Brexit consequences

Tony.Williams
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 8:05 am
Location: Still somewhere in England
Contact:

Re: Brexit consequences

Post by Tony.Williams »

Yet another unintended consequence.

Johnson might end up spending a fortune on his favoured Scotland to Northern Ireland Bridge only to find it is connecting two independent EU countries.

On the subject of Spain and Gibraltar, I do think the Spanish have a nerve pressing for the "decolonisation" of Gibraltar while insisting that their own African enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla are completely different. In fact, the UK has a stronger claim to Gib than Spain has to C&M as we occupy Gib in accordance with an international treaty, signed by Spain. As I understand it, Spain's occupation of C&M has no such legal backing.

chaggle
Posts: 2571
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 10:01 am

Re: Brexit consequences

Post by chaggle »

What they say about Ceuta and Melilla (and few other lesser but similar possessions) is that they were Spanish before Morocco even existed.

I don't know if it's true, nor if it makes any difference to the legalities.
Don't blame me - I voted remain :con

Tony.Williams
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 8:05 am
Location: Still somewhere in England
Contact:

Re: Brexit consequences

Post by Tony.Williams »

https://www.theweek.co.uk/94326/ceuta-a ... -in-africa
History
The port town of Ceuta and its larger sister city Melilla sit around 250 miles apart on the Mediterranean coast of Africa, and their Spanish past traces back more than 400 years.

For centuries, Ceuta and Melilla were vital port cities, offering protection for Spanish ships and acting as trading posts between Europe and Africa. In the 1930s, Spanish troops garrisoned in the two cities played a major role in future dictator Francisco Franco’s uprising against their government.

When Morocco gained independence in 1956, following more than four decades of rule by Spain and France, Spain refused to include Ceuta and Melilla in the handover.

Sovereignty issues
Madrid asserts that both territories are integral parts of Spain and have the same status as the semi-autonomous districts on its mainland, such as the Basque and Catalan regions.

However, Morocco has made numerous claims to the territories since gaining independence. In 2002, the dispute turned violent after a small group of Moroccan soldiers set up camp on the Spanish-controlled Parsley Island, 200 metres off the coast of mainland Morocco. They were forcefully removed by the Spanish navy, in a clash that heightened tensions between the two countries.

Spanish King Juan Carlos angered Moroccans by visiting Melilla in 2007. The infuriated then-Moroccan prime minister Abbas El Fassi said: “We would like to remind everyone that the two cities form an integral part of Moroccan soil and their return to their homeland will be sought through direct negotiations with our neighbour Spain.”

Morocco’s King Mohammad VI even briefly recalled his ambassador to Madrid in protest over the Spanish king’s visit to the “occupied territories”, the Daily Express adds.
The main point seems to be the significance (or otherwise) of geography vs history. Geographically, C&M are obviously African, although occupied by Spain for centuries by force, rather than by treaty. Similarly, Gib is geographically attached to Spain, although occupied by the UK for over 300 years by treaty (and by force). In addition, Gib residents vote in favour of UK rather than Spain by about 98%. So the rights of the Gibs are an additional factor - self-determination vs national claims. Ironically, I suspect that the UK would instantly transfer Gib to Spain if the residents voted in favour, just as they would transfer the Falklands to Argentina in the same circumstances. I can't see Spain doing the same over C&M...

Matt
Posts: 972
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 7:50 pm

Re: Brexit consequences

Post by Matt »

Shaping up to be an entertaining Rock Opera.
Didn't Gibraltar vote something like 97% remain?

Post Reply