The case of Gibraltar at the European Court of Justice

Right. Can a fan of Manchester United Football Club judge in a case about Manchester City?
AsdrubalelBello - Spain

It is disgusting that Brussels do this to Gibraltar and its people. By law, Gibraltar has three miles of water at least so how can they allow Spain to dictate in our waters? Also, the Rock of Gibraltar belongs to the people of Gibraltar and has done now for more tham 300 years. We have had two referendums and we will not change.
We the people of Gibraltar want the EU and United Nations to stand up for us. The ruling with a Spanish judge and registrar has added more insult to injury. The EU needs to wake up to reality - come and visit our rock and our people, then judge us in your little comfy rooms of debate.
No name supplied

Waging the dog instead of coping with the reality check? This was the result of an appeal, only one out of six judges was Spanish. Even then, nationality is irrelevant when discussing technicalities. Cooperation is the word, can't you see? Get rid of nationalist maximalisms and get real. So no, we now why the Gbraltarians are so insistant in taking the issue to the Hague (not William);it's a win win for them. Hurray if they win, recuse the judges if they lose.
Adam Smith-ist - Spain

Adam Smith-ist - there were three judges, not six. The clerk of the court was also Spanish. Spain should be ashamed of its insistent oppression of a tiny nation of 30,000 in this day and age, through all possible means it has to hand. Gibraltarians do not ever want to be Spanish. The only thing that is saddening is that our British patriotism is ignored by Great Britain because of its desire not to upset an oppressive ally, i.e. appeasement.
We will continue to say we are British long after the UK falls beneath the seas. In 10,000 years time, our people will say we are British and still say we never want to be Spanish. Get over it. Go and give back all the illegally acquired islands on the Moroccan coast, maybe then you might have a moral say on Gibraltar; even though you gave Gibraltar away to Great Britain. Until then, as the saying goes, get on your bike mate.
Gareth Gingell - Gibraltar

By law and pertinent treaty, Gibraltar has no territorial waters. The Treaty of Utrecht clearly establishes that no jurisdiction was ever transferred and Spain never accepted otherwise - but rather explicitly stated otherwise - when signing the territorial sea international conventions.
The article focuses on two different issues that are best analysed orderly. Firstly, obviously, you can question European process law and rules but the question that remains is: why you didn't do it before hand? Perhaps because the Brits thought that it was in their interest.
Are Brits and those from Gibraltar afraid of actual legal reasoning and, therefore, they find with no recourse other than gasping at straws here? Environmental issues do not stop at any border. Therefore, it is only natural that events affecting the wellbeing of border populations are taken up by overlapping authorities.
Before we cry for impartiality, would it be better to discuss the principles of it? Wouldn't it be better to make clear the rules of the game before we play it? I propose an international court not in The Hague -where they only find war criminals among nations that lost a war - but in a remote place of the globe, detached from British-American and Spanish influence and with judges from China, Russia, Ethiopia and Brazil etc. Accusing the commissioners of committing a crime with no allegations or proof is rather unacceptable.
Daniel A. Jaimen Navarrete - Madrid

For Gareth Gingell - Gibraltar. Do not change the subject. You have nothing to say in support of your pitiful and petty illegal squatting and that's why you mention unrelated issues such as Spanish Africa. Spain was there, by the way, before Morocco ever existed. Learn history and how to respectably argue. Remember that it is not only your people that reads your comments unless you are satisfied by preaching to the choir. If you don't want any Spanish 'oppression', that's easy, do not cross the border. Do not buy Spanish, generate your own electricity, give up telephone lines going through Spain etc. If you aren't self sufficient for the basics, you are not a country. And, of course, do not put any more garbage into shared ecosystems.
Daniel A. Jaimen Navarrete - Madrid

Three miles by law? What law? Your law? Gibraltar just has jurisdiction over the town and harbour, and never over the water. There are Spanish waters. Please read the Treaty of Utrech.
Anonymous

Can a case of animal cruelty be judged by a bullfighter?
Denis23 - Gibraltar

Gareth Gingell, Spain has not got any island illegally acquired. They were Spanish territories before Morocco existed. Instead, Gibraltar was occuped 300 years ago and the original inhabitants were expulsed or killed by British troops.Please read global history, not you own history.
Name unkown

Not wrong, there were six judges, three for the preliminary ruling and another three for the appeal. I've got nothing to add to the tantrum of Britishness. Contrary to what they have made you believe, Spain is not interested in reversing the nationality of the population.
Adam Smith-ist - Spain

There is actually one additional rule: judges don't generally sit on cases that come from their own member state. But since this case was from Gibraltar, that rule did not prevent the Spanish judge's involvement. Presumably the British judge, Judge Schiemann, would have been prevented from sitting under this rule, though.
Martin Holterman - EUI, Firenze

Accusing 'post' of judgments is a fallacy. Judges can challenge but first, before initiating the lawsuit and not later, it is a childish tantrum that characterizes Gibraltar and contrary to international law across the world.
Francisco Martin

Daniel A. Jaimen Navarrete - perhaps it is you that needs to do some reading. Air and water territorials rights did not exist in 1713 when the Treaty of Utrecht was signed. Some reading for you - United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 which supersedes the Treaty of Utrecht.
Yes, the EU signed off on it, and I think you'll find Spain is in the EU. By international law, the notion of a country's sovereign airspace corresponds with the maritime definition of territorial waters as being 12 nautical miles (22.2 km) out from a nation's coastline.
John - USA

By the way, I don't know what the Spanish version of the Treaty of Utrecht says, (actually I do, I'm just being sarcastic), but the English version - which Spain signed - was that Gibraltar be ceded in perpetuity. For any illiterates out there, perpetuity means forever, it does not mean until we can't take any more crying and whining from the Spanish. Forever is a long time. Move on. Why don't you try asking the US to give Florida back.
John - USA

John, at this moment I claim 12 nautical miles for Spain. Please be serious, there are not 12 miles between Spain and Gibraltar.
Name unkown

Unknown - at least use your first name rather than hide as anonymous. "At this moment I claim 12 nautical miles for Spain." As i said, read the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, it discusses cases where there is overlap. Also, the law is 'up to' 12 miles. Gibraltar is only claiming three miles to the east and the agreed midpoint between Gib and Spain to the west. Please tell me you don't believe that Gibraltar has 12 miles to the west, which would put me somewhere west of Algeciras on land.
John - USA

To John. The Convention of the Law of the Sea doesn't and cannot supersede the pertinent Treaty of Utrecht because the former doesn't determine limits of any sort between nations and rather assumes that territorial limits have been predetermined or agreed upon by pertinent treaty or other means. Therefore, rather than engaging in a contest of claims on who has read more on what, let's begin by showing mental clarity and following logical precedence.
Additionally, the waters were mentioned in the treaty and were said to be limited to the port and, most important, no jurisdiction was ever transferred; something perhaps you would rather avoid. Even in the fantasy scenario of 12 mile airspace, there is too a midpoint with Spanish territory that limits it and that Brits invade time and time again. Perhaps with the complacency of our fake American friends.
Of course, the Brits have also invaded land that was never ceded and did so in a very base way by beseeching us to let them use the isthmus to let their dead and sick rest after some sort of deadly outbreak. Aren't you proud? Furthermore, the land where the airport is today was stolen during the Spanish Civil war.
Daniel A. Jaimen Navarrete - Madrid

To John again. Spain will not ask for Florida back. Cubans maybe. Aztlan will take over the whole South West soon for reasons you must be ready to be embarrassed, if you want us to look into. 'Perpetuity' yes, but with conditions that have been grossly violated rendering therefore the agreement invalid and providing no legal remedy but the restoration of the previous status quo.
Daniel A. Jaimen Navarrete - Madrid

Florida was purchased by the US, not ceded. You don't know your own history.
No name supplied

I am amazed at the ignorance of people who say Gibraltar has no territorial waters as it was "not mentioned in a treaty from 1713". The ToU did not give Gibraltar a television channel, an Internet domain or airspace. However later international agreements do and both Britain and Spain ratified UNCLOS(82) - which gives Gibraltar waters, like every other territory. It also deals with the case where there are not 12 clear miles and waters are divided.
Bill Payer - Gibraltar

Again, the Spanish twist the true history of Florida. It was ceded to the US, because they couldn't afford to run the place, see the Adams–Onís Treaty. The $5,000,000 was included in the treaty so that the US would pay residents claims against Spain. It was not paid to Spain.
Of course The Convention of the Law of the Sea, 1982 supercedes the Treaty of Utrecht. That's how international law works. New international laws supersede old ones, or in this case give clarity to something that wasn't there in the first place. Unless Spain was flying airplanes in 1713. Spain signed onto the The Convention of the Law of the Sea, 1982 and included the statement "Spain wishes to make it known that this act cannot be construed as recognition of any rights or status regarding the maritime space of Gibraltar that are not included in article 10 of the Treaty of Utrecht of 13 July 1713". However, Article 310 says "...provided that such declarations or statements do not purport to exclude or to modify the legal effect of the provisions of this Convention in their application to that State". Meaning their statement was meaningless drivel.
I think too many years under Franco has impaired your ability to understand real laws.
John - USA

It's about time that the UK relinquished its imperialist toe-hold in continental Europe – the UN continues to list Gibraltar as a territory that needs to be decolonised by the UK.
Moreover, it is pure obfuscation to insist, as the UK does, that the current inhabitants of Gibraltar have a right under the principle of self-determination to determine the nationality of the land they live in. Under international law there are territorial limitations to the right of self-determination for transplanted populations living in colonial enclaves where a pre-colonial claim of sovereignty exists. This is the case with Gibraltar.
A coloniser cannot legally disrupt the territorial integrity of another state by implanting its own population unto the territory it is colonising. In cases such as these, the inhabitants of the territory have a right to have their 'interests' considered but they have no right to unilaterally determine the nationality of the land they live in.
Both the UN and ICJ have confirmed that the principle of territorial integrity complements and constrains the right to self-determination in cases such as Gibraltar. This is the reason why the UN adopted Resolution 2353 (XXII), which observed that the referendum conducted by Gibraltar in 1967 was invalid.
The UN has repeatedly invited the UK to participate in discussions to achieve the de-colonisation of Gibraltar. The UK has also failed to honour its commitments under the Brussels Agreement in regard to Gibraltar. Unfortunately, the UK continues to rely on a discredited interpretation of the principle of self-determination to turn a deaf ear to those requests in a clearly self-serving way.
It's worth noting that the current British enthusiasm for the principle of self-determination in the case of Gibraltar, and the Falklands for that matter, was certainly not matched by its response to the inhabitants of Diego Garcia, also a British Overseas Territory, who were forcibly evicted by the UK in 1971 against their wishes because the United States wanted the island as a military base.
Frank Martin - Brisbane Australia

To all Treaty of Utrecht lovers: it is also stated in the treaty that no Jews or Moors are allowed in Gibraltar after sunset.
David - Gibraltar

Let us all grow up and start living like civilised people.
What Spain has to do is to stop bullying us and their own at the land frontier. Live and let live. I suggest that you all listen to the song that the late John Lennon wrote, Imagine, and then we can start talking.
Anonymous

Please, lets get our facts right. The Spanish enclaves in North Africa were originally Portuguese. Whilst they were Portuguese possessions Spain conquered Portugal. Later still Portugal gained independence from Spain. Part of the treaty for Portuguese independence included the transfer of sovereignty of the North African enclaves to Spain.
Is it not time that Spain gave them to Morocco, or if not Morocco - as Spain claims it did not yet exist - at least return them to Portugal which most certainly did. Or, rather, should the people themselves decide in a democratic manner?
Most people expressing their opinion here know nothing about the law. To say that if Gibraltarians don't want to suffer Spanish oppression they should not enter Spain is a throwback to the fascist, General Franco's Spain. I think if Spain wants to behave like this it should stop pretending to be a democracy and just leave the EU now.
The question the Spanish judge should have asked herself before accepting to hear the appeal was this: "Do I think Gibraltar should be Spanish", if the answer was yes - which, invariably, it is - she should have recused herself.
I do not worry though, it is only a question of time until Spain's own financial incompetence results in it being chucked out of the EU.
John - Gibraltar

@Frank Martin from Bisvegas in Oz. Until you give Australia back to the Aboriginals, you really don't have a leg to stand on. And you really do look ridiculous up there on the moral high ground, lecturing everyone about transplanted populations.
There is not a single UN resolution which calls for the transfer of Gibraltar to Spain. Every single UN resolution covering Gibraltar references the UN Charter, which has self determination as a key principle.
The right to self determination has never been limited by the UN for the people of any NSGT, and especially not Gibraltar. Get over the fact that the Gibraltarians have a right to decide their own future. Not Spain and not the UK.
J. A. Roberts - Spain

I wonder why the European Commission keeps a deathly silence over the harassment of EU citizens and others at the Gibraltar Border, with children and the aged kept in queues for hours in high summer by the Spanish Guards?

