Constitutional Reform • Referendum on New Constitution 30th November 2006 • Rallying call for referendum unity • Cordoba accords: ‘no concessions on sovereignty or self-determination’
The Chief Minister Peter Caruana has made a rallying call for referendum unity.
In an interview with the Gibraltar Chronicle today, the Chief Minister tells Chronicle Editor Dominique Searle that he is stating his faith in the people of Gibraltar backing the new Constitution. Mr Caruana is urging a resounding ‘Yes’ in the interests of the Rock’s future.
With under a fortnight to go to the Referendum on the new Constitution, the Chief Minister reminds Gibraltarians that the proposed Draft Constitution has the backing of the entire House of Assembly, from both the Government and the main elected Opposition.
Mr Caruana says he believes that Gibraltarians are ‘quietly’ but fully aware of the importance and significance of the new Constitution to Gibraltar, and adds:
“So often one hears a call to unity on important issues. Here is an issue on which there is unity across the House.
This new Constitution gives Gibraltar what most Gibraltarians want. Recognition of our right to self-determination, a guarantee of British Sovereignty for as long as we want it, and a modern democracy in Gibraltar that is as similar as possible to the rest of the democratic world.â€
To the suggestion that some may use the referendum to hit back at the Cordoba process or just signal political discontent Mr Caruana urges that people put the greater interests of Gibraltar first.
“The people of Gibraltar know how to distinguish between matters of long term strategic importance to Gibraltar and any short-term delivery of a “bloody nose†to politicians of the day.
“Collectively, the people of Gibraltar are infinitely wiser than some of those self-appointed political pundits who operate daily on the fringes of political commentary, but who never offer to accept responsibility for directing Gibraltar’s affairs, politically, socially or economically,†says Mr Caruana.
Q: People in Gibraltar naturally worry about our relationship with Spain. Has the Moratinos Area interview episode damaged the process?
“There are many aspects of what you refer to as “our relationship with Spain†which are important.
It is very important to us that good relations with Spain do not come at the expense of our political rights, wishes and aspirations as a people in our homeland. It is very important to Spain, much as we may disagree with and reject her position, that good relations with Gibraltar do not come at the expense of her sovereignty claim. Those differences of position are inescapable political realities.
But it is also important economically, politically and socially, both for us and I believe for the Campo de Gibraltar, that relations between Gibraltar and Spain should be as good, fluid and normal as our important disagreements permit. Anyone in Gibraltar who pretends that bad relations with Spain have no consequences for Gibraltar, or worse still that they are good for Gibraltar or that somehow they make us safer, simply does not understand Gibraltar’s needs.
It is quite understandable that anyone who is not familiar with the detail of the published text of the Cordoba Statements, and who also believes that I would premeditatedly mislead the people of Gibraltar, should have been worried by some of Sr Moratinos’ Area interview statements.
But even for those who are unwilling to trust me, and the honesty of my public explanations, a simple comparison of the texts of the Cordoba Statements and of the Area interview would have sufficed to demonstrate that some of Sr Moratinos’ statements, taken literally and at face value (which is not what I believe he intended) were not consistent with the text of the Cordoba Agreements or what any of the parties had said about them.
I am grateful to the UK and Spanish Governments, but particularly to the Spanish Government, for its willingness to clarify the effect of Sr Moratinos’ Area interview in relation to what was agreed in Cordoba. What has been agreed in Cordoba is precisely what I have explained to the people of Gibraltar, and the effects and implications of those agreements are exactly what I have explained to the people of Gibraltar. No more and no less.
In this context, people will have to make up their own minds about whether the “rush to judgement†of some opposition political parties following the Area interview is based on a sound comparison of the texts or on no comparison of the texts at all and thus a simple case of party political opportunism at Gibraltar’s expense.
You know, last week or the week before, when Sr Moratinos said something with which Mr Bossano did not agree, Mr Bossano publicly accused Sr Moratinos of “lying to the Spanish peopleâ€. In fact, Sr Moratinos had said nothing different to what Mr Hoon, and many British ministers before him have said publicly and in the House of Commons before about how the Treaty of Utrecht constrains our right to self-determination.
