Deputy Chief Minister’s Motion On The UK-EU Gibraltar Treaty

Deputy Chief Minister’s Motion On The UK-EU Gibraltar Treaty

04 March 2026

Below folows the Deputy Chief Minister’s Motion On The UK-EU Gibraltar Treaty:

Madam Speaker,

This Motion is historic -

historic in its process,

historic in its substance,

and historic for the future of Gibraltar.

It will mark the start of a new era.

So it becomes relevant to look at both how we have arrived here and what it is that this House is being asked to approve.

It is significant too that the Motion, as amended, will count on unanimous support. This unity sends a powerful message.

I propose to deal first with the process before turning to the substance.

The objective ofthe Motion before this Parliamentis effectively to grant or to withhold our consent to the ratification of the Treaty.

So there is a two-step procedure for this.

First Gibraltar approval and then UK ratification.

And this route delivers a clear expression of the constitutional role of this House.

It reflects just how far Gibraltar has come since the 2006 constitution.

And it is certainly an indication of how things should be done.

The final say on any matter which impacts upon Gibraltar must rest with this House.

NO CHANGE IN STATUS

Madam Speaker,

Gibraltar is and will remain an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom.

The new Treaty does not alter that in any way.

But the fact that the United Kingdom will not ratify the Agreement without the consent of this House is certainly worth reflecting upon.

Honourable Members know well that there are two Parties to the Treaty.

These are the United Kingdom, on the one hand, and the European Union, on the other. This is not a Treaty with Spain.

So the Agreement with the European Union, if approved here today, will be entered into by the United Kingdom.

The UK will formally sign, ratify and adopt it.

However, that legal position does not reflect the practical reality.

The United Kingdom has negotiated the Treaty with our full involvement, on our behalf, and with our consent.

And, as my Honourable Friend the Chief Minister has explained, that working relationship will be further reflected in a Concordat between London and Gibraltar.

The terms of that document will serve to provide further reassurance.

As the Chief Minister has said, such a Concordat also formed part of the architecture of the Withdrawal Agreement some six years ago.

Madam Speaker,

The close involvement of the Government of Gibraltar was an important feature of the lengthy negotiation.

And it is significant that successive Conservative and Labour governments have adopted the same position on this.

That is to negotiate a Treaty within the priorities set by Gibraltar.

And this in part explains the differences between the UK’s trade deal with the EU and this our own new trade and mobility deal.

The House will know that at the start of this journey the UK had a well-known ideological position on the European Union.

It was not a position which we shared.

Their ideology built walls.

Our reality demanded bridges.

Brexiteers wanted friction and barriers.

Gibraltar needed fluidity and access.

So this treaty is a triumph of geography over ideology.

And it is worth reminding ourselves that Gibraltar voted to remain in the European Union. While the UK as a whole voted to leave.

Therefore it was already a considerable achievement to have brought UK Brexiteer governments round to better understand our position.

Even though Brexit had been designed around ideology rather than practical consequence.

All this means that the Treaty which the UK will be asked to ratify, upon the consent of this House, will reflect the interests and input of Gibraltar.

And this fact stands as evidence of that key role which Gibraltar has played throughout the negotiating process.

GIBRALTAR PRESENT EVERYWHERE

Madam Speaker,

That process was triggered in June 2016 with the referendum.

The Withdrawal Agreement, to leave the European Union, was given political approval in October 2019 and signed in January 2020.

And Gibraltar formally left the EU, together with the UK, after the transitional period had come to an end on 31 January 2021.

The negotiations for this future relationship treaty started nine months later, in October 2021. Gibraltar Ministers and officials have been present at every level of the negotiations. The Chief Minister and I have had political oversight.

And the Attorney General Michael Llamas has led the technical and official talks in a highly professional and competent manner.

Gibraltar has been extremely lucky to have been able to count on someone of his knowledge, ability and standing at this crucial juncture in our history.

He has been very ably and efficiently assisted by Daniel D’Amato, the Director of Gibraltar House in Brussels also in a key role.

Many Ministers and officials, past and present, have played their part too, given the cross-cutting nature of EU membership.

But the legal and political web which needed to be untangled as a consequence of our departure from the EU should not be underestimated.

Brexit was once compared to removing the egg from a cake after baking it. Messy.

Artificial.

Deeply disruptive.

And that is exactly how it felt.

THE BACKGROUND

So Madam Speaker,

I now propose to go over the background.

The Treaty which this House is being asked to endorse is the product of many years of solid hard work.

And we cannot fully understand where we have arrived without taking into account how we got here.

The treaty marks the next step on a journey for Gibraltar.

That journey commenced in 1973 when we joined the then European Economic Community at the same time as the United Kingdom.

It continued after 1986, when Spain joined the Community.

And that phase endured until midnight on 31 January 2021 when the UKand Gibraltar both leftthe European Union.

