Gibraltar deal clears way for Sunday Brexit summit

It seems that by giving Spain written assurances that Britain will give Spain joint sovereignty over Gibraltar, May is stepping further along a path that could see Great Britain devolve into lonely England with Scotland, perhaps Northern Ireland and even Wales remaining in the EU. 

And only a generation ago, another female Prime Minister went to war to retain control over a few islands in the South Atlantic. My how times have changed.

Selling out the people of Gibraltar is shameful.

@Luddite, are you aware that Gibraltar, just like the Malvinas, are included on the UN decolonisation resolution 66 I as two territories that have yet to be decolonised? You're not a supporter of colonialism... are you?

Friends will be friends right till the end

I was thinking ‘Hammer to fall’ might have been a more suitable Queen song to quote.

The Utrecht Treaty of 1713 is clear, the King of Spain ceded sovereignty of the Rock of Gibraltar to the British in the War of Spanish Succession. Also Great Britain given a legal commitment written into the 1969 Gibraltar constitution

"Her Majesty's Government will never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes."

The people of Gibraltar and the Falkland Islanders have had referenda that fully determine where sovereignty lies and will remain until both peoples choose, democratically, otherwise.

Theresa May government could well have to call a General Election, if/when this shocker of a deal is voted down in parliament in early December. Somewhere, somehow I feel by slide of hand, smoke and mirrors, a second referendum will raise its politically poisonous toxic head above the parapet.

As a pertinent Queen hit, I suggest another one bites the dust, around early December

This is the end of the UK as we know it. England alone sooner or later.

Always look on the bright side of life.

The people of Gibraltar and the Falkland Islanders have had referenda that fully determine where sovereignty lies and will remain until both peoples choose, democratically, otherwise.

But that was before Brexit (same as Scotland). 96% of Gibraltar voted to stay in the EU, 96%!

Sanchez as a socialist would quite happily move the goalposts set up by any Spanish King. In this instance though, it seems that there is little love lost between him and the rest of the EU.

@itsonlyrockandroll

Spot on. The future of Gibraltar should be be decided by the people of Gibraltar, although as we know, the Spanish government isn’t too impressed by the idea of people having the right to decide their future by democratic means.

The Utrecht Treaty of 1713 is clear, the King of Spain ceded sovereignty of the Rock of Gibraltar to the British

According to Spain he did not. I'd also say the treaty is by no mean clear, which is the crux of the problem. Article 10 of the Treaty of Utrecht reads as follows:

The Catholic King does hereby, for himself, his heirs and successors, yield to the Crown of Great Britain the full and entire propriety of the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging

I think it's reasonably arguable that the rock itself still belongs to Spain. To suggest that the rock is part of the town or the castle is a bit of a stretch in my opinion.

The people of Gibraltar and the Falkland Islanders have had referenda that fully determine where sovereignty lies and will remain until both peoples choose, democratically, otherwise.

International law disagrees. Neither the Falkland islanders or the Gibraltarians meet the definition of peoples for the purposes of self determination under the UN Charter. Britain is basically alone in believing that they do.

Do you think that the people living in the Hong Kong new territories could have simply held a referendum to join Britain or become independent prior to the 1998 handover? Could Americans living in Guantanamo Bay hold a referendum to join the US or become independent? Of course not.

Hi M3, I believe there are a number UN resolutions pertaining to decolonization. it is safe to declare the right to self-determination is paramount and safeguarded when viewing all three resolutions.

Quite correctly there has been a proposal that the restitution of the Spanish territorial integrity is above that of the principle to self-determination. However this is a frivolous suggestion within UN process of decolonization.

That has no base in international law, an interpretation that would need to be tested at ICJ.

In all honesty neither the Governments Great Britain or Spain can just ignore the expressed wishes of the Gibraltarians, respecting fully the signed Treaty, refraining from deliberate misinterpretation.

I believe stipulations within the treaty, Hong Kong had to be return. So a referendum would have been a breach to that treaty.

http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/ga_resolutions.shtml

Hi goldorak, Certainly Gibraltarians expressed a overwhelming desire to remain within the EU, however I have doubts they would choose to relinquish there British citizenship to do so

Would any JT commentator support a second referendum?

Some government cabinet minster have suggested remaining within the EU would be more advantageous than leaving under May's deal

@itsonlyrocknroll

there are a number UN resolutions pertaining to decolonization. it is safe to declare the right to self-determination is paramount and safeguarded when viewing all three resolutions.

