Gibraltar approves the Draft Gibraltar Constitution Order 2006
Cybernest
Draft Gibraltar Constitution Order 2006 is a resounding 'Yes' from
the Gibraltar electorate.
Gibraltarians yesterday gave the new Constitution a huge vote of
approval with 7299 or 60.24% voting 'Yes' and 4574 or 37.75% of the
electorate said 'No'. There were 208 blank votes cast.
The turnout was relatively low for Gibraltar polls. The total eligible
voters at 22:30, as announced by Dennis Reyes, the referendum
administrator, was 20,061, out of which 12,117 voted, which represents
60.4%.
Webmaster
Gibraltar News Online:
http://www.gibraltarnewsonline.com
Ken
"Cybernest" <cybe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164935410.0...@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> The result of the Referndum as to whether to approve the proposed new
> Draft Gibraltar Constitution Order 2006 is a resounding 'Yes' from
> the Gibraltar electorate.
>
> Gibraltarians yesterday gave the new Constitution a huge vote of
> approval with 7299 or 60.24% voting 'Yes' and 4574 or 37.75% of the
> electorate said 'No'. There were 208 blank votes cast.
>
> The turnout was relatively low for Gibraltar polls. The total eligible
> voters at 22:30, as announced by Dennis Reyes, the referendum
> administrator, was 20,061, out of which 12,117 voted, which represents
> 60.4%.
While the turnout might be described as low for Gib, it is very high for
just about everywhere else.
While 60.24% voting YES might be described as "not very resounding" by Gib
standards, everywhere else this would be described as emphatic.
In the event, 60.24% YES vote from 60.4% of the electorate means that 36.38%
of the electorate voted in the Constitution of 2006. If the NO campaign
wishes to complain, they should direct their complaints not at the
government nor those who voted yes, but towards the 39.6% of voters who did
not bother to turn out (some of who would of course have voted yes too).
Apart from Australia (AFAIK) it is within the rights of the people not to
vote if they choose not to.
To put the numbers into perspective, at the last UK election in which
Blair's party gained an absolute majority there was (around) a 42% turnout
and in the order of 37% of the votes cast were for the Labour Party.
Lynx
"Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ekp5g...@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> "Cybernest" <cybe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1164935410.0...@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> The result of the Referndum as to whether to approve the proposed new
>> Draft Gibraltar Constitution Order 2006 is a resounding 'Yes' from
>> the Gibraltar electorate.
>>
>> Gibraltarians yesterday gave the new Constitution a huge vote of
>> approval with 7299 or 60.24% voting 'Yes' and 4574 or 37.75% of the
>> electorate said 'No'. There were 208 blank votes cast.
>>
>> The turnout was relatively low for Gibraltar polls. The total eligible
>> voters at 22:30, as announced by Dennis Reyes, the referendum
>> administrator, was 20,061, out of which 12,117 voted, which represents
>> 60.4%.
>
> While the turnout might be described as low for Gib, it is very high for
> just about everywhere else.
>
> While 60.24% voting YES might be described as "not very resounding" by Gib
> standards, everywhere else this would be described as emphatic.
>
> In the event, 60.24% YES vote from 60.4% of the electorate means that
> 36.38% of the electorate voted in the Constitution of 2006. If the NO
> campaign wishes to complain, they should direct their complaints not at
> the government nor those who voted yes, but towards the 39.6% of voters
> who did not bother to turn out (some of who would of course have voted yes
> too). Apart from Australia (AFAIK) it is within the rights of the people
> not to vote if they choose not to.
Given Gib's strategic position. The potential for Gib to, perhaps, one day
become an important integrant of the business/commercial infrastructure of
mainland Spain/Europe, but to mention a few. I find it incomprehensible that
such a small number of voters could determine the status of the Rock. Every
democratic country includes its expat population in important-status
referendum/voting procedures, except for Gib. The outcome of all of Gib's
referendums appear to be based on emotional rather than tactical thinking.
Yes, in Australia, if you don't vote you cop a fine. So every man and his
dog goes to the ballot-box. Trouble is that such a system has to cater for
the "donkey-vote". Aussies are a practical people, and see polis for what
they are. Still, we do defend our democratic system.
> To put the numbers into perspective, at the last UK election in which
> Blair's party gained an absolute majority there was (around) a 42% turnout
> and in the order of 37% of the votes cast were for the Labour Party.
The use of percentages camouflages the real figures. In one instance you're
talking of millions, in the other 7000 plus. It's almost surreal. Sorry
friend, I'm not against you, but that's just how it's perceived in the wider
world.
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote in message
news:6SVbh.850$HU....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Well, there you are and that's how it is.
So, just because Gib is small does it mean that people there do not have
theright to determine their own future?
Just so the ballot boxes are bigger, who else should we invite in the
electoral role just so our numbers appear greater?
Should we just give everyone 100 votes instead?
K
Lynx
No, not at all. As the old adage goes, 'I may not agree with you, but I will
defend your right to say so'. Or words to that effect.
A small population, encased as it is in what is virtually a fortress, a
captive audience in fact. Never did so many vote so many times for so few.
> Just so the ballot boxes are bigger, who else should we invite in the
> electoral role just so our numbers appear greater?
> Should we just give everyone 100 votes instead?
Perhaps citizens such as yourself should have the right to vote. This point
has been argued before. Given the limiting size of our homeland, the
Gibraltarian Diaspora must be larger than the Gib population at home. We,
expat Gibbos, are defending an identity which the very HoA refuses to
acknowledge the existence of. Italy has welcomed the whole Italian Diaspora
to its ballot boxes, so has Spain. German towns keep their native sons and
daughters abreast of their towns development. Why should a Gibraltarian
cease to partake in his homeland future development? Who is defending the
Gibraltarian identity. With every visit I have made back home, I see less
familiar faces and more resident foreigners in our streets.
Cybernest
> the Gibraltarian Diaspora must be larger than the Gib population at home. We,
> expat Gibbos, are defending an identity which the very HoA refuses to
> acknowledge the existence of. Italy has welcomed the whole Italian Diaspora
> to its ballot boxes, so has Spain. German towns keep their native sons and
> daughters abreast of their towns development. Why should a Gibraltarian
> cease to partake in his homeland future development? Who is defending the
> Gibraltarian identity. With every visit I have made back home, I see less
> familiar faces and more resident foreigners in our streets
I wholeheartedly agree! I've been covering the whole Constitutional
Reform
debate, what there was of it, and lead up to the Referendum with a
sinking
feeling... knowing that whatever happened... on the day, I would have
no say
on the future of Gibraltar!
