|
08 Nov 02 - 02:54 PM (#821677) Subject: BS: British Rule.The vote From: Keith A of Hertford Non Uk folks may not have heard of this. 300 years ago Gibralta was made by force of arms to become a British colony. The catholic population were subjugated to the crown. Remind you of anywhere else? Recently, some moves have been made to partially restore sovereignty to Spain. The Gibraltarians, unhappy with the progress, organised a referendum. The result was, out of a 90% turn out, 99% voted to remain under sole British rule. See. Some people like us. Keith. |
|
08 Nov 02 - 02:56 PM (#821684) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: Dead Horse I like us, too. (but aint too fond of dagoes) |
|
08 Nov 02 - 02:58 PM (#821690) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: Bert With the results out for our latest election, it would be interesting to see a similar referendum here in The States *GRIN* |
|
08 Nov 02 - 03:04 PM (#821694) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: Leadfingers I have always maintained that you can fool some of the people all of the time..... |
|
08 Nov 02 - 03:29 PM (#821717) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: GUEST Fuck Spain....read this and remember the old saying "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" How would the spanish people react if King Juan Carlos decided to honour the governor of Gibraltar, giving him a title or a medal? How would the British have reacted if in the early eighties the Queen had decided bestow on the Argentinian occupiers of the Falklands a medal? Exactly... Then why has the Portuguese Republic, personified by the President himself, decided that it is a good idea to bestow the highest honour available to a foreigner, on the head of the Spanish political authority that illegaly occupies the Portuguese territory of Olivença? This point does not revolve around our own personal opinions of this 200 year old dispute, the point is a simple one. Olivença is a touchy subject, officially neither state recognizes the other's claims over the land. Meanwhile Spain in disregard of Inernational law continues to occupy Olivença and ridicule portuguese claims, whilst in the same breath noisily complaining about Britains perfectly legal presence in Gibraltar, a territory many times smaller than Olivença. The portuguese position is that Olivença is an integral part of Portugal, even if not much is done about it. The constitution, which the president is sworn to defend, states that Portugal is undividable and whole (our translation of the original "Uno e indivisível") And so instead of defending our claim over Olivença, or safely pretending the problem does not exist, the President decides to honour the occupier... Could someone please explain this to us???? For more information about this and the historical background to the problem, please visit the following website http://www.portugal-livre.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ |
|
08 Nov 02 - 04:05 PM (#821736) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: McGrath of Harlow I've never understood why Gibraltar can't have the same independent status as Andorra up the North of Spain. Alternatively, why can't the English hand over some unihabited chunk of the South Coast to Spain. They could even call it Gibraltar. (Gibraltar del Norte maybe, to avoid confusion.) And then we could all be happy, and it'd be brilliant to have a Spanish town within easy reach of us in England without having to go overseas. |
|
08 Nov 02 - 05:32 PM (#821798) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: Murray MacLeod I second Kevin's motion. I had a Spanish town (Miami) within easy reach of me when I lived in Florida. It was indeed brilliant. Nurray |
|
08 Nov 02 - 06:20 PM (#821822) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: Gareth Yeaah - Good thinking !! Let the English hand over Bournemouth to the Dons - and let the Saxons keep Gibraltar. Gareth |
|
08 Nov 02 - 06:23 PM (#821828) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: greg stephens How about that bit of Dorset the army have had for years? |
|
08 Nov 02 - 06:37 PM (#821834) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: CraigS I would remind the Spanish that the English fought a war, which WE are told THEY started (although it may be open to dispute), in which the Spanish lost Gibraltar and almost every offshore island they had. The English gave all those popular holiday destinations back to Spain and only kept Gibraltar. If I were Tony Blair I'd ask for Majorca, Minorca and Ibiza to be returned to British rule on the grounds that the Brits outnumber the Spaniards there. Seriously, though, nationalism and tribalism are the greatest problems in the world today. They cannot be abolished without one faction wanting to argue the toss as to who will have the biggest say in government. As for the Malvenas, I would not entertain any claims unless Argentina cedes sovereignity to Spain and makes reparations to the descendants of all displaced aboriginal peoples. |
|
