20th June 2007 - Tomorrow the Chief Minister will be meeting the Spanish Foreign Office Director General for Europe and North America, Jose Pons, to discuss issues related to the Cordoba Agreement.

Though no specific date has been announced yet, the next round of the Tripartite Forum is expected to be held shortly.

15th June 2007 - It seems the Spanish Guardia Civil put their foot in it last night when they boarded a merchant tanker heading out of the Strait of Gibraltar in the hope of finding the Odyssey's robotic submarine.

7th June 2007 - STATEMENT BY THE GSLP/LIBERAL OPPOSITION

The Opposition welcome that the Committee of 24 has now written formally to the British Government to ask them to facilitate a visiting mission to Gibraltar.

The Opposition has always argued that Gibraltar should be treated in the same way as the other territories on the UN list. In recent years there have been visiting missions to Tokelau, to the Turks and Caicos Islands and Bermuda. The latter two are British Overseas Territories.

The Chairperson of the Committee of 24 has said that nearly two months have elapsed since she wrote to the British Government and as yet there has been no response from the UK.

The Opposition has contacted Members of Parliament so that they question the British Government on their position and on why they have not answered the request from the Committee of 24.

The UK Government's position has traditionally been whenever the matter was raised with them that the Committee of 24 had never approached them asking to facilitate such a visit. This is no longer a valid argument.

In the UN seminar in 2003 held in Anguilla, itself a non self governing territory, the British Government representative said that the UK had no objection to facilitating visiting missions to any of its territories including Gibraltar. Spain reacted to this by objecting and arguing that any such visit to Gibraltar would constitute interference by the Committee. At a subsequent hearing of the Committee of 24 Opposition Leader Joe Bossano attacked the Spaniards and said it was Spain and not the Committee of 24 who were interfering, given that the Committee of 24 is perfectly entitled by the resolutions of the UN to send visiting missions to the remaining territories to assess for themselves their progress towards decolonisation.

At the meeting of the UN Committee of 24 that took place on 4 June 2003, when Gibraltar was being discussed, the UK representative told the Committee that the UK Government supported the sending of visiting missions by the Committee of 24 to United Kingdom Overseas Territories.

Subsequently, the move was initiated by Spain and its allies in seminars to make a recommendation that visiting missions should not be sent to territories where there is a sovereignty dispute. Notwithstanding the fact that this position was maintained in the Fiji seminar last year and repeated in the Grenada seminar this year, it is quite clear that the full Committee has ignored this recommendation by writing to the UK Government.

This is a very important development and a major setback for the position of Spain and therefore it is essential, now that the Committee of 24 has come on board, that it should not be the British Government that blocks the move in order to keep Spain happy.

The Opposition therefore considers that there is absolutely no justification in the delay in replying that there has been up to now and that the UK Government must not be permitted to object to a visit by the Committee of 24 which would be backtracking on the position it had adopted previously.

5th June 2007 - The Leader of the Oppositon, the Hon J.J. Bossano, MP, full speech at United Nations Special Committee

Madam Chair, Your Excellencies,

The committee will no doubt have studied the conclusions and recommendations of the Grenada Seminar which provided fully interactive debates on the issues that concern this committee and the road map for the Eradication of Colonialism, to which we are fully committed.

I wish to follow up on what was achieved in Grenada by developing further some of the concepts we discussed.

One controversial issue was not resolved at the seminar, and has been referred to the full committee.

The annual conclusion which said “…in the process of decolonization, there is no alternative to the principle of self-determination, which is also a Fundamental Human Right,” was changed in 2004 by inserting words that limit its application to those N.S.G.T’s where there is no dispute over sovereignty.

In this committee, in past seminars, members such as India in 1995 and Indonesia in 2002 have made their position clear, namely that self-determination is the only way to bring about decolonization. Nothing has happened since to justify a change in this position.

I will not repeat the arguments I used in Grenada to show why this should be so. However I would like to add that, in my view, the attempt to introduce this new “UN doctrine” as Spain called it in Grenada is in flagrant breach of the UN Charter and International law.

The text which the UN World Conference on the Human Rights adopted and which 171 member states have ratified makes this clear.

It declared that all peoples have the right to Self-determination, that its universal nature was beyond question, and further, that it considered the denial of self-determination as a violation of Human Rights.

I put it to you, Madam Chair, how can anyone ask this committee to perpetrate a violation of the very human right it is mandated to pursue and defend, and which is the very foundation of its existence?

More recently the Human Rights Committee and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights declared that: 1) the principle of self-determination, is enshrined in Art. 1. Para 2 of the Charter and Art. 1. of both the I.C.C.P.R. and I.C.E.S.C.R. covenants, 2) affirm the right of all peoples to Self-Determination and 3) lay upon state parties the obligation to respect it and promote its realization.

UK and Spain are such states party to these covenants.

How can anyone ask this committee to support a policy in conflict with the position adopted by these other UN Committees?

The one Human Right which led, half a century ago, to the creation of the Special Committee.

Especially above Self-Determination.

The one Human Right, of which you have been the torch bearers in the success story of decolonization in these 50 years.

How can any member of this Committee fail to uphold this right and yet subscribe, as you rightly do, to the view that for as long as there remains any territory whose people have yet to exercise the right to self-determination, the implementation of the Decolonization Declaration will not have been completed.

Its not in the gift of this committee nor indeed, even of the General Assembly, to introduce such a change, other than by a Resolution that would alter the entire system of International Law on Human Rights and Decolonization that has been developed since 1945.

What is clear is that the realization of the Right is not intended to be to promote the breakup of existing states. However in post or non-colonial situations this has happened and has been accepted by the UN.

In the 1960’s Anguilla achieved Decolonization as part of St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla, and then there was a revolution to secede from the federated state and return to British colonial rule under which, it still is today. That was accepted by this committee as a legitimate act of Self-Determination.

Last year a referendum in Montenegro led to the separation of this territory from Serbia and it emerged as a sovereign state, a clear case of the pre eminence of the right to Self-Determination over the concept of territorial integrity, albeit in a non-colonial context.

This Committee, I submit, has the obligation under its own terms of reference to defend the people of Gibraltar as a people under colonial rule to whom the Declaration on Decolonization is and has always been fully applicable, hence possessed of the inalienable Human Right to Self-Determine their own future status.

Another question altogether is whether that right has already been realized in the Referendum that took place last year.

Whether the realization of the Right has resulted in a full measure of self-government being obtained by the people.

Whether as a result of the 2007 Constitution, the UK is no longer the administering power, Gibraltar is no longer an NSGT, and there is therefore, no longer any requirement under international law for UK to submit Art. 73e Reports on the territory, to the Secretary General.

Madam Chair, Your Excellencies, we believe you have a duty to address this question and give a view.

We do not accept that there is a thing called Ipso facto Decolonization governed by the views of the administering power or the degree of well being of the inhabitants of a territory. This is not what the ‘Second Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism’ is about. Indeed, if it were, the UK would be right in its view that British Overseas Territories should have been removed from the NSGT list long ago, even without modernized constitutions.

At present the modernizations taking place as a result of the 1999 White Paper, in all the listed territories other than Gibraltar, are not described by the UK as involving an act of Self-Determination. Moreover what is clear from recent seminar discussions is that none of these other British NSGT’s, nor those of the US whose constitutional modernization is also taking place, consider themselves to be engaged in acts of Decolonization. This would only be the case following the use of the right to Self-Determination to bring about the attainment of a full measure of self-government.

UK is being inconsistent in arguing that it is creating modern and mature relationships with the British Overseas Territories, which cannot be described as based on colonialism, but accepting that it continues to have the legal obligation to answer for these territories under Art. 73e, that it has had since they were first identified as colonies thus accepting that this obligation has not ended, as it must, when the Decolonization process is completed.

