On the 7th October I wrote, "Gibraltar does not have enough power ... in the military sense to defend against any aggressive act from Spain ... My thoughts ... turn to the incursions by Spain into Gibraltar's territorial waters ... It seems to me that there is little that Gibraltar can do about these ... without full assistance in every regard from the UK." (see blog "The Bay, the Secretary of State at the FCO, the Governor and the Government"). Events in the last couple of days give full credence to this statement. It also highlight the limitations on what will be done and the extent of the role that will be played by the Royal Navy.
Credence because in his Ministerial Statement of the 14th October the announcement was made that a letter had gone from the Gibraltar Government to the Secretary of State, William Hague, asking for the UK's support and the deployment and intervention of the Royal Navy. Limitations because the reply from a Foreign Office spokesman has been "The Royal Navy is already present and their role is well defined already". How that role is defined is unknown to me. It seems, rightly and understandably, that aggressively defensive action is not on the cards.
"Rightly and understandably" because Gibraltar is no longer facing a Spain controlled by a fascist dictator. The UK and Gibraltar are dealing with a European democracy, a fellow member of the European Union and a NATO ally. There is absolutely no question that the UK can or should take any steps that could be interpreted as the UK adopting an aggressive stance against Spain. Deploying the Royal Navy, as requested by our Government, probably an irresponsibly move, is such an act. Issues between fellow members of the European Union and Nato are resolved through diplomatic channels and by mature discussion. The UK's stance is measured and correct and rebuffs the Gibraltar Government's request, which, if it had been heeded could have had unnecessary and detrimental repercussions on Gibraltar.
What this incident and its aftermath emphasizes is that the central issue for determination is the issue of sovereignty. The suspension of technical talks due within the trilateral process is of no great significance, although it is symbolic. What is of significance is that the thrust of the Trilateral process is not aimed at resolving the central issue of sovereignty. Talking about peripherals whilst that issue is ignored has little point. Talking about sovereignty is not within the realms of possibility simply because Gibraltar does not wants any change on that front.
What should be done? Well, there are some immutable facts. Spain, in direct conflict with the wishes of Gibraltar, maintains its claim to sovereignty. Neither Spain nor Gibraltar will shift on their respective positions in the foreseeable future. The position of both is so entrenched that there is absolutely no room for compromise. In this situation there is only one option for Gibraltar. Gibraltar must stoically and in a dignified manner defend its stated desire to remain British. The responsibility of Gibraltar's politicians is to continually monitor, analyze and assess this policy and ensure that it remains a policy that is in the best interests of Gibraltar. If this were to change or if it has changed it would be or is their responsibility to honestly tell the electorate and support their position with strong and persuasive argument. This is what leadership is about.
To defend itself stoically and in a dignified manner, Gibraltar must continue to act authoritatively, in the same manner as it has always acted, to exert its control over its British territorial waters. The relevant government agencies must continue to exert their authority over these waters. In the event that Spain engages in provocative acts, these must be dealt with in a controlled and sensible manner. Each incident will be different and each incident will need to be managed with care, which will place a huge responsibility on the individual on the ground. These individuals must be briefed fully on how to react. They must avoid acts that will lead to an escalation of any incident, no good will come of any heightening of tensions. We must be "British" about this.
Gibraltar will gain the high moral ground if it maintains its position in a peaceful and dignified manner. Maintaining the high moral ground will improve Gibraltar's diplomatic case. Maintaining the high moral ground will not undermine the fact and reality that the waters surrounding Gibraltar are British territorial waters. Spain's acts do not enhance their case one iota. Gibraltar's reaction to those acts may well do so in so much as attention is drawn to a non-issue (Spain's assertion). Non-issues have a habit of gaining a momentum of their own if they are exacerbated. Third party countries can become involved. We should remember that Gibraltar is important and big for us but to most third party countries we are but a nuisance, however unfair that opinion might be.
