Spain in the last few years has been repeating the history of the capture of Gibraltar, not too accurately. Spanish Gibraltar was attacked by a combined force of Dutch and English Marines on 3 August 1704 and surrendered within 24 hours.

Spain claims the inhabitants were expelled when Gibraltar was captured and that their descendants are the true Gibraltarians.

Those who left were not a distinct people from the rest of Spain, they were Spanish. The Spaniards had conquered Gibraltar 250 years earlier and expelled the then Gibraltar population. These had originally come from North Africa, 500 years earlier, and expelled the Visigoth inhabitants of Gibraltar.

Other than post 1704, there has never been a unique population with its own identity in Gibraltar, entitled to call itself Gibraltarian.

In any event the treatment of the Spanish soldiers and civilians on 4 August 1704, allowing them to leave for Spain in order to fight another day, which they did shortly after, was fairly lenient by the standards of Spain’s conduct of the time.

In the Americas Spain’s treatment of the territories they conquered was not to expel the indigenous people, but to massacre them. Allegedly to save their souls, not to steal their gold and then replace them with slaves transported from West Africa, for which provision was made in the Treaty of Utrecht. So it’s a bit much to hear Spain complaining about the treatment of those who lost the battle, 312 years after the event.

The war was between the Austrian and French as to who should govern Spain. It was settled in 1713, the French King’s nephew took the Spanish throne and Spain lost part of its territories including Gibraltar.

There was nothing exceptional about this, it was happening all the time in Europe.

The result was a successful attempt at partially disrupting the territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Spain as it was in 1700, in breach of the UN charter of 1945 and contrary to paragraph six of the recommendations contained in Resolution 1514 of 1960.

However I have never seen anything to the effect that the Charter or the Resolutions were with retrospective effect from 1700.

The word “attempt” in the Resolution clearly refers to something happening in future, from 20 December 1960 onwards.

The territorial integrity it refers to is that of a country that joins the UN as it is when it joins not as it was 300 years earlier. It also refers to the territory of a country that emerges as a result of decolonisation, so it is also the territorial integrity of the colony as it was when it was placed on the UN list.

CONFIRMED BY JUDGMENT

This has recently been confirmed by the judgment regarding the Chagos Islands which were a part of the territory of the colony of Mauritius. UK has been told that the Chagos formed part of the territorial integrity of Mauritius and should have been decolonized at the same time in 1968. Mauritius argued before the ICJ that the separation of the Chagos from Mauritius was in breach of 1514 paragraph six which specifically prohibits the breakup of colonies before independence. The judgment in favour of this argument was 13 to 1. Mauritius Prime Minister said its territorial integrity would now be made complete.

The Chagossians of African, Indian and Malay ancestry, very much like the Gibraltarians, developed their distinct cultural identity, after they settled in the territory as a French colony in 1776, and have had their rights as the People of the territory, recognised and vindicated.

When Gibraltar was listed at the UN in 1946 the isthmus formed part of the territorial integrity of the colony.

In 1964 your committee Mr. Chairman concluded that the 1960 “Declaration on the granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples”, was fully applicable to Gibraltar.

I was 25 and your decision inspired me to go into politics to campaign for the right to decolonization and stop sovereignty talks between UK and Spain.This is what I’ve been doing since and this is why I am here today.

The declaration 1514 states: 1, “The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, contrary to the Charter of the United Nations.”

To place us under Spanish rule totally or partially would be precisely to do this, the subjection of our people to alien subjugation.

Since 1514 applies fully to us, it follows that so does 1541, which approved the principles recommended by the then committee of six in 1960, your predecessors. The annex contains the Principles which should guide you in deciding if article 73e reports, have to be submitted.

Principle 1 states: an obligation only exists in respect of such territories of the colonial type whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government.

Spain, the UK, we and you all agree that this obligation has always applied and still does.

However the 73e reports are about the progress of the People, which Spain says we are not.

Spain cannot have it both ways if we are not the People of the territory then 73e does not apply. For example there are no Ascension Islanders and therefore no 73e reports.

Principle 2 makes clear that chapter XI of the Charter embodies the territory in a dynamic state of evolution and progress towards a “full measure of self-government”.

This is the role of c24, monitoring and encouraging this constitutional evolution.

