The Daily Telegraph - Saturday
Tory MPs fear Gibraltar concessions over trade
Leaked cables reveal warning issued by Madrid led to rethink amid Brexit talks over Gibraltar
TORY MPs fear the Government has made concessions in trade talks on Gibraltar in order to appease Spain and reach a post-Brexit deal.
Lord Cameron, the Foreign Secretary, was in Brussels yesterday for talks with counterparts from Spain and the EU, as well as Fabian Picardo, Gibraltar’s chief minister, about Gibraltar’s border. It was announced after the talks that a political agreement had been secured, with hopes that technical discussions can be wrapped up within weeks. But no details have been made public about how sensitive issues, which have seen 18 rounds of talks drag on for years, have been settled behind closed doors.
Tory MPs have privately raised concerns about whether Spanish boots on the ground would be allowed at Gibraltar’s airport, which Madrid has been demanding to co-manage, in some form. Sir William Cash, the Tory chairman of the European scrutiny committee, also said he wanted assurances that the UK’s military operations in Gibraltar had not been “compromised”.
He said: “Gibraltar has been at the epicentre of Western defence. It was pivotal in the Second World War. There are so many aspects that demand sensitive and serious handling. We must be absolutely sure that this does not compromise the British national interest.”
Gibraltar’s airport houses an RAF base. Some Tories are insisting Spain must not have the right to approve military flights, and are vowing to force the terms of the deal to a Commons vote.
Mr Picardo said a deal was “in kissing distance”, while Jose Manuel Albares, Spain’s foreign minister, said: “Today was a very important day in which important advances have been made.” Lord Cameron did not comment.
Amid the concerns about potential concessions, The Telegraph can reveal that a Red Arrows display over Gibraltar was cancelled after Spain warned that it would be seen as a “hostile act” and trigger a retaliation.
POLITICAL EDITOR
AS HIS Majesty’s representative in Gibraltar, perhaps Vice-Adml Sir David Steel more keenly felt issues of Britishness and “the Rock’s” connection to the mainland than the career UK diplomats.
Sir David, the governor of Gibraltar, is a Royal Navy man, having joined the service in 1979 and risen to Second Sea Lord. Along the way he became an aide-de-camp to Queen Elizabeth II.
And so in the heat of late summer 2023, as a row between Spain and the UK that had been bubbling away for weeks began to approach boiling point, perhaps it is no surprise he spoke up.
The cause of the friction was on the face of it innocuous: a proposed display of the Red Arrows, just like the ones that have taken place at countless events around the UK for decades.
The controversy came from the location. It was in the skies above Gibraltar at an air show on Sept 28 that the red, white and blue smoke from the jets would billow out.
Gibraltar, a few square miles of land hanging off the tip of Spain, has long been claimed by Madrid since being ceded to Great Britain in 1713. With the border complexities created by Brexit, those claims were being elevated.
Yet Sir David, leaked diplomatic cables seen by The Telegraph reveal, believed that giving in to Spanish demands and cancelling the display would not be without consequence.
In a message to Hugh Elliott, the UK ambassador to Spain who was receiving Madrid’s warnings, Sir David noted how the diplomat was “walking on hot coals”. But there was a plea to hold firm.
“I cannot disagree with your submission which is, as ever, balanced and helpful,” Sir David wrote in the message sent to Mr Elliott in early September.
“All I would add, and I am becoming a broken record on the subject, is that if we back down now we will once again show a weakness that the Spanish will undoubtedly exploit.”
The governor of Gibraltar cited past examples, including the cancellation of a visit planned by HMS Queen Elizabeth, the vast Royal Navy aircraft carrier, to make his case.
He wrote: “I am also conscious that we have turned off a number of events over the last three years (not least a visit of HMS Queen Elizabeth) just to appease SP [Spanish] sensitivities. In return we have gained very little - just more demands.”