So the situation in relation to Spain has now been reversed.

In 1973 we were in the club and they were outside it.

As from 1986 until 2020 we were both inside the club.

Now, Spain is in - and Gibraltar is out.

And the Treaty sets out the rules for Gibraltar to be able to enjoy access to the club which we once belonged to.

In considering the actual text of the Treaty, this is an important factor to bear in mind. It is what Brexit has required the Government to do.

So that period of withdrawal from the EU was a turbulent process for all concerned. It started with a Partido Popular government in Madrid.

And on top of that, as the Chief Minister has reminded the House, with the most difficult Spanish Foreign Minister in living memory in post.

I mean of course Jose Manuel Garcia Margallo.

He adopted an openly hostile and confrontational approach towards Gibraltar. And he delivered two key threats at the time of the referendum.

The first was that after the UK had left the EU, all options were open to Spain including closing the frontier completely.

The second that Gibraltar would not enjoy a future relationship with the European Union unless we agreed to share sovereignty with Spain first.

Those threats may well be a fading memory now.

But at the time they posed a very real challenge.

Madam Speaker,

against such metrics,thedrafttreaty before us demonstrates just how muchGibraltarhas achieved.

First, the frontier did not close.

And second,Gibraltarwill enjoy a future relationshipwith theEuropeanUnionwith our sovereignty intact.

No closure.

No shared sovereignty.

No veto over our future.

Nonetheless, this serves as a timely reminder of the difficult position which Gibraltar constantly found itself in.

There can be no doubt that the replacement of Mr Margallo by Mr Dastis in November 2016 facilitated matters considerably.

The latter immediately signalled a more constructive approach.

Even though the Partido Popular remained in power.

And he authorised direct contact between the Government of Gibraltar and the Government of Spain for the first time in this process.

The first of those meetings took place in a hotel near Marbella in February 2018. The Chief Minister, the Attorney General and I for Gibraltar.

And three senior officials from the Spanish Foreign Ministry.

This signalled the start of a positive engagement.

It was designed to build confidence.

And to furnish a better understanding of each other’s position.

So that when Pedro Sanchez succeeded Mariano Rajoy as Prime Minister in June 2018 the process was already well under way.

It was the first stop on a road-map which led the UK and Gibraltar to formally exit the EU together on 31 January 2021.

That exit package included Gibraltar in the Withdrawal Agreement.

And our Withdrawal architecture extended to a Tax Treaty with Spain and to four Memoranda of Understanding, only one of which now remains current.

All that was connected to and set the scene for work on the future.

VARIABLE GEOMETRY

Madam Speaker,

those negotiations were to benefit from meetings with variable geometry between the different parties.

This meant that Gibraltar, the United Kingdom and Spain met in different formats as and when required.

So on occasions Gibraltar met with Spain.

Other times Gibraltar met with UK.

And frequently all three met together.

Those meetings took place in different locations.

We met in Gibraltar, in London, in Algeciras, in Jerez, in Madrid, in Cordoba and in Malaga. I vividly recall meeting in Madrid at the time of the pandemic.

We were faced with a city in lockdown.

Empty trains and deserted streets.

No traffic and no people.

Those who have visited the Spanish capital will appreciate the stark contrast. This is an example of the interplay between Brexit and Covid which we were forced to assimilate. And a vivid illustration of the extraordinary circumstances in which these negotiations continued. That meeting, and others like it, led to the New Year’s Eve Agreement at the end of 2020.

POLITICAL FRAMEWORK JUNE 2025

ThatAgreementwas the framework presented to the European Union for the conclusion of a treaty with the UK about Gibraltar.

As I said earlier, ittook ten months for the EuropeanCommission to receive the green lightfrom EU Member States.

And those negotiations finally commenced in October 2021.

Gibraltar was once again at the table at every level.

This included four ministerial meetings which helped to focus the discussion.

We sat directly with the Foreign Ministers of the UK and Spain, and with the European Commissioner responsible for relations with the UK.

Indeed, even in the European Commission headquarters, the Berlaymont, Gibraltar was accorded the same status as the other three participants.

For example, with our own delegation room separate to that of the United Kingdom.

The outcome of all this was the political agreement which was announced in Brussels on 11 June 2025.

The actual negotiations did not conclude until December.

That represented over four years of solid engagement.

And the finished product is the treaty which this House is debating today.

TREATY RATIFICATION

This step is therefore part of the approval process.

The European Union will have to complete its own ratification procedures. The House will know that the treaty requires the approval of the Council.

That is the 27 Member States of the European Union.

Indeed, the Council’s Working Party is meeting today.

The item on Gibraltar does not have any thematic focus as has happened on previous occasions.

It appears thatthere will be a general revision ofthe documentswhich accompanied the publication of the legal text.

The consent of the European Parliament will be required too.

There is no suggestion, at this stage, that the approval process will be extended to all the different national parliaments.

