10/04/2002

What we have is a politically well developed society. A very vibrant and active local political field, Parliament, Executive and an economy which is vibrant and prosperous and this is not irrelevant when we come to consider the main issue upon which I wish to speak to you which is the current so called impetus that has been given to negotiations between the United Kingdom and Spain about Gibraltar.

And I am prepared to pose three questions in the hope that I will then be able to answer them if not when I submit to cross examination by you know doubt you call me to. The first question is this: Do we as European Democrats – all of us - believe in self determination or don’t we? Do we believe that all colonial territories have the right to decide our own future? Or do we believe that that answer is capable of being qualified? Is Gibraltar’s future a matter to be decided by the Gibraltarians? or is it a matter to be decided above our heads by the colonial power on the one hand and the territorial third party claimant on the other? That is the first question.

The second question is: You will have heard in the context of the last few months of political bear bating that we have been engaged in with the Foreign Office and their Ministers. You will have heard the many invitations extended to the Government of Gibraltar to participate in the current dialogue. And you will have heard that we are not agreeing to them despite the fact that we are a Government that believes in participation and dialogue with Spain. You have even heard the Minister of State at the Foreign Office accuse the Gibraltar Government of practising the politics of the ‘empty chair’. And I pose the question which I ask you to bear in mind as you listen to me, whether I am practising the politics of the ‘empty chair’ or whether alternatively the Foreign Office have booby trapped the chair? And the first question that I would like to address to you by way of information is what exactly is happening in the current negotiations? Why isn’t the Gibraltar Government attending? What would the Gibraltar Government be willing to attend? And what is not being said by the British Foreign Office to the public opinion in Great Britain in a way that has the effect of concealing the true extent and effect of what is currently taking place.

You all know that the people of Gibraltar profoundly believe that we enjoy the right to self determination which we regard as inalienable. That is the right to decide our own future which the people of Gibraltar repeatedly and continuously demonstrate, they wish to exercise in order to retain their British sovereignty and their close constitutional links with the United Kingdom. True it is that we would like to be de-colonised but we want to be de-colonised by a modernisation of our constitutional links with the United Kingdom – certainly not by ending those links but rather by modernising them – and retaining British sovereignty.

Spain on the other hand, has the ambition to return the map of that region of Europe to where it was in 1704. And we believe that that is not a democratically tenable ambition in this day and age unless they can achieve it with the consent of the people of Gibraltar. And that brings me to the first point that I will ask you to bear in mind because I know that what I regard as completely unhelpful and inappropriate parallel that is sometimes made with Northern Ireland. Well look, the first thing that happened in Northern Ireland and in the agreements that were entered into in that respect is that the Republic accepted the principle of consent on the wishes of the majority of the people in the North of Ireland. Spain refuses to do so and has not done so and that is one of the most serious impediments to constructive and fluid dialogue over the question of Gibraltar. And you all know that Spain’s prosecution of her sovereignty claim of Gibraltar is not passive. There are border restrictions… It must be the only border in Europe in which there is not a red and a green channel even though it is a border between two parts of the European Community. There are no ferries, there are no maritime links between Gibraltar and Spain, there are no air services between Gibraltar and Spain. Spain restricts the number of our telephone numbers that are reachable from Spanish telephone numbers, and most relevantly to the position in which we currently find ourselves in, she subjects Gibraltar to harassment within the European Union by applying pressure on the UK and on the other Member States to almost systematic vetoing or threatening to veto all and sundry European Union measures unless the United Kingdom should first agree either to exclude or to distort the manner in which it should apply to Gibraltar. And the question is, should Spain's behaviour in this respect be rewarded with some measure of our sovereignty or should Spain simply be expected to live by the rules of the club which she joined in the knowledge of what was those rules would require her to do? It's against this backdrop that we have the so called 're-launch', new impetus I think would probably be a better word for it, but they call it a re-launch of the so called Brussels Process discussions which the British and Spanish Foreign Ministries confidently predict will result in a deal by the summer.