As a born and bred Gibraltarian, with, IMHO, as much right as any other
'eligible voter' to have a say in Gibraltar's future, it has been a
very irritating
and alienating experience!
There is absolutely no reason why the Gibraltar Government cannot
operate
an electoral system which would include Gibraltarians, who can prove
their
birthright, to be able to vote at elections. Proof of birth should
guarantee us
that right! It is not difficult to operate a postal system and in this
day and age
with the internet, the administrating of an extended electoral roll and
voting
system makes any problem that may have existed in the past, a historic
obstacle and no longer valid!
I did debate with myself, whether to call for such a system in the lead
up to
this Referendum. In the end, I decided against it for a number of
reasons.
However, I do think it is a justifiable request to make of the
Gibraltar Government
and electoral authorities, for them to seriously consider this
important issue for so
many Gibraltarians who live away from our beloved Rock.
Ernest Falquero
aka Cybernest
Webmaster
Gibraltar News Online:
http://www.gibraltarnewsonline.com
=========================
Please sign our Petition calling for an
Epidemiological Study for Gibraltar and
the Campo de Gibraltar area:
http://www.petitiononline.com/gibnews1/petition.html
===================================
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote in message
>
> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ekq8l...@news4.newsguy.com...
>>
>> "Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote in message
>> news:6SVbh.850$HU....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:ekp5g...@news3.newsguy.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Cybernest" <cybe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1164935410.0...@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>> So, just because Gib is small does it mean that people there do not have
>> theright to determine their own future?
>
> No, not at all. As the old adage goes, 'I may not agree with you, but I
> will defend your right to say so'. Or words to that effect.
> A small population, encased as it is in what is virtually a fortress, a
> captive audience in fact. Never did so many vote so many times for so few.
Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill would have been proud to be so
paraphrased.
> Perhaps citizens such as yourself should have the right to vote. This
> point has been argued before. Given the limiting size of our homeland,
> the Gibraltarian Diaspora must be larger than the Gib population at home.
> We, expat Gibbos, are defending an identity which the very HoA refuses to
> acknowledge the existence of. Italy has welcomed the whole Italian
> Diaspora to its ballot boxes, so has Spain. German towns keep their native
> sons and daughters abreast of their towns development. Why should a
> Gibraltarian cease to partake in his homeland future development? Who is
> defending the Gibraltarian identity. With every visit I have made back
> home, I see less familiar faces and more resident foreigners in our
> streets.
I for one would have been proud to have voted. At one time you could make
the case for excluding people overseas, bereft as they would have been of
the ability to debate and kept informed solely by the perhaps biased
information fed to them by their friends and relatives. With the presence of
the www, such arguments need no longer apply. In any case, voting for those
of us overseas might be conditional on our having to demonstate that we have
been exposed to all sides of the argument (whatever it is) by not being able
to register until we had downloaded certain information leaflets as produced
by all sides of the debate. With usernames and passwords, it would be easy
to make registration for an individual conditional on such downloads, for
example.
K
darius
Cybernest wrote:
> As a born and bred Gibraltarian, with, IMHO, as much right as any other
>
> 'eligible voter' to have a say in Gibraltar's future, it has been a
> very irritating
> and alienating experience!
I simply could not overstate the extent to which I disagree with this
line of thought. I'm sorry but it is utter rubbish.
In a nutshell (hopefully):
What right have you, as someone who will not be subject to this
governance, to decide what form it should take?
Ken
"darius" <Darius....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165075399.4...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
As someone who has property there and pays taxes there and is registered
there professionally, I should think I should have rights there, don't you?
K
>
Lynx
>> the Gibraltarian Diaspora must be larger than the Gib population at home.
>> We,
>> expat Gibbos, are defending an identity which the very HoA refuses to
>> acknowledge the existence of. Italy has welcomed the whole Italian
>> Diaspora
>> to its ballot boxes, so has Spain. German towns keep their native sons
>> and
>> daughters abreast of their towns development. Why should a Gibraltarian
>> cease to partake in his homeland future development? Who is defending the
>> Gibraltarian identity. With every visit I have made back home, I see less
>> familiar faces and more resident foreigners in our streets
>
Greetings Cybernest,
It pleases me to no end to find there are fellow compatriots who share the
same thoughts on expat Gibbos. I agree with your sentiments.
My cynicism tells me that the only reason we expat Gibbos have been
ostracised by those at the political helm in Gib, is fear. They fear what
our perceptions might be and how we may vote. They see us all as an unknown
quantity. We do not form part of that captive audience. An audience often
driven by fear and emotional reasoning. Mind you, these are not entirely
unplaced. People need to work to earn a living. Gib's Safeways would only
employ staff with English surnames!
This last referendum, IMHO, is but one more brick in the wall. So long as
democracy reigns, there will undoubtedly be more referendums to come. Gib's
weaving its own tapestry. Hopefully this will lead to Gib losing all
vestiges of colonialism and playing its rightful role where it belongs and
is situated, in the Straight of Gibraltar.
Salutations from the penal colony :)))
Lynx
>
>>> Well, there you are and that's how it is.
>>> So, just because Gib is small does it mean that people there do not have
>>> theright to determine their own future?
>>
>> No, not at all. As the old adage goes, 'I may not agree with you, but I
>> will defend your right to say so'. Or words to that effect.
>> A small population, encased as it is in what is virtually a fortress, a
>> captive audience in fact. Never did so many vote so many times for so
>> few.
>
> Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill would have been proud to be so
> paraphrased.
He was one hell of a character. He recommneded and practiced, doing much of
his work lying back, in bed, of all places! Just recently some chiropractors
have come to accept this as the best posture for our backs!
>> Perhaps citizens such as yourself should have the right to vote. This
>> point has been argued before. Given the limiting size of our homeland,
>> the Gibraltarian Diaspora must be larger than the Gib population at home.
>> We, expat Gibbos, are defending an identity which the very HoA refuses to
>> acknowledge the existence of. Italy has welcomed the whole Italian
>> Diaspora to its ballot boxes, so has Spain. German towns keep their
>> native sons and daughters abreast of their towns development. Why should
>> a Gibraltarian cease to partake in his homeland future development? Who
>> is defending the Gibraltarian identity. With every visit I have made back
>> home, I see less familiar faces and more resident foreigners in our
>> streets.
>
> I for one would have been proud to have voted. At one time you could make
> the case for excluding people overseas, bereft as they would have been of
> the ability to debate and kept informed solely by the perhaps biased
> information fed to them by their friends and relatives. With the presence
> of the www, such arguments need no longer apply. In any case, voting for
> those of us overseas might be conditional on our having to demonstate that
> we have been exposed to all sides of the argument (whatever it is) by not
> being able to register until we had downloaded certain information
> leaflets as produced by all sides of the debate. With usernames and
> passwords, it would be easy to make registration for an individual
> conditional on such downloads, for example.