In these circumstances, Mr Bossano’s public and gratuitous insulting of the Spanish Foreign Minister in this way seems neither justified nor appropriate in Gibraltar’s interest. But the point is this. Mr Bossano cannot (however inappropriately) say that Mr Moratinos is a liar when he says something of which Mr Bossano disapproves, but when Sr Moratinos says something that is useful to Mr Bossano in his crusade to undermine the Gibraltar Government’s achievements, suddenly Mr Moratinos becomes “the best judge†(as Mr Bossano has said) of what’s what in relation to the Cordoba Agreement. Mr Bossano needs to be a bit more coherent and to give the general public’s profound, collective intelligence a little more credit.”
Q: Given that each side, quite forcefully states its position on fundamentals (i.e. sovereignty) would you say that the Cordoba process essentially reflects pragmatism on the part of the PSOE Government? Why, in the sense of what is in it for them, have they embarked on this process?
“Both sides have embarked on this process on the same basis, albeit defending and promoting very different ultimate objectives.
Spain claims the sovereignty of Gibraltar and has not abandoned that objective. We reject Spain’s sovereignty claim and thus also reject her objective.
Gibraltar for its part asserts the right to self-determination, that is the right to freely and democratically decide the future of our homeland, and we will not abandon either of those two positions, which are not so much objectives, as realities.
The process is clearly stated and understood by all sides not to affect those fundamental positions of the participants on those issues.
We have all embarked on the process in order to achieve the solution of problems and improvements in the day to day lives of people in Gibraltar and in the Campo de Gibraltar, without prejudicing our respective positions on sovereignty and self-determination. Spain’s has not changed, and nor has ours. Spain has made no sovereignty or self-determination concessions and neither have we.”
Q: How difficult was the negotiation process that led to the Cordoba accords and what do you feel was won in that process? And given away?
“The Cordoba accords are not about either side winning or giving things away. Neither side has won and neither side has given anything away. Both sides have, firstly, protected their political position on the fundamental issues, and then struck agreements which are hugely in the interests of citizens on both sides and which have no political price-tags.
There are only winners, the citizens on both sides. There are no losers. Both we, and the Spanish negotiating team led by Europe Director General Pepe Pons, and indeed the UK team, negotiated hard to achieve these two things, but in that order.
But even though the negotiating process was very difficult for all sides, precisely because of the ambitious objective of resolving these issues, and delivering these benefits without damaging our respective political positions and interests on the fundamental issues, I believe that the common objective was achieved. And those benefits are considerable; Normality. Normality in telecommunications, normality in frontier facilities, normality of airport and a solution to the very difficult pensions issue, all to the benefit of people on both sides of the frontier.
If anything else has been won, by all sides, it is the fact that we have established that it is possible for us all to meet, to dialogue in a structured process that is politically viable for all sides, and which does no damage to any participant’s position on the fundamental issues. The establishment of the Forum itself is a win for all sides.
Surely the agreements in Cordoba are the start of a process, an open ended relationship? Does that mean that, having secured terms upon which you have said you would stake your political career on, the task now of implementation of these agreements and keeping them from veering off course may still have risk?
These agreements are excellent for Gibraltar and excellent for the Campo. They bring huge practical benefits, without political strings or political price for anyone. I have said that I stake my political reputation on that and I repeat it again now. I have devoted my life, almost entirely, during these last 11 years, to defending, promoting and progressing all aspects of Gibraltar’s best interests political, economic and social.
My political career has no value to me, and is of no importance to Gibraltar if my fellow citizens do not think that I am doing a reasonably good job.
Much work now has to be done on implementation of these complex issues to which the Gibraltar Government is wholly committed. The other participants are too. But it is totally disreputable for anyone in Gibraltar to think that it is honourable to obtain the benefits of these agreements without implementing the bits that they have decided (apparently on entirely misconceived logic and analysis) that they do not like. We must take the whole of all the agreements, or none of them.
Frankly, Mr Bossano’s stated points of disagreement are so weak and peripheral that they most likely respond to a pathological need to disagree with something in order to be able to avoid having to agree with the Government. It is not appropriate to undermine Gibraltar’s obvious interests for reasons such as these.
I hope that the Cordoba Agreements and the Trilateral Forum in which they have been struck will indeed be the start of a process, an open ended relationship based on mutual trust and respect and friendship.”