Unfortunately I have to disagree with you on this. Two points:

First, to hold that the transplanted citizens of an occupying/colonising power have a paramount right to self determination even on territory that is internationally recognised as being colonised/occupied would be rather extraordinary. The implications would have many unintended consequences. For example, it would effectively mean that Israeli settlers in the West Bank might have a right to self determination and could hold a referendum to join Israel. I think it's more accurate to say that the right to self determination (if it even exists at all, and there is some dispute about this) must rank very low on the totem pole of international law and must always take a back seat to any other claims, resolutions or disputes between states. To conclude otherwise would only incentivise a continuous cycle of violent occupation and expulsion where the the latest occupying power could install its citizens, coerce a referendum in the occupying state's favour, and point to the result as an expression of legitimate and unquestionable self determination (basically what happened in Crimea with the Russian annexation). It would completely undermine the Geneva Conventions.

Second, only - peoples - have a right to self determination under the UN Charter. Populations and people in general do not. Whether people constitute a peoples is based entirely on whether they are recognised as peoples by the international community. Neither the Falkland islanders or the Gibraltarians have been recognised as a separate peoples by the international community yet. For better or worse, they are just citizens of an internationally recognised colonising power. The have no internationally recognised right to self determination apart from rights they have as part of the peoples of Britain.

The points above are more relevant to the Falklands because that's a more clear cut case. Gibraltar is much more complicated because there is at least some portion of Gibraltar that was legitimately ceded to Britain (ie. the castle and the town).

refraining from deliberate misinterpretation.

Are you saying that interpreting the treaty literally to include only the castle and town is deliberate misinterpretation? Many old treaties get very specific in nominating particular buildings, farms, houses, rocks etc, where new borders are to be redrawn. Spain's own colonies in Ceuta and Melilla are evidence of how the Spanish drafted precise treaties over tiny parcels of land at this period in history. When the Spanish say you can have the town and the castle, I think it's reasonable to assume that the town and the castle is all you're getting.

I believe stipulations within the treaty, Hong Kong had to be return. So a referendum would have been a breach to that treaty.

But both the Gibraltar and Falklands disputes rest on international treaties and alleged violations of international law, so I don't see how they are any different to Hong Kong.

Hi M3, If I may I would like to concentrate my comments, opinions and focus on the political reasoning behind the The Government of Spain motivation in demanding essentially a veto for the Gibraltar inclusion in any future UK-EU trade deal.

I believe at this point in the negotiation the question of Gibraltar legal status and right to self determination are a political red herring, a smoke screen to leverage a future negotiating strategy for some form of joint sovereignty.

The two document below, the first explains in full, the legal interpretation of sovereignty to the disputed Isthmus.

The second is a detailed explanation as to why the EU is politically changing tact over the disputed region.

One should view Great Britain withdrawal from the Union, inclusive of/to political and economic effects, not only to one (UK) economy but all twenty eight. Also in terms of the current political/backdrop.

A huge economic inequitable single currency. Brought about because of a failure to institute full monetary fiscal union. Manifested in the southern member states. The continuing European budget negotiations in Italy, about to explode into a showdown. The continuing rise of populism especially the Afd in Germany. And finally how this will effect next years European Parliament Elections.

A no deal Brexit, would be catastrophic as much for the EU as the UK. Those red lines have boxed all twenty eight into a corner. Without any escape.

The Legal Status of Gibraltar: Whose Rock is it Anyway?........Simon J. Lincoln

https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1405&context=ilj

Explaining the European Union’s Changing Position towards the Gibraltar Question after the Brexit Referendum........

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326103980_Explaining_the_European_Union%27s_Changing_Position_towards_the_Gibraltar_Question_after_the_Brexit_Referendum

To all above - I deeply appreciate your comments, from which I often learn more than the article itself.

Itsonlyrockandroll:

I must respectfully disagree on Hong Kong. The treaty was between the UK and the Empire of China. Hong Kong could have been kept if Britain felt the successor nation (republic of China, aka Taiwan) was not legitimate (ie it overthrew the previous govt). There were 5 main choices:

1) keep as British territory

2) independence referendum (Singapore is an example of an independent modern city-state)

3) give to the legitimate heir to the throne (in exile) of the Empire of China, thereby creating an independent city-state Empire of China

4) give to Republic of China (aka Taiwan - it was recognized by UN as legitimate until 1971 when switched with PRC)

5) give to People's Republic of China

They chose choice 5.

But that was before Brexit (same as Scotland). 96% of Gibraltar voted to stay in the EU, 96%!