It also borders on the incautious to submit our case to an international court of law as has been suggested by the Government. Diplomatic problems between States should not be handed over to judges for resolution. However strong Gibraltar's case might be (and there is no doubt that Gibraltar's case is as strong as the Chief Minister says that it is), there are enough conflicting and competing principles in international law to enable judges to justify any conclusion they wish to. An international court has to take many factors into account. It may well come to a wrong conclusion. If it were to do so, Gibraltar would find that it is not in a good place.
International disputes are resolved by diplomacy and negotiation, if they are capable of resolution at all. If there is no solution, then each one to his own. After all, life in Gibraltar is not so bad, nor are local cross-border relations bad. Thankfully, no one's life is at risk. Let diplomats resolve those disputes that, if resolved, save lives. Gibraltar will remain a good place to live in whether or not Spain continues to pursue its claim and provoke incidents in the Bay. We should take comfort in knowing how frustrated Spain must feel at making absolutely no progress over its claim. We should all get on with our lives like we do now and did during the closed border era. If Spain places inconveniences in our way, they can never be as bad as those that we faced when the frontier blockade was in full swing.
Did the issue really require a Ministerial Statement? I am not sure. If it did not, what was the motivation for it? Certainly electors in Gibraltar seem to have taken it in their stride. I certainly have.
Saturday, 16 October 2010
Sunday, 10 October 2010
Drink Laws Reform Signals Political Change?
The recent announcement from Justice Minister, Daniel Feetham, accompanied by Family Minister, Jaime Netto, is a very welcome development. Welcome, not just because it tackles a serious and growing social problem but importantly because it is a ministerial initiative, which if allowed to flourish will improve the democratic process in Gibraltar.
Drinking amongst youngsters has been a problem that has been getting worse year on year. It is a grave social problem with grave consequences that greatly contributes to the commission of crimes of violence and disorder. It uses up police resources unnecessarily at great expense and distracts those police resources from being deployed to more important and essential law enforcement duties.
The increase of the legal age of drinking from 16 to 18 is consonant with the laws of many other countries. The permissive aspect that allows supervised drinking of certain alcoholic beverages at the ages of 16 and 18 is enlightened. It empowers parents to decide what is best for their own children but, probably more importantly, it provides a legal mechanism by which 16 and 17 year olds can be shown how to drink responsibly. Importantly this system is based on empowering parents, which avoids the criticism that a "nanny State" is being implemented. Too much interference by the State into parental and, indeed, citizens' rights and obligations is to be avoided at all cost. The State's responsibility is to the community as a whole not to substitute individual parental controls or the duties and obligations of citizens.
Even now, whilst the legal age for drinking is 16, there has been widespread abuse, purposeful or possibly inadvertent, which has resulted in alcoholic drinks being sold to youngsters below the age of 16. 16 is in itself too young an age for the law to permit the drinking of alcohol. The sale of alcohol to underaged persons has gone relatively unchecked for some time. The fault has not been down to lack of effort on the part of the police. It has been more to do with the low penalties that could be imposed. The new law cures this deficiency also. It introduces penalties that are a deterrent in themselves. More importantly, the new penalties will help to further incentivise the police to enforce the law strictly. They will see the deterrent effect of the sentences work to prevent future breaches of the law.
But does this recent announcement signal a deeper political and hierarchical shift within the GSD? We see Daniel Feetham taking another lead on an important and fundamental change to the law accompanied by another minister Jaime Netto. Daniel Feetham seems to be taking more and more initiatives in matters that are essential to good governance at a local level. His initiatives in the field of law reform is the central plank that any Gibraltar Government should be concentrating on. It is the very reason why governments are elected. The international and other more glamourous aspects of government are undoubtedly of enormous importance but those should not be dealt with to the exclusion or detriment of the legislative process that is not led by compulsion from the EU.