08 Nov 02 - 10:43 PM (#821998) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: Hrothgar Do the Gibraltarians like the British - or not like the Spanish? |
|
09 Nov 02 - 06:30 AM (#822118) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: Jim McLean A couple of Mudcatters have talked about England doing this or that. England lost its independence in 1707 and cannot do anything on its own. There has been no English army, navy or parliament since then. It's interesting that England actually lost her independence before America gained hers! Jim McLean |
|
09 Nov 02 - 07:03 AM (#822131) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: alanabit Kevin, that was brilliant. It could give us a way of getting rid of Brighton perhaps - or maybe even the Isle of Wight. |
|
09 Nov 02 - 07:34 AM (#822137) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: GUEST We have an election saying here in the American colonies--"It's the economy, stupid". Perhaps outcome in Gibraltar is less about a love of all things British, and more a referendum on which country has the better economy? |
|
09 Nov 02 - 08:03 AM (#822144) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: GUEST Keith--the "stupid" was not intended to refer to you--it really is a word used as part of the saying. Just wanted to clarify that. |
|
09 Nov 02 - 07:51 PM (#822487) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: vectis WHAT DO YOU MEAN GET RID OF THE ISLE OF WIGHT???????? Since William the Bastard and his brigands took it over in 1066 its been living under English occupation. UDI for the Isle of Wight I say:-) On the original point, Spain should hand over its 2 north African territories and hand 50% of mainland Spain back to the Moors if it wants to be taken seriously over regaining Gibralta. |
|
09 Nov 02 - 08:10 PM (#822495) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: The Pooka Spot on, vectis! William, that brigand bastard. Up Free Wight! / & also right on, McG! I work in a nearby Spanish town, m'self. Hartford, Connecticut, USA. Senor Alcalde, Mayor Eddie Perez, is doing a muy bueno job, too. Last Tuesday the satisfied citizenry voted in referendum for municipal charter amendments to give him a "strong Mayor" form of city government. / & speaking of Hertford, Keith A: O so it's 90% & 99% wuzzit!! Baghdad election returns, bedad. Sounds fishy ter me. :) |
|
09 Nov 02 - 08:54 PM (#822514) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: GUEST If you have ever tasted Spanish beer you would know why Gibraltar wants to stay British |
|
10 Nov 02 - 07:24 PM (#822948) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: GUEST,Tom Hamilton I agree with Jim McLean. I thought that it was all about the Britsih Rule and Not the English, however That's what most English people call Britain anyway. Tom |
|
10 Nov 02 - 07:27 PM (#822950) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: McGrath of Harlow Spanish beer? Some of it ain't at all bad. |
|
11 Nov 02 - 06:08 AM (#823186) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: Wolfgang I'm cynical, but I just knew when I read about the referendum that some Mudcatters who in other contexts would opt for self-determination wouldn't even mention that term now. Wolfgang |
|
11 Nov 02 - 06:16 AM (#823189) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: GUEST,Keith A. Actually Wolfgang, no one has posted any suggestion that their vote should be disregarded, as the Spanish and British governments intend. Hi Pooka from Hartford, the result is not only believable, but also totally predictable. Keith. |
|
11 Nov 02 - 07:23 AM (#823217) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: Pied Piper So England lost its independence in 1707 did it? Which bit of England? The UK has for a long time been run by, and for the benefit of people in south east of England. A recent pole asking the people of England if they wanted regional government returned results for most regions at roughly 70% for and 30% against, all except (surprise surprise) the southeast, which voted 70% against. Nothing new here; the south east already has a regional government its called Westminster. PP |
|
11 Nov 02 - 07:33 AM (#823222) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: Ted from Australia Why would a Pole be asking the English anything? |
|
11 Nov 02 - 07:52 AM (#823232) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: Pied Piper KO Ted. My Dyslexia is showing PP |
|
11 Nov 02 - 07:59 AM (#823233) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: Ted from Australia Its KO |
|
11 Nov 02 - 08:14 AM (#823242) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: Grab Slight problem with Britain "handing it back" - if the majority of the inhabitants don't want to be signed over to some other country, you can't make them. Self-determination is the word (or words ;-) For the same reason, we can't just say, "Right, all you Northern Irish are now part of Eire, we don't want you in the UK any more" - there's a clear majority of ppl in NI who *do* want to stay part of the UK, so for better or worse it's staying in the UK. The Gibraltarians don't want to be Spanish, they don't want to be some independent country, they want to stay part of the UK. Hrothgar, it's not that they *like* the British, it's that they consider themselves to *be* British. If that's inconvenient for the current government of the UK, then it's just tough on the government that they can't arbitrarily say "this or that group of ppl are no longer citizens of our country". Graham. |