But in the European Parliament, the critics of the Agreement in the Partido Popular, Vox and elsewhere will no doubt have their say.

There are 720 Members of the European Parliament.

Therefore a simple majority would be 361 if everyone is present and votes.

The PP belongs to the European People’s Party (EPP) which is the largest grouping. They have 188 MEPs.

Vox sit in the Patriots for Europe (PfE) group which is the third largest with 84 MEPs. A simple majority vote is required to signify consent.

So theMotion we are being asked to approve today is part ofthe ratification process on the UKside.

As the House knows, the UK Parliament will have to signify approval through what is known as the CRAG procedure.

This requires the UK Governmentto lay the signed treaty and an explanatory memorandum before Parliament.

This has not happened as yet.

There is then a 21 day period in which to review or debate the document.

But that UK procedure will commence only upon a signal from this House.

And that signal is the approval of this Motion, which includes the conclusion of a satisfactory Concordat.

So the two signatories have to ratify the treaty.

When ratification is complete, the final phase will be its actual implementation.

It is Gibraltar, its Parliament, Government, institutions and competent authorities which will give effect to the Treaty in our country.

So its provisions will only come into effect because we permit it.

And that is the ultimate expression of sovereignty.

TREATY – FRAMEWORK AND CONTENT

Madam Speaker,

I move on now to the policy and the content ofthe treaty.

The policy areas have been known for a long time.

These are now set out in legal text.

Over 1000 pages.

Nearly 200,000 words.

My Honourable Friend the Chief Minister has already covered this in some detail. So I will be brief.

There are seven parts to the treaty.

It is made up of over 300 Articles.

There are also forty three Annexes, Appendices and Protocols.

Part 1, as we have heard, covers the Common and Institutional Arrangements. This includes the sovereignty safeguard clause.

Part 2 covers the circulation of persons.

This provides the detail of the common travel area between the Member States of the European Union and Gibraltar.

Part 3 deals with economy and trade.

It covers areas like taxation, labour and social standards, the environment and climate change as well as state aid.

This includes customs, indirect tax and trade-related issues.

Aviation, road transport and maritime transport are all dealt with in this Part. Part 4 addresses frontier workers.

Part 5 are the financial provisions.

Part 6 dispute settlement and horizontal issues.

And Part 7 covers the final provisions of the Treaty.

It will be governed by a UK-EU Cooperation Council.

And there will be three Specialised Committees.

The firstis the SpecialisedCommittee onCirculation of Persons,the second on Economy and Trade, and the third on Aviation.

Those Committees have to meet at least once a year.

The Treaty also contains its own mechanism for avoiding and settling disputes. It includes a process for Consultations and for the appointment of an Arbitration Tribunal.

TREATY: POLICY AND APPROACH

Madam Speaker,

I want to briefly reflect for a moment on the wider policy approach of the Government. The House has heard some of this already.

But it is worth repeating.

This Government would never ask the UK to ratify a Treaty unless satisfied that it was safe, secure and beneficial for Gibraltar.

That has been our guiding principle throughout the negotiations.

We have repeated on many occasions that this Treaty could have been concluded in five minutes if we had agreed to everything that the other side wanted.

But that was not going to happen.

So this was not an easy negotiation.

Given that there were effectively four parties around the table.

The other side pushed.

And we had to push back.

As we sought to shape the outcome in line with our thinking.

That give and take is how international treaty negotiations work.

SOVEREIGNTY SAFE

Madam Speaker,

the Treaty is sovereignty safe.

The Chief Minister has gone through the advice to this effect from Lord Pannick, Sir Peter Caruana and Dr Jamie Trinidad.

And Honourable Members will have seen the firm and comprehensive sovereignty statement in its opening pages.

This is worth highlighting again:

“The present Agreement, any supplementing agreements mentioned in Article 2, any administrative arrangements or arrangements related to this Agreement, and any measures or instruments or conduct taken in application or as a result thereof or pursuant thereto, shall be without prejudice to and shall not otherwise affect the respective legal positions of the Kingdom of Spain or of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with regard to sovereignty and jurisdiction and shall not constitute the basis for any assertion or denial ofsovereignty including in legal proceedings or otherwise.”

In plain terms: nothing is given up.

Nothing is conceded.

Nothing is diluted.

This Treaty does not touch Gibraltar’s sovereignty.

It was never intended to.

It contains the toughest and most solid sovereignty safeguarding clause I have ever seen. So no sovereignty conceded.

No constitutional line crossed.

This Treaty is not and cannot be a threat to our sovereignty.

Because that sovereignty is not diminished by pragmatic arrangements designed to make life function.

Indeed, the very exercise of having entered into the Treaty,

and the ability to terminate it in the future,

is in itself a powerful demonstration of British sovereignty.

This is a trade and mobility deal with the European Union.

It is about Gibraltar’s future relationship with it.