This committee, Madam Chair, according to your own documentation, provided to the territories for their information, is required to monitor the progress and evolution towards Decolonization. There is therefore, a clear duty to examine the modern and mature relationships being delivered between the UK and its overseas territories, to establish, in each case, what has been achieved in terms of progress towards full self-government and what remains to be done.

As you yourself have said, Madam Chair, the Special Committee has a duty to find a case by case solution, always keeping as their paramount consideration the wishes and well being of the peoples of the territories.

In our case we look to you to tell us whether you are satisfied,

1) that the 2006 Referendum achieved the realization of Self- Determination by the Gibraltarian people and,

2) that the text of the New Constitution provides a full measure of self government, such that the decolonization of the territory is now complete and the requirements of Art 73e no longer applicable.

Irrespective of the opinion of the UK, who says it has, or for that matter of Spain, who says it hasn’t!

In essence I am asking the committee to act as chairman Hunte told us a year ago, when he explained the procedure. He said that the administering power was required to advise the Committee of territorial changes and the Committee would then weigh up whether this constituted self-government, and once it is confirmed that a full measure of self-government has been achieved, delisting results.

We fully support this procedure and ask you to apply it.

Madam Chair, I have dealt with UK’s position but what about Spain’s?

Last year here; in October in the 4th Committee; in the Fiji Seminar in November; and two weeks ago in Grenada, Spain has pointed out shortcomings in Gibraltar’s New Constitution and defects in the 2006 Referendum.

Alas, these are not the well meaning, constructive, criticisms of a friendly neighbour wanting to see our people emerge from Colonialism and attain a full measure of self-government – far from it.

Spain still maintains that Gibraltar must retain, unchanged, its constitutional status as a non-self governing territory, i.e. a colony, unless and until it passes under Spanish Sovereignty.

The failed attempt of 2002 led to a recognition on the part of Spain that what they used to describe as ‘the stick and carrot approach’ was not working.

Hence the 2004 Trilateral Forum of Dialogue, which Spain’s representative at the Yanuka Seminar said, not even I, had opposed. Identifying me, presumably, as the last bastion of Gibraltarian resistance.

Let me make clear that mutually beneficial cooperation has always been considered desirable by everyone in Gibraltar. At the same time, as your 2004 country report reflected, no Gibraltar government has ever been willing and no Gibraltar Government will ever be willing to share any of Gibraltar’s Sovereignty with Spain. And I would add, not one inch.

The Trilateral Forum exists. However in any arrangements for cooperation with Spain which emerge, there could be instances where one party’s ‘Pink Line’ might well become another’s ‘Red line’, with a change of Government in any one of the three participant countries.

That said, Spain should not be under any illusion that any level of improvement in cross-border cooperation carries with it increased prospects of a return to the Brussels Process or to an acceptance that Gibraltar’s future status and its attainment of a full measure of Self-Government is ever going to be a matter for negotiation with Spain. That approach was vehemently opposed by my party in 1984 when it was launched is now rejected throughout the political spectrum in Gibraltar, and even UK is publicly committed not to return to it without our consent, which will not be given.

This then, is the true state of affairs and leaves the ball very much in your court, I am sorry to say, Madam Chair.

I therefore look to this committee to deliver the proactive response that the Second Decade requires of it.

In summary I ask the committee to note the following:

1) The Right to Self-Determination to a people cannot be constrained, let alone denied by third parties territorial sovereignty disputes.

2) The Brussels’ Process is dead and buried and it will not be reactivated.

3) The committee is required to monitor the evolution of NSGT’s towards achieving Self-Determination and should produce a check list of what is required, this applies fully to Gibraltar.

Thank you for your attention, I will be happy to answer any questions.

5th June 2007 - Gibraltar Chief Minister's full speech at United Nations Special Committee

Madam Chairperson, first of all, congratulations to you on your appointment to the Chair of this Special Committee. Please also allow me to express my regret for not, in the end, having been able to attend the recent Seminar in Grenada myself. Gibraltar was ably represented however by my deputy Chief Minister, Joe Holliday. By all accounts, it was a good Seminar for which I should also like to thank the Government and people of Grenada.

Madam Chair, I will not take up the Committee's time by taking you through the detail of our position and our arguments, or those of the Kingdom of Spain. They are all, now, equally well known and understood here.

Reduced to a “nutshell”, our position is that the peoples of all listed non-self governing territories, including Gibraltar, have under the Charter of the UN, an inalienable right to self-determination, and in the decolonisation process there is, under international law, no alternative to the principle of self-determination. This is not subject to any exception in the case of territories where there is a sovereignty dispute. The Treaty of Utrecht of 1713 is wholly irrelevant in this regard, and, in any event, the mere existence of a territorial sovereignty claim by a neighbour does not, and cannot, defeat this fundamental human and Charter right to self-determination. This is especially true when the sovereignty claim is unadjudicated, and in this connection, I would remind the Special Committee of our frequent invitation to Spain to agree to refer her sovereignty claim to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion – a challenge which Spain systematically refuses to accept.

Ask yourselves therefore whether the mere existence of such a claim, which even the claimant refuses to test for validity in international law, can nevertheless have the effect of overriding the fundamental Charter, human and political rights of the people of a non-self governing territory? The answer, objectively speaking is, I think, clear and obvious.

The Kingdom of Spain for its part persists in the assertion that the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713 gives her rights which she alleges are incompatible with the decolonisation of Gibraltar by means of self-determination, and that accordingly Gibraltar can only be decolonised by means of a “horse trade” of the sovereignty of my homeland between the so-called administering power and Spain.

Our positions on these issues are therefore not reconcilable, and the people of Gibraltar will never succumb to the undemocratic proposition that anyone other than we ourselves should decide our own sovereignty and our own political future, freely and in accordance with our human and political rights to self-determination. The Sovereignty of our homeland is not a matter for transaction between the UK and Spain. It finally vests in Great Britain, and is claimed by Spain, but for all meaningful purposes it is at the disposal only of the people of Gibraltar.

Madam Chair, if the Special Committee has real seriousness of purpose and intent in finishing its work – ever, let alone in the 2 ½ years that remain of this Decolonisation Decade – then it must, with the very greatest of respect come to terms with certain basic questions and realities.

The first is this: is it the Special Committee's view that there are only three legitimate, acceptable and effective forms of decolonisation, namely: independence, integration and free association? Or, does the Special Committee accept that a fourth way was declared by the General Assembly in Resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24th October 1970, namely that any status freely determined by the people of the territory in an act of self-determination is a valid model of decolonisation? The Special Committee cannot avoid taking and clearly stating a position on this important question, and should now do so.

The second issue is this: does this Special Committee recognise that the circumstances and aspirations of the remaining 16 listed non-self governing territories cannot be ignored in this respect, in favour of a rigid adherence to historical models which the remaining Territories may not want, or which may be inappropriate to their circumstances?

The point that I am making is that this Committee must now open its mind to other, alternative and realistic decolonisation models (other than independence, free association/or integration) for these remaining territories. If it does not, it will never finish its work and it will be disregarding the freely and informed wishes of the people concerned. We support the Committee's insistence on ensuring that the apparent will of the people is indeed, truly and genuinely their freely determined and informed will. But we cannot support a dogmatic insistence by the Committee on imposing its doctrines, over and on the freely and informed will of the peoples of the Territories. Colonialism is as much a state of mind as it is about extent of self-governance.

In this respect, Madam Chair, I was heartened to see reports of your own remarks at the Grenada Seminar, recognising that it was clear that different Territories had different needs, expectations, and concerns, and that it was incumbent upon the Special Committee to recognise that Spectrum, and its duty to find ways to deal with that reality on a case by case basis, always keeping as paramount consideration the wishes and well being of the peoples of the Non-Self Governing Territories. I agree entirely with you Madam Chair, and would respectfully commend your views to the other members of the Special Committee.

.

