Talk:Spain–United Kingdom relations

Untitled
Well what shall we do with our blank page? There's loads of stuff to include:

There's Scottish-Spanish relations too.
 * Anglo-Spanish War (1585)
 * Anglo-Spanish War (1654)
 * Anglo-Spanish War has others
 * Gibraltar

Secretlondon 14:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Separatism/ Terrorism
Another thing that could maybe mentioned is the influence that the common threat of similar motivated and acting (and cooperating)groups like the ETA and the IRA has (or had) on those relations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.230.1.28 (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Some things that should probably be mentioned

 * Spain restricting trade to its western hemisphere possessions, and subjecting random Protestant sailors in trading ships touching at Spanish ports to the inquisition and heresy trials (two factors which greatly inclreased tensions in the run-up to 1588).
 * Spain being identified in the English mind with the unhappy legacy of "Bloody" Mary I of England and the policy of Regnans in Excelsis. AnonMoos 03:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Tireless and Sceptre in Gibraltar: not much heard of in the UK but caused much ill-feeling in Spain William Avery 20:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

What about Spain's support of the UK and America going into Iraq? If I remember rightly, the Spanish PM was up there with Blair and Bush. But I can't cite or anything =/ 81.158.109.6 18:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Spain did not participate in the invasion but sent troops afterwards. A number were killed in a air crash and there was little domestic support for them being there.  After the last election they were withdrawn. None of this has anything to do with Gibraltar, albeit the Gib regiment had more troops involved in the invasion than Spain. --Gibnews (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The author's reference to the Jenkins' Ear war only mentions British capture of Portobello and I ask why? Portobello was a very minor event. Portobello was eventually re-captured by the Spanish and the British were defeated in much more pivotal battles like Cartagena (1739), Cuba, and Florida. Its fairly typical of Anglo-centric historians to only mention militarily minor events like Portobello and the battle of the Bloody Marsh to give uneducated readers the the false impression that the British won that war when they actually lost it. After that war, the Spanish Empire that remained intact and with minor casualties.--Charles A 06:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

-- There's an error in the text. Spain entered the EU in 1986 together with Portugal, not in 1982. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.96.81 (talk) 02:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Economic and cultural relations
This article deals almost exclusively on military and political conflict. There is no discussion of trade, tourism or cultural interacion. As such, it offers a very limited view of a much larger subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.4.112.58 (talk) 09:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar
This article need not describe the technicalities of Spain's position (or the UK's position for that matter); we already have an article for that, Disputed status of Gibraltar. The recent edits are effectively skewing the paragraph in favour of the Spanish POV and excluding the British/Gibraltar POV on self-determination. Best stick to the facts. RedCoat10 •  talk  20:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not true. Half of the paragraph states that there have been 2 referendums on sovereingty and the outcome in favor of the status quo. But there should be noted that spain does not accept those referendums and on what grounds. By not doing so we are skewing the paragraph in favour of the British POV actually. Notice that I've just modified the sentence related to the Spanish POV, but not the British one. So I don't get your point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.37.77 (talk • contribs)


 * Please see my reply further down. Thanks, RedCoat10  •  talk  20:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Spanish position on self determination
You erased a referenced statement in favour of leaving the text unreferenced), Spain considers that Gibraltarians are colonists and Gibraltar colonised land, therefore understands that according international law, Gibraltarians have no right to self-determination. Again, you may not agree with this position, but it has be included if we intend to be neutral.


 * The disputed paragraph states:


 * In two referendums, held in September 1967 and November 2002, the people of Gibraltar rejected any proposal for the transfer of sovereignty to Spain. The 2002 referendum was on a proposal for joint sovereignty which at one stage was supported by the UK Government. Spain claims that the Gibraltar issue is a bilateral question between Spain and the UK and ignores the democratically expressed wishes of the Gibraltarians, and thereby denying self-determination.


 * As it stands now the Spanish point of view (in bold) is not properly included. The article just says "Spain claims" to further add that it ignores the "democratically expressed wishes of the Gibraltarians", without elaborating in why Spain dismisses Gibraltarian's right to self determination.

