A couple of reasons. They provide a partial counterweight to naval control of Gibraltar by the UK, the local population strongly opposes their integration with Morocco. They're major oil ports. Basically they're profitable, so the libs want to keep them.
For reactionaries, they're artifacts of the end of the Reconquista and Morocco has no claim because there was no Morocco, heck, there wasn't even the Ottomans in the area. Cetua's initial conquest (by Portugal, I think) actually predates the conquest of the final Muslim kingdom, and Melilla only post-dates by 5 years, so some revanchist debatelord might call them anti-colonial possessions and be wrong, but at least interestingly wrong.
Also, they have been spanish for like 400 years. Talking about "giving it back" to Morocco is insane. Hell, technicaly they predate Spain since most historians put the creation of the modern kingdom of Spain in the early XVIII century.
So no, this is not a HK or Puerto Rico situation. I guess it's a "bad look" to have a small city in a separate continent but that's just what it is.
The barbed wire should be removed thought. Fuck the government who put it there and all the ones who haven't removed it.
most historians put the creation of the modern kingdom of Spain in the early XVIII century
Due to the War of Spanish Succession? I've usually seen it dated to the late 15th century, around the unification of Castile and Aragon and the completion of the Reconquista. The latter also corresponds with the beginning of a worldwide Spanish Empire.
We should have a thread sometime about leftist takes on who has legitimate claims to where, and why. It's not just about large states arguing over who owns what enclave, either -- who's to say when a city or region can legitimately break away from a larger state?
A couple of reasons. They provide a partial counterweight to naval control of Gibraltar by the UK, the local population strongly opposes their integration with Morocco. They're major oil ports. Basically they're profitable, so the libs want to keep them.
For reactionaries, they're artifacts of the end of the Reconquista and Morocco has no claim because there was no Morocco, heck, there wasn't even the Ottomans in the area. Cetua's initial conquest (by Portugal, I think) actually predates the conquest of the final Muslim kingdom, and Melilla only post-dates by 5 years, so some revanchist debatelord might call them anti-colonial possessions and be wrong, but at least interestingly wrong.
Also, they have been spanish for like 400 years. Talking about "giving it back" to Morocco is insane. Hell, technicaly they predate Spain since most historians put the creation of the modern kingdom of Spain in the early XVIII century.
So no, this is not a HK or Puerto Rico situation. I guess it's a "bad look" to have a small city in a separate continent but that's just what it is.
The barbed wire should be removed thought. Fuck the government who put it there and all the ones who haven't removed it.
Due to the War of Spanish Succession? I've usually seen it dated to the late 15th century, around the unification of Castile and Aragon and the completion of the Reconquista. The latter also corresponds with the beginning of a worldwide Spanish Empire.
We should have a thread sometime about leftist takes on who has legitimate claims to where, and why. It's not just about large states arguing over who owns what enclave, either -- who's to say when a city or region can legitimately break away from a larger state?
If i remember correctly it's due to all the legal stuff Philip V did.
Everywhere should be as autonomous as possible. —the anarchists