Gibraltar is the stumbling stone of brexite?

Brexit, that is, the UK's exit from the European Union, can be considered a matter of time. Premier May notified Tusk in writing about the beginning of the procedures, an indicative plan for further action was drawn up. But there was an unexpected problem about one part of the territory of the United Kingdom. Her name is Gibraltar.

Valuable rock

This territory was often the subject of controversy between Britain and Spain, and not only in the 18th century, when the wars of one power were on the other, but also during the reign of the caudillo (the sole dictator) of Franco, that is, in the twentieth century. Officially this piece of land is called a rock and is considered since 1830 by the British overseas colony, one of the few remaining in the power of the crown after the collapse of the empire. At first glance, it seems that it is not about conflict that is at stake. The territory is six and a half square kilometers, the population is about 33 thousand people. GDP per capita is very modest - less than $ 17 thousand. There is its own currency - the Gibraltar pound. Tourists there to watch almost nothing, the whole city can be bypassed slowly in a few hours. Seamen passing ships and their passengers like to watch the take-offs and landings of aircraft on a strip outstanding in the sea. There is also a military base belonging to Britain, but actually related to NATO. The value of the overseas territory gives a geographical position, allowing to control all the Mediterranean-Atlantic shipping. During the Second World War, neither the Germans nor the Spaniards attacked the rock and the city. Franco objected, he adhered to a neutral policy.

Disputes and strife

The Spanish state leadership, and the Franco, and the democratically-royal who came to replace it (in the country after the restoration of the monarchy after 1975), did not renounce claims to the strategically important Gibraltar. However, there were no conditions for the legitimate alienation of the British colony, and there was also no desire to fight. In addition, in 1967, the "invaders" held a referendum in which residents of the territory expressed devotion to Britain, and only 44 people voted for the identity of Spain. Of course, the main reason for this patriotism was the economic factor, but also the degree of civil liberties in the United Kingdom favorably differed from the conditions of the caudillo regime. In response, the blockade of 1969 followed, including maritime, telephone and telegraph. The Spaniards were forbidden to travel to "occupied Gibraltar". In general, all this is very similar to some modern events, especially in terms of effectiveness. In the 2004 European Parliament elections, the Gibraltarians participated as subjects of Her Majesty. While the EU was not invincible, the nationality of the rock did not matter much. But then there was a breccinet.

The right moment

Disagreements between the British islanders and the inhabitants of the European cliff appeared in 2016, when the inhabitants of the colony voted in favor of preserving European unity. Already, the traditional almost unanimity (96%) is apparently due to the small number of the population, as well as the clear benefits that Gibraltarians derive from the absence of economic barriers. Therefore, the approval of Spain's Minister of Foreign Affairs Alfonso Dustis to include the issue of the status of Gibraltar in the plan for general negotiations on brixite sounded very timely in terms of the interests of Madrid. The moment for honest weaning of the rock is more successful than ever.

Spanish trumps

The advantages of Madrid in the dispute are obvious. First, in this situation, Spain does not act alone: behind it are invisibly all the countries of the European Union, and Britain is forced to confront the "higher education" that was irritated by its "separatism". Secondly, each member of the EU has the right to veto the decisions of the general parliament, and it is not yet known how far Madrid is ready to go into its implementation when it comes to developing solutions vital to London (El Pais newspaper). Thirdly, the Spanish Eurodiplomats were able to persuade Brussels to adopt amendments to the overall negotiating strategy in relation to brexite in such a way that the "Gibraltar problem" can not be solved without taking into account the opinion of Madrid. And it is known which. Moreover, Dustis insists on the decisive importance of the Spanish voice and, probably, will achieve it.

Arguments of Britain

London is concerned about the situation surrounding the outstanding (in all respects) rocks in the sea, and there are grounds for this concern, but so far the highest government officials and parliamentarians are limited to verbal declarations. The statement of Cyrus Starmer (the Labor Party) about the inadmissibility of using Gibraltar as a bargaining chip during the negotiations on brixite sounded alarming, but not very convincingly. Greater determination is shown by Foreign Minister Johnson, who compares British firmness in upholding territorial integrity with the same physical property of rock, which constitutes the conflict that has become the subject of conflict. In addition, there is a historical argument: after all, almost three centuries, Britain owns Gibraltar. And they also remembered the 1967 referendum.

Statement of the Prime Minister

Theresa May, after talking with the head of the colony Fabian Picardo (his post - the chief minister of Gibraltar), on April 2 published a statement in which she expressed a fundamental disagreement with the conditions proposed by Spain. Residents of the territory have already freely and democratically expressed in favor of belonging to Britain and do not want to be ruled by another country. The fact that the citizens practically voted against the brexite, the prime minister did not mention. And is it important. If in 1967 the Gibraltarians chose between Franco and the Queen of England, now they might be offered another dilemma: between the European Union and Britain. And it's not at all a fact that they will prefer the second first as unanimously as last time. May, meanwhile, is convinced of the future success of finding a joint solution for brexite, and Picardo agrees with her. But if something goes wrong, then there is another option ...

"Waving the sword"

Britain has a rich experience of holding the colonies in its power, including through military force. The first reminder of this method of solving the problem was the words of Lord Michael Howard, who previously headed the Conservative Party. On April 2, the politician expressed confidence in the determination of Theresa May, who, he believes, could repeat the actions of Thatcher, who sent the ships to the war with Argentina in 1982 because of the Falkland Islands. The situation is similar, so the reaction can be identical. Why not show these Spaniards the power of British weapons?

Representative of the Liberal Democrats in the Parliament Tim Farron quite sarcastically defined these bellicose exclamations as "waving sword". Everyone knows that any case can be executed correctly, wrongly and in a military way.

Who forgot?

Unfortunately, when planning political demarches and possible military operations, politicians, as is often the case, do not want to heed the opinion of the people who inhabit the disputed territory. Yes, the referendum was in 1967, but since that time much has changed. In terms of both material conditions and civil liberties, the difference between Spain and Britain has largely been leveled, so this argument may be somewhat outdated. It is more profitable for Gibraltar people to live in the European Union, they are accustomed to a liberal financial climate, and it is possible that they do not burn with a special desire to become an object of protection, especially military one. Maybe I should ask them one more time? It would be very democratic.