|
11 Nov 02 - 08:41 AM (#823255) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: Steve Parkes I think Spain should rename Ibiza "Aibiza": at least then the British (not the Gibs!) would be pronouncing it properly; it would be much easier than trying to get them to say "eeBEEtha". Steve |
|
11 Nov 02 - 09:40 AM (#823300) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: McGrath of Harlow They never gave the people in Hong Kong that kind of choice. Or any other former colony. Actually there is a distinction between "you aren't part of this country" and saying "you must be part of some other country". An independent Gibraltar (with its independence guaranteed) could do very well (and the same for Ceuta and Melilla). The Andorran option. |
|
11 Nov 02 - 09:45 AM (#823301) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: GUEST What Irish referendum has ever been held Grab? The unionist minority rules in the north. There was never a free All (island of) Ireland vote on whether or not they wanted to be part of the UK. The Brits kept the ports, heavy industry and shipbuilders of the north because they wanted to keep them. Now they haven't got the guts to say "we don't need it any more, here, have it back" to the rest of Ireland. Ian Paisley and his mates will lose their power base if the north joins the rest of Ireland so they claim they are "loyal to the crown" and the fighting goes on. At least the people of Gibralta get a say in the issue. |
|
11 Nov 02 - 11:11 AM (#823369) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: Pied Piper Equally if you asked all of us "Brits" whether we wanted Ulster to be part of the UK or not I think the answer would be a resounding no. PP |
|
11 Nov 02 - 12:54 PM (#823465) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: fogie Someone explain to me what would change in the Gibs lifestyle if they became Spanish. Is it to do with taxation?, or different legal systems?? |
|
11 Nov 02 - 01:41 PM (#823488) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: The Pooka Hi Keith A. KO then, good & well, eericho. Hartford accepts Hertford's certification of the Gibralterean results. / I'm envious. Last time we had a 90% turnout in my state of Connecticut was 1960. Seriously, it was. / Well, sure, our enthusiasm for our Massachusetts neighbor to the north, J.F. Kennedy, had something to do with that; and why not? ("You be sure to write down all those names, Seamus; this is America, and the O'Houlihans have as much right to vote as anyone else in this cemetery..." :) |
|
11 Nov 02 - 03:51 PM (#823558) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: ard mhacha Gib is a haven for so called, off -shore investment companies that specialise in conning old age pensioners in the UK, out of their life savings. Just how many times this has happened is anybodys guess, is it possible that the inhabitants of Gibralter have been down the years, reaping the benefit of these con-men, seems likely.Ard Mhacha. |
|
11 Nov 02 - 08:54 PM (#823827) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: McGrath of Harlow "...whether we wanted Ulster to be part of the UK..." Pedant's corner: Ulster isn't part of the UK. Six of the nine counties in Ulster are. |
|
12 Nov 02 - 05:25 AM (#824017) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: Wolfgang Pedant's corner II: Look into a recent dictionary, McGrath, and you'll see that the word 'Ulster' has more than one meaning. Your pedantery only applies to one specific meaning which was clearly not meant in the context of that post. Wolfgang |
|
12 Nov 02 - 06:38 AM (#824034) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: ard mhacha Just been reading that Gibralter also have the benefit of generous tax concessions that would certainly make that vote a foregone conclusion. Ard Mhacha. |
|
12 Nov 02 - 07:42 AM (#824058) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: Grab Hong Kong is a very different matter, McGrath. Hong Kong was only ever leased by the UK. Its lease ran out, and political changes meant that the lease could not be renewed so it reverted to the lender. By the same token, the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay is only leased from the Cuban government. Graham. |
|
