Decades of instability, violence on the streets

[original PM]

More brexiter deflection. Conversation is on one topic, and because they have nothing positive to say they attack the EU (or attack the poster).

Why not try and post something jolly about how good brexit will be?

But but the title of the thread is about decades if instability.

I am pretty sure some un elected EU officials trying to run the Italian government has a distabilising effect.

[Lance]

But but the title of the thread is about decades if instability.

I am pretty sure some un elected EU officials trying to run the Italian government has a distabilising effect.

The un-elected EU officials are enforcing a treaty that was agreed by elected politicians in 28 member states.
There is an argument that the treaty has been enforced inconsistently, but that's not the argument you're making.

You can't say that punitive actions to prevent a member state from breaking a treaty is the same as 'run the Italian government'. Well you can say it, but you'd be wrong.

[yetanotherbob]

And did the referendums change their constitution in any way? Or, if they were a colony before the referendum, what changed afterwards to change their technical status?

What changed was there was demonstrable recorded consent from its people.
Their head of local government is one among them.
I don’t see how the UK stops them from running their local affairs as they see fit.

[meridian]

But but the title of the thread is about decades if instability.

The subject of the title is instability in the U.K. Your argument against that seems to be whataboutery, “but but other countries might be unstable also”.

I am pretty sure some un elected EU officials trying to run the Italian government has a distabilising effect.

They’re not trying to run the government. The specific context was to avoid destabilising the Euro.

You can’t have it both ways, complaining about Italian debt being a risk to U.K. banks while also complaining that someone is trying to limit Italian debt.

[meridian]

Decades of instability, violence on the streets

What changed was there was demonstrable recorded consent from its people.
Their head of local government is one among them.
I don’t see how the UK stops them from running their local affairs as they see fit.

So they were a colony before the referendum, and there was no constitutional change after the referendum. Therefore, still a colony after the referendum.

All the referendum did was reaffirm their colonial status.

[Whorty]

But but the title of the thread is about decades if instability.

I am pretty sure some un elected EU officials trying to run the Italian government has a distabilising effect.

But but but the thread is in the brexit area and so this is about the UK and your comment is about Italy. Therefore you're deflecting as you have nothing positive you can say about brexit

If you want to talk about Italy, which is nothing to do with Brexit, post a new thread in the General area and lets see who gives 2 flying fooks

[darmstadt]

EUR-Lex - 62004CJ0145 - EN - EUR-Lex

From the House of Commons Library, Research Paper 95/80:

Gibraltar is a British Crown Colony and the British monarch is represented by the Governorwho is the executive authority.

https://www.chba.org.uk/for-members/...r-under-eu-law

[AtW]

Nah, it was Colony then, now it is Overseas territory

[yetanotherbob]

So they were a colony before the referendum,

They might have been perceived as a colony because of the history.
After the second world war, the world community/UN agreed on a framework of decolonisation for such territories. That's how past members of the British empire became independent - some chose full independence, others became self governing commonwealth realms, yet others but very few chose to not opt for independence at all.

The Gibraltar referendum of 1967 was part of that global wave of decolonisation and Gibraltar chose to remain British.
"Principle of consent".

and there was no constitutional change after the referendum. Therefore, still a colony after the referendum.

What matters is how the residents of Gibraltar choose to define themselves - that they do not or no longer see themselves as a colony is a sufficient condition not to call them a colony.
But as a matter of fact, their 2006 constitution does affirm its status as a fully self-governing territory with specific areas like defence & foreign affairs handled by Britain.

All the referendum did was reaffirm their colonial status.

It rather affirmed that they are no longer a colony - they chose to stay with the UK.

[meridian]

They might have been perceived as a colony because of the history.
After the second world war, the world community/UN agreed on a framework of decolonisation for such territories. That's how past members of the British empire became independent - some chose full independence, others became self governing commonwealth realms, yet others but very few chose to not opt for independence at all.

The Gibraltar referendum of 1967 was part of that global wave of decolonisation and Gibraltar chose to remain British.
"Principle of consent".


What matters is how the residents of Gibraltar choose to define themselves - that they do not or no longer see themselves as a colony is a sufficient condition not to call them a colony.
But as a matter of fact, their 2006 constitution does affirm its status as a fully self-governing territory with specific areas like defence & foreign affairs handled by Britain.


It rather affirmed that they are no longer a colony - they chose to stay with the UK.

You must have a different definition of “self-governing” than that of the United Nations. Can you back up your “matter of fact” with evidence?

The United Nations and Decolonization - Committee of 24 - Non-Self-Governing Territories

Gibraltar is still on the list for decolonization. Simple UN fact.