Now, we are told that the deal that they hope to strike has four basic ingredients to it, a respect for our way of life – whatever that cliché may mean, because it means different things to different people – secondly, respect for our EU rights – which is something I would have thought we were entitled to for nothing but at least it's a helpful recognition that our EU rights are not presently being respected. Thirdly, maximum self-government – which basically means constitutional reform, well look, the British Government published a White Paper on the Overseas Territories and it already commits the British Government to maximising the self-government of the people of all the territories remaining territory, it doesn't say that in the case of Gibraltar only if they are willing to barter their sovereignty with Spain, so those are the first three ingredients all of which we think we are entitled to for nought, respect for our way of life, respect for our EU rights and maximum self-government – the fourth ingredient is sovereignty and when we ask, well what is this reference to sovereignty going to be, is it going to be some sort of diplomat lubrication type formula which allows us all to sort of talk to each other in the knowledge that we can each defend our positions on the vital question of sovereignty, no, no, no – it won't be just a sovereignty for discussion clause it’s got up to be something more than that, some sort of specific model based on the principle of joint sovereignty or share responsibility, things of this sort. And the reasons why it is said that it is important to do this deal by the summer with these four heads although the 'meat' and the detail has not been explained to us, is allegedly because it is necessary "to obtain for Gibraltar a secure, stable and prosperous future". Well, I don't know how many of you have visited Gibraltar but at least when I left it three days ago, it was a pretty secure sort of place, I think it's politically stable I haven't heard of anybody trying to unseat me before the next general election and it's prosperous, it is certainly prosperous, if it is nothing else. So what does it mean when we are told that unless we do a deal on sovereignty that we need to do a deal on sovereignty in order to have a secure, stable and prosperous future given that we already have security, stability and prosperity in the presence; and we believe in Gibraltar that it is a threat what we are being told is unless you do a deal with Spain on sovereignty you will not have a secure, stable and prosperous future and we reject that out of hand. Statements such as those are usually coupled with remarks such as "if you don't do a deal, you will be left behind" – that is Peter Hain's favourite phrase, when asked what does well what does being left behind means he declines to explain. Another one is that your economy will wither, well I don't see why our economy should wither, the only threat to our economy is in other people systematically allowing Spain to deprive us of the benefit of our EU rights and failing to comply with their EU obligations themselves. Sometimes we are told that if we reject the deal we are all by ourselves, we will get no help from London and any problems that arise will be dealt with "by Third Secretary or less" without wishing to offend Third Secretaries or anybody who are less in the Foreign Office, these people are apparently quite junior or they would not have been cited in the phrase. Anyway, that is in whose hands we are threatened to be left and in Gibraltar we regard the alleged reasons why the deal with Spain is necessary on sovereignty, none of you should misunderstand as you will hopefully hear me say in a moment, that it is not desirable to engage Spain in dialogue but that is a completely different focus. All of these statements, all of these attitudes that the Gibraltarian consumes simply serve to harden our resolve and in the meantime what statements such as the ones that I have just described to you, serve to do is to undermine our economy by creating uncertainty and a sense of inevitability of the need for there to be a sovereignty deal unless Gibraltar accepts some degree of Spanish sovereignty. And of course, there is a clear attempt at making the reasons which are pretexts of what the Foreign Office give as the need to do the deal, the danger is that they will try to convert it into a self fulfilling prophecy and it is, I suppose, understandable that the latest survey of business sentiment in Gibraltar identified by a margin of 67%, the biggest threat to business prosperity in Gibraltar is not the lack of an agreement with Spain, is not that anybody thinks that our political status is unsustainable but rather the uncertainty created by the talks themselves. No-one thought that our prosperity was in doubt, no-one thought that international confidence in our economy was in doubt, indeed all sectors of the economy are booming on all cylinders until, in effect, the Foreign Office itself by its own statements starts creating uncertainty in the guise of asserting what are themselves pretexts. And then, it is all sort of mixed up with a completely shameful campaign of spinning in the UK media to discredit Gibraltar. One MP, who I understand is the Minister of State’s - the Foreign Office's Parliamentary Private Secretary, recently said in a UK television programme that the Gibraltarians are "smugglers on a massive scale", well look if I was the British Foreign Secretary and I thought that my colony was in danger of smugglers on a massive scale my responsibilities would not stop at uttering the accusation. It is not true, not least because the Governor appointed by the British Government is responsible for law and order in Gibraltar and legal compliance, and there is an MP close to the Foreign Minister of State who makes these statements with complete disregard of a report by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons who looks into these repeated allegations by Spain, concludes that they are politically motivated, says that there is no basis or foundation for them and calls upon Spain to put off or shut up. Spain does not put up, Spain shuts up except that now we hear the allegation from the voice of British politicians instead of Spanish politicians. And I think that it is little more than a completely disreputable attempt to do from London what has been a Spanish tactic over many decades and that is to discredit Gibraltar in the minds of public opinion, then in Spain now in Britain so that somehow support for our political aspiration and our position to the great Foreign Office master plan will somehow meet with less support and less success here in the United Kingdom.