The fact that a recent visit from the HMS Queen Elizabeth to Gibraltar was called off to “appease” Madrid has never before been made public.
His communiqué ended with no ultimatum, just a gentle nudge. “I make no observation on what the right outcome should be,” Sir David wrote, noting the pros and cons were carefully balanced. “But I add the above simply so that we have all the issues for consideration on the table before a final decision is taken.”
The final decision would not be to hold firm. There would be no Red Arrow jets trailing the colours of the Union flag above the Rock.
Why? Madrid’s dark warnings appear to have been the key. For the timing of the planned display could not have been more precarious for British-Spanish relations and the long-term future of Gibraltar.
The UK’s departure from the EU had left the Rock, much like Northern Ireland, facing profound questions about how to keep a land border with another country still in the bloc open.
Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, had struck a new deal to avoid checks at the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, an EU member, after inheriting a temporary fudge from Boris Johnson. His ministers were facing a similar challenge in Gibraltar. How to let the 30,000 people who cross the Gibraltar-Spain border every day, many for work, to keep doing so in the aftermath of Brexit?
Round after round of negotiations had been inching towards a long-term settlement, one where Gibraltar effectively enters the EU Schengen Zone and checks happen at the airport rather than the border. But the most sensitive issues – would there be any Spanish boots on the ground on Gibraltar? And if so, where exactly and doing what? – were still to be decided. On Friday, Lord Cameron, the Foreign Secretary, was still locked in talks trying to agree the final details.
Added on top was the intense political instability in Spain created by an election on July 23 that left no clear winner and Pedro Sánchez, the
Spanish prime minister, battling to retain power.
The Red Arrows display was due on the day that the Spanish Parliament was set to endorse a newly proposed government. In the end, one would not be fully formed until Nov 16.
And so it fell to senior officials in Spain’s foreign ministry, rather than ministers, to press home their disapproval once they became aware of the plans. In three calls in the space of two days, a senior Spanish official spelled out to Mr Elliott just how opposed Madrid was to a Red Arrows fly-by above Gibraltar.
Notes on the first two conversations written up by the political section of the British Embassy in Madrid capture the female official’s stern message, one of firm warning. The Spanish official said that Spain considered the display “unnecessary, unconstructive and provocative”, according to the notes.
“This was not the time to undertake this sort of activity.”
Another line in the notes read: “When Hugh underlined that this was an air show, not intended for provocation or demonstration, her riposte was that the two were not mutually exclusive.”
What would happen if the UK went ahead? The political team in the British embassy in Spain was not certain, but a reaction of some form was a distinct possibility.
The third call did not improve the situation. In fact, the warnings were more explicit, as Mr Elliott himself recounted in a communiqué back to the Foreign Office. Spain was refusing to grant the Red Arrows a “Notification of Air Missions”, known by its acronym NOTAM, which is the formal approval that allows planes to fly.
Mr Elliott wrote: “The rationale was that Spain considered such a visible assertion of UK sovereignty over Gibraltar to be gratuitous and provocative.”
The UK position was that no such approval was needed, since the display would be happening largely over British airspace. But Madrid was warning of retaliation if it went ahead.
Summing up the message of the female Spanish official, Mr Elliott wrote: “Stressing that she was speaking personally and hypothetically … she noted that if we sought to proceed nonetheless with the display, Spain would consider that a ‘hostile act’, would seek to prevent it from happening and would need to consider its response. She anticipated that response would not be mild.”
What, exactly, were the consequences being hinted at for this “hostile act”? Could it mean Madrid pressing for tougher terms in the post-Brexit Gibraltar deal? It is unclear, but certainly British diplomats feared knock-on consequences for the talks.
A balance of risks and interests was now being weighed: the need for a Gibraltar agreement, the publicity knock if a display of Britishness was shelved at the demand of the Spanish, the unpredictable fallout if the private row escalated into a public spat.