The people of Gibraltar do not want independence. We value our sovereignty and constitutional links with Great Britain and wish to retain them, albeit in the modern relationship that is not colonial in nature that we now enjoy with them. I understand that many of you, given your own histories, experiences and opinions may be challenged by these sentiments, will not understand how this can be so – and may as a result even doubt whether it can be the genuine, freely expressed and informed will of the people of Gibraltar. I assure you that it is – and you may test it whenever you like, by whatever means and process you like.

So what does this mean? Does it mean that in your eyes, Gibraltar can never be decolonised? We are a small country, 30,000 people and 7½ square kilometres. But we are socially and economically prosperous and totally financially self-sufficient. We enjoy one of the highest GDP's per capita in the world. I dare say that we might, therefore, enjoy more real and meaningful independence than many so-called independent countries.

Independence is not the clear cut concept in the modern world that it was at the time of the establishment of your decolonisation doctrines. Who is truly independent in today's world? What does independence mean in practice? Why then make a holy grail of a concept that has already become distorted by other global political and economic factors and realities even for larger countries?

Do not many independent countries now give up some of their previously cherished independence to collective regional decision making structures, for example, the European Union? The ingredients of the concept of modern day independence have changed. If Spain (and the other EU Member States) remains an independent country, even though she has chosen to surrender to the European Union Institutions a large chunk of her power and control over her own national affairs, why is Gibraltar a colony just because we choose a Constitutional relationship with the UK, that gives the UK much less power over our affairs than Spain has surrendered over her own affairs to the EU? These concepts evolve with time, and the Special Committee must adjust its position to accommodate such evolution.

It is against all this background that a cross party Gibraltar delegation has negotiated a new Constitution with the UK. This new Constitution minimises the few remaining powers that are not exercisable by the elected Government of Gibraltar – and those that are not, is by the freely expressed and informed will of the people of Gibraltar who voted in a referendum in November 2006 to approve and accept this New Constitution. The United Kingdom has recognised and accepted that this Referendum, that was organised by the Government of Gibraltar, with the unanimous approval of the Gibraltar Parliament and under rules unanimously approved by the Gibraltar Parliament, constituted an act of self-determination in the context of our UN Charter right to self-determination.

Spain remains in a ‘state of denial' over the factual, political and democratic relevance of this Referendum by saying, as she did at the Grenada Seminar, that there is no ‘known legal

basis' for this referendum. The known basis for the referendum is the mandate and authority of a unanimous vote of our OWN democratically elected parliament. The insinuation by Spain that this Referendum may have been illegal is preposterous and the UK has already informed the Kingdom of Spain that the referendum was a lawful and proper expression of the free will of the people of Gibraltar.

The new Constitution is now in place and in operation. It maximises our self Government in all areas of Governance except defence, external affairs and internal security which, under our own Constitution vest in the Governor as a matter of distribution of powers. All other matters are the competence of the Gibraltar Government, the Gibraltar Parliament or other Gibraltar legal institutions. The old power of United Kingdom Ministers to disallow legislation passed by the Gibraltar Parliament has been abolished. The so-called “Administering Power”, the UK, administers absolutely nothing in Gibraltar.

Like many other small countries for whose external affairs and defence the UK remains responsible, such as Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, and which, like Gibraltar are not part of the UK – and whom no one regards as colonies – Her Majesty the Queen, as Queen of Gibraltar and not as Queen of the United Kingdom, retains residual power to make laws for Gibraltar. This is practically never used, and never without consultation with the Government of Gibraltar.

So, our new Constitution, while giving us practically full self-government, is clearly not a constitution for a sovereign independent State, nor is it intended to be. Nor, in the Gibraltar Government's view should the UN require it to be. This is the status and relationship with the UK that the people of Gibraltar want. It is not a colonial relationship, Gibraltar and its people do not feel colonial. The UK neither feels itself to be, nor behaves like a colonial power in Gibraltar, nor could it do so even if it wanted to. Anyone who visits and becomes familiar with Gibraltar will see that this is indeed the case.

We consider that through adopting a Constitution that creates a modern relationship with the UK, which is not colonial in nature we have ceased to be a colony and are thus decolonised. It is important here not to confuse the words modernisation and modern. Of course “modernisation” may be insufficient because it does not go far enough. But “modern” cannot mean colonial because no-one could consider a colonial relationship to be “modern”. “Modernisation” is a matter of degree, but if a Constitution creates “a modern” relationship, it cannot also be a colonial relationship. No colonial relationship could be said to be modern.

Spain says that the New Constitution is irrelevant to our decolonisation because it is relevant only to our internal government organisation and institutions. Spain may think and say as she pleases, but the inescapeable reality is that according to both the UK and Gibraltar the New Constitution establishes something that was not there before it, namely a modern and mature relationship between the UK and Gibraltar. Since this Constitution changes the nature of the relationship between the UK and Gibraltar, it cannot rationally be said that it does not result in a change in that relationship. Clearly it does.

Madam Chair, we do not think that the United Nations should concern itself any further with the decolonisation of Gibraltar save for what remains to be done here for your purposes, namely our so-called “de-listing”. How that can be brought about is a matter for UN procedures and criteria. We believe that these are unrealistic and inappropriate to the extent that they appear or purport to prevent delisting of any case where the ex-administering power retains any sort of reserve power to legislate, regardless of the circumstances of use and real nature of that power. We would urge the UN to revisit and reconsider these criteria. However, as I will explain in a moment, that is not the case in Gibraltar. Under our Constitution the Administering Power, that is the UK, retains no right or power to legislate in Gibraltar.

But in any event, whatever may be the position that the UN chooses to take in this regard does not alter the political and factual reality that Gibraltar has to every other effect ceased to be a colony, is not a colony, is not considered by its ex administering power to be a colony and does not think of itself or feel or look like a colony. These are inescapable realities which

the UN can choose to ignore, but which do not therefore or thereby cease to be realities. For us decolonisation is a matter of objective fact, circumstances and realities, and not defined exclusively by whether or not we can persuade you to de-list us under your particular criteria.

Madam Chair, I have already said that on a proper analysis, our ex-administering power does not, under our Constitution, retain a legislative or executive role or power in Gibraltar. In her attempts to undermine the significance and effect of our new Constitution, Spain has recourse to a number of arguments which are simply wrong. She points to various aspects of our Constitution in an attempt to demonstrate the continuing power of the UK and what Spain calls “the administering authorities in the person of the Governor”. These remarks, most recently made by the Spanish Representative at the Grenada Seminar, demonstrate a clear lack of understanding by Spain of the Constitutional model and of the proper legal analysis of the relationship that it creates. The United Kingdom Government has no powers in Gibraltar under our Constitution. It has no legislative powers and it has no executive powers.

Under our system of Government, as in much of the Commonwealth, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second is the head of State and the source of all executive and legislative authority in Gibraltar. In exactly the same way as in the UK itself, Australia, Canada and the other Commonwealth countries. The Queen is separately Queen of all territories recognising and acknowledging Her as Head of State, including Gibraltar.

Powers vested by the Constitution of Gibraltar in the Governor are vested in him as Representative of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second in her capacity as Queen of Gibraltar, and not in Her capacity as Queen of the United Kingdom. The Governor is not the representative in Gibraltar of the Crown in right of the Government of the United Kingdom.

Spain's argument is based on a failure to understand that the Crown is not one and non-divisible, and that when Queen Elizabeth the Second or her representative in a Territory, the Governor, acts, they do not do so as the Crown of the United Kingdom, or as representatives of the UK Government. So, when the Governor exercise a power under our Constitution, he is not exercising a power on behalf of or in the name of, or a power of the administering power.

Even in those limited circumstances when the Queen Acts through a Secretary of State of the UK Government to issue an instruction to the Governor of Gibraltar, he does so, not on behalf of the United Kingdom Government, nor in his capacity as a Minister of the UK Government, but rather as the mouthpiece of the Queen, as Queen of Gibraltar, not as Queen of the United Kingdom. He is passing on her instructions as Queen of Gibraltar, not acting as Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the United Kingdom on behalf of or for the UK Government. It is not the act of the UK Government. The Government of the United Kingdom is not the government of or in Gibraltar and has no powers of Government in Gibraltar. It is absolutely essential to understand this.