So what are the possible real reasons for the existence of this exercise? A lot of you will be aware of this publication by the Centre for European Reform, can Britain lead in Europe, and it identified in great detail the need for Britain to make alliances and to make friends of a different type in the European Community. And to make sacrifices even of changed policies in order to win friends and buy off allowances, and there was just one section of it which I think is worthy of being cited. "The construction of alliances has required Britain on occasions to give up some of its negotiating position, the tabloids would be livid but it should not be beyond the power of Labour's spin doctors to explain to the tabloids that the point of such tactics is in the long run to increase British influence. A forward looking strategy combined with some crafty alliance making could make Britain not a dominant EU Member but one which counts and this is a message that should be sellable to the tabloids". And then in a seminar convened in the Foreign Office to discuss this report. It said the media ought to have access to a paper presented by Charles Grant which is this one, and it says "Building British influence in the EU" one of Mr Grant's suggestion which won approval was that "to count on the Franco German axis which dominates the Council of Ministers Britain should seek to build up an enduring alliance with other countries notably Spain", unfortunately Mr Grant said "this potentially strong friendship was sullied by the Gibraltar problem and Britain should be prepared to negotiate on its future status as a bargaining chip to win Spanish support on other issues".

Now I think Mr Chairman, that that is much more likely to be what is at the root of the current Foreign Office initiative than any concern with our future security, stability or prosperity and we are all in favour in Gibraltar of the United Kingdom having good relations with Spain. We don't see good relations between the United Kingdom and Spain as a threat to Gibraltar but it should not be obtained at the expense of our future rights as a people to decide our own future and still less, at the expense of our sovereignty.

