DIVIDE AND RULE

Divide and Rule has been a strategy used by governments and their ambassadors since Roman times when it was known as ‘divide et impera’: divide and conquer is another variation.

The statement by the Spanish Ambassador to the Court of St James, Federico Trillo, is another typical example of this ancient ploy. The centre right Partido Popular government, stung by its Conservative led coalition counterpart in London refusal to enter in to bilateral talks on Gibraltar, is bent on causing mischief.

This year David Cameron has made the strongest statements ever by a British Prime Minister on the right of Gibraltar to self determine its own future whilst also insisting no talks would be held with Spain without Gibraltar’s agreement.

He is not alone. Cameron’s words have been echoed by both the Foreign Secretary, William Hague, and his Minister for Europe, David Lidington. So either these members of the British Government are involved in the biggest deception towards Gibraltar ever or Federico Trillo is being mischievous (but may be not totally lying).

I do not believe the British Government is deceiving Gibraltar for one very simple reason that has nothing to do with the Rock: the Falklands. London sees direct linkage between Argentina’s claim to the Malvinas and Spain’s insistence on the Gibraltar Español dogma. Hence when London proclaims “no surrender” it means it because the Falklands is sitting on liquid gold and is a handy staging post to extract valuable mineral deposits in the South Pole region. Give way on Gibraltar and you loosen your hold on the Falklands. You didn’t believe it was about democracy did you?

I did however say that Trillo might not be totally wrong. Trillo is an ambassador and not a politician. Hence it is quite possible that he is involved with bilateral shenanigans with his opposite number in Madrid or indeed Mandarins at the Foreign Office. In the world of diplomacy anything could be going on and I doubt whether even Cameron or Hague are aware of it. Yes Minister still rules ok?

There is a valid view that says that the Gibraltar Government should demand Trillo withdraws his statements but I am not sure if that is productive or not. It might just give the wily ambassador more scope for mischief. He may be testing the water, Spanish waters of course, to see what disquiet he can cause. Also should we throw a rock at him every time he pops his head over the wall and shouts Gibraltar Español or simply ignore him?

At the end of the day it is for London to deny there are any bilateral talks going on and to restate its position on Gibraltar. Also if Cameron and Rajoy or Hague and Margallo meet and the Spanish side raises Gibraltar that is bilateral – even if Britain restates its stout defence of the Rock’s interests and right to self determination.

There has to be trust between No 10 and No 6 and I believe that exists. I do not believe that Cameron or Hague are out to stab Picardo or Gibraltar in the back. I know they are politicians but I do believe the British Government’s staunch defence of Gibraltar’s right to self determination for the reasons I have already stated.

So Trillo will try and destabilise that trust: and is he talking bilaterally over fino and chorizo to Whitehall Mandarins in a Knightsbridge tapas bar? Probably.

GIBRALTARIANS DO NOT ENJOY THE BASIC SAME HUMAN RIGHTS AS THEIR UK COUNTERPARTS

If you are a non-Gibraltarian who visits the Rock you will be struck by the thriving, modern society that exists all around you. You would chat with a sophisticated people. You would assume that Gibraltarians enjoy the same basic human rights as their British counterparts, or indeed Spaniards across the border, but you would be wrong.

In many instances Gibraltarians are in a rights limbo. If they were in the UK those rights would be protected by law and they would have redress under a whole series of headings against government, officials and so on. That is not true on the Rock because if a Gibraltarian has a complaint it is addressed, quite rightly to the Gibraltar Government, and not that of Britain. However all too often their own government legally turns a deaf ear because few rights are enshrined in law.

If a Gibraltarian seeks justice he or she can’t go to the UK government either because it does not have jurisdiction here. Therefore the only route is to Europe where, in theory, their case has the right to be heard. Yet even that is fraught with problems because in Brussels the conclusion would more often than not be that as British Citizens the British Government should be held to account to sort it out, which of course, it can’t.

