northern Ireland aren't caused by Eire (aka the republic of Ireland) they are largely internal. Unlike the cases of gibraltar and the Falklans, there remains a vocal minority in Northern Ireland who aren't happy with the status quo.

But thankfully - "As of 2007, 36% of the population define themselves as Unionist, 24% as Nationalist and 40% define themselves as neither."

It seems Unionists AND Nationalist are in the minority now. That is a sign that things have moved pretty far, and it was with Eire that the British managed to get things to where they are today. Concentrated effort of Irish and British governments since the 80s lead us to where we are. Most British and Irish people don't give a toss, and 40% of the Northern Irish apparently would rather not be seen as either Unionist Nor Nationalist.

It sounds like the ideal situation is more devolution, a shared responcibility for keeping the peace between all the nations concerned (Eire, Scotland and the UK/England - maybe based on the current council of the british isles) oh and yes, i'm assuming the Scotland will vote for independance, and Northern Ireland will need support - as they do today - with policing.

+1 for Devolution - good way forward

"And by international law, all that was ceded was the fortress and a small, town. If you want to apply that, sure, go ahead: Gibraltar would have no airport, no rights to expand their holdings into the sea and no territorial waters. And the United Nations clearly considers Gibraltar colonized territory; that isn't a rosy picture."

You're making too much out of the dispute over the isthmus. It's a very tiny part of what already is a very tiny territory. The vast majority of Gibraltar was undoubtedly ceded, and the isthmus would have been too if there were fortifications there, which is plausible. Saying they only ceded a fortress and small town still means they ceded all of Gibraltar besides the little neck of land where the airport now is, assuming that area wasn't covered originally. This is a strong argument by Spain since it looks like Britain didn't enforce control of the whole disputed isthmus till the nineteenth century, but we'd have to look much more into the issue to give a definitive answer. Were there fortifications there? Did Spain consider the isthmus part of Gibraltar when the treaty was signed? Did Britain? And so on.

As for territorial water rights, it seems strange to me that a territory ceded because of its strategic naval position wouldn't include the adjacent waters. That would require more research than I'm willing to put in right now, however. At any rate, the United Kingdom only claims the territorial water limits which were customary at the time, not the expanded modern ones or an EEZ, so if anything it's keeping to the customary international law as it existed when the treaty was signed and not taking advantage of rights it probably could claim today.

As for the UN considering it a colonized area, the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories is a joke these days and everyone with cursory knowledge of it can see so. For example, it still lists Bermuda on it, even though Bermuda runs everything for itself besides defense and much of diplomacy. Gibraltar has a fairly similar level of self-rule. It also includes teeny territories which could never survive as independent states and whose inhabitants do not want independence, like the Pitcairn islands and Tokelau. The list also excludes such obvious genuine cases of non-self-governing territories such as the Palestinian territories. The list is nothing more than a relic of the mid-20th century decolonization movement that has outlived its relevance.

@steephie, you gibraltar is a territory (and english SC) on many of the 'modern' dip maps, right?