Your suggestion goes to the core of why we cannot vote. We would be reading
material and basing our decision of factual information. We would not be
exposed to the emotional xenophobic utterances of those who, calling
themselves free-thinkers, would gladly control the voters thought patterns.
At any rate, Gib seems to be slowly steaming ahead into new and exciting
playfields which could, in time to come, yield the best fruit of all.
Recognition of our identity.
Lynx
"darius" <Darius....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165075399.4...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>> As a born and bred Gibraltarian, with, IMHO, as much right as any other
>>
>> 'eligible voter' to have a say in Gibraltar's future, it has been a
>> very irritating
>> and alienating experience!
>
> I simply could not overstate the extent to which I disagree with this
> line of thought. I'm sorry but it is utter rubbish.
>
> In a nutshell (hopefully):
> What right have you, as someone who will not be subject to this
> governance, to decide what form it should take?
Cybernest is absolutely right. As indeed so are you. Two points are being
argued.
You have the right to elect those who will govern you, absolutely. We all,
collectively, have the right to vote in a referendum which determines the
political status of our homeland. Any possible change to a country's or, as
in the case of Gib, State, should be put to all those who are natural
citizens of that State. Gib, given its size, has forever been a brain-drain.
Any Gibbo, today as in years past, who gets any form of qualification is
destined to wave our Rock goodbye. Some, of course, find it to stay within
our shores, but a very good many do not. And these have as much right to
partake in the status-building of their homeland as any other.
Your rationale gives any financial immigrant to Gib more rights than all
expat Gibbos in any possible changes to Gib's political status. I beg to
differ with your reasoning.
Local elections are solely the concern of those who will be governed by the
incumbents. Any national change of status is the concern of natural
Gibraltarians, regardless of where they may reside.
Jim Watt
>My cynicism tells me that the only reason we expat Gibbos have been
>ostracised by those at the political helm in Gib, is fear
No representation without taxation !
--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
news:0u55n293f3e3k8t44...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 00:34:42 GMT, "Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote:
>
>>My cynicism tells me that the only reason we expat Gibbos have been
>>ostracised by those at the political helm in Gib, is fear
>
> No representation without taxation !
What you're saying is that you can assume and buy patriotism, identity and
pride in forming part of a given ethnicity and cultural group of people. If
that's what you really believe, you've lost something along the way. Sorry
mate.
Cybernest
On Dec 2, 4:03 pm, "darius" <Darius.Jedb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I simply could not overstate the extent to which I disagree with this
> line of thought. I'm sorry but it is utter rubbish.
Darius... My 'line of thought' was a sincere expression of how I feel.
Calling it 'utter rubbish' is frankly offensive and simply loses you
any respect I might have had in reading your view!
> In a nutshell (hopefully):
> What right have you, as someone who will not be subject to this
> governance, to decide what form it should take?
I have as much right as any Gibraltarian... to decide the future of his
homeland and how it shall govern itself.
In any case... you make a big and wrongful assumption. I have not been
sentenced to a lifetime away at some penal colony! (No offence Lynx!
:) )
What makes you assume I shall not be 'subject to this' as you put it,
in the future? I am away from Gibraltar ... for now. So are many
other Gibraltarians, temporarily away from Gibraltar... for all sorts
of reasons... and we were all denied the right to vote! That cannot be
right.
Some good points made in other posts though... and it is an interesting
discussion to have.
Cybernest
Jim Watt
What I am saying is that you cannot expect to make decisions for
a community you don't live in and don't form part of;
However, as a Gibraltarian you can always come and live here
and then you can.
darius
Ken wrote:
The ownership of property is irrelevant. It could, for example, be
equated to ownership / comercial / other interest in any gib matter.
For a silly thought, should the shareholders of partygaming get a vote?
Now, the key point you raised was tax, you say you are paying tax to
the GoG. Well, what tax do you pay, and why do you pay it? Governments
are entitled to tax activites in their jurisdictions, I fail to see why
they should be obliged to give a vote to people who merely conduct
business there, but don't live there - how could they be equated.
Unless you are a Gibraltar tax payer, i.e. you yourself are taxed on
all your income in Gibralar - but I don't see how the government would
be doing that if you weren't a resident.
This is not a question of having rights, everyone has rights, it is a
question of how can you possibly equate your 'interest' (however you
care to define it, comercial concern etc) in importance, to that of
someone who actually lives in gibraltar?
You could concieveable have a bunch of expat voters bankrupting a
country, or in some other way making the country unviaable or
unworkable for the people who actually live there.
That is why such matters are always, always, restricted to people who
are normally resident there.
[And we went through all this at the time of the last referendum.]
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 10:20:11 GMT, "Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
>>news:0u55n293f3e3k8t44...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 00:34:42 GMT, "Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>My cynicism tells me that the only reason we expat Gibbos have been
>>>>ostracised by those at the political helm in Gib, is fear
>>>
>>> No representation without taxation !
>>
>>What you're saying is that you can assume and buy patriotism, identity and
>>pride in forming part of a given ethnicity and cultural group of people.
>>If
>>that's what you really believe, you've lost something along the way. Sorry
>>mate.
>
> What I am saying is that you cannot expect to make decisions for
> a community you don't live in and don't form part of;
I grant you that no expat should vote on the day-to-day affairs, general and
by-elections. But a citizen, who resides elsewhere, should have a say on how
his citizenship may be affected when a referendum is called for which may
affect his "national status". Do you get to vote should the UK call for a
referendum, giving UK nationals the choice to integrate with France. The
outcome of which could change your status to a French national? Gib is
changing its contitution, this goes to the core of any Gibbos national
status. No matter where he or she lives. It's called transperancy.
> However, as a Gibraltarian you can always come and live here
> and then you can.
I know that and I probably would, if there was some frikking room available!
:))
Jim Watt
As you are no doubt aware there is no such thing as
Gibraltar citizenship, just the right of residence
which you have.
It seems Mark Thatcher is joining us, so should we
need any weapons for an armed struggle, the odd helicoper
or two, we will have a resident expert.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
I guess that says it all, doesn't it. So much for identity, flag and
National Day......
> It seems Mark Thatcher is joining us, so should we
> need any weapons for an armed struggle, the odd helicoper
> or two, we will have a resident expert.
Did he make it back from Daka, or wherever it was he lost his bearings?
Jim Watt
<snip>
>I guess that says it all, doesn't it. So much for identity, flag and
>National Day......
No, they are all very real, however at present there is no such thing
as Gibraltar citizenship because we are not an independent state.