Q: The Opposition here (and in Spain for that matter) is threatening to undo much of the process ‘if’ they were in government. Doesn’t that undermine the process? Would it not now be a good time to put the agreement to the test in a general election?
“The answer lies in the question.
People both in Gibraltar and in Spain will know how to interpret the fact that the Opposition both here and in Spain is railing against the agreements and the process. They cannot both be right. It is not possible that Madrid has “unconditionally surrendered and sold out its historic sovereignty claim for no gain at all†(as the PP Opposition in Spain allege) and also that the Gibraltar Government has compromised sovereignty jurisdiction and control, and strengthened Spain’s hand, (as the Gibraltar Opposition parties claim). The reality is that neither has occurred, because as the participants have said, these agreements are politically neutral in that no one has made concessions or gains in those matters. Those matters remain unaffected. I think objective people on both sides can see this, and that it is borne out by the fact that the Opposition cries “betrayalâ€, both here and in Spain!
And so, the inescapable reality is that both the Gibraltar and Spanish political Oppositions are simply seeking to undermine the process and agreements in order to make domestic political capital and seek to benefit themselves electorally, regardless of the truth and regardless of the interests of the people.
These agreements make absolutely no sovereignty or other political concession to Spain and it is not therefore necessary or appropriate to put them to a referendum or call a specific general election now. However, a general election is due during the next 15 months or so, and I very much look forward to placing before the electorate for its judgement, our achievements and also the very contrasting visions for the future of Gibraltar represented by the GSD Government and our political opponents!”
Q: Perhaps you could produce a diagram for us of what the terminal will look like and how it will operate, but in simple terms how will I be checked into Spain as I go through the terminal on the way to my Madrid flight? And what will happen on the way back as I walk off the plane and need to be checked out of Schengen?
“All Gibraltar entry and exit controls will be exercised exclusively by Gibraltar and its officials.
All airline check in, airport security and all other terminal services will be provided to you in Gibraltar and by Gibraltar.
We will certainly publish diagrams as soon as the Architects produce designs, which we hope will be ready by February or March next year.
As a passenger from Gibraltar on a flight to Madrid this is how it will work. Just before you leave the terminal to board the aircraft, the internal terminal corridors (at all times within Gibraltar) will take you parallel to the border line (on our side), along which at a given point there will be glass panelled barriers, behind which (on the Spanish side of the frontier line) Spanish officials will sit to provide advance entry clearance into Spain and Schengen. You will already have received Gibraltar exit clearance from Gibraltar immigration officials.
This is precisely what happens when you travel from London (Waterloo Station) to France on the Euro Star Channel Tunnel train. French officials (in that case themselves actually located in London’s Waterloo train station) give you advance France & Schengen entry clearance just before you board the train in London. The same happens on the return trip, when British immigration officials located in Paris and Brussels give you advance UK entry clearance before you board the train in Paris or Brussels.
None of this makes the flight a domestic Spanish flight still less does it give Spain control of immigration at Gibraltar Airport. Not least because these arrangements (which even as they affect flights between Gib & Spain do not give Spain any control or role in Gibraltar immigration controls) do not in any case apply to flights between Gib and any other country, including other Schengen countries.
On your way back from Madrid, when you disembark from the aircraft you will be provided with Schengen exit clearance in exactly the same way. But you will already be outside Schengen and outside of Spain. You will already be in Gibraltar, and those factual realities cannot be altered by those Schengen exit checks. Spanish officials cannot stop you entering Gibraltar. You are already in Gibraltar.
Schengen exit checks exist mainly for the purpose of providing an opportunity of detaining wanted persons (for which arrest warrants are outstanding) in connection with law enforcement. If any such person was detected, they would be detained by Gibraltar Authorities and handed over to Spain in accordance with normal existing EU provisions in that regard.
All of these are practical arrangements; they are not political in nature and have no political implications for Gibraltar. Of course, Schengen did not exist as between Gibraltar and Spain in 1987 at the time of the old Airport Agreement.”
Q: Will there be any special paperwork for passengers? How will Customs checks be effected?
“There will not be any paperwork for passengers. This part of the Cordoba Agreement relates only to the Schengen travel area. Schengen is about immigration control, not about Customs controls. This part of the Agreement does not relate to customs.”
