Future of Gibraltar.
Kenny
understanding more and getting a 'feel' for Gibraltar.
I was hoping to setup an offshore entity on the rock in the near
future but am seriously concerned about trying to assess the
probability and time-span in which Gibraltar might become part of
Spain.
Having lived and operated from Tenerife since 1989, in my humble
opinion, if the UK 'gives away' Gibraltar to the Spanish this will be
a disaster for any foreign residents of the rock. It will constitute a
betrayal of the British people, and make a mockery of the lives lost
fighting the Falklands and the IRA for thirty years, i.e., why didn't
we just 'give them' what they wanted and save a lot of time, money and
above all, many innocent lives.
Because 'the rock' can be 'given away' relatively bloodlessly, all
principals suddenly become the subject of 'workarounds' and
'diplomatic solutions' for a problem that should not have been allowed
to gain prominence in the first place.
The Spanish people are wonderful, but like some other countries, the
authorities, whilst being careful to present a 'fair-minded' and
welcoming image to the world, are pretty unhelpful in reality, and are
deviously creative at making life very difficult for foreigners to
operate effectively. All of my Spanish friends admit this, and that
most government offices are (grins) full of people who hate their
jobs, hate responsibility and hate foreigners.
My question is, does anyone have a shrewd idea (only in terms of
probability obviously) on what the final outcome might be, and how
long that could take?
Happy 2005 to you all and thank you in advance for any
replies/considered opinions.
Kenny
PS I do feel some of you guys might go easier on a Mr Jim Watt.
I obviously missed the original cause of the contempt, but quite
frankly, any newcomer simply sees an endless tirade of insults
directed at the one individual who seems to be trying to answer
peoples questions in a succinct, relevent and factual manner.
Saddens me to read childish comments based on anger, from guys who are
probably a goldmine of information in their own right - and many of us
are keenly interested in what they have to say about the various
Gibraltar issues rather than personal rhetoric.
Luke Croll
<922omit_the_...@telefonica.net> wrote:
>My question is, does anyone have a shrewd idea (only in terms of
>probability obviously) on what the final outcome might be, and how
>long that could take?
Hope you don't mind my snipping. Personally, I don't think that the
British will give back Gibraltar, despite what the Spanish government
might say. It's a very useful military base, for one thing. The
residents of the Rock feel British, not Spanish, as proved by the
recent referendum.
There's plenty of scare-mongering, but I don't see it happening. And
after all, if it did happen, what would happen to Morrisons???? ;-)
--
Luke Croll
ABDK FAQ:
http://home.earthlink.net/~abdk-faq/faq.htm
Ken
"Kenny" <922omit_the_...@telefonica.net> wrote in message
news:nj4tt0t7k3r3t6u85...@4ax.com...
>I have been reading, this NG for several months with the aim of
> understanding more and getting a 'feel' for Gibraltar.
>
> I was hoping to setup an offshore entity on the rock in the near
> future but am seriously concerned about trying to assess the
> probability and time-span in which Gibraltar might become part of
> Spain.
Roughly speaking, in the time it would take for hell to freeze over, give or
take (probably give) a couple of aeons.
>
> My question is, does anyone have a shrewd idea (only in terms of
> probability obviously) on what the final outcome might be, and how
> long that could take?
See my comment above. All will be settled when the Sp come to relaise that
the choices made by others for themselves must be respoected, even if it a
choice that one would not have chosen for oneself. In other words, the
matter will settle down when they stop asking, and more importantly, when
they stop caring that they do not hold sway in Gibraltar.
Ken
Jim Watt
<922omit_the_...@telefonica.net> wrote:
>I have been reading, this NG for several months with the aim of
>understanding more and getting a 'feel' for Gibraltar.
>
>I was hoping to setup an offshore entity on the rock in the near
>future but am seriously concerned about trying to assess the
>probability and time-span in which Gibraltar might become part of
>Spain.
You have missed the point that Gibraltar is not going to be 'part
of Spain' There are a lot of reasons for that, apart from the
majority of Gibraltarians do not want it, that integrating Gibraltar
into Spain raises constitutional issues in Spain itself.
Jack Straw is on the record that the 'deal is off'.
>Because 'the rock' can be 'given away' relatively bloodlessly,
Thats a false assumption. Of course its far better to engage in
peaceful methods of effecting political change, which seem to
be working.
>The Spanish people are wonderful, but like some other countries, the
>authorities, whilst being careful to present a 'fair-minded' and
>welcoming image to the world, are pretty unhelpful in reality, and are
>deviously creative at making life very difficult for foreigners to
>operate effectively. All of my Spanish friends admit this, and that
>most government offices are (grins) full of people who hate their
>jobs, hate responsibility and hate foreigners.
The Germans, French, Irish, Danes etc are all wonderful too but
the Gibraltarians do not aspire to be part of those states either.
>My question is, does anyone have a shrewd idea (only in terms of
>probability obviously) on what the final outcome might be, and how
>long that could take?
More of the same, for a very long time.
>Happy 2005 to you all and thank you in advance for any
>replies/considered opinions.
>
>Kenny
>PS I do feel some of you guys might go easier on a Mr Jim Watt.
Its down to a troll and a scotsman with the internet version of
tourettes syndome, whatever they care to say and do makes no
difference and is rubbish, just ignore it.
--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com
jim.gm4dhj
> I have been reading, this NG for several months with the aim of
> understanding more and getting a 'feel' for Gibraltar.
>
> I was hoping to setup an offshore entity
Miss Griffin..... under water?
>on the rock in the near
> future but am seriously concerned about trying to assess the
>is, does anyone have a shrewd idea (only in terms of
> probability obviously) on what the final outcome might be, and how
> long that could take?
Well Ken etc have already abandoned ship...that just leaves Jim Watt.......
>
> Happy 2005 to you all and thank you in advance for any
> replies/considered opinions.
>
> Kenny
> PS I do feel some of you guys might go easier on a Mr Jim Watt.
> I obviously missed the original cause of the contempt, but quite
> frankly, any newcomer simply sees an endless tirade of insults
> directed at the one individual who seems to be trying to answer
> peoples questions in a succinct, relevent and factual manner.
the guy is all that is bad about Gibraltar......old , run down and
balligerent....with bad hair........see....
http://gm4dhj.mattsnetwork.co.uk/
>
> Saddens me to read childish comments based on anger, from guys who are
> probably a goldmine of information in their own right - and many of us
> are keenly interested in what they have to say about the various
> Gibraltar issues rather than personal rhetoric.
>
The place has been going downhill since the early 90's..........lost
cause.......
Jim
Glasgow Scotland.
James Harding
"jim.gm4dhj" <jim.g...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:MpCDd.380$gy1...@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
Kenny
<nos...@nospam.thanks> wrote:
>I think you're very rude. Do you not believe in self-determination?
>
James, please accept my apologies - not for one moment did I intend or
believe my post to be rude, and yes I believe wholeheartedly in
self-determination.
However my question concerned itself only with asking about the
possibility of a 'Spanish takeover'
> My question is, does anyone have a shrewd idea (only in terms of
> probability obviously) on what the final outcome might be, and how
> long that could take?
Anyway, having tentatively dipped my toe into this very prickly NG, I
accept my first admonishment gracefully, and thank you for taking the
trouble to reply.
It was heartwarming to hear that the NG confidently feels it is
unlikely that Gibraltar will be absorbed into Spain, and with such
confidence (I loved the fiercely protective tone of the replies).
I am ashamed to say that ignorant people like myself generally
percieved a handover of Gibraltar to Spain as almost 'inevitable' (as
do many of the legal profession in the Canaries) due to the way the
media presents its little snippets of news concerning Gibraltar. I
feel a tad wiser now.
Many thanks guys
Kenny
jim.gm4dhj
> people like myself generally
> percieved a handover of Gibraltar to Spain as almost 'inevitable' (as
> do many of the legal profession in the Canaries)
>
>
Spot on.... I wonder where Jim Watt will go for his sunshine when it
happens? .....
Jim Watt
<922omit_the_...@telefonica.net> wrote:
>I am ashamed to say that ignorant people like myself generally
>percieved a handover of Gibraltar to Spain as almost 'inevitable' (as
>do many of the legal profession in the Canaries) due to the way the
>media presents its little snippets of news concerning Gibraltar. I
>feel a tad wiser now.
Part of the point of the newsgroup is to present the Gibraltar
point of view to a wider audience in order to remove the
misconceptions that have been spread around by the MAE
and friends.
However, I think the comment about being 'rude' was directed
to the poster resident in Scotland, who has come to Gibraltar as
a tourist a few times at his wife's insistence, and dislikes the
place.
His outbursts are best ignored, looking at google I see he even
argues with Spam messages, and his conduct is the same in
the other groups he plagues.
When we campaigned for the referendum, we went round all the
housing estates in the early evening and were approached by a
number of children, they all expressed strong views that they did
not want joint sovereignty Spanish and were surprisingly well
informed on the current political situation. Their parents had
less to say as they had already made their minds up.
In 25 years time it is those children who will be in Government
and what happens then is their concern.
However, an interesting news item was that at the time of the
dispute with the Spanish fishermen blockading the frontier,
amongst the unruly element on our side described as 'yobs'
one man threw a moped at them. In court his age was given
as 70 and I hope that when I get there I will be fit enough to
cast a heavy object upon my enemies. Better still that there
are none.
It seems that the current Spanish Government have broken
with the Franco tradition and realized that they have to talk
to the Gibraltar Government and take the views of the
Gibraltarians seriously. It is not a matter of ah handshake
with Jack Straw in a dark corner of a room.
And unless the views of the locals change dramatically there
is no desire to be part of Spain, and indeed as average earnings
here exceed the UK, and certainly that in Andalucia there is
little incentive. The GoG has announced a large cash donation
to the Tsunami appeal, so its not exactly hard up either.
Across the border, La Lineį seems to be prospering due to its
proximity to the Rock, and not due to any assistance from Central
Government, so all is well for 'more of the same' for a very long
time.
The 'Future of Gibraltar' is a matter for the Gibraltarians, and in
the referendum and on the streets the message is clear. In a
battle for their hearts, minds and pockets successive Spanish
Governments have drawn a blank. The next tactic is supposed
to be 'talking and being nice' being nice includes withdrawing
the ridiculous restrictions in place but needs to go further than
just stopping those bad practices that have tainted Spain in the
eyes of the upcoming generation.
jim.gm4dhj
> Part of the point of the newsgroup is to present the Gibraltar
> point of view to a wider audience in order to remove the
> misconceptions that have been spread around by the MAE
> and friends.
Propaganda...in other words.....
>
> However, I think the comment about being 'rude' was directed
> to the poster resident in Scotland, who has come to Gibraltar as
> a tourist a few times at his wife's insistence, and dislikes the
> place.
Visited dozens of times since 1966 ....went off the place in 1998...last
visit 2002..won't be back regardless of what the wife says.....
>
> His outbursts are best ignored, looking at google I see he even
> argues with Spam messages,
Well might as well get some fun out of them !...I also reply to spoof ebay
and paypal requests for my PIN number and reply to email saying how pleased
I am to ..win a lottery without buying a ticket...bank millions for people
in Africa.....
>and his conduct is the same in
> the other groups he plagues.
OK I fell out with the Peugeot NG but that could happen to anybody.....
> However, an interesting news item was that at the time of the
> dispute with the Spanish fishermen blockading the frontier,
> amongst the unruly element on our side described as 'yobs'
> one man threw a moped at them. In court his age was given
> as 70 and I hope that when I get there I will be fit enough to
> cast a heavy object upon my enemies.
You would have to learn to drive first......
>Better still that there
> are none.
Dream on......
> Across the border, La Lineį seems to be prospering due to its
> proximity to the Rock, and not due to any assistance from Central
> Government,
Drugs money.....
jim.gm4dhj
> James, please accept my apologies - not for one moment did I intend or
> believe my post to be rude,
>
> Kenny
>
>
No problem James.........
luc...@eternal-flames.gov
paused briefly between playing with his doll's house, to write:
>However, I think the comment about being 'rude' was directed
>to the poster resident in Scotland, who has come to Gibraltar as
>a tourist a few times at his wife's insistence, and dislikes the
>place.
Or maybe he likes the place, but dislikes some of the residents?
>When we campaigned for the referendum, we went round all the
>housing estates in the early evening and were approached by a
>number of children, they all expressed strong views that they did
>not want joint sovereignty Spanish and were surprisingly well
>informed on the current political situation. Their parents had
>less to say as they had already made their minds up.
Good. A fine example of democracy in action.
But there is no reason why the results of that "referendum" should be
in any way binding on the UK peoples and parliament.
The total population of Gib, is approx 30K, which is about a third of
the population of Chester. You are surely not suggesting that the
residents of the equiv. to a small British town, should have a veto on
the actions of the national UK .gov?
>It seems that the current Spanish Government have broken
>with the Franco tradition and realized that they have to talk
>to the Gibraltar Government and take the views of the
>Gibraltarians seriously. It is not a matter of ah handshake
>with Jack Straw in a dark corner of a room.
The "current Spanish Government" yes. But governments change and the
opposition parties have expressed different views.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gibraltar/story/0,11525,974125,00.html
>The 'Future of Gibraltar' is a matter for the Gibraltarians,
Quite. So why keep whining to the UK when the nasty big boy next door
won't give you your ball back?
Like it or not. Gibraltar is NOT a self-supporting, self-determining
country.
>and in the referendum and on the streets the message is clear.
All we need now is a referendum on the streets of Britain, to see if
anybody here really gives a toss what happens to Gibralter.
Democracy in action works both ways.
Old Nick.
Jim Watt
the Prince of Lies wrote:
>But there is no reason why the results of that "referendum" should be
>in any way binding on the UK peoples and parliament.
You are wrong. The British Government of the day gave a committment
in the preamble of the Consititution that there would be no change in
the status of Gibraltar contrary to the freely expressed wishes of the
Gibraltarians. Every UK Government since has confirmed that
committment.