And in previous referenda Gibraltar has overwhelmingly voted to stay British. May's concession to Spain will be a stab in the heart of Gibraltarians.

@itsonlyrocknroll

I believe at this point in the negotiation the question of Gibraltar legal status and right to self determination are a political red herring, a smoke screen to leverage a future negotiating strategy for some form of joint sovereignty.

I agree. I think you've been following Brexit politics far more closely than me so I defer to your insights on these issues. The shift in the EU position with respect to the Gibraltar dispute is interesting but I completely disagree with the Turkish Cypriot professors (in the second link) claiming that the EU is somehow violating international law by supporting Spain. I suspect the Turkish professors' conclusions might be more than a little bit biased by writing from the illegally occupied half of another EU member state!

Things are definitely getting interesting in Europe with the political shifts we've seen this year. Personally I think it's a good time to put the brakes on the European project and even take a few steps back towards national sovereignty. I think that's a position you've held for quite a while and I find myself being pulled closer in that direction. The single currency obviously makes this exponentially harder than it otherwise would be.

Thanks also for the link to the other Gibraltar article. It's an interesting read but I have to disagree completely with the author's conclusions (as does the United Nations). The idea that the postwar recognition of a right to self determination of peoples should somehow affect the interpretation of a treaty from 1731 is difficult to accept for many reasons. Of course, few people bother publishing articles in law journals explaining why settled practice is the best way to continue interpreting treaties (which is essentially Spain's position).

@juminRhee

I suppose the main issue people often overlook is that the 99 year lease only applied to the new territories and parts of Kowloon. The entirety of Hong Kong Island was owned outright by the British and they could have held it in perpetuity. The way Britain is powerless to stop China from backtracking on the handover agreement is a bit of a shame.

Wow. This is the most civilised debate I've seen on JT in more than 10 years of reading it. Well done guys!

Hi juminRhee, I remember the official ceremony, handing over sovereignty of the Honk Hong/New Territories to China. The diplomatic and/or political significance an irrelevance for my nine year old intellect.

Mother and Father viewed the spectacle rather differently.

I understand the New Territories and Lantau make up a consequential majority under British rule/influence. Practically is one divisible from the other both politically and economically? Did the then Government of China ever view Britain presence in any way as legitimate?

The loss of face would Britain have called an independence referendum, and the possible outcome, a naval blockade and air blockade could have led to a devastating military confrontation.

Which choice would you have made? I have only ever stopped over on a visit so my opinions are as any other armchair diplomat.

As a comparison to the present situation in Gibraltar and the UK withdrawal from the European Union, Gibraltar is much closer to UK, geopolitically.

Hi M3, actually I don't agree with the learned Professor (second link) either. My intention is to highlight how politically volatile this whole sorry situation has become and the shameful, shockingly incompetentence Theresa May's government has handled these negotiations.

Both links are opinionated view and cannot/must not be taken prima facie

I have to follow the whole sorry EU/UK saga, the UK business, over 50% the employees migrated for within the European Union. The value of sterling business critical.

If everything goes south so to speak, I will have to move a huge proportion to Nagoya. I am finalizing the methodology in Nagoya this week.

@itsonlyrocknroll

Sorry for my late reply. I hope something in the Brexit helps you and your business to keep running smoothly. It's definitely been disruptive to many of the companies I work with. I can't imagine how stressful it must be when your own money is on the line. I guess we'll have to wait and see what sorts of subsequent agreements are struck, especially with banking/financial services and what sort of Visa regime the UK will implement. Thanks as always for the interesting discussion.

Many thanks M3 it's always a pleasure, fingers crossed. It only money

The end game has begun. I wonder how much Japanese companies already did to prepare. I can not oversee if Japanese companies took action, or not. All companies have agreements and trade with the UK should prepare themselves. In case goods are transferred from the UK to the EU or vice versa they should think about the trade conditions (who will take care for import and expenses?). Also be aware that UK law will go its own way as the European Court of Justice will no longer be relevant and that the applicable law could change because of absence of the EU Rome directives. Business owners beware and prepare! Handy links:

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/how-to-prepare-if-the-uk-leaves-the-eu-with-no-deal

https://www.abilitiestrust.nl/Information-and-News/index.php/;focus=STRATP_cm4all_com_widgets_News_14702932&path=?m=d&a=20180922102450-5415&cp=1#STRATP_cm4all_com_widgets_News_14702932

https://www.japanindustrynews.com/2017/09/brexit-what-will-japanese-companies-do/