Now Mr Chairman, so what then is going on here? A lot of you will have heard Ministers that say directly through television interviews and in the media - well the Gibraltarians have nothing to worry about, they'll have the last word in a Referendum – sounds jolly good, If I lived in Hartlepool and knew little about Gibraltar and I was told by my great Government that we were going to give the people affected the last word in a Referendum, I would say that that is jolly fair and decent of them, so what are we Gibraltarians whinging about, some may be tempted to ask. Well, what needs to be understood is what is not explained to British public opinion by the same Ministers who tried to acquire British public opinion support for their policies by uttering the Referendum commitment but not putting it into its exact and necessary context. What they intend to do is to divide the process - in fact what they intend to do, what they are doing - is divide the process into phases, so it's Phase 1 – which will result in a Declaration, Agreement, Agreed Framework, Agreement of Principles, call it what you like I don't know if it's been decided how to baptise it but it is one of those I bet you. And this document will enshrine agreed Anglo-Spanish positions, completely above the head of the Gibraltar Government, and invited to go along to express my opinion but not in any status that enables me to prevent them from agreeing whatever they like. An agreed Anglo-Spanish position of the principles applicable to the Gibraltar problem, the solution of the Gibraltar problem, the four main elements of the ingredients that I explained to you before, including concessions to Spain of the joint or shared sovereignty variety. That's Phase 1 – Bi-lateral Anglo-Spanish Agreement on Principles. Phase 2 is a detailed discussion to work up implementable proposals, given that the principles themselves are not capable of implementation or even being offered as implementable. Phase 2 then is a discussion on implementable proposals based on the principles in Phase 1, so based on the concept of joint sovereignty. The proposals based on the principles but not the principles themselves will be put to the people of Gibraltar in a Referendum. If we reject the proposals in a Referendum they will not be implemented but the principles upon which they are based, the Declaration, Agreement, Framework of Agreed Principles, upon which they are based including whatever concession there have been made to Spain on sovereignty at a political level will remain on the table as the agreed Anglo-Spanish position to quote Jack Straw of "the best way forward" and that would survive a Referendum rejection by the people of Gibraltar of proposals based on those principles. So that the Referendum is about not respecting the wishes of the people of Gibraltar in the Agreement that the United Kingdom entered into, in the positions the Agreement that the United Kingdom agrees with the third party affecting our sovereignty and our future rights. The commitment to the Referendum has been reduced to practical issues, implementation or non-implementation on the ground as opposed to the non-adoption by the UK of agreements affecting our sovereignty. The commitment that the United Kingdom has is not in our Constitutional Preamble is not to enter into arrangements relating to the sovereignty of Gibraltar. Well look, an Agreement of Principles even if it is not implemented in practice is an arrangement and we believe it is a breach of the Constitutional commitment in our favour. And in what consequence then it is not going to be implemented in practice, well the consequences are that it will predetermine the outcome of any future dialogue in Phase 2, so for Gibraltar's Chief Minister this one or any future one to go through the course we've first got to accept that we are willing to talk the details of implementing joint sovereignty and there is as much chance of hell freezing over, well there may even be a greater chance of hell freezing over than of the people of Gibraltar agreeing to that. It will legitimise for all time the Spanish sovereignty claim, after all if the great British Government has accepted that the equitable thing to do is to share the sovereignty of Gibraltar with Spain who is ever going to be able to quarrel with that in the future even though I take note and the people of Gibraltar are grateful for the fact that the Conservative Opposition has already publicly stated that it will not be bound by any agreement of that sort that is entered into contrary to the wishes of the people of Gibraltar.

And thirdly, it betrays our right to self-determination. For the last forty years or longer the British Government's position, Governments of both colours that have been in office during that time, have had the position that the people of Gibraltar do enjoy the right to self-determination but that it is curtailed. In other words, they can exercise all the self-determination options and there's four acceptable under UN doctrines, all the rights to self-determination except independence because of some antiquated interpretation of the right to first refusal clause of the Treaty of Utrecht, Madrid says that the Treaty of Utrecht denies the self-determination all together. London’s position is that our right to self-determination is curtailed by the Treaty of Utrecht insofar as you can't have independence but we do have all the other rights of self-determination. There are several other methods of obtaining self-determination decolonisation through self-determination which do not involve independence. As recently as the 6^th of November last year, Peter Hain in answer to a question from his own back bench, I think it was David Cosby, said of course the people of Gibraltar have the right to self-determination except that they can't have independence for the reasons I've just explained to you. So how is that consistent with him rushing off to Madrid to do an agreement over the heads of the people of Gibraltar conceding even in principle to Spain that they are entitled to a 50% share of the sovereignty of Gibraltar. How do we square that with the alleged existence of the right to self-determination even curtailed as the Foreign Office would argue it is, we don’t accept it's curtailed, but even if the Foreign Office would argue curtailed, how do they square even the curtailed right to self-determination with dealing with Gibraltar as if it was some sort of territorial sovereignty dispute to be resolved above the heads of the people of Gibraltar.