On 7th November 2002 in a referendum 99% of Gibraltar said no to
shared sovereignty with Spain, that is a clear and free demonstration
of wishes.
>The "current Spanish Government" yes. But governments change and the
>opposition parties have expressed different views.
>
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/gibraltar/story/0,11525,974125,00.html
Old news. Outdated. As for new Governments deeds count louder than
words. My mobile phone still does not function in Spain because of
political interference with commercial communications. Spain still
objects to Gibraltar engaging in international sport.
>>The 'Future of Gibraltar' is a matter for the Gibraltarians,
>
>Quite. So why keep whining to the UK when the nasty big boy next door
>won't give you your ball back?
Because the UK has assumed responsibility for foreign affairs and is
doing a poor job.
>Like it or not. Gibraltar is NOT a self-supporting, self-determining
>country.
We do not currently have self-determination but we have the RIGHT
to self-determination and we are economically self-sufficient, the
UK Government does not provide any financial aid.
>All we need now is a referendum on the streets of Britain, to see if
>anybody here really gives a toss what happens to Gibralter.
I don't worry about what happens in Gibralter, MI either, neither
should you concern yourself.
Gibraltar is a matter for the Gibraltarians, it is none of your
business. Go back from whence you came.
Ken
<luc...@eternal-flames.gov> wrote in message
news:a6svt0lru20tt9j13...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 10:37:29 +0100, Jim Watt <jim...@aol.no_way>,
> paused briefly between playing with his doll's house, to write:
>
>
> The total population of Gib, is approx 30K, which is about a third of
> the population of Chester. You are surely not suggesting that the
> residents of the equiv. to a small British town, should have a veto on
> the actions of the national UK .gov?
No one is asking that the Gibraltarians should have a veto over the actions
of the UK Govt. What Gibraltarians assert is that they have a veto over what
happens to themselves. If THAT goes against what the UK or Sp or any other
national govt would wish should happen to Gibraltar, then tough.
No-one in Gib is supposing that Gib should call the shots over the council
tax rate in Chester, the fate of libraries there or anything of the sort.
Similarly the residents of Chester should not be able to determine that
Gibraltar and the Gibraltarians should become part of the Sp, or any, state
against their freely expressed wishes.
>
> Quite. So why keep whining to the UK when the nasty big boy next door
> won't give you your ball back?
Consititionally, the UK looks after Gib's foreign affairs. If you would like
it to be otherwise, campaign that it should be so. There are three aspects
of Gib affairs that are the responsibility of the UK - internal security,
foreign affairs, and defence.
It is a pity that Gib or anywhere else may need defending militarily, and
were matters different - were Sp not predatory upon us - it would be logical
that Gib's defence would be more a concern for our immediate larger
neighbour. Internal security Gibis more than capable of taking over right
now. Similarly with foreign affairs. I think you'll find this is the one of
the three remaining UK spheres of responisbility that the UK is least likely
to be willing to give up.
>
> Like it or not. Gibraltar is NOT a self-supporting, self-determining
> country.
It is entirely self supporting, and we feel more than capable of determining
all matters for ourselves. What is lacking is the recognition by others of
our abilitity to do so, and the righteousness of the same.
>
>>and in the referendum and on the streets the message is clear.
>
> All we need now is a referendum on the streets of Britain, to see if
> anybody here really gives a toss what happens to Gibralter.
No one anywhere cvould give a toss about Gibralter - it does not exist.
Perhaps you refer to Gibraltar?
If you are so motivated, see to organising one yourself. An uphill task, and
in any case I think you'll find UK govts quite reluctant to have a referndum
on virtually anything. You see, it appears that UK govts are so out of touch
with their electorates they don't dare consult the people, for fear of being
shown up.
Democracy is not best served in the example I've read in this NG - two
wolves and a sheep voting on whay to have for dinner.
K
luc...@eternal-flames.gov
paused briefly between playing with his doll's house, to write:
>>But there is no reason why the results of that "referendum" should be
>>in any way binding on the UK peoples and parliament.
>
>
>You are wrong. The British Government of the day gave a committment
>in the preamble of the Consititution that there would be no change in
>the status of Gibraltar contrary to the freely expressed wishes of the
>Gibraltarians. Every UK Government since has confirmed that
>committment.
What has that got to do, with what I wrote?
I never mentioned "The British Government" I said parliament.
There is a difference... Or didn't you know?
Parliament is sovereign. It can and on many instances - including
quite recently - does, over-rule the will of the elected government of
the day.
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/gibraltar/story/0,11525,974125,00.html
>Old news. Outdated.
Quite. Though not as old and outdated as the ancient Gibraltar
Constitution which you frequently quote.
>>Quite. So why keep whining to the UK when the nasty big boy next door
>>won't give you your ball back?
>Because the UK has assumed responsibility for foreign affairs and is
>doing a poor job.
So try going it alone old son. Try a UDI. That worked in Rhodesia...
Well didn't it?
>We do not currently have self-determination but we have the RIGHT
>to self-determination
Your "right to self-determination" is - as was the case with the
Falklands - dependent on British squaddies coming to pull your
chestnuts out of the fire, if the neighbours get too stroppy.
>and we are economically self-sufficient, the
>UK Government does not provide any financial aid.
There you go again old son. I never mentioned "financial aid"
>All we need now is a referendum on the streets of Britain, to see if
>anybody here really gives a toss what happens to Gibralter.
Gibraltar is a matter for the Gibraltarians, it is none of your
business.
Wrong again old son. I'm one of those UK tax-payers who pay for
those British squaddies which your "right to self-determination" is
ultimately dependent on.
Old Nick.
luc...@eternal-flames.gov
paused briefly between playing with his doll's house, to write:
>No one is asking that the Gibraltarians should have a veto over the
>actions of the UK Govt. What Gibraltarians assert is that they have
>a veto over what happens to themselves. If THAT goes against what
>the UK or Sp or any other national govt would wish should happen to
>Gibraltar, then tough.
Very laudible aspirations. But how do you back them up if the UK
declines to?
>Similarly the residents of Chester should not be able to determine
>that Gibraltar and the Gibraltarians should become part of the Sp,
>or any, state against their freely expressed wishes.
It was those residents of Chester - and the rest of the UK - who paid
for the Falkland Islands Benny's enjoyment of their freely expressed
wishes.
>It is a pity that Gib or anywhere else may need defending militarily,
>and were matters different - were Sp not predatory upon us - it
>would be logical that Gib's defence would be more a concern
>for our immediate larger neighbour.
It is those residents of Chester - and the rest of the UK - who pay
for Gibraltar's defence.
Yes I am aware of the contribution Gibraltar makes towards this. I
am also aware that the contribution is insignificant compared to what
Gibraltarians would have to pay to maintain it's independent status
against ANY possible predatory nation, if left to itself.
How many Gibraltarians have homes across the border in Spain?
How many Gibraltar politicians have homes across the border in Spain?
>Internal security Gibis more than capable of taking over right
>now. Similarly with foreign affairs. I think you'll find this is the one of
>the three remaining UK spheres of responisbility that the UK is least likely
>to be willing to give up.
>> Like it or not. Gibraltar is NOT a self-supporting, self-determining
>> country.
>It is entirely self supporting,
Hypothetical question:
The UK says, we've had enough. You and Spain sort it out between
yourselves. The next day Spain decides to take over.
What are you going to do about it?
Or aren't you that "entirely self-supporting" anymore?
>> All we need now is a referendum on the streets of Britain, to see if
>> anybody here really gives a toss what happens to Gibralter.
>No one anywhere cvould give a toss about Gibralter - it does not
>exist. Perhaps you refer to Gibraltar?
Old son. Surely you noticed Gibraltar was spelt correctly
previously(?) Did you not then assume the once with the 'e' was a
simple typing mistake(?)
Do you really want to engage in petty point scoring over typing
mistakes? If you do then perhaps you could start by explaining
what 'cvould' means - as in:
>No one anywhere cvould give a toss about Gibralter
It becomes rather childish, doesn't it?
>You see, it appears that UK govts are so out of touch
>with their electorates they don't dare consult the people,
>for fear of being shown up.
Quite. They particularly don't like it when parliament over-rules
them. As I mentioned in my reply to Jim Watt - parliament and the
government are two different things.
Nick.
Ken
<luc...@eternal-flames.gov> wrote in message
news:9rs1u0lr2kn0a0e65...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 16:41:17 -0000, "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk>,
> paused briefly between playing with his doll's house, to write:
>
>>No one is asking that the Gibraltarians should have a veto over the
>>actions of the UK Govt. What Gibraltarians assert is that they have
>>a veto over what happens to themselves. If THAT goes against what
>>the UK or Sp or any other national govt would wish should happen to
>>Gibraltar, then tough.
>
> Very laudible aspirations. But how do you back them up if the UK
> declines to?
It's a question of morality is it not? What ever happened to the British
sense of fair play, cricket and all that? The day that the UK reneges on its
commitments becuase it suits for whatever short term reason (such as, for
instance, Tony Blair wanting to become a knob within the EU), and in doing
so sells out one or other group it is supposedly protecting, then the UK
will have become something distasteful. As much if not more will have been
lost by the UK than whoever it sells out. Is it not the case that a society
is judged by the manner in which it treats its defenceless?
>>Similarly the residents of Chester should not be able to determine
>>that Gibraltar and the Gibraltarians should become part of the Sp,
>>or any, state against their freely expressed wishes.
>
> It was those residents of Chester - and the rest of the UK - who paid
> for the Falkland Islands Benny's enjoyment of their freely expressed
> wishes.
You are forgetting the FIslanders who did so too. In any case, the ned to go
in and do some baling out from time to time is the price the UK pays for
having so many forward bases. It's just part of the natural order of things.
If you never want the cost of a tv repair bill, then don't have a tv. If you
never want the cost of having to defend your interests abroad against an
aggresor, then never have any interests abroad. Of course without such
interests abroad the UK would not have the clout it has in the world, a
permanent seat on the UN Security Council etc etc. You can't have it all
ways. You want power and influence, you have commitments and costs and
obigations that go with it.
BTW the word you use to describe a Falkland Islander is as offensive to them
as other words used to describe other groups elsewhere int he world. It may
be advisable to cease to use it.
>
>>It is a pity that Gib or anywhere else may need defending militarily,
>>and were matters different - were Sp not predatory upon us - it
>>would be logical that Gib's defence would be more a concern
>>for our immediate larger neighbour.
>
> It is those residents of Chester - and the rest of the UK - who pay
> for Gibraltar's defence.
> Yes I am aware of the contribution Gibraltar makes towards this. I
> am also aware that the contribution is insignificant compared to what
> Gibraltarians would have to pay to maintain it's independent status
> against ANY possible predatory nation, if left to itself.
>
> How many Gibraltarians have homes across the border in Spain?
> How many Gibraltar politicians have homes across the border in Spain?
Oh Gawd here we go again! What has this to do with the price of cod?
Personally I have no idea who has and who has not any property in Spain or
anywhere else. I know I have none, and that is all that concerns me.
How many UK folk resolutely hate the French, and how many UK folk have
property in France? This hasd nothing to do with anything esle either.
Perhaps what it illustrates is that Gibraltarians do not hate the Sp (nor
perhaps the English the French, FWIW) and are quite happy to live as
convivially as is allowed given the circumstances. I personally have no
hatred of any of them, but that does not mean I want to, nor should lie down
submissively, when the Sp wat to overrun my homeland against the express
desire of all my fellow Gibraltarians. That is not to say I don't appreciate
a good Jerez nor dislike a polvoron (I love them) nor does it mean I like
bullfighting (I detest it) nor does it presuppose I have a predetermined
propensity to chuck goats out of church steeples nor to be chased by a bull
up a narrow stret - neither of which I condone.
>
>>Internal security Gibis more than capable of taking over right
>>now. Similarly with foreign affairs. I think you'll find this is the one
>>of
>>the three remaining UK spheres of responisbility that the UK is least
>>likely
>>to be willing to give up.
>
>>> Like it or not. Gibraltar is NOT a self-supporting, self-determining
>>> country.
>
>>It is entirely self supporting,
>
> Hypothetical question:
> The UK says, we've had enough. You and Spain sort it out between
> yourselves. The next day Spain decides to take over.
> What are you going to do about it?
> Or aren't you that "entirely self-supporting" anymore?
You are cnfusing self supporting with self defending. By self supporting is
generally understood to mean - within this ng anyway - FINANCIALLY self
supporting. Which Gib is and has been for a long time. That is not to say no
money flows between the UK and Gib and vice versa, but whatever money flows
is not gratis, it os for trade - goods and services - apid for at market
rates.
Self defending is another matter, and you will have read in my previous
posts my views on that.
>
>>> All we need now is a referendum on the streets of Britain, to see if
>>> anybody here really gives a toss what happens to Gibralter.
>
>>No one anywhere cvould give a toss about Gibralter - it does not
>>exist. Perhaps you refer to Gibraltar?
>
> Old son. Surely you noticed Gibraltar was spelt correctly
> previously(?) Did you not then assume the once with the 'e' was a
> simple typing mistake(?)
I endeavour not to make assumptions. As to the old, that is a relative term.
I am older than my teeth and younger than my hair.
K
jim.gm4dhj
luc...@eternal-flames.gov
paused briefly between playing with his doll's house, to write:
>It's a question of morality is it not? What ever happened to the
>British sense of fair play, cricket and all that?
<snipped for brevity>
Your naivety is astounding.
Politics - at least in Britain - is a matter, not of doing what the
people want you to do, but of doing what the people will allow you to
get away with doing.
(and we're not that good at cricket anymore either)
>The day that the UK reneges on its commitments becuase it suits for whatever
>short term reason
You mean like it did to Czechoslovakia with the Munich Agreement of
1938.
