The Instigator
TrasguTravieso
Pro (for)
Tied
3 Points
The Contender
Atheist-Independent
Con (against)
Tied
3 Points

Gibraltar ought in justice to be returned to Spain

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/29/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,269 times Debate No: 61051
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

TrasguTravieso

Pro

Round 1 is for acceptance.

Standard rules.
Atheist-Independent

Con

I accept this debate.

I will be arguing that Gibraltar should remain an overseas territory of the UK. I hope to have a great debate and to learn more on the matter. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
TrasguTravieso

Pro

For a country to legitimately hold a certain territory, it must be able to hold a just title to it. I will argue that the United Kingdom holds no such title to Gibraltar.

To approach the issue one must put it in its historical context.

The British presence on Gibraltar stems from the Spanish war of succession, in which two different dynastic houses (the Bourbons and the Hapsburg) were vying for the Spanish throne. England stepped in on behalf of the Hapsburg contender, the archduke Charles of Austria, and landed on Gibraltar (along with Spanish troops loyal to the archduque and others) carrying his flag rather than their own. For good or for ill, the grandson of Louis XIV, Philip of Anjou, wins the war and the treaty of Utrecht is signed.(1)

As the conquest was not in the name of England, but of the pretender to the Spanish throne, it is this treaty,(2) which cedes Gibraltar to the British crown, and not the conquest itself which is pointed to as the source of the British claim to Gibraltar. This is the claim that I hope to demonstrate is illegitimate.

The treaty treats of Gibraltar in its article X (the full text of which can be accessed by the link I provide as my second source) gives the crown of Great Britain "the full and entire property of the town and property of Gibraltar", the treaty goes on to specify however that "the above-named property [is] yielded to Great Britain without any territorial jurisdiction and without any open communication by land with the country round about". From this, and in more modern terms, one can see that the treaty does not cede sovereignty, as sovereignty cannot exist without territorial jurisdiction. The legal arrangement therefore is more akin to that of overseas bases today than a colony, and any assertion of sovereignty goes beyond the legal title it is supposedly based on.

Apart from this initial problem (which is in and of itself lethal to any claim to sovereignty) there is the question of further violations of the treaty. There are, granted, parts of the treaty that have been abrogated by later agreements signed by Spain, such as the prohibition on the residence in Gibraltar "under any pretence whatsoever either [of] Jews or Moors". In international law, however, the abrogation of part of a treaty does not invalidate the whole. This means that the Crown and Government of Great Britain is still bound by the limitations and obligations of the treaty. The treaty recognized only the property of the town and the original port,(3) red in the image, whereas the British claim has been, shall we say, expansive. Not only have they repeatedly changed the border, occupying the neutral zone left by the Spanish, they are now expanding into what must by necessity be recognized as Spanish territorial waters (as the treaty recognizes none to Britain) by filling in the ocean with sand and rock.(4)

Finally, if Gibraltar were to attempt to gain its independence, the property of Gibraltar would first have to be offered Spain as per the final paragraph of Utrecht's Article X: "in case it shall hereafter seem meet to the Crown of Great Britain to grant, sell or by any means to alienate therefrom the propriety of the said town of Gibraltar (...) the preference of having the sale shall always be given to the Crown of Spain..." This reinforces my claim that the treaty cedes only property and not sovereignty and precludes any arrangement other than either a British military base and town on Spanish soil or full Spanish sovereignty.

Conclusion:

To sum up I am proposing 3 arguments against the British claim of a just title to Gibraltar and one against Gibraltar's independence.

1. The conquest of Gibraltar was not in the name of England but of a Spanish pretender to the throne (no right of conquest).
2. The Treaty of Utrecht recognizes no territorial jurisdiction, which amounts to the recognition of a British military base on Spanish territory (a European Guantanamo Bay).
3. The terms of the treaty have been repeatedly violated by the British.
4. Gibraltar cannot be independent as it would entail a change of property from Britain to another (as of yet non-existent) nation, and the treaty states that Spain would have first rights in this case.

Sources:

(1) http://bit.ly...
(2) http://bit.ly...
(3) http://bit.ly...
(4) http://bit.ly...
Atheist-Independent

Con

Round 2: Argument

Opening Notes:

First off, I would like to thank my opponent for providing a detailed description of the history behind the matter. This will be greatly appreciated by both other readers and I.

I will be arguing that Gibraltar should remain a British overseas territory, as I stated in round 1. I will divide my opening argument into three subdivisions that will each provide separate reasons for Gibraltar to remain with the UK. These three subdivisions will make up the essence of my argument. They will be:

D1: Political Reasons
D2: Economic Reasons
D3: Cultural Reasons

I expect this to be a heated, yet very interesting debate. Again, good luck!

D1: Political Reasons

1. Declaration of Unity between Gibraltar and the UK

In 2000 over 12000 Gibraltarians, 65% of the population, voiced their support to have a joint declaration of unity with the UK. The declaration of unity, in a nutshell, described that "...the people of Gibraltar will never compromise, give up or trade their sovereignty or their right to self-determination; that Gibraltar wants good, neighborly, European relations with Spain; and that Gibraltar belongs to the people of Gibraltar and is neither Spain's to claim or Britain's to give away" [1]. This declaration of unity clearly presents that the Gibraltarians have chosen that they wish to belong to the UK as an oversees territory as opposed to joining Spain. This is a very important point that will arise again in the Cultural segment of my argument.

2. Hypocrisy of Spain

Spain claims that they want Gibraltar because they have a stronger claim on Gibraltar than the UK does and that it is unfair that the UK holds provinces in lands that are rightfully theirs. However, Spain fails to mention that they themselves own territories, in Ceuta and Melilla, which rightfully belong to Morocco. In my opinion, and the opinion of others, Spain could only press claim on Gibraltar if they released the colonies in Ceuta and Melilla. As it is clear that this will not happen in the near future, Spain has no right to press claims on Gibraltar.

3. Various independence referendums

The subject of the fate of Gibraltar has been a heavily debated topic for over half a century. This is clear because the first independence referendum was held in Gibraltar back in 1967. The result being that 12,138 of the 12,237 voters voted to remain a territory of the UK. Another referendum was held in 2002 yielding a similar result when only 187 of the nearly 18,000 voters voted for independence [2]. Similarly to the first argument in this division, Gibraltar has clearly expressed through political means that it does not wish to either become independent or join Spain.

4. Gibraltarians are officially British citizens

In 1981, the UK granted Gibraltar full British citizenship following the British Nationality Act. This allowed the Gibraltarians to self-govern themselves despite the fact that the queen is still the technical head of state. This is further evidence to the claim that the Gibraltarians are British and not Spanish and deserve to remain within their home country of the UK.

D2: Economic Reasons

1. UK has a solid economy

Currently, the UK has the 6th largest economy in the world, and the second largest in Europe. They have a GDP of $2.497 trillion and a GDP per capita of roughly $40,000. The UK has a total debt of £1,270.8 billion, which is roughly 75% of the total GDP, placing the UK in a fairly comfortable position [3].

2. Spain has a dreadful economy

Spain has the 12th largest economy in Europe. They have a GDP of $1.349 trillion and a GDP per capita of roughly $29,000. They also have unemployment of over one quarter of the population and have a debt that consumes 95% of the GDP [4].

3. Comparison

Given the following statistics, the UK has a higher GDP and GDP per capita, less debt, less unemployment, and overall has a stronger economy. Given the fact that Spain has an abysmal economy it would be in the Gibraltarians best interest for them to remain within the UK. However, given the fact that Gibraltar is a strong tax haven, it is clear that one of the sole reasons for why Spain wants Gibraltar is so that they can save their struggling economy.

D3: Cultural Reasons

1. Gibraltar is British

Due to the fact that Gibraltar has been under British control for over 300 years; it would be easy to assume that the Gibraltarians have become assimilated into the British culture. This can be seen in the use of the English language, British banks, money, shops, etc. [5]. Also, given the two referendums in 1967 and 2002 that were discussed in D1 it is clear that Gibraltar has displayed that it is clearly British and that it would be strange for them to be given to Spain.

Conclusion

Given these numerous examples of how Gibraltar has no desire or any reason to become independent from the UK, I feel that I have provided substantial evidence as of why Gibraltar should remain a UK overseas territory. I await my opponent’s rebuttals in the upcoming rounds.

Sources

[1]
https://www.gibraltar.gov.gi...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://news.uk.msn.com...

Debate Round No. 2
TrasguTravieso

Pro

I thank my opponent for his reasoned response. My argument however stands, as I will attempt to show in the following rebuttals and a short summary of the debate thus far.

Rebuttals:

Political reasons:

1. Declaration of Unity: The current inhabitants of Gibraltar have expressed their intention to retain "sovereignty and self determination" claiming Gibraltar "is neither Spain's to claim or (sic) Britain's to give away".

Saying something does not make it so. International law is not so flimsy a matter that a treaty between two sovereign states can be waived aside by a "declaration of unity" and a declaration of "sovereignty" by the inhabitants of a colony.(1) By virtue of the treaty of Utrecht, Britain was certainly given the right to keep or give away Gibraltar (granted it is first offered to Spain), and by virtue of the non-compliance with the treaty Spain is more than entitled to claim it.


2. Hypocrisy of Spain: Spain's continued possession of the enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla on the coasts of Morocco delegitimizes them in claiming Gibraltar.

False parallels are no argument. In order to draw a true parallel between the legal position of Gibraltar and that of the autonomous cities of Ceuta and Melilla one must show the legal title to be similar. It is not. Neither are the titles identical between the two cities. Melilla was conquered by D. Pedro de Estopiñán in 1497,(2) and therefore falls under right of conquest. If Melilla, therefore, is to be considered a colony, then most of the territory of most states, European and otherwise are colonies. Ceuta, for its part, was conquered by Portugal in 1415 and ceded to Spain in the treaty of Lisbon in 1668.(3) Said treaty does not limit the concession to property by excluding territorial jurisdiction and Portugal has never considered it a contentious issue.

This shows that Ceuta and Melilla are not taken in the context of European Colonialism, but in the context of Spain and Portugal's war against the Muslims in the Reconquest and therefore constitute territorial expansion rather than colonization. Ceuta and Melilla, just as the Canary Islands or the Azores are an integral part of Spanish and Portuguese territory. This is not the case of Gibraltar. Morocco has no legal or a historical title to either city, as Morocco did not exist as a country at the time of the conquest. The territory was governed by warring Berber tribes with whom the current Moroccan dynasty has no continuity.(4)

Even if, for the sake of argument, we did accept that the situation were similar; one injustice does not erase another, and this debate is about whether or not Gibraltar ought in justice to be returned to Spain, not whether or not Spain ought in justice to give its territory to others.

3. Independence Referendums: Independence referendums have failed, as the population has voted to remain British.

Saying something still does not make it so. If I were to install some friends in your house saying it is my property and, once you have insisted they leave, I ask them to vote whether they wish to own the house themselves or prefer the property to remain mine, I have my doubts as to whether you would consider that to be binding. This, however, is exactly what those referendums represent. One can only have a referendum over matters which are one's own to decide. I cannot vote on whether or not something that isn't mine ought to be. Every single political declaration, referendum, diplomatic statement etc. are invalid insofar as they cannot overrule the treaty. (See again source 1)

4. Citizenship: The fact that Gibraltarians are British citizens is "further evidence to claim Gibraltarians (...) are not Spanish and deserve to remain within their home country of the UK.

It should be British because it is British? This is precisely the matter under discussion. The fact that Gibraltarians have British citizenship and follow British law is the situation which I deem unjust and contrary to international law does not prove that it is just and in conformity with international law. Something is not justified by being the case.

Economic reasons:

1. UK has a solid economy: The UK is the 6th largest economy in the world, the second in Europe.

2. Spain has an abysmal economy: Spain is the 12th world economy and has both a gigantic debt and monstrous unemployment.

3. Comparison: It is in the best interest of Gibraltar to remain British, whereas Spain only wants them because they are a tax haven and hurt the Spanish economy.

The sun shines upon rich and poor alike. A country being in a better or worse economic situation has no bearing on the justice or injustice of a situation. Gibraltar's status as a tax haven does indeed harm the Spanish economy, but it harms the British economy and the European economy as a whole as well, as is evidenced by moves in the UK to limit their free reign to gambling emporia, for example.(5) That is the nature of tax havens. None of this, however, has any bearing on the legal status of the colony.

Cultural reasons:

1. Gibraltar is British: The population of Gibraltar has been assimilated into British culture.

The Llanitos are usurpers: The current inhabitants of Gibraltar are not descended from Spaniards who have been assimilated into British culture for the simple reason that they are not descended from the original inhabitants. The British expelled the inhabitants of the town of Gibraltar, who went to the neighboring towns of La Línea de la Concepción, San Roque and Los Barrios.(6) They are mostly descended from Genoese and Maltese.(7) If anything they have been assimilated into the Spanish culture. They speak Spanish, eat Spanish food, listen to Spanish music. The only thing British about them is their allegiance and economic interests, which do not constitute a case against international obligations.


Conclusion:

Nothing that has been set forward by my opponent in any way addresses the issue. Not only has he neglected to acknowledge the treaty if only to question its validity, but he has set forward arguments which have no bearing on the colony's status one way or another. As it stands readers have little alternative than to side with the UN's decolonization committee (8) and recognize Spain's sovereign right over the area.



Sources:

(1) http://bit.ly...
(2) http://bit.ly...
(3) http://bit.ly... (begging your pardon, the Spanish-language version of the treaty)
(4) http://bit.ly...
(5) http://bit.ly...
(6) http://bit.ly...
(7) http://bit.ly...
(8) http://bit.ly...
Atheist-Independent

Con

Rebuttals

Sorry for the late response, school is just starting up and I am slightly busy. Anways, lets move on to rebuttals!

1. The conquest of Gibraltar was not in the name of England but of a Spanish pretender to the throne (no right of conquest).

This argument is flawed due to the fact that it entails a claim that is tied to the Spanish monarchy. If the monarchy felt that it could press its claim on Gibraltar, then maybe Spain would have a legitimate case (even though I doubt that the world would listen). However Spain is basing their claim on Gibraltar solely on the belief that due to the fact that Gibraltar is on the Iberian peninsula and that they had control of the city 300 years earlier, they deserve to have control over Gibraltar.

The age of claims that originate out of kings and queens ended a long time ago, and unless Spain feels like bringing these days back, then I am afraid that Spain does not have a strong claim on Gibraltar.

2. The Treaty of Utrecht recognizes no territorial jurisdiction, which amounts to the recognition of a British military base on Spanish territory.

The Treaty of Utrecht states that "The Catholic King [King of Spain] does hereby, for himself, his heirs and successors, yield to the Crown of Great Britain the full and entire propriety of the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts..." [1]. Given this statement, it would be assumed that the King of Spain would be giving Great Britain ownership over the town of Gibraltar along with the other mentioned fortifications.

Given this, it would be assumed that Great Britain would have a large amount of power within Gibraltar, despite the Treaty's claim that Great Britain would have no territorial jurisdiction. By this logic, the Treaty is contradicting itself when it says that Great Britain will have "...full and entire property" over the town of Gibraltar and yet have no territorial jurisdiction.

My proposal on the matter is that given the fact that the Treaty was unclear as of who would have control over Gibraltar, control would default to Great Britain because they supposedly had full control of the region.

3.The terms of the treaty have been repeatedly violated by the British

The argument that the UK is "robbing" Spain is technically true, however it is little more that propaganda to raise the Spanish nationalism. The current "expansion" of Gibraltar will take little less than 0.15 square miles of unused land. Also, the treaty seems to be contradicting itself again as it makes no sence to give a town no rights to the surrounding water yet give them rights to a port.

As for the expansion into the neutral area, this can be explained by multiple wars between Spain and Great Britain. During the time between the Treaty of Utrecht and modern days there have been five wars between Great Britain and Spain. During these periods of war the neutral land between Spain and Gibraltar is no longer neutral. Therefore the UK's expansion into the neutral zone can be described as right by conquest.

Also, I would appreciate it if you could give a source to when the UK changed the border. According to all of the maps I have seen, the neutral zone between Spain and Gibraltar is still intact.

4. 4. Gibraltar cannot be independent as it would entail a change of property from Britain to another (as of yet non-existent) nation, and the treaty states that Spain would have first rights in this case.

Your argument is true, Gibraltar will not becoming an independent nation as it would mean that it would have to join Spain. However, as shown by the referendums in 1967 and 2002, Gibraltar clearly does not want to become independent from the UK. However if Gibraltar magically wants to become independent, they would be required by international law to join Spain, however this is not going to happen.

Sources

[1] http://www.gbc.gi...
[2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 3
TrasguTravieso

Pro

As this will be my last contribution to the debate I would like to thank my opponent for engaging with me in it. I at least have enjoyed it. As is generally the case in these debates we will not be adding arguments in this last round, but will be attempting a rebuttal of my Con's arguments.

On a side note, does anyone else find a delicious sort of irony in the fact that my avatar is the image of a prominent English Statesman (albeit previous to the usurpation of Gibraltar)?



1. "The age of the claims ended long ago out of kings and queens"

My opponent seems to be laboring under the impression that in international law treaties have expiration dates. This is not the case. Unless a treaty provides for a term of validity (as China's treaty with the United Kingdom over Hong Kong), the treaty is binding until such a time as a new agreement is reached. (See source 1 on round 3) Aside from the fact that in both the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland we still have kings and queens, international agreements don't become extinct with a new form of government or the passing of the centuries. Both parties to the treaty consider it the title of legitimacy in the contentious issue of Gibraltar, and so what the treaty entitles the UK to do or not to do is very much relevant.

Con also states that he doubts the world would listen. The fact that "the world" listens or does not listen is beside the point, as we are attempting to decide whether something ought to be done in justice, not whether or not it is likely to be done or whether or not the international community will expect it to be done. The fact is, however, as I have already mentioned before, that the UN committee on decolonization has indeed listened (source 8 round 3) and has resolved the following:

1. Gibraltar is a colony
2. The colonial situation of Gibraltar destroys Spain's national unity and territorial integrity and is incompatible with resolution 1514 (XV paragraph 6, 1960, on decolonization in general. In the case of Gibraltar the UN has not recognized the right to self-determination.
3. The question of Gibraltar must be resolved by bilateral negotiations between Spain and the United Kingdom (not by a referendum in Gibraltar)
4. Only the UN can decide when the process of decolonization has been completed, and until then the colony will remain on the UN's list of territories to decolonize.

I believe that just may count as the world listening, the question is when the UK will listen to the world.

2. It is a contradiction to grant "full and entire property" and yet no territorial jurisdiction, given the lack of clarity control defaults to Great Britain as the party with supposedly full control.

I have full and entire property of my home, and yet Spanish law applies here, property and sovereignty are two very different things. More to the point, the United States has full and entire property of several naval bases in Europe, one of which is in Madrid in Torrejón de Ardoz. They are there due to an agreement with the Spanish government, this agreement, however, does not turn it into American territory. This is not a controversial statement, but a matter of international law. The status assigned to Gibraltar in the treaty of Utrecht are in no way contradictory, and in no way singular, as it has been common practice from time immemorial for a treaty to grant garrisons without recognizing sovereignty over an area.