My edition stated:


 * Considering the Gibraltar issue equal to other decolonisation processes, Spain claims it is a bilateral question between Spain and the UK, thus asserting that Gibraltarians have no right to self-determination. What is exactly the problem? Stating that Spain considers Gibraltar's population as colonists and this issue as a decolonisation process, therefore not accepting any right of self-determination? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.37.77 (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that it excludes the Gibraltar/British POV; namely, that the people of Gibraltar enjoy the right to self-determination because it is enshrined in the UN Charter and, at least according to the C24, is the driving force behind decolonisation. In any case, we need not expatiate on such issues here. I think you'll find that they're adequately discussed at Disputed status of Gibraltar. RedCoat10  •  talk  20:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If Gibraltarians have voted in 2 referendums already it is quite clear that they have the right of self-determination in their opinion. Spain thinks otherwise and backs it up with legal arguments. Therefore a neutral article should not say that Spain "ignores the democratically expressed" wishes... As an illegal referendum lacks the legitimacy of democracy.
 * Of course, the article shouldn't state that the referendum is illegal, because that's taking a position. But the current wording points exactly to the opposite direction.
 * With that said, that's why I opted to leave the referendums phrase as it was, while stating that Spain does not recognise their validity on legal grounds related to the decolonisation process particularities. Of course, Gibraltarian people does not share this, but their point of view can't be forced in a phrase that begins with "Spain claims". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.37.77 (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * An alternate wording: In two referendums, held in September 1967 and November 2002, the people of Gibraltar rejected any proposal for the transfer of sovereignty to Spain. The 2002 referendum was on a proposal for joint sovereignty which at one stage was supported by the UK Government. Considering the Gibraltarians decolonisation subjects, Spain claims it is a bilateral question between Spain and the United Kingdom, thus asserting that Gibraltarian people has no right to self-determination.


 * I think that's more sensible while still expressing Spain's position on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.37.77 (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It may imply that in their opinion they have the right to self-determination, but by no means does your proposed edit make clear why this is so. According to WP:NPOV, we must publish all "significant views that have been published by reliable sources". It would be biased to write why Spain thinks the people of Gibraltar do not enjoy the right to self-determination, while at the same time not saying why the people of Gibraltar think they do, who incidentally, like Spain, back it up with legal arguments. I refer specifically to Article 73 of the UN Charter, and the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, both of which are driving force behind decolonisation. However, we could avoid this whole matter altogether by not delving into the technicalities of self-determination in Gibraltar and limiting ourselves only to the undisputed facts that 1) two referenda were held and 2) Spain denies self-determination to the people of Gibraltar. RedCoat10  •  talk  07:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if gibraltarians are colonists (i.e. decolonisation subjects), they do not have the right to self determination. That's the position of Spain, which you may not share. Gibraltarians do not consider themselves decolonisation subjects but the legitimate inhabitants of gibraltar. Here lies the quid of the whole issue, and that's what I tried to state with my later proposal: Considering the Gibraltarians decolonisation subjects, Spain claims it is a bilateral question between Spain and the United Kingdom, thus asserting that Gibraltarian people has no right to self-determination.
 * How do you feel about it? Please, notice that it's exclusively the Spanish position, which follows the two referenda already held bit. Besides, this is the Spain-UK relations article, therefore it's quite important to include this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.57.186 (talk) 10:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That may be your opinion, but you are not speaking for the Government of Spain, and if you are - you should not be editing wikipedia. The claim that discussions on sovereignty are a bilateral matter is separate from the issue of whether Gibraltarians are 'a people' and thus entitled to self determination under the UN Charter.  I don't think we need go into the details on this page, or debate the case here. Virtual genocide is, as you are aware, a  highly offensive point of view to Gibraltarians. But if you want to mention it, there should be suitable references to show the official view of the Government of the Kingdom of Spain, from them. --Gibnews (talk) 12:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 89.129.57.186, I am well aware that's the Spanish position. If we wish to include it, however, we would also need to include the Gibraltar position (per WP:NPOV). The Gibraltar position is that they enjoy the right to self-determination because it is enshrined in the UN Charter and is, according to the C24, the principle means by which colonies are decolonised. Your proposed change does not include that compensatory Gibraltar position. The fact that two referenda were held does not outline Gibraltar's position on why they enjoy self-determination (we are, after all, saying why the Government of Spain does not believe that Gibraltarians have the right to self-determination; we should do likewise for Gibraltar). Nonetheless, I still fail to see the importance of including the technicalities. Please explain. Thanks, RedCoat10  •  talk  14:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar waters
I asked for a cite that shows that Spain claims the waters around Gibraltar. Although there is a lot of hot air in the Spanish media about this topic, there does not seem to be any formal assertion that the waters are Spanish.