RWP - Gibraltar

I don't think this is place to talk about Florida, Australia, or Spanish North Africa. Actually, the subject of the article is not even Gibraltar itself but process law and rules in the European Union.
Daniel A. Jaimen Navarrete - Madrid

During the 1960s, the UN General Assembly passed two resolutions on the issue (2231 (XXI), "Question of Gibraltar" and 2353 (XXII), "Question of Gibraltar"). The resolutions on the decolonisation of Gibraltar focused on the "interests" and not the "wishes" of the Gibraltarians. The latter resolution states that any colonial situation, which partially or completely destroys the national unity and territorial integrity of a country, is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and especially with paragraph 6 of Resolution 1514 (XV) of the General Assembly. It invites the governments of Spain and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to resume without delay the negotiations provided for in General Assembly Resolutions 2070 (XX) and 2231 (XXI), with a view to putting an end to the colonial situation in Gibraltar and to safeguarding the interests of the population.
From such a point of view, Gibraltarians are seen as mere settlers from the United Kingdom and other countries and only their interests, not their wishes (as the right to self-determination would involve), need be safeguarded. This point of view is supported by the fact that after the Capture of Gibraltar by Anglo-Dutch troops, only 70 out of the original 5,000 Spanish inhabitants remained in Gibraltar.
Therefore, Spain has insisted that the Gibraltar dispute is a purely bilateral matter with the UK and has ignored the role and will of Gibraltarians. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982, which entered into force in 1995, set a new standard of 12 nautical miles (22 km). However, in some cases, "by reason of historic title or other special circumstances", the convention provides, in article 15, the non-application of the general rule - which indicates that the boundary between two states with opposite or adjacent coasts must be the half line between them.
In other words: a convention only supersedes a previous applicable law if and only if it contradicts it. Additionally, The Spanish statement upon ratification of the convention was: 2. In ratifying the Convention, Spain wishes to make it known that this act cannot be construed as recognition of any rights or status regarding the maritime space of Gibraltar that are not included in article 10 of the Treaty of Utrecht of 13 July 1713 concluded between the Crowns of Spain and Great Britain. Furthermore, Spain does not consider that Resolution III of the third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea is applicable to the colony of Gibraltar, which is subject to a process of decolonisation - in which only relevant resolutions adopted by the UN General Assembly are applicable.
Daniel A. Jaimen Navarrete - Madrid

Before mentioning "impartiality", shouldn't the article go into the actual text of the sentence and propose a correction based on legal reasoning?
Daniel A. Jaimen Navarrete - Madrid

@ Daniel A. Jaimen Navarrete - Madrid
The Resolutions directly contradict the UN Charter itself. The UN Charter is paramount.
The opening statement of the charter reads as follows:
"Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognise the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories…"
The relevant UN member is the UK. The UK has a duty to protect Gibraltar under UN law – in fact, it has 'a sacred trust' to carry out this function. This is a responsibility it takes very seriously, and it has modern democratic principles at heart in excercise of this duty.
The resolutions you quote, as the rest of the democratic world knows, were passed when many Latin American countries - at the time run by dictatorships sympathetic to Franco's Spanish fascists - such as Venezuela, Nicaragua etc were sitting on the UN chair. It was opposed by real democracies like Canada, Australia, USA and New Zealand. This may help you understand why those resolutions are, quite rightly, ignored by the UK. Remember, according to the UN it is the UK that has the duty to protect Gibraltar, not the UN itself.
Legally, Spain has no direct say in the matter, thankfully, because look at the fiascos it has been involved in - the Western Sahara is a factually different but good example of a situation which was largely fueled by Spain's maladminstration of that region when it was a Spanish colony.
You try to draw a distinction between 'the interests' and 'the wishes' of the people. Well, the wishes and interests in this case are the same. It is certainly not in Gibraltar's interests to become Spanish, even less is it a wish. So, the only way for Spain to acquire Gibraltar is by ignoring both the interests and wishes of the people of Gibraltar. Even according to you, this would go against the UN Charter.
The ICJ is the relevant authority to determine this case. You, sir, are not a judge and cannot determine what the ICJ would decide. Each case, as a matter of law, is subject to its own particular merits and must therefore be dealt with on a case by case basis. As a matter of fact, Spain refuses to go to the ICJ to see what it says. No prizes for guessing why.
Hong Kong and other colonies were leased to the then colonial powers, Gibraltar was ceded to the UK in perpetuity. This is a very real difference between these territories.
As regards the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea - this is binding and, as a subsequent treaty to Utrecht it supersedes it. Although Spain made a comment when it signed, this same law also states that any comments do not affect the validity of this law - Spain has accepted this.
As it can be seen, your choice of applicable laws is very selective and convenient indeed.
John - Gibraltar

Those 'fascist' Iberian American oligarchy regimes - let's exclude Quebec here - were lackeys of the US. They didn't answer to us. Sorry, you cannot question the rules after the game has started or claim they contradict more general laws when, in reality, they just elaborate on them and qualify them. Be consistent. Besides, the UK is not a democracy but a farce of it. Proof of it is that you have a terribly skewed distribution of income, a very low Human Development Index, and a distorted electoral district law intended to disregard the will of the majority all while claiming to do so. Neither is Canada a democracy, considering the atrocities inflicted upon the Quebecois. Our administration of the Western Sahara was perfect and if you want to claim otherwise you'll have to come up with some detailed story. In the meantime, be known that your American cousins and Morocco have done everything possible not to let a vote happen overthere according to the population census the UN approved of.
What do you have to say about having invaded areas outside the limit of the treaty up to the XXth century What do you have to say about the internationally recognized limits - actually conceptual limits - to the application of the right of self determination? What do you have to say about the "no jurisdiction" precision in the treaty? What do you have to say about environmental matters resulting from the lack of proper disposal means by Gibraltar and that affect our ecosystems?
The convention on territorial waters explicitly admits to certain limits to the general rule. Besides, it is not binding on the parties in any particular respect one the parties has refused to agree on. Nevertheless, can you mention any clause on such convention that prevents a signing member from limiting by way of agreement with another signing member the size of its territorial waters? No you cannot. Just stay away from Spain. It is not your country anyway and you are not part of Schengen, so you have to put up like everybody else with border inspections.
Daniel A. Jaimen Navarrete - Madrid

Daniel A. Jaimen Navarrete - Madrid. The USA, Canada and the UK are not democracies? "Terribly skewed distribution of income" and "atrocities inflicted upon the Quebecois"? What are you talking about? This just confirms our suspicions that Spain has no clue what a democracy is as you have just denigrated some of the longest-standing democracies in the world. Spain has been a democracy for what, 35 years? I'm not sure you're even worth debating with when you proudly display such ignorance about democracy.
John - USA

To John. The Kingdom of León in the XI century in Spain was the oldest democracy in Europe. Before that, what you have is councils of nobles and military aristocracy be that among the Germanic people, the Roman Senate, or even the Athenian democracy - which was limited to a few gentlemen and very much like the USA today.
Aside from this brief historical remark for your pleasure and illustration, I feel you have to be reminded that today democracies are phony marketing schemes and that are not really linked to the education of the citizen as an intelligent agent of politics and law. The US in particular is regarded by analysts of various nationalities as being a 'republic' instead of a 'democracy'.
What they mean by that is that constitutional constraints limit effectively people's power. The problem with the terminology is that our contemporary concept of 'democracy' has evolved out of both limitations to the state power in favour of individual rights and the exercise of people's will.
These are potentially always in conflict. I am not saying it's better to have a Rousseaunian democracy like they seem to have in Switzerland. Not at all. I am saying that you have to know what this word means and how it is manipulated to create an illusion of legitimacy. Today just the 'king by the grace of God' was used for the same purpose.
In the US, the masses have no access and no clue as to how the actual decisions are made. Neither do they in England. Among the various mechanisms employed by the cynical ruling elites (the same is true in Spain by the way) are 'methods' to assign seats in Congress to votes. Do you know the vote of a voter in Iowa counts a lot more in terms of proportional influence than the vote of a New Yorker.
The reason is that they are afraid of both urban educated dwellers and impoverished urban dwellers. I know some assume everybody is uneducated but them. Once, a visiting delegation of the American legislative came to visit their Spanish counterparts and began by lecturing them on the branches of government. Well, we have an uninterrupted legal and political culture that extends beyond a couple of millenia. I also remember a unitedstatian telling me he goes to Russia to teach them about Christianity (even though Russians have been Christians for more than 1,000 years now).
Daniel A. Jaimen Navarrete - Madrid

@ Daniel A. Jaimen Navarrete - Madrid. I don't think I need to say anything more to you - the drivel you are speaking. It would be funny if it wasn't so worrying. Do other Spaniards actually think like you? If so, no wonder the country is going up in flames.
John - Gibraltar

This is what happens when you have rules that state that the integrity of a person can not be questioned. At no point in time, in any scenario, can it be fair for a person, who has ties to a state that has something to gain from the result of the case, be able to reside and form judgement on such a case. Regardless of the extent of the influence of that persons judgement in the case as a whole.
It is a shame too that this judge did not recuse herself considering the political inclinations of the case. I would also state that it is concerning, having read the above comments, that there are people here who debate using the terms democracy only to suggest that people should uphold a treaty that is racist and out dated. Furthermore I would remind people that democracy, in whatever form it comes, is ultimately the people having a say in their future and how their country/town/city is run. Regardless of what any person would class Gibraltar as. I understand that it has been administrating over its affairs for many years. It has a level of self government but no voice within the international commity. For its part Spain has a voice, uses it wisely, only to continue to want a piece of land that could never be Spanish unless these democratic values are lost.
I wonder is Gibraltar became Spanish tomorrow would Spain remove the Gibraltar government and start again? Would they permit Gibraltar to continue to manage its own affairs? To do the first would be to eliminate the working government of a people. To do the second would be to create a Spanish colony. So how would that eradicate colonialism? I think that the international community needs to sit up and take a look at what it is meant to stand for.
No name

Daniel A. Jaimen Navarrete - Madrid. I'm speechless and can only echo what 'John - Gibraltar' says. Seriously. I really am unable to discuss this with you. As John in Gibraltar said, its no wonder Spain is in such a mess.
John - USA

John - hether Gibraltar is a case of external self-determination in the colonial context, involving the right to establish an independent state, is in dispute. The distinct question in Gibraltar's context concerns the relation between the territory and the neighbouring state, Spain.
For self-determination in the sense of giving rise to a right to freely elect the disposition of a given territory, it is first necessary to identify a population that holds that right. I have already provided reasons why the current population of Gibraltar doesn't qualify as 'a people' that holds that right.
The majority view amongst international lawyers rejects the notion that enclave populations without distinct ethnic, linguistic or religious characteristics enjoy a right of external self-determination as respects the particular territory they inhabit.
You quote UN Resolution 1514, but you seem oblivious to the fact that this resolution confirms that the principle of territorial integrity complements and constrains the right to self-determination.
That resolution specifically states that "any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations".
A declaration of independence by Gibraltar would 'disrupt the national unity and territorial integrity of Spain. This is because unlike Ceuta and Melilla, which were Spanish before the creation of the Moroccan State, Gibraltar was colonised by the UK while it was an integral part of Spain.
By the way, before you spout on about how the UK has a 'sacred duty' to protect Gibraltar, which 'it takes very seriously' - you should bear in mind that to this day the UK continues to publicly acknowledge that, in accordance with the Treaty Of Utrecht, Gibraltar cannot become independent without Spanish consent.
FurtherBeyond

These posts are moving well away from the topic of conversation. I would ask - how can a person who has connections to a group that has something to gain from the outcome of a case decide or have a role to play in deciding the outcome of such case? This Spanish judge should have recused herself. It's so obvious that it is hard to believe anyone could not objectively see this.
Bruzon

If Gibraltar has no territorial waters, does the British fleet have to ask Spain's permission to enter the Gibraltar harbour? If air space wasn't mentioned in the Treaty of Utrecht, can aeroplanes fly out of Gibraltar without Spain's permission?
Anonymous - Gibraltar

@Bruzon - you've hit the nail on the head. The Spanish do not see the conflict in interest of having a Spanish judge on a case where Spain has a vested interest in the outcome of the case. They're all about having a kangaroo court that finds in their favour. This is the essence of their implementation of democracy and 'independent' courts.
It's hard for them to move beyond the corrupt, biased legal system under Franco to a truly impartial democratic legal system, hence their convoluted logic regarding Gibraltar.
John - USA

For 'Further Beyond' and anybody out there who is not aware of our situation - we the Gibraltarians don't want to become inependant from the UK. Let us all be clear on this. What Spain has to start accepting is that Gibraltar was ceded by her in perpetuity, she put her signature on a document giving up all rights to this piece of land 310 years ago.
The sooner that all of Spain and beyond start absorbing this, the better for all parties concerned.
You don't give something away and years later ask for it back. Like everything else in life, there is a price to pay and at this moment Spain is bankrupt. And event if she could pay to buy us out, she couldn't be trusted.
A Gibraltarian

History will tell us that Spain is the most illogical and tainted country in the world, let alone Europe. They will try any trick that will serve their purpose. They lie about anything to anyone, and the English government seem to accept any of these lies without considering the Gibraltarian arguements at all. The UK government do not want to upset the Spanish and therefore they allow the harrasement of out tiny country to continue. It now appears also that Brussels is also brushing our rights and wishes under the carpet. What do we have to do, wait until something realy serious occurs? Is there no one out there who is willing to defend our rights and wishes? Shame on all those who are in a position to assist us and will not.
Emilio Correa - Gibratar.

To 'a Gibraltarian'. Contrary to your statements, Spain never signed a document giving up all rights but rather signed together with England a document that specifically reserved certain rights to Spain: No jurisdiction was transferred - please read article X - no presence of specific nationalities hostile to Spain was to be tolerated after sunset, no right for England to cede Gibraltar to a third party - such as new state - and no communication by land. The fact that no jurisdiction was transferred renders the possession of Gibraltar that of a property, not that of a sovereign territory. I don't think this is a place for propaganda and pep talk or fake indignation and, as such, lets start by not distorting the facts of the pertinent treaty.
Daniel A. Jaimen Navarrete - Madrid

Talking about conflict of interests: should we have the expert opinion here of neither British and American etc. Nor Spanish lawyers. It is unacceptable to question the integrity of a judge without explaining what the correct decision would be and why. Avoiding legal reasoning but attacking the integrity of those whose job it is to provide such reasoning is the same as accusing anybody of a misdeed without giving them or their supporters a chance to defend themselves - or even without doing anything but instill suspicion.
And, by the way, ecosystems know no borders and territorial limits. You cannot put unprocessed garbage directly into the Bay of Algeciras because you don't have proper means of disposal to process them.
Daniel A. Jaimen Navarrete - Madrid

"Gibraltarians do not want to become independent of the UK." Speak for yourself. Independence would be the best solution for Gibraltar, in an ideal world. Many Gibraltarians, including mainline politicians, see independence as a long-term ambition. The Gibraltar government does not accept that independence is excluded by Utrecht.
Stevie - Gibraltar

There does seem to be a contradiction in Utrecht. Britain was granted ownership of Gibraltar 'in perpetuity' and 'with no exception or impediment whatsoever'. Yet this ownership was granted 'without jurisdiction'. Who better to interpret this apparent contradiction than the European Court of Justice.
Stevie - Gibraltar

@ Daniel A. Jaimen Navarrete - Madrid
Here is a question. If as you say the whole issue of Gibraltar is nothing more than a property issue then I must ask why is Gibraltar, a budding nation, going through a proces, to be delisted as a colony? Surely if they have a level of government and ability to manage their own finances, legislate within their own jurisdiction and police their land then for Spain to takeover the 'property' would only create another colony but a Spanish one?
I guess this would lead to the question does Spain want Gibraltar because it makes profit? Gibraltar has never posed a threat to Spain and yet its people seem to have some very misguided opinions of the territory. It's a shame.
Let me ask you directly as I'm guessing you are Spanish. Would it make a difference to you if Gibraltar became Spanish? Spain is very large. Gibraltar is but three miles squared. I say let them have their land. After 300 years they've earned the right to be there. Have there been any other treaties since that of Utrecht? I believe there have.Spain needs to live and let live and it's down to people like yourself to tell your government that their country would be so much better of respecting other places rather than oppressing them.
Returning to the topic of conversation I repeat that it is so obvious that the judge should have caused herself it's worrying that people can't see it for themselves.
Bruzon - Japan

@ Bruzon, Japan - one issue at a time. What I am about to tell you shouldn't surprise anyone but those who just read English language press and texts on the subject. Perhaps, Japanese scholars needs to open themselves to learn other European languages in greater numbers.
There have been many treaties after the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713 and Spain has never changed its position on the subject, and has always introduced caveat clauses to prevent new treaties from overriding the original terms of the property cession.
Gibraltar has not been, nor will ever be, a nation. You tell me what's a nation, historically, identitywise, politically etc. And you'll see it is not. No anthropologist or ethnologist has studied them either. Perhaps a sociologist could as a peculiar urban tribe. The resolutions from the United Nations that invoke the limitations to the applicability of the right to self determination - such as in Gibraltar - do so by virtue of the negligible entity of military enclaves with or without civilians add-ons. The Gibraltarian population may want to pretend they are a nation to avoid a moment of final truth, keep exploiting their unspeakable privileges.
They have to hope to do that by way of deceit and fait accompli (or fake it till you make it). Legally, they can be no nation either since the pertinent treaty expressly forbids the handover by Britain to a third party. Spain has always - not just now - demanded that the town of Gibraltar be surrendered back to us for the reasons that I have exposed.
So it is not a circumstancial claim. In fact, the Gibraltar bonanza began after the opening of the fence in 1984 when the naive Spanish authorities decided that that would be best to thaw relations with the British and, eventually, lead to a sensible solution. Economically, they are not a nation either since they depend for the very everyday basics from external supplies. Their biggest fear is that we close the fence again.
They live a conflict between reality and desire so now they want to bully us into relinquishing our obligation of performing due custom inspection (since they are not part of Schengen) but their demands on the European Union have not - as expected nevertheless - been frustrating to them.
The decolonisation process you are referring to has actually never began in spite of the United Nations resolutions that urge the parties to do so. Instead, what they have done to mock. It is that they got some sort of autonomic administration by London so they are not bothered about having to answer for acts such as dumping unprocessed garbage or fuel spills to the bay or having Gibraltar and police entering homes in Spain without a warrant - all while ensuring military protection to these activities.
Gibraltar is a threat because it has nuclear weapons and harbours nuclear submarines from our fake allies. It has to be remembered that the UK has already shown its intention to violate the Treaty of Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons by threatening to use nuclear weapons on a conventional conflict against a non-nuclear state (Argentine, that even had given up its own nuclear programme).
Gibraltar is a threat because it has been a major stronghold of NATO and we may want to eventually be there. It is also a matter of principle, not only gain. We don't have to accept that the winners of the Second World can get away to breaking for ever international law. We don't have to tolerate unchecked pollution of fishing grounds, tax evasion, and smuggling etc.
So a lot is at stake. Even respect, since Gibraltar needs a lot more from Spain that we need from them and yet they refuse to cooperate with our judiciary just like the rest of Europe and the world. Today - and this is one more case of a string of cases - the Spanish police was chasing smugglers, alerted the police in Gibraltar when the smugglers headed for Gibraltar (like they always do at sea) but Gibraltar police couldn't catch them or so they say.
It is very easy for a tiny population of 30.000 to develop corrupt links and all sorts of collusions. Their pretend autonomy means that London continues to claim that we are allies, that we have all sort of major economic ties (which is unfortunately true) all while not acting against them as law would dictate.
Perhaps the judge should have recused herself. But the British should have also said so before and challenged the process law and rules in the EU. Not now. It is too late and shows that they only care about it, if it doesn't suit their interest. Has a British judge ever recused himself in any matter of their national interest versus other national interests?
Please, let me know if they ever did. Actually, judges can serve national or corporate interests than to run contrary justice and these, in turn, are not always those of their home country. Finally, why accuse a judge of partiality without analysing her ruling? That's just too unjust.
Daniel A. Jaimen Navarrete - Madrid

To Daniel A. Jaimen Navarrete - Madrid, I am disgusted with your comments. What are you going to achieve in having Gibralatr Back to Spain. Another bankrupt piece of land? As a Spanish citizen, I am truly ashamed to see Spanish citizens exhibiting this kind of behaviour.
That's why we are in the situation we are, because of people like you. Just get over it and let them be. And what's more....you should be thankful for Gibraltar as it provides 7,000 jobs to our people. Well, it is just 7,000 out of Del Paro and you dont have to pay more taxes for them to be in unemployment.
luiz gonzales - Malaga

@ Daniel A. Jaimen Navarrete - Madrid. I will not debate with you anymore as you have made your position quite clear and for some unknown reason have attempted to insult anyone who has spoken up against your views. However I would say that you have opened my eyes a little. You come across as the kid hob keeps on living in order to perpetuate more and more untruths.
It is a pity that you think the way you do because I am willing to bet you have hardly ever visited Gibraltar or the surrounding area and are blatantly speaking what has been spoon fed to you since you were young. I gauge this from what has been said by others from the area, not least the fact that Gibraltar provides work for so many Spanish people.
I suggest by having read these posts that Daniel A. Jaimen Navarrete - Madrid - is struggling to come to terms with the modern day world. He appears to be under the mistaken belief that small groups of people who have resided in a place for so long are of no consequence and only exist for his great nation to profit fom be it by financial or political gain. Let's not forget that the longer the Spanish government tells it people that little old Gibraltar poses a large threat, the easier it is for the Spanish government to keep its populous away from the real problems the country has.
I fear that Daniel A. Jaimen Navarrete - Madrid has been sold the idea by his government. What a shame. Hopefully, some of the spaniards will realise the error of their ways in the future.
Bruzon - Japan

It would appear that The moderator felt that part of my previous post was not acceptable. It is very pertinent to my point and is not intended as insulting so I will endeavour to reword it. I would respecfuly request hat the moderator print it.
I will leave the debate with this. How many people in America struggled with the concept of having those who were slaves before freed when slavery was abolished. How long did people keep their antiquated ideas regarding slavery for?
I know change would not have happened overnight. Well I would suggest after having read these posts that Daniel A. Jaimen Navarrete - Madrid is struggling to come to terms with the modern day world. He appears to be under the mistaken belief that small groups of people who have resided in a place for so long are of no consequence and only exist for his great nation to profit from be it by financial or political gain.
Let's not forget that the longer the Spanish government tells it people that little old Gibraltar poses a large threat, the easier it is for the Spanish government to keep its populous away from the real problems the country has.
I fear that Daniel A. Jaimen Navarrete - Madrid has been sold the idea by his government. What a shame. It's been more than 300 years now I think, overnight has come and gone. How long will Spain's antiquated ideology regarding Gibraltar continue for? Hopefully some of the spaniards will realise the error of their ways in the future and advise their government accordingly.
Bruzon - Japan

@Bruzon - Japan. Unfortunately, Mr Jamien's opinions are rife in Spain - and as the economical and social crisis takes hold of the country, they will increase in number and intensity. In pre-EU and NATO eras, the Spanish military would have organised a coup-d'etat in those situations. Just take a quick look at what happened early in the 20th century, or even better, in the 19th century -almost a 'pronunciamiento' or coup-d'etat a day.
Spain is going under with bankruptcy, as it has several times - even after the looting of South America.
Sorry, but I cannot find a more appropriate word to describe how a continent was depleted of such a formidable wealth in such a short period of time. So that, better to distract public opinion from the 'real problem' than face the largest unemployment figures in western Europe, for instance. My only hope is that Spain will leave the Gibraltar question and the Gibraltarians in peace; so have they voted several times to remain a GB overseas territory. I know, impossible.
Jordi Margalef - Worthing, UK

@ Bruzon. 'Insults' can be analysed in terms of two components: a descriptive one and an emotional one. The former and its truthfulness or likelihood is the one we all should be focusing on. The latter must be set aside in order to pursuit the truth.
I didn't mean to insult anyone but, in a way, I am glad I did because sometimes offending people means that an emotional lever has been activated and they get a glimpse of the moment of truth they are so afraid of. In other words, we must do our best to have society grow up and abandon group thinking.
It is also imperative - as part of that process of maturity - to address what it is actually being said and avoid immaterial references meant to discredit who says what. Too bad someone may, for example, feel insulted realising his interlocutor knows a lot more or is more intelligent. Too bad someone feels embarrassed realising he should have known better before opening his mouth.
Besides, do you really think that a tiny little defenceless looking atomic bomb by an aggressive UK - that has shown its willingness to violate the Treaty of Non Proliferation of Atomic Weapons - is not a big threat to us? Are you running away too from the issue of the pre-existing population that was forcefully displaced and expropriated by the English in Gibraltar (or the Falklands)? @ Jordi Magalef.
The 300 years of Castilian rule in South America is not the issue here. Is that the best you can come up with when discussing process law? Let it suffice to say that anyone who has studied the economic history of the western world knows that mercantilist economic theories were already discredited by the XVIII century and that gold is not the only wealth of a nation.
The New World experienced, under Spanish rule, marvelous growth. The transfer of human resources, institutions, technologies and so on cannot be paid back to Spain with 10 times the gold extracted from our domains (not colonies). The first printing press in the New World, the first universities in the New World, the first truly period of peace among warring native tribes, the first studies of comparative ethnology and the first laws ever enacted to protect exotic subjects. Not that errors weren't made but compare that to Sir Geoffrey Amherst giving smallpox infected blankets to the Amerindians to decimate them on purpose (for example).
The terrible decline of our former territories began after the independence when the local creole oligarchs allied with masonic conspiracies that answered to English lodges began their merciless exploitation of people and resources.@ Luiz Gonzales.
I very much doubt that you are a true Spanish citizen the way you spell your name, but if you are or if you are not it doesn't matter in the very least. So don't exhibit it as part of an argument. The number of people employed by Gibraltar is a drop in a bucket of water. The number of people we could employ by tackling tax evasion sheltered in Gibraltar is not. The current financial woes of Spain are serious but not structural. The low human development index or the racial and class oppression in England are.
Daniel A. Jaimen Navarrete - Madrid

Daniel A. Jaimen Navarrete - I've seen your responses in so many news articles about Gibraltar. You spout the same, tired, illogical arguments all the time in all of the threads I've seen you in. For some reason you have deluded yourself into thinking you are the intellectual superior by pontificating with flowery language. I'm not sure if you're writing in Spanish and then getting it translated online but either way it doesn't impress me. You never listen to valid arguments against your weak, antiquated regurgitations of a 300-year old treaty that would not stand the test of time in an international court today. Time doesn't stand still with international laws and treaties. Things change, old treaties become irrelevant as newer laws and treaties adjust to the modern world. It would be great if you and Spain could join the rest of us in the 21st century. I just can't believe with all the separatist movements in Spain that you have yet to deal with properly, that a couple of square miles of land attached to Spain is such painful fixation for you and the minority of Spanish that buy into this 'Gibraltar Español' nonsense. It's not just a piece of land, it's got a population with 300 yrs of history. If you had any sense you would know the right thing to do in this day and age is to let go and let these people have their God given right to self-determination.
Put your money where your mouth is and let this go to the international court in The Hague. And I don't want to hear your usual ridiculous assertion that it is "where they only find war criminals among nations that lost a war". Well buddy, that's how it works. Same as Spain's courts didn't prosecute the war crimes of Franco's military after the civil war. Only the Germans were tried for war crimes after World War II. That's what happens when you lose.
John - USA

Luis Gonzalez, it disgusts me your thinking. It is clear that Spain should improve a lot, if necessary even stage a revolution for our despicable politicians who steal. But another thing is the conflict of Gibraltar. Gibraltar, like it or not, is an insult to Spain and the Spanish. How can you justify a place where money is defrauded from Europe and many other countries of the world?
How can you justify smuggling?
Gibraltarians do not want to be be Spanish because they would end their privileged status, as maintained by England. And do not come with the excuse that there are thousands of Spanish working through Gibraltar. If you do not work in that nest of pirates - emigrate to France, Germany or where they can earn an honest living.
You also approve of the abuse by Gibraltarians of fishermen? Fishermen only seek to bring bread home. Why punish fishermen? You make me sick.
Remember that in 1815, the people of Gibraltar could have disappeared naturally - without any war - when they had a plague epidemic and the Spanish of the area had the (unfortunate) idea of ​​helping the Gibraltarians. They were thanked by the stealing of more land from the Spanish. Shame on your words.
Jose Manuel - SP

@ John - USA. Just to let you know that Gibraltarians have already self-determinated twice, in 1967 and 2006. Please correct me if I am wrong. On both occasions, the result was similar, being 90 per cent in favour of remaining a GB overseas territory.
In normal circumstances, and democratic westernised countries, that would be enough to end political or territorial claims in dispute. However, Spain is different and would not evolve.
@ Mr Jamien. Talking about displacements and barbarian behaviour around three centuries ago. How do you suddenly forget the Spanish genocide in South America towards indigenous tribes? Please do not tell me it was due to measles. And please, do not tell us that it was "a friendly meeting" of cultures.
Jordi Margalef - Worthing, UK

@ John USA. M. I am glad you mention the trials of the Germans after WWII because I tried before to post something in that regard and process law, judges recusing themselves because of their nationality etc. War crimes were committed by both sides during the Spanish Civil War so it is not proper to make politics out of crime. Franco had all of the time the support of the "western democracies" because they saw it as a barrier against a working class revolution.
It is not the first time those fake western democracies supported authoritarian regimes. Crimes against farmers are committed as we speak in Honduras by a regime born out of an American sponsored "regime change" that has overthrown an elected president. Not only that, the USA has a criminal record as a state killing journalists and minority leaders. That's not rule of law and that's not democracy. Only authoritarian mindsets hate critical thinking questioning the status quo. In others less flowery words, it is but it shouldn't be.
Totally useless to claim intellectual superiority, its better to show it. Nevertheless, since you mention it and are so keen and bent on my personal case, I can tell you that nobody could translate that fast and that my English is better than that of most natives. Similarly, it is totally useless to came back to the table with nothing better to say that "you know you are not right". Please, address what's being said if only to show that you got it. That's also how you can show how logical or illogical they are. Besides, it is mostly information and no that many inferences are involved.
Treaties and conventions may or may nor supersede what's established in previous ones depending on whether they deal with the same issue, whether they contradict them, and whether provisions and caveats are introduced to that effect. Nothing, absolutely nothing in the Convention of the Law of the Seas prevents a signing member from establishing, by way of treaty, the actual limits of their territorial waters.
Nothing in such a convention is expressly said regarding previously established limits but, includes a provision that clarifies that exceptions to the general rule by virtues of specific conditions are to be respected. Not illogical. Read it and come back here with the answer. Where in the Convention of the Law of the Sea it is said that territorial water limits override the previous agreement by two states? Besides, ecosystems know no borders today (talking about modern laws).
Daniel A. Jaimen Navarrete - Madrid

I have frequented Gibraltar on many occasion as I have Barcelona, Monaco, London and Paris. I must say that from what I have seen what Jose Manuel - SP and Daniel A. Jaimen Navarrete - Madrid have stated regarding smuggling and financial fraud is a complete and total fabrication. I have witnessed for myself the Spanish nationals, who frequent the Spanish/Gibraltar frontier and attempt to smuggle tobacco into Spain. It is not the Gibraltarians, who are doing this, it is the Spanish.
Regarding the fishing dispute, it is only there because the Spanish fishermen refuse to accept the Gibraltarian laws in their waters. Regarding the NATO in Gibraltar, I think you'll find there is a small naval base there but I believe it amounts to about two berths for a frigate and more often than not there are no ships in it.
In fact you will find more naval vessels at ROTA. You know where that is right? I do not need to demonstrate how I might or might not be intellectual enough to debate with others on this thread. However, I would suggest that anyone who states "we must do our best to have society grow up and abandon group thinking" might be looking to belong to some sort of totalitarian state.
@ Daniel - Madrid. You are right, it is important to separate the facts from the fiction and emotional baggage can have an effect on this process. Although the problem with that in this case is that it is a very emotional issue. Most of what you have stated regarding clauses in treaties may be accurate, the other things you have stated like what I've shown above are taken from reports in newspapers and websites that have a slanted, emotional and political view to them. They are not based on facts.
You say you fear a nuclear power. Err, well, if Gibraltar was to become independent - then they would not be a nuclear power would they? You say - what about those people who fled Gibraltar in 1704 to escape the British invasion? Well ok to that, I say you have a very valid point and I believe it's important that all of those who fled to Spain back then should be permitted to return to Gibraltar. I wonder how many are still alive today?
Don't even start to suggest that their relatives should be allowed be too. Those relatives are Spanish citizens, who have continued to live in Spain and I wonder how many of them would chose to be welcomed back to Gibraltar? You continue to attempt to eliminate the people of Gibraltar form the context of the issue and the bottom line is that this can't be done. The land is their home now - move on.
This does end my involvement in this debate. No doubt Daniel will have something very colourful to add. Every way I look at this issue and your arguments beside from all the legal wranglings, I can only deduce that Spain wants to win as many small cases via a vis Gibraltar in order to dilute the truth hat is there are 30,000 people - who live on a small rock that want to be permitted to manage their own affairs without a big bully like Spain constantly trying to mess them around.
Bruzon - Japan