(BTW: Since you seem to want to play the spelling game... WTF is
"becuase")
>then the UK will have become something distasteful. As much
>if not more will have been lost by the UK than whoever it sells
>out.
If you have a dictionary, try looking up the word 'pragmatism'
>Is it not the case that a society is judged by the manner in
>which it treats its defenceless?
Who on earth told you that?
(Quote: "There is no such thing as society" - Margaret Thatcher.)
>> It was those residents of Chester - and the rest of the UK - who paid
>> for the Falkland Islands Benny's enjoyment of their freely expressed
>> wishes.
>You are forgetting the FIslanders who did so too. In any case, the ned
(Spelling game: "ned" ?)
>to go in and do some baling out from time to time is the price the
>UK pays for having so many forward bases. It's just part of the natural
>order of things.
Indeed. So don't come up with the crap that what happens in those
places is nothing to do with residents of Chester, or any other part
of the UK.
If we - through our taxes - are paying for our military to go there,
baling or shooting, then it is to do with us.
>If you never want the cost of having to defend your interests abroad
>against an aggresor, then never have any interests abroad.
(Spelling game: "aggresor" ?)
I've not argued against having interests abroad, nor with the need to
defend those interests against an aggressor.
>Of course without such interests abroad the UK would not have
>the clout it has in the world, a permanent seat on the UN Security
>Council etc etc. You can't have it all ways. You want power and
>influence, you have commitments and costs and obigations that
>go with it.
(Spelling game: "obigations" ?)
It is you who appears to want it both ways. You expect shelter under
the British defence umbrella, but don't want the people who pay for
that umbrella to have any say in the matter.
>BTW the word you use to describe a Falkland Islander is as
>offensive to them as other words used to describe other groups
>elsewhere int he world. It may be advisable to cease to use it.
Not so. The word "Benny" had no meaning to the Falkland Islanders -
they having never seen the ancient British television soap the name
was taken from - until some stirring smart-mouth, kicked up a fuss in
one of the more 'pc' British newspapers.
The word was AND IS, still used by British servicemen and in the
context I used it - that of British squaddies going to their defence -
it was highly relevant.
I assume you are aware of the words used by British servicemen, to
describe Gibraltar residents?
>> How many Gibraltarians have homes across the border in Spain?
>> How many Gibraltar politicians have homes across the border in Spain?
>Oh Gawd here we go again! What has this to do with the price of
>cod? Personally I have no idea who has and who has not any
>property in Spain or anywhere else. I know I have none, and that
>is all that concerns me.
It demonstrates hypocrisy... There's another word for you to look up
in your dictionary.
Gibraltarians have some disliking/distrust/whatever of your nearest
neighbours, yet many Gibraltarians have homes in Spain.
Hypocrisy or what?
>How many UK folk resolutely hate the French, and how many UK
>folk have property in France?
Spain is claiming sovereignty over Gibraltar.
France is not claiming sovereignty over the UK.
Can you not see the difference?
>This hasd nothing to do with anything esle either.
(Spelling game: "hasd" and "esle" ?)
>Perhaps what it illustrates is that Gibraltarians do not hate the
>Sp (nor perhaps the English the French, FWIW)
I agree entirely.
>I personally have no hatred of any of them, but that does not
>mean I want to, nor should lie down submissively, when the Sp
>wat to overrun my homeland against the express desire of all my
(Spelling game: "wat" ?)
>fellow Gibraltarians.
Precisely.
But equally, it doesn't mean that anybody else should have to pick up
the bill for you.
Don't tell the UK tax-payer that they have to keep the nasty Spanish
out of Gibraltar, because a nearly 300 year-old treaty says they have
to. Whilst at the same time denying them the right to have any say in
the matter, with stupid comments like:
>>>Similarly the residents of Chester should not be able to determine
>>>that Gibraltar and the Gibraltarians should become part of the Sp,
>>>or any, state against their freely expressed wishes.
Very many of those UK tax-payers regularly holiday in Spain, many have
second homes there, many retire there.
They don't see anything to distrust/dislike/whatever about Spain or
the Spanish. The Spain of today, is not the Spain of 300 years ago,
nor the Spain of 30 years ago.
>You are cnfusing self supporting with self defending.
(Spelling game: "cnfusing" ?)
>By self supporting is generally understood to mean - within this ng
>anyway - FINANCIALLY self supporting.
To be "financially self-supporting" you have to be capable of doing
AND PAYING for all things which you need to do to continue to exist.
Since you are incapable of paying for your own defence - without which
you would have no continued existence - you are patently not
financially self-supporting.
>I endeavour not to make assumptions. As to the old, that is a
>relative term. I am older than my teeth and younger than my hair.
I have fond memories of hair.
Nick.
p.s. As for the 'Spelling game' I find it rather tedious and childish.
It's far easier to assume that everybody makes spelling/typing errors
from time to time and to just ignore them. But if you want to
continue with the game you started... Be sure and let me know.
Jim Watt
paused from wanking to mutter:
>On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 16:59:58, +1000 Jim Watt <jimw...@aol.no_way>
>paused briefly between playing with his doll's house, to write:
>
>>>But there is no reason why the results of that "referendum" should be
>>>in any way binding on the UK peoples and parliament.
>>
>>
>>You are wrong. The British Government of the day gave a committment
>>in the preamble of the Consititution that there would be no change in
>>the status of Gibraltar contrary to the freely expressed wishes of the
>>Gibraltarians. Every UK Government since has confirmed that
>>committment.
>
>What has that got to do, with what I wrote?
>I never mentioned "The British Government" I said parliament.
Ah then for your education let me quote the entire preamble which
makes clear the role of Parliament.
--
GIBRALTAR CONSTITUTION ORDER 1969. Whereas Gibraltar is part of Her
Majesty’s dominions and Her Majesty’s Government have given assurances
to the people of Gibraltar that Gibraltar will remain part of Her
Majesty’s dominions unless and until an Act of Parliament otherwise
provides, and furthermore that Her Majesty’s Government will never
enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass
under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and
democratically expressed wishes:
--
Now I think thats pretty clear, note the need for an Act of
Parliament
>Parliament is sovereign.
I thought that was the Queen. These days when Parliament exists to
transpose EU legislation I wonder if its really sovereign.
>Quite. Though not as old and outdated as the ancient Gibraltar
>Constitution which you frequently quote.
Its still in place and effective, the politicians referred to in
the Grauniard story have moved on, or in the case of Ms Palace
have been moved on by the people.
>Your "right to self-determination" is - as was the case with the
>Falklands - dependent on British squaddies coming to pull your
>chestnuts out of the fire, if the neighbours get too stroppy.
You mistake rights with the exercise of rights. By definition
rights are things that one has which cannot be taken away.
>>and we are economically self-sufficient, the
>>UK Government does not provide any financial aid.
>
>There you go again old son. I never mentioned "financial aid"
No you implied that the UK subsidises Gibraltar, and it does not.
>Wrong again old son. I'm one of those UK tax-payers who pay for
>those British squaddies which your "right to self-determination" is
>ultimately dependent on.
Read more about rights. In the end the only people who can
assert our rights are us. We did this recently by insisting on the
right to vote in EU elections. The campaign was peaceful
and lawful. We won. The UK Government changed its tune,
The Spanish backed off.
You should be more concerned about how your money and you
squaddies are being missued in Iraq. The amount of money and
lives its cost in Ireland is also a huge sum. And what for? to hand
power over to people who steal waste paper.
Read the FAQ, the British army presence in Gib is history.
However, I'm sure the Americans would jump at the chance to
use the Naval base here in return for providing security, indeed
there was a high level delegation here a week or so ago to
discuss that.
luc...@eternal-flames.gov
paused briefly between playing with his doll's house, to write:
>>What has that got to do, with what I wrote?
>>I never mentioned "The British Government" I said parliament.
>Ah then for your education let me quote the entire preamble which
>makes clear the role of Parliament.
>GIBRALTAR CONSTITUTION ORDER 1969. Whereas Gibraltar is part of Her
>Majesty’s dominions and Her Majesty’s Government have given assurances
>to the people of Gibraltar that Gibraltar will remain part of Her
>Majesty’s dominions unless and until an Act of Parliament otherwise
>provides, and furthermore that Her Majesty’s Government will never
>enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass
>under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and
>democratically expressed wishes:
>Now I think thats pretty clear, note the need for an Act of
>Parliament
Your point being what exactly?
How does that differentiate from what I've said.
There have been many instances of an 'Act of Parliament' being
created, against the wishes of the incumbent government.
The most recent - in the latter quarter of 2004 - was when parliament
voted to bring in a law imposing a ban on hunting with dogs, against
the expressed will of the Blair government.
Now the rights or wrongs of that piece of legislation, are not for
debate here. All I'm pointing out is that it - and many other Acts. -
have been brought in which do not have the support of the sitting
government.
>>Parliament is sovereign.
I thought that was the Queen.
"The Queen/King is a Sovereign and Head of State of a Parliamentary
Democracy." Guess where that is a quote from.
She retains that job, by the will of parliament. Parliament can take
the job away. as Charles I - who also had difficulty distinguishing
between the two meanings - discovered.
He went to pieces when he had it explained to him... But at least it
cured his headaches.
>These days when Parliament exists to
>transpose EU legislation I wonder if its really sovereign.
It required Acts of Parliament to cede those powers to Europe, which
have been ceded. Since Gibraltar has membership of the EU it is as
subject to EU legislation as the UK - and other EU member states.
Have you read the EU Constitution? If not, perhaps you should.
Gibraltar as an entity, together with its residents, have more rights
guaranteed under that, than they do under either the 1969
Constitution, or the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht.
The only unfortunate thing for Gibraltarians, is that the UK is
unlikely to sign up to it, which sort of kicks it into touch for Gib.
>>Your "right to self-determination" is - as was the case with the
>>Falklands - dependent on British squaddies coming to pull your
>>chestnuts out of the fire, if the neighbours get too stroppy.
>You mistake rights with the exercise of rights. By definition
>rights are things that one has which cannot be taken away.
No. I was quoting your use of the words
>>>We do not currently have self-determination but we have the
>>>RIGHT to self-determination
and saying out that you only have those rights, as long as somebody
else doesn't take them away from you. Together with pointing out that
IF somebody takes them away from you, you need some stronger third
party (the British squaddies) to give them back.
As for your remark that "rights are things that one has which cannot
be taken away." That's patent nonsense. The people of Britain, used
to have the right to own slaves and to bear-bait. Both quite
disgusting "rights" which have been legislated away from them.
>>There you go again old son. I never mentioned "financial aid"
>No you implied that the UK subsidises Gibraltar, and it does not.
No I didn't. My quite specific reference was to the fact that
Gibraltar cannot pay for it's own defence.
>Read more about rights. In the end the only people who can
>assert our rights are us.
You "assert your rights" because we - at present - give you the power,
in fact guarantee you the power, to do.
What happens if we walk away?
>We did this recently by insisting on the
>right to vote in EU elections.
What did it get you? A shared MEP with Devon and Cornwall.
Hardly an independent voice within the EU
>You should be more concerned about how your money
>and you squaddies are being missued in Iraq.
Why?
>The amount of money and lives its cost in Ireland is also a
>huge sum. And what for?
Basically so that a minority bunch of troglodyte residents on the
island of Ireland, can continue to live in their fantasy world of
'King Billy' and the 'Battle of the Boyne' and not have to face up to
the fact that we're in the 21st Century, not 1690.
Another group of people, who are unable to face up to the fact that
the world has moved on from 1690 and 1713.
>Read the FAQ, the British army presence in Gib is history.
How is that relevant?
>However, I'm sure the Americans would jump at the chance to
>use the Naval base here in return for providing security
Really. Perhaps you should look at the U.S. Congressional
sub-committee recommendations - pretty consistent over a number of
years - for what should become of Gibraltar.
You'll find the papers/reports on the LoC website.
>indeed there was a high level delegation here a week or so ago to
>discuss that.
Quite. The proposal being for the Gibraltar facility to be used by
U.S.N. as a member state of NATO.
I think you'll find the EU and the UK have no objections and of course
since Spain is a member of NATO, their navy will also be eligible to
use the base...
Old Nick.
Ken
<luc...@eternal-flames.gov> wrote in message
news:uo52u0h1jjsprtd9k...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 10:02:27 -0000, "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk>,
> paused briefly between playing with his doll's house, to write:
>
>>It's a question of morality is it not? What ever happened to the
>>British sense of fair play, cricket and all that?
> <snipped for brevity>
>
> Your naivety is astounding.
Your reduction of everything into monetary cost is shocking. You appear to
know the cost of everything and the value of nothing at all.
> Politics - at least in Britain - is a matter, not of doing what the
> people want you to do, but of doing what the people will allow you to
> get away with doing.
Spoken like one who seeks power in order to abuse it rather than to be bound
by the obligation to use it for best purposes.
> Who on earth told you that?
> (Quote: "There is no such thing as society" - Margaret Thatcher.)
Yes I was right - you seem to admire those who like yourself reduce
verything to monetary cost.
>>to go in and do some baling out from time to time is the price the
>>UK pays for having so many forward bases. It's just part of the natural
>>order of things.
>
> Indeed. So don't come up with the crap that what happens in those
> places is nothing to do with residents of Chester, or any other part
> of the UK.
>
> If we - through our taxes - are paying for our military to go there,
> baling or shooting, then it is to do with us.
As I pay taxes to Mr Brown, it is to do with me too. As I am a Gibraltarian,
what happens in Gib is to do with me to. You have a voice in one of tese
spheres, I have a voice in both. It appears my opinions might carry more
weight than yours?
> It is you who appears to want it both ways. You expect shelter under
> the British defence umbrella, but don't want the people who pay for
> that umbrella to have any say in the matter.
See above - I am paying for it.
> I assume you are aware of the words used by British servicemen, to
> describe Gibraltar residents?
