Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, [10] ] |
| Subject: Is Spain backing off Gibraltar? | |
Author: Jim (Canada) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 16:01:14 10/27/04 Wed This article appeared on the Telegraph web site today: Spain suspends claims to the Rock By Isambard Wilkinson in Madrid and Anton La Guardia, Diplomatic Editor Filed: 27/10/2004) Spain is launching a charm offensive on Gibraltar by saying it is setting aside its demand for sovereignty and concentrating instead on improving relations with the population. Speaking ahead of a visit to Madrid by Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, Spanish officials signalled a major change of policy by the socialist government of José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. "We realise the issue of sovereignty is stuck in a dead end at the moment. What we need to find now are different ways of moving forward," a foreign ministry spokesman told journalists in Madrid. "But we are going to put the focus first and foremost on co-operation and not condition it to advances in the debate on sovereignty," he added. British officials were delighted by the new tone but were waiting to see if it translated into action. Spanish diplomats said that Spain will remove some of the restrictions currently imposed on the colony. Mr Straw and his Spanish counterpart, Miguel Angel Moratinos, seem determined to put behind them the series of spats over the summer's tercentenary celebrations of Britain's capture of Gibraltar. Spain was angry that Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, went to Gibraltar in August, seeing it as a further affront after a trip by Princess Anne and a visit by a British nuclear submarine. A row over Madrid's refusal to allow cruise ships to dock in Spanish ports if they call in Gibraltar has been defused for the moment after Spain declared a moratorium on implementing the ban. The issue will be reviewed next month. In a rare conciliatory act after nearly three years of tension, Peter Caruana, Gibraltar's chief minister, met a senior Spanish diplomat for wide-ranging discussions in late August. Mr Caruana yesterday acknowledged the change of policy in an interview with the Spanish daily El Pais. "It seems the new Spanish government of Zapatero recognises the benefits for all sides and the population of maximising the degree of understanding and co-operation at a local level, despite the opposing viewpoints on the sovereignty issue," he said. Negotiations between the two countries collapsed in 2002 after Gibraltarians rejected any concession of sovereignty to Madrid in a referendum organised by Mr Caruana. The Government blamed Madrid for intransigence in its demands to control British military bases and to have the option of gaining full sovereignty. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> Subject: Surely not? | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:17:01 10/27/04 Wed This has got to be some collusive slight-of-hand by Messrs Hain and Straw to lure the people of Gibraltar into a false sense of security? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Gibraltar | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 11:43:18 10/28/04 Thu I get terribly Thatcherite when I think about Gib: no negotiation, no compromise, no alternative. The situation seems utterly clear to me: in a recent referendum, as we all know, Gibraltarians voted 98% on a 99% turn-out to remain part of the UK - I can only presume that the few dozen dissenting votes were those of the impoverished Spanish taxi drivers who make life so irritating for anyone who presumes to walk up the Rock to see the view without their assistance and guidance. With a mandate like that, there must be no compromise with the democratic wishes of the people of Gibraltar. This "charm offensive" is almost certainly a new Spanish tactic which recognises this fact - "charm offensive" almost certainly means "propaganda campaign", which will involve derestricting the border, opening tapas bars in Grand Casemates Square, etc., in order to reduce Gibraltarian hostility towards Spain; whereafter our socialist neighbours in Spain will produce a poll to the British government showing that the Rock's warmth towards Britain and coldness towards Spain have dimished, and start the whole negotiations for 'joint sovereignty' - whatever that can possibly mean - all over again. I remember back in June '97, watching the Royal Yaught Britannia sail away into the South China Sea, so needlessly leaving the millions of peaceful, educated and English-speaking Hong Kongers in the hands of a brutal Communist Dictatorship, and I thought even then, seeing Mr Blair's happy face next to the distraught expression of HRH Prince Charles, that Gibraltar will go the same way if this government has anything to do with it. We must not let them introduce the thin ends of any wedges into our relationship with Gibraltar. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Federation is the answer. | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:56:30 10/28/04 Thu Yes, this has all the hallmarks of a Government plan to sell-out the people of Gibraltar. Remember when the Irish Republic became best-pals after the good-Friday agreement? Why does Britain insist on respecting Spanish sensitivities? Well, it’s all about forming political alliances within the EU, to counter the bloc of France, Germany and Belgium, with their endless meetings behind closed doors and faits accomplis. However, without the EU, this incessant massaging of Spanish opinion in the pursuit of votes in EU negotiations would not be necessary. It is interesting that the Chief Minister of Gibratar, Mr Caruana, has stated that he sees a future decolonised status for Gibraltar. However, in line with UN decolonisation practices, this must happen under the principle of self-determination. I also think the present arrangement is unsustainable. So what does he mean by this? Independence for Gibraltar? This option would surely result in endless harassment of an independent Gibraltar by Spain until they capitulated. I do not see the Gibraltarians supporting it in that context. Joining the United Kingdom. This option is the most sensible in my view. Less harassment by Spain would result, as they would be dealing with the United Kingdom, and not a remote colony that the UK Government can ignore. Telephone codes and other forms of interference would be resolved, as they would simply become +44. The proud identity of the people of Gibraltar would be safe - as safe as that of Britain anyway. As Labour have already ruled out Gibraltarian MPs at Westminster recently, as they clearly have no interest in representing the opinions of the people of “The Rock”. The Conservatives therefore, should pledge a referendum offering two choices: independence, or federation with the UK and a similar constitutional arrangement to Northern Ireland, without the interference of a foreign power of course. I believe this would go a long way towards resolving the issue once and for all. I would advocate a similar referendum in each of our territories. I often feel that many of them want their cake and eat it. They want British identity and a passport, but do not want to pay our taxes. I would be interested to see what would come of such a proposal. It would at least get the UN off our backs. Talking of passports, does anyone know how many people in HK were given British Passports prior to the handover (British Citizens Overseas status apparently)? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Gibraltar and Hong Kong | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:01:47 10/28/04 Thu Having MPs at Westminster would not constitute federation for Gibraltar, but complete incorporation. This already works at Euro-election level, in which Gibraltarian votes count as votes in the South West region - how interesting that this is where the UKIP came only a few dozen votes away from finishing FIRST in the poll! I think that 14000 Gibraltarian votes for UKIP were something to do with it. To turn to your question over Hong Kong...In the wake of the revolting 1984 agreement over the city, the government issued 50,000 'heads of families' with British Passports. Assuming that their families also took the opportunity of sharing British nationality with their fathers/husbands/etc, that means that no more than about a quarter of a million Hong Kongers were full British citizens in 1997. Many of them now live in Britain, for obvious reasons, and many used their British citizenship to get easy access to the rest of the English-speaking world, in which a Chinese passport is not especially useful. I know many such Hong Kongers in Britain who were on the first 'plane to London they could find after the hand-over. One of them, a chap called Andrew Chang, who sounded for all the world like Prince Charles, told me that he wasn't going to live under a communist dictatorship for anybody... load of peasants going around redistributing other people's property. He considered it "most indecous". My own personal opinion is that, from 1984 to 1997, we should have offered ALL Hong Kongers the right to domicile and work in Britain as full British subjects. A couple of million may have come, but certainly not the total 6 million, many of whom were recent immigrants from China with no especial love or affinity with Britain. That, frankly, would be sensible and considered immigration, since the population of Hong Kong is educated and skilled, and these are the people whom we need in Britain: doctors, teachers, entrepreneurs, that sort of thing. Instead, we are taking Eastern European immigration - unskilled and often uneducated workers trying to force their way into an already 120% saturated market for construction, labouring and restaurant work. By prefering Europe to our own colony as a source of badly-needed immigrant workers we have ended up with exactly the wrong kind of immigration; and as we can see from our newspapers, it is rapidly becoming a serious problem. I have no problem with Eastern Europeans - my own family came from Poland 160 years ago - but back then there were more jobs in industry than we had Britons to fulfil them; and in any case my family consisted of a Rabbi and his wife and children, and very few rabbis are seen applying for constrution jobs in Hammersmith or queuing up for housing benefits.. although it would make a damn' funny picture! The way in which we have treated our former colonies, and indeed our present ones such as Gibraltar, I am frankly amazed that there are so many people in the Commonwealth as the few on this forum who are able to put up with us, let alone want closer ties with us. Mussolini called us "l'Albione Perfida", and he sure had a point! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Hong Kong emigration | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:51:36 10/28/04 Thu Many Hong Kongers came to Canada as well as Britain at the time of the 1997 handover. Many, who were lucky enough to get British passports, settled in Vancouver and some went on and settled in Toronto. Both cities have large Chinese-speaking communities. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Vancouver | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:00:36 10/29/04 Fri Yes I noticed that when I was in Vancouver in August. There is quite a substantial Chinatown, and most of those I met had come from Hong Kong. It is interesting isn’t it that to this day, the peoples of the Commonwealth, and in this case, former Commonwealth, still share a sense of shared identity. They chose Canada instead of Europe for example. A good statistic as far as we are concerned, was an article in the Sunday Times magazine last week. The study concerned the emigration habits of Britons today. The study shows that while older people tend to retire to Europe, younger people and families still favour the Crown Commonwealth countries of Australia, Canada and New Zealand as their destination of choice to make a new life. The worrying aspect of the study was the statistic that nearly half of all Britons wanted to quit Britain, and nearly one-in-three were actively considering it. The main reasons given were cost-of-living, tax, crime, healthcare and weather. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Ha! | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:00:45 10/29/04 Fri I was talking to some Euro-lefty in a little cafe the other day, wearing little glasses and sipping a thimbleful of espresso and saying "ciao" to everyone, and he told me that the fact that thousands of British people are moving to Europe is "evidence of a growing sense of solidarity and European-ness", and wasn't it nice that we were all one big happy family now. He didn't take kindly when I explained the economics of it (we have lots of money, you don't, your houses are cheap, ours aren't, so we're going to buy up all your villas and price you out of your own housing market, because we can) and postulated that it was just another example of good-old British colonialism in another form, and that, far from integrating with the local populations, the Brits Abroad merely form expat communities and open lots of fish and chip bars! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Ha Ha | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:37:32 10/30/04 Sat It wasn't that annoying journalist from Le Monde was it? He often appears on Dateline London on BBC News 24/World. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Nah | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:48:14 10/30/04 Sat Don't think so... you never catch French reporters outside Paris, where they can use their subsidies to stuff themselves with ortolans and fois gras, plagiarise their stories off the BBC website, put a socialist gloss on them and insert the occasional reference to "cowboy Bush", shove them into their editor's in-tray in his absence (he's out to lunch stuffing himself with ortolans and fois gras), and then get back to the Restaurant Lipp on Boulevard St. Germain and stuff themselves with ortolans and fois gras... An American girl whom I know took up a post on the Herald Tribune's Paris offices, and a year later is reported to have put on about three stones and got Delerium Tremens... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: HK Immigration | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:29:27 10/28/04 Thu Having MPs at Westminster would not constitute federation for Gibraltar, but complete incorporation Yes – but under a federal system… Offering the prospect of two million Hong Kongers (is that what they’re called?) the right of domicile was probably not practical on the accommodation front. However, it would be nice if they did come, and bring their money/expertise with them as you say. They could then have given Birmingham a Skyline to be proud of perhaps? Such immigration would be of far greater benefit to our economy, than our current preference for Islamists and Eastern-European gypsies seeking asylum from their criminal justice system. I am under the impression though that there are a lot of entrepreneurs and tycoons sitting it out, playing the waiting game, and armed with a British passport should things go pear-shaped. I’m sure they would not want to leave their homeland unless it is necessary. It remains to be seen what will happen in the future in Hong Kong, as the “one-country, two-systems” agreement was only for 50 years. Although, as we can see in Shanghai, I feel China is becoming more like Hong Kong, than the other way round. I also share you sentiments about the prevailing perception of Britain from our colonies, and to a lesser extent, the Commonwealth. I feel distance has allowed a sense of national pride and civic responsibility to prevail where it has been long-since suppressed at home. Someone I knew returned from New Zealand a few of years ago, and described the country “like Scotland 30 years ago”. I couldn’t help asking him if this was meant to be a compliment. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: One reservation.... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:44:17 10/29/04 Fri I'm glad that we seem to see this issue in the same way. There is, however, one thing with which I would take issue: you say that two million immigrants over 13 years would create a housing crisis... Well, the government's own figures suggest that our population will rise by about 2.5 million by 2010, only six years, as a result of net in-migration, and they seem unconcerned. Certainly, this government and its immigration policies will still be in power at least until 2009, so that is the immigration which we are going to get. How much easier to cope, I would say, if the immigrants were 2 million Hong Kongers who would rent and buy their own houses rather than indigent Bulgarian 'builders' who demand that everyone else rent their houses for them through the housing benefits system! I don't want to be accused of racism (as happens all too often when anyone in this country talks seriously about immigration problems), but I ask you one question: have you ever, and I mean ever, seen on the streets of the UK a Chinese beggar, or an Indian one? I will bet substantial amounts that you haven't; and these two constitute our first and third largest immigrant groups. I say, we need more of them. We don't really need South Londoners, so they could all live there! ;-) [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Clarification, and more Hoon... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:20:20 10/29/04 Fri Yes, your point about housing is valid. I was commenting on the premise that the Government’s judgement and position was likely based on the potential prospect of 2 million immigrants arriving on the 2nd July 1997, rather than over 13 years. I totally agree with your observations about immigration and the debates in this country. They are, all too often, stifled by political correctness and over-sensitivity, where talking about immigration becomes a debate about race, and they really do not serve as useful debates at all. It is sad to see our politicians are afraid to have a sensible debate on this issue, and instead, they often adopt a circumlocutory position when questioned about these issues. On a separate issue, Hoon’s treachery strikes again!!!! Today’s Scotsman newspaper reports that all the other Scots regiments in Iraq are to be placed on standby to replace the Black Watch when they leave the nest of vipers before Christmas. This is a day after it emerges that the Scottish regiment amalgamation is to be brought forward to lessen the impact of the regiments’ supporters’ campaign while they are serving in a dangerous situation. That’s just bloody great isn’t it? Yeah – let’s use all the Scots as cannon fodder, and then disband their regiments when they get home! That is the true definition of adding insult to injury. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I hope this doesn't fan the flames of nationalism again | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:28:50 10/29/04 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Vote Conservative | |
|
Author: ROberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:31:15 10/29/04 Fri I hope the Conservatives have no such anti-British aspirations [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Conservatives' colonial policy | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:56:22 10/29/04 Fri Hm. I freely admit that I am the sort of person whose hands would shake with shame and confusion if ever I held my pen in the ballot box and were obliged by circumstances to put my cross in any box other than the 'Conservative Party' one, and thereafter I should need a good stiff drink and some comforting words from my fiancee and possibly even, old as I am, my dear white-haired old mother, but... ...The Conservatives have been almost as bad about colonial policy - such as is left to us - as anyone else. It was Mrs T. who signed the millions of Hong Kongers over to the Chinese Dictatorship, in spite of the fact that the 99 Year Lease only covered the New Territories around the city, not the town itself. The argument was that the city on its own was not a viable political unit. I can only presume that the Iron Lady, fond as I am of her, had never visited Singapore, Liechtenstein, San Marino, or the Vatican... some of the most prosperous states on earth. Perhaps She would argue that these other city states have special and particular circumstances. No doubt she is right, but I imagine that being the richest city in Asia next to the fastest-growing economy in the world might qualify as a Special Circumstance for Hong Kong. On the other hand, the Conservtives did boot the Argies out of the Falklands, whilst Labour argued that, since they were there now, we might as well let them keep it; and the military importance of Gibraltar is something which the Conservatives understand, whereas Geoff Hoon probably imagines that "Strategically Essential" is a kind of board game, For Adults & Children over 12 Yrs, by Waddingtons, Available At WH Smith and All Good Retailers. Perhaps, then, the Conservatives are the lesser of two evils as far as our remaining dependencies are concerned. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Hong Kong Treaty | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:12:19 10/30/04 Sat Ed – with regard to the handing over of Hong Kong, was it not infrastructure issues like water supply etc that made the island an unviable state, rather than political issues? I can imagine the Chinese would have made it clear to Margaret Thatcher that the whole of Hong Kong was to be handed over after the lease expired. Otherwise we would have had a Gibraltar-style siege on our hands. The Chinese have shown that they are not averse to taking territory which they believe is theirs. Unlike the Falklands however, there is not a think we could do about it. I think Thatcher made a wise agreement, and probably spared Britain some future humiliation. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Moreover... | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:13:36 10/30/04 Sat Had the Chineese wished it, they would simply cut off the water supply, and then we'd be stuffed. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I doubt it.... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:00:44 10/30/04 Sat I believe that the Chinese were amazed at HM Government's desperation to get HK off their hands back in the early 1980s... The Chinese had the gravest reservations about taking the city: the Chinese are not stupid - indeed, they are frequently demonstrated by testing to be amongst the cleverest people on Earth - and were well aware of the can of worms which would be opened by the incorporation of HK into China. We are seeing now how the One Country, Two Systems nonsense is breaking down: riots, non-co-operation, demonstrations etc., to which the Chinese are responding with smear campaigns, mild oppression, the planting of dodgy evidence of crimes in the flats of prominent exponents of HK political freedoms, etc. Moreover, while China is quite prepared to bully its neighbours, it has shown a remarkable reluctance to throw its weight around as far as western nations are concerned. Britain is a bigger investor in China than the US, and the biggest in the world. Admittedly, the outcome of a war would be hard to prejudge and would leave HK a smoking hole, which would defeat the object of fighting for it in the first place; but I doubt if there would need to be a war. We would not have needed to send in the battleships, just call in our debts: "Don't point my gun at me, sir; and take my helmet off when you're speaking to me." Without British investment, the much-exaggerated Chinese 'economic miracle' (remember what happened to the Italian one? And the Chinese, Korean etc ones?) would collapse tomorrow, and the Party is well aware of this. They would not have turned off the water. In cases of this kind, confidence can win a battle befor it has started, by preventing hostilities in the first place. That is how the Royal Navy functioned for generations! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Nationalism? | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:42:39 10/29/04 Fri How do you mean, fan the flames of nationalism? Do you mean Scots nationalism, or Iraqi nationalism, or British nationlism in its anti-US form? On Dave's point, I wonder if anyone saw the "Any Questions?" programme a few weeks ago, in which one gormless audience member asked, "Would you guarantee that you won't adopt the Conservatives' immigration quota system, even though it might mean that we get no more Michael Howards?" Anyway, every single member of the panel who wanted to say that, actually, immigration should be managed, was falling over themselves to preface their remarks with their Non Racist Credentials... "I've nothing against immigrants, because my family came from Romania." "I've nothing against immigrants, because my grandfather was Irish." "I've nothing against immigrants, because my grandmother's butler was Philipino." "I've nothing against immigrants, because my brother's wife's cousin's daughter once went out with an Indian guy." "I've nothing against immigrants, because my goldfish is a type called 'West Indian Miniature Three-Gilled Goldfish'." And only then were they prepared to go on and say what they meant, for fear of being branded 'racists'. I have never heard anything so ridiculous. As if any intelligent person does not realise that someone who lives in Ludlow, Shropshire, ethnic population nil, can be open-minded and tolerant and non-racist, whereas someone who lives in Clapham, London, ethnic population 89%, who has a mixed race background, can easily be the most bigotted white supremacist on the market! But still the panellists felt the need to justify their comments by "proving" that they were not racists BEFORE they could talk about immigration... guilty until proven innocent. It reminded me of a French revolutionary tribunals. I weep for the future. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I meant Scottish nationalism. | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:38:35 10/29/04 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: Geebrawtah | |
|
Author: Yanito [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:46:12 10/29/04 Fri Perhaps they realise it's a big boulder with a bunch of tax dodgers, drunks and jingos on it. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Geebrawtah | |
|
Author: Yanito [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:48:15 10/29/04 Fri Sorry did I forget the apes? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |