Well, Spain has more than 7 "worthy vessels": 1 LHD (use as aircraft carrier), 2 LPD and 11 frigates (5 Alvaro de Bazan and 6 Santa Maria) and 3 submarines = 17 ships... Great Britain has 2LPD, 2LHD (use as raft carriers), 18 frigates and destroyers (Duke and Daring) and 11 submarines = 33 ships. I think both navies are some equality in surface and the british naval dominance came from the submarines. I think it´s impossible the war between GB and Sp... (the same possibility than between Russia and Austria) the spanish-british wars.. belong to the past....but as simple intellectual game...like a "war game"... what would it be? I think GB is more likely to win although it wouldn´t be Falklands..Clearly the nuclear submarines (Trafalgar and Astute class) are the biggest problem for Spain. First, they would act to ensure the dominance of the sea overrulling the enemy. Facing them, Spain only has 3 Diesel submarines (S70). Althought the Diesel submarines can be very elusive, they have the the disadvantage of limited range as any SSK, and beside need to recharge the batteries, being easier to be detected. This one may be a problem and depend on the water level in which they operate. The british SSN lack of this handicap and they can quickly place (always they provide enough depth to not cavitate), I think the spaniards would use their diesel submarines in enclosed areas instead of try and following the British SSN. I think the best place for the Spanish submarines would be Gibraltar area and Gulf of Cadiz. However, the Atlantic coast and the Canary island would be less appropiate. To follow the british SSN the most appropiate system are the aircrafts...but Spain has only very limited means in ASW: only 6 P3 Orion. The navy has 12 ASW helicopters: SH60, very good but limited range. Therefore, I think Gibraltar is untenable from a military point of views. The Spanish army would take the position in hours (no matter whether the garrison resists or not) and I think the best choice for the British Expeditionary Force is not to get into the Algesiras Bay.. a black pitch...Royal Navy would be exposed to all kind of artillery, heavy guns, mines, torpedoes, anti-ship missiles etc... a butcher with the spaniards supported on the coast and helped by the Air force.. more missiles and bombs (50 Typhoon and 86 F-1... I think Algesiras would be like Suvla Bay. The best chance for the BEF would be (I think), to land in one island in Canary. It not easy but possible (T42/T45).. the british missile Aster 30 could face the Spanish air force in the Islands..and depend how much reforced would be the Canary garrison...The best chance: To conquest Hierro and negotiate the return in exchange for Gibraltar... War would be very different than It was in Falkland in 1982. A different enemy, a different scenario. And now, the reality: War between Spain and Britain are over... only in History books...We are in Internet times... EU and NATO... Drake or Alejandro Farnesio belong to the past...the days spaniards and brititsh fought in Mississippi, Flanders or Panama... are very depth in the past... regards.
Alright 7 Frigates which may be a credible threat to the RN. The 6 destroyers are not due to inferior armament. Also their radar systems are vastly inferior to the RN which is modern naval warfare is critical. Those Agosta submarines are also obsolete. Once the escorts for a helicopter carrier or landing ship are sunk then those can easily be destroyed. Ultimately a full scale war would be impossible. But this is a hypothetical scenario. I agree although the s70's that Spain has ordered are still under construction and would have to rely upon the Agosta subs. Also the T45's would likely shoot down any Spanish ASW planes as they have an enormous radar range. I do agree with the last part. Gibraltar would be indefensible courtesy of the causeway. Likely outcome for the garrison would be surrender with limited action by British troops. I also agree that Britain would likely go for the Canarias. Although if the war went for more than say 10 days then I think that the RN would engage in a blockade. But ultimately it would depend on sinking the Frigates. Well I'm wholly against the EU and the vast majority of Britons are sick of it as well but that's another issue. Strictly speaking Britain never went to Panama although there was a raid by Henry Morgan. And yes full scale war is very much unlikely. Btw welcome to the forum and thank you for your input.
I don't give a damn what the USA says. It wants Britain to say in the EU for ITS benefit, not Britain's. When we have the EU in/out referendum it'll be the British people who decide, not the USA. This is a democracy. And the USA's biggest ally is Britain, most certainly not the anti-American EU.
I can see that this will be an endless line of non-productive posts about how what I write can be interpreted, which is entirely off topic. Count me out. Life is too short for that. I'll take in a week or and so and see if the thread is back on topic.
Thanks pro-Consul I see we´ve similar views about the development of the conflict. About Panama more than Morgan, I meant the admiral Vernon´s ill fated campaign begun with a success in Portobello (Panama) in 1739. The issue in Gibraltar will last long time (sometime more intenses and other times off) because the main question is Britain demms its own water, and Spain doesn´t accept any kind of british water in Algesiras bay. I think there are three issues: 1,.- Ownership of water 2.- The sovereignty 3.- The Neutral Zone occupied by GB. All depends of point views.. but there are very difficult questions: 1.- Treaty of Utrecht not only didn´t give the waters but not even the Sovereignty, The treay was written in three language: Spanish (first version), Latin and English. I´ve consulted the Spanish and English versions. The origin of the British presence in Gibraltar is in Article 10 or X ... in it the King Catholic transfers ownership of Gibraltar but not sovereignty (ie Gibraltar will be owned by the British Queen not as sovereign, but as owner) .. sovereignty will remain the King Catholic: until it appeared the popular sovereignty with the U.S., the Kings could be territorial´s sovereign or owners depending if they had jurisdiction or not. The text in Spanish: El Rey Católico por sí y por sus herederos y sucesores cede por este tratado a la corona de la Gran Bretaña la plena y entera propiedad de la ciudad y del castillo de Gibraltar, juntamente con su puerto, defensa y fortalezas que le pertenecen, dando la dicha propiedad absolutamente para que la tenga y goce con entero derecho y para siempre The Text in English: The Catholick King does hereby, for himself, his Heirs and successors, yield to the Crown of Great Britain, the full and intire Propiety of the Town and Castle of Gibraltar, togehter with the Port, Fortifications and Forts, thereunto belonging; and he gives up the said Propiety, to be held and enjoyed absolutely, with all manner of Right for ever... Remarkable property is transmitted (not sovereignty) and is limited to the Rock (not the isthmus, which is outside, show the same British maps until the twentieth century). And besides, the Utrecht text confirms this one: The Text in Spanish: Quiere el Rey Católico y supone que así se ha de entender, que la dicha propiedad se ceda a la Gran Bretaña sin jurisdicción alguna territorial y sin comunicación alguna abierta con el país vecino The text in English: The Catholick King Wills, and takes it to be undestood, that the above named Propiete be yielded to Great Britain, without any Territorial Jurisdiction and without any open comunication by the Land with the Contry round about. So there was never any transfer of sovereignty to the King of Great Britain .. only transfer of ownership (such as Jersey and Guernersey). It was specified that it had no jurisdiction over the territory.... The Queen of Great Britain, France and Hibernian is the owner.. but the juridisction belongs to the "Catholick King" like it was written in XVIII century english language. So, nowadays,for the Spanish government in 1713 didn´t give any kind of Gibraltar territorial waters, but never ceded sovereignty (Jurisdiction). And so, the Queen of Great Britain (France and Hibernian) is not sovereign in Gibraltar but owner ... and an owner lacks sovereignty. And therefore can not have territorial waters (the 10th article is very clear, belongs to King Catholic´s Jurisdiction). The Spanish government claims that it is impossible for an owner who has no "Jurisdiction" to have "juridisdictional water"... So... what will happen? Easy.. British will do a fait accompli politic and Spaniards won´t accept than politic.. I'm afraid I will not be respected British waters unless someone shows the Catholic King´s signature in some text, because Spain denies the existence of British waters in Gibraltar.. not even British Jurisdiction. I hope next day to write about the Neutral zone (it didn´t exist in Utrech but later) and finally a reasonable solution for both parties. Regards.
Tabora wrote: I'd like to know the source of your translations, please. Of course, there are the sources: You can read the Treaty of Utrecht: In Spanish: http://books.google.es/books?id=ers...ource=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false (you must go to article 10º on page 78 in that book). The title of the book is: Tratados de paz y de comercio (desde el año de 1700 hasta el día) por don Alejandro del Cantillo (Madrid, 1843). An in English: http://archive.org/stream/compleathistory01fregoog#page/n578/mode/2up (you must put the markerr on page 579/623) So you can read the X article The tittle of the book: The compleat history of the treaty of Utrecht (London, 1715). Regards
Article by W.L.Chamberland published on the VOX Newspaper May I pray indulgence of the learned amongst us and analyse the so called Article x of Utrecht which even in the 21st Century the Spaniards cling to because they have no other comfort. First let me remind all and sundry of the wording, ‘and in case it shall hereafter seem meet to the Crown of Great Britain to grant, sell, or by any means to alienate therefrom the propriety of the said town of Gibraltar, it is hereby agreed and concluded that the preference of having the same shall always be given to the Crown of Spain before any others.' The logic behind this would appear even in those days when people were mere chattels to be sold and bartered that it cannot under any stretch of the imagination mean the British inhabitants in situ at any time, however it must have meant that Britain could not offer it for example to the Moors who had held it for a longer period that even the Spaniards, therefore the insistence of its return to Spain does not and never has held water, thus the reason why they steer clear of Courts of Law. Another very important aspect is that of Article vi, which states, quote - His Catholic Majesty does hereby enter into a solemn undertaking that He shall henceforth never commit any act of hostility against Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain nor any of Her line who do succeed her. This is absolutely laughable because it was as a result of Her Majesty's visit to Gibraltar that Franco reacted, so much for treaty assurances. There are other peaches of articles none other than Articles ii and xiv, these are the ones dealing with the correct line of succession to the Spanish Throne, again after 294 years they still have not got it right, in fact they have from day one been meddling with this to the extent that since 1713 they have had non-Savoy aspirants, a Bonaparte, two republics one semi military committee, the only legal aspirant according to Article ii i.e Amadeo the one who threw the Crown into the sea, a dictatorship and restoration ad lib of the ‘Boubons' fraternity to suit the occasion. Article xv, that is the one that allowed Basque fishermen to operate of Newfoundland, and when Canada ,rightly dug her toes in, Britain sided with them, where was Utrecht to the Mandarins at the Foreign Office, the same who still swear by Utrecht when it comes to Gibraltar. Article xiii is the one that grants the people of Catalonia all the same rights as those of the two Castilles, to which Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain does intercede on their behalf, where were the Mandarins when Franco even prohibited the use of the Catalan language?. All these clauses are in Utrecht so why no reaction but only when Spain foolishly insists on Article x. We have been told before that we cannot take action against Spain at the ICJ because Gibraltar, although the sufferers were not signatories but as a question for debate would it not be a much more profitable exercise if instead of spending so much money on entertaining, after all some only come for the beer and others for the jolly, we engaged a top firm of International Lawyers and took the Spaniards to the European Court of Justice and before some start shouting foul because we have to move with the times, think honestly who are living in the past and flouting each and every International Treaty or Convention signed after 1713 and to date not show where in these documents it states, ‘not applicable to Gibraltar because of Utrecht.'[/B] http://www.llanito.net/utrecht.htm ***************************************************************** In my opinion The "Gibraltar Chronicle" 29th October 2001 You don't have to be a university graduate to realise how futile and weak the Spanish argument is regarding the so-called section of the isthmus linking Gibraltar to the Iberian Peninsula that Britain is alleged to have usurped from Spain. With the view to clearing up once and for all the doubts that exist in the minds of Spanish politicians and apparently now also in the minds of some British politicians, it is extremely important that we look and keep on looking at the 1st Paragraph of Art. X of the Treaty of Utrecht: "THE CATHOLIC KING DOES HEREBY FOR HIMSELF, HIS HEIRS AND SUCCESSORS, YIELD TO-THE CROWN OF GREAT BRITAIN THE FULL AND ENTIRE PROPERTY (i.e. OWNERSHIP) OF THE TOWN AND CASTLE OF GIBRALTAR, TOGETHER WITH THE PORT, FORTIFICATIONS AND PORTS THEREUNTO BELONGING; AND GIVES UP THE SAID PROPERTY TO BE HELD AND ENJOYED ABSOLUTELY WITH ALL MANNER OF RIGHT FOR EVER, WITHOUT EXCEPTION" In order to understand and make an impartial judgement as to the letter and spirit of the Treaty of Utrecht it is very important that we consider what was the physical layout of the land linking the Rock to the Iberian Peninsula. What did it look like geographically at the time the Treaty of Utrecht was signed in 1713? From the North Face of the Rock to the outskirts of San Roque the whole area was virtually uninhabited. There were no such places as La Linea de La Concepcion, La Atunara, Campamento, El Puente, etc. On the other hand, there already existed gardens and orchards in the isthmus together with at least two extremely important landmarks. La Torre del Diablo and El Molino, later known as El Molino de Los Genoyeses; these were defence posts used to protect Gibraltar against possible Spanish attacks. Apart from these few distinctive features the whole area between Gibraltar and San Roque was just a stretch of land with virtually nothing on it. The Spanish Red Book (El Libro Rojo Espanol) published by the Spanish Foreign Ministry and presented to the Spanish Courts by Don. Fernando Maria Castiella, was Madrid's answer to the White Paper published by the British Government in April 1965 dealing with the question of Gibraltar and the Treaty of Utrecht. For years now much of the Spanish media and certainly the Madrid central government have been using all the means at their disposal to demonstrate that the piece of land known as the Isthmus is Spanish sovereignty. In an attempt to justify this claim, which in my view cannot be legally justified, the Spanish daily ABC, back in 1966, published an article about Gibraltar and had the cheek to include a current aerial photograph of the isthmus showing the very important landmark of the Molino de los Genoveses virtually in the middle of our runway instead of in its rightful place which is where our frontier fence now is in the area to the west. "Who do you think you're kidding Mr Hitler" (Dad's Army)!!! The heartbreaking fact is, that whereas we know that they are living in a fantasy world if they think they can prove that the isthmus is theirs, they seem to be succeeding in convincing those British Parliamentarians who are supposed to be our friends. The Spanish Libro Rojo which contains 545 pages of documents and arguments which are supposed to prove their case, is full of contradictions and inaccuracies which were clearly highlighted by my late father Luis Francis Bruzon in his book "La Roca" published in 1967. In it he explains that the Spanish Libro Rojo produces a map, a very useful map for us, and this time accurate ! showing the famous Molino in its rightful place i.e. where-our frontier fence now stands in the area north of western beach. The absolute relevance of all this is that when the Treaty of Utrecht mentions the town, port, fortifications and FORTS thereunto belonging...well one of those Forts is the Molino which as I explained earlier became known as El Molino de los Genoveses because a number of Genoese people from whom some Gibraltarian families are descended, planted fruit trees and vegetables in the area. The official Spanish translation very conveniently leaves out the 's' implying that the only fort that was ceded to Britain was La Torre del Diablo situated in the area of Devil's Tower Road. Well we know that more than one fort was ceded to Britain and one of them was El Molino de los Genoveses. The official Latin and French texts of the Treaty both show the word in the plural and not in the singular. Let me hasten to add, by way of a short breather, that a contemporary historian observed that Spain did not attach much value to Gibraltar until she lost it forever! One could use many arguments to show that Britain never "usurped" a section of the isthmus as is suggested by Spain but it would be outside the scope of this article to go into more detail now. Spain protests against Britain having erected an iron fence back in 1909. The truth is that soon after 1713 and definitely not later than 1726, British soldiers used to patrol the area from east to west where our frontier now stands. After The Great Siege which ended in 1783 the British Line became once again clearly defined and this time ONCE AND FOR ALL. An interesting historical observation is that at the signing of the Treaty of Versailles that same year Britain returned Minorca to Spain and the Treaty of Utrecht was confirmed. We know, and anyone who cares to look closely at Art. X of the Treaty of Utrecht, will know, that the substance of the agreement is contained in the first paragraph quoted above and that most of what follows, if not everything, was ad-ded to avoid further embarrassment to the Spanish King and to make the blow of Spain's loss a little less hard for the Spanish people. The reason why Spain is reluctant to test the Treaty of Utrecht in a court of law is because the points mentioned after paragraph one could not conceivably be put forward in such a modern court and win the case for Spain. Just consider for a moment the mention in that part of the Treaty that states that Jews are not allowed to reside in Gibraltar. Well I can tell you that I have many Jewish friends whom I admire and respect; some of them work relentlessly with me in THE VOICE OF GIBRALTAR GROUP, others are my neighbours from Alameda House, yes, I respect and admire them. But to think that a Treaty that contains such a statement is being used by Britain and Spain to deprive the people of Gibraltar of the rights they are fully entitled to within Europe is an abomination and is outright disgraceful. It would be childish for me to suggest that if ever Britain were to relinquish its 'ownership' of Gibraltar, Spain would be the first in line to put in her 'claim' but all she would get would be the. town because that is all that is mentioned in the last sentence; she wouldn't get the port and she certainly wouldn't get the isthmus !! Well, according to the Spanish interpretation of Art. X the isthmus was never ceded to the British Crown, so it doesn't belong to Britain 'to give away' !! Who does THE ISTHMUS belong to then? It belongs to me Charles Bruzon and to the THIRTY THOUSAND PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN GIBRALTAR. THE ISTHMUS IS NEITHER SPAIN'S TO CLAIM NOR BRITAIN'S TO GIVE AWAY. And the AIR above it is ours and it is European and it must form part of THE SINGLE EUROPEAN SKIES. P.S. The Bruzon family, you must know, is of Genoese descent, and how I would dearly love to be able to prove that one of those orchards close to the MOLINO DELOS GENOVESES belonged to one of my forefathers! http://www.gibnet.com/library/vog1.htm
Codswallop and poppycock. What about the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea? Any sovereign territory has the legal right to an EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone). Therefore, Gibraltar has every legal right to self determination and its EEZ according to the UN (of which Spain is a signatory). Spain has absolutely no legal right to Gibraltar (per Treaty or Utrecht) and absolutely no legal right to the waters around it (per The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea - UNCLOS).
Mr Sixteen String Jack Have you read the treaty of Utrecht? The Catholic King gave the ownershiip, nor the sovereign... But if you have found the treaty where the Catholic King gave the sovereign to the Queen of Great Britain, France and Hibernian...Would you please write the source? Because It´s not Utrecht. Spanish and English text (Utrecht) are very significant in this aspect. About the journalistic articles I´m trying to write tomorrow about them. One: In Utrecht the Catholic King gave ownership to the British Queen... however by the same time gave the sovereignty to Habsburg family´s Austrian branch... in the Low Countries (From Spanish Low Countries to Austrian Low Countries)... in XVIII century there was a different between Sovereignty and Property (No Jurisdiction, like it´s showed by Utrecht). and British deputies signed Utrecht. Regards
Excuse me, I forgot it United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea? Any sovereign territory If Gibraltar lack os soverignty... It´s not possible to be affected by the Law of the Sea.. The matter is the Sovereign.. and Utrecht is very clear (both Spanish and British texts). Regards
I've tried to find a copy of the text of the treaty of Versailles of 1783 in vain. Which from initial research seems to override the Utrecht treaty. I must admit I was not fully aware of Admiral Vernon. But I don't profess perfection in my passion for history. If the port was ceded then would it not also come with water as well. After all is it a port if it is unable to tender ships? Sovereignty: Well Gibraltar is a part of Britain and the Queen is their sovereign. Even if this issue is valid by de jure it is not by de facto. From what I've read about the neutral zone that Spain also expanded into it by it's incorporation into La Linea. A reasonable solution was presented to Spain. That being a referendum regarding joint ownership. The result was 99% in favour of the status quo.