Oh it's a long time since anything I was called offended me! I assume you
are aware of the words used by Gibraltarians to describe UK-based bigots?
> Gibraltarians have some disliking/distrust/whatever of your nearest
> neighbours, yet many Gibraltarians have homes in Spain.
> Hypocrisy or what?
You reveal yourself as not understanding the issues. By your own words -
disliking/distrust/whatever - you don't know what to call it, you don't know
what it is. It is none of these, and it is nothing derogatory. Individuals
are seen as what they are, each unto him or herself. there is no collective
animosity. There is no animosity towards the state. There is no anti-Sp at
all. There is resistance to being absorbed into the Sp state, that is all.
There is nothing in that feeling that precludes one from entering into the
property market in Sp. There may be other reasons why anyone may not wish to
enter that market of course, but that's a matter of choice for individuals.
> Spain is claiming sovereignty over Gibraltar.
> France is not claiming sovereignty over the UK.
> Can you not see the difference?
I can't see how that makes anyone in Gib detest any piece of architecture in
Spain.
> Don't tell the UK tax-payer that they have to keep the nasty Spanish
> out of Gibraltar, because a nearly 300 year-old treaty says they have
> to. Whilst at the same time denying them the right to have any say in
> the matter, with stupid comments like:
>>>>Similarly the residents of Chester should not be able to determine
>>>>that Gibraltar and the Gibraltarians should become part of the Sp,
>>>>or any, state against their freely expressed wishes.
>
> Very many of those UK tax-payers regularly holiday in Spain, many have
> second homes there, many retire there.
> They don't see anything to distrust/dislike/whatever about Spain or
> the Spanish. The Spain of today, is not the Spain of 300 years ago,
> nor the Spain of 30 years ago.
You don;t understand the issues as atll, but obviously think you do. You
certainly have no idea what the treaty of 1713 said on the matter, which is
simply this;
While Sp ceded to England (note England and not UK as this Treaty preceded
the act of Union that made the UK) sovereignty over Gibraltar in perpetuity,
England agreed that in the event of ever wishing to divest herself of said
sovereignty, Spain would be offered sovereignty before all others. Simply
put, Spain would have first refusal of getting Gib in the event that the UK
were to lose interest.
Now, that does not give Spain any "rights" over Gib whatsoever, nor does it
mention anywhere in the Treaty what form of govt may or may not operate in
Gib. The only time Spain comes into the matter is at the time when Gib would
cease to be British, that is all. So yes, Spain has no say in how Gib is
run. Spain has no say in the constitutional arrangments or relationships
that may exist between Gib and the UK. Spain would LIKE to have such say,
and the UK may agree from time to time to concede something to Spain in
order to gain favour with Spain over some other isse, but in reality there
is no obligation whatsoever, and over and in Gib Sp has no rights at all.
> Since you are incapable of paying for your own defence - without which
> you would have no continued existence - you are patently not
> financially self-supporting.
By your own words, the UK is not a soverign state either as it is not
self-supporting either. Certainly it is not capable of defending herself
without recourse to the resources of others. Why, even onthe recapture of
the Falklands a mere 22 years ago it relied on US satellite information
(note I refrair from using the oxomron "military intelligence"). So, we
either accept there are virtually no independent states, or we redefine
financially self-supporting.
> p.s. As for the 'Spelling game' I find it rather tedious and childish.
> It's far easier to assume that everybody makes spelling/typing errors
> from time to time and to just ignore them. But if you want to
> continue with the game you started... Be sure and let me know.
You are the only one who returned the ball which I served, and I have since
let the ball go out of play. You may recognise (or not) that the first thing
that people who know precious little about Gib is to replace the last "a"
with an "e".
K
jim.gm4dhj
patently not
> financially self-supporting.
>
>
> >I endeavour not to make assumptions. As to the old, that is a
> >relative term. I am older than my teeth and younger than my hair.
>
> I have fond memories of hair.
>
> Nick.
>
>
>
> p.s. As for the 'Spelling game' I find it rather tedious and childish.
> It's far easier to assume that everybody makes spelling/typing errors
>
I take my hat off to you....quality stuff !!
jim.gm4dhj
I find it rather tedious and childish.
> > It's far easier to assume that everybody makes spelling/typing errors
> > from time to time and to just ignore them. But if you want to
> > continue with the game you started... Be sure and let me know.
>
> You are the only one who returned the ball which I served, and I have
since
> let the ball go out of play. You may recognise (or not) that the first
thing
> that people who know precious little about Gib is to replace the last "a"
> with an "e".
>
> K
>
>
Ken
>
> Ken... I would chuck it now if I were you...outclassed !!!!!
Whatever you or anyone else may think of me or of Nick (Lucifer) or anyone
else, I will not cower before anyone who proposes to usurp me of my homeland
and my rights therein. I may not put up the best fight that can possibly be
fought, but I will put up the best fight I can. To you this is all a game
for your very identity is not at stake. To me it is far more than that.
K
jim.gm4dhj
bet you wish now you only had me to worry about...good luck.....and good
night...and yes I will shut the door behind me.....go lucy go lucy go lucy
gooooooooooooooooo........
Jim Stewart GM4DHJ
I will always have fond memories of Gibraltar the ones before I ran into Jim
Watt and Ken.......
jim.gm4dhj
> > Ken... I would chuck it now if I were you...outclassed !!!!!
>
> Whatever you or anyone else may think of me or of Nick (Lucifer) or anyone
> else, I will not cower before anyone who proposes to usurp me of my
homeland
> and my rights therein. I may not put up the best fight that can possibly
be
> fought, but I will put up the best fight I can. To you this is all a game
> for your very identity is not at stake. To me it is far more than that.
>
> K
>
>
Ken
Like I said, entirely a trivial matter for you. Whatever happens to Gib in
the future, nothing affects you. BTW - don't take this as accusatory from
me - it's simply the way it is, I know it to be the way, in the same way as
if the matter of the Chagos Islanders is not resolved, my life goes un
unaffected - but I appreciate it's of great importance to them.
K
Ken
This bloke is like all those performing artists who keep on having farewells
but are backl on your tv next week with a return performance. I lose count
as to how many times Jim's departed from this group never to appear again,
so I expect to see him back here in no time at all.
Meanwhile the good that has come of the latest interventions from Nick do
not end at that, for in his questioning our very reason to be as we are he
causes us to re-examine ourselves, rehearse once more the defence of old
arguments (for there are no new ones) and emerge stronger in our identity.
K
jim.gm4dhj
> This bloke is like all those performing artists who keep on having
farewells
> as to how many times Jim's departed from this group never to appear again,
> so I expect to see him back here in no time at all.
>
jim.gm4dhj
ta...enjoy !
jim.gm4dhj
Jim Watt
stopped wanking briefly:
>>GIBRALTAR CONSTITUTION ORDER 1969. Whereas Gibraltar is part of Her
>>Majesty’s dominions and Her Majesty’s Government have given assurances
>>to the people of Gibraltar that Gibraltar will remain part of Her
>>Majesty’s dominions unless and until an Act of Parliament otherwise
>>provides, and furthermore that Her Majesty’s Government will never
>>enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass
>>under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and
>>democratically expressed wishes:
>
>>Now I think thats pretty clear, note the need for an Act of
>>Parliament
>
>Your point being what exactly?
Let me refresh your memory, you were stressing the role of
PARLIAMENT against Government. Read the above again
and you might understand.
>Gibraltar has membership of the EU it is as
>subject to EU legislation as the UK - and other EU member states.
Yes and no. When Gibraltar joined we obtained certain benefits
that you do not have. For instance we can apply different
transitional arrangements for immigrants from new member states
to the UK and when we transpose EU directives into Gibraltar
law they do not have to be exactly the same as for the UK.
>Have you read the EU Constitution? If not, perhaps you should.
>Gibraltar as an entity, together with its residents, have more rights
>guaranteed under that, than they do under either the 1969
>Constitution, or the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht.
Thats pretty easy as we get nothing under the ToU.
> My quite specific reference was to the fact that
>Gibraltar cannot pay for it's own defence.
So you claim, but what do you know ?
>What did it get you? A shared MEP with Devon and Cornwall.
>Hardly an independent voice within the EU
Theres more than one MEP although I only got a christmas card
from one. Prior to participating in elections we were not represented
now we are and as the Gibraltar vote is strategic we are listened to.
>>You should be more concerned about how your money
>>and you squaddies are being missued in Iraq.
>
>Why?
Because it costs you a lot of money and resources. or do you only
care about Gibraltar.
>
>>The amount of money and lives its cost in Ireland is also a
>>huge sum. And what for?
>
>Basically so that a minority bunch of troglodyte residents on the
>island of Ireland, can continue to live in their fantasy world of
>'King Billy' and the 'Battle of the Boyne' and not have to face up to
>the fact that we're in the 21st Century, not 1690.
Obviously you know fuck all about Ireland too.
>since Spain is a member of NATO, their navy will also be eligible to
>use the base...
I wonder if they will drop the restriction on warships not being
allowed into Spanish ports after calling into Gibraltar if they
were Spanish warships ?
And BTW there are more British people who own property in
Spain in the UK than Gibraltar, does that mean you want to
share sovereignty with Spain and have the Gardia patrolling
you high streets?
Inquiring minds need to know these things.
Larry G
> >>Parliament is sovereign.
>
> I thought that was the Queen.
>
> "The Queen/King is a Sovereign and Head of State of a Parliamentary
> Democracy." Guess where that is a quote from.
<snip>
It always helps, my friend, that in order to win an argument you don't quote
something you wrote *yourself* and argument against it. You wrote
"parliament is sovereign" in the first place. ;-)
Larry
Ken
"Larry G" <thela...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:34d5maF...@individual.net...
Hey Larry, where you been? Long time, though not as long as some of your
other absences.
ken
luc...@eternal-flames.gov
paused briefly between playing with his doll's house, to write:
>Your reduction of everything into monetary cost is shocking.
Shocking... Perhaps.
Accurate... Certainly. Which is more than may be said of your
increasingly wandering arguments.
>You appear to know the cost of everything and the value of nothing
>at all.
If you mean that I don't place any particular value on the future of
Gibraltar under any particular flag. You're right. It matters as
little to me what flag you fly, as it did what flag Hong Kong flew
after the handover of the island and handback of the New Territories.
>> Politics - at least in Britain - is a matter, not of doing what the
>> people want you to do, but of doing what the people will allow you to
>> get away with doing.
>Spoken like one who seeks power in order to abuse it rather than
>to be bound by the obligation to use it for best purposes.
And who decides what is the best purpose old son... You?
>> Who on earth told you that?
>> (Quote: "There is no such thing as society" - Margaret Thatcher.)
>Yes I was right - you seem to admire those who like yourself reduce
>verything to monetary cost.
(Spelling game: "verything" ?)
Oh yes... I'm a great Thatcherite.
>As I pay taxes to Mr Brown, it is to do with me too.
Who said it wasn't?
>As I am a Gibraltarian, what happens in Gib is to do with me to.
>You have a voice in one of tese spheres,
Spelling game: "tese" ?)
>I have a voice in both. It appears my opinions might carry more
>weight than yours?
Nothing wrong with that. As long as you accept that others who are
neither Gib residents, nor Gibraltarians, are entitled to express
opinions on the future of the place.
>> I assume you are aware of the words used by British servicemen, to
>> describe Gibraltar residents?
>Oh it's a long time since anything I was called offended me! I assume
>you are aware of the words used by Gibraltarians to describe UK-based
>bigots?
Indeed. They don't bother me in slightest either.
Yet for some reason - and I suspect, without you knowing the facts -
you choose to assume that my reference to Falkland Islanders as
"Bennys" is offensive to them.
Tell me old son. Do you know where they got the name Benny from?
CLUE: Don't fall into the same trap as that newspaper prat, who
thought it was after a character in a television soap.
>You reveal yourself as not understanding the issues. By your own
>words disliking/distrust/whatever - you don't know what to call it,
>you don't know what it is.
Or just maybe... I, like a good many other UK residents, don't know
what to call it, because we cannot understand why the residents of one
supposedly democratic part of Europe - Gibraltar. Should exhibit such
antipathy to their next nearest democratic neighbours.
>It is none of these, and it is nothing derogatory.
Delighted to hear it.
So I'll just put the whole thing down to the deliberate obstreperous
cussedness of some Gibraltar residents then. Eh?
>There is resistance to being absorbed into the Sp state, that is all.
Why?
You have been and will continue to be, absorbed into the EU.
Probably in fifty years times, all countries will have been absorbed,
to the point where you cannot tell one from the other.
>There is nothing in that feeling that precludes one from entering
>into the property market in Sp.
Oh good! So you don't want to be "absorbed into Spain" but are quite
prepared to see miscellaneous bits of Spain, absorbed into the
property portfolios of certain Gibraltarian hypocrites.
I take it you're as happy about Spanish nationals, buying property in
Gibraltar.
>You don;t understand the issues as atll,
(Spelling game: "don;t" and "atll" ?)
>but obviously think you do.
>You certainly have no idea what the treaty of 1713 said on the matter,
>which is simply this;
>While Sp ceded to England (note England and not UK as this Treaty
>preceded the act of Union that made the UK)
The Kingdoms of England and Scotland were united by an Act of Union of
both parliaments, signed on 16th January 1707. Which created the
United Kingdom of Great Britain, some six years before the Treaty of
Utrecht.
Possibly you are thinking of the later 1800 Act of Union, which
created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Always wise to get your dates right in these sort of things... Saves
you making a prat of yourself.
>sovereignty over Gibraltar
>in perpetuity, England agreed that in the event of ever wishing to divest
>herself of said sovereignty, Spain would be offered sovereignty before
>all others. Simply put, Spain would have first refusal of getting Gib in
>the event that the UK were to lose interest.
Quite.
