The Self-Determination For Gibraltar Group
By
14 July, 2006 08:00
This article has been read 2418 times.
Font size:
01. The majority of political parties and groups in Gibraltar accept a 'yes' or 'yes but', why do you not?
The act of Self-Determination which almost every single political party and every elected assembly have been pursuing since 1964 is a process whereby this colony, like every other, decolonises in accordance with the democratic wishes of its people. In this respect it is useful to refer to the booklet “The Future of Gibraltar” published by the Elected Members of the Legislative Council (the predecessor of the House of Assembly) in 1964. This was signed by every member, namely Sir Joshua Hassan, Albert Risso, Abraham Serfaty, Solomon Seruya, Peter Isola, Louis Triay, Dorothy Ellicott, Guy Stagnetto, A. Baldorino, Aurelio Montegriffo, and Mary Chiappie.
In it they state
“We consider it necessary to discuss these matters, at this important moment in our history, if the right to self-determination proclaimed in the U.N. Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples is to be properly and fully exercised” and “What Gibraltarians seek from (the UN) is an affirmation of their right to self-government in a free association with Britain, the terms of such an association to be agreed freely between Gibraltar and Britain…”
We could quote from the statements of more recent Gibraltarian politicians supporting this general approach from 1964 to the present day, but most of these are not yet history, so your readers hardly need to be reminded, since the public is aware of strongly-worded political speeches declaring our right to decolonisation through and act of self-determination made regularly through the press.
A yes to this Constitutional proposal will not produce a Decolonised Gibraltar. The SDGG cannot, therefore, support such a vote because it would merely be supporting the perpetuation of the Colonial relationship we have had with the UK since 1830.
02. A yes vote will implement the constitution and leave it to continue to pursue the outstanding issues - decolonisation and delisting. Do you agree with this?
On the fundamental issue of changing Gibraltar’s status we will have gone no further. Worse still, for the first time ever the record in Gibraltar will show that Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht constrains our rights, as far as the UK is concerned. That has not always been the position of HM Government in the UK, The UK has, in the past supported our right to Self-Determination without the constraint of Utrecht or any other.
Institutionalising this constraint in Gibraltar, by accepting the Despatch (which can be returned, not just accepted and contradicted, as we are doing) is contrary to the Declaration of Unity, signed in 2001:
”DECLARATION of UNITY
of the 4th of October 2001
signed by the 8 members of the Government of Gibraltar, the seven Member of the Opposition,
and by most previous members who were ever elected to serve as Members of the House of Assembly (all but one, away from Gibraltar on the day).
We, the undersigned, being all the elected Members of the House of Assembly of Gibraltar, declare and endorse the following propositions, which unite and reflect the views of the overwhelming majority of the people of Gibraltar,
1. The people of Gibraltar will never, ever, compromise or give up our inalienable right to self-determination, that is, the right to decide our future in our land.
2. The people of Gibraltar will never compromise or give up our sovereignty, not for good relations with anybody and not for economic benefits either.
3. The people of Gibraltar will not compromise our right to self-determination, still less sovereignty, in exchange for respect for rights which are ours anyway, and which others should be made to respect unconditionally.
AND WE
- CALL UPON Her Majesty's Government to honour, respect and uphold our EU rights by ensuring that we participate in all EC and EU measures in the same manner and to the same extent as all other citizens and territories of the European Union AND WE CONDEMN Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom for capitulating under pressure to the suspension of Gibraltar from the EU Single Skies measures, and the Government of the Kingdom of Spain for demanding it.
- REAFFIRM that Gibraltar wants good, neighbourly, European relations with Spain based on reasonable dialogue and mutual respect. Spain is obliged to respect our EU and other rights.
- ASSERT that Gibraltar belongs to the people of Gibraltar and is neither Spain's to claim, nor Britain's to give away.”
By perpetuating colonialism The UK branch of HM Government is reserving the right to give away Gibraltar, as Foreign Secretary Jack Straw did on the 12th of July 2002 by declaring in Westminster that the Government had agreed to share our sovereignty with Spain. He could argue that he had a right to do this since his decision would only require a parliamentary majority to be constitutionally legal in Gibraltar, since the Preamble (unsafe for us yet perpetuated in the new Constitution) only guarantees that the transfer of the sovereignty of the Territory will require an Act of Parliament. That preamble remains unchanged and continues to be a threat to our future.