Leadership initiative within the GSD shown by the likes of Peter Montegriffo and Keith Azopardi has been stifled in the past. Both left frontline politics within the GSD to the detriment of Gibraltar. This is not an effect that is unique to the GSD. Historically in Gibraltar parties of every hue have lost talent unnecessarily. Let us hope that this does not happen again. Let us hope that Daniel Feetham's enterprise, ambition and dynamism is encouraged and allowed to flourish. Democracy in Gibraltar will be enhanced if it were to be permitted.
Drinking amongst youngsters has been a problem that has been getting worse year on year. It is a grave social problem with grave consequences that greatly contributes to the commission of crimes of violence and disorder. It uses up police resources unnecessarily at great expense and distracts those police resources from being deployed to more important and essential law enforcement duties.
The increase of the legal age of drinking from 16 to 18 is consonant with the laws of many other countries. The permissive aspect that allows supervised drinking of certain alcoholic beverages at the ages of 16 and 18 is enlightened. It empowers parents to decide what is best for their own children but, probably more importantly, it provides a legal mechanism by which 16 and 17 year olds can be shown how to drink responsibly. Importantly this system is based on empowering parents, which avoids the criticism that a "nanny State" is being implemented. Too much interference by the State into parental and, indeed, citizens' rights and obligations is to be avoided at all cost. The State's responsibility is to the community as a whole not to substitute individual parental controls or the duties and obligations of citizens.
Even now, whilst the legal age for drinking is 16, there has been widespread abuse, purposeful or possibly inadvertent, which has resulted in alcoholic drinks being sold to youngsters below the age of 16. 16 is in itself too young an age for the law to permit the drinking of alcohol. The sale of alcohol to underaged persons has gone relatively unchecked for some time. The fault has not been down to lack of effort on the part of the police. It has been more to do with the low penalties that could be imposed. The new law cures this deficiency also. It introduces penalties that are a deterrent in themselves. More importantly, the new penalties will help to further incentivise the police to enforce the law strictly. They will see the deterrent effect of the sentences work to prevent future breaches of the law.
But does this recent announcement signal a deeper political and hierarchical shift within the GSD? We see Daniel Feetham taking another lead on an important and fundamental change to the law accompanied by another minister Jaime Netto. Daniel Feetham seems to be taking more and more initiatives in matters that are essential to good governance at a local level. His initiatives in the field of law reform is the central plank that any Gibraltar Government should be concentrating on. It is the very reason why governments are elected. The international and other more glamourous aspects of government are undoubtedly of enormous importance but those should not be dealt with to the exclusion or detriment of the legislative process that is not led by compulsion from the EU.
Leadership initiative within the GSD shown by the likes of Peter Montegriffo and Keith Azopardi has been stifled in the past. Both left frontline politics within the GSD to the detriment of Gibraltar. This is not an effect that is unique to the GSD. Historically in Gibraltar parties of every hue have lost talent unnecessarily. Let us hope that this does not happen again. Let us hope that Daniel Feetham's enterprise, ambition and dynamism is encouraged and allowed to flourish. Democracy in Gibraltar will be enhanced if it were to be permitted.
Thursday, 7 October 2010
The Bay, the Secretary of State at the FCO, the Governor and the Government
The recent incident in the Bay started me thinking about what is the constitutional position of each arm of government, namely the Secretary of State, the Governor and the Government, under the 2006 Constitution. The answer is one of strict legal analysis but it also requires and analysis of of what the practical position is, in reality.
Under the 2006 Constitution the Governor is "... Her Majesty's representative in Gibraltar" (Section 19). The Governor is charged with external affairs, defence, internal security which subject to the oversight of the Police Authority, includes the police (Section 47) and certain public appointments.
Importantly section 47 includes in brackets the words "subject to this Constitution and any other law". I is important to analyse what restrictions these words place on the Governor's powers. The restriction is twofold the first is those imposed by the 2006 Constitution. The second those imposed by any law, which on the basis that the Constitution is an Order in Council surely means laws of equal standing, as Gibraltar's Parliament cannot arrogate unto itself powers to change the fundamental law contained in the 2006 Constitution.