And so the Governor is not the Governor of the Administering Power. He is the representative in Gibraltar of the Queen as our head of state, as is the Governor General in any Commonwealth Country because our sovereignty vests in Her, not in the UK Government. Thus the UK Government has no power or authority in Gibraltar under the Constitution to instruct the Governor or otherwise. Such power and authority can only be exercised by the Queen who, in this context is (and is only) the Queen of Gibraltar, not of the UK. The UK and its Government exercise no power in Gibraltar because is possesses no power to exercise.

These important and fundamental constitutional legal principles were definitively established in 2005 by the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, the Highest Court in the UK in the case of Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Quark Fishing Limited. They are therefore principles of UK law which bind the UK Government in every respect. This is the true nature of the constitutional relationship between Gibraltar and the UK, and it is not

possible to properly apply your delisting criteria to Gibraltar without understanding the true nature of that relationship.

Accordingly on each occasion that Spain points to powers of the Governor or of the Administering Power as demonstrating that Gibraltar must therefore still be a colony because these are powers of the administering power, she is completely wrong in law, based on a failure to properly understand the constitutional status of the Queen as our head of state, of the Governor and the Constitutional relationship between the UK and its Overseas Territories, in consequence of which Spain systematically misrepresents the position.

In an extreme example of this erroneous argument, the Spanish Representative at the Grenada Seminar pointed to a controversy that currently exists in Gibraltar in connection with the wish of the lawyers in Gibraltar to see the removal from Office of the Chief Justice of Gibraltar. Spain pointed to the fact that the lawyers had approached the Governor (whom Spain referred to as “the highest representative of the administering power”). The Governor is not the representative (highest or lowest) of the Administering Power. Nor has he exercised any veto power recognised in the new Constitution in regard to the Judicial Service Commission, as falsely stated by the Representative of Spain.

Those of you who are from the Commonwealth, indeed from any democratic country, will know that elected Governments are not normally the authority for the removal of judges from office. This is a fundamental element of the independence of the judiciary. That authority usually vests in the head of State. In our case the Head of State is Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Gibraltar, whose representative in Gibraltar is the Governor. It is in that capacity that the Governor is quite properly and rightly involved, and not on behalf of the Administering Power at all. Interestingly, even in that capacity the Governor is now, under our New Constitution, obliged to act on the advice of a Gibraltar Judicial Services Commission appointed under Gibraltar legislation, and not in his own discretion or power.

Accordingly Madam Chair, nothing in our New Constitution is indicative of continuing colonialism in Gibraltar and, indeed, nothing prevents you from delisting Gibraltar under your own criteria.

Madam Chair, I was astonished to see reports of the Spanish Representative's reference in Grenada to what he referred to as “as excerpt from a leader in the Gibraltar press”. He quoted it saying that it illustrates what he meant about Gibraltar still being a colony because of the powers of the Governor.

Madam Chair, you may remember the Spanish representative quoting it:

“Without commenting on who is right and who is wrong in the current crisis that the Judiciary finds itself in, one thing is strikingly clear – it is the British, our colonial masters, who may have to step in, act as referee and sort the row. I believe that this affair calls into question the Chief Minister's assertion that this new constitution heralds a new and mature non-colonial relationship with Britain. Not six months since its introduction, we are once again beholder to our colonial masters!”

Madam Chair, it is deeply regrettable that the distinguished representative of the Kingdom of Spain should have misinformed the Grenada Seminar in this way. The above excerpt that he quoted was not, as he wrongly stated, to the Seminar “a leader in the Gibraltar press” but rather an anonymous letter posted under a pseudonym by a letter writer on an internet website. Not “a leader” and not even a “press” comment. A copy of it is attached to the text of my speech which has been circulated so that member of the Committee can see for themselves what it is.

Madam Chair, I have had sight of the draft as at 11:30am on 24th May of the conclusions and recommendations of the Grenada Seminar. A number of them are said not to apply to territories where there is a dispute over sovereignty. These are:

(1) In the process of decolonisation there is no alternative to the principle of self-determination, which is also a fundamental human right. Square bracketed in the draft. (No7)

(2) Participants of Territories to participate in the development of work programmes. (No9)

(3) In order to enhance information exchange “Special Committee focal points” may be established. (No10)

(4) Electoral assistance available regarding any act of self-determination. (No19)

(5) Visits and special missions to the Territory by the Special Committee. (No21)

Madam Chair, Recommendation No25 calls on the Special Committee to adopt the Report of the Grenada Seminar and include it in your report to the General Assembly. That paragraph also says that the recommendations of the Seminar are “important expressions of the will of the people of the territories”. This statement is simply untrue and therefore must not be adopted by you. No people of NO territories has expressed the view that the people of Gibraltar (a territory subject to a sovereignty dispute) should be denied self-determination, the ability to participate in development of work programmes, the establishment of Special Committee focal points, electoral assistance for acts of self-determination or visits by the Special Committee. These views, inserted into the report of the Seminar at the bidding of self interested member states and their friends and allies in the drafting committee at the Seminar, cannot be misrepresented, and cannot masquerade, as “the important expressions of the will of the people” of non self governing territories. They are not. Madam Chair, you were there. Did you hear these propositions stated as the “important expression of the will of the people of the territories?” This is a matter of integrity of process.

Furthermore, Madam Chair, if the Special Committee adopts those extraordinary propositions, what you will be saying is that the people of Gibraltar do not enjoy the right to self-determination. If that is your position, how are you ever going to finish your work. How will you ever be able to de-list Gibraltar (and the Falkland Islands for that matter)? Are you saying that you will not de-list us until Spain's territorial integrity as at 1704 is restored by the transfer of the Sovereignty of our homeland to Spain against our wishes?

Finally, Madam Chair, I thank you for your congratulations at Grenada on the establishment of the Trilateral Forum of dialogue between the Governments of Gibraltar, Spain and the UK. My Government regards it as one of its most important achievements. This valuable and most useful trilateral forum is viable for all sides. Each of the three Governments takes part in its own right and on the same basis. The agenda is open, and nothing can be agreed unless all three Governments agree. The Forum is working well. In September last year it produced its first batch of mutually beneficial agreements relating to our airport and aviation issues, cross border traffic fluidity, cross border telecommunications issues and long standing issues relating to pensions of Spanish workers in Gibraltar.

The Gibraltar Government looks forward to the continuation of this dialogue and to reaching more mutually beneficial agreements with Spain in this forum.

In the Grenada Seminar, the Spanish Representative said that Spain hoped that the dialogue would contribute to creating serene and favourable conditions that will allow us to address the question of Sovereignty at an appropriate time. The dialogue in the new Trilateral Forum is open agenda, and therefore Spain is indeed free to raise the question of Sovereignty, as we are free to continue to raise the question of our right to self-determination, and to continue to make clear our position on Sovereignty. This new trilateral dialogue process is the only process of dialogue now effectively available to discuss Gibraltar issues. There is no on-going bilateral process of dialogue or negotiation between the UK and Spain about our sovereignty. Indeed, we have a formal commitment from the UK that it will not enter into any sovereignty negotiations with Spain with which we are not content. The Sovereignty of Gibraltar cannot be disposed of without the consent and wishes of the people of Gibraltar. That will never change, and an acknowledgement by Spain of that inescapeable fact would contribute much serenity.

4th June 2007 - Joe Bossano, the Leader of the Opposition, will be travelling to New York today to address the UN Committee of 24 on Tuesday 5th June. He will be accompanied by Fabian Picardo and both are expected back on Thursday 7th June. During their absence from Gibraltar Joseph Garcia will be acting as Leader of the Opposition.