>> It seems Mark Thatcher is joining us, so should we
>> need any weapons for an armed struggle, the odd helicoper
>> or two, we will have a resident expert.
>
>Did he make it back from Daka, or wherever it was he lost his bearings?
Perhaps you are mixing him up with Mike Leeson,
who lives in Spain I hear.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
Perhaps, but if my memory serves me right, I'd like to recall Maggy's son
going amising in the sands somewhere. At any rate, hope he doesn't start
some enterprise involving, you know what, in Gib.
Luke Croll
Went missing in the Sahara Desert:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/12/newsid_2523000/2523841.stm
--
Luke Croll
Conference interpreter and translator
http://lukecroll.translatorscafe.com
Lynx
"Luke Croll" <Luke...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0nsan21dn52714221...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 07:21:33 GMT, "Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote:
>>"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
>>news:jn49n2tpko7ojjkql...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 12:18:39 GMT, "Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>I guess that says it all, doesn't it. So much for identity, flag and
>>>>National Day......
>>>
>>> No, they are all very real, however at present there is no such thing
>>> as Gibraltar citizenship because we are not an independent state.
>>>
>>>>> It seems Mark Thatcher is joining us, so should we
>>>>> need any weapons for an armed struggle, the odd helicoper
>>>>> or two, we will have a resident expert.
>>>>
>>>>Did he make it back from Daka, or wherever it was he lost his bearings?
>>>
>>> Perhaps you are mixing him up with Mike Leeson,
>>> who lives in Spain I hear.
>>
>>Perhaps, but if my memory serves me right, I'd like to recall Maggy's son
>>going amising in the sands somewhere. At any rate, hope he doesn't start
>>some enterprise involving, you know what, in Gib.
>
> Went missing in the Sahara Desert:
Good one. My memory had served me well after all.
Our thread on religious schools in Gib came to an abrupt end. Pity, it was a
most interesting topic.
Cheers. M
Ken
>
> Ken wrote:
>
>> "darius" <Darius....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1165075399.4...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Cybernest wrote:
>> >
>> >> As a born and bred Gibraltarian, with, IMHO, as much right as any
>> >> other
>> >>
>> >> 'eligible voter' to have a say in Gibraltar's future, it has been a
>> >> very irritating
>> >> and alienating experience!
>> >
>> >
>> > I simply could not overstate the extent to which I disagree with this
>> > line of thought. I'm sorry but it is utter rubbish.
>> >
>> > In a nutshell (hopefully):
>> > What right have you, as someone who will not be subject to this
>> > governance, to decide what form it should take?
>>
>> As someone who has property there and pays taxes there and is registered
>> there professionally, I should think I should have rights there, don't
>> you?
>>
>> K
>> >
>
> The ownership of property is irrelevant. It could, for example, be
> equated to ownership / comercial / other interest in any gib matter.
> For a silly thought, should the shareholders of partygaming get a vote?
Yes you are right - it is a very silly thought indeed.
However I own residential property in which only my wife, chidren and I
reside.
>
> Now, the key point you raised was tax, you say you are paying tax to
> the GoG. Well, what tax do you pay, and why do you pay it?
It was NOT a key point, it was a point among many. Excuse me if I choose to
keep my financial affairs private and choose not to air them here. Rest
assured I pay taxes in Gib. Unto Caeser what is Caesar's, as they say
> Governments
> are entitled to tax activites in their jurisdictions, I fail to see why
> they should be obliged to give a vote to people who merely conduct
> business there, but don't live there - how could they be equated.
I am not suggesting that. Are you?
>
> Unless you are a Gibraltar tax payer, i.e. you yourself are taxed on
> all your income in Gibralar - but I don't see how the government would
> be doing that if you weren't a resident.
Aha! Well, there you are. What does that tell you? What colour is YOUR ID
card? Mine is pink.
>
> This is not a question of having rights, everyone has rights, it is a
> question of how can you possibly equate your 'interest' (however you
> care to define it, comercial concern etc) in importance, to that of
> someone who actually lives in gibraltar?
. . . .and your point is?
>
> You could concieveable have a bunch of expat voters bankrupting a
> country, or in some other way making the country unviaable or
> unworkable for the people who actually live there.
>
> That is why such matters are always, always, restricted to people who
> are normally resident there.
Are you going to decide what is and what is not "normal"?
>
> [And we went through all this at the time of the last referendum.]
. . . when I voted.
K
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote in message
More reclamation on the East side, about to be built on. New buildings going
up on land which is still water on the west side. Soon there will be more
land NOT covered by Utrecht than there is land which IS covered by Utrecht.
Given Spain's stance on things which were not covered b Utrecht (i.e they
are all Spain's - see airport, airspace, territorial waters, dog shows, 350
code, UEFA etc etc) it would seem that Spain feels her position is
strengthened every tie we add an extra sq ft!
K
Lynx
Ah! I had a chuckle to myself on reading your posting! Very good.
I'm currently building myself a beaut house. Perhaps one day I'll make one
big move and come back home, who knows.
I was surprised you did not contribute to the Identity Treadmill thread.
Thanks to those who contributed, I now have a better understanding of
Gibraltarians' status. JAJ placed an excellent posting on the subject.
Spain has, as far as I can tell, changed its stand with Gibraltar. It seems
to be gearing at bringing Gibraltar closer to her by implementing friendly
tactics. I am somewhat taken aback by Gib's pretensions with UEFA. Where
would Gib get its players from? Would any good soccer player, no matter
where they came from, be issued with a "belonger Status"? There's a whole
bunch of pseudo British status available at hand too, I suppose.
Jim Watt
>Spain has, as far as I can tell, changed its stand with Gibraltar. It seems
>to be gearing at bringing Gibraltar closer to her by implementing friendly
>tactics. I am somewhat taken aback by Gib's pretensions with UEFA. Where
>would Gib get its players from?
Spain has traded some un-realistic illegal restrictions for
80 million pounds in cash, and joint use of the airport which
will benefit the Campo. She is doing us no favours and the
frantic opposition to membership of sporting associations is
witness to that.
As regards UEFA, the purpose of that body is to promote football,
if you look at their website they have examples of how they have
spent money on that in under developed places to benefit everyone.
Gibraltar membership is aimed at giving the kids a chance to play
other teams from outside Gibraltar in a formal situation and bringing
coaching and developing the game here. Its not about beating Real
Madrid and winning the league.
However, given the great keen-ness and ability of Gibraltar sportsmen
its totally unfair to restrict them because Spain has an ill founded
claim to OUR land.
Due to the British influence (remember we invented the game) Gibraltar
has the 11th oldest football association in the world, and was playing
the game when Spaniards were playing with their nuts, so membership
of an international body is long overdue, although like Scottish Jim
I canna see any point in the game myself.
