You're on crack, right?. You must be kidding, Ceuta and Melilla both are already spanish "authonomic" cities. How come that they aree "campaigning for autonomy for years" when they've been autonomous since 1977?
Sorry, my mistake.
I remember reading in the early ninties about demos in Ceuta, and I thought the issue hadn't been resolved.
It was, Ceuta was granted autonomy in 1995 (not 77)
The question about the Basques remains.
Since the founding of the caliphate of Cordoba, Gibraltar was SPANISH. The Caliphate of Cordoba was a SPANISH ARAB KINGDOM. BUt it was a --spanish-- kingdom (which at its peak hold 85% of the iberian peninsule, just FYI). Clear?. So the "foreign" arab ownership of Gibraltar was some mere dozens of years.
No, it wasn't a Spanish kingdom. It started out being ruled from Damascus, became a single Caliphate over much of what is now Spain, split up into many smaller kingdoms, which were gradually conquered by the Spanish, and which ended up as several Spanish kingdoms. These only became Spain much later.
Previous to the Arabs holding Gibraltar there were a helluva iberians, celts, hispanic romans, and spanish visigodes (or however they are called, I don't care), but you seem to forget about it.
Shit, so the Romans have a prior claim? The Romans built a town where I live, they can't come and claim it back, can they?
Ridiculous, isn't it, going back hundreds of year to who was there first, when the people there now are what really matter.
nashwhan, read the aftermath of my translation of the treaty article X. I talk about the moors not being allowed into gibraltar, but if Spain wishes NOT to enforce this point, it could very well be allowed. So dont use demagogy because it leads nowhere for you.
You keep leaving out the Jews, they are supposed to be excluded as well (I know, I know, demagogoy)
The point isn't wether Spain chooses to enforce that or not, it's that such things are not enforceable at all. You cannot have a treaty from several hundred years ago defining the rights of people in the modern world.
BUT THEY ARE NOT THE HOLDERS OF THE SOVEREINGTY OF THE ROCK ITSELF!. The British have neither the sovereingty over that piece of land, neither ANY KIND OF JURISDICTION over it. Clear?
Leaving aside the modern treaties Spain and the UK have signed up to, that mean the people of Gib are entitled to self determination, and self government, no it's still not clear.
You mistranslated part of the treaty when you posted it:
The Catholic King does hereby, for Himself, His heirs and successors, yield to the Crown of Great Britain the full and intire propriety of the Town and Castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging; and He gives up the said propriety,
to be held and enjoyed absolutely with all manner of right for ever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever. But that abuses and frauds may be avoided by importing any kinds of goods, the Catholic King wills, and takes it to be understood, that the abovenamed propriety be yielded to Great Britain without any territorial jurisdiction, and without any open communication by land with the country round about.
Gibraltar is ceeded with all manner of rights forever.
The next part seems to be implying no territorial juristiction over the surrounding area, not Gib itself.
But that abuses and frauds may be avoided by importing any kinds of goods, the Catholic King wills, and takes it to be understood, that the abovenamed propriety be yielded to Great Britain without any territorial jurisdiction, and without any open communication by land with the country round about
The sentence begins by defining the rest of it as measures to prevent smuggling into Spain.
So the "without territorial jurisdiction" part seems most likely to be reffering to territorial waters around the rock, not to the rock itself.
Like I said, it's a moot point, because the treaty has been superceeded by more treaties, but even 200 odd years ago it didn't say what you want it to say.