Has it occured to you that the UK might indeed be losing interest in
Gib and moving towards the stage of being quite happy to "divest
herself of said sovereignty"
>By your own words, the UK is not a soverign state either as it is not
>self-supporting either. Certainly it is not capable of defending herself
>without recourse to the resources of others.
Exactly. You are making my point for me.
>Why, even onthe recapture of the Falklands a mere 22 years ago it
>relied on US satellite information (note I refrair
(Spelling game: "refrair" ?)
>from using the oxomron "military intelligence").
(Spelling game: "oxomron" ?)
>So, we
>either accept there are virtually no independent states, or we
>redefine financially self-supporting.
I accept that "there are virtually no independent states"
Even America found it necessary to rely on British bases in the 1980's
bombing of Libya and more recently, on operations in and around Iraq.
That's why we have military treaties and such entities as NATO - of
which Spain is a full member.
>You are the only one who returned the ball which I served,
>and I have since let the ball go out of play.
Well if you wish to play games, that's fine with me.
Though I leave games like tennis to girls.
>You may recognise (or not) that the first thing that people who
>know precious little about Gib is to replace the last "a" with an "e".
Had you bothered to check you would have seen that I had already spelt
it correctly, in an earlier part of the same posting. I suspect that
many would have reasonably assumed that the later incorrect spelling
was merely a typing error.
But as I say, if you wish to play games, so be it.
Your spelling/typing/both, is quite atrocious. I hope you are suitably
appreciative of all of your many mistakes which I'm taking the trouble
to point out.
Nick.
Ken
<luc...@eternal-flames.gov> wrote in message
news:eco2u01mokd1crkm2...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 14:16:08 -0000, "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk>,
> paused briefly between playing with his doll's house, to write:
>
>>Spoken like one who seeks power in order to abuse it rather than
>>to be bound by the obligation to use it for best purposes.
>
> And who decides what is the best purpose old son... You?
I do not seek any power, and it woul be better for many if perhaps you were
not to get your hands on any either.
> Nothing wrong with that. As long as you accept that others who are
> neither Gib residents, nor Gibraltarians, are entitled to express
> opinions on the future of the place.
Anyone can have any opinion they like. It's when they start imposing their
will it may become objectionable.
>
>>You reveal yourself as not understanding the issues. By your own
>>words disliking/distrust/whatever - you don't know what to call it,
>>you don't know what it is.
>
> Or just maybe... I, like a good many other UK residents, don't know
> what to call it, because we cannot understand why the residents of one
> supposedly democratic part of Europe - Gibraltar. Should exhibit such
> antipathy to their next nearest democratic neighbours.
If Spain were so democratic, she would not seek to gain sovereignty over
Gibraltar without the express agreement of the Gibraltarians. Are you aware
that Spain remains the only country in W Europe with expansionist
tendencies? Are you aware that Spain has border troubles / anomalies with
every one of the countries she shares a border with?
Have you considered that this would be a non-issue if Spain were to drop her
anachronistic claim?
> Why?
We have no desire to be Spanish, or to be foriegners in our land which is
exactly what would happen if Spain were to become the sovereign power and
the people retained their British nationality.
>
> You have been and will continue to be, absorbed into the EU.
> Probably in fifty years times, all countries will have been absorbed,
> to the point where you cannot tell one from the other.
Fine, so be it - as long as it is done with popular consent. And as long as
that prerequisite is met there will be no bother.
>
>>There is nothing in that feeling that precludes one from entering
>>into the property market in Sp.
>
> Oh good! So you don't want to be "absorbed into Spain" but are quite
> prepared to see miscellaneous bits of Spain, absorbed into the
> property portfolios of certain Gibraltarian hypocrites.
> I take it you're as happy about Spanish nationals, buying property in
> Gibraltar.
They're welcome. I would be most surprised if there were not a single
Spaniard who did not own some property in Gib.
> Always wise to get your dates right in these sort of things... Saves
> you making a prat of yourself.
Yes - you should.
>
>
>>sovereignty over Gibraltar
>>in perpetuity, England agreed that in the event of ever wishing to divest
>>herself of said sovereignty, Spain would be offered sovereignty before
>>all others. Simply put, Spain would have first refusal of getting Gib in
>>the event that the UK were to lose interest.
>
> Quite.
> Has it occured to you that the UK might indeed be losing interest in
> Gib and moving towards the stage of being quite happy to "divest
> herself of said sovereignty"
Oh that has occurred to me long before you ever came along. Remember I have
lived with this issue oevery single day of my life so far, perhaps longer
than you have ocnsidered it, even if you are older than I.
However, until that moment comes Spain has no look-in. Even if that moment
were to come, it is not to say that Gibraltarians will necessarily take it
lying down as was plain for all to see in the events running up the recent
referendum.
There are other matters to consider however before supinely accepting the
words of article 10 of the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713!
>
> That's why we have military treaties and such entities as NATO - of
> which Spain is a full member.
Oh indeed so full a member and so cooperative in all things that she deinies
the UK (and the UK supinely accepts, for before SPain the UK lowers herself
to the level of a mop) overflight rights by military aircraft and the
ability of UK warchips to enter Sp ports if thy are en route to or from
Gibraltar. How very friendly indeed.
> Your spelling/typing/both, is quite atrocious. I hope you are suitably
> appreciative of all of your many mistakes which I'm taking the trouble
> to point out.
I halve a spelling chequer
It came with my pea sea.
It clearly marques four my revue
Missed aches four me two sea!
Too much trouble to press F7
K
luc...@eternal-flames.gov
paused briefly between playing with his doll's house, to write:
>>>GIBRALTAR CONSTITUTION ORDER 1969. Whereas Gibraltar is part of Her
>>>Majesty’s dominions and Her Majesty’s Government have given assurances
>>>to the people of Gibraltar that Gibraltar will remain part of Her
>>>Majesty’s dominions unless and until an Act of Parliament otherwise
>>>provides, and furthermore that Her Majesty’s Government will never
>>>enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass
>>>under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and
>>>democratically expressed wishes:
>>>Now I think thats pretty clear, note the need for an Act of
>>>Parliament
>>Your point being what exactly?
>Let me refresh your memory, you were stressing the role of
>PARLIAMENT against Government. Read the above again
>and you might understand.
And just how does that differ from what I said?
In fact you have made the point for me.
Whatever previous British governments may have said, about the future
right of self-determination for the Gibraltarians, can be over-ruled
at any time, by the will of parliament.
Additionally no government may be held responsible for policies or
promises made by a previous government, if the will of parliament has
changed.
Do YOU understand the supremacy of parliament now?
>>Gibraltar has membership of the EU it is as
>>subject to EU legislation as the UK - and other EU member states.
>Yes and no. When Gibraltar joined we obtained certain benefits
>that you do not have. For instance we can apply different
>transitional arrangements for immigrants from new member states
>to the UK and when we transpose EU directives into Gibraltar
>law they do not have to be exactly the same as for the UK.
Quite. We have very similar transitional arrangements in force here.
The majority of EU states also have transitional agreements in respect
of migrant workers from the most recntly joined countries of the
former Eastern-Block.
But the relevant point here, is the word 'transitional'
They're not open-ended periods, they have effect for a relatively
short period of time.
We also have served Notices of Derogation in respect of some EU
regulations, which for national reasons, the UK does not propose to
implement.
>Thats pretty easy as we get nothing under the ToU.
You get next to nothing under the 1969 Constitution.
>>My quite specific reference was to the fact that
>>Gibraltar cannot pay for it's own defence.
>So you claim, but what do you know ?
Put it this way.
Some neighbouring country - let's not cast Spain as the 'bad-guy' all
of the time - decides to occupy Gibraltar tomorrow.
Can Gibraltar defend itself, by itself, to the point where the
continued occupancy by the invading country, is not sustainable?
>Theres more than one MEP although I only got a christmas card
>from one.
Really? It's always encouraging to discover politicians who can
write. ;-)
>Prior to participating in elections we were not represented
>now we are and as the Gibraltar vote is strategic we are listened to.
It would make more sense, if you were campaigning to be fully
integrated into the UK now that the principle has been established...
You might get an MP in Westminster then as well... Probably not of
itself a good thing.
>Because it costs you a lot of money and resources. or do you only
>care about Gibraltar.
But as somebody said, we have obligations as a permanent member of the
UNSC. Our closest military ally, the United States - also a permanent
UNSC member, is engaged there, the present UK government has taken the
decision - right or wrong - that we should be engaged alongside them.
My personal view is, I agree with them.
>>Basically so that a minority bunch of troglodyte residents on the
>>island of Ireland, can continue to live in their fantasy world of
>>'King Billy' and the 'Battle of the Boyne' and not have to face up to
>>the fact that we're in the 21st Century, not 1690.
>Obviously you know fuck all about Ireland too.
But at least I know more than you... Which let's face it, isn't
difficult.
>I wonder if they will drop the restriction on warships not being
>allowed into Spanish ports after calling into Gibraltar if they
>were Spanish warships ?
Interesting... I wonder if the Spanish Navy may station a flotilla of
vessels at the base, full time. They would of course be flying the
dark blue NATO flag alongside the Spanish ensign, so no problem there
surely?
>And BTW there are more British people who own property in
>Spain in the UK than Gibraltar, does that mean you want to
>share sovereignty with Spain and have the Gardia patrolling
>you high streets?
I don't understand your argument.
Gibraltarians have property in Spain... That property is in areas
policed by the Spanish.
Brits. have property in Spain... That property is in areas policed by
the Spanish.
Brits. have property in Gibraltar... That property is in an area
policed by the Gibraltar police.
Some Spanish have property in the UK... That property is in an area
policed by the British police.
By what convoluted logic, do you make the jump that Spanish Police
should be on the streets of the UK?
My drawing attention to the mainland-property owning Gibraltarians,
was to point out the hypocrisy of those who wanted nothing to do with
Spain, but were quite prepared to own property and be sometime
residents of the place.
>Inquiring minds need to know these things.
Then I look forward to the day you develop an "inquiring mind"
Old Nick.
luc...@eternal-flames.gov
paused briefly between playing with his doll's house, to write:
<luci...@eternal-flames.gov> wrote in message ...
>> >>Parliament is sovereign.
>> I thought that was the Queen.
>> "The Queen/King is a Sovereign and Head of State of a Parliamentary
>> Democracy." Guess where that is a quote from.
>It always helps, my friend, that in order to win an argument you don't
>quote something you wrote *yourself* and argument against it.
>You wrote "parliament is sovereign" in the first place. ;-)
Accurately.
It always helps my friend, if you have the first idea what you are
talking about.
Parliament is sovereign.
It is the supreme authority in the United Kingdom.
Above the government. Above the Queen.
GOT IT?
The Queen is a Sovereign Head of State.
She is not the Head of the 'executive' - that is the Prime Minister.
Her role in the UK is almost entirely symbolic.
The Queen may be ignored BY parliament.
The Prime Minister is accountable TO parliament.
Like many other things, it is entirely different from - for example -
The United States.
In this country, we tend to flush the contents of a baby's nappy
(diaper), down the toilet.
In The United States, they take the contents of a baby's nappy
(diaper) and stand around saluting it, until somebody elects it to
office.
HTH
Old Nick.
jim.gm4dhj
> Basically so that a minority bunch of troglodyte residents on the
> island of Ireland, can continue to live in their fantasy world of
> 'King Billy' and the 'Battle of the Boyne' and not have to face up to
> the fact that we're in the 21st Century, not 1690.
Wow...spot on !!!
jim.gm4dhj
> It always helps, my friend, that in order to win an argument you don't
quote
> something you wrote *yourself* and argument against it. You wrote
> "parliament is sovereign" in the first place. ;-)
>
> Larry
>
Nice one Larry!!!! ......
jim.gm4dhj
> >Basically so that a minority bunch of troglodyte residents on the
> >island of Ireland, can continue to live in their fantasy world of
> >'King Billy' and the 'Battle of the Boyne' and not have to face up to
> >the fact that we're in the 21st Century, not 1690.
>
> Obviously you know fuck all about Ireland too.
He does you know......and less of the F word......
jim.gm4dhj
> Hey Larry, where you been? Long time, though not as long as some of your
> other absences.
>
> ken
>
>
Don't change the subject just'coz you have lost the argument...........
jim.gm4dhj
that people who
> >know precious little about Gib is to replace the last "a" with an "e".
>
> Had you bothered to check you would have seen that I had already spelt
> it correctly, in an earlier part of the same posting. I suspect that
> many would have reasonably assumed that the later incorrect spelling
> was merely a typing error.
> But as I say, if you wish to play games, so be it.
>
> Your spelling/typing/both, is quite atrocious. I hope you are suitably
> appreciative of all of your many mistakes which I'm taking the trouble
> to point out.
>
> Nick.
World class..........
jim.gm4dhj
> I halve a spelling chequer
> It came with my pea sea.
> It clearly marques four my revue
> Missed aches four me two sea!
>
> Too much trouble to press F7
>
> K
>
>
Old joke......tisk tisk........lost it.......
luc...@eternal-flames.gov
paused briefly between playing with his doll's house, to write:
>I do not seek any power, and it woul be better for many if
>perhaps you were not to get your hands on any either.
Curses Igor... Foiled again.
>Anyone can have any opinion they like. It's when they start
>imposing their will it may become objectionable.
Which brings us back to the question of who decides what is
objectionable?
>If Spain were so democratic, she would not seek to gain
>sovereignty over Gibraltar without the express agreement of
>the Gibraltarians.
Well they might if they never accepted that the transfer of
sovereignty was a legitimate act, in the first place.
Let's be honest about it, it was the result of warfare. We, together
with the other four main allied powers, weren't allowed to keep
Germany/Austria/Italy, after WW2.
We - the majority of the world's countries - are at this moment (and
for many years past), trying to get Israel to hand back the territory
on the west bank of the Jordan, which it captured in 1967.
>Are you aware that Spain remains the only country in W Europe
>with expansionist tendencies?