Any action has a reaction, if they cannot behave themselves don't be surprised when you get your butts kicked. You might not of noticed, but Spain has no need to be reasonable when your politicians are being obnoxious. Regards Highlander
Perhaps if they hadn't built the concrete reef, there wouldn't be a problem......but it takes away the need to talk about the genocide being perpetrated on the Syrians by uk and us mercenaries. Ooh. And we won't talk of the chemical weapons those same mercenaries are using on unarmed men women and children. Highlander
The reef was laid down by the Gibraltarian government and not the one at home. The UN law of the sea permits Gibraltar's actions. The Syrian civil war has no validity in this matter. I'd ask you to refrain from attempts to merge the Syrian conflict into the Anglo-Spanish dispute over Gibraltar. Unless of course, you have something more relevant to say.
Perhaps if they hadn't built the concrete reef, there wouldn't be a problem Exactly.. It has been Gibraltar who has begun the current little crisis. The UN law of the sea permits Gibraltar's actions. No, Gibraltar lack of sovereign rights nor by Utrecht, Seville or any treaty... not even its under British one, only british queen´s ownership... Utrecht is very clear. Till 2006, it never was a problem... Gibraltar used the Sea, and spanish fishermen worked near Rock, like allways in the last 2.000 year (Baelo Claudia)...But from 2.006, Gibraltar seeks to control water that was never belonged. Nobody cares if the Rock is british, but the water is different. The Gibraltar´s claims are unacceptables... Nowhere a Property has "Jurisdiction" about waters never has been british, nor by Utrecht nor by any treaty. I think the solution is is to come back to previous Status Quo. Everybody uses the water and nobody claims nothing. Gibraltar has broken the status quo.. the concrete reef, whose only purpose is to expand the territory of Gibraltar, should be remove. One they remove the concrete reef and fishermen come back to fish... the crisis will be over... Nobody cares Gibraltar. It´s a legal British Queen´s ownership. The Gibraltar Chronicle is wrong when is written: above and that most of what follows, if not everything, was ad-ded to avoid further embarrassment to the Spanish King and to make the blow of Spain's loss a little less hard for the Spanish people.… "Spanish people", like "British People", "Swedish people" or "XVIII Century people" didn´t care anything what a King did. In XVIII Century, The kingdoms were Kings´personal properties. the concept of citizenship appears only with the American Revolution so until that momment, Politics was only interested by social elites (King, princes, nobility, high clergy and some rich bourgeois) .. So, to say it was a formal appeal is wrong. In the Ancient Régime separated between Sovereignty (Jurisdiction) and property .. As in Alsace since the Peace of Münster (164, where the german princes had the property over the land but the Soverignty passe to le Roi tres Chrétien (The king of France). Besides the Catholic King had passed Soverign Rights other times... Wasn´t it "embarassment to Spainsh King" then? The Catholic King (or King of Spain) transfered his Sovereign Right to the Dutchmen (Seven Province: Netherland) in the Peace of Münster (1648, 65 years before utrecht), He transfered the Soverign Righst to Portugal (Why not the Propety like in Gibraltar case? Maybe wasn´t it "an embarassment" to give the independence to Portugal? (Treaty of Lisbon, 1668, 45 years before Utrecht). Further, the King of Spain transfered the Soverign Right over Jamaica to the King of England.. the "Soverign" (not only the "Property" like in Gibraltar) in the Treaty of Madrid, 1670 (43 years before Utrecht) and finally, in Rastadt, one year after Utrecht, the Catholick King ceded the Soverign Righst over the Low Countries and the Spanish Possesions in Italy to the Habsburg´s Family´s Austrian branch, and the kingdom of Sicilia also was transfered (with the Jurisdiction) to Savoy Family. So It´s is absolutely clear that the Catholic King didn´t ceded the Sovereignty of Gibraltar because he didn´t want ... and the British delegation had no objection, no reservation, no problem. Regards
This also means that access to the waters surrounding Gibraltar can be used by Britain. I have found the treaty of 1783. Article VIII http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...ce=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false This means that if any territories conquered by Britain prior to said treaty should be returned. If Gibraltar has no British sovereignty then it would of been returned. Also as Gibraltar had been turned over to the crown it does also mean that is a sovereign territory. This is affirmed by Gibraltar's head of state being QEII.
