Independent Press Criticism at last?

It has been refreshing to read Stephen Neish’s piece, “A Short-lived Love-in with Scotland”, in today’s Gibraltar Chronicle (22ndMarch 2017) at page 9.  It is uplifting because here we have an independent commentator constructively criticising recent political initiatives of the Government: the Chief Minister’s doomed political flirtation with Nicola Sturgeon and Scotland, following Brexit and the Chief Ministers implied dig on GBC’s Direct Democracy of Gibraltar Health Authority professionals.  

Such independent criticism is something that is rarely seen in our press, in recent times.  The tendency overall (and unfortunately)is for political issues to become press release wars between the GSD Opposition and the GSLP Government or vice versa; thus becoming clouded (and so diminished) in the minds of the public by party political overtones. 

Independent constructive criticism in a free press is a central plank of any democracy.  It sound easy to achieve but in a small nation like Gibraltar, very difficult.  Difficult for many reasons but, in part, because of the directness of attribution of criticism, followed by the potential (real or imagined) for retribution, by those in power or those who may get into power, against the critics themselves or, if these are out of reach, against any personthat may be in reach who is connected with the critic through family ties or other means.  The result is unhealthy silencing, to the detriment of the true functioning of democracy in Gibraltar, of valid criticism that should be in the public domain.  

It is important for the well functioning of democracy in Gibraltar that Stephen Neish should continue making independent and constructive criticisms and be given the medium, hopefully with a continuing column in the Gibraltar Chronicle, through which he can continue doing so.  It may encourage others to do the same.  Gibraltar’s democratic credentials will be hugely improved by such a development.  Such activity would be encouraged, also, by the type of electoral and parliamentary reforms that I have championed for the best part of 40 years, to no avail so far despite manifesto promises to the contrary.

It is pertinent to note from Mr Neish’s piece, first, that the Chief Minister has essentially adopted the policy following Brexit that was suggested by the GSD Opposition from the start, namely, that Gibraltar should throw in its lot with Westminster.  Secondly that credence is given to the GSD Opposition’s statements about discontent involving professionals at the Gibraltar Health Authority.  This may lead people to think more about who is directing where Gibraltar should go. 

 

Where is our Government on BREXIT; is it All Just Spin?

Recent interventions in the UK Parliament involving the Chief Minister and David Davis, the UK BREXIT Secretary, and the reaction of the Chief Minister to Mr Davis’ interventions on the subject of Gibraltar emphatically show that there is not a sufficient inquisitive and critical press, especially the printed press, in Gibraltar, whose insightful analysis and opinion would benefit democracy greatly.  The ease with which the spin of those in Government in Gibraltar, from time to time, can gloss over reality, occurrences and events without enough press question or investigation, followed by informed criticism is palpable.  Mr Davis, in his evidence before the House of Commons Select Committee on Exiting the EU, cut down and clearly contradicted the assertions, on the same subject, made before the House of Lords EU Committee by the Chief Minister, yet the Chief Minister sails on without facing press criticism from much of the press. 

The day before Mr Davis spoke, the Chief Minister had told the House of Lords Committee that BREXIT would be a multi-faceted deal with differentiated outcomes for different sectors of industry and parts of the UK, including Gibraltar, emphasising the differential by making reference to the possibility of a micro-sate.  In clear contradiction of that assertion, Mr Davis has told the House of Commons Committee that he did not envisage a special arrangement for Gibraltar as part of the UK’s deal to leave the EU but, in a bid to leave the door very slightly ajar, added that he did not rule it out completely.  Mr Davis stated, very clearly and forcefully, that “he would be loathe” to go down the route of a tailor-made BREXIT deal for Gibraltar to suit its own particular circumstances.  This is an assertion in the strongest terms.  The words used by Mr Davis are not mealy mouthed.

Yet the Chief Minister is allowed, without sufficient press analysis or criticism, to hang his hat on asides and to spin this by pretending that really the UK Minister expressed opinions “entirely in keeping” with the views that the Government has put to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for Exiting the EU.  Of course, these views are not public and so are unknown but to a few.  However, the ability for the press to analyse and criticise remains, based on what is public.  What is public shows a clear put down by Mr Davis of the Chief Minister’s primary assertion that there could be a differentiated outcome for Gibraltar in the BREXIT negotiation.