When challenged by the Gibraltar police, the Spanish patrol vessels leave, which rather indicates they know they are in the wrong.

The reference given is by way of a remark on signing the UN Convention on the law of the sea (1982) and remarks do not have any legal significance. Its rather bizarre that it refers to the Treaty of Utrecht (1713), as this was before the concept of territorial waters existed.

However, there is currently a case in the European court which should decide the matter finally. In the meantime, there does not seem to be a reliable cite that Spain CLAIMS the waters, only that it disputes that Gibraltar, which is included in the convention, exists. --Gibnews (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "I asked for a cite that shows that Spain claims the waters around Gibraltar". You've been given it. Here you have an additional one. Is the claim right? I don't know (I don't mind, in fact). But the statement in the text does not say that the waters are Spanish, but only that Spain claims them. Full stop. The rest of your digressions are not simply relevant for the discussion (BTW, Spain does not dispute anything with Gibraltar... Gibraltar does not exist from the Public International Law point of view, so a sovereign state cannot dispute anything but with other sovereign state). --Ecemaml (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, an expression of the traditional Spanish POV that Gibraltar 'does not exist'. How quaint. Many things are claimed not all are true. --Gibnews (talk) 09:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What on earth do you mean, Ecemaml, by "Gibraltar does not exist from the Public International Law point of view"? What a ludicrous assertion. RedCoat10  •  talk  14:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, RedCoat, you asked the same question long ago and I forgot to reply. Gibraltar is simply not a subject of the Public International Law, since it rules the relationships between sovereign states. As a lately development, supranational organizations were also introduced (although the text in wikipedia is not that good, you can try a search in google by "Public International Law" and "manual" for instance, and you will get a surely more precise description). Therefore, the subjects of it are states and supranational organizations. It has nothing to do with the role or importance of Gibraltar. It's simply a statement of fact. That's the reason, for instance, why the UK is the entity which signs the Convention of the Sea. That's the reason why, as the Government of Gibraltar acknowledges (it couldn't be otherwise), the waters around Gibraltar are "British" waters. You can see it from the reference already in the text:

Accordingly, by virtue of these Conventions the UK has a treaty right to territorial waters in Gibraltar not exceeding 12 miles. The UK has declared 3 miles.
 * Nothing more (and nothing less). I hope it's clearer now. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * But that doesn't mean Gibraltar doesn't exist from a Public International Law perspective, far from it. One of the most important sources of international law are treaties and you are obviously familiar with the Treaty of Utrecht. Granted, Gibraltar is not an independent state which means it doesn't enjoy the same rights as, say, France. But the fact that it is not an independent state doesn't mean that it doesn't exist in international law. The UK acts on behalf of Gibraltar and does not do so as if Gibraltar were part of the UK, but as a separate territory in its own right. Mind you, Gibraltar has increasingly been doing the UK's job - see http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=15675. Thanks for the reply though. RedCoat10  •  talk  17:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "But the fact that it is not an independent state doesn't mean that it doesn't exist in international law". Right, but remember, I'm not talking about "International Law", but about "Public International Law", a specific branch of Law that rules international relationships. Such a very subtle comment is relevant just because there are no "Gibraltar territorial water", as only sovereign states have territorial waters (as they're the only ones who can sign the Convention of the Sea). That is, although from a informal you can talk about Gibraltarian territorial waters to refer to the waters around the territory, from a legal point of view, they are simply British territorial waters (you can include Gibraltar in the phrase if you wish, but you can't drop the "British" term). You're welcome --Ecemaml (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I've broken in 2 the issues you were discussing, as both are distinct chronologically, in substance and in form. And last, but not least, we should refrain from affirming that those are Gibraltar's waters just as we refrain from stating that are Spain's. This is an encyclopedia, neither a battleground nor a court. Cheers.Cremallera (talk) 13:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The reference I have provided, uses data from the House of Commons library and states that they are Gibraltar waters, the reference from the MAE states that Spain claims the waters. So its quite in order to say they are Gibraltar waters, and not Spanish or UK. There is a case in the European court about their designation for environmental protection which will no doubt drag on for a few years. In the meantime Gibraltar exercises effective control of the designated waters.  So I see no reason to refrain from stating what is evidenced and obvious except that it may upset 'Spanish sensitivities' like shooting at a red and yellow bouy (the standard NATO target). --Gibnews (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So, in short, you equate some declarations of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom with The Truth, when it is just the point of view of one of the involved parties. You should know better, Gibnews.Cremallera (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So should you because the 'truth' has no bearing. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." -. RedCoat10  •  talk  15:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Precisely. Do you object to the issue discussed here or you are just chatting?Cremallera (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've restored the original version which describes the waters as de facto British but claimed de jure by Spain and Gibraltar/UK. Is there still a problem? RedCoat10  •  talk  15:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I see. Do we have a reference to the statement that the waters are de facto British? Because what I think we've got is a lot of references stating that those waters are either British or Spanish, and I don't dare to dismiss any of them. I hope you'll see my point. Cheers.Cremallera (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