12 Nov 02 - 07:45 AM (#824061) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: Bassic I am trying to think of this with some kind of sence though I know very little about the Gibralter situation. Financially, I think it must be a fairly close call between independence (Andora) and remaining British. Certainly the former mainstay of the economy, the Naval base, is much less significant than it used to be and small "Tax Haven" economies seem to do well. Becoming part of Spain and freeing up border controls would inevitably improve the tourist situation and generate alot of income, I cannot therefore see a strong economic argument for such a pro British vote. So what is left? It must be either a cultural thing or a strong preference for the way life is run politically/legaly under the present arrangements. I can understand the cultural ties, it must be hard to see your cultural heritage put under threat, especially if you have identified with it strongly for generations, but also, this feeling of "difference" from Spain must have been reinforced hugely between the 1920`s and 1970`s when Spain was rulled by a Facist dictatorship under Franco. Isnt it therefore a job for Spain to win the hearts and minds of the Gibraltarians? I expect I am oversimplifying things hugely here and people could nit pick lots of holes in my arguments but I am no expert. I am just trying to understand the strength of feeling that was behind the vote. Any thoughts? |
|
12 Nov 02 - 08:06 AM (#824072) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: Wolfgang Language has not been mentioned yet as a reason for their preference. Wolfgang |
|
12 Nov 02 - 08:24 AM (#824081) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: The Pooka Language, or syntax anyway, is a reason for my preference for following exchanges between Wolfgang & McGrath. Can we agree that six counties are under John Bull's Tyranny? Hm. No, didn't think so. Well how about Northeast Ulster? // I know: Give Gibralter Back To The Irish. W. & McG: "Back? BACK?" Well, yeah, good point; but Eire likes tax havens too, right? Shouldn't be only for poets. The Celtic Tiger tekkies could go & work on Gib. / Then, Spain could get the Falklands instead, provided the Sheep so vote (a minority will say Bah); Argentina could have Hartford, Connecticut (nobody else wants it); and Great Britain can have the State of Rhode Island. I'd like to get some civilized neighbors over here. (OKOK, sorry. When the issues are too complex for my little brain I revert to mental anarchy. Back to the serious discussion.) |
|
12 Nov 02 - 09:35 AM (#824118) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: McGrath of Harlow Calling a section of Ulster by the name of the whole province isn't a casual matter of words having different definitions. "Ulster" used in this sense is sectarian. It has been used as a way of falsely implying that there are is a longstanding historical basis for the partition of Ireland, going back centuries. I wasn't in any way suggesting that Pied Piper was using it for that reason. But think the use of the term in this way is better avoided. "Northern Ireland" is a neutral and generally accepted term for the territory involved (even though it's not strictly accurate geographically). As for Hong Kong - as I understand it the lease was for New Territories, what you might call Greater Hong Kong. Hong Kong itself is much smaller, and that wasn't on lease. Guantanamo seems a funny sort of lease - it can only be terminated if the US Government as well as the Cuban Government requests it, according to a treaty of 1934. Which essentially means it was annexed - except that pretending it hasn't been annexed gives the US Government a legal loophole for doing things there that would be illegal if it had been formally annexed. |
|
12 Nov 02 - 10:42 AM (#824179) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: GUEST It also gives the US government extralegal powers it does not have on it's own territory, which is why the Afghan POWs are being held there. It is a legal and diplomatic no man's land, until someone challenges the US in the World Court on it. I expect some legal body with international standing to do that eventually. |
|
12 Nov 02 - 12:57 PM (#824296) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: Terry K So if Gibraltar becomes Spanish, will they get better weather? Someone asked when there was a referendum in Northern Ireland - there wasn't, but there was a plebiscite (which is a referendum that the authorities are allowed to ignore) in the 1970's and the vote to remain British was a massive majority. |
|
12 Nov 02 - 01:12 PM (#824312) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: ard mhacha The "vote" in the 1970`s was a joke as the Catholic-Nationalists boycotted it. Ard Mhacha. |
|
12 Nov 02 - 01:17 PM (#824316) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: GUEST Are we talking about the referendums associated with the GFA that were held in the Republic and in the north? |
|
12 Nov 02 - 01:19 PM (#824319) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: ard mhacha And the Nationalist vote in the last election amounted to 46%, that was the votes to Sein Fein and SDLP. Ard Mhacha. |
|