And it does not conflict with our continued and enduring British sovereignty.

DEMOCRATIC CONSENT

Madam Speaker,

the debate in this Parliament today is an essential component in the exercise of democratic consent.

ButHonourableMembers must not forget that the people of Gibraltar already had a say in the 2016 Referendum.

In fact we were the only UKOverseasTerritory orCrown Dependency whose people were included in the vote.

And the people of Gibraltar, expressed an overwhelming desire for continued EU membership. We voted for a relationship with the European Union.

And it was obvious once the UK had left, that this relationship could no longer be one of membership.

But it could be as close to membership as possible.

And the Treaty before us represents precisely the closest possible relationship between Gibraltar and the European Union.

Short of membership.

This Government have therefore responded to the message of the 2016 referendum. And we have delivered that close relationship with the EU.

So democratic consent began with the 2016 referendum.

It was renewed through the general elections of 2019 and 2023.

And it is exercised here again today by this Parliament.

The essence of our representative democracy is that we are empowered by the people to take such decisions.

TREATY DETAIL: MOVEMENT OF PERSONS

Madam Speaker,

the Treaty is too wide and covers too many areas to do justice to them all in this contribution. So I do not propose to go into the detail of everything.

Firstly because the text has already been published.

And secondly because my Honourable Friend the Chief Minister has already outlined its constituent parts.

Those who may have the inclination to read it all are free to do so.

But everyone has known since 2020 that the mobility arrangements for persons would be the centrepiece of the new Agreement.

That entails the removal of immigration controls from the land border.

So no more passport or identity checks.

And the removal of customs controls which will follow.

Residents of Gibraltar will experience genuine border fluidity for the very first time. Like exists between Spain and Portugal or Spain and France.

A degree of fluidity which Gibraltar did not enjoy even when we were part of the European Union.

And the logical consequence of the elimination of immigration and customs controls at the land border will be an end to frontier queues.

Those delays to enter or exit Spain have marked passage through the frontier for decades. Movement by land has been at the mercy of the political leadership in Madrid.

General Franco, before the closure of the border, presided over mounting restrictions on persons, vehicles and goods.

Later, politicians like Abel Matutes, Garcia Margallo and others continued the same policy.

Andwho can forgetthe delays inspired by the infamousCesarBrana in1994-1995, aCivilGovernor of Cadiz?

Or the double filters.

Or the occasions where motorists have been stopped and asked if they were carrying a spare pair of spectacles or contact lenses, blankets, torches and other paraphernalia.

But that is not all.

As the House knows only too well, passage through the border has on occasions depended on the whim of individual Spanish officers on the ground.

A relatively recent case led to the removal of an inspector from frontier duty by his superiors. The common feature in all these episodes was uncertainty and arbitrariness.

In removing the controls which have led to the delays, this treaty will deliver greater certainty to the lives of citizens on both sides.

Some cross to work;

others for tourism;

some to holiday homes in Spain;

many for leisure activities;

to practice sport;

to meet friends;

to gather with family; and

for medical appointments.

In short, everyone will enjoy far greater clarity.

The Schengen immigration controls which will disappear from the land border will relocate next to the airport.

The whole basis of the regime will be dual immigration checks whereby Gibraltar and Schengen controls will follow each other.

The Treaty blends the two systems and sets out how they will interact.

Gibraltar shall continue to be responsible for its own immigration checks.

Spain will be responsible to the European Union for the Schengen controls. So when we refer to Spain in this context, we are referring to Spain acting on behalf of the EU. This is important.

Schengen here is a tool not a flag.

The complexity of this aspect of the treaty should not be underestimated.

It is based on the concept of a common immigration zone through a new facility adjacent to the airport.

This will be built partly in Gibraltar and partly in Spain.

And in this way, the airport will become a gateway into the whole of the European Schengen area.

BENEFITS FOR GIBRALTAR RESIDENTS

Madam Speaker,

the treaty provides important benefits for Gibraltarians and Gibraltar residents. We will enjoy unfettered access to the 29 European countries which make up the Schengen Area.

This includes Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and Liechtenstein which are not in the EU but are nonetheless part of Schengen.

Gibraltarians and Gibraltar residents cannot be refused entry into Gibraltar. The Schengen authorities will not be able to arrest or detain Gibraltarians or Gibraltar residents. We will be exempt from the new EU Entry/Exit system, known as the EES.

We will also be exempt from the coming EU pre-travel authorisation scheme called ETIAS.

Gibraltarians and Gibraltar residents will not be required to justify the purpose and conditions of their intended stay here or to meet the subsistence condition.

Gibraltar will benefit from life without frontier queues.

We will benefit from no immigration controls on flights to and from the Schengen area.

And Gibraltarians and Gibraltar residents will enjoy de facto non-application of the 90 day in 180 day rule.