What are the restrictions on the Governor's powers under the 2006 Constitution? Well, it seems to me, that they stem from the power and authority given by the 2006 Constitution to both Gibraltar's legislature and the executive.
Executive authority is vested in Her Majesty, who is represented by the Governor, but that executive power is exercised by the Government of Gibraltar (Section 44). Does this means that the Governor is restricted to act in accordance with the executive authority of the Government of Gibraltar even on matters that are supposed to be in his discretion? It seems difficult to interpret section 47 (Governor,s Special Responsibilities, see below) in manner that would result in a negative answer to this question. Enormous executive powers can be exercised by the Government of Gibraltar, in my opinion, even on those matters that one understood were to be the special responsibility of the Governor under the 2006 Constitution because of and by the use of the legislative authority vested in Gibraltar's Parliament. The principle of the "Rule of Law" would require that the Government of Gibraltar only act on those matters under powers given to it by an Act of Parliament.
The legislature of Gibraltar consists of Her Majesty and Parliament (Section 25). The legislature is empowered to " ... make laws for the peace, good order and good government of Gibraltar", with the restriction being that it must do so subject to the 2006 Constitution (Section 32). One restriction is certainly the requirement to comply with the human rights provisions included in Part 1 of the 2006 Constitution.
Another restriction is the requirement that the Governor needs to assent to any Act of Parliament or that he refers the same to Her Majesty but this power is limited under the 2006 Constitution. The limitations are that he can only reserve to Her Majesty those bills that are repugnant to the 2006 Constitution, which are those that either breach human rights or are not for the "... peace, good order and good government of Gibraltar". The governor may only withhold his assent if he considers an Act to be repugnant to good government or incompatible with international obligations. In short there is not much scope to withhold assent to any law passed by Parliament, inclusive seemingly, of those matters that are defined as reserved to the Governor in section 47 (see above) because of the very carve out that makes those powers subject to the 2006 Constitution. This must mean that the exercise by the Governor of these powers are subject to the legislative powers of Gibraltar's Parliament.
So does the Governor have any safeguards that he can deploy to counteract the power of Gibraltar's Parliament? Well essentially, it seems to me, that the power the Governor has is the power to introduce direct rule. The Governor can do this in one of two ways. Either by using his legislative powers (section 34), which allows him, with the consent of the Secretary of State, to legislate on matters that under section 47 (see above) are within his remit but first having given the Chief Minister the opportunity to legislate on the issue in Gibraltar's Parliament.
The alternative is the nuclear option. The exercise of the power by Her Majesty contained in paragraph 8 of Annex 2 to the 2006 Constitution. In full this says:
"There is retained by Her Majesty full power to make laws from time to time for the peace, order and good government of Gibraltar (including, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, laws amending or revoking this Constitution "
So everything that is given on the one hand can be taken away by the other at a stroke of Her Majesty's pen, not forgetting that she is represented in Gibraltar by the Governor. I accept that Her Majesty must mean Her Majesty acting on the advice of the Privy Council (through the Secretary of State who is a Privy Councillor) but still, this power can be deployed or its use threatened.
The reality, I would have thought, is that in practice the Governor and the Government (read Chief Minister) must find a working relationship in the sense that the latter needs to tread a path that will not cause the Governor (meaning the UK through Her Majesty) to exercise or even consider exercising his constitutional powers. It is also clear that the extreme remedies provided to the Governor/Her Majesty in the 2006 Constitution militate toward empowering the Government in every area of government. This makes the lack of checks and balances in the system of government and the undemocratic electoral system even more worrying and the need to progress that debate even more important.
