Below follows the Leader of the Opposition’s New Year Message that was broadcast on GBC yesterday evening:

I want to talk about the Agreement with Spain but before that can I express my deepest  condolences to all those who have lost family members and friends to the COVID virus. 

There’s no doubt that as we edged closer to the end of last year Gibraltar breathed a sigh of  collective relief when told that finally a political agreement had been reached on a possible  future relationship with the European Union. After all we were barely 9 hours away from the  deadline. The UK had already bagged a deal for itself on Christmas Eve and we were at risk of being the only territory to be leaving without a deal and suffering a hard BREXIT with all the  consequences that would have had. 

We want a safe and beneficial agreement so to be told there was a deal was welcome to many  people and we understand that. But of course, the actual text of the Agreement had not been  published till eventually leaked by a Spanish newspaper on 11 January. That is when we, the  Opposition, saw the final text too.  

The Political Agreement is not binding but may lead to a legally binding international Treaty in a few months. It bought Gibraltar time and stopped us going over the cliff-edge to a hard Brexit. It’s important to be honest about what the Political Agreement says and its effects. 

It is also important to understand where Gibraltar was. Despite our overwhelming desire to  stay in the EU we’ve left. Despite being the part of British territory that had the highest  percentage of remain votes we were the only part that did not have a deal after Christmas  Eve. The 2018 Withdrawal Agreement only gave frontier workers enduring rights of freedom  of movement after 31 December 2020. We have, previously, described the failures to get a  better deal in 2018 as a lost opportunity for Gibraltar. It meant that we entered this round of  negotiations at a disadvantage. 

The Government had four and a half years to strike the best deal possible and after November  2018 still had more than 2 years to enter into an agreement for a future relationship. The UK  did that for itself. The UK-EU Treaty is more than 1400 pages long. In Gibraltar we did not get  a legally binding agreement – all we salvaged from the process was an 8-page political  framework that buys us time to get a safe and beneficial Treaty in the next 6 months. Wasn’t  that a failure of the Gibraltar Government? 

So it is also important to be realistic about what was obtained. 

Our departure from the EU is unwanted but it created the inevitable reality that things could  not stay as they were. We are no longer in the EU. In deciding to leave the EU the UK’s  interests and that of Gibraltar were different. The UK wanted to end freedom of movement  once and for all. We wanted to secure freedom of movement once and for all. 

The reality of being outside the EU is that we lost rights we had enjoyed over the last 50 years  and now need to secure rights starting from zero. It also meant that our economic model has  to adapt. Those issues can affect your quality of life, our freedoms and economic 

sustainability. Again those are realities. We are Europeans, in mainland Europe destined to  live in this corner of the Southern Mediterranean– also a reality.  

So when we look at the agreement reached it is important to factor in what a hard Brexit  could have looked like on 1 January. But equally it is important to be clear and honest about  what the Government agreed. So far, their public explanations have been based more on how they hope the agreement is interpreted than what it actually says. If we are going to have a  proper debate then there’s a need for political honesty.  

Everyone can now see what it says. In a recent interview Sir Peter Caruana said that given the  position we’d been placed in there would be a price to pay to get benefits in exchange. And  the question was whether the price was worth paying. That is reality. And that is the honesty  needed in this debate.  

This Agreement has flaws and pitfalls. To pretend otherwise is political Disneyland. The real  question is whether despite the flaws the price for a Treaty based on this agreement is worth  paying? The Government says there are no concessions. But that is pure spin to make  themselves look good.  

There are positive aspects to it – the possibility of securing mobility across the EU or securing  economic or other benefits for our people are things that we would want in principle. But at  what price? We have some serious reservations. The Agreement gives Spain powers over  tasks that will happen in Gibraltar. It gives Spain the responsibility to conduct Schengen  checks, protect our external border and potentially hands to them a number of economic  measures of control that can affect our sustainability. These would be beyond those they  already secured under the Tax Treaty.  