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote in message
Not because I didn't want to, but because I couldn't see it. The news server
I access alt through was down for a few days, denying me access.
FWIW - a Gibraltarian - one like me. Born there, in my case the 7th or 8th
generation (depending on which branch of the family tree you follow). That
there may not be a legal nationality means nothing, THAT is where I am from,
THAT is my identity. Its political isolation from the place next door makes
it easy to distinguish a Gibraltarian from (for example) a Mancunian or a
Londoner. Given the ease of flux of people elsewhere, it is difficult to pin
that definition down.
A more easily applied definition - a Gibraltarian is one who is listed in
the register of Gibraltarians, and therefore what constitutes a Gibraltarian
becomes the requirement for such inclusion.
>
> Spain has, as far as I can tell, changed its stand with Gibraltar. It
> seems to be gearing at bringing Gibraltar closer to her by implementing
> friendly tactics. I am somewhat taken aback by Gib's pretensions with
> UEFA. Where would Gib get its players from? Would any good soccer player,
> no matter where they came from, be issued with a "belonger Status"?
> There's a whole bunch of pseudo British status available at hand too, I
> suppose.
Spain has merely changed its shirt as regards Gib, not her stand nor her
intentions. She is NOW belatedly trying to do what if she'd had any sense
done a couple of generations ago. Having shown her true colours I suspect
it's too late. By the time she wins Gib over f at all, she will probably
have changed herself and lost interest before she achieves her present final
goal.
Gib has no UEFA pretentions. Gib wants UEFA membership. What is wrong with
that? I am no sports fan, but see no ill in people born in Gibraltar being
able to represent their homeland in competitions, just as people born in
Sweden or Denmark or Portugal can. The prospect of someone brought from
outside and made a Gibraltarian for the purposes of representation at
football are more than remote. We'd need to import 15 of them (inc subs) at
too phenomenal a cost for the sake of a piece of silverware. Meanwhile, Gib
gets its players from where Gib gets its everything else - from among the
poeple born there, for better or worse. In true traditional sporting
fashion, Gib aspires to UEFA memebership for the simple and most innocent of
reasons - to take part. No-one is pretending Gib is going to win anything.
We just want to stand there and represent ourselves, and getthrashed by the
likes of just about anyone else you care to mention. But boy, what a joy for
the footballers who stand out there on the pitches, and how proud their
mothers and fathers will be.
K
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 00:34:54 GMT, "Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote:
>
> Spain has traded some un-realistic illegal restrictions for
> 80 million pounds in cash, and joint use of the airport which
> will benefit the Campo.
can it not?
> Gibraltar membership is aimed at giving the kids a chance to play
> other teams from outside Gibraltar in a formal situation and bringing
> coaching and developing the game here.
Gib's promising football players have always had a place in UK clubs. Has
this situation changed?
> Due to the British influence (remember we invented the game) Gibraltar
> has the 11th oldest football association in the world, and was playing
> the game when Spaniards were playing with their nuts, so membership
> of an international body is long overdue, although like Scottish Jim
> I canna see any point in the game myself.
The game's the best there is. And you knock it mate! Anyway, you can't even
win at cricket, even when we give you a lead!
Indeed, football is an English sport. And so it was the English who
introduced football in Spain. The name Athletic Bilbao always caught my
attention. So I've done a bit of digging for the benefit of our mute
readers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_in_Spain#Early_Clubs
Lynx
>
I hear what you say on Gib ID. It's all water under the bridge now. Like a
bunch of chestnuts, we're all belongers, and that's that.
>> Spain has, as far as I can tell, changed its stand with Gibraltar. It
>> seems to be gearing at bringing Gibraltar closer to her by implementing
>> friendly tactics. I am somewhat taken aback by Gib's pretensions with
>> UEFA. Where would Gib get its players from? Would any good soccer player,
>> no matter where they came from, be issued with a "belonger Status"?
>> There's a whole bunch of pseudo British status available at hand too, I
>> suppose.
>
> Spain has merely changed its shirt as regards Gib, not her stand nor her
> intentions. She is NOW belatedly trying to do what if she'd had any sense
> done a couple of generations ago. Having shown her true colours I suspect
> it's too late. By the time she wins Gib over f at all, she will probably
> have changed herself and lost interest before she achieves her present
> final goal.
Any Spanish school kid who looks at the map and sees a British
colony/territory within the Iberian Peninsula, will start asking questions.
It's too bloody obvious. That Spain may change, I grant you that. So may we.
Remember, the winds blow from Levante and Poniente. I much prefer the
Northern Winds from Sierra Nevada. Clears your lungs like nothing else!
> Gib has no UEFA pretentions. Gib wants UEFA membership. What is wrong with
> that? (snip)
Nothing's wrong with that. Only that there's nothing innocent about
multi-million Euro football clubs. Anymore than there's anything innocent
about filling up giant stadiums throughout the football season. At any rate,
let some other innocent take honour of bottom of the ladder league.
snip
> We just want to stand there and represent ourselves, and getthrashed by
> the likes of just about anyone else you care to mention. But boy, what a
> joy for the footballers who stand out there on the pitches, and how proud
> their mothers and fathers will be.
Speak for yourself, I've had enough with getting thrashed at the
Commonwealth games every four blooming year.
Any parent who wants to see their kids get thrashed need help. And if they
want to see their kids playing sport, they should attend the schools' games.
M-1 K-0
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote in message
>
> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ele1f...@news3.newsguy.com...
>>
> I hear what you say on Gib ID. It's all water under the bridge now. Like a
> bunch of chestnuts, we're all belongers, and that's that.
>
>>> Spain has, as far as I can tell, changed its stand with Gibraltar. It
>>> seems to be gearing at bringing Gibraltar closer to her by implementing
>>> friendly tactics. I am somewhat taken aback by Gib's pretensions with
>>> UEFA. Where would Gib get its players from? Would any good soccer
>>> player, no matter where they came from, be issued with a "belonger
>>> Status"? There's a whole bunch of pseudo British status available at
>>> hand too, I suppose.
>>
>> Spain has merely changed its shirt as regards Gib, not her stand nor her
>> intentions. She is NOW belatedly trying to do what if she'd had any sense
>> done a couple of generations ago. Having shown her true colours I suspect
>> it's too late. By the time she wins Gib over f at all, she will probably
>> have changed herself and lost interest before she achieves her present
>> final goal.
> Any Spanish school kid who looks at the map and sees a British
> colony/territory within the Iberian Peninsula, will start asking
> questions.