12 Nov 02 - 01:56 PM (#824372) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: McGrath of Harlow The situation as regards Gibraltar actually does have parallels with Guantanamo Bay - especially if the occupation of the latter continues, and the naval base gradually becomes marginalised, surrounded by an American civilian city, which no doubt in any referendum would vote against being handed back to Cuba. (Incidentally, it's not "Guantanamo" - that's a city within Cuba proper. It's Guanatanamo Bay.) Rectifying historical injustices has to have its limits. Gibraltar was unjustly seized and held, regardless of the wishes of the inhabitants at the time, and the same goes for the Falklands/Malvinas; but the same is true of the entire territory of the American continent, North, Central and South. The balance of justice has to be to respect the current wishes of the people, and in the case of the Gibraltarians, that is not to be absorbed into Spain. Whether that implies a permanent right to be linked with the United Kingdom is another matter. They've never been offered the alternative of independence so far as I am aware. (And my suggestion that it be allowed to remain a British enclave, balanced by an equivalent Spanish enclave in England is actually genuine, though of course it won't happen, more's the pity.) |
|
13 Nov 02 - 10:58 AM (#825225) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: Teribus Chronicle of the Falkland islands 1522, 1592 Argentine versions state that various Spanish and Portuguese seamen, and particularly Esteban Gómez of the Magellan expedition (in 1522) were the first to see the islands without giving concrete verifiable sources except their own, which are most likely revisionistic. According the Encyclopedia Britannica (an American source probably leaning toward the English), the English navigator John Davis on the Desire (1592) may (note emphasis) have been the first person to sight the Falklands. Given that both sides' claims are much debated and undocumented by the original sources, they should be taken with a grain of salt. Circa 1600 The Dutchman Sebald de Weerdt makes the first undisputed sighting of the islands. 1690 The English captain John Strong heading a British expedition made the first recorded landing in the Falklands, in 1690. The British claim the islands for the crown and named the sound between the two main islands after Viscount Falkland, a British naval official. The name was later applied to the whole island group. 1764 French navigator Louis-Antoine de Bougainville founds the islands' first permanent settlement, on East Falkland. During subsequent years, a French fishery is manned by people from St. Malo (hence "Iles Malouines" from which the Argentine name "Islas Malvinas" is derived). 1765 The British are the first to settle in the West Falkland island. 1767 The Spanish buy out the French settlement (Port Louis) in the East Falkland island. For Spain, this implies a French recognition of the Spanish rights to the land. 1770 A Spanish flotilla arrives at the islands asking the British to leave. When first asked to leave, the British officer in charge of the garrison, a Captain Hunt, replied: ``I have received your letters by the officer, acquainting me that these islands and coasts thereof belong to the King of Spain, your Master. In return I am to acquaint you that the said islands belong to his Brittanic Majesty, My Master, by right of discovery as well as settlement and that the subjects of no other power whatever can have any right to be settled in the said islands without leave from His Brittanic Majesty or taking oaths of allegiance and submitting themselves to His Majesty's Government as subjects of the Crown of Great Britain.'' This is the first documented sign we could find of the conflict between Britain and Spain regarding the Islands. Shortly thereafter, the Spanish revisited with a much superior force ``convincing'' the British garrison to leave on 14th July 1770. [Source: 'An account of of the last expedition to Port Egmont in the Falkland Islands' , by Bernard Penrose published in the Universal Magazine, April 1775.] 1771 The British outpost on West Falkland is restored after threat of war. 1774 The British withdraw from the island (for economic reasons according to British sources). Spain maintains the settlement on East Falkland (which it called Soledad Island) until 1811, when Spain is about to lose control of its colonies in America. 1816 Independent Argentina first appears on the historical scene. 1820 The Buenos Aires government, which had declared its independence from Spain in 1816, first proclaims its sovereignty over the Falklands. 1828 Argentine warlord (Caudillo), and later governor of Buenos Aires Juan Manuel de Rosas sent a governor, Mr. Vernet, together with a garrison and settlers for menial work to the islands. The first recorded Argentine settlement in the islands. 1831 The American warship USS Lexington destroys the Argentine settlement on East Falkland in reprisal for the arrest of three U.S. ships that had been hunting seals in the area. 1833 Afraid that the Americans seized the islands, the British remember the expedition of the 17th century, re-invade the islands, forcefully depose Vernet and send the Argentines back to the mainland albeit without having to fire a shot. 1885 A British community of some 1,800 people on the islands is self-supporting. 1892 Colonial status is granted to the Falklands. 