It was put to me recently that the chief minister, Peter Caruana, was far from pleased when Gibraltarians received the Euro vote and hence a voice in the European Parliament. I had never thought about it before because it seemed strange to me that the elected leader of the Gibraltarian people would not want them to enjoy the widest representation. On the other hand it meant they had a right to go directly to Brussels or the European Parliament on issues that the chief minister might consider only he should have control over. For some democratic leaders democracy is a bitter pill to swallow.

Marcus Killick, the chairman of the Financial Services Commission, recently called for an Ombudsman to represent customers in their relations with the financial sector. For non-Gibraltarians it is startling to learn that those who live on the Rock do not enjoy such a vital service that is considered the norm elsewhere in the EU – yet so far there is no indication the government will give a positive answer to Killick’s plea.

Indeed as the general election draws near the rights of Gibraltarians to have free access to these basic rights and open government will reach a crescendo. The problem for the GSD is the party has been in government for four terms and has paid scant regard to the fundamental rights of its people. Hence a cynic might say if Caruana suddenly takes on the guise of St Paul on the road to Damascus on these key issues his conversation will be on a par with the Syrian president’s claim to have discovered democracy – not worth the scroll it is written on.

UTRECHT: WHAT HAPPENS IF BRITAIN BECOMES A REPUBLIC

On March 23 the Conservative Peer, Lord Ashcroft, asked in the House of Lords “what legal obstacles there are to self-determination for the citizens of Gibraltar?”

Replying for the government was the Minister of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Lord Howell of Guildford - also a Tory - who stated: “The UK Government's position is that we will not enter into arrangements under which Gibraltar will pass into the sovereignty of another state against the freely and democratically expressed wishes of the people of Gibraltar. Moreover, we will not enter into a process of sovereignty negotiations with which Gibraltar is not content. Gibraltar's right of self-determination is not constrained, except through Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht. Should Britain renounce sovereignty over Gibraltar, Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht makes clear that Spain would be given the right of first refusal.”

All pretty standard stuff but two points caught my eye. The first is that in this day and age the British Government still bases its position regarding Gibraltar on the outdated and largely defunct Treaty of Utrecht. Also as an extension of that it believes Spain has the right of first refusal – surely that right lies with the people of the Rock.

In Gibraltar’s new Constitution is enshrined the promise that Gibraltar will not pass into the sovereignty of another state against the freely and democratically expressed wishes of the people of Gibraltar. That is a short term commitment that will last for the lifetime of this constitution. Yet what of the future? I would argue Gibraltarians should not be only confident of their status, say over the next 20 years, but that of their children, their children’s children on into the future.

I would therefore beg the question that whilst secure in the present constitution should not Gibraltar challenge the Treaty of Utrecht now in the European Court of Human Rights to have it consigned once and for all to the legal dustbin? If it doesn’t then no progress can be made on self-determination, the sovereignty of Gibraltar’s waters or Spain’s sovereignty claims because Madrid and London will both turn to the Articles of the Treaty of Utrecht.

Who knows what world Gibraltarians will be living in in 50 years time? One scenario is that the mother country Britain will not be a monarchy but a republic. It is my understanding that the Treaty of Utrecht gives Gibraltar to the British Crown and not the government – so if there is no crown what then?

There are no hard and fast facts on the support in Britain for a Republic. Even the Republic website can only state: “Opinion polls consistently put support for a republic at around 20 per cent (various Mori polls), and some have put it as high as 43 per cent (GMTV/Mirror 2008). That means that at least 10 million people would vote to abolish the monarchy - the same number that voted for the winning party at our last general election.”

I suspect any move to a Republic is on hold till HM The Queen dies. I believe the British people and key nations such as Australia will not break their links to the crown until after she leaves the throne. With King Charles as monarch all bets are off. The majority of Britons think he should stand aside for his son William - he certainly will not unless ill health intervenes.

The Republic website goes on to state: “There has also been a steady increase in the number of people who do not think the monarchy will survive in the long term. A 2002 poll showed that 70 per cent believe Britain will be a republic within 50 years (Mori 2002).”

Hence when Gibraltarians plan their future it must not be on the grounds that the status quo will apply. The questions have to be asked now - in 50 years will Britain have a president, will Spain be fractured, will the EU even exist and will the Treaty of Utrecht still rule Gibraltarians’ lives?