The Governor writes in the Pennant, the Forces Pension Association journal, he is quoted in the Chronicle and the Mayor takes umbrage publicly in a letter to that newspaper. The Chief Minister arrives in an official car at the Queen's Birthday Parade and the programme includes an instruction to guests to "stand" on his arrival, which they do. These occurrences give rise to questions, which have prompted me to analyse and comment on them.
One particular statement of the Governor, in his article, sharply drew my attention. It expresses such an obvious and simple explanation of the role of the Governor that it annoyed me that I had never myself analysed it in that way or thought of it. I refer to his explanation of the functions of the Governor vis a vis his duties to the UK and those to Gibraltar, with their inherent potential for conflict. This has always eluded me but, no doubt without the experience that comes from performing the role, it is not an easy concept to think through in the manner that the Governor has explained it
The Governor expressed that relationship in the following terms:
"The Governor's job is largely a two-way facilitation and communication: it involves in one direction promoting (but not delivering) HMG policy in Gibraltar and at the same time representing the position of the Government of Gibraltar and the interests of the people of Gibraltar back to HMG."
What grabbed my attention is the fine distinction made by the words (in bold) chosen. The use of the word "promoting" clearly casts the role of the Governor in the same light as that of an ambassador. One role of an ambassador is to promote, in the country to which he is sent, the policies of the government that he represents. An ambassador does not have the power of "delivering" on such policies. This distinction so clearly adopts and explains the changed emphasis of government that the 2006 Constitution brought about. It shifted competencies from the Governor to the elected Parliament and Government of Gibraltar.
There are exceptions, which Sir Adrian Johns, refers to in his article. These are those areas of competency which are in the hands of the Governor under the 2006 Constitution, namely security, defence and external affairs. In exercise of these competencies the Governor's job includes "delivering". What slightly surprised me is something that he left unsaid, but the reasons for the omission I believe are obvious, including, the length, context, readership and objective of the article. The omitted subject is one that I have highlighted in earlier blogs: his constitutional role of ensuring good governance.
This role is vested in the Governor, alone or to be exercised with the Minister of State, by virtue of his powers of disallowance of laws passed in Parliament by reason of them being "... repugnant to or inconsistent with ..." the 2006 Constitution. He also has powers of disallowance if any laws are " ... repugnant to good government or incompatible with any international legal obligations." (Section 33(2)(a) and (b) for those who wish to check this power). In fairness, in another part of his article he did allude vaguely to this power, by saying that the Governor is "... the Queen's representative in the Territory and is thus the de facto Head of State as well as being a constitutional part of the overall government of Gibraltar."
Who then is responsible for "delivering" HMG policy in Gibraltar? The only answer there can be to that is HMG itself through the appropriate Ministry, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and its Ministers. They too need to work within the boundaries established in the 2006 Constitution. Only in extreme circumstances can (or rather perhaps safer to say "should") HMG deploy its ultimate safeguard. This safeguard is the much ignored (in Gibraltar) constitutional ability and right of HMG to " .... make laws ... for the peace, order and good government (including ... laws amending or revoking the Constitution)." (paragraph 8 of Annex 2).
The Governor's article has prompted a reaction from Anthony J. P. Lombard that is critical of aspects of it . Mr Lombard is the current Mayor of Gibraltar. Constitutionally the Mayor performs functions of a civic character. Thus he is the "civic" representative of Gibraltar, elected by MPs, who represent the people. This renders him the "civic" representative of the people. Should the "civic" representative of the people be embroiling himself in criticising the views of the Head of State? I would suggest not. Even less if his criticisms are, on closer examination, not as fair as they might seem on a cursory reading.
His first criticism is that the Governor highlights the well known position of HMG, as included in the Despatch to the 2006 Constitution, that independence for Gibraltar is not possible without Spain's agreement, whilst, in the same breath, not stating that this view is not shared by the Government of Gibraltar (GOG). A position adopted by GOG, which, Mr Lombard says HMG accept, contrary to my own understanding of HMG's position. I do not believe that Mr Lombard's criticism is merited. It is certainly nitpicking.
The Governor in his article is undertaking his role of "promoting" HMG's well known view on this point. This aspect of Gibraltar's relationship with Spain that is highlighted by the Governor is a matter of external affairs, which is in the constitutional competency of HMG. It is for GOG to promote and argue its own view, which is what GOG reserved in the Despatch to the 2006 Constitution. GOG's reservation is expressed, in the Despatch, precisely just as being that, its own view that it does not accept that the Treaty of Utrecht is a bar on independence. The Governor would expose himself to possible criticism from GOG for stepping into GOG's political territory had he made reference to that subject. The article is not a political piece, so a statement to the effect suggested by Mr Lombard would have been out of context and needful of fuller political (which is not the remit of the Governor) explanation and contextualisation had it been made. The context, length and readership did not merit such political comment. Lastly it is a matter of detail that does not interest readers of that type of article outside the confines of Gibraltar.
His second criticism is that the Governor has suggested that the Gibraltarian identity has been forged in the 42 years during and since Franco's 1969 Economic Siege. Mr Lombard does not accurately reflect what the Governor wrote. The Governor wrote that Spain "... unwittingly defined the present day Gibraltarian identity." Undoubtedly the overall Gibraltarian identity has been forged over a much longer period of time. The statement by the Governor is, not only qualified by the use of the words in bold, but also because it appears in the context of the argument that this siege forged the determination of today's Gibraltarians to remain British. In context it is an argument deployed in the article to explain and emphasize why Gibraltar will remain British and how this desire is deeply ingrained in the character of Gibraltarians today.
His third criticism is the Governor's statement that there is " ... nothing like the White Ensign to make the point of ownership" is ironic in light of its absence in recent incidents with Spain in the Bay. Well, the Governor said ".. make the point ...", in todays diplomacy this is what is important, making points not inflaming situations which only brings more serious and widespread repercussions. This must be especially so as between military allies. The Governor precisely makes the White Ensign point in the context of the Bay incidents. He confirms that "the Royal Navy has a key part to play in all of this in representing and protecting British sovereignty here." I would have thought this was quite a reassuringly powerful statement that should be welcome not criticised.
Well, turning now to the Chief Minister. Briefly made the point is that we should be wary of substituting colonial behaviour towards Britain with a form of home grown colonial behaviour towards our own elected and unelected officials. Of course they should be accorded the respect and deference that their office demands for them but that respect and deference is to the office not the individual.
I thought it inappropriate that any Chief Minister should make an entrance at the Queen's Birthday parade and that guests should be asked to stand for him. The parade is for the Queen. We accept, by having voted to adopt the 2006 Constitution, and agree that the Queen's representative in Gibraltar is the Governor. He appears at the parade as the Queen herself appears at the equivalent parade in London. The UK Prime Minister was there. He made no grand entrance. That was reserved exclusively for Her Majesty and, to a lesser degree, her family. That seems to me to be the correct form.
Before anyone accuses me of being a colonial lackey, I will refute that suggestion. What I attempt is consistency between, on one side, my behaviour and views and, the other, my British Nationality and desire to remain British. All Gibraltar wishes to remain British and have continually expressed this desire. The majority of Gibraltar voted in favour of the 2006 Constitution that guarantees this, whilst giving us a greater degree of self government.
The referendum for the 2006 Constitution was not an act of self determination but it rather restricted self determination. It accepted reference in the Despatch to Spain's veto, as explained above, and our continued British sovereignty. Inclusion of the Spanish veto was a good reason for not having had the Referendum but the GSD Government knew better: it oddly decided to have the Referendum. It compounded this odd decision by selling the Referendum to the people as an exercise of the right of self determination. Weird, I have certainly never understood that reasoning. It seems that even the current Chief Minister now admits, by his Andorra comment, that we have not, as yet, exercised our right to self determination.