This year’s address to the C24 on behalf of the Opposition will seek to build on and develop the success recently achieved at the Grenada Seminar.

In particular it will challenge the position that self-determination does not apply to the decolonization of territories where there is a sovereignty dispute.

The Grenada conclusions this year left the matter open, and referred it to the C24.

The presentation will bring new arguments to support those already put in Grenada.

There will be also the issues on the Referendum, New Constitution and Spain’s previous statements addressed by the presentation.

30th April 2007 - GSLP Mayday Message:

In 2001 an attempt by the Government to change the date of Labour Day from 1st May was dropped when opposed by TGWU.

In 2002 the date was changed and I took a Motion to the House of Assembly, asking for May 1st to be restored.

The Government argued that they had already promised to do so to the Unions but overlooked it, that it was too late in February to do so for 2002, but that it would retained on 1st May as from 2003.

It has taken just 4 years for the 1st May to be removed yet again.

The importance of the day is that it is a moment when we pause in our daily chores and acknowledge the debt we owe to countless generations of workers here and throughout the world for their sacrifice, including in some cases the sacrifice of their lives, to bring about a trend of improvements in working conditions that have produced the standard of living we now enjoy. It’s all very well to say that a long weekend as a holiday is a more useful arrangement. However, when we ignore the lessons of history, if we want to forget our debt to past generations then we are creating a society that may be materially better off but infinitely poorer in values.

In Gibraltar today we can no longer take for granted that what has been achieved in the past will hold good for the future. We have seen for the first time this year how a major employer can refuse to recognise Trade Union rights and apparently get away with it.

As we point out every year, the influx of workers from across the frontier is undermining job prospects in the Private Sector. Indeed, now even Public Sector jobs in the Gibraltar Government are going to Frontier Workers at the expense of our own people.

This year for us a major issue is the discriminatory settlement of the pre 1969 Spanish pensioner claim for retrospective increases in Social Security Pensions. The affected pensioner group are receiving sums, which compensate them for 18 years of no increase as well as an uplift of 65.2% in current payments in April, whilst everyone else is only getting the pension uplift from a current date.

We are convinced this treatment is in conflict with EU Law and one which the UK will have to put right by ensuring equal treatment for all pensioners with equal number of contributions.

Beyond this issue we have a General Election, which is just round the corner and which we shall be contesting giving priority to clear cut commitments on employment for school leavers and returning University Graduates and providing housing for our people so that we reverse the trend of losing so many of our young people to jobs overseas and so many of our young families to having to live in Spain, on the other side of the frontier, a figure which the Spanish Government now claim has reached 3,000.

This day belongs to the family of working people, committed Trade Unionists and Socialists the world over. Let’s make it so here in Gibraltar as well.

Enjoy May Day with your families and friends.

30th April 2007 - Following last week's announcement by the Mayor of La Linea (neighbouring town in Spain) to build an air terminal in La Linea, the Gibraltar government has made the following statement:

“The Gibraltar Government is not aware whether Sr Juarez plans to build a new runway in La Linea. However, his poster cannot be justified by reference either to Gibraltar Airport or to the Cordoba Airport Statement.” also adding that:

• there will be only one terminal;

• that it will be in Gibraltar;

• that all passenger and flight services including all facilities and functions relating to airside and aircraft services, passengers’ check-in, baggage handling and passenger and baggage security will be provided in and by the single Gibraltar terminal;

• that the Agreement has no implication for sovereignty, jurisdiction and control.

30th April 2007 - A meeting will be held tomorrow Tuesday 1st May at 10.00am on the John Mackintosh Hall where the Leader of the Oppositon Joe Bossano will provide an update on the action taken with the European Union in respect of arrears due to social security pensioners.

30th April 2007 - The Spanish political group Izquierda Unida has questioned the Foreign Affairs Minister
what is being done in respect of the ether the discrimination suffered by the Spanish workers in Gibraltar and
whether that problem will be included on the next round of the Tripartite Talks.

(I wonder why instead they don't ask their own government what is being done about finding jobs in Spain
for the well over 5000 spaniards working in Gibraltar. The benefits would be twofold, since it would provide
Spaniards with jobs in their homeland and increase the chances for unemployed Gibraltarians getting a job.

28th April 2007 - The Transport and General Workers Union has expressed it's discontent at the Government's decision to celebrate May DAY on Monday May 7th instead of Tuesday May 1st, as is customary worldwide.

The reason for the change seems to be due to representations made by various associations, including the Chamber of Commerce and the Gibraltar Federation of Small Businesses, in preference of 7th May as a public holiday.

The TGWU are requesting that all workers who support that May 1st should be celebrated on the day it falls should gather at the Piazza as from 9.30 am on Tuesday May 1st.

28th April 2007 - Lately there's been quite a turmoil in the judicial front, the progress of which I found myself
unable to include in this page due to the legal terminology being used at times.

To following is an article which was yesterday published in VOX and which explains what has been happening in ordinary layman's language :

As Bar wars intensify Mrs Schofield seeks Kenyan support

In a bizarre twist to the separate legal clashes involving local lawyers and the Rock's Chief Justice and his wife, a prominent African jurist yesterday rode like a white knight to the support of fellow Kenyan Anne Schofield in her legal joust with the chairman of the Bat Council. In a phone call to VOX from Nairobi, George Kegoro Executive Director of Kenya's International Commission of Jurists said that members of the Commission had discussed events in Gibraltar and would raise their doubts about the legality of Chief Minister Peter Carunana's plans to reduce the powers of Gibraltar's judiciary with Kenya Government Ministers, Britain's FCO, and Bar Council officials in Britain.

He was responding to a letter from Mrs Schofield, copies of which she had sent to Margaret Beckett, Britain's Foreign Minister and to the Governor Sir Robert Fulton as well as to Chief Minister Peter Caruana and Opposition leader Joe Bossano. So far both of the latter recipients appear to have remained aloof from the legal turmoil of recent weeks – though Caruana is thought by many to have instigated the events…either intentionally or unintentionally. This new aspect to Gibraltar's “Bar wars” came during a week of high legal drama that would not have been amiss in a television soap. It followed moves by the “Establishment Four” ( the big law firms) to draw the Governor into their squabbled with the Chief Justice and a heated spell in the Supreme Court between David Dumas QC and Mrs Schofield's lawyer Charles Gomez.

And, beyond the confines of the courts and legal chambers, a group of Gibraltar women started to gather signatures in support of Mrs Schofield's stance.

In her lengthy tirade – which runs to several pages of closely typed foolscap and copies of which she faxed to the local media – Mrs Schofield alleges that Caruana “has an ambition to get rid of the Chief Justice.” In a double-barreled onslaught she also attacks the four Gibraltar law firms which initially applied for Chief Justice Schofield to recuse himself from any cases in which members of the firms involved were to appear.

All of the Rock's Queen's Counsels – with the exception of the Speaker of Gibraltar's Parliament, Haresh Budhrani QC – had allied themselves with the move and with the subsequent decision to place the matter in the hands of the Governor, a strategy which critics of our new Constitution will seize on. “Is the constitution so lacking and are we so immature that we cannot resolve these disputes ourselves?” one of them asked rhetorically.

Women Organise Petition to Support Mrs Schofield 

The move by the firms and QCs is seen as a response to Mrs Schofield's decision to institute a libel action against Bar Council chairman James Neish QC following an exchange of e-mails. In her letter to Kegoro, written “as a Kenyan living abroad”, Mrs Schofield alleges that “the Chairman of the Bar council is a known friend of the Chief Minister” and that the three other partners in Triay, Stagnetto and Neish are related to Caruana.

“Most of the QCs and partners involved in this sage are supporters of the GSD ruling party,” she alleges.

Later in her letter, a copy of which she faxed to a VOX reporter, Mrs Schofield writes: “This is not the first time that the Governor has received requests to remove the CJ [Chief Justice]. QCs had sent a memo to the Governor Durie claiming that the CJ's position had become untenable…”

“We view all this very seriously and in approaching British jurists hope that by bringing external efforts to bear on the Chief Minister he will review and reconsider his strategy,” Kegoro said.

