Government of Gibraltar

As most of you well know, Gibraltar is (what is now called) a United Kingdom Overseas Territory. It has a land area of 4 square miles and a population of 30,000. It has a written Constitution given to us by Parliament in 1969. It is self governing in all but defence, internal security and Foreign Affairs. It has a Parliament of 15 members, elected in direct elections every four years, which makes all its laws. The majority party forms the executive Ministerial government. Gibraltar is politically extremely developed. It is an integral part of the EU, having entered with the UK in 1973 as a European Territory for whose external affairs a Member State is responsible under Article 227(4) of the Treaty of Rome.

Gibraltar has a thriving self sufficient economy. We welcome 6 million overland tourists a year, and we are one of the fastest growing cruise call ports in the Mediterranean. We now operate one of the most strictly regulated offshore financial services centres in the world, with regulatory standards which HMG recognises matches the UK s. Our port operates one of the world s most strategically located ship repair facilities and is the biggest ship bunkering port in the whole Mediterranean. We are rapidly expanding into new areas of manufacturing and high tech activity. In the summer we opened the most modern wine bottling plant in Europe, and we shall shortly be hosting three telecommunications satellite grounds handing operations by leading international companies. The fast dwindling British military presence in Gibraltar, which in 1986 accounted for 60% of our GDP, now accounts for no more than 10%.

Gibraltar is economically self sufficient from the UK which makes no budgetary contributions to Gibraltar Government finances. The Gibraltar Government operates budgetary surpluses and a prudent public debt and reserves policy.

Yet despite current and potential prosperity our progress as a people and as a country is hampered by Spain's persistence with her 294 year old claim to the sovereignty of Gibraltar for which reason she seeks and pressurises the UK and others to deny us the inalienable right to self determination enjoyed by all colonial people under the UN Charter.

In a nutshell she argues that because in the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713, by which she ceded Gibraltar to Britain in perpetuity, Britain agreed to offer Gibraltar to Spain if Britain wishes to relinquish sovereignty, therefore the people of Gibraltar do not have the right to self determination.

Spain goes on to argue that therefore Gibraltar can only be decolonised by handing the territory back to Spain. The decolonisation of Gibraltar need not involve a relinquishment of British sovereignty and - indeed - the people of Gibraltar do not want that.

That aside, it is rich for Spain to seek to rely on the Treaty of Utrecht. All its other clauses have fallen into disuse. Notwithstanding that under the Treaty Spain ceded Gibraltar in perpetuity she spent 100 years trying, unsuccessfully to recover Gibraltar militarily, and her current sovereignty claim is itself incompatible with the validity of the Treaty. Spain has therefore, by her own conduct over 286 years comprehensively repudiated the Treaty which cannot be invalid in every respect except to deny us the right to self determination. As if all this were not sufficient to dispose of the argument, it is trite international law that where a bilateral treaty- (such as the Treaty of Utrecht) is incompatible with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations (which bestows the right of self determination on all colonial peoples without exception) the Charter prevails.

Spain also argues that we are not a colonial people because we are not indigenous to the territory.

In the last 1287 years, Gibraltar has been Moorish for 727 years, Spanish for only 266 years and British for 294 years. It has therefore been British longer than Spanish. Since 1704 a population has established itself in Gibraltar and developed into a unique people with our own very strong culture, characteristics and identity.

How long does it take to acquire the rights given to colonial people by the Charter of the UN? Other ex colonial peoples have exercised the right to self determination after a much shorter presence in their territories, for example the USA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and all the Caribbean countries. All these countries were once colonies - like Gibraltar. Does anybody imagine that the beneficiaries of self-determination in Canada and in America were the indigenous Indians? Or the aborigines in Australia, or the Maori in New Zealand? The Afro people who colonised the dozens of now independent Caribbean countries are indigenous to not a single one of them. And was it not mainly Spanish colonists who exercised self determination in today s South American countries. Why should the colony of Gibraltar be any different? We are no less indigenous than the peoples who exercised the right of self determination in those and many other countries. What justification is there therefore for Spain's argument that the colony of Gibraltar should be the only one in respect of which historical acts of 294 years ago operate to deny the right of self determination to its inhabitants? We believe there is none.

It is against this backdrop of a denial of our right to self determination that Sr Matutes, the Spanish Foreign Secretary, tabled proposals in December 1997. In a nutshell Spain's proposals are that the United Kingdom and Spain'should share sovereignty for a transitional and indeterminate period of time after which Gibraltar would become fully Spanish as part of the Spanish state enjoying an autonomous status greater (they say) than the one that we presently enjoy. In other words, the Gibraltarians can continue to govern themselves, enjoy their rights and exercise their jurisdictional competence on condition that they accept an eventual transfer of sovereignty to Spain.