It was not the first time Mr Elliott had found himself in a tricky spot over
Zone – have become entangled with debates over whether joint management of the airport, as suggested by the Spanish, could have a negative impact on UK military activity, since its airstrip is shared between the commercial airport and the RAF base.
All that is entangled with the question where exactly the border lies. Is the airport part of a neutral zone between British territory and Spanish, as some contest? But how can it be, others reply, since it is used by the RAF as a much valued base in the western Mediterranean?
Fundamentally, any agreement that appears in some way to share the airport with Spain can be seen as the thin end of the wedge, increasing Spanish influence in the tiny territory to the point where it finds itself to all intents and purposes re-integrated with the EU. Referendums have shown that the Gibraltarians overwhelmingly wish to remain British, despite being opposed to leaving the EU back in 2016. This puts it in a uniquely difficult position in the context of Brexit, which is why it may have implications far beyond the tip of the Peninsula.
For if Gibraltar were to cede some of the sovereignty of its airport, that would set a precedent. Other countries might look at other British Overseas Territories – such as the Falklands Islands – and request a similar
‘It is certainly not in the interests of Nato for the British hold on these bases to be weakened’
relationship to that Spain has with Gibraltar. If ever agreed, that could mean Argentina sharing parts of British sovereign territory.
Closer to home, such an approach could once again see the EU have a say over British subjects – the beginning of a “mission creep” which might be used to try and influence our relationship
Gibraltar. His claims of bullying from Dominic Raab, the then foreign secretary who dressed down the ambassador over fears he was too open to Spanish suggestions of boots on the ground, had made front pages. Mr Raab resigned after an investigation upheld the complaint.
In the final lines of his message back to London, Mr Elliott offered advice markedly different in tone to that put forward by Sir David.
The decision, as ever in government business, was not for the diplomats. Advisers advise and ministers decide, as the old Westminster adage goes. But which ministers? Both James Cleverly, the former foreign secretary, and Grant Shapps, the Defence Secretary, were briefed on the situation as the handwringing continued about what to do.
The fact that the matter was elevated all the way to the Cabinet is a reflection of how seriously Madrid’s words were being heeded. The official line is that Mr Cleverly and Mr Shapps ultimately did not need to intervene, since ministers in Gibraltar made the call and cancelled the display.
If Spanish demands could force a back-tracking in something like an air display, could it also be leading to more significant, long-term concessions around the negotiation table? That is the question now hanging with a deal finally said to be close.
The UK Foreign Office, Spanish foreign ministry, Mr Elliott and Sir David declined to comment.
A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: “As part of operational planning, a variety of potential display dates and locations are considered by the RAF. A wide range of factors influence whether these are able to proceed.”
The change in the Gibraltar air show schedule, when it came, was offset by the reciprocal cancellation of a Red Arrows appearance in Menorca, one of Spain’s Balearic islands.
An unnamed defence source framed the news – two Red Arrow displays cancelled, one in Gibraltar and one in Spain – as somehow a UK win. “They can’t have their paella and eat it,” the source declared with relish.
These leaked cables reveal a starker reality: That it was anything but a British victory.
‘Spain considered such a visible assertion of UK sovereignty to be gratuitous’
with Brussels and, in the end, draw us closer. In the end, if Spain is happy to co-exist in Iberia with Portugal and Andorra, it should put up with the fact that this tiny notch of Britishness is not part of Spain, just as Ceuta is not part of Morocco. Historical claims based on who ruled what hundreds of years ago have set off enough wars, including the current one in Ukraine. That terrible conflict also underlines why it would be so foolish to concede any of our military presence in Europe to anyone: the international context is simply too febrile and precarious. We need a firm grip on everywhere we have.
While no one is suggesting that Gibraltar will be invaded – even
Franco did not manage that – its distinctive identity and its deep loyalty to Britain must not be allowed to be tampered with for any reason. Its significance far outweighs its size.
David Abulafia is Professor Emeritus of Mediterranean History at the University of Cambridge