EQUAL RIGHTS CLAIMED
In the opening paragraph of her letter to “Dear George” Mrs Schofield writes: “As a Kenyan living abroad I maintain I have equal rights which are protected under Gibraltar law and international law.” And her claims to such rights are echoed by the group of women gathering signatures.
In their petition headed “REAFFIRMATION OF WOMEN'S RIGHTS” they say:

“WE, the women of Gibraltar, believe without fear or favour that:

• Every woman, in very walk of life, has the natural and fundamental human right and obligation to protect and defend against anyone her own family life, freedom of thought and expression as a citizen irrespective of her husband's or partner's job or status.

• No one has the right to single out, criticise or censure a husband or partner when a wife or partner exercises her own rights.

• Spouses and partners have equal rights allows of no discrimination.

• Fairness and justice requires any dispute to be kept within its proper limits and bounds.

WE, the undersigned, believe that Mrs. Schofield enjoys exactly the same rights and call for these principles to prevail in the context of the recently reported legal events in the press and the reaction that there has been against the Chief Justice because he happens to be her husband:”

Later in her letter to the Kenyan jurist, Mrs Schofield claims that on April 3 “the Chairman of the bar had stated that my emails and an article in VOX would impact on the Chief Justice. The actions of the Bar are in furtherance of that threat.

“The matter was referred to the Attorney general and I was told the Council was writing to the Governor. Between the 3rd and now, the only thing that has happened is my filing of the defamation claim. If the AG and the Governor had received copies of the emails I question why no action was taken then. It is logical to conclude that the Governor has stepped in after I filed suit and after the four firms made representations to him and the matter was in the public domain.”

FOUR-POINT ALLEGATION
And in a four-point allegation that the Chief Minister wants to “get rid of the Chief Justice” she recalls:

“In 1998 the Chief Justice at the opening of the Legal year announced that there had been attempts to interfere with the judiciary. In 1999 my husband told me that he had been informed by the then Governor Sir Richard Luce (now Lord Luce) that the Chief Minister (now Minister for Justice) had made representations for the Chief Justice's contract not to be renewed. It was suggested that he should renew for six months. My husband and I discussed the matter and he assured me that he had security of tenure until the age 67. We have planned our lives on that basis.”

(Critics of Mrs Schofield's tactics will argue with some justification that by her recent moves she has jeopardised that security and put her husband's remaining career at risk.)

In her allegations against the Chief Minister the Chief Justice's wife also refers to “an issue relating to our maid”. This “was immediately followed by an incident involving the Chief Justice's private vehicle. The police intended to caution the CJ on driving without a license and not having an MOT. The licence matter was dropped as there was a period of grace. The CJ was prosecuted over the MOT. He pleaded guilty…These incidents were used to call for the CJ's resignation.”

Mrs Schofield also alleges that in July 2000 the Attorney General suggested that if the MOT matter was not contested “no doubt the Chief Justice would receive all assistance and help were he to be seeking a judicial post in England and elsewhere”. And she goes on to claim that a similar suggestion was conveyed to Schofield by “the lord Chief Justice of England and Wales.”

It is an open secret in Gibraltar's legal fraternity that Caruana and his legal cronies would like to see the back of the Schofields. It is a tragic paradox that by her moves in support of her husband, Mrs Schofield may have hastened such a development.

(I wonder whether wanting to get rid of Judge Schofield has anything to do with the fact that he was an active member of the VOTE NO Campaign against the New Constitution?)

26th April 2007 - En respuesta a la denuncia que plantearon los eurodiputados del PP Ana Mato y Gerardo Galeote en una pregunta parlamentaria en la que aseguraban que "el régimen fiscal de Gibraltar conduce a la violación sistemática de la legislación comunitaria, tanto en materia de aprovisionamiento de combustible por parte de las embarcaciones como en materia medioambiental".

La Comisión Europea a confirmado hoy que el Reino Unido ha transpuesto correctamente la directiva europea de seguridad marítima, que también se aplica en Gibraltar, donde las autoridades portuarias y los capitanes de los barcos que atracan en sus puertos están obligados a cumplir las medidas relativas a las garantías de las instalaciones y las inspecciones en las embarcaciones.

23rd April 2007 - Statement by the GSLP/Liberal Opposition:

The Opposition find it surprising that the Government has chosen to comment on a report in a Spanish newspaper which suggested that the Instituto Cervantes in Gibraltar might be headed by a diplomat and not by an academic.

We find it surprising because when others react to Spanish press stories the position of the Government has been to attack them for giving credence to such reports and tell them to pay no attention to what the Spanish press has to say.

The view of the Opposition on the Instituto is well known. We have no objection to Spain setting up such a centre if they want to, what we are against is the Government providing a public building. The same would apply if it was for a Consulate instead of an Institute or indeed if it were for any other Government than that of Spain.

The fact that the Spanish Foreign Ministry should be looking for a diplomat who is an expert in the Gibraltar question to man the Instituto is consistent with what Mr Moratinos has said is the purpose of the exercise. What concerns the Spanish Foreign Ministry is not the llanito accent in spoken Spanish but the llanito attitude in resisting any advance on the Spanish claim.

Indeed, it will be recalled that the Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos himself suggested that the role of the institute would be to reduce British influence in Gibraltar and in its place increase the influence of Spain. It appears that this cultural revolution that Spain hopes will flow from the presence of the Institute would aim to encourage our schoolleavers to go to Spain for their higher education at university level instead of to UK.

Clearly Spain believes that our sense of identity as a people within the British family is what prevents us from wanting to be a part of the Spanish family and that the increasing hispanisation of Gibraltar would make Gibraltarians more receptive to Spanish overtures.

Whilst the Opposition does not believe that the Instituto will deliver to Spain any of these results, what is clear is that, for them, this is the object of the exercise and therefore we cannot understand why anyone in Gibraltar who is not committed to achieving that objective should feel the need to welcome the Instituto.

20th April 2007 - The latest news on the Spanish press has been that a Spanish diplomat which has been a cultural attaché, is an expert in Gibraltar question and has very good contacts with the UK Foreign Office will
be heading the Instituto Cervantes in Gibraltar.

Obviously what the Spanish government is trying to do is having a consular presence in Gibraltar without
infringing on their sovereignty claim.

Following such reports on the Spanish press the Gibraltar government has issued a statement which reads as
follows:

“The Government notes the report in a Spanish newspaper that Spain will appoint a diplomat to head the Instituto Cervantes in Gibraltar. This is not of itself unusual for the Instituto Cervantes around the world. The Government also notes that, according to the report the Spanish Government is seeking a candidate that has been a cultural attaché, is an expert on the Gibraltar question and has very good contacts with the UK Foreign Office”.

“The Gibraltar Government does not know whether these reports are true, but nevertheless would comment as follow if they were. The Instituto Cervantes is a Cultural institution and not a diplomatic mission. The Instituto Cervantes that establishes in Gibraltar will not be a branch of the Instituto Cervantes in the UK. Accordingly, to the extent that “very good contacts” with a Government are thought to be helpful, the relevant Government is the Government of Gibraltar and not the UK Foreign Office. Contacts, good or bad, between an Instituto Cervantes established in Gibraltar, and the UK Foreign Office are irrelevant since such contacts would be well outside the scope of the Instituto's legitimate role and activities in Gibraltar. “The Gibraltar Government which welcomes the establishment of the Instituto Cervantes in Gibraltar would, of course, also welcome the re-establishment by Spain in Gibraltar of a diplomatic presence through the usual means, namely a Consulate.”

5th April 2007 - After lengthy negotiations an agreement has been reached between Cammell Laird and the Gibraltar Trades Council. This will allow the locked out workers to return to work next Tuesday after the Easter Holidays.