03. VOGG recently stated that they believe a yes vote to be 'inescapable'. Do you hold the same opinion?
The purpose of the need for such a referendum is highly questionable. A referendum should only be held if the question of our next status is to be placed before the electorate. The changes in our constitution which are broad, but not fundamental, can be made by the House and agreed by the Governor in the same way as the 1969 constitution:- without a referendum!
A possible resolution of this apparent dilemma of wishing for greater self-government while not accepting the limitations being imposed on us would be the adoption of the Constitution by the House without reference to a public referendum. This is what has happened twice before. There was no Referendum to ratify the Constitution we now have, it was simply adopted by the Legislative assembly in 1969, and the decision countersigned by the UK through the Governor at the time. We agree with the VOG that a referendum would be somewhat farcical, given the agreement to it by all parties, and its sole and somewhat conservative proposal, that we stay as we are with cosmetic changes which appear of a greater or lesser extent according to one’s point of view. They may not be as superficial as lipstick, but are hardly more than cosmetic surgery.
04. Do you think a no vote in the referendum will leave us in limbo?
We shall be in “limbo”, as long as we continue to be what will continue to be correctly described by our Northern neighbour as “the last colony in Europe”. That, we will be until we decolonise through an act of self-determination.
05. Do you think the Spanish government has got its way?
Is anyone claiming that it has been defeated?
06. Do you think that a yes vote will be interpreted by the Spanish government as an acknowledgement of its right to dictate on Gibraltar's political evolution?
It is already perfectly clear that Spain is absolutely satisfied that Gibraltar’s international status will not change even if 100% vote ‘yes’ to this Constitution in a referendum. Others will be able to answer better than us exactly what involvement the Spanish Government has had in the result of the negotiation on our Constitution.
07. Geoff Hoon said in his recent statement to The House of Commons:
'Gibraltar's right of self determination is not constrained by the Treaty of Utrecht except insofar as Article X gives Spain the right of refusal should Britain ever renounce Sovereignty. Thus independence would only be an option with Spanish consent'. Is this correct? And if so has the UK government actually done as much as they can with regards self determination for Gibraltar?
What he has said is that every option is excluded except continued colonialism if we want to stay in Gibraltar while remaining British. Colonialism does not disappear because a Governor ceases to wear the plumed helmet, or because the names of our “Colonial Hospital” “Colonial Secretary” or other institutions are changed, it is a status described in our constitution and defined by International Treaty. The UN prescribes Integration and Free Association and Independence as alternatives. Are these palatable to the UK? History has taught us these are not alternatives acceptable to the UK. Mr Hoon also tells us, in the Despatch and the Second Preamble, that if we want Gibraltar to remain British then a colonial status is as far as the UK Govt. is prepared to go. This suits Spain perfectly, and we all know it.
08. A ‘no’ vote will maintain the status quo, would that give you hope of revisiting the issue at a later date?
A ‘yes’ vote will also maintain the status quo.
Statements by politicians recently have suggested this issue con be revisited in as short a time-span as 5 – 10 years. Is this realistic? We certainly do not reconcile ourselves with the idea that very few people active today will live to see the next Constitutional Conference, but that would be the effect of the likely time-lapse if we went ahead with a Referendum, an entire generation. The SDGG intends to speak for an immediate revisiting of the decolonisation issue and for the abandonment of a Referendum.
In the eyes of anyone who cares to follow our affairs we will be a laughing stock after all our leadership and our people have said, put up with, and done, if as a people we vote for a Colonial Constitution simply because we could not win the argument with the administering power which appeared to collude with the neighbouring state while negotiating with our elected representatives. Needless to say whatever credibility we may have at the UN C24 and 4th Committee, which our leaders, and in a lesser way the SDGG by our own appearance there, have built up with such care, will vanish. Considering the treatment we receive at the UN that may be of little consequence, but what of our vanishing credibility in the eyes of the many friends who have supported us unconditionally irrespective of the risk to their political careers us at Westminster? What are they going to think of us now?