And then fourthly there is the possible legal effects, Spain may be free to argue that this Agreement conceding to them in principle a share of sovereignty may be able to argue somehow, that it alters the route of British title under the Treaty of Utrecht which at the moment is exclusive and perpetual. And therefore what it would work out it will be the Magna Carta, for all time Gibraltarian will be told 'this is the only way forward for you and it involves Spanish sovereignty whether you like it or whether you don't'. In the theory, because lets be clear the position of the British Government is that they will not in practice implement anything unless we approve it in a Referendum. So our concern at the moment is not that Gibraltar is going to be Spanish because that could only happen if we approve it in a Referendum, our concern is that Britain is going to give away the political diplomatic and, perhaps even, legal ground to Spain in a way from which we will not be able to recover and that that in a sense the trap will have been laid from which we will not be able to depart in the future.

Another question is whether I am practising the politics of the empty chair or not or whether the chair has been booby trapped? I was elected into office in May 1996 with a policy of engaging Spain in safe dialogue. It is not the policy of the Government that Gibraltar should live with its back turned to Spain or with dialogue with Spain is a bad thing, we think dialogue with Spain is a jolly good thing. We just don't think that we ought to be made to pay with our sovereignty for things that we should have as a matter of normal neighbourly co-operation and rights, the Gibraltar Government does not even mind from such a process of dialogue in which we would happily participate. Proposals, mere proposals emerging, which can be put to the people of Gibraltar whether the Gibraltar Government agrees with the proposals or not. I don't see my job as Chief Minister of Gibraltar to censor the proposals that can reach the people in plebiscite or can't reach the people in plebiscite is a matter for the people of Gibraltar. My job is to try and protect Gibraltar from what the people cannot protect themselves if they wish to be protected from it. And that is agreements struck over our heads, done deals on the principles affecting our future which are not going to be put to the people of Gibraltar as principles in a Referendum and the political and diplomatic effect of which, and the effect on our rights and our options for the future will survive a Referendum rejection by us of proposals based on those principles.