30th March 2007 - In a move to break the TGWU/ACTS industrial action against the Cammel Laird shipyard
the Gibraltar Government yesterday passed regulations to waive customs controls at the frontier for all goods destined for the private shipyard.

This has been the response by the Gibraltar government to the blacking action against the shipyard by TGWU/ACTS, that has been in force at the frontier since March 22nd. An industrial action which started after
the Union made a press release explaining the following:

• They refuse to recognise the legally constituted TGWU/ACTS Shop Steward Committee.
• They refuse to recognised the TGWU/ACTS.
• They have rejected the mediation of the GTC and Government.
• They hassle, humiliated and threatened out members in the company.  The members are called one by one to the office of the Managing Director, where they are humiliated and threatened with dismissal if they do not work overtime. These are the tactics used by the Nazi Regime in Germany in the 1930's.
• They have out rightly rejected the Union claim on terms and conditions.
• Health and Safety is non–existent it seems.  The Health and Safety Officer should investigate.
• The mess room where our members have their meals, there are cockroaches and rodent.  The Health department should also investigate.
• There seems to be illegal labour (disguised as detached workers Cammell Laird considers that they are above the law, and at the same time they think they are a law of their own.

28th March 2007 - Press release by the Integration with Britain Movement.

28th March 2007 - After the Tripartite Talks, during the dinner held in the evening by the Chamber of Commerce, Jose Pons, Director General for Europe at the Spanish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, expressed his satisfaction on the way the Tripartite Talks are going and warned that the Cordoba Agreement was a package deal and that if any part of the deal is not adhered to and implemented in full by any future Gibraltar government, then the Spanish government would reconsider the agreements reached, would cancel all the agreements made and would reconsider its attitude toward local cooperation.

(One can only therefore assume that, should any part of the done-deal not be strictly adhered to by either the present or any future Gibraltar government, Spain will, re-apply all the restriction imposed by the General Franco Fascist Government.

In other words, and using Red Indian terminology, this paleface has forked tongue, comes to our homeland to smoke the Pipe of Peace and threatening us, and nobody, not even Chief, has the guts to tell this fellow where to go with his threats).

28th March 2007 - At the Tripartite Talks held in Gibraltar on Wednesday 26th, the ministers from Spain, UK and Gibraltar reviewed progress made since the last Tripartite Talks which were held in Cordoba on the 18th September 2006.

During those talks which led to the Cordoba Agreement, Spain agreed to lift some of the restrictions imposed in 1969 by the Fascist Dictator General Franco, namely to restore fluidity on frontier traffic, lifting of telephone lines restrictions and acceptance of Gibraltar's international dialing code, allowing air traffic between Spain and Gibraltar, in exchange for the joint use of our airport, the building of the Cervantes Institute in Gibraltar
and the payment in retrospect of the pensions to the Spanish workers, who had ceased to work in Gibraltar
when Spain closed the frontier in 1969.

At the press conference after Tripartite Talks, the ministers expressed their satisfaction on the progress which
had been made. The participants also identified the next set of issues for the future work of the Forum. This would include co-operation on environment issues, financial services and tax, judicial and law enforcement co-operation, education, maritime communications and Schengen Visa issues.

(How could the Spanish Minister be unhappy with the UK covering the costs of the pensions to the Spanish
workers who ceased to work in Gibraltar when Spain closed the frontier, the joint use of our airport and the
building of the Cervantes Institute in Gibraltar at Gibraltar's tax payers expense, in exchange for the lifting
of some of the restrictions imposed by General Franco in 1969).

27th March 2007 - Integration with Britain Movement Press Release:

POLITICAL SEDUCTION CONTINUES WITH VAIL THREATS.

Well-done Sr.Pons! You have made clear what we have tried to explain to the Gibraltar Electorate for so long. That your so called Generous Acts of Goodwill are no more than a preparation for your Illegal Claim over the Territory of Gibraltar.

You have reiterated in strong terms that “ Spain WILL NEVER GIVE UP ITS SOVEREIGNTY CLAIM “.

You have fired a WARNING shot across our bows.

Spain does not want Gibraltar to enjoy the Right of remaining outside the European Tariff Barrier, and you clearly state that out you will bring this up in future Talks. You propose that Gibraltar enter the Customs Union lock stock and barrel and by so doing lose a privileged position in Europe .

You also give Gibraltar a Warning about the Finance Center saying that IT IS THE FINANCE CENTER that gives a bad name to Gibraltar .

As a responsible Negotiator you are still insinuating that Gibraltar is carrying on Illegal Finance activities, which is, as you rightly say, the popular opinion in Spain , a nest of Smugglers and money Launderers.

You ignored and overlook that Gibraltar complies with ALL International and European regulations and has received approval and a clean bill of Health from all the pertinent Regulatory Bodies.

The warning that you give that Spain may revert to its old Illegal and Inhuman Restrictions should a future Government of Gibraltar wish to Review the Air Port Agreement.

You say that this would be “ a backward step and Madrid would have to reconsider its favourable attitude toward local cooperation”.

This is the kind of reaction we can expect from Spain when the question of Sovereignty comes up and we turn it down!

This is why we have called the Tripartite Talks a “TROJAN HORSE”, as Spain continuous to advocate change so as to encourage greater economic dependency on the relationship with Spain their position of strength grows and Gibraltar's weakens,

In the end we will realize what we have warned about in the past, THAT THIS IS A POLITICAL TRAP.

Spain 's intentions are the same it is only the Method that has changed, they have changed the Carrot for the Stick, but in the end they expect to win the Sovereignty Claim.

We must remember that the famous Straw “Joint Sovereignty “ proposals have not been rescinded.

Joe L. Caruana
Chairman IWBM

24th March 2007 - With only just over a day to go before the next round of the Tripartite Talks, the location
where the talks will take place is still unknown, however, it appears that the ministers will be attending a dinner
in the evening at the Casino Calpe.

21st March 2007 - A group of concerned citizens are 7organising a public protest on Monday, March 26th to
coincide with the next round of the Tripartite Talks which will be held in Gibraltar.

The protest will be against:

The prohibition of freedom of expression.
Spain's objection to the GFA membership to UEFA.
Spain's interference on our fiscal affairs.
Any part of the Cordoba Agreement which one might not be content with.

The protest start-off point will be from Casemates Square on Monday 26th at 10.00am.

8th March 2007 - The next round of the Tripartite Talks will take place in Gibraltar on the 26th March.

The Spanish Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Bernardino Leon has stated that Madrid will not accept a selective application by the Gibraltar Government of the agreements reached.

(In other words, present or future Gibraltar government's must fully implement every part of the Cordoba Agreement or suffer the consequences of having the restrictions which were imposed by the Fascist Dictator General Franco, and which were just recently lifted under the Cordoba Agreement, being enforced once again).

2nd February 2007 - Spanish frontier flow is certainly running smoother than it was, this morning pedestrian
passports were not only being checked at the passport control post, but also by the customs officer.

(It just made me wonder whether the passport control official was so inefficient that it was required that they
double checked passports at the customs post)

26th January 2007 - Spain's continued opposition on the entry of Gibraltar's Football Association into UEFA
has paid off and today the UEFA's Congress has overwhelmingly voted against allowing Gibraltar's membership.

(Even though it's a sad day for the sports fans in Gibraltar, it does serve to show the sort of country our Chief Minister and the government is so keen in making done-deals with)

24th January 2007 - Following the Spanish Foreign Affairs Minister seeking explanation from the UK in
relations to the Gibraltar government not recognising, during an hour, Spanish identity cards as a valid travel
document, (see 19th January 2007), the GSLP/Liberal Opposition have today made the following statement:

The Opposition considers that the Spanish Government has got incredible cheek in seeking explanations from the British Government regarding the validity of the Gibraltar identity card for travel within the EU when the holder is shown as a British Overseas Territories Citizen.