My behaviour will continue to be to defer to and respect the office of Governor and treat him as one would treat Her Majesty, were one to have the honour of meeting her in person. This is not behaving as a colonial lackey but rather as a loyal British National without any inferiority or other complex in a territory that continuously reaffirms its British sovereignty. It is no more or less than a British National of the UK would do in the UK. It is worse, in my view, to overly defer, in the manner of a colonial lackey, to our own officials, especially on occasions when such deference is not due to them. After all they are our servants, especially the elected ones. This is not to suggest that one should not treat them with the utmost respect and deference but that should not present anyone with a problem, if one, as a matter of good manners, treats all humans with respect and deference, which would include volunteering to stand on the arrival of a Chief Minister anywhere.
One particular statement of the Governor, in his article, sharply drew my attention. It expresses such an obvious and simple explanation of the role of the Governor that it annoyed me that I had never myself analysed it in that way or thought of it. I refer to his explanation of the functions of the Governor vis a vis his duties to the UK and those to Gibraltar, with their inherent potential for conflict. This has always eluded me but, no doubt without the experience that comes from performing the role, it is not an easy concept to think through in the manner that the Governor has explained it
The Governor expressed that relationship in the following terms:
"The Governor's job is largely a two-way facilitation and communication: it involves in one direction promoting (but not delivering) HMG policy in Gibraltar and at the same time representing the position of the Government of Gibraltar and the interests of the people of Gibraltar back to HMG."
What grabbed my attention is the fine distinction made by the words (in bold) chosen. The use of the word "promoting" clearly casts the role of the Governor in the same light as that of an ambassador. One role of an ambassador is to promote, in the country to which he is sent, the policies of the government that he represents. An ambassador does not have the power of "delivering" on such policies. This distinction so clearly adopts and explains the changed emphasis of government that the 2006 Constitution brought about. It shifted competencies from the Governor to the elected Parliament and Government of Gibraltar.
There are exceptions, which Sir Adrian Johns, refers to in his article. These are those areas of competency which are in the hands of the Governor under the 2006 Constitution, namely security, defence and external affairs. In exercise of these competencies the Governor's job includes "delivering". What slightly surprised me is something that he left unsaid, but the reasons for the omission I believe are obvious, including, the length, context, readership and objective of the article. The omitted subject is one that I have highlighted in earlier blogs: his constitutional role of ensuring good governance.
This role is vested in the Governor, alone or to be exercised with the Minister of State, by virtue of his powers of disallowance of laws passed in Parliament by reason of them being "... repugnant to or inconsistent with ..." the 2006 Constitution. He also has powers of disallowance if any laws are " ... repugnant to good government or incompatible with any international legal obligations." (Section 33(2)(a) and (b) for those who wish to check this power). In fairness, in another part of his article he did allude vaguely to this power, by saying that the Governor is "... the Queen's representative in the Territory and is thus the de facto Head of State as well as being a constitutional part of the overall government of Gibraltar."
Who then is responsible for "delivering" HMG policy in Gibraltar? The only answer there can be to that is HMG itself through the appropriate Ministry, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and its Ministers. They too need to work within the boundaries established in the 2006 Constitution. Only in extreme circumstances can (or rather perhaps safer to say "should") HMG deploy its ultimate safeguard. This safeguard is the much ignored (in Gibraltar) constitutional ability and right of HMG to " .... make laws ... for the peace, order and good government (including ... laws amending or revoking the Constitution)." (paragraph 8 of Annex 2).
The Governor's article has prompted a reaction from Anthony J. P. Lombard that is critical of aspects of it . Mr Lombard is the current Mayor of Gibraltar. Constitutionally the Mayor performs functions of a civic character. Thus he is the "civic" representative of Gibraltar, elected by MPs, who represent the people. This renders him the "civic" representative of the people. Should the "civic" representative of the people be embroiling himself in criticising the views of the Head of State? I would suggest not. Even less if his criticisms are, on closer examination, not as fair as they might seem on a cursory reading.
His first criticism is that the Governor highlights the well known position of HMG, as included in the Despatch to the 2006 Constitution, that independence for Gibraltar is not possible without Spain's agreement, whilst, in the same breath, not stating that this view is not shared by the Government of Gibraltar (GOG). A position adopted by GOG, which, Mr Lombard says HMG accept, contrary to my own understanding of HMG's position. I do not believe that Mr Lombard's criticism is merited. It is certainly nitpicking.
The Governor in his article is undertaking his role of "promoting" HMG's well known view on this point. This aspect of Gibraltar's relationship with Spain that is highlighted by the Governor is a matter of external affairs, which is in the constitutional competency of HMG. It is for GOG to promote and argue its own view, which is what GOG reserved in the Despatch to the 2006 Constitution. GOG's reservation is expressed, in the Despatch, precisely just as being that, its own view that it does not accept that the Treaty of Utrecht is a bar on independence. The Governor would expose himself to possible criticism from GOG for stepping into GOG's political territory had he made reference to that subject. The article is not a political piece, so a statement to the effect suggested by Mr Lombard would have been out of context and needful of fuller political (which is not the remit of the Governor) explanation and contextualisation had it been made. The context, length and readership did not merit such political comment. Lastly it is a matter of detail that does not interest readers of that type of article outside the confines of Gibraltar.
His second criticism is that the Governor has suggested that the Gibraltarian identity has been forged in the 42 years during and since Franco's 1969 Economic Siege. Mr Lombard does not accurately reflect what the Governor wrote. The Governor wrote that Spain "... unwittingly defined the present day Gibraltarian identity." Undoubtedly the overall Gibraltarian identity has been forged over a much longer period of time. The statement by the Governor is, not only qualified by the use of the words in bold, but also because it appears in the context of the argument that this siege forged the determination of today's Gibraltarians to remain British. In context it is an argument deployed in the article to explain and emphasize why Gibraltar will remain British and how this desire is deeply ingrained in the character of Gibraltarians today.
His third criticism is the Governor's statement that there is " ... nothing like the White Ensign to make the point of ownership" is ironic in light of its absence in recent incidents with Spain in the Bay. Well, the Governor said ".. make the point ...", in todays diplomacy this is what is important, making points not inflaming situations which only brings more serious and widespread repercussions. This must be especially so as between military allies. The Governor precisely makes the White Ensign point in the context of the Bay incidents. He confirms that "the Royal Navy has a key part to play in all of this in representing and protecting British sovereignty here." I would have thought this was quite a reassuringly powerful statement that should be welcome not criticised.
Well, turning now to the Chief Minister. Briefly made the point is that we should be wary of substituting colonial behaviour towards Britain with a form of home grown colonial behaviour towards our own elected and unelected officials. Of course they should be accorded the respect and deference that their office demands for them but that respect and deference is to the office not the individual.
I thought it inappropriate that any Chief Minister should make an entrance at the Queen's Birthday parade and that guests should be asked to stand for him. The parade is for the Queen. We accept, by having voted to adopt the 2006 Constitution, and agree that the Queen's representative in Gibraltar is the Governor. He appears at the parade as the Queen herself appears at the equivalent parade in London. The UK Prime Minister was there. He made no grand entrance. That was reserved exclusively for Her Majesty and, to a lesser degree, her family. That seems to me to be the correct form.
Before anyone accuses me of being a colonial lackey, I will refute that suggestion. What I attempt is consistency between, on one side, my behaviour and views and, the other, my British Nationality and desire to remain British. All Gibraltar wishes to remain British and have continually expressed this desire. The majority of Gibraltar voted in favour of the 2006 Constitution that guarantees this, whilst giving us a greater degree of self government.
The referendum for the 2006 Constitution was not an act of self determination but it rather restricted self determination. It accepted reference in the Despatch to Spain's veto, as explained above, and our continued British sovereignty. Inclusion of the Spanish veto was a good reason for not having had the Referendum but the GSD Government knew better: it oddly decided to have the Referendum. It compounded this odd decision by selling the Referendum to the people as an exercise of the right of self determination. Weird, I have certainly never understood that reasoning. It seems that even the current Chief Minister now admits, by his Andorra comment, that we have not, as yet, exercised our right to self determination.