Tendencies is an interesting choice of words.
>Are you aware that Spain has border troubles / anomalies with
>every one of the countries she shares a border with?
But it's not engaged in warfare with them.
>Have you considered that this would be a non-issue if Spain
>were to drop her anachronistic claim?
I agree with you. It would also be better if Spain was prepared to
practice what it preaches and handed back it's colonial outposts on
the north African coast.
> Always wise to get your dates right in these sort of things... Saves
> you making a prat of yourself.
Yes - you should.
I did. You didn't.
/ pantomime mode on /
"Oh no you didn't"
"Oh yes I did"
ad-infinitum...
/ pantomime mode off /
>Oh that has occurred to me long before you ever came along.
>Remember I have lived with this issue oevery single day of my
>life so far, perhaps longer than you have ocnsidered it, even if
>you are older than I.
Perhaps it's time to start getting used to it then... Things are
going to change...
Staus quo isn't a long-term option. (even for Status Quo) Remember.
You read it here first.
Oh indeed so full a member and so cooperative in all things that she
deinies the UK (and the UK supinely accepts, for before SPain the UK
lowers herself to the level of a mop)
That's politics for you. There's nothing unique about that. New
Zealand and I believe some Australian states, won't allow RN vessels
which are nuclear powered, or carrying nuclear weapons into their
waters... Or similar USN vessels for that matter.
>I halve a spelling chequer
>It came with my pea sea.
>It clearly marques four my revue
>Missed aches four me two sea!
:-) There you go (-:
Nick.
jim.gm4dhj
> :-) There you go (-:
>
> Nick.
>
>
>
luc...@eternal-flames.gov
<jim.gm4...@ntlworld.com>, paused briefly between playing with his
doll's house, to write:
>> Nick.
It works for me... Now I'm off with 'er indoors, across to the local
for a jar or two.
Good evening Gentlemen.
Nick.
Ken
<luc...@eternal-flames.gov> wrote in message
news:9mu2u0d5l7eun5akk...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 17:23:16 -0000, "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk>,
> paused briefly between playing with his doll's house, to write:
>
>>I do not seek any power, and it woul be better for many if
>>perhaps you were not to get your hands on any either.
>
> Curses Igor... Foiled again.
(exit Bluebottle)
>
>>Anyone can have any opinion they like. It's when they start
>>imposing their will it may become objectionable.
>
> Which brings us back to the question of who decides what is
> objectionable?
Indeed. It is better that no-one should try to ipose their will on others,
for that is when troubles start. Does not history teach us time and again
that when "solutions" are imposed on people by others, however well menaing,
the plans are ultimately doomed to failure?
>
>>If Spain were so democratic, she would not seek to gain
>>sovereignty over Gibraltar without the express agreement of
>>the Gibraltarians.
>
> Well they might if they never accepted that the transfer of
> sovereignty was a legitimate act, in the first place.
They are unable to concede they lost the war, which was ultimately their own
doing by squabbling among themselves - but thee is no point harking on about
what was and what could have been. What happened happened, and here we are
having to live with the consequences. Wishing it had been different will not
change the mire we find ourselves in today
>
> Let's be honest about it, it was the result of warfare. We, together
> with the other four main allied powers, weren't allowed to keep
> Germany/Austria/Italy, after WW2.
No - quite so. You are now talking of 1945, whereas the problem at the root
of the present state of affairs is rooted at the start of 18th cent. While
anyone can object to the way things were done then, it would be foolish to
try to judge what was done 300 years ago by the standards of today. If
nothing else, we have no one to punish as they have long since ceased to
push up daisies.
What is inexcusable is to try to impose "solutions" in an 18th century
fashion on the problem which exists today, simply because the problems can
be traced back to actions carried out 300 years ago.
>>Are you aware that Spain remains the only country in W Europe
>>with expansionist tendencies?
>
> Tendencies is an interesting choice of words.
Well, let me spell them out. You decide what to call it. Spain seeks to
expand her border to the south by taking control of Gibraltar against the
wishes of the Gibraltarians. To the south also, she has border issues with
Morocco as you point out regarding Ceuta and Melilla. You will be aware of
the more recent spat over as islet 200yds off the mainland of Morocco which
the Sp call Perejil (Parsley) and the Moroccans call Leila. Are you aware of
the other islands and islets claimed by Morocco as theirs but contested by
Spain? These are Pe~on de Velez de la Gomera, Pe~on de Alhucaimas and the
Chafarinas Islands.
To the west, Spain has an ongoing dispute with Portugal over Olivenca.
To the north there is the anomalous Llivia. Nothing much is heard about this
simply because the French, unlike the Sp., have the maturity to accept that
while geography suggests this should be part of France, it would do more
people more harm than good to kick up a fuss over a plot of land little
bigger than a park in any European capital.
Let me remind you of other "anomalies", such as San Marino, Monaco,
Morokulien - all within Europe. There are other anomalous places around the
world, such as the bits of France that are located in N America, for
example - and no-one seems to make a fuss.
Oh that Sp should grow up!
>
> Yes - you should.
>
> I did. You didn't.
>
> / pantomime mode on /
>
> "Oh no you didn't"
>
> "Oh yes I did"
>
> ad-infinitum...
>
> / pantomime mode off /
BTW - is that a REAL horse?
>
>
>>Oh that has occurred to me long before you ever came along.
>>Remember I have lived with this issue oevery single day of my
>>life so far, perhaps longer than you have ocnsidered it, even if
>>you are older than I.
>
> Perhaps it's time to start getting used to it then... Things are
> going to change...
Well, according to what we hear intermittently from Madrid, things are
a-changing. You may have heard that SPain has agreed to participate in
tripartite talks, when any one of the three parties (Gib, UK, Sp) can bring
up any topic it wishes in order that it should be discussed. While no-one is
using the word "veto", it is also agreed that nothing is agreed if it is not
agreed by all three parties.
We have yet to see what will come of this as the ink has barely had time to
dry on the framework agreement - it is too soon to start counting chickens.
It is also true that the current Sp govt is having a hard time of this in Sp
as the extreme right wing is rather upset by what they consider a sell out
to Gib. Like I say, time will tell.
> Staus quo isn't a long-term option. (even for Status Quo) Remember.
> You read it here first.
I am not very wise, but wise enough to realise that the only thing that is
constant is change. At times chages occur so slowly as to give the
impression of no change, but it is only the rate of change that is variable.
K
jim.gm4dhj
Now I'm off with 'er indoors, across to the local
> for a jar or two.
>
> Good evening Gentlemen.
>
> Nick.
What a guy.......can handle his wife and drink as well...........
Ken
You fancy him, or what? And here you were calling Wattie all things under
t'sun!
K
jim.gm4dhj
> > What a guy.......can handle his wife and drink as well...........
>
> You fancy him, or what? And here you were calling Wattie all things under
> t'sun!
>
> K
>
>
Watt.......
Ken
So you DO fancy him then?
K
jim.gm4dhj
"Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:crs770$6lj$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
Ken
Oh hi there Mrs GM4DHJ, a pleasure to make your acquaintance. I was
wondering - what is it about Gib you love so much that you keep on dragging
your OM to time and again despite his dislike for the place? To give him
credit, he must be besotted with his XYL to keep on indulging you like that!
K
Jim Watt
wrote:
>If you mean that I don't place any particular value on the future of
>Gibraltar under any particular flag. You're right.
Then don't waste your time here, be on yoyur way and leave it
to us to ensure that the flag we fly is the the one we chose.
Jim Watt
rambled on:
>Do YOU understand the supremacy of parliament now?
Better than you.
>
>>Yes and no. When Gibraltar joined we obtained certain benefits
>>that you do not have. For instance we can apply different
>>transitional arrangements for immigrants from new member states
>>to the UK and when we transpose EU directives into Gibraltar
>>law they do not have to be exactly the same as for the UK.
>
>Quite. We have very similar transitional arrangements in force here.
Again you are badly informed.
>Some neighbouring country - let's not cast Spain as the 'bad-guy' all
>of the time - decides to occupy Gibraltar tomorrow.
>
>Can Gibraltar defend itself, by itself, to the point where the
>continued occupancy by the invading country, is not sustainable?
We seem to have defended ourselves against being sold down the
river by Jack Straw pretty well, The Gibraltar Defence Force,
local men defended Gibraltar during WW2 and there were more
Gibraltarians helping to invade Iraq than, for example Spaniards.
>It would make more sense, if you were campaigning to be fully
>integrated into the UK
Why should we want that? The only reasons we were enfranchised
as part of the South West region was that the UK were ordered by
the ECHR to allow us to vote and Spain blocked the obvious route.
>>Obviously you know fuck all about Ireland too.
>
>But at least I know more than you...
On the contrary the problem is you don't even know whether I
know anything about it or not.
>>I wonder if they will drop the restriction on warships not being
>>allowed into Spanish ports after calling into Gibraltar if they
>>were Spanish warships ?
>
>Interesting... I wonder if the Spanish Navy may station a flotilla of
>vessels at the base, full time. They would of course be flying the
>dark blue NATO flag alongside the Spanish ensign, so no problem there
>surely?
You miss the point. It does not matter what flags vessels fly, indeed
when they are in the dry docks they often fly the Spanish flag,
the issue is that Spain bans any military ships that call into
Gibraltar from entering Spanish ports. How would they deal with
one of their own that wanted to do that ? Would they have to
visit Morocco first.
>>And BTW there are more British people who own property in
>>Spain in the UK than Gibraltar, does that mean you want to
>>share sovereignty with Spain and have the Gardia patrolling
>>you high streets?
>
>I don't understand your argument.
Let me explain it in more simple terms then, you commented that
Gibraltarians own property in Spain. So do other British people,
so do Russians, so do Norwegians - what does this prove? that
people own property in Spain and nothing else.
So it was a very stupid thing for you to say.
>Gibraltarians have property in Spain... That property is in areas
>policed by the Spanish.
Thats because its in Spain. If it was in Germany it would be
policed by .... Germans !!
WoW has your tiny mind gone pop yet?
>My drawing attention to the mainland-property owning Gibraltarians,
Mainland? wheres that? I know where Maryland and Sealand are
>was to point out the hypocrisy of those who wanted nothing to do with
>Spain, but were quite prepared to own property and be sometime
>residents of the place.
More like your lack of a grasp of reality.
Jim Watt
wrote:
>Oh hi there Mrs GM4DHJ, a pleasure to make your acquaintance. I was
>wondering - what is it about Gib you love so much that you keep on dragging
>your OM to time and again despite his dislike for the place? To give him
>credit, he must be besotted with his XYL to keep on indulging you like that!
Its safer than the far east as he says he fancies ladyboys, none of
that business here.
Jim Watt
wrote:
>The Queen may be ignored BY parliament.
Yet the Queen can dissolve parliament. She does so
regularly.
Its a pity they do not teach these things in School.
jim.gm4dhj
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
news:j4k3u0dcbc8fk0lv6...@4ax.com...
it is a well known fact and documented that alameda gardens is full of them
luc...@eternal-flames.gov
paused briefly between playing with his doll's house, to write:
Good morning flower...
>Yet the Queen can dissolve parliament. She does so
>regularly.
Uh-huh... And who do you think asks her to do so?
CLUE: The same person who writes her speech for the State Opening of
Parliament.
>Its a pity they do not teach these things in School.
Oh they do old flower. I assume they did it at your school even...
Quite astonishing that you missed it all... Maybe it was on the same
day that your school had PE and you'll remember of course how your
mother kept you home on those days so that the big boys wouldn't laugh
at you in the showers.
Old Nick.
luc...@eternal-flames.gov
paused briefly between playing with his doll's house, to write:
>>Do YOU understand the supremacy of parliament now?
>
>Better than you.
It's funny, you exhibit very little signs of understanding anything.
Don't take that as an insult... I think it's wonderful how somebody
as educationally challenged can get through life as well as you manage
to do.
>>Quite. We have very similar transitional arrangements in force here.
>
>Again you are badly informed.
Of course old flower... Nobody is as informed as you eh?
Certainly nobody has the same information as you have... How could
they since you make most of it up as you go along.
>We seem to have defended ourselves against being sold down the
>river by Jack Straw pretty well, The Gibraltar Defence Force,
>local men defended Gibraltar during WW2 and there were more
>Gibraltarians helping to invade Iraq than, for example Spaniards.
Somebody seems to have left you in 'Rambling Irrelevantly' mode
>>>Obviously you know fuck all about Ireland too.
>>But at least I know more than you... Which let's face it, isn't
>>difficult.
>On the contrary the problem is you don't even know whether I
>know anything about it or not.
It was just a wild guess I made. based on the way every one of your
postings demonstrates that you appear to know sod all about anything.
HTH.
>You miss the point. It does not matter what flags vessels fly,
Exactly.
Just as to ever-increasing numbers of the UK population, it doesn't
matter what flag is flown on a lump of rock where some of the
residents are so anally fixated.
>Thats because its in Spain. If it was in Germany it would be
>policed by .... Germans !!
Well I'll be damned... I could have sworn I said something like
that... Put a silver star in your exercise book old flower...
You're finally learning something.
Now are you going to try and explain your convoluted logic that
Spanish Police should be on the streets of the UK?
>WoW has your tiny mind gone pop yet?
Regularly old flower... How about your mind... Any sign of it at yet
at 'Lost property' ?
>>My drawing attention to the mainland-property owning Gibraltarians,
>
>Mainland? wheres that?
You know... The other end of the causeway... The place where most of
the intelligent people live.
>I know where Maryland and Sealand are
SEE! You can understand things when you really make the effort.
I just knew you weren't as thick as everybody says you are...
Some have told me that you have to put in such long hours of practice
to be so dense. I never believed them of course, I always said
they were wrong and it was probably something which came quite
naturally to you... (Genetic perhaps?) But then I saw the late hour
you made this posting. Mon, 10 Jan 2005 01:42:56
I'm impressed that you stayed up so late trying to compose what you
thought was an intelligent response to one of my postings...