But I don't mind if Spain and if London wish to put proposals to the Gibraltarians every Thursday afternoon, I'll organise a Referendum every Friday morning, I've got really no difficulty with engaging in an open agenda process of dialogue, open agenda means open for both sides, from which proposals can emerge which are put to the people of Gibraltar but then the result has got to be respected. If the people of Gibraltar turn it down, whatever the people of Gibraltar turn down in the Referendum has got to be removed from the table and cannot stay on the table to any political or diplomatic effect to prejudice us if we have rejected it in a Referendum. And that is the nuance of the present position, that is why we are not going to the Talks. Because we believe that the chair has been booby trapped. How? By departing from an open agenda process of dialogue from which proposals can emerge. Nothing providing a Referendum rejection by the people of Gibraltar. Two – this alternative model which is the phased model, where in the Phase 1 principals which they reached over my head survive an eventual rejection by the people of Gibraltar of proposals based on them; and then the Ministry of State at the Foreign Office comes out on television saying "I can't understand why Peter doesn't come to these Talks they are just Talks what's wrong with talking?" Without saying, well look, it's not just talks is it? The normal process of political dialogue between three parties with a political dispute is that agreements are arrived at because the parties agree to them. Not because two, three parties go – one is limited to accepting his opinion, and I'll tell how the Spaniards who invariably, it has to be said, are clearer with the people of Gibraltar about what they want and what they need, than some elements of the British Government. The Spanish Government makes its point in this way, the Spanish Government says 'Caruana has got' and they say this publicly in the Spanish media which of course is consumed in Gibraltar. 'Caruana has got to understand that he can't take part in the design of the House' that's Phase 1, that's the Declaration of Principles, 'he can come along to decide the colour of the bedroom walls', that's Phase 2, the little details that we can reject if we want in a Referendum. And this is what this process is about, this is about under the guise of respect for the wishes of the people of Gibraltar in a Referendum to do a fine distinction between physical implementation on the one hand and concessions in principle on the other and not explaining to the British public that the Referendum is only for the practical implementation but that the principles that you can see will survive the Referendum rejection. So that in breach, we believe, of her constitutional commitments to us the British Government will be adopting positions over the sovereignty of Gibraltar and our future rights, contrary to the wishes of the people of Gibraltar and notwithstanding the expression of those contrary wishes by the people of Gibraltar in a Referendum, and that is what we are refusing to take part in. But if they will make it open agenda with proposals, with real respect across the board for the Referendum result and abandon this idea of preconditioning the dialogue with the Agreement in Principle, I think preconditioning on all subsequent dialogue, we've got to agree is to implement those principles. If they abandon that wholly unrealistic process then the Government of Gibraltar will happily take part in what will then be a safe process of dialogue for Gibraltar which is politically viable for all sides. Recently 25,000 people, for those of you who have heard very little about Gibraltar that is almost the entire of the population, demonstrated behind the banner that said – it didn't say 'no dialogue' it said "No in principle concessions against our wishes, yes to reasonable dialogue". Peter Hain's immediate reaction within twenty minutes of being told that the whole of Gibraltar was on the streets was to say that the Gibraltar Government was being mischievous, and I said to him 'look, the acid test of whether the Government of Gibraltar is being mischievous given what the banner read at the front of the demonstration is if you do not intend to concede or agree principles with Spain in a way that will survive the Referendum rejection. If you do not intend to do that, and I'm telling the people of Gibraltar that that is what you are intending to do then I am being mischievous. But if you do intend to do that and you accuse me of being mischievous simply for pointing out to the world at large then you are being mischievous and the way to settle this is very simple, you come out making a statement saying that you have no intention of making in principle sovereignty concessions to Spain, the effect of which will survive a Referendum rejection by the people of Gibraltar. He has said nothing yet and given that this was nearly two weeks ago I think we are entitled to draw conclusions from that. I have written to Jack Straw a letter inviting him please in clear terms to tell me that that is not what the British Government intends to do. Not only has he failed to give me that assurance, but indeed he has told me that they intend to elaborate a framework which we would see as the basis for the durable solution we all seek and it would remain on the table as the British and Spanish Government's view of the best way forward. The Leader of the Opposition in this country twice in a Parliamentary Question time about a few weeks ago, attempting to extract from the Prime Minister the assurance that after the Referendum nothing would be left on the table and anything that had been agreed to would be torn up. The Prime Minister declined to answer question and to give that assurance clearly to the Leader of the Opposition, you can draw your conclusions from that. A member of the Foreign Affairs Committee close to the views of the Ministry of State, one lady called Gisela Stuart, recently appeared on the Tonight Programme and afterwards she had been 'Jeremy Paxmaned' for a couple of minutes, she eventually said, I think for lack of anything else to say, eventually Jeremy Paxman got her to say, after she had said that of course you can't ignore what you've agreed and all of that, but eventually she said 'no, if the people of Gibraltar turn it down in the Referendum the Agreement will be torn up'. If this remark had been made by anybody other than, by any ordinary back bencher MP, you can write it off as the views of just a back bencher MP, but this lady is one Peter Hain's spokesman on this issue, she reflects the Foreign Office's view or the British Government's view, if it is indeed joined up Government I understand the Ministry of Defence refused to say on this issue but still, joined up Government. Now, that of course is what we want to hear, the problem is that it isn't true, it's part of the attempt to disguise from British public opinion the reality of the difference that they are making between in principle concessions, if not I repeat today to the Foreign Office Ministers or Foreign Office officials or a Foreign Office spokesman to make a clear, unambiguous assertion of the fact that the United Kingdom does not intend to make concessions to Spain on the question sovereignty, the political, diplomatic or legal effect of which would survive, would stay on the table if the people of Gibraltar reject them in a Referendum, and see how they won't, although I very much urge them to do so.