-
 * A very cursory Google search turns up this. It seems that even the Spanish recognise that Gibraltar exerts de facto/effective sovereignty over its waters. Saying otherwise would be an error of fact. I think the original version describes the status quo accurately without engaging in unfitting theoretical discussion about sovereignty. RedCoat10  •  talk  16:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyway, the layout is awful. Would not be more sensible to state the dispute and afterwards to list some of the incidents? --Ecemaml (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I could be wrong about facts, of course. So can the opposition party in Gibraltar, which is concerned as "Spanish Guardia Civil challenge our territorial waters on a daily basis". One part may deem those visits as "incursions", while the other sees them as "patrolling". Likewise, I am aware that we can provide sources reflecting both Gibraltar and Spain exerting sovereignty on those waters. And that's why I advocate for keeping this wording, which is factually correct, and drawing this discussion where it really belongs. Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with that version is that, while it's factually correct, it isn't as accurate as the original version if only because it doesn't actually describe the status quo in terms of who has effective sovereignty; namely, Gibraltar/UK. This form of de facto sovereignty isn't disputed by Spain as I demonstrated above. There isn't really much of a difference between your proposal and the original one, except the former omits the reference to de facto sovereignty and, since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, it's best we do mention who has effective sovereignty for the sake of accuracy. RedCoat10  •  talk  18:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, RedCoat, I think you've not "demostrated" anything. Just an article by a Gibraltarian paper on something allegedly said by a Spanish newspaper (BTW hard-liner in the Gibraltar Question and opposed to the Spanish Government approach to the Question). Besides miscommenting the original article (Panorama is referring to this article, mind the "algo gordo" sentence, in which nothing about "de facto" British sovereignty is said) the article accurately states that the Spanish Civil Guard patrols these waters on a daily basis (though avoiding direct confrontations). Therefore, the Spanish security forces challenges on a daily basis the British sovereignty... I don't see it as a de facto recognition of anything. Is it that possible to follow NPOV statements? That is Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. No assessment is needed, but the Spanish claim and the fact that the Spanish security forces routinely access these waters, being confronted by British Navy and Gibraltarian police, without any direct confrontation (at least up to now). If the reader thinks it's a de facto control or not, it's up to him/her. --Ecemaml (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Every territory in the world that borders the sea has its territorial waters. Gibraltar (and by extension its territorial waters) is under the de facto sovereignty of the UK. I'll go even further and note that Spain acknowledges that the UK exerts de jure sovereignty over Gibraltar, but qualifies this by excluding the isthmus and Gibraltar's territorial waters. The article must make this distinction between de jure and de jure jurisdiction. RedCoat10  •  talk  19:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems that we agree to disagree, RedCoat. An article of Panorama.gi quoting another newspaper ("el Mundo", if I remember correctly) can't demonstrate who exerts sovereignty, as I see it. In fact, my understanding of the situation (resulting from references like those I've supplied earlier) is that neither Spain nor Gibraltar exercise undisturbed sovereignty on the waters they lay claim, as both Guardia Civil and Gibraltarian Royal Police "collide".
 * Other than that, I am not really comfortable with the "British Gibraltar Territorial Waters" concept, as something distinct than mere "British Waters" as I think that it can't be inferred neither from the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 cited as source (and ratified by the UK, not Gibraltar) where we can read that "the United Kingdom has no doubt about the sovereignty of the United Kingdom over Gibraltar, including its territorial waters" nor from the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee of 2008 which stated: "Accordingly, by virtue of these Conventions the UK has a treaty right to territorial waters in Gibraltar not exceeding 12 miles. The UK has declared 3 miles (...)".
 * That's why I consider correct the former wording. If I misread something or there is further information that I do not know, please point it out. Cheers! Cremallera (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: another edit conflict. Sorry about that. Cremallera (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The term "British Gibraltar Territorial Waters" is defined in law (see Government of Gibraltar v Commission [Case T-176/09]) and is simply used to refer to those territorial waters that are claimed as British. RedCoat10  •  talk  19:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, in fact it is not defined "in law" at all. First, because your reference is a reference by an involved party (is it really so difficult to understand that a reference by an involved party are only useful for supporting its POV?). That is, the Government of Gibraltar may name the involved waters the way he likes, possibly in order to support its quasi-statehood (an approach legitimate and valid, but that may not override Wikipedia principles). Secondly because the GoG has no legal possibility of modifying the Public International Law.
 * To sum up, I'm restoring the order I proposed previously (it's more sensible) and removing the de facto assessment, since it's proved that there is no de facto possession. I'm leaving the unprecise term "British Gibraltar Territorial Waters", although I think it's simply not valid. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What a lot of nonsense. Franco used to place marker buoys on the median line of the bay because he recognised that half of it was not Spanish and wanted to keep Britain out of the other half. The situation is clear from the 1982 treaty, and any comments by Spain are just that and have no legal significance.  However the de facto position is that when the Gibraltar police ask others to leave they do so or they get arrested, as in the case of the fishing vessel the Pirana and in another incident they arrested a boatload of Guardia Civil. Your references do not say that Spain claims the waters around Gibraltar simply that Spain does not agree they are Gibraltar's.  As you have read the ToU, it does not say anything about waters, there again it does not mention TV broadcasting channels, as neither existed in 1713 and Gibraltar is allocated CH12 etc by the ITU. At least the PSOE realise they have to talk to Gibraltar rather than denying it exists. However as Gibraltar arrested another Spanish vessel friday, I predict there will be chaos at the frontier next week. --Gibnews (talk) 09:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting POV. It's fairly acceptable as what is: a POV. It therefore deserves to be shown, as long as it is referenced (and with something better that your statements). BTW, possibly you think that your verbal juggling ("Your references do not say that Spain claims the waters around Gibraltar simply that Spain does not agree they are Gibraltar's") are somehow clever, but a little bit tiring. If you disagree, you can call for a mediation or a dispute resolution process... Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