The only thing that makes Gibraltar contentious is the British tendency to disregard the terms of the treaty, which leads us to...

3. UK violations are "technically true, however it is little more than propaganda".

I thank my opponent for recognizing that it is true that the UK has repeatedly violated the treaty. It is of little importance if the amount of Spanish territorial waters being robbed is subjectively considered great or small, although as the area it expands into is not "unused" but has rather been an important resource for local fishermen it arguably isn't small. The fact is that a violation has taken place, and that these violations have been constant. Con mentions an apparent contradiction in the fact that the town is given no rights to the surrounding water, but rights to a port. This is no contradiction, however, as the treaty does grant right of passage through Spanish territorial waters to ships going to and from Gibraltar, a situation which is not uncommon either, particularly in areas like the Strait of Gibraltar which has no international waters, but through which ships from many nations must pass.

There were two failed attempts on Spain's part to retake Gibraltar, as my opponent notes. These, however, were not in the context of a war. They were simple sieges (although one quite persistent) and little or no change resulted in the occupied area. The moment of change came in the 18th century during an epidemic. The Spanish Crown granted a humanitarian corridor just north of the British-occupied section of Gibraltar for a hospital, as there were no appropriate installations in the town or fort. After the epidemic passed, the British stayed. Hardly an expansion by right of conquest. As to where it would be on the map, the area which was take in this way is the area on which the hospital and airport currently sit.

4. Gibraltar doesn't want to be independent anyways

This may be true, although the movement for independence in Gibraltar is far from negligible. The point, however, is not to say that it is being attempted, but that it is not legally possible and therefore should not be cited as a possibility. I take this point as conceded.


Conclusion:

We have seen that according to international law, as well as the declarations of both parties involved in it, the treaty of Utrecht is still valid and binding. From this, and from an examination of the content of the treaty and the history of the English possession of Gibraltar, this treaty has been constantly violated.

We have also seen that this position is not solely defended by Spain, but is reinforced by declarations by the United Nations Decolonization Committee. Declarations which reinforce the binding character of the treaty and recognize Spain's claim over Gibraltar.

The treaty also implies, and the United Nations expressly declare, that there is no right to self-determination for Gibraltar, as it is not a sovereign entity. All referendums, therefore, have no bearing upon the situation.

On this evidence there is no rational position other than a recognition that Gibraltar ought to be returned to Spain, and therefore, in this more modest forum, that we ought to recognize that the resolution stands.



¡Good luck in the school year!
Atheist-Independent

Con

Final Rebuttals

1. Deceleration of Unity

My opponent seems to believe that the Deceleration of Unity between Gibraltar and the UK represents nothing in international law. In a way he is right as it does nothing to debunk the Treaty of Utrecht, however with more analyzing of the situation the Declaration poses a serious problem for Spain. If Spain were to press their claim on Gibraltar, the decision on Gibraltar's fate would default to the Gibraltarians and not the UK's government due to the fact that the Deceleration of Unity states that Gibraltar "is neither Spain's to claim or Once given the option of independence from the UK, Gibraltar has made it clear that they would prefer to remain an overseas territory of the UK. So unless Spain decides to press their claim on Gibraltar by military force, which is highly unlikely, Gibraltar is going to remain with the UK.

2. Hypocrisy of Spain

The question here is in the situations of conquest, who has the better claim? The conqueror or the defender? In nearly all situations the answer would be the defender, unless the conqueror is reclaiming lands that they lost. The conquests of Cueta and Melilla are no exception to this rule. It is important to note, that despite my opponents claims, Morocco was indeed a country at the time of the conquests, just under the rule of the Wattasid dynasty [1]. Therefore Morocco has a very strong claim on Cueta and Melilla. I would also like to clarify that the conquests were not even in the name of Spain, but for Castille [2]. Does this mean that Spain has no claim whatsoever on the cities of Cueta and Melilla if they were not the ones to conquer them? In my opinion, yes, however it is likely that not everyone shares my opinion on this.