Be honest. You had help didn't you? It's okay to admit it... I
won't think any less of you... I couldn't think any less of you than I
do at the moment.
Never mind old flower... It still deserves a B+ for effort.
You have a good day now and try not to think too hard.
If you're lucky, we may play again when I get home tonight.
If you're unlucky, we definitely will.
Old Nick.
p.s. Perhaps if you ask Ken - try and be really polite for once - he
may be able to help further with your education. Maybe he'll tell
you about, cats, mats and the sitting of the one on the other. Won't
that be exciting for you?
jim.gm4dhj
Jim Watt
wrote:
>Don't take that as an insult... I think it's wonderful how somebody
>as educationally challenged can get through life as well as you manage
>to do.
That sounds like abuse to me, could it be a cover for losing an
argument.
>Certainly nobody has the same information as you have... How could
>they since you make most of it up as you go along.
More abuse and unfounded allegations.
>>We seem to have defended ourselves against being sold down the
>>river by Jack Straw pretty well, The Gibraltar Defence Force,
>>local men defended Gibraltar during WW2 and there were more
>>Gibraltarians helping to invade Iraq than, for example Spaniards.
>
>Somebody seems to have left you in 'Rambling Irrelevantly' mode
Let me remind you the topic was 'could Gibraltar defend itself' WW2
was the last time the rock was defended militarily and thats how the
Gibraltarians did.
>It was just a wild guess I made. based on the way every one of your
>postings demonstrates that you appear to know sod all about anything.
More abuse
>HTH.
>>You miss the point. It does not matter what flags vessels fly,
>
>Exactly.
>Just as to ever-increasing numbers of the UK population, it doesn't
>matter what flag is flown on a lump of rock where some of the
>residents are so anally fixated.
If it doesn't matter, why are you bothering to argue about it?
>How about your mind... Any sign of it at yet
>at 'Lost property' ?
Yet more abuse
>>>My drawing attention to the mainland-property owning Gibraltarians,
>>
>>Mainland? wheres that?
>
>You know... The other end of the causeway... The place where most of
>the intelligent people live.
No, I live here.
>SEE! You can understand things when you really make the effort.
>I just knew you weren't as thick as everybody says you are...
There is a lot of personal abuse in this posting
>Some have told me that you have to put in such long hours of practice
>to be so dense.
Are you trying to say something here ?
>I'm impressed that you stayed up so late trying to compose what you
>thought was an intelligent response to one of my postings...
Sometimes it amusing to reply to trolls, rather the same way as one
might squash a bug.
>Be honest. You had help didn't you? It's okay to admit it... I
>won't think any less of you... I couldn't think any less of you than I
>do at the moment.
Is there a hit of abuse there ?
>p.s. Perhaps if you ask Ken - try and be really polite for once - he
>may be able to help further with your education. Maybe he'll tell
>you about, cats, mats and the sitting of the one on the other. Won't
>that be exciting for you?
Theres a general lack of content in that posting, apart from the
abuse.
I have a castle.
luc...@eternal-flames.gov
paused briefly between playing with his doll's house, to write:
>That sounds like abuse to me, could it be a cover for losing an
>argument.
Hello again old flower...
I just knew you wouldn't be able to resist the bait, so thought I'd
spend a happy few moments of a coffee-break, playing with you again.
I'm intrigued that you regard that as abuse old flower.
How about the following examples:
>JW> WoW has your tiny mind gone pop yet?
>JW> More like your lack of a grasp of reality.
>JW> On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 09:41:50 +0000 (UTC), luc...@eternal-flames.gov
>JW> paused from wanking to mutter:
>JW> Obviously you know fuck all about Ireland too.
Are they abuse as well? Or because they are remarks made by you,
don't they count?
Perhaps they were intended to demonstrate further - if any more proof
were needed - that you have - in your own words - lost the argument.
You patently lack the ability to engage in debate/argument, call it
what you like. Even Ken makes a better fist of it than you.
Having taken particular note of how you invariably resort to personal
and abusive comments whenever you are losing arguments with others.
I thought I'd join in with your little game and up the ante a shade.
Getting too hot for you now is it? So this is where you turn on the
righteous indignation bit.
>>Somebody seems to have left you in 'Rambling Irrelevantly' mode
>
>Let me remind you the topic was 'could Gibraltar defend itself' WW2
>was the last time the rock was defended militarily and thats how the
>Gibraltarians did.
Oh? Where does it say that? I thought the "topic" was "Future of
Gibraltar" - as shown above.
>>Just as to ever-increasing numbers of the UK population, it doesn't
>>matter what flag is flown on a lump of rock where some of the
>>residents are so anally fixated.
>
>If it doesn't matter, why are you bothering to argue about it?
But I'm not. I made a posting You freely decided to engage me in
what you regard as debate over what I posted. I didn't ask you to
reply... It matters not one jot to me whether you reply or not.
But as you did, you cannot now complain that I responded to your
reply.
>>How about your mind... Any sign of it at yet
>>at 'Lost property' ?
>
>Yet more abuse
Quite. So who started with the "abuse" old flower?
CLUE: Take a look in a mirror... NO! On second thoughts, you
better not do that. You'll end up with seven years of bad luck AND
me... Not to mention having to clear up the broken glass.
>>>>My drawing attention to the mainland-property owning Gibraltarians,
>>>
>>>Mainland? wheres that?
>>
>>You know... The other end of the causeway... The place where most of
>>the intelligent people live.
>
>No, I live here.
Which is why I said "where most of the intelligent people live"
There is a population of some 30,000 on Gib... It stands to reason
that many will be intelligent. Probably 29,999 of them... Leaving
just you.
>There is a lot of personal abuse in this posting
Uh-huh. Are you saying that even though you started the 'Abuse game'
you no longer want to play? Well ask me nicely then.
>>Some have told me that you have to put in such long hours of practice
>>to be so dense.
>
>Are you trying to say something here ?
Moi? Whatever makes you think that?
>Sometimes it amusing to reply to trolls, rather the same way as one
>might squash a bug.
I do that as well. Would you like some lessons? Let's face it you
certainly need them.
>>Be honest. You had help didn't you? It's okay to admit it... I
>>won't think any less of you... I couldn't think any less of you than I
>>do at the moment.
>
>Is there a hit of abuse there ?
"a hit of abuse" ?
Not from me... I seldom hit people.
>Theres a general lack of content in that posting, apart from the
>abuse.
You know, I thought exactly the same about many of your postings, in
this and other threads.
Good game though isn't it?
>I have a castle.
I have horns and a bloody big fork.
Specially to fork around with prats who have castles.
Well... That's my coffee-break over.
Good fun this isn't it? I hope you are enjoying it as much as I am.
BTW: A couple of years ago when you were still a toddler, you must
surely have had many people - aunt's, uncles, grandparents, your own
parents, possible even people who liked you - regularly telling you
that you were spoilt, ill-mannered, evil little brat, who would end up
in Hell.
Well guess what...
Old Nick
jim.gm4dhj
> Quite astonishing that you missed it all... Maybe it was on the same
> day that your school had PE and you'll remember of course how your
> mother kept you home on those days so that the big boys wouldn't laugh
> at you in the showers.
>
> Old Nick.
Wooops even I wouldn't go that far! .....
jim.gm4dhj
> Oh hi there Mrs GM4DHJ, a pleasure to make your acquaintance. I was
> wondering - what is it about Gib you love so much that you keep on
dragging
> your OM to time and again despite his dislike for the place? To give him
> credit, he must be besotted with his XYL to keep on indulging you like
that!
>
> K
>
>
I like Gib because I feel safe when I am there which I don't feel in Spain
no language barrier I find the people friendly. And I love the queens cinema
dispite the young people firing balls of paper popcorn and sweets at the
back of your head. I love the shops . I love st mikes cave and the classical
music they play. Don't like the cable car or the top of the rock because I
am scared of heights. I once had furry"Diana" on top of my head half way
down. Swimming at Cat bay and Sandy bay. Caly Paly was my fav hotel Queens
not bad. If I could come back I would but Jim Watt has turned my hubby
against the place. Thanks for the chat Ken
Geraldine.
luc...@eternal-flames.gov
<jim.g...@ntlworld.com>, paused briefly between playing with his
doll's house, to write:
You're quite right JIm. That was a bit extreme... Even for me...
What I meant to say was, so that the big girls wouldn't laugh at him
in the showers. ;-)
Have you noticed Jim how old Watts-his-name frequently resorts to
personalising an argument with abuse and insults. Then as soon as he
gets some returned, starts whinging?
I suppose he doesn't understand that as soon as he starts with abuse,
I'm free to regard it as open-season on him.
You don't suppose he has a relative in Chippenham do you? :-)
Nick.
jim.gm4dhj
> You're quite right JIm. That was a bit extreme... Even for me...
>
> What I meant to say was, so that the big girls wouldn't laugh at him
> in the showers. ;-)
>
> Have you noticed Jim how old Watts-his-name frequently resorts to
> personalising an argument with abuse and insults. Then as soon as he
> gets some returned, starts whinging?
>
> I suppose he doesn't understand that as soon as he starts with abuse,
> I'm free to regard it as open-season on him.
>
> You don't suppose he has a relative in Chippenham do you? :-)
>
> Nick.
Yes well he seemed OK at the startin'03 but he just can't take any criticism
of Gib and turns nasty and there IS a lot wrong with Gib.....Ken is ok his
bark is worse than his bite even though he threatened legal action against
me...but I am fed up with the whole situation and will only lurk in future
though the wife has taken an interest in the group due to Watties
insinuations...
Ken
I quite like Jim Watt, no-one's perfect of course but he's fine. I think the
two Jim's just got off on the wrong feet with each other, and it's since
become personal. Now I know it's a tad pricier for you to visit Gib from
Glasgow, but when flights are available from around £50 return from wither
Manchester or Luton, couldn't you leave the OM @ home and go over by
yourself? Take a couple of friends perhaps and make a lng weekend out if it?
Lots to do for such a small place as you have just detailed, and by your own
words too, you can feel and in fact are safe.
Not that he takes you for granted, but just think how much more Jim would
appreciate you if you left him to his own devices for a few days! Mind you,
you might not have a recognisable home to return to given the slovenly
nature of a bloke left by himself for a while . . .
Ken
Jim Watt
wrote:
>Having taken particular note of how you invariably resort to personal
>and abusive comments whenever you are losing arguments with others.
>I thought I'd join in with your little game and up the ante a shade.
OK stick your computer up your arse and fuck off.
jim.gm4dhj
Now I know it's a tad pricier for you to visit Gib from
> Glasgow, but when flights are available from around £50 return from wither
> Manchester or Luton, couldn't you leave the OM @ home and go over by
> yourself? Take a couple of friends perhaps and make a lng weekend out if
it?
> Lots to do for such a small place as you have just detailed, and by your
own
> words too, you can feel and in fact are safe.
>
> Not that he takes you for granted, but just think how much more Jim would
> appreciate you if you left him to his own devices for a few days! Mind
you,
> you might not have a recognisable home to return to given the slovenly
> nature of a bloke left by himself for a while . . .
>
> Ken
>
>
holiday is no good without the one you love. I used to work for Safeway and
could get 10% off at Liptons and later Safeway in Gibraltar and I now work
for Holiday Inn and it is a shame that it is no more in Gib or I could get
free weekends there. Never mind we will return some day but it will be a
hard job dragging hubby. What would be the chances of not running into Jim
Watt if we came back? Or perhaps we should arrange a showdown,you know sort
out the problem.
jim.gm4dhj
> OK stick your computer up your arse and fuck off.
>
> --
> Jim Watt
But Jim... not everybody would enjoy that like you do.......
luc...@eternal-flames.gov
paused briefly between playing with his doll's house, to write:
ROTFL.
Jusqu'au garçon la prochaine fois petit.
Old Nick
Larry G
>
> "Larry G" <thela...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:34d5maF...@individual.net...
> > <luc...@eternal-flames.gov> wrote in message ...
> >> >>Parliament is sovereign.
> >>
> >> I thought that was the Queen.
> >>
> >> "The Queen/King is a Sovereign and Head of State of a Parliamentary
> >> Democracy." Guess where that is a quote from.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > It always helps, my friend, that in order to win an argument you don't
> > quote
> > something you wrote *yourself* and argument against it. You wrote
> > "parliament is sovereign" in the first place. ;-)
> >
>
> Hey Larry, where you been? Long time, though not as long as some of your
> other absences.
Hey Ken. :) I'm fine. My hard drive is failing though, sounds like a sick
animal, lol. So, I've haven't been online as much. Been looking for a new
computer. Hope you are doing well, and had a merry Christmas. :)
Larry
Jim Watt
wrote:
>Hey Ken. :) I'm fine. My hard drive is failing though, sounds like a sick
>animal, lol. So, I've haven't been online as much. Been looking for a new
>computer. Hope you are doing well, and had a merry Christmas. :)
Its more often a CPU or Power supply fan that sounds rough and easily
replaced. However if it is the HD make sure you have backups !!
We had a batch of Fujitsu drives that all died slowly. I believe
there is a class action over their manufacturing defect in the US.
Ken
Oh Crimbo was fine, all quiet with the family about and 10 days off work -
which is always welcome as the batteries needed recharging. Back at work
with a vengance now of course, but off to Gib for a few days in a couple of
weeks, meet old friends and family, have a few relaxed coffees at tables on
the pavement etc etc. You could say it's just to top up those batteries.
Ken
Cybernest
within the (to date as I write) 77 posts! lol!
Wow... what a thread! I have laughed... with Jim's exasperated but
succinct comment, though I must express a touch of surprise and
amusement. I have thrown my arms up in despair and wondered why, if
these two other posters don't care about the fate of Gibraltar, what
the hell are they doing wasting their time arguing the toss here? Do
as Jim succinctly suggested... oh and on the way... GET A LIFE!