I provided your committee with a copy of our 2006 constitution asking how it measured with the requirements of 1541; I am still waiting for an answer, Mr Chairman.

If the Committee is not going to monitor the constitutional progress of the peoples in the listed territories, what then is the purpose of the reporting requirement?

How else can it comply with Principle 2 and decide in any particular case that its people have attained a full measure of self-government?

At the Nicaragua seminar in May 2016, Spain’s representative said that because the Spaniards who surrendered on the 4th August 1704 had been forced to leave Gibraltar, his country could not accept that its current inhabitants had any rights over its future, 312 years later. Moreover Spain would never accept, that its inhabitants, obviously he could not bring himself to call us Gibraltarians, had a legal identity, nor were a people, nor had a right to the Rock, as we call our homeland.

The Nicaragua speech was the Spain we have known most of our lives, the Spain that closed the border to put pressure on us.

In June 2016 the same Spain attacked us in the C24, accusing us of being a fiscal paradise and engaging in contraband to the detriment of Spain.

Then there was Brexit.

And a New Spain emerged at the 4th committee in October 16.

Spain’s speech was all sweetness and honey. They offered us a generous proposal for joint sovereignty, we could have access to the EU with them and leave the EU with UK, the best of both worlds, dual nationality, all the EU legislation they had been blocking to put pressure on us would now be unblocked, our economic potential would be hugely increased, we were told the list of advantages could be even longer. Nothing was going to be imposed on us, so why not sit down and talk, we were asked rhetorically.

We were now the Gibraltarians, no longer the stateless 300 year old squatters of the Nicaragua speech.

Distinguished delegates, imagine this, Spain wants to sit down and talk with persons who have no identity as a people and moreover are money launderers and smugglers? But not for long.

In the days of the dictator Franco it used to be called the stick and the carrot policy.

We might have said yes, if they had been right about us.

But they’ve always been wrong, we are the Gibraltarians, the people of the colony, and our birth right is not up for sale.

WE WILL NOT SURRENDER

We cannot be bought, we cannot be intimidated and we will never surrender.

So we said no to any joint sovereignty. As I told Spain’s representative at the May 2017 seminar we would survive on dry bread and water rather than pass under Spanish sovereignty.

Predictably, the following month, Spain again attacked our fiscal system. The same system they had said we would be able to continue with, if we accepted them as joint colonial power with UK, the joint sovereignty offer, still on the table.

Spain repeated the same message at subsequent UN meetings.

What we have done since, is try to meet their concerns as if they were genuine, although we do not accept that we have a fiscal system that in any manner or form damages the Spanish economy.

The 2018 General Assembly Consensus has recognized and welcomed that we are all making an effort to improve relations. To this end we have agreed with Spain to exchange information and criteria for tax residence.

If it means the end of the accusations that somehow we are draining the tax revenues of Spain and harming the economy of the surrounding hinterland, when the opposite is true then we are happy to reassure them by agreeing these measures.

The Treaty provides different treatment on the basis of nationality in respect of persons who move from Spain to Gibraltar In the case of Spanish nationals they will continue to be treated for tax purposes as if they were still resident in Spain. This will apply indefinitely. Other nationalities will continue to pay tax in Spain for four years after they move to Gibraltar provided that they have been in Spain for one whole year before the move. Gibraltarians need to have been resident for four years in Spain to continue to be liable after they return to Gibraltar.

The committee should note that the Gibraltarian is identified as a distinct nationality in an international treaty signed by Spain which is an encouraging sign of what the nature of our relationship should be.

There are very few Gibraltarians living in Spain and not all of them will want to move to Gibraltar. There are however many other nationalities and Spanish nationals. Clearly the greatest deterrent to settling Gibraltar is in the case of Spanish nationals. Therefore it seems that the Spanish government does not wish to see its citizens taking up residence in Gibraltar.

Members of C24 may not be aware that way back in 1969, 50 years ago when the frontier was closed, one of the complaints was that they could not live in Gibraltar. It was true, there was a housing shortage and many of our own people were also living in Spain and had to abandon their homes to be accommodated in Gibraltar as best they could.

The equivalent of being expelled, but in 1969 not in1704.