1933 and on According to David Rock: ``After the Roca-Runciman treaty [A bilateral trade agreement signed in 1933 between Britain and Argentina, benefiting Britain and exploiting Argentina's natural resources -- Ed.], a profusion of new nationalist writers and factions began to appear. For a time the nationalist movement was largely dominated by historians who sought to fuel the campaign against the British. These historical ``revisionists'' began to reexamine the 19th century and to catalogue Britain's imperialist encroachments: the british invasions of 1806-1807, Britain's role in the foundation of Uruguay in the late 1820s, its seizure of the Falkland Islands in 1833, the blockades under Rosas ... A cult now enveloped the figure of Juan Manuel de Rosas, who was depicted as a symbol of national resistance to foreign dominations [In fact, he was a strong handed dictator who killed countless opponents, benefited greatly from trade with Britain, sized 800,000 acres of estate land for himself only etc. -- Ed]... Propaganda of this kind made a deepening imprint on public opinion and helped sustain nationalist sentiments in the Army...'' 1964 The islands' position was debated by the UN committee on de-colonization. Argentina based its claim to the Falklands on papal bulls of 1493 modified by the Treaty of Tordesillas (1494), by which Spain and Portugal had divided the New World between themselves; on succession from Spain; on the islands' proximity to South America; and on the need to end a colonial situation. Britain based its claim on its "open, continuous, effective possession, occupation, and administration" of the islands since 1833 and its determination to grant the Falklanders self-determination as recognized in the United Nations Charter. Britain asserted that, far from ending a colonial situation, Argentine rule and control of the lives of the Falklanders against their will would, in fact, create one. 1965 The UN General Assembly approved a resolution inviting Britain and Argentina to hold discussions to find a peaceful solution to the dispute. These protracted discussions were still proceeding in February 1982 shortly before the Falkland war started. |
|
13 Nov 02 - 11:40 AM (#825270) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: Declan Silly Question - If there were alleged sightings in 1552 and 1592, how come Sebald de Weerdt's sighting is undisputed ? To be pedantic the vote on the Good Friday Agreement was not strictly speaking an All-Ireland vote, because the questions asked North and South were very different. However both referenda endorsed the Good Friday Agreement which recognises the de facto constitutional position that Northern Ireland is (administered as) part of the United Kingdom. And while we're on matters constitutional, the name of the 26 county country according to Bunreacht na hEireann (the Irish constitution) when speaking the English Language is Ireland. In the first official language the name of the country is Eire, but that's not the langauge spoken by most people around here. Ireland was declared a Republic in 1948/9 but its name didn't change. Republic of Ireland refers to its football (Soccer) team only. The official name of the 6 county state is Northern Ireland. The reference to Ulster goes back to the day's when some people were hoping to keep all 9 counties in the UK, but that didn't happen. Neither did the boundary commission. |
|
13 Nov 02 - 11:58 AM (#825298) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: McGrath of Harlow Looks fairly straighforward from that chronology of Teribus - having been relinquished by the British, the Falklands legally became part of Argentina, with a settlement established, and this was subsequently invaded and occupied by the British, there being no war in progress with Argentina at the time. But that's past history, and rectifing past injustices is very rarely possible without introducing fresh injustices. The real claim to ownership lies with the penguins anyway. |
|
13 Nov 02 - 12:53 PM (#825348) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: Ringer My vote is to give Harlow to Spain. |
|
13 Nov 02 - 01:10 PM (#825359) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: McGrath of Harlow Now I'd be all for that, but I think I might be outvoted. But no bullfights. |
|
14 Nov 02 - 09:24 AM (#825765) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: Teribus During the War of Spanish Succession, which began in 1701, Gibraltar was besieged (1704) by a squadron commanded by Sir George Rooke and a land force of 1800 English and Dutch under Prince George of Hesse-Darmstadt; after three days the city was captured (24 July). The fortress had 100 cannon and ammunition, but a garrison of only 150 men; the inhabitants were reduced to 6000. After a bombardment of six hours the garrison surrendered. Before a year had passed Spain endeavoured, with the help of France, to recapture Gibraltar. In this, the twelfth siege of Gibraltar, the attacking party had a great preponderance of numbers, but the fortress successfully resisted all their efforts to capture it. By a special decree of February, 1706, Queen Anne declared Gibraltar a free port. In 1713, by the Treaty of Utrecht, it became definitively a British possession, though many