It will be recalled that under the agreements of April 2000, the format and content of the old Gibraltar identity card was altered in order to satisfy the demands of the Spanish Government. This happened even though the old card had been cleared with the European Commission as a valid travel document within the EU.

The Spanish Government objected that the old card described the authority as the “Government of Gibraltar” and that there was no reference to the United Kingdom.

The new card was sent to the European authorities and circulated to all EU Member States.

Spain has no right to demand an explanation.

Madrid approved the format of the new card in advance and it has been in use as a travel document for EU purposes ever since. The Spanish Foreign Ministry is now saying that this is not enough.

All we need now, nearly seven years later, is for Spain to say that they are not happy with the card and that they want it to be changed again. This is ridiculous.

It is also absurd that the Spanish Government should have complained to the United Kingdom that the Gibraltar Government suspended the recognition of Spanish identity cards last week.

They should be well aware that according to Jack Straw and Geoff Hoon the relationship between Gibraltar and London is no longer based on colonialism which surely means that what we choose to do with the identity cards of a foreign country is a matter for us and there is no appeal.

23rd January 2007 - Today at a public meeting held by the Opposition at the John Mackintosh Hall, the Leader of the Opposition, Joe Bossano, gave a detailed explanation of the situation of local pensioners compared to the offer that had been made to pre 1969 Spanish pensioners.

The last increase in Social Insurance Pensions took place in January 1988, 19 years ago, UK, who pays for the pre 1969 Spanish pensions, decided to freeze them at the 1988 weekly rates of £47.80 and £71.70, and said all other pensioners also had to have theirs frozen because it was against EU Law to give increases to those others.

This is the only reason why there have been no pension increases for 19 years.

Now the UK has admitted it was wrong to do this and decided to provide for a 65.2% increase in April. The new rates will have to be paid to everyone else entitled to a pension. However, pre 1969 Spanish Pensioners will in addition get compensation for the 19 year freeze, but local pensioners get nothing. Why should our pensioners lose out and get nothing?

How can we accept that if local pensioners had been paid and not the Spaniards it would have been discrimination and it's not discrimination when it happens the other way round.

We are not talking pennies either but millions of pounds that our pensioners should have received if UK had not insisted on the freeze.

Worse of all is that the older the pensioner is the greater the discrimination since he is owed the most in back money and will be least likely to benefit from future increases.

UK is offering the compensation to the pre 1969 Spanish pensioners on condition they receive their pensions after April direct from UK to a bank in Spain, instead of coming to collect it here. It would appear that this is to deny equal treatment to our people. The compensation payments reflect the level of pension of each individual at 1988 rates and the number of years the person has received this frozen rate. If the same criteria were applied to our pensioners, who continued to receive their pensions here in Gibraltar, then the following examples indicate the approximate amounts payable as full retrospection based on the age of the pensioner and on the full rates of weekly frozen pensions currently payable of £47.80 for a single pensioner and £71.70 for a married couple, i.e. the 1988 rates.

None of this affects the Household Cost Allowance from Community Care, which continues to be paid after the rates are increased in April. There can, therefore, be no grounds whatsoever for arguing that because of past Community Care payments, pensioners are now not entitled to equal treatment when it come to retrospection.

19th January 2007 - Due to the ongoing industrial action the Royal Navy Destroyer HMS Gloucester will not
be berthing in Gibraltar this weekend. Instead a Royal Navy helicopter landed at the Royal Air force base
to collect provisions for HMS Gloucester.

19th January 2007 - Following yesterdays incident in which holders of valid ID cards were not allowed into
Spain, the Gibraltar government decided to adopt a similar policy by not recognising Spanish identity cards
as a valid travel document. This action led to over 250 Spanish nationals not being allowed entry into Gibraltar.

It was only after confirmation by the Spanish government that Gibraltar ID cards holders would be allowed entry
into Spain, that the restriction imposed on Spanish ID card holders was lifted.

17th January 2007 - Gibraltarians with valid ID cards not allowed through the frontier by the
Spanish police.

This evening my wife and a friend of hers, both of Mexican nationality but with valid ID cards and residence
permits were not allowed by t he Spanish police to cross the border into Spain.

More information will be available later on this evening.

Today 11 Gibraltarians have not been allowed across the border into Spain.

FULL STORY

Shortly after 7.30pm my wife and a friend of hers, both of Mexican nationality but with Gibraltar ID card and
residence permits were not allowed across the border into Spain.

Both were traveling by car and were asked to park on the area by the main queue, and my wife's friend was very un politely ordered to stop the engine. Three Spanish police officers interrogated my wife's friend who
was told that she might be able to get through the border into Spain some other day, but if caught in Spain she
would be deported to Mexico, she replied that, how could that be, when she is married to a Gibraltarian and
residing in Gibraltar, to which the Spanish police insisted that if caught in Spain she would be deported to
Mexico.

My wife friend explained that she was married to a Gibraltarian and had lived in Gibraltar for about 5 years and was expecting the British Passport any day, to which the Spanish police replied that then she would have to
stay in Gibraltar till she had it.

Both my wife's and her friend's passports were thoroughly checked, the Spanish police took them and returned them 15 minutes later.

Referring to my wife's passport the Spanish police said that the 3 months permit had expired and that she had no exit stamp. (As we all know they do not stamp passports when crossing from Spain to Gibraltar - which means there is no proof of having left Spain).

(Even though the Spanish Police officer did not say that if my wife was caught in Spain she would be
deported to mexico, we all know well enough what the Spanish police is like and are quite capable of carrying out their threats).

17th January 2007 - The Ministry of Defence has today said that they "regret that HQBF Gibraltar has to
advise that RAF Gibraltar will not be able to accept a number of incoming flights on 18 Jan 07 due to Trades
Unions proposed industrial action, which will result in the unavoidable shutdown of essential utilities by MOD
workers.

(It's nice to know that the decision of the MoD awarding the ISP contract to a UK company instead of the
in-house option is already starting to take it's toll)

17th January 2007- Press release by the Opposition:

The Opposition fully support the demonstration which has been called by the trade union movement tomorrow.
Opposition Members of Parliament will be present as a sign of solidarity with the MOD workers and their
families.

The Opposition remains totally committed to stop the contractors of MOD jobs.

The claim by the British Government that this is a cost-cutting exercise rings hollow in Gibraltar. The same
British Government that wants to cut back on MOD employment in Gibraltar signed a deal only a few months
ago for the payment of millions of pounds in compensation for having frozen the pensions of former Spanish
workers in 1988.

The political message seems to be that the UK can find the money when it comes to paying former Spanish
workers but that they cannot do so when it comes to paying and employing Gibraltarian workers.

It is also a bit rich for the Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram to fly to Gibraltar on a private jet at a cost of
tens of thousands of pounds to the UK taxpayer in order to deliver a message about making savings and
being cost effective. He could have had the decency to set an example by flying on a scheduled airline at a
cost of a few hundred pounds.

The Opposition therefore urge all our members and supporters to attend the demonstration tomorrow morning
which starts from Casemates Square at 10.00am.

17th January 2007 - Following the UK government decision to award the ISP contract to a UK company,
thus rejecting the in house option, a public demonstration will be held tomorrow at 10am. All political parties
and pressure groups are backing the demonstration.

The Trade Union has stated that it can now be fully understood why the former Maltese Prime Minister, Dom Mintoff, closed the MoD dockyard in Malta and was instrumental in forcing the British out.

For their part, the MoD has revealed that they are already prepared for industrial action and that back-up
generators were in place, as well as arrangements to ensure the security of service personnel in Gibraltar.

The Trade Union has announced that the industrial action against the MoD will take a gradual form, MoD workers have, since yesterday, been working to rule.

16th January 2007 - The Leader of the Opposition, Joe Bossano, left for London yesterday where he would
be meeting the Minister for Europe with responsibility for Gibraltar, Geoff Hoon, and explain the policy differences between the Government and