There is also another reality. Gibraltar does not have enough power (in my mind essentially none) in the military sense to defend against any aggressive act from Spain. The chances of an outright invasion are of course negligible, as the international reaction to an event like that would be overwhelmingly detrimental to Spain. My thoughts in this regard, however, turn to the incursions by Spain into Gibraltar's territorial waters and the recent pronouncements by Spain's Foreign Minister that Gibraltar has none. It seems to me that there is little that Gibraltar can do about these, beyond complaining about and condemning such acts, without full assistance in every regard from the UK.
The moral of the story is that Gibraltar's friendship and relationship with the UK must transcend the letter of the law as contained in the 2006 Constitution. There are pragmatic considerations that need to be taken into account and Gibraltar's relationship with the UK, at a practical and real level, should be carefully nurtured. Doesn't the UK do it with the USA and the EU and every sovereign nation with other sovereign nations? The quest and campaign for self determination needs to bring this consideration into account, especially if Spain is not onside. It is clear that from its actions Spain continues to have only one objective in its sights: the recovery of the sovereignty of Gibraltar.
Under the 2006 Constitution the Governor is "... Her Majesty's representative in Gibraltar" (Section 19). The Governor is charged with external affairs, defence, internal security which subject to the oversight of the Police Authority, includes the police (Section 47) and certain public appointments.
Importantly section 47 includes in brackets the words "subject to this Constitution and any other law". I is important to analyse what restrictions these words place on the Governor's powers. The restriction is twofold the first is those imposed by the 2006 Constitution. The second those imposed by any law, which on the basis that the Constitution is an Order in Council surely means laws of equal standing, as Gibraltar's Parliament cannot arrogate unto itself powers to change the fundamental law contained in the 2006 Constitution.
What are the restrictions on the Governor's powers under the 2006 Constitution? Well, it seems to me, that they stem from the power and authority given by the 2006 Constitution to both Gibraltar's legislature and the executive.
Executive authority is vested in Her Majesty, who is represented by the Governor, but that executive power is exercised by the Government of Gibraltar (Section 44). Does this means that the Governor is restricted to act in accordance with the executive authority of the Government of Gibraltar even on matters that are supposed to be in his discretion? It seems difficult to interpret section 47 (Governor,s Special Responsibilities, see below) in manner that would result in a negative answer to this question. Enormous executive powers can be exercised by the Government of Gibraltar, in my opinion, even on those matters that one understood were to be the special responsibility of the Governor under the 2006 Constitution because of and by the use of the legislative authority vested in Gibraltar's Parliament. The principle of the "Rule of Law" would require that the Government of Gibraltar only act on those matters under powers given to it by an Act of Parliament.
The legislature of Gibraltar consists of Her Majesty and Parliament (Section 25). The legislature is empowered to " ... make laws for the peace, good order and good government of Gibraltar", with the restriction being that it must do so subject to the 2006 Constitution (Section 32). One restriction is certainly the requirement to comply with the human rights provisions included in Part 1 of the 2006 Constitution.
Another restriction is the requirement that the Governor needs to assent to any Act of Parliament or that he refers the same to Her Majesty but this power is limited under the 2006 Constitution. The limitations are that he can only reserve to Her Majesty those bills that are repugnant to the 2006 Constitution, which are those that either breach human rights or are not for the "... peace, good order and good government of Gibraltar". The governor may only withhold his assent if he considers an Act to be repugnant to good government or incompatible with international obligations. In short there is not much scope to withhold assent to any law passed by Parliament, inclusive seemingly, of those matters that are defined as reserved to the Governor in section 47 (see above) because of the very carve out that makes those powers subject to the 2006 Constitution. This must mean that the exercise by the Governor of these powers are subject to the legislative powers of Gibraltar's Parliament.
So does the Governor have any safeguards that he can deploy to counteract the power of Gibraltar's Parliament? Well essentially, it seems to me, that the power the Governor has is the power to introduce direct rule. The Governor can do this in one of two ways. Either by using his legislative powers (section 34), which allows him, with the consent of the Secretary of State, to legislate on matters that under section 47 (see above) are within his remit but first having given the Chief Minister the opportunity to legislate on the issue in Gibraltar's Parliament.
The alternative is the nuclear option. The exercise of the power by Her Majesty contained in paragraph 8 of Annex 2 to the 2006 Constitution. In full this says:
"There is retained by Her Majesty full power to make laws from time to time for the peace, order and good government of Gibraltar (including, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, laws amending or revoking this Constitution "
So everything that is given on the one hand can be taken away by the other at a stroke of Her Majesty's pen, not forgetting that she is represented in Gibraltar by the Governor. I accept that Her Majesty must mean Her Majesty acting on the advice of the Privy Council (through the Secretary of State who is a Privy Councillor) but still, this power can be deployed or its use threatened.
The reality, I would have thought, is that in practice the Governor and the Government (read Chief Minister) must find a working relationship in the sense that the latter needs to tread a path that will not cause the Governor (meaning the UK through Her Majesty) to exercise or even consider exercising his constitutional powers. It is also clear that the extreme remedies provided to the Governor/Her Majesty in the 2006 Constitution militate toward empowering the Government in every area of government. This makes the lack of checks and balances in the system of government and the undemocratic electoral system even more worrying and the need to progress that debate even more important.
There is also another reality. Gibraltar does not have enough power (in my mind essentially none) in the military sense to defend against any aggressive act from Spain. The chances of an outright invasion are of course negligible, as the international reaction to an event like that would be overwhelmingly detrimental to Spain. My thoughts in this regard, however, turn to the incursions by Spain into Gibraltar's territorial waters and the recent pronouncements by Spain's Foreign Minister that Gibraltar has none. It seems to me that there is little that Gibraltar can do about these, beyond complaining about and condemning such acts, without full assistance in every regard from the UK.
The moral of the story is that Gibraltar's friendship and relationship with the UK must transcend the letter of the law as contained in the 2006 Constitution. There are pragmatic considerations that need to be taken into account and Gibraltar's relationship with the UK, at a practical and real level, should be carefully nurtured. Doesn't the UK do it with the USA and the EU and every sovereign nation with other sovereign nations? The quest and campaign for self determination needs to bring this consideration into account, especially if Spain is not onside. It is clear that from its actions Spain continues to have only one objective in its sights: the recovery of the sovereignty of Gibraltar.
Saturday, 2 October 2010
The "Leader" Says All is Good, so do not Worry.
As someone who has voted GSD (and is happy to say so) in every election at which the GSD with Peter Caruana as its head has been elected into government, I fully recognise that the GSD and Peter Caruana have done much for the betterment of Gibraltar. It is right that he should boast about this in his speech to the Casino Calpe, which unfortunately I missed. Unfortunately because I would have liked to have been there, both as a courtesy, because I am a past President and Life President, but more importantly because I would have heard his talk first hand. As it is I was unable to be there because I am on my annual holidays. I write this piece (some will say because I need my head examined) looking over the Grand Canal in Venice. Consequently, I rely (with thanks and attribution) on the Chronic report.
As a democrat, I am concerned that Peter Caruana should so openly criticise the GSLP opposition party on the basis that it has a "leadership" crisis. I am concerned that he should criticise its leader, Joe Bossano, on the grounds that having lost 4 elections, he is not worthy to be its leader. I do not agree. It may be a ground upon which the electorate might decide not to vote for the GSLP but it is not an issue upon which an election should be fought by the GSD. It is not for Peter Caruana to decide who should or should not be the leader of the party that opposes him. That is a decision for the members of that party alone. If it means that an election is lost on that ground, so be it but, at the very least the democratic process will have taken its course.
I am sure that it has not gone unnoticed that the other side of the coin of that selfsame argument is that, according to Peter Caruana, the electorate has no choice but to vote for the GSD and so install Peter Caruana as Chief Minister again. Implicit in his argument is the concept that he alone is worthy of that position of responsibility. Why? Because Joe Bossano has lost four elections so is not worthy of your vote and Fabian Picardo might do "crazy" things. This, together with the mantra that ... "Gibraltar is too astute to change good for bad ..." is a perfect argument to do away with democracy altogether. Peter, it is not you that decides what is good or bad, it is the electorate.