You obviously don't see why the media places importance on a reef when. Here mercenaries are committing genocide. But that aside, if the government does something it's with tacit agreement with the British government. Hey presto, there actions cause a reaction. Highlander
I'm sorry but I really do fail to see how this relates to this topic. If you want to talk about Syria or the nature of British media coverage then go ahead. But not here. Their. It is actually a little confusing.
1) It's in Gibraltarean waters, not Spanish waters, and the Gibraltareans have every right to build such a reef in their waters; 2) You fail to mention the many, many similar reefs built by the Spanish along the Spanish coast.
Why? By building one reef similar to the hundreds that the Spanish have built around their coastline, a reef which will prevent just ONE Spanish fishing boat from raking the seabed, which is an ILLEGAL fishing method anyway?
Hi Pro-consul, Yes, I´ve read Versailles Treaty. Gibraltar wasn´t named in the treaty because British delegation denied to talk about Gibraltar. Spanish delegation pressented several offers: Belice in change for Gibraltar, Oran (now in Argelia) for Gibraltar and Caracas and Puerto Rico in change for Gibraltar... but Spain didn´t yield the Gibraltar´s sovereign rights in Versailles.. In fact, Versailles treaty was signatured by the Catholick King wiith it´s long title, between them: King of Algeciras and King of Gibraltar. Maybe to demonstrate that he was the sovereign king in Gibraltar. Sixteen String Jack, 1) It's in Gibraltarean waters, not Spanish waters, and the Gibraltareans have every right to build such a reef in their waters; Do you have the evidence? A secret treaty? a Catholick King´s affidavit yielding waters and sovereignty? In what year? 1793 during the British Spanish alliance against the Revolutionary France? 1808 during the alliance against Napoleon? 1833? 1898? 1914? Maybe in 1936? 1939? Don´t waste your time. Don´t find it. And do you know why? Because it doesn´t exist. Because it never existed. So, without sovereignty, they aren´t entitled to built reefs in Spanish waters. The solution is to come back to the Status Quo that violated Gibraltar. It has worked for centuries. The British use water without any problems and Spaniards keep fishing in Gibraltar... like always. one reef similar to the hundreds that the Spanish have built around their coastline You are right.. Spanish waters... Spain doesn´t built reefs in Cornwall.. I think... Spanish fishing boat from raking the seabed, which is an ILLEGAL fishing method anyway? In Spanish waters only is illegal what´s declared by Spanish laws.. like in British waters only is illegal which established in British law, isn´t it? Spanish fishing boat from raking the seabed, which is an ILLEGAL fishing method anyway? Spanish boats are fishing in the Algeciras bay from 2.000, maybe 2.500 years ago? and there are still fish in 2013.. without reef...If they broke the laws, they´re fine. By other way, What do they do in Gibraltar against smuggling, drug trafficking, money laundering etc etc? The solution to this little crisis is to come back to the previous Status Quo . Gibraltar removes the reef and all this nonsense will be over. Regards
The google books link I listed in my previous post indicates that the signature were laid down by first minister Jose Monino. The signature simply states "I the King" With Monino's signature written beneath. Could you provide a link to your source? Btw it might be easier for you if you use the reply button on the lower right corner. That way I'll be notified of a reply.