I just wanted to congratulate Ken and Jim's brilliant handling of this
thread... and over time, many other similar threads. We know you have
been patient.
I also wanted to show my support You express the feelings and views...
certainly of this Gibraltarian and I suspect the vast majority of
Gibraltarians, in a very eloquent, considered and accurate way and I
support and thank you for it! Well done!
Ken
"Cybernest" <cybe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1105465082.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Thank you for your comments and your support. Nice to know there are friends
out there!
Ken
luc...@eternal-flames.gov
, paused briefly between playing with his doll's house, to write:
>I have thrown my arms up in despair and wondered why, if
>these two other posters don't care about the fate of Gibraltar,
Who said I don't care about the "fate of Gibraltar" ?
>I just wanted to congratulate Ken and Jim's brilliant handling
>of this thread...
I agree that Ken's viewpoint was certainly interesting and far better
argued than Jim's. Ken also ISTM is prepared to accept that others
may have different views on the future of Gib. than he does.
Jim as usual resorted to petulance and personalisation when he failed
to get his way. But that's typical Jim.
You should have joined in Cybernest... More views always make for
more interesting debate.
Nick.
p.s. I think it's safe to claim it as the longest thread on alt.gib -
At least this year. :-)
Jim Watt
wrote:
>Well Kenny, I think you got the answer to your question...
I wonder if he bothered to read it, if indeed he exists.
We covered some territory until such time as the discussion
was exhaused and simple abuse exceeded any other content
I'm always happy to answer both.
However, 'fuck off' is an adequate response to blatent trolls
solely interested in the clockwork aspect of newsgroups.
The future of Gibraltar is of great interest to those of us who
are Gibraltarian and intend to be part of it, even if not this week
or year. Those who have only a passing interest remind me
its time to have beans on toast for supper.
Keep up the blogging.
John Doe
"Kenny" <922omit_the_...@telefonica.net> wrote in message
news:nj4tt0t7k3r3t6u85...@4ax.com...
> PS I do feel some of you guys might go easier on a Mr Jim Watt.
> I obviously missed the original cause of the contempt.......
I'll remind you, he's a filthy racist.
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.10 - Release Date: 10/01/2005
Kenny
put you through that. But I learned one hell of a lot things, about
Gibraltar as well (grins).
I think some of the scathing exchanges are all an act (superior even
to the Monty Python scripts) and that you all love each other really.
Bet you all sit in the boozer every Friday night having a good laugh
over successfully winding up another sucker on the NG.
The next time I have to put someone down, this NG will serve as my
reference source for an unlimited variety of ways of killing my victim
verbally. You are highly entertaining, the pro's of prose - thanks
again for your time and input.
Kenny
luc...@eternal-flames.gov
<922omit_the_...@telefonica.net>, paused briefly between
playing with his doll's house, to write:
>thanks again for your time and input.
Glad to oblige... Anytime.
Somebody has to wind up old Watty after all.
Nick.
Jim Watt
wrote:
>Somebody has to wind up old Watty after all.
Pleased to see you confirm you are nothing but a worthless troll
to everyone.
Now, I post under my real name, and I'm quite happy to discuss
things with people in person, but you are a coward.
Back under your virtual stone, little worm, the game is up.
luc...@eternal-flames.gov
paused briefly between playing with his doll's house, to write:
>Pleased to see you confirm you are nothing but a worthless troll
>to everyone.
>
>Now, I post under my real name, and I'm quite happy to discuss
>things with people in person, but you are a coward.
>
>
>Back under your virtual stone, little worm, the game is up.
So says the hypocritical little dipstick who is always the first to
complain when he receives what he - in his infinitely tiny wisdom -
regards as "abuse".
Interestingly enough, he is also the first to resort to posting abuse.
Keep it up Jimmy boy... With every posting you prove the point.
Old Nick.
p.s. Aren't you glad you invited me onto this newsgroup?
Ken
> Thank you so much for running the marathon guys, I never intended to
> put you through that. But I learned one hell of a lot things, about
> Gibraltar as well (grins).
>
> I think some of the scathing exchanges are all an act (superior even
> to the Monty Python scripts) and that you all love each other really.
> Bet you all sit in the boozer every Friday night having a good laugh
> over successfully winding up another sucker on the NG.
Well, some of us meet up occasionally but it's not a regular. Jim Watt and I
meet many of the times I go over to Gib. Some of the times are just a few
days - like the forthcoming visit in a couple of weeks - and it's not always
possible to meet up. Manny, who posts here not infrequently, I do meet up
with more frequently. As to the other posters here, I don't believe I've
ever met them other than on-line.
As to "winding up another sucker", that was never my intention! As I recall,
YOU started it by asking a question or two! But no, seriously, this NG
exists to discuss, to exchange ideas, and in the process it comes to inform
and educate those who would hang around a while. What no-one knows is how
many listeners and lurkers are out there, never willing to ask or answer any
question or participate in a debate. Some might remain silent in the wings
for fear of being burnt down in flames. Well, post with an alias and be
done!
Personally, my position is that we are all entitled to our opinion and to
voice it. I expect to be argued with if I say something that riles, but
equally expect me to argue with you if you say something that riles me. What
I do expect any reasonable person to appreciate however is that
Gibraltarians ultimately are not asking for anything which is not taken for
granted elsewhere - the right to decide for ourselves what happens and does
not happen in ur homeland. We are of necessity a tolerant lot, but the line
is drawn at that point when someone, however well intentioned, tries to tell
us how best to live our lives. THAT is a decision we reserve for ourselves
and we alone to make.
>
> The next time I have to put someone down, this NG will serve as my
> reference source for an unlimited variety of ways of killing my victim
> verbally. You are highly entertaining, the pro's of prose - thanks
> again for your time and input.
Any time you want to join in, however inflamatory, please do as far as I'm
concerned.
K
Larry G
> paused briefly between playing with his doll's house, to write:
>
>
>
> >> >>Parliament is sovereign.
>
> >> I thought that was the Queen.
>
> >> "The Queen/King is a Sovereign and Head of State of a Parliamentary
> >> Democracy." Guess where that is a quote from.
>
> >quote something you wrote *yourself* and argument against it.
> >You wrote "parliament is sovereign" in the first place. ;-)
>
>
> It always helps my friend, if you have the first idea what you are
> talking about.
>
> Parliament is sovereign.
> It is the supreme authority in the United Kingdom.
> Above the government. Above the Queen.
> GOT IT?
>
> The Queen is a Sovereign Head of State.
> She is not the Head of the 'executive' - that is the Prime Minister.
> Her role in the UK is almost entirely symbolic.
>
> The Queen may be ignored BY parliament.
> The Prime Minister is accountable TO parliament.
>
> Like many other things, it is entirely different from - for example -
> The United States.
>
> In this country, we tend to flush the contents of a baby's nappy
> (diaper), down the toilet.
>
> In The United States, they take the contents of a baby's nappy
> (diaper) and stand around saluting it, until somebody elects it to
> office.
>
> HTH
>
> Old Nick.
Yes, alas, I have the fortune of being a "merkin" as many of you folks love
to call us. I voted for the other guy twice. At least we have the hope of
electing a government in opposition to it if we can keep the monopoly vote
counting companies out of that business. Britain has elected a socialist
government that seems to be a connessieur of nappy contents, as you say,
despite what the majority of the people want. Your only other option is to
elect a conservative government, which I can't imagine taking an
"anti-merkin" stand, and I don't suppose the LibDems have much of a chance
of forming a government these days.
It all brings back Star Wars wisdom: "Who's more foolish - the fool or the
fool that follows him?" - Obi Wan Kenobi
Yet, we keep marching onward, us merkins and brits, though I really don't
understand what whale food and vaginal hood coverings have to do with it
much. ;-)
At any rate, I believe that the Gibraltarians have a right to
self-determination. The people have been loyal citizens of the U.K., and I
believe that London owes them its loyalty in return, whatever their wish is.
300 years of British rule is enough to justify that I say.
As for the monarchy, as a result of the mess that politicans can make of the
state and government, I'm one of those few Americans that is a monarchist,
or at least that favors a ceremonial presidency, to keep the state out of
the "nappy contents" that comprises much government action these days. I'm
of the belief that it's just as well to let the nobles and such keep their
titles, because surely the republicans (those who favor a republican form of
government) will honor themselves anyway. Class distinctions don't disappear
in a republic. Better to have a monarch in charge, I say, if that goes on.
Larry
Ken
> <luc...@eternal-flames.gov> wrote in message ...
>> On Sun 9 Jan 2005 08:48:01 -0800, "Larry G" <thelarry...@yahoo.com> ,
>> paused briefly between playing with his doll's house, to write:
> Yes, alas, I have the fortune of being a "merkin" as many of you folks
> love
> to call us.
We OTOH find ourselves living in "Yurp"
> I voted for the other guy twice. At least we have the hope of
> electing a government in opposition to it if we can keep the monopoly vote
> counting companies out of that business. Britain has elected a socialist
> government that seems to be a connessieur of nappy contents, as you say,
> despite what the majority of the people want. Your only other option is to
> elect a conservative government, which I can't imagine taking an
> "anti-merkin" stand, and I don't suppose the LibDems have much of a chance
> of forming a government these days.
From the Gib point of view, it would be preferable to have a conservative
govt though to be frank it didn't do us much good when they were last in.
That came about of course because the conservatives were in when Spain
emerged from dictatorship into the wide world (Franco dies in 75, the
democracy was established in 76, but Sp remained embroiled within itself
until it began to emerge on joining the EU in 83).
The conservatives, bless their naivety, expected the Sp to be like most
other folk but they weren't are still aren't. They were expected to behave
reasonably, and so were given some leeway on joining the EU and the wider
world. Gib did warn against this, but of course we were not heeded. It
transpires we were right, and Sp has so far manifest herself to be akin to
the Fernenge - all about acquisition. See how they've milked the EU! They
were never going to "be reasonable" over Gib and it is only now, 29 years
since the death of Franco, that the Sp govt has come to state that to take
Gib against the wishes of the Gibraltarians would be improper.
>
> At any rate, I believe that the Gibraltarians have a right to
> self-determination. The people have been loyal citizens of the U.K., and I
> believe that London owes them its loyalty in return, whatever their wish
> is.
> 300 years of British rule is enough to justify that I say.
Hurrah!
>
> As for the monarchy, as a result of the mess that politicans can make of
> the
> state and government, I'm one of those few Americans that is a monarchist,
> or at least that favors a ceremonial presidency, to keep the state out of
> the "nappy contents" that comprises much government action these days. I'm
> of the belief that it's just as well to let the nobles and such keep their
> titles, because surely the republicans (those who favor a republican form
> of
> government) will honor themselves anyway. Class distinctions don't
> disappear
> in a republic. Better to have a monarch in charge, I say, if that goes on.
Many truths spoken. Remember the egalitarian state in Animal Farm? All
animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
K
luc...@eternal-flames.gov
paused briefly between playing with his doll's house, to write:
>Yes, alas, I have the fortune of being a "merkin" as many of you folks love
>to call us.
You can't help it. :-)
I like Americans, I've visited your country a number of times... The
Carolinas, Maryland, NY and the West Coast.
I've always found Americans to be quite unlike the way they are
portrayed by sectors of the British media... Open and very generous
with their friendship.
>I voted for the other guy twice. At least we have the hope of
>electing a government in opposition to it if we can keep the monopoly vote
>counting companies out of that business. Britain has elected a socialist
>government that seems to be a connessieur of nappy contents, as you say,
>despite what the majority of the people want. Your only other option is to
>elect a conservative government, which I can't imagine taking an
>"anti-merkin" stand, and I don't suppose the LibDems have much of a chance
>of forming a government these days.
Most politicians, both sides of the pond and whatever the party banner
they march behind, seem to be pretty much the same. There is
certainly not a lot to choose between the two main parties in the UK.
They're equally untrustworthy. ;-)
>It all brings back Star Wars wisdom: "Who's more foolish - the fool or the
>fool that follows him?" - Obi Wan Kenobi
I'm more of a Star-Trek fan... I think Worf and his fellow Klingons,
were just victims of bad press.
>Yet, we keep marching onward, us merkins and brits, though I really don't
>understand what whale food and vaginal hood coverings have to do with it
>much. ;-)
Two nations united by a common misunderstanding of each other... Or
something like that. :-)
>At any rate, I believe that the Gibraltarians have a right to
>self-determination. The people have been loyal citizens of the U.K., and I
>believe that London owes them its loyalty in return, whatever their wish is.
>300 years of British rule is enough to justify that I say.
They could use a Boston Tea Party - Gibraltar style. But with the Gib
climate, would you want to waste time drinking tea?
Nick.
Jim Watt
wrote:
>p.s. Aren't you glad you invited me onto this newsgroup?
I now invite you to go home, and warm up.
Do as you are commanded.
Kenny
with my "winding up another sucker" crack).
For me, in a modern day world, running on hype, bullshit and clever
'conditioning' of the public to accept almost anything, the sheer
passion of the responses in the NG is very refreshing.
Re your summarising comment -
> THAT is a decision we reserve for ourselves
> and we alone to make.
Those words are irrefutable and just, and responding would be
digressing too far from the thread, I will post a new thread.
regards
Kenny
luc...@eternal-flames.gov
paused briefly between playing with his doll's house, to write:
>I now invite you to go home, and warm up.
I like it here... I'm thinking of setting up an "offshore entity"
>Do as you are commanded.
That'll be the day.
Old Nick.
luc...@eternal-flames.gov
paused briefly between playing with his doll's house, to write:
>We OTOH find ourselves living in "Yurp"
... and up to our knees in "Gloop" ? :-)
Nick
Ken
> . . . . . and responding would be
> digressing too far from the thread, I will post a new thread.
Crikey! Never in the history of Usenet has one seen such adherence to topic!
:))
K