That schoolbrat might as well ask questions about the validity of Portugal
and Andorra, as they too are within the Iberian Peninsula. Where is it writ
that all within said peninsula must be Spain? The Czech Republic and
Republic of Slovakia very recently split up, previously being
Czechoslovakia. The Balkan region has shattered from the previous Yugoslavia
into many smaller states as existed previously. Don't come here with
principles of territorial integrity!
> It's too bloody obvious.
It's too bloody obvious that there can be more than one country within one
geographical unit. N American continent - Canada, USA, Mexico - and the USA
does not even have one contiguous border. S American continent - even more
countries that the N etc etc
> That Spain may change, I grant you that. So may we.
Indeed. I for one will accept the will of the majority of Giblets when
freely expressed. Spain does not, at present. perhaps in a couple more
decades when the curent lot of 25yr olds get into positions of power and
responsibility we might see a change. This age group among Spaniards has
little interest in expanding their borders.
> Remember, the winds blow from Levante and Poniente. I much prefer the
> Northern Winds from Sierra Nevada. Clears your lungs like nothing else!
Nebulised ipatrorium bromide?
>
>> Gib has no UEFA pretentions. Gib wants UEFA membership. What is wrong
>> with that? (snip)
> Nothing's wrong with that. Only that there's nothing innocent about
> multi-million Euro football clubs. Anymore than there's anything innocent
> about filling up giant stadiums throughout the football season. At any
> rate, let some other innocent take honour of bottom of the ladder league.
> snip
You often throw Sp proverbs at the rest, let me throw one at you. Mejor ser
cola de leon y no cabeza de raton.
>> We just want to stand there and represent ourselves, and getthrashed by
>> the likes of just about anyone else you care to mention. But boy, what a
>> joy for the footballers who stand out there on the pitches, and how proud
>> their mothers and fathers will be.
> Speak for yourself, I've had enough with getting thrashed at the
> Commonwealth games every four blooming year.
> Any parent who wants to see their kids get thrashed need help. And if they
> want to see their kids playing sport, they should attend the schools'
> games.
> M-1 K-0
Now who's being competitive? :))
It is better to participate and lose than not to participate at all - or
something like that about love by some or other classic ('tis better to have
loved and lost . . . . )
K
>
Lynx
>
> That schoolbrat might as well ask questions about the validity of Portugal
> and Andorra, as they too are within the Iberian Peninsula. Where is it
> writ that all within said peninsula must be Spain? The Czech Republic and
> Republic of Slovakia very recently split up, previously being
> Czechoslovakia. The Balkan region has shattered from the previous
> Yugoslavia into many smaller states as existed previously. Don't come here
> with principles of territorial integrity!
There's some truth in what you say. However I could never wish for Gib to
become anything like the Balkans.Portugal, or Lusitania, goes way back,
being the original colonisers of Ceuta. Andorra, now there's an excellent
example of co-sovereignty. Co-Principality to be exact. With the President
of France and the Bishop of Urgell, Spain, as co-princes. I hear it's a most
prosperous community. Where there's a will, there's a way.
>> It's too bloody obvious.
>
> It's too bloody obvious that there can be more than one country within one
> geographical unit. N American continent - Canada, USA, Mexico - and the
> USA does not even have one contiguous border. S American continent - even
> more countries that the N etc etc
True. But for better or worse, for richer or poorer, they've all been
through their own loops, and have gained the sovereign right to be their own
country, each with their own citizenship.
>> That Spain may change, I grant you that. So may we.
>
> Indeed. I for one will accept the will of the majority of Giblets when
> freely expressed. Spain does not, at present. perhaps in a couple more
> decades when the curent lot of 25yr olds get into positions of power and
> responsibility we might see a change. This age group among Spaniards has
> little interest in expanding their borders.
Suppositions. How can anyone tell what the next generation of Spanish
politicians may opt for. It's for the inhabitants of Gibraltar to decide
their future, and their future is, and has to be in Gib. Nowhere else.
>> Remember, the winds blow from Levante and Poniente. I much prefer the
>> Northern Winds from Sierra Nevada. Clears your lungs like nothing else!
>
> Nebulised ipatrorium bromide?
Now, that sounds like something you might use for fumigation, eradicating
rats and things. You haven't experienced a clear-sky morning with a
northerly breeze in Gib? BTW, giblet and belonger would be most appropriate
terminologies in a parody. In the real world, Gibraltarians deserve
something better, I say.
>>> Gib has no UEFA pretentions. Gib wants UEFA membership. What is wrong
>>> with that? (snip)
>> Nothing's wrong with that. Only that there's nothing innocent about
>> multi-million Euro football clubs. Anymore than there's anything innocent
>> about filling up giant stadiums throughout the football season. At any
>> rate, let some other innocent take honour of bottom of the ladder league.
>> snip
>
> You often throw Sp proverbs at the rest, let me throw one at you. Mejor
> ser cola de leon y no cabeza de raton.
Spanish proverbs? When? But if I had, which I haven't, we're bilingual
belongers. This biligual property seems to have gone astray in this very
gibraltarian group. All the same, your Spanish proverb runs true. A field
mouse can be quite cute and survive in numbers. Being the tail of a lion,
one would be at the receiving end of you know what. Come to think of it,
yours more than a proverb is an actual description of our status, invading
flies and all!
>>> We just want to stand there and represent ourselves, and getthrashed by
>>> the likes of just about anyone else you care to mention. But boy, what a
>>> joy for the footballers who stand out there on the pitches, and how
>>> proud their mothers and fathers will be.
>
>> Speak for yourself, I've had enough with getting thrashed at the
>> Commonwealth games every four blooming year.
>> Any parent who wants to see their kids get thrashed need help. And if
>> they want to see their kids playing sport, they should attend the
>> schools' games.
>> M-1 K-0
>
> Now who's being competitive? :))
Moi!
> It is better to participate and lose than not to participate at all - or
> something like that about love by some or other classic ('tis better to
> have loved and lost . . . . )
In all honesty and with all due respect to those in Gib, I cannot see the
point when it comes to UEFA. It's just another useless obstacle to peaceful
coexistence.
Jim Watt
>In all honesty and with all due respect to those in Gib, I cannot see the
>point when it comes to UEFA. It's just another useless obstacle to peaceful
>coexistence.
No, being a member of UEFA is a right, the court says so.
As for 'belonger' didn't like the term when I heard it
first, but it has a specific meaning as a legal status.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 19:11:09 GMT, "Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote:
>
>>In all honesty and with all due respect to those in Gib, I cannot see the
>>point when it comes to UEFA. It's just another useless obstacle to
>>peaceful
>>coexistence.
>
> No, being a member of UEFA is a right, the court says so.