Senor Matutes may not be fully aware of the level of self-government that Gibraltar already enjoys and he may therefore genuinely regard his proposals as generous. But they are not. Firstly, we already enjoy a higher level of de facto autonomy that the autonomous regions of Spain. Secondly we cannot regard as generous an offer that requires Gibraltar's sovereignty to be held by a country to which the people of Gibraltar do not have political allegiance and of which we do not therefore wish to form part - even though we do seek their friendship. Also by its very nature and practical implications sovereignty is not something that can be shared between two states.

Sr Matutes' proposals do not offer a way forward for Gibraltar. They are wholly unacceptable to the people of Gibraltar. They are a complete denial of our inalienable right to self determination. As the UN has recently said, self determination is the only principle applicable to the process of decolonisation.

The underlying principle being increasingly accepted in many seemingly intractable problems around the world, is the principle of democratic consent. This is the main feature of the recent historic agreement relating to Northern Ireland.

The paper tabled on 10th December 1997 which contained Sr Matutes' proposals, apart from a statement of the traditional unacceptable Spanish position, also contained the following ground breaking statement referring to the British Government’s commitment not to transfer sovereignty of Gibraltar contrary to the wishes of the people of Gibraltar. (I translate from the Spanish text, as follows):

"However, it does not escape us that this commitment constitutes an objective obstacle in the solution of our problem, given that, as a democratic state we cannot conceive the obtention of a solution to the problem of sovereignty which is imposed by force upon the wishes of the citizens of Gibraltar who would find themselves affected by a new situation of sovereignty".

This new statement of apparent adherence by Spain to the principle of consent, whilst falling considerably short of a recognition of our right to self determination, is nevertheless a welcome first step in the right direction. A step and a direction which are the inevitable consequence of Spain's credentials as a leading European democratic state. Spain cannot preach democracy to the world, as part of her own conviction and that of the EU, and deny it in its most basic manifestation to the colonial people of Gibraltar on her very doorstep.

And so, in welcoming the adherence by Spain to the principle of consent, I have to say that it must follow that that consent must be exercisable freely, and once exercised must be respected. It cannot be exercised under duress or under the effect of actions intended by Spain to coerce a particular objective. Sincere adherence to the principle of consent means that Spain must allow Gibraltar to develop freely and without constraint politically, economically, socially, culturally and in every other respect. This is not consistent with Spain's continuing policy of isolating Gibraltar. If consent is not freely given, absent all duress, it is not consent at all.

There are numerous examples of this continuing policy of pressure, Primarily within the EU Spain continues to try and block any measure which has the effect of confirming the separate existence of our administrative and jurisdictional system and thus impedes our development. Communications between Gibraltar and Spain remain constrained at the land frontier and totally blocked with regard to maritime and air links. The border regime is operated as a political weapon against us, and even telephone communications are restricted. Spain, with increasing lack of success, seeks to have Gibraltar excluded from International Sports Federations and Events. And, of course, Spain'seeks to prevent any further constitutional advancement for Gibraltar in what should be a natural process of greater self Government.

These measures are not consistent with the principle of consent. You cannot say that you respect someone s right to consent and then bludgeon him until he gives his consent to what you seek from him.

Sr Matutes' proposals came with a warning that if Gibraltar did not accept them he would "tighten the screw" on us with unpleasant measures. This amounts to a denial of the will of the people of Gibraltar and therefore our right to self determination. It is also behaviour which is undemocratic and uneuropean in nature and totally inconsistent, both in spirit and effect, with Spain's EU obligations and our EU rights. Indeed only two weeks ago the screw was in fact tightened. The Spanish authorities implemented lengthy delays to cross the Gibraltar/Spain border because Gibraltar does not agree to allow Spanish fishermen to fish in Gibraltar waters using fishing methods prohibited by our Gibraltar Nature Conservation laws in what amounts to a challenge to British sovereignty of those waters. The result has been queues of up to 5 hours to cross the border and threats of further unpleasant measures, if the Royal Gibraltar Police enforces Gibraltar law against Spanish fishermen (which Spain calls "piracy" and "harassment")

It is extremely disappointing that having declared himself in favour of democratic consent, Senor Matures does not then accept the fact that his proposals are rejected by the people of Gibraltar. Consent must be free or it is negated. Adherence to the principle of consent must mean acceptance of the democratic will of the people even if you don't like the outcome.

So, what is the way forward for Gibraltar?

The world is rapidly reorganising itself into alliances and international bodies of mutual inter dependence. The concept of independence is becoming increasingly qualified. Even within independent countries there is a trend to decentralisation and subsidiarity. The future of small countries like Gibraltar have to be seen in the context of this trend seen in the context of these trends. Independence is not the only option for decolonisation. The essence of decolonisation is the transfer of effective political and administrative power and self rule to the people of the colonies. What matters is not the label that attaches to a territory but the reality of people being masters of their own homeland and destiny, and that these should be achieved by the free exercise of an act of self determination. The people of Gibraltar are not seeking independence. We wish to retain our British sovereignty.

