GIBRALTAR today Letters

UTRECHT: Not worth paper it is written on

Dear Sir
I’m fed up to the back of my teeth listening to ludicrous comments on the radio or reading about it in the newspapers, about the Treaty of Utrecht.
The Treaty was not a well thought out document. It was signed on the 13th day of July 1713 (it had to be, you would say, on a 13th day and on a 13th year, which some people would say is a bad omen). On that very day, at the very precise moment it was signed, the Treaty became invalidated as it could not be accepted under British law, Spanish law or International law.
Let me explain. The very first proviso in the Treaty stipulate that the property of Gibraltar “is yielded to the Crown of Great Britain with all manner of right for ever without any exception or impediment whatsoever”. The Treaty then goes on to stipulate a long text about trade, communications, religion, residence of Jews and Moors but not a single word about sovereignty.
As an afterthought an exception proviso was added as a last paragraph to the Treaty. The proviso reads as follows: “And in case it shall hereafter seem meet to the Crown of Great Britain to grant, sell, or by any means alienate therefrom the property of the said town of Gibraltar, it is hereby agreed and concluded that the preference of having the same shall always be given to the Crown of Spain before any others”.
How can you have a treaty, which is after all a contract between states relating to peace, truce, alliance and commerce, which quite categorically stipulates “without any exception whatsoever” and at the same time have an exception clause added and written into it? Which way shall one go? Without exception whatsoever means without exception fullstop, no buts or ifs about it.
If you then add an exception to the Treaty of Utrecht, by so doing, you invalid the terms, for how can you accept on the one hand “without any exception whatsoever” and on the other hand “accept an exception?” It is a contradiction, it breaks the code of conduct, it makes the Treaty incredulous, is a mockery. The Treaty of Utrecht is therefore not a valid legal document, it never was!
Those people who quote and/or misquote the Treaty, are trying to pull wool over our Gibraltar eyes. Trying to convince us that Gibraltar cannot be decolonised, or that the status quo cannot continue ad infinitum or that we cannot go independent.
If you do not accept this point in law, this argument, then consider the following. Suppose, just suppose, that during the Great Siege of 1779, which lasted for just under 4 years, Spain, with the help of French forces, had gained possession over the Rock. The British would have been out and Gibraltar would have been Spanish.
If the Treaty of Utrecht is deemed valid, then under its terms, Great Britain would have had the perfect right to claim back the Rock and would have said to Spain “You cannot keep the Rock, we want it back, after all you yielded the property of Gibraltar to the Crown of Great Britain for ever”. If Spain really wanted to respect and honour the terms of the Treaty, they would have handed it back. But why go to war in the first place and try to recapture the Rock if at the end of the day, you are going to hand it back?
Would anyone then say “Yes, the Rock must be given back to Great Britain which is in accordance with the terms of the Treaty”. If there is someone out there who believes that Spain would have handed back the Rock according to the terms of the Treaty, then that person has escaped from the looney house and they are still searching for him!
We all know, don’t we, Treaty or no Treaty, Spain would not have handed back the Rock even though under the terms of the Treaty they were obligated to do so.
Consider also the following. The first proviso also stipulates “.....without any impediment whatsoever”. Meaning without any hindrance or obstruction. Yet Spain violated the terms of the Treaty several times.
Spain tried by military force to recapture the Rock in 1727, again in 1761 and again in 1779, the Great Siege. Each time violating the terms of the Treaty. Spain was never successful in their attempts. However, by trying to do so, by military force, Spain violated the Treaty not once, but several times.
When you violate a treaty, that treaty becomes null and void. The Treaty of Utrecht is not worth the paper it is written on.
Excuse me, I have an urge to go to the toilet. I know there is no toilet paper available, so please, could I have the paper that the Treaty of Utrecht is written on as I intend to make use of it and then flush it down the toilet. At least that paper would have served one useful purpose!
Yours sincerely
Jos Grays
British without being a colony

Sir,
I understand the Spanish reasoning behind their position that the decolonisation of Gibraltar means integration with Spain. For years they have been telling the world that Gibraltar must be decolonised, and this could only be (according to them) by its absorption into the Spanish state. If Gibraltar were to be decolonised by any other means the wind will have been taken out of all Spanish sails.
The Treaty of Utrecht did not specify the administrative arrangements that might exist for Gibraltar other than sovereignty must be British, or in the event of loss of interest by Britain, must be offered to Spain before all others. This statement permits all systems of government, as long as the British Sovereign is also the Sovereign of Gibraltar. Indeed it would be possible to be fully independent, as Canada is, as long as nominal sovereignty rests with the British Crown.
Perhaps our neighbours need to be reminded unequivocally that Gibraltar can be British territory without being a UK colony, and there is ample precedent for this. Surely even Spain would not dispute that Gibraltar has been legitimate British territory since 1713. However, Gibraltar did not attain the status of Crown Colony until 1830. The intervening 117 years demonstrate that in order to be British, Gibraltar does not require to wear a colonial yoke.

Ken Ruiz, Sheffield

• Books

• Magazines

• Posters & Prints