As for the argument that Cueta and Melilla are "false parallels" to the situation in Gibraltar, I would beg to differ. In both situations the nation that formerly owned the region in question are attempting to regain the now colony (and yes Cueta and Melilla are colonies [3]) and are facing resistance from the nation that now holds said colonies. However, in this case Morocco has a much stronger claim on Cueta and Melilla than Spain has on Gibraltar because Spain conquered the two cities from Morocco while Gibraltar was given to the UK via the Treaty of Utrecht.

3. Independence Referendums
4. Citizenship

I am going to combine these two arguments as they are really the same argument just under different context. The argument about you claiming my house as your own is, shall I say, a false parallel. This is because the UK has been in Gibraltar for over 300 years while you have been in my home for approximately fifteen seconds (hypothetically).

Also, I would like to state that the people who have the strongest claim on Gibraltar is not Spain or the UK, but it is the Gibraltarians who live there. Given that they have stated, through Independence Referendums, Decelerations of Unity, applications for citizenship, etc. that they want to remain with the UK shouldn't their opinion be respected. If you would like to define this in political terms, you could say that Gibraltar is pressing its claim on Gibraltar to remain with the UK.

Economic Reasons

3. Comparison

I believe that my opponent has misunderstood my original argument. I am not saying that it is bad to be poor, I am simply saying that it is in the Gibraltarians best interest to remain within the UK because they do not want to be placed into a dreadful economic situation. While you may be right that this bears no legal status within the decision of independence from the UK, it is important to register that is one more reason for why Gibraltar does not want to join Spain.

Cultural Reasons

1. Gibraltar is British

Upon further investigation on the matter, I would like to conclude that both of us are wrong on this matter. While British English is the national language, the vernacular is called Yanito which is a mix between Andalusian Spanish and British English. For food, Gibraltarians have influences from a unique mix of British and Mediterranean influences [4]. In conclusion, Gibraltar is about evenly mixed with British and Spanish influences and therefore my argument is essentially worthless.

Sources

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.examiner.com...
[4] http://www.everyculture.com...

Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Raisor 3 years ago
Raisor
Very interesting debate.

Pro provides a lucid argument that international law supports the resolution and cleanly answers Cons objections. I felt that Cons strongest point was the Spanish hypocrisy argument, but con only responds to pros rebuttal in the final round by presenting new claims which pro has no chance to respond to. I accordingly give the argument to Pro.

Pro largely responds to cons arguments by claiming that international law trumps the desire of local populations in matters of justice. Con allows Pro to frame the debate in this way, so I find international law to be the primary issue in this debate.

Pro wins that UK has no legal title to Gibraltar and has violated the treaty giving uk property rights. Thus pro wins the debate.
Posted by Atheist-Independent 3 years ago
Atheist-Independent
It is true that I have a negative view on all things colonial, however I feel that I could argue for both sides of this debate. I hope that you can convince me that I have picked the wrong side!
Posted by TrasguTravieso 3 years ago
TrasguTravieso
Given your debate on the Faulkland Islands and your expressed disdain of colonialism I had not expected to be debating you. I'm glad though, I think you will make it worthwhile.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Raisor 3 years ago
Raisor
TrasguTraviesoAtheist-IndependentTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
TrasguTraviesoAtheist-IndependentTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Between the arguments about the people's preference, and the fact that the treaty itself ceded Gibraltar, Con's arguments seemed clearly stronger, here. If the UK tries to sell Gibraltar, that situation will change, but in the meantime, if the treaty gives it to the UK, and the people want to be part of the UK, it seems clear that it's not "justice" to return it to Spain. Arguments to Con. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.