History
I believe the introductory paragraph of the History section is unnecessarily convoluted and unhelpful. I propose that it be replaced by the following wording subject, of course, to prior discussion and possible improvement. "Both the modern United Kingdom and the Kingdom of Spain were formed by unions of earlier historic kingdoms which were parties to armed conflict from at least the 14th century. In later centuries, both the United Kingdom and Spain became imperial powers and were in conflict over specific territories, notably during the European colonization of the Americas. The currently disputed political status of Gibraltar is the latest stage in a 300-year-old conflict for control of a strategically important location." I see no point in making this intro summarise related information which is properly covered in wikilinks and the following subsections. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Phillip II as king of England, not king consort
Phillip II of Spain was KING of Spain and England. Not king consort.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASpanish_Empire&action=historysubmit&diff=277224519&oldid=277223453

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASpanish_Empire&action=historysubmit&diff=276879383&oldid=276878941 --201.230.48.232 (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

WHY is immigration a problem?
"They have many common laws due to EU membership. However, there are some, few problems that strain relations slightly."

Then the immigration of spaniards to the Uk and vice versa is shown. Why is this two way immigration a problem? sources please.--201.230.75.189 (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

[Present Day] "Very good relations"
I think it is an exaggeration to say that relations between Spain and the United Kingdom are "very good". There are issues such as the Gibraltar dispute and the fishing that greatly cloud the relationship between both countries, being potentially even more serious after the 'Brexit' crisis.

Leaving diplomatic relations between the two nations aside, the relationship between Spanish citizens and British citizens is often mixed or not good. Issues such as the massive arrival of young British tourists and drunkards to Spain that very often create problems and damage to local citizens, throw themselves from the balconies of hotels dying enough of them or false reports of intoxication to Spanish hotels to be compensated, generate broad dedagrado in the Spanish population.

The fake news of British media alerting of the imminent eruption of the Teide volcano of the Canary Islands next to the articles centered on parody and mockery of the Spanish figure and its culture do not help to improve relations. This added to the eternal issue of Gibraltar and its regime similar to that of a tax haven and the historical political and military conflicts make the United Kingdom is not considered in my opinion a friendly country in Spain. I am a Belgian living for a long time in Spain and more or less is what I observe, although there are also exceptions to what I have described. JamesOredan (talk) 13:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Errata: Dedagrado = Disgust JamesOredan (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)