Gibraltarians resident abroad, with a Gibraltar identity card, will also enjoy the same package. These are tangible gains.

They represent very real and positive outcomes.

The Treaty will therefore deliver significant advantages to Gibraltar and its people.

And those benefits come in the context of the EU enforcing more rigid immigration controls on everyone else.

TREATY DETAIL: MOVEMENT OF GOODS

Madam Speaker,

in order to secure border fluidity for persons, the treaty also provides a framework for the fluid movement of goods.

The two are interconnected.

Customs controls on persons and vehicles obviously impacts on frontier fluidity. They would continue to create friction even if immigration controls have been removed.

It is worth recalling that the possibility of eliminating controls on goods was foreseen in the New Year’s Eve Agreement of 2020 as well.

So in the area of goods and Customs too, the outcome is tailor made.

But Gibraltar will not join the Customs Union.

And there will be no VAT.

Instead, import duty by another name, a transaction tax, will be levied.

This will be set at the lowest rate in the European Union.

That will be 15% in year one, 16% in year two and 17% in year three.

17% is currently the rate applied in Luxembourg which is the lowest in the European Union. For certain categories of goods, a reduced rate and a super reduced rate will be applied instead. The reduced rate ranges from 5% to 14%.

And the super reduced rate from 0% to 4%.

The Government has taken the policy decision to peg both of these at the lowest possible level.

That means 5% for goods in the reduced rate category and 0% for those covered by the super reduced rate.

It is important to make it clear that these lower rates apply instead of the 17% and not in addition to it.

There can be little doubt that new opportunities will come our way with access to millions of potential clients in the European Union.

But the Government is conscious that some sectors will need support in order to adapt.

And this morning my Honourable Friend the Chief Minister has already set out the detail of such support.

However, the House must be aware of one point.

This is that commercial sectors would have had to adapt whatever the Treaty outcome.

So both a Treaty and a no Treaty situation require profound changes to the way in which Gibraltar PLC has operated.

It is well known that the Government devoted considerable time to mitigating for a No Negotiated Outcome or NNO.

And I will say more about that later.

But I have no doubt that a no Treaty scenario would have meant a more radical readjustment for many sectors of the economy.

The plain truth is that in any case, we simply cannot continue as we are.

The elimination of customs and immigration controls at the border will deliver certainty and stability.

It will be good for businesses.

It will be good for citizens as well.

And it will lay the foundations for more visitors which will generate greater economic activity.

SECURITY OF GIBRALTAR

Madam Speaker,

The removal of border infrastructure has raised security concerns in some quarters. And I too would like to briefly address them.

Let me be clear: the security of Gibraltar will be strengthened, not weakened, by the new arrangements.

Border infrastructure will disappear but not the border itself.

The territory of Spain will end and the territory of Gibraltar will start in exactly the same place. The actual frontier line will not move one inch.

Indeed, it is precisely the removal of infrastructure which will make way for the elimination of immigration and customs controls.

And that is normal as we develop a common travel area and a common customs zone with the European Union.

However, that action will not pose a threat to our security.

Far from it.

The security of Gibraltar will actually be enhanced in a number of ways.

First, there will be a new multi-agency building at the frontier.

This will provide for a permanent presence by the Royal Gibraltar Police, HM Customs and the Borders and Coastguard Agency.

Second, the number of patrols by Gibraltar law enforcement will be stepped up.

The Chief Minister has authorised the purchase of new patrol vehicles specifically for the border area.

Third, facial recognition cameras will be installed in order to capture any individual of interest. Fourth, number plate recognition cameras will identity suspect vehicles.

Fifth, CCTV and enhanced lighting will be provided along the entire border line, and indeed, more cameras in other areas like Main Street.

And sixth, the combined effect of Gibraltar and Schengen immigration controls will make it more difficult for any suspect to enter Gibraltar by air.

The geography of Gibraltar will itself assist in all this.

The runway and its security fence runs from east to west in the proximity of the frontier.

So the only way to move from the border to the rest of Gibraltar is either through the tunnel or across the runway.

This will make it easier to identify and detain anyone.

Change always makes people apprehensive.

It is normal to worry.

There is nothing wrong with that.

But there really is nothing to worry about.

I remember the same concerns were echoed when the frontier opened.

And they surfaced again when EU nationals were allowed to access Gibraltar with ID cards instead of passports.

The same concerns were echoed and nothing happened.

So the absence of immigration and customs checks will not lead to a free for all. Those controls will be replaced with an enhanced security posture.

And it is crucial to understand this.

ROAD TRANSPORT

Madam Speaker,

I move on now to transport.

Honourable Members will have seen the provisions in Part 3, Title III of the Treaty text. This covers aviation, road transport and maritime transport.

I want to say a few words about road transport.

A no Treaty scenario would have had a negative effect on our road transport operators. This was one of the commercial sectors for which no mitigation measures had been identified.