There is no doubt that there have been concessions on jurisdiction and control. How else  would Spain acquire responsibility for certain tasks to be performed in Gibraltar. For an  interim 4-year period Spain will seek the assistance of Frontex. Yes, the agreement can be  terminated after then but let’s be clear we are left with a choice between hard Brexit or  Spanish officers in 4 years’ time. And the Government agreed that. 

Even before the end of the 4-year period Spain will have immediate ultimate responsibility  for the authorisation or refusal of entry into the Schengen area at the airport and port. Spain  will also have the right to carry out checks of persons and their belongings at the port facilities  and controls relating to cruises or marinas. During the 4-year period that Frontex do those  tasks they will receive instructions from Spanish officials. Decisions regarding Schengen  procedures will also be taken by Spanish officials. Spain will be competent to issue short-term  visas for entry into Schengen through Gibraltar and we will need to align our policy on  residence permits with “Spanish standards.” 

Spain will also have joint responsibility for external border surveillance. Does that not mean  that under the Agreement Spain will have the excuse that it is protecting the external border  when coming into our waters with their launches. They do it now without permission. Why  do we think it won’t happen when we give them legal permission to protect the border?

In exploring the possibility of a bespoke customs union arrangement Spanish aspirations are  to secure intrusive economic measures of control in relation to pricing or that can impact  investment or revenue into Gibraltar building on the gains it achieved in the Tax Treaty. Alongside economic controls there would be a regime of physical customs checks which again  would have to be carried out at the port and airport.  

The Chief Minister says he’d never bring a law to our Parliament to give Spain responsibilities  or jurisdiction in Gibraltar. But he’s already agreed to that. Paragraph 6 of the Agreement says  that Spain will have responsibilities for Schengen implementation and the protection of the  external border and that Gibraltar will ensure that “legislation gives effect to these  arrangements.” Doesn’t that mean that the Government will need to introduce laws that  gives Spain those responsibilities and the power to give instructions to Frontex? 

All those issues raise questions of jurisdiction and control – indeed concessions. They also  raise the potential for a number of political and economic trojan horses. Those are realities.  Anything else is fiction. Anything else is to tell the people not what the agreement actually says but what the Chief Minister would like it to say. I am not going to pretend that the  agreement says something that it does not. I urge you to read it and make up your own mind. 

This is the Government’s agreement – no one else’s. We offered them our help to jointly  negotiate the best deal for Gibraltar. They decided to go it alone in 2018 and they decided to  go it alone last year. They’ve had 4.5 years and this is what they have obtained – an 8-page non-binding framework when the UK got a binding Treaty of over 1400 pages securing rights  for its businesses and citizens. Again, those are realities. 

Yes, we’ve been briefed from time to time on what the Government was trying to do. But we  haven’t been involved in the negotiations or had a real opportunity to influence them. We’ve seen some draft documents. I first saw a version of the Framework on 14 September. At that  stage it was largely innocuous and did not have the deficiencies of the final version. The next  time I was shown any draft was in mid-November. By then the draft Framework gave rise to  serious concerns about jurisdiction and control. After considering these with my colleagues I  wrote to the Chief Minister on 17 November 2020 expressing serious reservations. 

In my letter I warned him that there were deep in-roads on jurisdiction and control that we  considered were unacceptable. I specifically warned him about the effect of the clauses on  Spanish responsibilities. The next and last time we saw a draft was on 14 December. This  version was largely unchanged. Ultimately instead of being improved the Agreement has been  entered into with most of the flaws we warned about in November.  

There are now 6 months of further negotiations lying ahead leading to a possible Treaty. We  are still in time. We’ve given the Government space to negotiate conscious of the difficult juncture Gibraltar found itself in. We continue to believe that a good, safe and beneficial  Treaty is possible and these flaws can be cured. That’s what we want. We will remain vigilant  and working hard to ensure that the prospects of that are maximised.