And that is where the matter lies, how the negotiations are going? We don't know. There are red line issues on both sides I'm told which might still prevent an agreement from being signed between London and Madrid for their own reasons. I'm told that one such red line issue is London's view that the Agreement has to be final and once and for all, in other words anything that Spain - I mean this will not make any more acceptable to us, but just for one moment trying to be an independent observer difficult as that might be – London says it's got to be final, anything that Spain does not obtain in this Agreement, she has to renounce. Spain says 'not on your nelly! We will never renounce our right to the recovery of the totality of the sovereignty of Gibraltar' and if you do not want to take just my word for it given that I am a politician, there is a statement to that effect on the Spanish Foreign Ministry's Website. Señor Pique said 'Spain will never renounce its claim to the full obtention of the sovereignty of Gibraltar and its reintegration into the Spanish state'. According to the Spanish Ministry the Agreement for shared sovereignty for Spain is just one step to obtain the total recovery of the sovereignty of Gibraltar. How inept a political process could we be engaged in, that it's just in effect to boot a salami slicing job and it is little wonder that the people of Gibraltar have no confidence in the political process in which the Foreign Office's embark and the way it is engaged in doing it. Interesting statistics, in a recent Mori poll 80% of the people of this country polled said that the rights of the people of Gibraltar to decide their own future had got to be respected. You know what the views of the people of Gibraltar are and the Referendum and those of you that are watching things know, But more interestingly than that, if that's what you would expect from the great British public. A Spanish national newspaper "La Vanguardia" one of their leading nationals, also conducted an opinion poll and asked Spanish public opinion similar questions. Only 3% of Spaniards think that joint sovereignty is a sensible way forward, a staggering by historical standards which is just an indication of how citizens are often more democratically enlightened than their rulers – even in democracy, a staggering by historical standards 42% of Spanish public opinion thought that Gibraltar should be even independent if that is what they wanted, 42% of Spanish public opinion and therefore I think we will be forgiven if we do not rush to sell out our sovereignty in the name of a claim which time is showing increasingly is the obsession of a Spanish political class with which the Spanish general public is much less concerned than they would have us all believe.

And finally and my last point, for fear of the red light coming on, Mr Chairman, I have been staggered really by the attempts at an urge from the Foreign Office to draw a distinction between Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands, well it is true that blood has not recently been spilt but if you are going to do it on the basis of whether blood has been spilt or not, we'd have to first decide how far back in history you want to go because plenty of British blood has been spilt in Gibraltar. But, what the Foreign Office says in Parliament about the Falkland Islands is quote the Minister then Mr Tony Lloyd "We have no doubt about our sovereignty over the Falklands, this is not negotiable", the Prime Minister, answering a Parliamentary question from Michael Howard after his return to a visit to Argentina I quote him "In turn I made it clear that the United Kingdom does not regard the sovereignty of the Falklands as negotiable", this was the tail end of last year. The current Minister for the Foreign Office with responsibility for that part of the world Mr McShane "The British Government have held no recent meetings with Argentina about the future status of the Island, we remain committed to the Falkland Islands' islanders' right to determine their own future and will not consider a change in the status of the Falkland Islands unless they wish it. In all our dealings with Argentina we are clear that sovereignty over the Falklands is not open to negotiations".

People of Gibraltar ask themselves well what is the difference? Gibraltar has been British for longer than the Falkland Islands so time is to be the judge, we would have an even stronger case than that. To boot Britain's title to Gibraltar is rooted a Treaty, unlike the Falklands were it is rooted in conquest and occupation only, I think both the Falkland Islanders and the Gibraltarians have the right to self-determination in equal measure. What I can't understand is the almost semantically obscene attempts to draw a distinction between the Falkland Islands in which sovereignty is not negotiable and Gibraltar, in respect of which they want to do a deal by the summer involving sovereignty, conceding principles of sovereignty to Spain regardless of the wishes of the people of Gibraltar. And I believe that there is absolutely no justification for that Mr Chairman, I will leave it at that and make my remaining points in answers to questions.