In our period of membership, our road hauliers operated in the EU on the strength of a community licence.

Then we exited the European Union.

And we lost the legal framework provided by EU law.

A series of bridging measures and informal work-arounds permitted this business activity to continue in some way.

The alternative legal framework for the commercial carriage of goods is the ECMT regime. This stands for the European Conference of Ministers for Transport.

It is an international convention which enjoys wider membership than the European Union. An ECMT permit allows road haulage vehicles to operate in its member countries. The alternative legal framework for the carriage of persons is the Interbus Agreement.

This too is a multilateral international treaty which establishes common rules for the carriage of passengers by coach.

After we lostthe EU legalframework,the extension of ECMT and Interbus to Gibraltar was the only alternative option.

However, this was blocked by Spain and the EU.

The new Treaty will set a process in motion for the application of the ECMT and Interbus to Gibraltar through the membership of the United Kingdom.

That is expected to provide for the transportation of goods and persons to and from Gibraltar and the territory of the ECMT.

Secondly, the Treaty will provide for the continued transportation of commercial goods between Gibraltar and the geographical territory of the Campo area.

An ECMT permit will not be required for this regional movement.

And thirdly,the Treaty will also safeguard the vital commercial road link between Gibraltar and the United Kingdom.

Madam Speaker,

make no mistake.

This was a sector which would have been decimated under a no Treaty scenario. Indeed,the Government had communicated this risk to the industry as far back as December 2020.

However, together with the United Kingdom, we have now negotiated legal certainty and peace of mind.

AMBULANCES

Madam Speaker,

Ambulances too faced restrictions after we left the EU.

Gibraltar emergency ambulances were still allowed to drive patients through the border to Spanish hospitals.

But Gibraltar transfer ambulances were banned from crossing patients into Spain for non emergency treatment.

The problem went beyond the registration of the vehicle.

There was a further issue raised by the nationality of the staff travelling with the patient inside the ambulance.

This was particularly difficult if they were not EU citizens or were visa-requiring nationals.

As a result, the GHA engaged the services of Spanish ambulance providers in order to ensure that patient care was not adversely impacted.

That service has come at a cost of hundreds of thousands of pounds.

This continued inconvenience and costwould havebeen thedefaultposition in a noTreaty scenario.

However, the new Treaty will permit Gibraltar emergency ambulances to transfer patients to any medical facility in the European Union.

It will also provide for Gibraltar transfer ambulances to operate to and from designated Spanish hospitals in non-emergency situations.

That arrangement will revert as close as possible to the position which existed when we were in the European Union.

It will make life easier for patients.

And it will also represent a cost saving.

Again another important gain for Gibraltarians and Gibraltar residents.

AIR TRANSPORT

Madam Speaker,

I now move to civil aviation.

And I note the comment from the Leader of the Opposition that the treaty provisions here are “workable and neutral”.

The Treaty outcome here, as in other areas, represents a considerable shift away from where the negotiation first started.

It would not be proper to go over this detail in public.

But suffice it to say that the Government has always been very conscious of the sensitivity of this question.

And we have negotiated with this in mind.

The Treaty will provide the framework for flights between Gibraltar airport and airports in the European Union.

And this can only be regarded as an extremely positive development.

Those air links had traditionally been blocked by Spain.

The Treaty eliminates that veto.

It provides the legal basis under which those air connections can now materialise. The detail is set out in Part 3, Title III, Chapter 1 of the transport section of the Treaty. In making an analysis ofthis section, it is essential to bear in mind the context.

This is that when we were part of the EU we were entitled to such air connectivity as a matter of principle and of legal right.

That right was lost when we left the European Union.

So the new treaty re-establishes the right to fly there.

I will repeat what I have explained before.

Air transport services to and from the UK will continue to be carried out by UK airlines, or by carriers authorised by the United Kingdom.

Those to and from the EU will be operated by EU airlines, or by carriers authorised by the European Union.

A UK-EU Specialised Committee on Aviation will be established.

It will have a supervisory role to ensure relevant standards are met and that the Treaty is complied with, through both inspection visits and information exchanges.

However, such visits and exchanges will only happen while there are air connections between Gibraltar airport and airports in the European Union or in preparation for such flights.

EU law will be applied by Gibraltar, and through our own constitutional instruments, in four specific aviation areas.

Those areas are:

the rights of passengers with reduced mobility;

airport charges;

airport slots and

ground handling.

A JV will be set up in Ireland on a 50/50 basis between Gibraltar and Spain. The Irish company will award a tender for a separate commercial company to operate the airport. It will not have ownership of the terminal.

Ownership will remain with the Government.

The Treaty arrangement is a step back from Cordoba.

In 2006 it was envisaged that the joint venture company would actually operate the air terminal. Under the Treaty, the new Irish JV will not do so.

The Government can further confirm thatits role does not go beyond ensuring compliance with EU tendering rules and Treaty obligations.