Q: What is going to be done on the Gibraltar side to speed up frontier flow, especially when returning to the Rock?
“Since Gibraltar does not exercise customs or immigration controls on departure from Gibraltar across the land frontier, there is no possibility that Gibraltar may be contributing to lack of fluidity into Spain.
On entry into Gibraltar we will certainly exercise our customs and immigration controls in a way that maximises fluidity as much as possible. The two lane entry into Gibraltar will help. But the security situation requires appropriate controls to be maintained. Security is no less important than frontier fluidity.”
Q: You have hinted that when in Government the GSLP had some sort of airport agreement plan. Can you share that with us or is that story just a ruse?
“It is most certainly not a ruse. Nor were Mr Bossano’s own efforts relating to agreements limited to an airport agreement. Everyone knows, for example, that at the time of “Kumagi Gumiâ€, the Japanese developer that established a presence in Gibraltar, the GSLP Government tried to conclude an airport agreement. And there were attempts at other things as well. Certainly people who have lived in political glass houses should be careful about throwing stones at people who currently live in much more politically solid and safe houses.”
Q: Given the impact of US policy on internet gaming, is Gibraltar heading for better economic or tougher times? How far do you think Cordoba will impact on us economically?
“I think Cordoba will impact positively on us and on the Campo, both economically and socially. It will create many blue and white collar jobs at Gibraltar Airport. Improved air links will be beneficial to all sectors of our economy.
The economy of Gibraltar is performing very strongly. It is well able to absorb the challenge of the US on-line gambling decision. The companies affected will go through a challenging time while they replace that business with business from other parts of the world. There will be some job losses among the 1700 plus jobs created in that industry over the last few years. I would expect any locals that may lose their jobs to be able to quickly find other jobs in this buoyant economy, perhaps even with new licensees in the online gambling industry.”
Q: We are just under two weeks away from a referendum on the new Constitution and the issue does not seem to have grasped the public’s interest. Are you worried that people have not fully engaged in its significance to them?
“I think that people in Gibraltar are quietly but fully aware of the importance and significance of the new Constitution to Gibraltar. People know how difficult it has been to achieve. They know that it has been negotiated on Gibraltar’s behalf by a cross party delegation. They know that it is supported by the Government and the Opposition alike. They know that there is political unity about this. It is an important event, but given the unity that exists, it is understandable that there is calm and relatively little excitement.
This new Constitution gives Gibraltar what most Gibraltarians want. Recognition of our right to self-determination, a guarantee of British Sovereignty for as long as we want it, and a modern democracy in Gibraltar that is as similar as possible to the rest of the democratic world. It maximises the powers of self-government of Gibraltar, and therefore places as much power as possible in those who are transparent and accountable to the people of Gibraltar, and who can be hired and fired by the people of Gibraltar, namely Gibraltar’s Parliament and Gibraltar’s Government. In other words it puts more democratic power in Gibraltar in the hands of the people of Gibraltar which is where it lies in all modern, non-colonial democracies.”
Q: What is the consequence of a “no†vote or a poor “yes�
“The House of Assembly has unanimously passed a resolution welcoming the outcome of the negotiations on the text of the draft New Constitution, declaring the importance of this question to Gibraltar and urging entitled voters to vote in the Referendum. I hope that people will accept the unanimous assessment of their Parliament.
So often one hears a call to unity on important issues. Here is an issue on which there is unity across the House. I believe that the consequences of a “no†vote is that the opportunity that we have worked so long and hard for and that we now have, to progress constitutionally is unlikely to come again for a long time, if at all.
Gibraltar has always been politically most secure when we have advanced constitutionally. This is because constitutional stagnation suggests that we are stuck in the past until we agree to things that others demand and which we do not want. That is not good for Gibraltar, and I think that the people of Gibraltar know and understand that. It is also a good constitution.
This new Constitution: preserves our British Sovereignty and enshrines our right for Gibraltar to remain British for as long as we want; for the first time ever in our Constitution our right to self-determination will be declared (albeit that in the UK’s view, in realising that right we are not entitled to independence, a view with which Gibraltar disagrees); and maximises our self-government consistently with our wish to remain British, and brings us in a modern and mature constitutional relationship with Britain which is not based on colonialism.