Perhaps he feels that Gibraltar should implement a dynastic system like that of North Korea? Should one not ask at this stage, who is in line to take over from Peter Caruana as leader of the GSD? There are many rumours about that ... and guess what ... is there anyone on the cards? I do not know but it seems to me that if the GSLP have a leadership problem, don't the GSD have the same problem? Maybe not but will Peter Caruana enlighten the electorate on that issue? Perhaps Peter Montegriffo is better equipped to answer that question.
let us make a quick analysis of the way Gibraltar has developed economically. If my memory serves me right the GSLP government were faced with a period of major transition in Gibraltar's economy from an economy virtually entirely dependent on UK Defence expenditure (and an ailing privatised dockyard) to one based on the private sector. Who laid the foundations for the changeover? If my memory serves me right, it was Mr Bossano's GSLP government. In addition to developing the pillars of the economy, finance centre, tourism, and the the port, it attracted the biggest ever (still today) foreign investment to Gibraltar in the guise of the Danish investment in Europort, which has been put to use by the GSD government, in part, as a hospital.
What has the GSD government actually innovated? Very little other than to build on the economic foundations laid down by the GSLP administration. Well, there is the Cordoba Agreement giving rise to the tripartite forum. Is this a success? Each reader can judge this for himself, but flights to Madrid, a failure, queues, well, are they much better? And now, clashes in the bay, which in another era would have possibly led to more serious consequences and which has led to even Peter Caruana questioning the effectiveness of the Trilateral forum. This statement could be considered the beginnings of an admission by him of the failure of this policy of engaging with Spain without tackling the fundamental issue of sovereignty. Oh yes, sorry, there is the joint use air terminal, but where is Spain's bit? And yes, the Instituto Cervantes, well we all know where it will be located but when will it be up and running? And without a shadow of doubt the GSD has, as promised, eradicated the tobacco trade. Has it? Still the GSD government can deliver the capital expenditure projects that it is delivering. What is paying for these in part? Could it be tax revenues from tobacco sale? All that The GSD have delivered is a more sanitised version of this trade. Let us not forget what it was the tobacco trade that resulted in the defeat of the GSLP government in 1996.
And then the excuse to end all excuses. There are no additional flights to Gibraltar because Peter Caruana says that he does not allow Joe Holliday to increase air services until the new air terminal is ready. Sorry! My understanding is that most airports and air terminals are not expanded until existing facilities are stretched. Perhaps Mr Caruana either knows different or has expert consultants who have advised him different. To boot do Ministers have any power when Mr Caruana can "... not allow ..." one of them to effectively undertake and succeed in their own ministry, or is it just an excuse for the failure?
In the end it is all about democracy, something that the GSD promised in 1996, with less centralised government nt controlled by NO 6 and greater transparency, you can judge whether the GSD has delivered on this promise. I am a fervent believer and adherent to democracy and the right to freedom of speech. If in the UK two brothers can fight over the leadership of the Labour party and still love each other, there is no reason why speaking ones mind should poison relationships. In this regard each of Joe Bossano, Daniel Feetham and Fabian Picardo have been magnanimous, they have each been critised in Llanito World and each of them have seen fit to discuss these criticisms with me, that is real democracy and free speech at work.
As a democrat, I am concerned that Peter Caruana should so openly criticise the GSLP opposition party on the basis that it has a "leadership" crisis. I am concerned that he should criticise its leader, Joe Bossano, on the grounds that having lost 4 elections, he is not worthy to be its leader. I do not agree. It may be a ground upon which the electorate might decide not to vote for the GSLP but it is not an issue upon which an election should be fought by the GSD. It is not for Peter Caruana to decide who should or should not be the leader of the party that opposes him. That is a decision for the members of that party alone. If it means that an election is lost on that ground, so be it but, at the very least the democratic process will have taken its course.
