Brexit tussle leaves Gibraltar between a rock and a hard place
“IN THE next room, you can smell the history,” says Luis Garcia in a small office in the shadow of the 1,300ft hulking limestone Rock of Gibraltar. Behind him sits an oak desk, an old telephone and on the wall a vast map of the Strait of Gibraltar. It was from here in 1942 that Gen Dwight D Eisenhower commanded the allied invasion of French North Africa.
In the next room, a former Cold War naval command centre reeking of damp, threat level indicators still loom high above – BIKINI ALERT STATE RED. Nato ALERT STATE DELTA.
The tiny slice of British territory – 2.6 square miles and home to 32,000 people – finds itself once again in the crosshairs of Madrid and at the centre of the Brexit story. Its vastly larger neighbour is able to throw its weight around precisely because Gibraltar is leaving the EU, which had for decades kept Spain in check.
In response, Gibraltarians are falling back on their unique history, punctuated by siege and long bouts of isolation, for reassurance.
Mr Garcia, who manages a computer server farm – a vast collection of computers on which online services such as websites, apps and games run – recalls how he was able only to leave Gibraltar just three or four times in his childhood thanks to the sealing of the border by General Franco in the late Sixties.
It’s not surprising, then, that a siege mentality pervades and it stems from that past, much of which can be traced through the tunnels in the Rock. Dug to resist the Great Siege of 1779-83, they reached their peak during the Second World War when most of the civilian population was evacuated.
This subterranean world exemplifies Gibraltar’s economic transformation from dusty garrison town to modern financial centre. The server farm Mr Garcia manages sits in the facility Eisenhower once inhabited and helps make possible the territory’s existence as an online hub for gaming firms.
Yet Brexit and the opportunity it creates for Spanish intransigence threatens all that. While Northern Ireland, the EU’S other new border, is 300 miles long, the Frontier, as it’s known locally, is a mere three-quarters of a mile long and has a single official crossing.
Franco sealed it in 1969 and it didn’t reopen until 1985. Those wanting to go over the border to La Linea had to go by ferry to Morocco, another to Spain and by bus to La Linea. It took 12 hours.
As Daniel Ghio, another local, points out: “Spain strengthened the Gibraltarian identity by closing the frontier.”
But in the past three decades, with the EU acting as diplomatic buffer and arbiter between Madrid and Gibraltar, the economic relationship has flourished, even if old political antagonisms remain. Gibraltar is unique among the British Overseas Territories in having joined the EU alongside the UK. In the single market it grew as a centre for insurance as well as online gaming. Newfound wealth combined with freedom of movement has seen it become an economic anchor for the Spanish region that surrounds it.
Each morning 14,000 Frontier workers come across, mostly on foot. Some were driven out of Gibraltar by high property prices. Most are escaping the crushing 30 per cent unemployment in the Campo de Gibraltar.
The young are all too aware of how dependent Gibraltar has become on them, says Mr Ghio. “We know the local economy would explode if the Frontier closed,” he says. Pedro, a middle-aged labourer, says: “I hope they do close the
‘We’ll be better off… we are small enough and legally nimble enough to adapt to any change’
frontier. I’ll lay the first brick myself.” Nowhere is the capricious nature of that relationship more visible than at the airport, by far the most contentious element of the relationship with Madrid. The territory is locked out of EU aviation laws by Spain. Flights can only head to Britain and Morocco. Yet in 2006 the two sides agreed that if Gibraltar built a new terminal, Madrid would provide an entrance from the Spanish side. Instead, the £87million building ends abruptly at the border.
Capable of being a significant regional hub, it handles just five commercial aircraft – on a busy day.
No surprise, then, that the locals were worried about Brexit. They knew what membership meant for them and voted accordingly: 96 per cent Remain. Uncertainty is the reply when asking about it. But older certainties remain. “We’ve always survived,” says Pedro.
Less gung-ho residents are optimistic. “We’ll be better off… we are small enough and legally nimble enough to adapt to any change,” says Mr Garcia. It’s a sentiment shared by Bruno Calla-
ghan, an insurance broker. Having been deeply concerned by the referendum result, he says: “Today I’m not in any way worried.” Gibraltar is attracting business “by virtue of being fleet of foot and being able to do things quickly, yet adhering to best practice”.