09. In the event of a no vote, how will the SDGG proceed to achieve its objective?
A ‘no’ vote would seem extremely unlikely, since every political party supports a ‘yes’ vote, unless the referendum is simply not held, and the Constitution is adopted by the House just as happened in 1969.
In the circumstances we might support the idea of the constitution being adopted by the House, while we all continue with the objective everyone supports as stated in the Declaration of Unity, namely the achievement of decolonisation through an act of self-determination.
If the parties continue to feel the need for a referendum, the SDGG can only remain true to its fundamental principle. It will not abandon this for the sake of a comfortable co-existence with the political parties, easy as that might make our lives as supporters of the Group.
10. If the result of the referendum is yes, where does that leave groups like SDGG and VOGG who may be accused of being out of touch with the opinion of the population?
We do not agree with the suggestion that public opinion is comfortable with the situation. Our contact with the general public is extensive and the feeling we receive is that there is acute embarrassment at the call for a referendum for a constitution which does not decolonise us. The question on many lips when asked about a referendum is “What on earth for? Just do it!”
The position of the SDGG is of little importance in comparison to the question as to where all this will leave Gibraltar.
The SDGG was born in 1992 out of a need to campaign for the right to decolonise by an act of self-determination. That will not be achieved on the present offering. What this situation has brought to light, however, is the need for a movement which seeks to decolonise Gibraltar by seeking a status agreeable to the majority.
As an example we have already quoted Dominion Status as advocated by Sir William Jackson who argued that Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht was compatible with this status.
11. Can you explain why you believe the majority of political parties and groups were more positive than yourselves towards the announcements?
There is no evidence of any group being positive about this. VOGG stated they cannot “swallow” it, and the IWBM has rejected the proposals in depth.
It would be a good exercise however to ask each political party separately what it is they welcome about this, since we are making no progress whatever in the change of our status. The post Referendum position spells a return for Gibraltar to decades of the same old argument for decolonisation, but weakened by a Colonial Constitution which no-one can argue the people did not want, since they will have voted for it in a referendum.
We are sure all your readers remember what happened last time a leader of unimpeachable repute returned to Gibraltar with a “trust me, I know best, this is the best deal I could get”. This time the singular can arguably be replace with a plural “we”. 1987, the airport agreement… a dead letter, and 40 years of political success thrown away in a week.
12. A consequence of a ‘yes’ vote will be the need for a rethinking of the main message of the Political Rally of National Day, how do you intend to go about it?
The National Day Rally was conceived to focus on decolonisation through a democratic act of self-determination and while that remains to be achieved the need for the Rally will continue unchanged.
The Casemates Declaration is the written basis of the National Day Rally and has been signed by the visiting politicians who have been able to do so unfettered by the exigencies of their party whip:
“On the 10th September 1993, on the occasion of Gibraltar National Day the Self-Determination for Gibraltar Group issued the
CASEMATES DECLARATION
We the Undersigned :
1) Recognise the existence in Gibraltar of a people entitled as such to national rights as the result of the historic development of the City of Gibraltar, the British Colonisation, the colony’s isolation and the different migrations, all being factors which have made up the current identity characteristics that define the Gibraltarian Nation.
2) Express to the Gibraltarian people their solidarity and their firm support of their right to Self-Determination to the decolonisation of Gibraltar, out of their conviction that only the Gibraltarians should decide the future political status of their country, over and above the interests of both London and Madrid and the clauses of the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713, without ruling out the full national independence of Gibraltar if the Gibraltarians should so decide.
3) State their opposition to the continuation of the Spanish territorial claim over Gibraltar and demand that the Spanish Government abandon its aspiration to annex Gibraltar, as well as the harassment and blockade suffered by Gibraltar in international forums and at the Spanish-Gibraltarian frontier in an era where it is clear that only on the basis of peoples’ right to Self-Determination will it be possible to build up the European Union in peace and stability”
Email to a friend
Print version
Plain text