Bruzon - Japan: 1) the Treaty of Utrecht exposes that Gibraltar has no right to territorial waters, and 2) fishers do not hurt anybody - why with Peter Caruana there were not problems? The new governor of Gibraltar has created problems just because the new government from Spain is of the PP, a political party more hard. Just remember what happened in 2000 with the nuclear submarine Tyreless.
Jose Manuel - SP

To Daniel A. Jaimen Navarrete. It is obvious from your comments that you have never actually visited Gibraltar. I understand that you are a proud Spaniard, but wouldn't it be a good idea to come and see the country that you spend so much time writing about. You will find Gibraltarians to be friendly and welcoming, even to those with different opinions to ourselves.
Stevie - Gibraltar

@Stevie. I was in Gibraltar once a long time ago, exploring certain banking options for someone I cannot disclose. I got mad because they microwaved my fish and chips. It was like going to London, you have to keep a very vigilant eye on the quality of the food they want to pass to you. I also found belligerent people - such as those in the pharmacy - coming up with uncalled for statements regarding Spain and the like. You know? I am nice too. It has nothing to do with right and wrong.
@ Bruzon. The nationality of the smugglers is not the issue. Petty tobacco smuggling is done by people from both sides. Drug smuggling is a different issue. Gibraltarians do not want to just manage their own affairs, they want to continue extracting all sort of outlandish privileges from the UK as their stalwart in a key geostrategic strait. It is not about a chimeric and illegal independence.
Juvenile delinquents take advantage of legal protection to minors as well as their extended family protection and understanding. Let me add a psychological precision. It is a matter of passion, but passion doesn't obfuscate the mind necessarily. On the contrary, it often propels the rational quest and the organised exchange of ideas. Not the same believing what doesn't hurt one's feelings or convenience than having a personal commitment to the public good of truth.
Colourful? Certainly not grey areas, just grey matter. I'll not repeat myself here. Please find sufficient rationale for the Spanish case in previous posts. May It's suffice to say that what process law and common sense dictate regarding conflicts of interests sheds light on the much broader issue of the overall legitimacy of international judicial instances post WWII - the UK is a privileged partner too.
Daniel A. Jaimen Navarrete - Madrid

Dear Jose Manuel - SP. You really disgust me and once again I am ashamed to say that I am Spanish. For your information, I do live in London - a decent country as you say because my country cannot give me a job. A job that I have studied six years for without any luck in my own country. Why? Ask yourself - why? All that stuff that you are talking about is just politics dont you think? Live your life and let others live. Get a grip.
Luiz Gonzales - Malaga

Jose Manuel - SP. Furthermore in what way does that affect you in your own personal life? Will it give you more land to play with? Get a life.
Luiz Gonzales - Malaga

I think from what has been said, any people who have visited Gibraltar will know who is stating fact and who is scaremongering.
Bruzon - Japan

@ Luiz Gonzales. I couldn't care less how much have you studied. As an employer, I wouldn't give a job to anyone who hasn't got a real education - not a degree. In other words, simple minds that remain simple minds in spite of stacking information and professional pretenses. At least you got from the Spanish public education system such an education and the UK didn't pay for it.
Those who aren't grateful aren't well born. If you are Spanish, you need to be stripped of your Spanish citizenship and join the ranks of the racially and socially discriminated in Britain.
Daniel A. Jaimen Navarrete - Madrid

Mr. Navarette, you must be well remunerated by Spain or else you would not be writing on this site as often as you do. What are you trying to achieve here? Let me tell you something, Spain hasn't got what it takes to close the land frontier and even if she did so - it is not in her interest. Spain gets more goodies from the EEC than any other European country does.
No matter what you say, we will never surrender to Spain. You don't know what the Gibraltarians are made off. Francisco Franco tried it once by closing the land frontier for 16 years and he failed in his attempt. He did not succeed. We have being bullied by Spain for the last 300 years, so another 300 years will make no different. We can take it.
Tom Gibraltar

In fact, the dictator Francisco Franco died trying to acquire the rock. He completely failed. It seems to me that those who share his opinions will also share his destiny.
John - Gibraltar

Now we know why Daniel A.Jaimen Navarrete wants to wipe Gibraltar off the map of the world. A long time ago, a Gibraltarian was rude to him in the pharmacy.
George - UK

Entrants from all countries to Schengen-Spain have to seek permission to enter before leaving their own country and the UK and Ireland accept this as normal. Both countries have been warned by Brussels that they cannot impose the same conditions to arrivals from any fellow EU country, Schengen or otherwise. This rule does not apply for entry to any other Schengen or other EU country. Arrivals in Spain from Schengen countries do not have to comply with Spanish law/EU directive. So why can't UK not use this to 'bargain' with Spain?
Noel O Cainte - SCHENGEN FOR IRELAND

Daniel Jaimen Navarrette - you insist that all waters around Gibraltar belong to Spain. Do you have any legal opinion to back this up? Say, a statement, opinion or newspaper article from a lawyer. For example, an expert in international maritime law - who has studied this case and states clearly that the waters belong to Spain? I can provide such an opinion for you. Stating otherwise, of course.
David - Gibraltar

@ David - I would like to see that opinion to bolster my own arguments, How can I access it matey?
John - Gibraltar

John - it is not a legal opinion per se, but an interview in a newspaper. The interesting thing is the person whose opinion it is. He is Jesus Verdu Baeza, professor of international law - head of the Law Department at Cadiz University. He is an internationally-renowned expert in maritime law and resident of Algeciras. I think, personally, that his opinion carries some value: more than Daniel's anyway.
Anonymous identity

Ah - the link got stripped. It was in diariosur.es and the article was entitled "Las interrogantes de Utrecht" - it will come up on Google.
David - Gibraltar

Shameful. Just one question to this Spanish judge. Do you believe that Gibraltar is Spanish? We all know the answer. Then she should not be allowed to decide or even get involved in this case. On top of this she is also involved in two separate appeals - one from the government of Gibraltar and the other from the UK government - on the same case, and of course the appeal this thrown out on 'technical grounds'. What a joke of a court.
Anonymous

Yeah, Spain ceded Gibraltar in perpetuity but if Britain left Gibraltar for example - the so-called Gibraltarian self-determination Gibraltar will be back automatically to Spain once again. The Utrecht Tratacy says also this.
Xanti - Gibraltarianliars