Nowhere is that optimism more present than with Fabian Picardo, the territory’s chief minister. Although adamant that Brexit was a “historic mistake”, he says that in the 25 years of the single market, Gibraltar has “barely made any inroads” into the European economy and the path the UK and Gibraltar “share is very clearly in the Anglosphere.” In fact, Mr Picardo points out that attitudes to the EU have hardened: “If there were a referendum today, the EU have managed to p--- off enough Gibraltarians that they wouldn’t get anywhere near 96 per cent of the vote”.
Yet Gibraltar is not out of the woods. While a new, less jingoistic government in Madrid hasn’t made too much of a fuss, yesterday’s complaints in Brussels are a reminder there is still everything to play for in the future relationship.
Gibraltarians may yet have to add another chapter to their story of siege.
sir – Theresa May told the CBI yesterday that her Brexit deal will protect jobs. In the short term this may be true but a simple review of the problems Dyson has faced with EU regulations designed to favour Continental producers should give us great cause for concern.
If this is how the EU is prepared to treat a member, how will it behave when we have “left”? Far from jobs being protected, experience of the EU’S past record should show that in the long term they will be lost hand over fist. Felicity Mcweeney
Hartburn, Northumberland
sir – Mrs May received an exceptionally supportive response from the CBI after her speech.
I would suggest that MPS from all parties listen very carefully to business leaders. They are providing the jobs and prosperity we will need after Brexit.
We cannot risk a no-deal Brexit and should listen to those who power our economy, rather than a very small group of Brexit extremists. These foolish few will never be satisfied because they are incapable of accepting the pragmatic compromise that has been negotiated. A G Whitehead
St Leonards-on-sea, East Sussex
sir – The EU wants to shackle us because it is terrified that we will become the Singapore of the Northern Hemisphere. Freed from the restraints of the EU, Britain can again become a great trading nation.
Ditch the EU immediately. Weather a temporary storm, then grasp all the opportunities freedom can offer. James A Grant
London SE22
sir – Sajid Javid (Comment, November 18) promises “an immigration system designed in Britain, made in Britain and serving only our national interest”. Of course, this sentence should continue: “as decided by the EU and its supporters in Britain who voted to remain (and lost) in the referendum”. Colin Belcher
Gloucester
sir – People start bullying and threatening when they know they are losing their argument. Andrea Jones
West Chiltington, West Sussex
sir – Mrs May says that kicking her out of office will not change anything. How wrong she is yet again.
It will give the party the chance to find a new leader with real leadership qualities who believes absolutely in the core values of conservatism, namely free trade and capitalism.
Under dynamic leadership the party and the country will once again have faith and hope in the bright future for the UK that lies ahead after next March. John Drew
Budleigh Salterton, Devon
sir – Since June 2016 there has been a voluble and well-funded campaign to overturn the EU referendum. Among the tactics used has been the claim that Leave voters did not understand what they were voting for.
Both sides of the Brexit campaign attracted support from across the spectrum of political views. Having interacted with them daily before, throughout and after the campaign, we can categorically state that they were all united by one aim – the need to reclaim parliamentary democratic sovereignty, so that long-term economic prosperity could be enjoyed by all in the United Kingdom.
The deal proffered by the Prime Minister is the antithesis of this. It is founded in a desire to minimise disruption to the status quo, rather than to restore sovereignty and maximise opportunity. At best it demonstrates a complete failure to understand the vote; at worst it deliberately holds the referendum result in contempt.
The Prime Minister and her advisers have approached the process as a disaster to be mitigated, foisted upon them by a recalcitrant electorate, rather than an opportunity to be grasped, and have squandered the largest mandate ever bestowed by the British electorate.
For those MPS who were elected to deliver upon this mandate, the choice is clear. If they believe in democracy, UK sovereignty and prosperity they should take courage in delivering for the small business owners, the just-about-managing, for the many not the few. They should take back control and vote this deal down. Brendan Chilton
Labour Leave Prof Patrick Minford Economists for Free Trade Michael Lightfoot Artists for Brexit Gawain Towler
Museum of Brexit and 15 others; see telegraph.co.uk
sir – When we look back from a Jeremy Corbyn government, we are likely to credit Mrs May with spawning her own dictionary entry: deliverón, v. feign delivery; withhold; snatch away; deny; dupe; undeliver [after Theresa May – British Prime Minister 2016-22] Martin Burgess
Beckenham, Kent