I am sure that it has not gone unnoticed that the other side of the coin of that selfsame argument is that, according to Peter Caruana, the electorate has no choice but to vote for the GSD and so install Peter Caruana as Chief Minister again. Implicit in his argument is the concept that he alone is worthy of that position of responsibility. Why? Because Joe Bossano has lost four elections so is not worthy of your vote and Fabian Picardo might do "crazy" things. This, together with the mantra that ... "Gibraltar is too astute to change good for bad ..." is a perfect argument to do away with democracy altogether. Peter, it is not you that decides what is good or bad, it is the electorate.
Perhaps he feels that Gibraltar should implement a dynastic system like that of North Korea? Should one not ask at this stage, who is in line to take over from Peter Caruana as leader of the GSD? There are many rumours about that ... and guess what ... is there anyone on the cards? I do not know but it seems to me that if the GSLP have a leadership problem, don't the GSD have the same problem? Maybe not but will Peter Caruana enlighten the electorate on that issue? Perhaps Peter Montegriffo is better equipped to answer that question.
let us make a quick analysis of the way Gibraltar has developed economically. If my memory serves me right the GSLP government were faced with a period of major transition in Gibraltar's economy from an economy virtually entirely dependent on UK Defence expenditure (and an ailing privatised dockyard) to one based on the private sector. Who laid the foundations for the changeover? If my memory serves me right, it was Mr Bossano's GSLP government. In addition to developing the pillars of the economy, finance centre, tourism, and the the port, it attracted the biggest ever (still today) foreign investment to Gibraltar in the guise of the Danish investment in Europort, which has been put to use by the GSD government, in part, as a hospital.
What has the GSD government actually innovated? Very little other than to build on the economic foundations laid down by the GSLP administration. Well, there is the Cordoba Agreement giving rise to the tripartite forum. Is this a success? Each reader can judge this for himself, but flights to Madrid, a failure, queues, well, are they much better? And now, clashes in the bay, which in another era would have possibly led to more serious consequences and which has led to even Peter Caruana questioning the effectiveness of the Trilateral forum. This statement could be considered the beginnings of an admission by him of the failure of this policy of engaging with Spain without tackling the fundamental issue of sovereignty. Oh yes, sorry, there is the joint use air terminal, but where is Spain's bit? And yes, the Instituto Cervantes, well we all know where it will be located but when will it be up and running? And without a shadow of doubt the GSD has, as promised, eradicated the tobacco trade. Has it? Still the GSD government can deliver the capital expenditure projects that it is delivering. What is paying for these in part? Could it be tax revenues from tobacco sale? All that The GSD have delivered is a more sanitised version of this trade. Let us not forget what it was the tobacco trade that resulted in the defeat of the GSLP government in 1996.
And then the excuse to end all excuses. There are no additional flights to Gibraltar because Peter Caruana says that he does not allow Joe Holliday to increase air services until the new air terminal is ready. Sorry! My understanding is that most airports and air terminals are not expanded until existing facilities are stretched. Perhaps Mr Caruana either knows different or has expert consultants who have advised him different. To boot do Ministers have any power when Mr Caruana can "... not allow ..." one of them to effectively undertake and succeed in their own ministry, or is it just an excuse for the failure?
In the end it is all about democracy, something that the GSD promised in 1996, with less centralised government nt controlled by NO 6 and greater transparency, you can judge whether the GSD has delivered on this promise. I am a fervent believer and adherent to democracy and the right to freedom of speech. If in the UK two brothers can fight over the leadership of the Labour party and still love each other, there is no reason why speaking ones mind should poison relationships. In this regard each of Joe Bossano, Daniel Feetham and Fabian Picardo have been magnanimous, they have each been critised in Llanito World and each of them have seen fit to discuss these criticisms with me, that is real democracy and free speech at work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)