Just read the news, Gib's been welcomed by UEFA.
> As for 'belonger' didn't like the term when I heard it
> first, but it has a specific meaning as a legal status.
No doubt, but it's not a status I'd be proud to use. Imagine being asked at
a border queu, "what's your national status?" Answer, "I'm a Belonger".
Let's get real, it sucks.
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote in message
>
> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:elej1...@news4.newsguy.com...
>>
>> That schoolbrat might as well ask questions about the validity of
>> Portugal and Andorra, as they too are within the Iberian Peninsula. Where
>> is it writ that all within said peninsula must be Spain? The Czech
>> Republic and Republic of Slovakia very recently split up, previously
>> being Czechoslovakia. The Balkan region has shattered from the previous
>> Yugoslavia into many smaller states as existed previously. Don't come
>> here with principles of territorial integrity!
>
> There's some truth in what you say. However I could never wish for Gib to
> become anything like the Balkans.Portugal, or Lusitania, goes way back,
> being the original colonisers of Ceuta. Andorra, now there's an excellent
> example of co-sovereignty. Co-Principality to be exact. With the President
> of France and the Bishop of Urgell, Spain, as co-princes. I hear it's a
> most prosperous community. Where there's a will, there's a way.
As recently as 2002 Gib rejected notions of co-sovereignty. Part of the
emphatic rejection was that Spain clearly spelt out that this would not be
the end of the process, but the start as far as she was concened of getting
total sovereignty. In oter words, no change, no compromise, no recognition
of a people's right to choose their own future. So, no thanks.
>> It's too bloody obvious that there can be more than one country within
>> one geographical unit. N American continent - Canada, USA, Mexico - and
>> the USA does not even have one contiguous border. S American continent -
>> even more countries that the N etc etc
>
> True. But for better or worse, for richer or poorer, they've all been
> through their own loops, and have gained the sovereign right to be their
> own country, each with their own citizenship.
. . and now it's our turn?
>
>>> That Spain may change, I grant you that. So may we.
>>
>> Indeed. I for one will accept the will of the majority of Giblets when
>> freely expressed. Spain does not, at present. perhaps in a couple more
>> decades when the curent lot of 25yr olds get into positions of power and
>> responsibility we might see a change. This age group among Spaniards has
>> little interest in expanding their borders.
>
> Suppositions. How can anyone tell what the next generation of Spanish
> politicians may opt for. It's for the inhabitants of Gibraltar to decide
> their future, and their future is, and has to be in Gib. Nowhere else.
Of course - but it would help immensely if Spain changed in the manner I
desire.
>> It is better to participate and lose than not to participate at all - or
>> something like that about love by some or other classic ('tis better to
>> have loved and lost . . . . )
>
> In all honesty and with all due respect to those in Gib, I cannot see the
> point when it comes to UEFA. It's just another useless obstacle to
> peaceful coexistence.
As regards membership of an organisation, in isolation, yes. However, to get
membership of UEFA goes way beyond football and sport - and Spain knows it.
On one level, Spain has been blocking Gib's participation in all matters
sporting at every opportunity. To get in here would be one up for Gib. From
a practical point of view, as you stated earlier there is nothing stopping
apromising football player from Gib playing in a UK team. Frankly there's
nothing stopping them playing in the Oz league either. However when it comes
to playing for your country in international tournaments of nations, layers
from Gib are barred UNLESS they can claim citizenship of other nations by
dint of their earlier generations - but NEVER representing Gibraltar. And
why not, I ask? Why deprive a football player from representing the place of
his birth just because Spain has an anachronistic claim over it?
On a far more important level still, the man in the street is NOT concerned
about UN definitions of self-government, self-determination, delisting, nor
colonialism. This is because these matters are too foreign to him, and he
cares not a bit about the plight of others. However to see Gib there
competing and yes, getting thrashed by all and sundry, defines Gib to him as
a country, as a nation REGARDLESS of its constitution or whether the UK
parliament can or cannot override loaclly-passed legislation. THAT is why
Spain is so worried about Gib's entry into UEFA that it is prepared to
resign from UEFA herself rather than have the spectre of this legal failure
to have us excluded over her every time they and we show up to play in the
same tournament, even if the respective teams never come head-to-head. If we
get in to UEFA, whatever happens on the pitch, we win - and Spain would cut
rather see her own people at a disadvantage rather than us at an advantage,
as has been seen time and dtime again.
Precisely because of this, our attempt to get in is doomed to failure. We
have beenn accepted provisionally, but the UEFA council is under no
obligation to let us in as permament members. They will cite any number of
reasons now NOT to ratify our permanent status BECAUSE of the amount of
pressure Spain will put on them, and the fuss that will follow if we're let
in.
K
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote in message
In this regard, the citizenship of Gib is no different to citizenship of any
of the other UKOTs. Of course the majority of these not being under threat
of hostile take-over do not get fussed over these sematics, but we do. It is
a state which affects very many folk around the world, numbering less than a
million I suppose. Gib with Bermuda have similar population sizes of around
30k each, with the others petering down to a lowly 55 in Pitcairn.
No-one else seems to care, or consider it an issue which matters to them.
K
Lynx
snip
> As recently as 2002 Gib rejected notions of co-sovereignty. Part of the
> emphatic rejection was that Spain clearly spelt out that this would not be
> the end of the process, but the start as far as she was concened of
> getting total sovereignty. In oter words, no change, no compromise, no
> recognition of a people's right to choose their own future. So, no thanks.
One should never forget that monarchy rule is absolute. While one never
wishes for Gib what Gibbos don't want. From a distance, Gib looks awfully
fragile. No sovereign's visits, no national status. This is no joke.
> . . and now it's our turn?
One lives in hope.
>> Suppositions. How can anyone tell what the next generation of Spanish
>> politicians may opt for. It's for the inhabitants of Gibraltar to decide
>> their future, and their future is, and has to be in Gib. Nowhere else.
>
> Of course - but it would help immensely if Spain changed in the manner I
> desire.
You know this is turning into the tale of the Good Little Pipe, right?
> As regards membership of an organisation, in isolation, yes.
snip
I hear what you say. In yesterday's news, we've got a foot in UEFA's door.
With regards to representing ourselves as a nation in UEFA games, perhaps.
But we already access the Miss World pageant, we are an entity on the world
scene. But so long as we do not attain true national status nothing will
change. So long as we have this belonger concept and granting of citizenship
by the UK, Gib will remain a colony in everything but name. We are
contending with Great Britain and Spain. These are powerful countries, let
us not kid ourselves. We will always belong to one or the other.
Lynx
> snip
> No-one else seems to care, or consider it an issue which matters to them.