We have also entered into an MOU, committing ourselves to keeping the retail price of tobacco products at a differential to mainland Spain and the Balearics prices. This differential will be 32% below theirs. The price differential does not apply in respect of the Canary Islands or the Spanish non-colonial enclaves in north Africa since prices there are substantially below the mainland.

Let me remind members however, that the level direct and indirect taxes is irrelevant as a consideration in the context of the decolonization process and something used by Spain since the 1960s in an effort to put us in a bad light before this committee .

Mr. Chairman, HM Government of Gibraltar has no wish to have Spanish residents break the tax laws of Spain by not declaring the earnings they may receive from our economic activities in Gibraltar, if that is what the Spanish law requires of them.

Spain now recognises our Tax Authorities and our tax laws independent from those of the UK. This is evidence that we are not a municipality and that the territorial parliament enjoys the fiscal independence of a state.

Perhaps for this reason the Government in Spain says this International Tax Treaty is with UK not with Gibraltar.

I know that this is a sensitive issue for the Kingdom of Spain and I don’t want to do anything to step on their toes or embarrass their distinguished Representative here.

True that we have an International Treaty that has been signed by Spain’s Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. This is because international treaties are things that the 17 non-self-governing territories cannot sign.

But if they, Spain, need to say it is UK that has done the Treaty; well let them continue saying it. But you know Mr. Chairman and I know that this is not true. Because if it were true it would mean that our fiscal independence in the constitution of Gibraltar over taxation, both direct and indirect, would have been removed from our level of self-government. This independence is something that we’ve had since the first constitution of 1950. It was the first Legislative Council that legislated to provide for income tax in 1951.

So it would mean that the Deputy Prime Minister of UK, if the Spanish interpretation were correct, had taken a step to regress our level of self- government taking us back to the position pre 1950, almost to when we were placed on your list in1946. If that were the case clearly I would not be speaking in the tone that I am speaking or making the remarks that I am making Mr. Chairman, I would be breathing fire and brimstone at the imposition of colonial rule, and breach of the provisions of 1541.

In the fourth committee last year Spain’s representative stated that treating the question solely as a dispute over sovereignty would be to limit it to a conflict between two governments.

Saying it was much more serious than that, he then went on to make the usual accusations about the damage to Spain’s economy and the hinterland because of our competitive fiscal system.

CONCERNS ADDRESSED

Now that we have addressed those concerns it follows that the position is that it is now a mere disagreement between governments on issues of sovereignty which by his emphasis, was the lesser of the two problems and is going to be with us for a long time

I have no doubt the summary report of this year’s seminar, as those of previous years will express support for the consensus text of the General Assembly which we all know is the result of negotiation between UK and Spain at the 4th Committee.

This urges Spain and UK to reach, in the spirit of the Brussels Declaration of 1984 a definitive solution to the question of Gibraltar, in the light of the relevant resolutions and applicable principles and in the spirit of the Charter, taking account of the aspirations of Gibraltar.

Spain quotes the support of the Seminar for this as if it assisted their case.

The consensus is a neutral statement that reflects the position of the two parties in dispute, but not ours.

Let me first deal with the Spirit of Brussels.

Mr Chairman as Members of this Committee well know I have fought against the Brussels Declaration from the day it was made.

The process that followed incidentally was at referendum to its approval in the Parliament of Gibraltar showing that even in 1984 Spain had de facto accepted that there would be no negotiations without the approval of the Gibraltarians.

We socialists were then in Opposition and we walked out of Parliament, campaigned against it, boycotted it in Government, and eventually persuaded those who had supported it to abandon their support. It is now dead and buried.

Since it is dead the consensus now talks about its spirit and I don’t know what this spirit is but given its history, it can only be an evil spirit which is going to stay that way and never come back to life.

There is not going to be another bilateral Spain and UK negotiation on the issues of Sovereignty or anything else to do with Gibraltar.

There are also the aspirations of our people which are what you would expect of any colonial people, as I have demonstrated repeatedly in these seminars.

The UN position is that as long as there is one territory left the eradication of colonialism will not be complete.

We may be the last one but the day will come when we shall take our rightful place in the family of nations, and as I said way back in 1992, when that day comes I trust it will be with the support of Spain as a friendly neighbour.

03-05-19 PANORAMAdailyGIBRALTAR