attempts were made by the Spaniards to regain it. The last siege, the fourteenth in its history, began 14 July, 1779, and continued for 3 years, 7 months, and 12 days. In April, 1782, the French and Spaniards again bombarded Gibraltar by land and sea, but without success. A peace was finally concluded by which Spain received the island of Minorca in place of Gibraltar. When the city was occupied by the English in 1704, the Spaniards carried away whatever they could and settled in the neighbouring district of San Rocco. Scarcely a dozen persons remained in Gibraltar. It was subsequently populated by people of every nation, especially by Genoese and Maltese, as is evident from the various family names. Spanish is generally spoken by the people, though English is the tongue of public administration. |
|
14 Nov 02 - 09:49 AM (#825791) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: Wolfgang Silly Question - If there were alleged sightings in 1552 and 1592, how come Sebald de Weerdt's sighting is undisputed ? That wouldn't have been a silly question if Teribus had written 'undisputed first sighting', but since the phrase was 'first undisputed sighting'... I had a fine time looking at some historical maps of Ireland on the web to see how much the area of land called Ulster differed across the centuries. There's hardly any geographic or regional name in the world that hasn't (1) changed over the times in what it referred to and (2) been used differently by different groups at the same time. For us, 'Allemannen' are either a small subset of Germans or an ethnic group living in Germany, France and Switzerland, for the French 'Allemands' are all Germans. Macedonia is another example that comes to mind (a province in Greece, an own country, the idea of a larger area of land settled by Macedonians), Istria one more. Yes, we have them too, in Germany, at the extreme right fringe, those people who try to tell us that the word 'Germany' may not be used for the BRD, for historically... Words for subsets of the world are used differently by differing people, it is a question of tolerance to allow other people their own words. Wolfgang |
|
14 Nov 02 - 10:04 AM (#825806) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: Wolfgang On rereading, I'm sorry, McGrath, if that comes over different from what I mean. Neither do I want to imply that you have anything even remotely in common with German Neo- or old Nazis nor that you are an intolerant person. You are among the most tolerant Mudcatters I think, only here, in this particular point,... Wolfgang |
|
14 Nov 02 - 11:23 AM (#825898) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: Teribus Wolfgang, The sightings in 1522 and 1592 were merely sightings of land noted in their logs, the position of which, for what could have been a variety of reasons, was not fixed. The Dutchman however did fix the position and by research and back tracking it was established that the land sighted previously was indeed those islands. |
|
14 Nov 02 - 11:33 AM (#825911) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: Declan Wolfgang, It was me you were replying to rather than McGrath, I think, and no offence is taken. I do try to be tolerant in most things, but groups don't come more right wing than many of those who have used the word 'Ulster' in their title over the years. I am unsure as to whether I include the current Ulster Unionist Party in that statement, but sometimes I think that they (or certain elements within them (esp Jeffrey Donaldson and the Willies) should be. The original use of the term was to justify the view that 'Ulster' wanted to break away from the rest of Ireland when Home Rule was being discussed for the rest of Ireland in the early 20th Century, on the basis that it had always been a separate province from the rest of the country. The amount of the ancient province to be included in the state was carefully chosen to ensure that there would be a pro-unionist majority within the territory. |
|
14 Nov 02 - 02:29 PM (#826088) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: GUEST Declan, I really do agree with you in spirit and in fact. While the geographical history of Ireland is rooted in myth and legend, the use of at least four provinces as geographical descriptions is well attested in the historic records. Even though there may actually have been five provinces historically, as the use of the Irish word coiceda (or fifths) suggests. The ancient provinces found in literary records are Ulster (Ulaid), Connacht, Munster (Mumu), Leinster (Lagin), Meath (Mide). As you point out, the historic record shows an Ulster which is larger, with a majority Irish nationalist population. However, when the island was partitioned by the British in 1920, the counties of Donegal, Cavan, and Monaghan were gerrymandered to create a unionist majority in the new Protestant Ulster. Ever since, when the word Ulster has been used synonymously with Northern Ireland, it is used to describe that gerrymandered Protestant Ulster, not historic Ulster. It is disingenous to take the sectarian meaning out of that equation, just because it evokes reactionary feelings about Northern Irish sectarianism among (mostly) British mainlanders. |