My behaviour will continue to be to defer to and respect the office of Governor and treat him as one would treat Her Majesty, were one to have the honour of meeting her in person. This is not behaving as a colonial lackey but rather as a loyal British National without any inferiority or other complex in a territory that continuously reaffirms its British sovereignty. It is no more or less than a British National of the UK would do in the UK. It is worse, in my view, to overly defer, in the manner of a colonial lackey, to our own officials, especially on occasions when such deference is not due to them. After all they are our servants, especially the elected ones. This is not to suggest that one should not treat them with the utmost respect and deference but that should not present anyone with a problem, if one, as a matter of good manners, treats all humans with respect and deference, which would include volunteering to stand on the arrival of a Chief Minister anywhere.
Excellent piece Robert, there does seem to be a lot of self-importance going on lately and I think you have addressed this very eloquently.
ReplyDeleteI look forward to this debate
Anna Conda
Rob your a scholar...
ReplyDeleteGreat article RV.
ReplyDeleteThe GSD government seems to be extremely obsessed in maintaining good relations with Spain. Not that I disagree, not at all actually, as it imperative that we remain amicable with our ever hostile neighbours.
What I don’t agree with is doing so at the
cost of neglecting our relations with the UK. In my humble opinion this should be our first priority.
The GSD sycophants will have you believe that the Spain/Gibraltar “situation” is alike an egg shell, (fragile, quite prone to getting cracked) and that Caruana is the only man to maintain it intact. Whilst I will have to agree somewhat with such an assessment (bar de Caruana part) I believe they are becoming too focused on this same issue.
Bossano also made a similar mistake (once upon a time in a land far away) when he left Gibraltar to the “vulchers” whilst solely concentrating on external affairs, a mistake that proved to be costly.
Good relations with the UK must be maintained in order to ensure our survival as a people. What else will stop the Spaniards from taking Gibraltar by force? We are but a mere speck on the map and should not give ourselves too much credit. A bit of humility would do us all some good.
If Spain DID decide to walk in guns blazing, tanks in toll the world would frown on them for a day, or maybe two but after that we would be forgotten, like Libya, and Egypt now have.
PS- Word on the street is that the Governor and the CM don't like each other. Let us hope that this clash of egos does not have some form of ripple effect.
K
I actually think that Caruana has done many good things for Gibraltar during his time in pwoer (not least the economy) and I would prefer to have him defending Gibraltar's case in the UK or abroad than any of the other current options.
ReplyDeleteHowever, unfortunately his arrogance knows no boundaries and he has forgotten that he is elected by the people and that they can put him right back where he came from.
Getting the people at the Queens Birthday Parade to stand for him is yet another sign that he believes himself to be a superior being to the rest of us rather than just our representative.
In my opinion Caruana SHOULD have had the coming election sown up but instead there is every chance that he will get ousted and if that happens then he can only blame his arrogant persona and his inability to listen!!
The sub-text to your article is that there is an ongoing power struggle between Peter Caruana and the Foreign Office. The latter had unparallelled experience of "sorting out" native trouble makers from their experience in the hey day of the Empire when their predecessors facilitated British rule over a 1/4 of the Globe. Their genius may have diminished of late, as we saw when a recent civilian governor was ordered to wear a hat with ostrich plumes. That coincided with the time that Mr. Caruana gave the F&CO the severest hiding when they tried their joint sovereignty betrayal. Surely the mandarins have neither forgotten or forgiven him for this and my assessment is that they would like to see a new incumbent at 6 Convent Place. It is my view that for many reasons, although not because Fabian is "soft on Spain" (which I do not believe that he is), that Fabian is the F&CO's dream candidate, he brings with him all the accoutrements of the type of politician that the F&CO know how to deal with. Peter Caruana is thus sailing into the perfect storm but ironically his political sinking might not be all that good for Gibraltar.
ReplyDeleteRobert
ReplyDeleteDo you know the origins of this "order" to stand when the Chief Minister arrives at Her Majesty the Queen's birthday parade? How far back has this been protocol and who sets the protocol for these occasions?
Charles
ReplyDeleteThere is a lot in what you say that I agree with. The other issue is precisely what you say: the power struggle is seemingly between PETER CARUANA and the F&CO. It seems to involve an ego battle because, as I see it, it was Peter Caruana who took it upon himself to quash the popular movement started by the SDGG. He succeeded in that with the political deception that the referendum for the 2006 Constitution turned out to be. Yet he alone seems to continue a quest for more power.
He pushes the envelope on further constitutional evolution by stretching the interpretation of the 2006 Constitution. This may be and attempt by him to justify that Gibraltar achieved self determination and it was not a delusion. Why on his own? Perhaps because his quest for power is self absorbed to prove himself right? Perhaps he has seen that he was wrong and he likes always to be right? If so perhaps the interests of Gibraltar do not feature too high?
Certainly, having adopted the 2006 Constitution my view is that it is destructive of UK/Gibraltar relations to seek more, as Oliver famously did. We negotiated and got what we got. The people of Gibraltar are seemingly content with what was achieved. To push for more immediately is to ask for trouble. It also seems a quest by politicians for their selfish aim of gaining more power for themselves, without reforming the electoral and parliamentary system to make them more accountable to the people.
Seeking more is also to invoke the very reservation that the UK made in the Despatch ... that Spain has the right of first refusal. Especially as Peter Caruana has accepted that we have achieved the greatest level of self government that is compatible with remaining British. Surely in this scenario the only next step toward greater self government that is open to Gibraltar is either independence or some agreement with Spain. That is the situation that our politicians seem to have got us into.
The acceptance of the veto in the Despatch is the Trojan Horse legacy that ALL our politicians have left us with, after all the GSLP accepted the 2006 Constitution. What were all our politicians thinking? Is there something that has not been revealed to us? I make great efforts not to be a conspiracy theorist but one has to wonder ...
Dennis
ReplyDeleteThe answer is no, I do know the answer to either question. At this years parade, I was told by a regular attender tat it was the first time it had happened but I have not had a chance to verify this. I do not think that the argument is undermined by whatever the answer to your question might be. The criticism is not directed exclusively at this CM that is why I wrote "... any Chief Minister".
Charles
ReplyDeleteI would like to think that the severe hiding PC gave the F&CO would have been demanded of any Chief Minister. He/she would have been expected to voice the angry reaction of the vast majority of Gibraltarians, whether we had held a referendum on joint sovereignty or not.
Dennis
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that Charles is castigating PC at all but rather suggesting what the F&CO reactions and feelings towards him may have been and may be as a result of what he achieved ...
Robert
ReplyDelete@11.49
My questions were not intended to undermine your argument. I was just curious, that is all.
Denis, you miss the point by a mile. Peter Caruana's thrashing of the F&CO was a marvel and I doubt that any other CM or contender could have executed it in such an effective way. My points are that the mandarins at King Charles Street have the cross hairs of their sights set on Mr. Caruana, that he should therefore watch his step (perhaps he might try a bit of diplomacy and keep a weather eye on the activities of some of his colleagues and collaborators) and that it is my own very personal view of things that Fabian Picardo in 6 Convent Place would be a dream come true for the F&CO but something altogether different for Gibraltar.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting assessment Charles.
ReplyDeleteBut could Peter really be his own worst enemy?
Hmmmmmmm
K
Robert
ReplyDelete@12:07
What makes you think that I do. What I am saying is that the F&CO did get a severe hiding and should expect a severe hiding, in similar circumstances, regardless of who our CM happens to be.
Charles
ReplyDelete@12:36
For the sake of clarity:
A) Please name the colleagues and collaborators that Mr Caruana should keep a weather eye on and why?
B) Why would Mr Picardo at No6 be a dream come true for the F&CO?
C) How would it be so different for Gibraltar?
Dennis
ReplyDeleteI do not think this is a forum to interrogate commentators. It is a free forum for those who wish to comment to do so freely.
Charles is of course free to reply if he so wishes but I doubt if I will be publishing names!