I whole heartedly commend this new Constitution to the people of Gibraltar and thus hope that there will be a high turnout and a resounding “yes†vote. That would be good for Gibraltar.”
Q: There is a murmur from people who feel that the referendum is an opportunity to make a ‘by-election’ type signal where they might say ‘no’ simply to express a view on the Cordoba Process or simply as a mark of discontent with you or politicians generally. What do you say to that?
“The Cordoba Agreements (which in any case I believe the majority of Gibraltarians approve of) has nothing to do with the New Constitution.
I have not heard such a murmur, but I am confident that the people of Gibraltar know how to distinguish between matters of long term strategic importance to Gibraltar and any short-term delivery of a “bloody nose†to politicians of the day.
Collectively, the people of Gibraltar are infinitely wiser than some of those self-appointed political pundits who operate daily on the fringes of political commentary, but who never offer to accept responsibility for directing Gibraltar’s affairs, politically, socially or economically.
For 11 years now I have devoted all of my time and energy to the dogged promotion of Gibraltar’s interests. I do for Gibraltar the very best that I can, and together with my ministerial colleagues, I make the best judgements that I know how for Gibraltar. If and when the very wise people of Gibraltar decide that my best is no longer good enough, or that there is someone else who they think can do better for Gibraltar, then I hope that they do then vote me out of office. Only the interests of Gibraltar as assessed by the electorate is important to me.
My own political survival in office is not the most important thing to me. But the time for electorates to make these judgements is at a General Election, and not at a Referendum on a new Constitution.
In this referendum the sole issue is the new Constitution itself, the opportunity and progress for Gibraltar that a “yes†vote brings, and the adverse, long term political consequences for Gibraltar of a ‘no’ vote.”
Q: In running the parallel tripartite/constitutional tracks we have, not surprisingly, seen the parties express their own interpretation in relation to issues like Utrecht. You have given detailed arguments on the Gibraltar position but how do you predict this process will affect Gibraltar as time unfolds? Where do you see Gibraltar in ten years’ time?
“The tripartite dialogue process has nothing to do with the new Constitution, both are separate policy objectives. They are of course linked in Spain’s mind, because it would not be politically viable for the Spanish Government to engage in such a process with UK and Gibraltar while her position on Utrecht was under pressure from the same two parties. This is perfectly understandable from Spain’s perspective, even though we do not agree with her position on Utrecht.
I am therefore delighted that it has been possible to progress on both tracks (Trilateral and Constitution), since Gibraltar’s constitutional aspirations and the proposed new constitution do not in fact violate Spain’s or the UK’s position on Utrecht, or breach any of Spain’s alleged rights under Utrecht. Of course, we do not agree that Spain has any such rights under the Treaty of Utrecht. So each party remains in its unchanged position on this issue and the Trilateral Process and the new Constitution will not affect that.
I have already explained earlier in this interview what the Trilateral Process is about. Beyond the politically safe (for all sides) normality that it brings to citizens on both sides in relation to the issues solved by the Cordoba Agreements, I hope that the Process will continue to address more such issues and to resolve them to everyone’s satisfaction.
Beyond that, Spain will no doubt hope that improved relations will help her achieve her unchanged objective (i.e. the recovery of sovereignty) albeit through persuasion of the people of Gibraltar.
For our part, we hope that improved relations will help us persuade Spain, Spanish public opinion and the Spanish political class to respect our political rights and wishes.
Source: The Gibraltar Chronicle - 20th November 2006
Related Articles and Links:
POLL: Constitutional Reform Referendum - Which way will you vote?
The Draft Despatch and Draft Gibraltar Constitution Order 2006
House of Assembly | Motion on Constitutional Reform Referendum
17 November 2006 - Law experts express ’serious reservations’ about Judicial aspects of new Draft Constitution
Read more Articles and News reports about Constitutional Reform in Gibraltar
Read more Articles and News reports about the Tripartite Dialogue Forum
Read more Articles and News reports about the politics surrounding the Gibraltar Airport
My Gibraltar Directory - Website Directory of Gibraltar and the Campo de Gibraltar
Comment on this News report - Click on the ‘Comments’ link below - You can also Discuss this Story in our Forum