But we do have legitimate aspirations to achieve a full measure of self government. The Gibraltar Government has therefore initiated the process of formulating proposals to the UK for further constitutional change. We are now in discussions with HMG on achieving a modernisation of our constitutional links with the UK. We aim to achieve a relationship that maintains close political ties with the UK, and our British sovereignty, but which produces the greatest possible degree of self-government. These new arrangements would give rise to a non colonial relationship by eliminating the colonial trappings from the existing Constitution. Thus their acceptance by the people of Gibraltar in referendum would be a valid and legitimate exercise of self-determination in accordance with the relevant General Assembly resolutions. It would, in our view, end the colonial status of Gibraltar and constitute the tailor made fourth option to decolonisation provided for in the relevant UN Resolution on decolonisation. There would be no breach of the Treaty of Utrecht, even though neither we nor international law recognises that as a constraint.

Decolonisation in the manner proposed, or any other, will not of course put an end to the Spanish sovereignty claim and its lamentable consequences. That is quite different and distinct to the issue of the existence of our right to self determination. The existence of that claim cannot curtail, still less extinguish, our rights. The new Constitutional arrangements we seek from the UK would not, of course, settle the dispute with Spain.

Nor do we seek to turn our backs on Spain. She will always be our neighbour. She is part of the EU with us. She should be a natural friend and ally to us. And we want and seek that friendship. But Spain has no formal role in our decolonisation nor can she have any such role. Our future status is a matter exclusively for the administering power, the UK and the people of Gibraltar who have the right to freely and democratically choose their status, in exercise of their right to self determination. However it would obviously be our preference that we could thereafter live in harmony side by side with our neighbour, Spain. For that reason it would also be our preference, within the parameters that I have stated, that our future status, as well as being freely acceptable to the people of Gibraltar should also be one with which Spain was content to co-exist.

We therefore want, on a parallel but unconnected basis, unconnected that is to the advancement of our decolonisation discussions with the UK, to pursue a process of dialogue with Spain. I have made clear my willingness, indeed I actively seek, to meet with Senor Matutes, the Spanish Foreign Minister to hold dialogue in an attempt to break the sterility of the current impasse. There is much to talk about. Such dialogue must attempt to the take historical tension and mistrust out of the relationship and establish a better communication between us; it must seek to bring about mutual co-operation and good neighbourliness in economic, environmental, social, cultural, judicial and law enforcement matters. In such dialogue we shall be able to acknowledge our respective positions and differences on many issues that divide us. But more importantly, we shall be able to explore the possibilities for a new and better relationship between us.

Sr Matutes and I have both publicly expressed our willingness to meet with each other. Unfortunately that meeting, which was due to take place before the summer, has not yet taken place. The delay is not of our making. I remain ready and willing to meet him at any place and on any date convenient to him. I hope that that meeting can and will take place soon.

All of the UK, Spain and Gibraltar are modern European democracies; the three of us are part of the EU and we therefore subscribe to fundamental principles of democracy and human rights. Given that the UK is solemnly committed not to enter into sovereignty arrangements against the wishes of the people of Gibraltar and given also that the people of Gibraltar are and seem likely to remain implacably opposed to any form of Spanish sovereignty, the only viable way forward which must be compatible with these values and commitment seems to me to be the following

• Spain should and must end her campaign of pressure and harassment against Gibraltar. She must end her policy of isolating and marginalising us from the EU by constantly seeking our exclusion from EU measures. She must respect our EU rights and honour her own EU obligations towards us. Others including HMG, the EC Commission and other Member States have an obligation to ensure that she does so.
• She must respect the fact that the future of Gibraltar is a matter for the people of Gibraltar to decide.
• The UK Government must agree to decolonise Gibraltar by a process of constitutional modernisation that will leave us in a modern, non colonial constitutional relationship with the UK and with British Sovereignty.
• Spain, Gibraltar and the UK should engage in a process of dialogue in which Gibraltar is properly represented with its own voice and which is not structured in manner that prejudices the fundamental position of any of the three parties. That process of dialogue will seek to bridge build, to fence mend, to build mutual confidence, trust and respect it will seek to advance mutual economic co-operation and contacts of all kinds. Ways can be sought to unblock issues and explore possibilities in manner acceptable to all parties.

However, and finally, I do believe that a manageable way forward will require a fundamental reappraisal of HMG's attitude towards Spain. The present policy of not engaging or confronting Spain in response to whatever action or position Spain takes in relation to Gibraltar, both within and outside the EU, is ineffectual and counter productive. It encourages a Spanish hard line and intransigence since she knows that she can pursue same with impunity and unopposed. Spain will not moderate her actions nor modernise her ambitions in respect of Gibraltar until HMG begins to exercise leverage over Spain - until there is a price for her to pay for pursuing the line and taking the action that she does. This is not just a matter of sound tactic; it is also the UK s Constitutional, political and moral obligation to uphold and defend Gibraltar s legitimate EU and international legal rights and our legitimate aspirations. The price of enjoying these should not be capitulation or sell out to Spain.

The people of Gibraltar will never agree to pay that price.