Charles
ReplyDeleteI really do think that the days of them and us between the F&CO and Gibraltar are behind us. The joint sovereignty era passed and despite our constant suspicion of the F & CO, the reality is that Gibraltar remains and will remain British. The undertakings in the 2006 Constitution firm and continuously reaffirmed by UK Ministers. I think we need to have some confidence in this and elect whoever voters consider to be the appropriate government for Gibraltar putting to one side the issue with Spain. They want sovereignty but they are not going to get it until Gibraltarians agree, end of story. Let us get on with life. There may be penalties to pay from Spain for maintaining our view but nothing comes for free. We will have to put up with inconvenience but always remembering that membership of the EU limits Spain's ability to take retaliatory steps against Gibraltar
Robert: The F&CO is meant to promote "British interests" - the concept of "interests" (British or otherwise)in the international arena is a shifting one. We have seen only recently that the murderer Gaddafi whom the RAF bombed in 1986 then became a close friend of the British government for a while but last February became a pariah again and is now being bombed (again); that is just one, albeit a topical, example.Nobody knows how "British interests" vis a vis Gibraltar will be interpreted by the the UK government in the future. I am all for an easy life but the F&CO as an arm of state is what it is and to the extent that I have an interest in politics my main concern is "Gibraltarian interests" as I understand them but of course the electorate knows best. The rather clumsy "in your face" joint sovereignty phase may be history but I think that it would be very easy for Gibraltar to be destabilised. It is in that vein that my previous posts are meant. But hey, look, if you think that this is too heavy and the F&CO is now forever "with us" let us move to a lighter if less realistic topic.
ReplyDeleteCharles
ReplyDeleteWe are British nationals, call me naive :)
If Fabian or any CM or politician attempted anything against the wishes of the people of Gibraltar he would not survive politically, so it is unlikely to occur. If democratic reforms were to be enacted the CM would have more checks an balances, thereby reducing the risk of a maverick CM doing anything contrary to the wishes of voters.
More democracy is the best safeguard rather than doubting any individual who might be CM or over relying on another individual CM because he is considered less of a risk. It is these distortions of democracy that I seek to redress by reforms.
This may be the first time the instruction was in the programme but not the first time that invited dignitaries stand when the CM arrives. You make a good point, Robert, that David Cameron does not make a grand entrance at the Trooping of the Colour QBD parade. Only the Queen does and so should her representative here in Gib. I understand that it is retired Major David Seed how now organises the parades on contract to the MOD and I am told that he has been at loggerheads with No. 6 over the latter's insistence on changing protocol. Sounds like Major Seed was forced to give in on this one because only the Gov'nor should make a grand entrance, as you say. I noticed that the CM has one police outrider whereas the Gov'nor has two. Guess that was the trade-off.
ReplyDeleteGianni
ReplyDeleteIf people wish to get up to greet the CM so be it. I do not criticise that at all. The point is that if he makes a grand entrance people will stand so he should not, on this occasion make a grand entrance. This would avoid the whole issue including having to have an odd instruction in the programme. For whom does the CM insist on changing protocol, it cannot be for Gibraltar, so that only leaves the answer as being for him alone. This is why I refer to deference being for the office and not the person. A lesson that I learnt from my father at a young age whilst he was Speaker and Mayor. He was always very careful to make and act by this distinction ... another era when protocols were understood perhaps?
Charles, Its a bank holiday and I would like to tell you to give your forensic lawyer brain a rest but I have to say that everything you say has a frightening plausibility. Keep it up!
ReplyDeleteI actually agree with Charles on this one.
ReplyDeleteVery plausible indeed.
K
Robert if you think that UK interests are the same as our interests then sorry but you are naive. I share Charles concern that the F & CO will be able to do encaje de bolillo with Fabian which they would not have been able to do with Joe Bossano and failed to do to Peter Caruana. Fabian has too much baggage and is a sitting target. Come back please Joe Bossano all is forgiven.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the UK government wants to get rid of Caruana and would be happy to have Picardo in his place. The funny thing is that if Gomez stood for election again the votes which he would once again take from the GSD would ensure that Picardo became our next Chief minister. So don't stand for election this time Charlie, think about that!.
ReplyDeleteI believe there are many ways to skin a cat.
ReplyDeleteOne approach to doing 'incaje de bolillos' with somebody full of self-importance might be to seemingly give in to his whims to ensure everyone can see for themselves how they need to 'figura', giving him plenty of rope in order to encourage self-hanging!
The F&CO are not stupid or weak, they are diplomats who can recognise a peacock when they are faced with one.
It is a sad state of affairs indeed when our elected CM, and appointed civil Mayor (by dedocracia, may I add) take it upon themselves to rip off the British and yet reserve the hugging and pamploneo for the Spaniards.
At least this long-weekend some of our members of parliament have foregone the delights of the sea-shore, opting instead to fight for our cause in New York!
For too long the committee of 24 has been used by local politicians to grandstand for internal Gibraltar purposes. "Not a grain of sand not a drop of our water!" What about not a gust of our wind? Cambia el disco Fabian que ya hemos escushao eso 100 veses. :) I say that from now on we send Ahotapelomba to New York. Our mayor has got style.
ReplyDeleteIs Fabian a future leader or a wind bag? That is the pressing question of today.
ReplyDeleteRV,
ReplyDeleteI must admit that this latest article has really delved into the subcutaneous level of local politics where power struggles and political differences between GOG and HMG, supposedly, are being manifested in subtle and conniving ways.
Let me start off by admitting that when I first read the mayor’s letter to the chronicle I found it refreshing, not least because I find his letters both amusing and controversial, but because I saw it in the light that the Governor was being publicly admonished/corrected. (Slap! There you go, one from the natives). It felt good, don’t know why, childish perhaps, but there you go….
Now having re-read you’re article, i.e. your version of the events in relation to the mayor’s comments, the Queen’s Birthday parade and everything else that has been said and done, raises in part, too many unsettling concerns.
Where to start? I will limit myself in this post to the Guv’.
Your analysis on the Governor’s role is quite enlightening and your views regarding his continued role within our constitutional and political framework even more so. You are obviously well versed in these matters. (Too many cocktail parties I presume :) ) But I found it surprising that you dissected the Mayor’s comments in such a way that you have astonishingly approved and defended the Governor’s comments and his difficult and balancing role. However, your dissection though meritorious is lacking something which I often find hard to accept from the British. It is their reluctance to defend us when matters come to a head with Spain. Admittedly there is no need to come to “blows” between EU allies, but a prompt response in relation to the defence of our territorial waters would come not come amiss. Spain continues to bully us whenever they find the opportune moment and it is this bullying that riles us. If the analogy big brother little bother were to apply I would expect the British to flex their muscles occasionally send the right signals.
It would seem (and this is something I read sometime ago, that the only ones who really understand the Spanish other than ourselves are the Portuguese, the French and Canadians. The latter for swiftly sending in their navy to oust the Spanish fishing fleet from their waters. No more was heard on that!
It is, I’m afraid the only language they understand!
This brings me to my own interpretation of good governance, which you say is the governor’s constitutional responsibility. You will have given us, no doubt, the correct analysis of it in its legal and constitutional terms. You also mention that he omits it from his article for obvious reasons (not for the uncultured, I include myself) in an effort not to embroil himself in other matters. But he should! And there lies the difference. Not everyone is ingenious enough to read between the lines or interpret a “powerful statement” couched in diplomatic lingo to accept it as such. On these sporadic occasions where Spain bullies us, the Governor should, IMHO, simply come out and defend our position robustly for the sake of good governance.
pero el mayor no se peleo ya con la governadora? ahora que con el governador? otro ke se le ha subio las tonterias!
ReplyDeleteThis being a civic post, however much we may agree, or disagree with the Mayor's opinion, should he be allowed to enter into a public spat with the Governor during his term of office?
ReplyDeleteAre we not setting precedence here? Will the next Mayor be encouraged to favour one party over the other in the next election, for example? Or even come out against the Government on a matter of policy that he personally doesn't quite agree with.