|
14 Nov 02 - 05:08 PM (#826259) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: McGrath of Harlow When a name gets used with a political intent, you have to take that into account. "Northern Ireland" is the official name, and it's a neutral, unprovocative way of talking. When "Ulster" is the term used in this context, the effect tends to be provocative and sectarian. It is also insulting to people in the rest of Ulster, since it seems to imply that they don't even exist. If they aren't in Ulster, in which province are Monaghan, Cavan and Donegal? Who should they back when the All Ireland is being played, if not the Ulster champions? |
|
14 Nov 02 - 08:27 PM (#826446) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: GUEST,Big John Hey, Declan. You are at it again, trying to dismantle the last pillars of the Empire. Give the Brits a break and let them have the ROCK to bring home from their holidays. It's either that or Rockall. |
|
14 Nov 02 - 09:00 PM (#826469) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: Malcolm Douglas It was pretty clear from the start that this thread was going to be hi-jacked from its stated purpose into yet another (in this case irrelevant) reiteration of the interminable "Ulster" argument. Bloody stupid thread title: sorry, Keith, but you really should have known better. I wonder if Declan and our anonymous "guest" might consider the possibility that "Northern Ireland" was in part defined, not as a "Gerrymander" to ensure a Protestant/Unionist majority, but to ensure that only those counties in which there was already an inescapable Protestant/Unionist majority would remain in the UK? Nobody wanted them even then, but the threat of "Ulster will fight and Ulster will be right" was enough to scare the politicians of the day (in Ireland as well as the UK) into backing down from the original intention of restoring independence to the whole of Ireland. Both countries are still stuck with the consequences of that decision; and, if we are all to be honest, there is probably only one country in the world that wants "Northern Ireland" less than does the UK; and that is Eire. Perhaps we should agree to swap it for Gibralter? |
|
15 Nov 02 - 07:46 AM (#826752) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: GUEST,Keith A Sorry Malcome, I couldn't resist it. It was deliberate. |
|
15 Nov 02 - 08:18 AM (#826781) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: GUEST Malcolm Douglas clarifies hundreds of years of political history with this statement: "...consider the possibility that "Northern Ireland" was in part defined, not as a "Gerrymander" to ensure a Protestant/Unionist majority, but to ensure that only those counties in which there was already an inescapable Protestant/Unionist majority would remain in the UK?" "Northern Ireland" was not gerrymandered to exclude Catholic/Nationalist counties to ensure a Protestant/Unionist majority. Rather, the Protestant/Unionist counties were the only ones included, so they would remain in the UK. I see the error of my ways now, thanks Malcolm. |
|
15 Nov 02 - 08:42 AM (#826795) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: ard mhacha Aye, Malcolm ye boy ye, Paisley would be proud of you. Ard Mhacha. |
|
15 Nov 02 - 02:56 PM (#827131) Subject: RE: BS: British Rule.The vote From: McGrath of Harlow Sorry if by commenting on the use of the term "Ulster" I've helped divert this thread into a well-worn path that gets nowhere. One point of clarification though - the six counties of Northern Ireland don't all have Protestant majorities today, and didn't back in the twenties. Some had (and some of those still have) Protestant majorities, the others had and still have sizeable Protestant minorities. Overall Northern Ireland has a Protestant majority, and that wouldn't have been the case if the other Ulster counties, with their Protestant minorities, had been included. Gibraltar is a rather different sort of animal, more analogous in some ways with Guanatanamo Bay. Like Guantanamo Bay it was established as a base with military and economic importance. Unlike Guanatanamo, the circumstances have changed in a way that means that the government of the country in charge would like to get rid of it. My own view is that historical oddities like this, tiny enclaves within or on the edge of foreign countries ought to be cherished, and the wishes of the people living there should be respected. And in fact it would be a good thing if we found ways of establishing many more, but in a way that would eliminate the sense of historical conflict and humiliation that gets in the way of, for example, the Spanish welcoming the existence of Gibraltar, or the Moroccans welcoming the existence of Ceuta and Melilla. I wish all countries had a scattering of little bits of other countries within their own territory. Instead of embassies, villages. Incidentally, am I right that there's never been any demand by Canada for the islands of St Pierre and Miquelon to be relinquished by the French? In which case, good for Canada. |