The simple fact is that we're not in full control of our own national
status. We have control of our future inasmuch that we can choose what's
best for us, so long as the two powers in question choose to engage and
include us in their dialogue. This is happening and it makes me happy, we're
being considered.
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote in message
> wishes for Gib what Gibbos don't want. From a distance, Gib looks awfully
> fragile. No sovereign's visits, no national status. This is no joke.
Well, one would hardly wish to upset Sp would one? The UK seems to think of
Spain as a great friend and ally. It has not dawned of them that Sp looks
towards the UK as a set of gullible fools to be milked of all that is
possible. It mattered not to Sp that they caused offence in the UK when they
refused to send anyone to Charlie's wedding, and the UK soon forgot the
insult, calling them friends and allies again.
Why make themselves "hosifa" I don't know.
> You know this is turning into the tale of the Good Little Pipe, right?
Do you want me to tell you the story of the Good Little Pipe?
>> As regards membership of an organisation, in isolation, yes.
> snip
>
> I hear what you say. In yesterday's news, we've got a foot in UEFA's door.
A toe-hold soon to be denied us . . .
> With regards to representing ourselves as a nation in UEFA games, perhaps.
> But we already access the Miss World pageant, we are an entity on the
> world scene.
In this PC world, in the affluent west, no-one dares admit viewing the
cattle-market of a Miss World contest! It's a contest which remans popular
(and gets most of its winners from) S America and SE Asia. The entrants have
one heck of a good time at no expense to themselves, and I can blame no-one
for entering. But SPORT is the one thing that it is politically correct to
do - all that exercise, healthy living (even if it chews up your knees) etc.
> But so long as we do not attain true national status nothing will change.
> So long as we have this belonger concept and granting of citizenship by
> the UK, Gib will remain a colony in everything but name. We are contending
> with Great Britain and Spain. These are powerful countries, let us not kid
> ourselves. We will always belong to one or the other.
Oh they are powerful, but as we showed in 2002 we have the ability to beat
them both at their own game. Had it not been for that resounding whipping,
the x3 process would never have started. I disagree we will always have to
belong to one or the other, though I agree that this is the nature of the
game for the forseaable future.
K
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote in message
HK - of course, with us and the Falklanders the only other Brits who have
their homelands threatened. The HK of course were strangled by a lease of 99
years. In any case they seemed so intent on making moiney they forgot other
things of greater importance still.
K
Lynx
>
> "Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote in message
> news:fXYeh.5916$HU....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:elh3t...@news4.newsguy.com...
snip
>
> their homelands threatened. The HK of course were strangled by a lease of
> 99 years.
Wrong. The Island of Hong Kong never formed part of the lease.
> In any case they seemed so intent on making moiney they forgot other
> things of greater importance still.
Hang on a minute. Sure you don't want to re-think this statement?????
Lynx
>
> snip
> Well, one would hardly wish to upset Sp would one? The UK seems to think
> of Spain as a great friend and ally. It has not dawned of them that Sp
> looks towards the UK as a set of gullible fools to be milked of all that
> is possible. It mattered not to Sp that they caused offence in the UK when
> they refused to send anyone to Charlie's wedding, and the UK soon forgot
> the insult, calling them friends and allies again.
All your canned veges come from Spain and, I dare say, so do a great deal of
your fresh produce, with the exeption of mushrooms. :)
The wedding was a private affair, as such, no public-national insult could
be taken. I think.
>
> Why make themselves "hosifa" I don't know.
Me neither, you tell me.
>> You know this is turning into the tale of the Good Little Pipe, right?
>
> Do you want me to tell you the story of the Good Little Pipe?
Yeh!
>>> As regards membership of an organisation, in isolation, yes.
>> snip
>>
>> I hear what you say. In yesterday's news, we've got a foot in UEFA's
>> door.
>
> A toe-hold soon to be denied us . . .
It's not that your pesimistec, is it....
> In this PC world, in the affluent west, no-one dares admit viewing the
> cattle-market of a Miss World contest! It's a contest which remans popular
> (and gets most of its winners from) S America and SE Asia. The entrants
> have one heck of a good time at no expense to themselves, and I can blame
> no-one for entering. But SPORT is the one thing that it is politically
> correct to do - all that exercise, healthy living (even if it chews up
> your knees) etc.
Have to admit, I've never watched it either. The astronomical side of it's
fine, but the dialogue beats me!
> Oh they are powerful, but as we showed in 2002 we have the ability to beat
> them both at their own game. Had it not been for that resounding whipping,
> the x3 process would never have started. I disagree we will always have to
> belong to one or the other, though I agree that this is the nature of the
> game for the forseaable future.
One never knows, the evolutionary return of the dinosaurs may see us gaining
independence :))
Jim Watt
>> they refused to send anyone to Charlie's wedding, and the UK soon forgot
>> the insult, calling them friends and allies again.
>The wedding was a private affair, as such, no public-national insult could
>be taken. I think.
On this occasion you think wrongly, Perhaps you are
confusing the first wedding which was a huge event
with his second one.
It was the wedding to Diana which the Spanish refused
to attend because he was flying to Gibraltar to start
his honeymoon on Britania.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
Pardon my misunderstanding. Yes, I do recall reading about and seeing some
photos of the Prince and Princess visit to Gibraltar. A noble gesture I
thought at the time and feel today, that Prince Charles should have decided
to initiate the honeymoon in Gibraltar. He'd be a good King, I reckon.
Jim Watt
>He'd be a good King, I reckon.
I would disagree, I think he is a prat but
we shall hopefully see in the fullness of time
HM still has a few years to go in her though.
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote in message
>
> Yeh!
Oh dear, I fear we're in for one of those long, meaningless exchanges.
Ahem! I didn't say "Yeh!", I asked if you wished me to retell the story of
the Good Little Pipe.
K
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote in message
err . . .no.
K
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:34:14 GMT, "Lynx" <M...@Home.com> wrote:
>
>>He'd be a good King, I reckon.
>
> I would disagree, I think he is a prat but
> we shall hopefully see in the fullness of time
> HM still has a few years to go in her though.
My statement is based on his persona, not on HM. He seems to be his own man.
Lynx
>
snip
>>> HK - of course, with us and the Falklanders the only other Brits who
>>> have their homelands threatened. The HK of course were strangled by a
>>> lease of 99 years.
>>
>> Wrong. The Island of Hong Kong never formed part of the lease.
>>
>>> In any case they seemed so intent on making moiney they forgot other
>>> things of greater importance still.
>>
>> Hang on a minute. Sure you don't want to re-think this statement?????
>
> err . . .no.
Time will tell.
Lynx
Jim Watt
with all the ambition of a tampax