As Robert said in the blog, the office of Mayor requires due respect, not only by the public, but also by the present incumbent.
quien es ahotapelomba? o mejor quien se a creido que es AJPL?
ReplyDeleteBy all means, lets stand up to the United Kingdom and show them we have a voice and an opinion that matters. Lets insist on being treated with equality and respect but let's remember UK doesn't 'need' us and if we piss on their backs too much and too often, they might feel inclined to be done with us completely.
ReplyDeleteWe need them to respect us, but respect is earned not handed over after a tantrum.
Does the Major actually do anything?
ReplyDeleteI am Cucumberbear and I am here again...
ReplyDeleteWhen I heard that your cousin expected ordinary citizens who elected him and the present government to represent us and serve us to stand up for him, I recognised these are the symptoms of developing megalomania and potentially very dangerous.
They must not remain unchecked.
I refuse to stand up for him.
The next development will be that he will expect us to kneel in front of him.
The next one after that will be for us to worship him as well.
The next one will be for him to pronounce himself to be God.
It is an insult, an affront, to the very people he represents and not that he owns or he thinks he owns or who he considers are subservient to him.
He is subservient to us and not the other way round. The next time I meet him face to face I will tell him myself.
Twerp.
Gibraltar is every day resembling Zimbawe more and more.... when is this going to end? Probably never and we will find ourselves like Turks and Caicos and direct rule implemented eventually..
ReplyDeleteCheers
Why is the mayor acting important, when we all know he is not important at all?
ReplyDeleteAnon 01:44 - "twerp"? jajaja Asin tanpoko!!!
K
Cucumberbear
ReplyDeleteYou are unfairly assuming that the CM had something to do with the change. This may not be the case!
RV,
ReplyDeleteYou are being slightly mischievous... On the one hand you provide us with an eloquent almost captious account as regards the CM and this year's newly installed protocol and then on the other, once you have the natives up in arms, you quite rightly suggest that possibly the CM had nothing to do with the change....
I have re-read your account yet again and before you correct me, let me just say that you did not accuse him - directly- of that...but the insinuation, IMHO (for want of a better word) is certainly there.
RV,
ReplyDeleteI have been googling "the role of a mayor" and I come with some extraordinary results. It would seem that mayors across the world have differing roles.
Would anyone know exactly the role of our own mayor and why is he bound by some unwritten rule that he cannot have his say?....es que the Worshipful Mayor of Gibraltar tiene mucho de que decir and I for one like to read what he has to say...
Aparte de todo I think that this Mayor ha disfrutao de lo lindo....Gosh! he even got himself a portrait!
I wonder if the Mayor's supporters on this blog would be applauding his letters and comments in the local press if he was criticising the Chief Minister instead of the Governor!
ReplyDeleteHi anon, 19.06
ReplyDeleteCheap shot...quite unnecessary...Why is everything twisted to suit the contrary.
Pre his mayoral duties, AL was quite a "prolific" contributor to the Chronicle. Read them and you will find that the vast majority are of general interest.
Anon 15 JUNE 2011 19.06
ReplyDeleteIf his criticism of the CM was justified why not?
Disciple X
ReplyDeleteLet us not talk about "cheap shots" PLEASE!!
Valiente cara dura.
K
disciple x, a cheap shot? surely not, instead a very valid one to make. I have read his letters, believe it or not and I even understand them although I don't usually find myself agreeing with his opinion, which is after all what he is expressing, however I honestly believe you'd all be ripping him to shreds and questioning his right to express his personal opinion so publicly during his reign, if his criticism was directed at the Government. In fact I go further, just imagine if he'd come out in the chronicle with an attack on the CM's Andorra gaffe, not only would you guys have jumped in but the Government itself would have joined in to remind him of his civic role.
ReplyDeleteThe role of Mayor, which is only for one year, carries its responsibilities together with its opportunities to, como dijo alguin antes 'pasarselo de lo lindo' and these responsibilities should not be ignored.
Its a pity because up until now, the choices for Mayor have proved themselves to be outside party politics, religion, etc and its only this time round that those boundaries have been overstepped.
It is said his argument with the Governor's wife was spectacular, so its also a pity that he has allowed his prejudice against this couple to influence his opinions on the Office of Governor of Gibraltar, which after all is necessary for us to remain British, or is that something we don't want now!
Talking of mayors; why can't we have a pretty young mayor like Gemma Araujo of La Linea? Why is it that in Gibraltar beautiful people always seem to take back seat to the plain and / or seriously mature? Don't get me wrong mayoress Zammit was demure but not that young and Mayor Lomba might seem handsome from a great distance to the myopic. I say that the powers that be (no oil paintings they) should choose somebody comely next time - maybe not Kianne Aldorino, that would be going over the top and more but what of Daphne Alcantara or Douglas Villata or or Bianca Chiara or Levi Attias (who has film star good looks) or the young singer Christan Fa or Christian Santos or Susan Clifton or Keiron Gonzalez etc?
ReplyDeletek
ReplyDeleteAfoooo!....Where are my cheap shots?
the govt has been v. clever in its appointments of mayor. every mayor from the first to the last has been more and more pro gsd. the mayor should bear no allegiance to the current Govt, but the govt has never picked an anti gsd mayor only passive/active supporters of theirs.
ReplyDeleteddm
The powers that be may not be oils but that will change when Fabian becomes CM.:)
ReplyDeleteI say that we form a new GGR "Gibraltar Guapo Rights" and legislate to protect the beautiful, sexy and fit minority from the intolerance of the plain and / or ugly majority.
ReplyDeleteRe: the post of mayor should perhaps be up to public election.
ReplyDeleteGiven its apolitical nature maybe the people should elect a mayor. Perhaps maybe for a longer period , say 2 years.
As regards the mayor's role I agree with the premise that his comments, if allowed should be more tempered. If his comments should not be allowed in the public domain, then that should be one of the rules of the post.
My previous comments regarding a mayor's role was purely out of curiosity because I, for one, do not know exactly what his role or responsibilities are other than entertaining dignitaries.
Does any1 really know what the role of the mayor actually is, or is he only there para hacer el guapo?
ReplyDeleteYou gibraltarians really must take a look in the mirror!
ReplyDeleteGib is a small but pleasant enough town with a massive insecurity complex, playing at being a country.
For the sake of your dignity, stop all this nonsense please - chief minister this, government that.... Absurd.
Take today's chronic. "Picardo holds 'top level talks' in house of commons". Who did they wheel out for him? Shadow minister for Europe. Quite sad really.
Youre a nice bunch of people but please stop this delusional talk and get back to the beach, open your picnic hampers and enjoy your summer hours.
Anon @ 08.29
ReplyDeleteHow patronising!
If you really feel that way about Gibraltarians, I for one don't know why you 'stoop so low' to even 'visit' a Gibraltarian website.
You obviously must be as 'absurd' as us if you don't have anything better to do with your time than snoop and mock a GIBRALTARIAN blog!
I'll have you know Gibraltarians are a very special people who have come very far in a very short space of time in terms of establishing a modern democracy and all that follows with that.
This blog is for people who care and feel passionate about Gibraltar and its politics. Its obvious that you don't fall into any of these categories, and therefore there is no place for someone like you, who is only in to stir your wooden spoon, in this blog.
So long.
Marlene Hassan Nahon
Anon@08:29
ReplyDeleteThanks Bwana.
I do not believe that anon @08.29 is not a Gibraltarian. I think that everyone is entitled to their delusions whether they be of grandeur or something else. In my opinion the extraordinary fact that the people of a small town should behave as if they were a large country is to the immense credit of Gibraltarians. Remember that at its height, the cradle of European civilization, the city of Athens, had a population of only 25,000. So fellow Gibraltaians do not allow wet blankets like anon @ 08.29 to cramp our style.
ReplyDeleteanon 08:29
ReplyDeleteWhat a pointless comment. What were you trying to achieve? Why are you in llanito world or in gib anyway? if we can have summer hours and still be prosperous why not? in what state would the uk economy be with summer hours? probably worse of than Greece is at the moment.