The equal shareholding effectively means no change to the existing arrangements are possible without our consent.

The treaty will allow for the JV or the commercial company to be litigated against in Gibraltar or in the court of any State to which relevant international conventions, such as the Hague Convention (Hague 19), apply.

This closely mirrors the position which existed when we were in the European Union and the Brussels and Lugano Conventions applied.

The air terminal was designed for use under the aviation arrangements envisaged in the 2006 Cordoba agreement.

As the House knows, Cordoba was never implemented in full.

This means that the underutilised space and empty corridors on the first floor will now be put to good use.

There will be a redesign of passenger flows in order to accommodate the continued Gibraltar controls and the new Schengen controls.

Arrivals from third countries, like the UK, will be processed for immigration purposes through the first floor.

Arrivals from Schengen countries will land from a common travel area, so there will be no immigration checks.

They will arrive via the existing ground floor.

Both sets of passenger flows will merge after collecting their baggage and proceed past customs at a new facility which will be constructed on the frontier line.

In addition to this,the location for a Schengen terminal has been earmarked atthe Wessex Lounge. This will handle passengers departing from Gibraltar to the EU Schengen area.

There is some space for future expansion to the west of the existing facilty in the event that this is required.

The plan is for temporary arrangements to be put in place while the permanent structures to the north of the existing air terminal are built.

That work inside the air terminal and outside it has already commenced.

So theTreaty has laid the foundations for new route networks to the EU to complement our existing route network to the United Kingdom.

It means that scheduled flights between the Union and Gibraltar will be possible for the first time.

The House will recall that the Cordoba agreement was only for routes to and from Spain. The decision to commence such flights is obviously a commercial decision for the airlines. But I am told by my colleague the Minister for Tourism that the interest is there.

For its part, the Government will waste no time in making known the new possibilities which Gibraltar airport will have to offer.

WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE?

Madam Speaker,

those who may be against this Treaty must also explain, what the realistic alternative would be. Otherwise opposition to this Agreement is not credible.

This is the Treaty that is on offer.

There is nothing else.

That means that the alternative is not some kind of theoretical perfection, wonderful in an ideal world -

the alternative to this Treaty is no treaty at all.

And the challenge of life without a Treaty must be factored in to this debate. Atthe same time, it would also be unrealistic to pretend thatthis Treaty would not attract criticism. Some will say it goes too far.

Others may think it does not go far enough.

Let me say that anti-Europeans in the UK, who landed us with the problem, are not well-placed to lecture us on the solution.

And it is true that some parts of the text make for uncomfortable reading.

But those parts need to be seen in the context of Spain conducting a function on behalf of the European Union.

And against the background of the tough sovereignty clause I referred to earlier. Spain is not permitted to exercise executive action in Gibraltar.

All such power will be exercised by and through the competent authorities of Gibraltar, as it is today.

This Schengen function is limited to the new shared operating space to the north ofthe air terminal which straddles the border.

The central policy objective of the Government has been to protect Gibraltarians and residents of Gibraltar.

And that has been achieved.

But I repeat,

itis notlegitimate to criticise whatthe Government has negotiated without providing the details of an alternative course of action.

What magic wand would our critics wave?

Because we simply cannot remain as we are.

The status quo is not an option.

So what is the realistic plan to avoid the impact of no Treaty?

There is none.

NO TREATY IMPACT

Madam Speaker,

the stark choice, as the Government have always said, is this Treaty or no Treaty.

And in our consideration of this Motion, Honourable Members are duty bound to reflect on the negative consequences of the latter route.

The most obvious single concern would lie in the application of the European Union EES system at the frontier.

On 10 April it must be applied at every external land, air and sea border of the Schengen area. That remains the target date at this time.

It may possibly slip, but it still remains the deadline today.

The new electronic controls will require travellers first to scan their passports. Then to register biometrics with the system through finger-prints, and facial scans. The machine will also ask questions.

Then after registration, passengers need to interact with an e-gate.

That dual approach will apply every time a non-EU national crosses an external border in or out of the European Union.

It has already led to chaotic scenes at some crossing points during trials.

Travellers in vehicles will also need to interact with the EES either by getting out of their car or through the use of tablets.

Those new controls, in turn, will have a knock-on effect on the time people spend in a frontier queue to cross into Spain or to reach their home or place of work in Gibraltar.

The Treaty will save Gibraltar from this potential disruption.

The Government is aware that serious industry players who are large employers and taxpayers here have been monitoring this particular point.

We were warned that the EES would disrupt staff movements.

And that a hard border would make it very difficult to continue to operate in and from Gibraltar. The risk was company relocations, job losses and a hit to the public finances of Gibraltar. Madam Speaker,

The lowest category of no Treaty outcome in our planning was “Moderate”. And even that so-called “Moderate” outcome would have been deeply damaging. The other two are “Major” and “Worst Case”.

