Air Arabia Maroc’s Unbelievably Long 171 Mile Flight

@thenicePaul Comparing Gibraltar with Ceuta and Melilla does nothing but show pure ignorance of both history and politics. Ceuta and Melilla have never been “colonial” and their existence has nothing to do with imperialism. First of all, historically they were Spanish even before Spain (or Morocco for that matter) were political entities. They both became Spanish territories before the start of the 16th century, predating the Spanish empire by several decades. Even in the 19th century when northern Morocco became a Spanish protectorate these cities had a different status. And in 1956 when the protectorate was returned to Morocco these cities weren’t included because they had never been a part of the protectorate, or colony in the first place. Also, from a political standpoint both Ceuta and Melilla aren’t colonies nor resemble anything “colonial”. They’re an integral part of the Spanish state and have their own autonomous government, just as any other Spanish region. They don’t have any special economic status, besides the fact that there’s not VAT and their VAT-like tax goes directly to the autonomous government, instead of going through the central government like elsewhere in Spain. Gibraltar is a colony of the UK and it’s not an integral part of the UK. Spain’s grievances about Gibraltar have nothing to do with UK sovereignty but with the UK’s tendency to not respect the terms of the treaty (Utrecht) that bequeathed the rock to them on the first place. Gibraltar’s tax heaven status has drained the economic prospects of the Spanish towns surrounding it, taking resources without giving nothing in return. Ceuta and Melilla have helped develop economically the Moroccan towns that surround them. Hence why comparing Gibraltar and Ceuta and Melilla is not only unfortunate but extremely oblivious

@Anas Gibraltar isn't part of the UK, that'll be one reason why.

why not just turn around instead of spending 4.5 hours in the air?!

And why is not Gibraltar shown as "UK"? Probably a conspiracy of the "Not Showing Borders of Shame"!

@derek What knots you’re tying yourself in! Surely all of us believe in democracy and self-determination? The question is not, therefore, how today do you construe the legalities of some centuries-old treaties, but what do the people themselves want? In every single referendum, more than 95% of the people settled on the Falklands want to remain associated with the UK and not to be assimilated into Argentina. Frankly I couldn’t give a toss where the sovereignty of the Falklands is located, but the will of the people affected is the most important thing, right? There might be significant cultural differences at play here: the US fought a horrifically bloody civil war over, among other things, whether a state had a right to cede from the Union — deciding (wrongly, in my view, on that point, though I’m very happy with the end result for other reasons) that a state joining the Union was irrevocable. That’s an imperialist view: states and countries are not (or shouldn’t be) bits of property, but are a manifestation of the democratic will of the people. If the Scots decide they no longer want to be part of the UK I shall be sad about them leaving but I will wish them a fond farewell. The rest of the UK should have no say over whether or not the Scots remain — that would put the Scots into a form of imprisonment, akin to one party in a failed or even abusive marriage unable to get a divorce without the consent of the other. For me, the same principles apply to all these post-Imperial places: for these purposes I’m not very interested in how they came into existence, but I am absolutely interested in what the people who live there want.