If your gonna say s/thing like that at least put your name? or are you scared to loose YOUR dignity to us 'mere' GIBRALTARIANS?
ddm
Anon 08:29. I can only imagine that you are playing the wind up merchant as is so easy on a blog where anons are allowed the luxury of bashing as much as they want. In the event that you are serious, I would say that your analysis of Gibraltar is flawed to the highest degree and offers absolutely no basis of fact or reality. It would be pointless to even try and debate or argue your statements as they are riddled with a lack of respect and ignorance that only deserves sidelining. Thankfully your attitude and perception is relevant to only a small minority of non- locals currently residing in Gibraltar.
ReplyDeleteTo anon 08.29
ReplyDeleteYou're not worth the bother so just p...off.
An idea for the next topic: has the GSD lost the will to win? Caruana's party was looking at the dynamic Daniel Feetham to receive the torch but the brutal attack that Mr. Feetham suffered earlier this year has naturally put him temporarily out of action. This has left the GSD looking old, worn and frayed. I think that Caruana and Feetham need to revamp their team and not rely on just airing Fabian Picardo's dirty linen. The GSD needs to come up with new candidates soon.
ReplyDeleteCucumberbear now returns... What all peoples need is for an elected Government to be honest, fair, caring, considerate, truthful, responsible, thrifty, prudent, transparent, accountable and representative of the hopes and aspirations of the people who elect it, answerable to us when required, approachable, accessible, available and forthright, that governs as a team, in which the most fit and the most expert are consulted. What peoples do not need is a Government that makes promises, does not keep them, disregards the hopes wishes and aspirations of the electorate as a whole, is wasteful, irresponsible, confrontational, opinionated, dishonest, unfair, uncaring, inconsiderate, reckless, imprudent, secretive, autocratic, dictatorial, conniving,unapproachable,incompetent, inacessible, and which does not believe in teamwork, disregards the wisdom of experts, ignores the most fit, and instead plugs in whom it pleases and is guilty of all the above, regardless of the consequences and in general. Now, what Government do we prefer, and more to the point, which leader to lead it properly to get us out of the mess we are inexorably heading for if the current state of affairs continues ?
ReplyDeleteTHIS COMMENT HAS BEEN EDITED
Vox on line has a photo of the grinning Power Behind Picardo ("PBP"). Mas claro el agua that Vox on line has been taken over by PBP but the propaganda is much too much in your face. Derek McGrail editor of the new PBP Vox, if you want to help P you must be more discrete at the moment the PBP Vox is chruning out more untreated propaganda than 7 Days and the New People put together. Surely Peter Schirmer is not involved in this!
ReplyDeleteWhy are we assuming anon @ 08.29 is expat or a non-Gibraltarian?
ReplyDeleteI would understand somebody from the UK taking exception to the Chief Minister being treated the same as HM the Queen's representative, especially when this is compared to how the Prime Minister in UK is received at the Trooping of the Colour. I would also understand his criticism of our version of this parade.
What he does do though, is have a go at Fabian Picardo's meeting in UK and rubbish his efforts last week. Could this be the point of his post? A wolf in sheep's clothing, perhaps?
Very sneaky anon @ 08.29, very sneaky indeed, sadly for you though, a mi no me la dite! LOL
a quote from the Chronic today in the "‘SHORELINE’ GAMING LICENCES WOO CRUISE CHIEFS"article:
ReplyDelete"While plans had already been drawn up to expand and refurbish the Cruise Terminal, these will now also take account of the Government's longer-term goal to turn the Western Arm into a dedicated cruise facility."
and yet on May 25th, the Nature Group published its Preliminary Results for the Year ended 31 December 2010 and carried in its operational highlights the following quote:
"Expansion of tankage planned for 2011/12 at the Group's Gibraltar facility to 12,000 tonnes from the current 7,000 tonnes."
on the following link:
http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/Nature-Group-PLC-Preliminary-afxcnf-1448069352.html?x=0
so, which is it to be? Did the Government really have a long-term plan for the cruise-liner trade or didn't they?
Anon@11:55
ReplyDeleteAre you assuming that the storage expansion of tankage is destined to be sited at the Western Arm? Correct me if I misunderstood your comment.
I agree with anon at 10.04 the GSD need major surgery in their line up and the doubt surrounding Feetham does not help. Caruana backed up by Feetham with a new young team can win it handsomely but is it going to happen?
ReplyDeleteI agree with the comments made above, Picardo is the dream Spanish and FCO candidate. I feel very nervous about the secrecy surrounding this blue prime case in Spain.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous has left a new comment on your post "The Governor, the Chief Minister, the Mayor and Co...":
ReplyDeleteanon @ 11:06, the chronicle, GBC, Panorama all reported this press release from Hassans at the time. If the vox can be accused of anything is its tardiness in reporting this item.
Ahora si te quiere reir, vete al 7 days ke esta the C M inspecting el port!
anon @ 14.19, I try not to assume anything but in the Nature Group's 2010 Operational Highlights of the Preliminary Results of the Year ended 2010, it does state:
ReplyDelete"Expansion of tankage planned for 2011/12 at the Group's GIBRALTAR FACILITY to 12,000 tonnes from the current 7000 tonnes"
I'm not wrong in assuming that the group's Gibraltar facility was sited on the Western Arm, am I?
Surely had there been a relocation involved, this move would have been reflected in their end of year report.
Anon@15:01
ReplyDeleteI think that Picardo should state publicly what the state of play is on the Blueprime case. There is too much at stake.
I agree with you anon 20.34. Gibraltarians deserve to know what we are faced with. This is not a joke and downplaying it does us no favours.
ReplyDeleteOstriches heads out of the sand please!
B. Lou. Prime
Anon@21:34
ReplyDeleteB.Lou Prime
I am amazed at how the Blueprime and Noble cases are hardly mentioned in this blog. It seems to be a case of ignore them and they will go away.
B. Lou Prime and others
ReplyDeleteThis is a POLITICAL blog not a smut rag, Are you so thick that you do not understand that? Are you and the GSD so bereft of politics that you think that Blueprime aand Noble will win you the election? You are very mistaken. Word is that ALL LAWYERS are the same! Not ture perhaps but ...
despite which this is the first place Noble was mentioned publicly. What about mainstream news media why do you not attack them?
Nasty cheap shots will not be published. Just the same as I do not publish nasty cheap shots that are taken against PRC/Nigel Pardo and Joe Holiday/Steelmac/Darren McComb etc etc
DO YOU WANT ME TO CONTINUE? I COULD SAY AND PROVE A LOT MORE
Robert, you don't make yourself very clear at all actually. The fact that you publish our comments must mean you think they are above board....
ReplyDeleteWhy is it that you subsequently take a U turn? Does anyone put pressure on you?
I am dead serious about my comments. Its a gravely pertinent topic for Gibraltar politics. 'Smut rag' would be delving into for example, the private lives of our politicians or irrelevant information purely to cause mischief.
However, for you to call me thick because I highlight a MAJOR ISSUE for Gibraltar surrounding a potential Chief Minister is confusing to me. - but then again what would i know? I'm thick! I do hope the rest of the electorate isn't.
In fact, if you would have asked me sooner, or if i were the editor of this blog, i would have considered the Picardo issues to be a hell of a lot more pertinent for discussion than whether or not people should stand for the Chief Minister at a garden party! But then again, I'm thick, so I must be wrong on that one too.
B. Lou Prime
I do not think these are comparable. I do not care about noble even though what the judge says is serious. My concern is a future CM caught up in a criminal investigation in Spain held in secret. The contractual relationship vis NP may be politically criticised or not but it is not in the same league. You then mention holiday/steelmac/mcComb - you rely on rumour not facts. Noble and Blueprime are fact.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous at 22:20
ReplyDeleteA subjective opinion and the nature of FP's connection with the cases you mention is not established. It is rumour. Perhaps we should have an anti-corruption body to investigate EVERYTHING as I suggested months ago? Or maybe the RGP should investigate?