On a “Moderate” no treaty outcome, the hit to revenue was projected at £147 million. The increase in expenditure at £152 million.

So no Treaty would have meant less money coming in and more money going out. The reason for this is because in a no Treaty world logistical costs go up.

The Government was, for example, looking at a projected annual increase in waste management costs of £21 million.

This would have been the result of having to export waste by sea to other countries instead of by land to Spain.

Indeed, a trial run in the export of 500 tonnes of waste to the UK, which is only a week’s worth, was calculated to cost in excess of £250,000.

And that was for municipal waste only.

Increased costs would also have materialised with other waste streams and in other areas. Honourable Members will recall that I already mentioned the question of ambulances.

Although the final sum is dependent on usage, it already cost £590,000 to contract Spanish ambulance providers over a one year period.

The importation of medical supplies and pharmaceuticals was estimated to resultin a 15% increase or £1.7 million.

A more difficult border would obviously have resulted in staff retention issues across the economy where that staff is resident in Spain and employed in Gibraltar.

In the event of no Treaty,OperationKorat was the name given to the potential Traffic Management Plan.

The impact of EES would require additional resources to manage and control the expected delays to pedestrians and vehicles crossing into Spain.

There is one important difference between the delays generated by EES and thosewhich have come about at different points in our history.

The Margallo delays and other like them were time limited.

The impact of EES, however, would have been permanent – for ever.

The increase in personnel and resources in the border area had been projected to cost an additional £6.5 million per annum.

In addition to this, there would have been associated infrastructure costs.

Thatincluded a new pedestrian holding facility which was estimated at £200,000 in capital cost and a further £100,000 in recurring annual charges.

Moving on to another area,

the supply chain would have had to readjust as well.

A shift from road transport to maritime transport, would have led to slower delivery times.

The use of air freight which would have been faster and more direct, is also much more expensive than both road and sea freight.

A ferry service to carry non-EU goods of animal origin from Algeciras to Gibraltar was projected to cost some £1.8 million a year.

In the event that EES was implemented at the border, Gibraltar would have applied its own electronic controls as well.

This is in line with the principle of reciprocity.

The objective would have been to increase border fluidity for residents and visitors on the way in. The plan was to install a battery of e-gates in the existing pedestrian entry building.

The projected cost ofthatwas £1.2 million in capital expenditure with £124,000 in recurring annual costs.

The House knows that a number of other projects to increase the resilience of Gibraltar have been completed.

However, the resilience measures which have been put in place would not have mitigated all the impact of a no Treaty outcome.

Quite simply because the ability to mitigate in certain areas is of our hands. This is an important point.

So when taking a view on the content ofthe Treaty, itis essentialto factor in this alternative world. We cannot compare the Treaty text to some ideal state of perfection.

Perfection does not exist.

The only alternative is the full brunt of a No Negotiated Outcome.

REACTION IN SPAIN

Madam Speaker,

it is relevant also to factor reaction in Spain into this discussion.

The latest debate in the Spanish Parliament was very revealing.

The Spanish Government was accused of not having taken advantage of Brexit to progress their claim to Gibraltar.

The Partido Popular representative accused Foreign Minister Albares of not having taken one step in the direction of Spanish sovereignty.

He complained that sovereignty was not put on the agenda.

And he declared that Spain should have pushed for joint sovereignty in exchange for the new border regime.

The Vox spokesperson was even more blunt.

He protested that Gibraltar and its Chief Minister were accorded the same status as the two sovereign countries during the negotiations.

And he made clear that this Treaty was nothing short of a capitulation to British and Gibraltarian interests.

Vox claimed that the Treaty constituted a surrender for Spain.

In that context, the spokesperson went into the clause designed to protect sovereignty positions.

This was, he said,“far from a victory or even a draw,that statementis proofthat Spain has missed a historic opportunity to advance the recovery of Spanish sovereignty over the Rock…”.

He went on to describe the Treaty was a ”shameful abdication” by the Spanish Government “a felony” and outright “treachery”.

The former Foreign Minister of Spain Jose Manuel Garcia Margallo took a similar position. He has described the Treaty as a total renunciation of Spain’s political and economic sovereignty.

It is worth pointing out here, as an aside, that the Partido Popular itself also made it clear when in office that the sovereignty of Gibraltar would not form a part of the negotiation.

But in the final analysis, when critics in Spain say that this Treaty goes too far – they inadvertently confirm that it goes nowhere near sovereignty.

CONCLUSION

So Madam Speaker,

Today, this House exercises its authority on behalf of the people of Gibraltar for the future of our country.

This Treaty is not perfect.

No Treaty ever is.

But it is safe.

It is secure.

And it is beneficial for Gibraltar.

It safeguards our British sovereignty.

It opens new opportunities.

It provides certainty after disruption.

And it anchors our relationship with the European Union in law.