B. Lou Prime
ReplyDeletePublish in your name and get the facts right and then we might talk in the meantime you got it in one its MY blog. I write about and publish what I consider appropriate matters for debate. The issue that I refer to raise questions as to allocation of resources and contracts without tender that is
(a) contrary to fundamental GSD manifesto promises and principles upon which they were elected in the context of vicious criticism by it of the GSLP behaviour in that regard and
(b) not a correct and ethical manner, in my view, for public bodies using public funds to contract, and
(c) will always lead to rumour.
No you know me better ... no one leans on me ... I have given up too much in my life speaking my mind. This shows that I have my own mind and use it publicly ... both are rare occurrences in Gibraltar.
BTW I have written in the past on this blog about the potential distortions the cases you mention may have on politics in Gibraltar, so this issue has not been ignored. It is one of the reasons that we need electoral and parliamentary reforms which I am campaigning for. Have the guts to force politicians to enact them ..
I am anon 15.01 and I said I was nervous about blue prime case and a CM being caught up in it, but the attempt by some fanatics to jump on the bandwagon does the cause of transparency no favours at all. This is a serious issue and it deserves serious consideration not shallow and cheap comments
ReplyDeleteOK let's stop messing around. What happens if the next chief minister of Gibraltar is sub-poenad to give evidence in the Audiencia Nacional in the Blue Prime case? We are told that Fabian is just a witness. Well who are the accused? Fabian you really need to explain the situation because the more one thinks of this the more one concludes that you should stand down. A shame really because when you do, as I think eventually you will have to Caruana will have won by default but Gibraltar cannot afford its Chief minister being dragged through the courts in Madrid. If you have Gibraltar's best interests at heart resign and let Gilbert & Dr. Joseph lead the alliance at the next election.
ReplyDeleteTo the last anonymous commentator who persist about Noble and Blueprime. I WILL NOT PUBLISH. Also I have made no assertions about PRC/Nigel Pardo or Holiday/Steelmac/Darren McCoomb. What I have said is that I do not publish cheap shots about this.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous at 22:58
ReplyDelete"IF" my aunt had balls she would be my uncle!
Robert
ReplyDeleteYou throw the stone but you hide your hand. You say you haven't made assertions about the above mentioned few, ('PRC/NO/ JH/St. Mac/DM') but you 'mention' them no less!!
What are you trying to achieve?
Anonymous at 23:30
ReplyDeleteNothing beyond saying that I receive hundreds of comments about that and those persons and do not publish any.
It was a reply to an accusation that Blueprime and Noble were not debated on this blog. I was illustrating that it was not the only issue that is not debated ... clear?
Dear Robert,
ReplyDeleteWhat a superlative article you have penned, comme d'habitude mon frere. I shall always stand for Her Majesty the Queen, her heirs and successors and Her representative super hanc petram and kneel to God alone.
Honi soit etc....
Dieu et mon droit.
Oh dear Robert, while the cat's away, the mice will play and tonight the children have been up to their usual mischief, safe in the knowledge the GSLP would be out partying tonight in the Leisure Centre and there would be nobody to answer back.
ReplyDeleteAs usual, you are right, you must keep to your principles and rules on your blog and refuse to give in to the many rumours circulating round. You are also right about the desperate situation the GSD finds itself in and the sad excuses for argument they are coming up with, they do their party no favours at all.
Well anon 00.59 it just shows that actually it's GSLP activists who cannot see the damage picardo causes NOT your neutral commentator. Tonight when everyone of the GSLP activists were at the leisure centre there hasn't been any presence on this blog lol. You have left poor Robert to defend oily.
ReplyDeleteanon @00.59 as usual, and in true GSLP style you get the ball rolling, and when others defend themselves, you come back looking like the victims!
ReplyDeleteIt was a comment 18th June @ 10.04 well before your summer party that this fire was lit! Surely, anyone wishing to differ opinions, or mirror problems on your own side as a contrast to such a first comment, has the right to do so. Or don't they?
It seems to me that it is you and your people who revel in this sort of gutter politics, because you always start it yourselves. And then you play the game by ridiculing the other side. How pathetic.
Hope you had a good night.
"You and your people"
ReplyDeleteHow very telling.
This 'tribal warfare' nonsense is exactly that, nonsense. Fact of the matter is not every GSD supporter is a blind fanatic who argues in the face of common sense and reason, nor is every GSLP supporter an antagoniser who enjoys rolling in the mud of gutter politics.
It's the sad (but unfortunately) vocal minority on either side who do nothing but harm the image of their respective party as opposed to winning over any undecided voter.
Robert,
ReplyDeleteHow on earth can a lawyer like you confuse the rumour mill with the judicial process. The Caruana and Holiday issues you mention are not being considered by the judicial process. The Picardo Blueprime affair is - and by the Spanish one at that.
Do you not think that Fabian's helping the Spanish regulator with its inquiries (by his own admission) is a legitimate matter for discussion on this blog?
Concerned User
At last Gibraltar's big little dirty secrets are out. The night of the 18th & 19th June 2011 will go down in history. Now only those with something to hide and the stupid will want to avoid the plain truth. As many of us have known for many many years, the GSD has its own Blue Primes. Thanks Robert.
ReplyDeleteAnon@23:30
ReplyDeleteAlbeit as a fellow "thickhead" I can only deduce that there is a difference between not making assertions about someone but casting aspersions instead.
RV wrote @22:22 "the nature of FP's connection with the cases you mention is not established. It is rumour".
Is this not a very strong reason why FP should put our minds at rest by making a public statement clarifying his involvement, if any, in each case.
First a clarification when I wrote continue and prove 18th June at 22:18 I was referring to continuing and prove their existence by publishing the comments that I receive.
ReplyDeleteConcerned User:
Do not call my ability as a lawyer into question. Investigations begin with rumours that investigations do not start into rumours depends on many factors. In any event I do not make the comparison that you suggest that i make. What i have said is that this blog is not for party political sniping of the type that commentators like you want to use it for your own sleazy little ends. This blog is t debate political issues that i write about. I allow a little leeway to make it current and interesting.
I repeat perhaps we should have a body to investigate suggestions on corruption in that way electors would know what was scurrilous rumour and what is truth. The issue of the doling out of public contracts without an open and transparent tender process has , in any event , been the subject of comment in Parliament and the press.
Anonymous at 09:42
ReplyDeleteJust as strong a case as any rumour should be investigated by an Anti-Corruption Authority ... if we had one?
RV@09:45 Re your last sentence
ReplyDeleteThe doling out of public contracts without an open and transparent tender process started many years ago with the incinerator.
political snipping aside, we'll leave that to those bereft of ideas, how would an anti-corruption authority be able to investigate a rumour, wouldn't it need hard evidence before being able to proceed, after all anybody can invent a rumour.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous at 10:27
ReplyDeleteAgreed and the GSD promised and guaranteed it would bring this to and end.
Anonymous at 10:42
Of course an Anti-Corruption Authority would need to exercise judgment on what it investigated but no investigations are not started with hard evidence and proof. The hard evidence and proof is gathered by the investigations. It would be enough that open and transparent procedures are not followed in any given situation for , at least, questions to be asked.
I see Robert , and it makes sense otherwise if you had hard evidence, the Police could take care of it.
ReplyDeleteMy guess is, that with the many rumours going round, an Anti-corruption Authority would be very busy indeed, however we aren't talking about stupid people here, in fact we may even be talking about very, very clever people, so an investigation would probably not lead to much, instead vindicating their pleas of not guilty!
Anonymous at 10:57
ReplyDeleteIt may well be busy. This is not a reason not to have it rather a strong reason in favour of setting it up. That it dispels rumours is another excellent reason for setting such an Authority up.
You may be right that clever people might get away with it but so do clever people get away with crime, is that a reason to abolish the police?
Anon@10:57
ReplyDeleteYou are saying that even if we had an Anti-Corruption Authority it would be manned by very, very stupid people who would not be able to uncover what these very, very clever people have got up to. That is some guess!!
anon @ 10:57 says...
ReplyDeleteI agree Robert, because rumours are rife and people are getting blatantly richer whilst the ordinary man on the street keeps plodding on.
For example, I've noticed certain contracts originally brought out to tender are then added to with new and extra jobs by using a licence instead of putting these new jobs out to tender and allowing new companies to vie for them. Then one hears about connections involved, and the thought of all this being true is enough to keep an anti-corruption authority very busy indeed.
anon @ 11:21 I haven't said that at all, in fact, as you can see from my last post I support and encourage the existence of such an authority, however I also acknowledge that some trajines may be easy to uncover, but others would be impossible to prove, however clever the investigators are, for example, an envelope of cash can be a very hard thing to trace by anyone!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous at 11:36
ReplyDeleteAs difficult as an illegal drugs deals?
Guys, I think you misunderstand me, I do want an anti-corruption authority set up, I hear of all sorts of trajines going on, not only on contracts given out but also about individuals retained, favours granted, etc.
ReplyDeleteI also have a problem with the apathy that these rumours are received by the public and how the party-faithful sweep this under the carpet.
Robert
ReplyDeleteRumours, by their very nature, are unstoppable with or without the existence of an Anti-Corruption Authority. I can just imagine such an Authority being accused of connivance after a rumour has been dismissed as unfounded. Hard facts and RGP involvement is another matter.
Anonymous at 11:56
ReplyDeleteOf course you are right but attempts have to be made to reduce the ability to spread them. The constitution of the Authority is also crucial to the issue that you raise. I do not believe what you raise is sufficient reason not to set up such an authority. A similar one set up in Hong Kong in the mid 1970's has been very effective. Is that what the fear is ... that it might work?
RV@12:00
ReplyDeleteI am not against the setting up of such an Authority but simply sceptical about it's effectiveness in Gibraltar.
it would certainly put the fear of God into a few people, that's for certain, but its not just the top level, big money rumours that one learns about.
ReplyDeletelast week, for example, I was hearing about the plight of a certain individual who applied for a job within government, fully qualified with a degree in this area. Sadly this person was turned down without even reaching the interview stage, which is fine, some you win, some you lose. However, the person who was successful was not as qualified and was selected on the basis of an excellent interview!
Y como eso, para escribi un libro!
An anti corruption authority hmmmm .... Like the fiscalia anti corrupcion investigating the blue prime case in Spain under Secreto de Sumario?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous at 12:14
ReplyDeletePossibly but instead of investigating private individuals in Spain for activity relating to capitalist activity on the financial markets it would investigate politicians and public servants for misfeasance, breach of trust and misuse of our money as well as many other matters. There is a difference between private and public acts. In an election I know which is worse. I would not like my vote to be swayed by a false rumour about a politician would I or anyone else come to think of it. I am sure that the affected politician would not like to lose votes for the same reason :)
I PROPOSE THAT CARUANA & PICARDO SHOULD AGREE TO ANSWER LISTS OF QUESTIONS PUT TO THEM AS TO RUMOURS SO THAT THEY CAN DENY OR EXPLAIN THE SUBJECT MATTER OF EACH & THEN PUT OUR MINDS AT EASE. THUS PIQUI SHOULD EXPLAIN BLUE PRIME & NOBLE and PITITA CAN EXPLAIN FILOMENA, OEM, STEELMAC, THE MILLIONAIRE CONSULTANCIES ETC. I AM SURE THAT THERE IS NOTHING NEPHARIOUS IN ANY IF THESE THINGS BUT LET US put them to rest so that we can concentrate on real Llanito politics: Don't give Spaon an inch etc.
ReplyDeleteAnon@12:12
ReplyDeleteHow would an Anti-Corruption Authority be able to help the individual that was turned down for a job?
By the way this individual may not have had adequate professional experience in spite of his qualifications. Just a thought.
Robert for a lawyer it very curious that you would unleash in Gibraltar the kind of authority that was very popular in Revolutionary France. Rumours there sent you to Madame Guillotine at the drop of the hat. comments such as your own "holiday/steelmac/mcComb" without elaboration or justification of any kind.
ReplyDeletean anti-corruption authority would endeavour to ensure any rumours be investigated properly instead of policemen put on TV to quash them.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous at 12:31
ReplyDeleteI have answered this point earlier please read the whole thread before questioning my ability as a lawyer. I have condemned no one to the guillotine or in guilt or innocence at all. My comment thta you allude to was simply in reply to my non-publication of scurrilous comments that I receive about lots of people and things. It was not giving any credence to anything said.
Reading some of the apparently incredulous posts here makes me wonder how Gibraltar being so small and with most of the allegated hanky panky happening in front of our very noses so many people do not seem to be aware. Surely they are just pretending not to know so as to create debate because I cnnot believe that so many people can be so stupid!
ReplyDeleteanon @ 12:26, this individual might feel inclined to have the choice of candidate investigated if this individual felt there was something amiss with the choice. Also the department itself could be be questioned to ensure no wrongdoing was involved. If eberything was above-board then there should be no cause for concern, but nepotism/cronyism trajin had been carried out then something could be done about it because when these situations happen, and they do so frequently, there is nothing anybody can do about it. The person hired remains hired and the unsuccessful applicants suck it up and continue with their lives.
ReplyDeleteYou see, to the ordinary wo/man in the street, big-money trajines are important but so are the little trajines, the ones that determine their daily lives like not getting a job or not even having the chance to get an interview despite fitting the criteria requested.
RV@12:19
ReplyDeleteYou posted:-
"There is a difference between private and public acts".
I do not think that an "act" involving an individual likely to stand for the post of Chief Minister of the Government of Gibraltar is different.
the truth is a lot of people are aware of a lot of the goings on in this city of ours but there is no way of proving these rumours or even having them investigated, instead we stand back and watch how the rich get richer!
ReplyDeleteCopper: The RGP is sufficently well trained to be able to ivestigate. The problem is that they are not allowed to.
ReplyDeleteAnon@12:46
ReplyDeleteJust a simple question. Has the individual affected asked for an explanation as to his exclusion from the Department involved?
Anon@12:51
ReplyDeleteMaybe it's because they are only rumours.
Copper@12:54
ReplyDeleteI suppose that you are going to claim that, not only is the RGP well trained but also experienced at those sorts of investigations.
anon @ 13:39, I do apologise, I forgot any wrongdoing ever associated with the present incumbents must be false and should be quickly ignored and brushed under the carpet. So sorry for my lack of faith in them. As from now on, I will no longer question them again.
ReplyDeleteAnon 12:51 great points.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore the GSD Government’s methodology has lacked transparency in regards to many matters.
The “jobs for the lads” motto does come to mind or better stated “contracts for the lads”. Someone like me for example would be unable to secure a Government job or contract for obvious reasons.
My article that will be published in tomorrow’s Panorama titled “Double Standards” highlights such a lack of transparency (albeit in relation to a specific sector).
K
Ole special one we await with baited breath to read your piece so that we can bask in your narcissistic brilliance ( PLC)
ReplyDeleteK@15:16
ReplyDeleteI shall make a point of queuing up early to buy tomorrow's Panorama before they run out.
Anon15:07
ReplyDeleteGood thinking. No need to apologise, I understand.
Got to say, I love the "the rich get richer" comment, cause on Gib hay mucho pobre vamo. It is Unbelievable that in today's Gib there are those willing to be sucked in by comments like these and actually believe them. Special K is in his own element in this regard and the GSLP seem to think that they can hide their history and lack of any judgement, policy or vision for the past 15 years by simply hiding their face when convenient.
ReplyDeleteChange you can trust PLC.
So mañana el independent daily se vende Como chocolate y con pipita.
ReplyDeletehahahahaaha
ReplyDeleteI love this blog!
"Narcissistic brilliance" really did make me LOL!!!
The "the rich get richer" is something that is indeed happening in our Gibraltar. Just because we have a high standard of living does not mean that such things do not occur.
Pero bueno lets move on to the next blog :)
Ta
K