Our Chief Minister then grabs onto the best distraction issue that exists in Gibraltar: that Mr Davis said also that the primary issue for Gibraltar is British sovereignty and the argument with Spain, adding that the UK had a firm position to respect the wishes of the people of Gibraltar and that this is written in his blood.  Well, it does not need to be written into the blood of the Minister.  It is written into our Constitution.  There is no doubt on the issue of our Britishness (sic) or the UK’s obligations in that regard.  The repeated reassurances by British Ministers is what may bring it into doubt but let us understand clearly that this is not doubted in Gibraltar, it is written into our Constitution.

What is clear is that our British sovereignty, precisely because it is engraved into our Constitution, is not what is in question in the BREXIT negotiations.  Consequently, it is not a primary issue in the BREXIT negotiation, as Mr Davis said also.  It is a consideration only because the Spanish Government is bringing it into the equation opportunistically (as usual).  What are primary issues for Gibraltar are those that the Chief Minister referred to the House of Lords Committee: achieving fluidity at the frontier and access to the EU Single market for services but, again as the Chief Minister stated clearly, undermining our British sovereignty is not a price that Gibraltar is willing to pay in return for obtaining the best outcome on these two issue.

It is of the utmost importance that, despite Mr Davis' comments, negotiations concentrate on the two issues that are of primary importance to Gibraltar, without falling into the trap of equating those with the issue of sovereignty.  It may seem that one party, Spain, may do its utmost to bring the issue of sovereignty into play but the clarity by which these are separate issues must be emphasised throughout.  After all, the UK’s desire to remain in the Single Market, whilst opting out of freedom of movement is another conundrum that seemingly does not have a solution right now. 

Only time will tell but in a piece published in this blog on the 29^th May 2016, just before the referendum, a question was posed:

 “... [Picardo as Chief Minister] and his Government will have to steer Gibraltar through the extremely difficult times that may follow a BREXIT vote.  The silence of Picardo and his Government on what its policies in this eventuality are is palpable.  Should the GSLP Government not be telling the people of Gibraltar what the Government’s intentions are in this eventuality? This is especially important in light of the enormous direct and indirect public borrowings that Picardo’s Government have incurred”

Well the time has come and yet we have no answer beyond that BREXIT is miraculously no longer an existential problem to our economy, as the Chief Minister said it would be prior to the referendum, and  the two primary issues identified above, but what if the situation with Spain or what Mr Davis has said do not allow for these two to be achieved?

BREXIT and Border Controls

The answer to the question, will BREXIT result in a change in border controls at our border, is, it depends.  

The answer depends, initially, on whether there is a “hard BREXIT” or a “soft BREXIT”, in terms of whether or not the UK (with the inclusion of Gibraltar) agrees to freedom of movement, meaning the right (with few exceptions) of EU citizens to live and work in any other EU country (that would include the UK and Gibraltar after BREXIT).  

Agreement to freedom of movement is inextricably linked, currently, to the subject of whether or not the UK (and Gibraltar,for services, as is the present arrangement, assuming that no other specific Treaty provisions impact on Gibraltar’s position) would remain in the EU Single Market.  This membership could beeither through EFTA membership (consisting now of Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) or by specific agreement, as is the case with Switzerland.  

The conundrum is that, seemingly, as the debate stand, the UK would wish to remain in the EU Single Market but to opt out of freedom of movement obligations.  This arrangement is not acceptable presently to the remaining EU members, so there is a likelihood that freedom of movement may not continue after BREXIT.

So what different treatment would apply at the border with Spain,on the basis that freedom of movement would cease to exist?  The answer is simple: applying current EU rules, there could be greater checks at our border that could cause delay, absent goodwill from Spain or special agreements.  

The principle that exists currently, as a matter of EU law, whichresults in a smother and faster cross-border flow would cease to apply.  This principle is that minimum checks, simply to establish identity by a rapid and straightforward check of passports or identity cards, are applied to EU citizens who enjoy freedom of movement.  It is this principle that the EU inspectors criticised Spain for not applying at our border when long queues were created by action taken by Spain in recent years.  It was this EU intervention that led to a return to a smooth fast flowing border.

So, absent goodwill from Spain or special agreement for our border, what EU rules would apply?  

A non-EU national, for stays not exceeding 90 days in any 180-day period, needs to possess a passport with a valid visa (if a visa is required, there is much press speculation on the question of a need for a visa that remains unresolved), justify the purpose of the intended stay, show sufficient means of subsistence, not have an alert issued in the Schengen information system that would lead to refusal of entry and not be considered a threat to public policy, internal security, public heath or international relations.  Entry may be refused if any of these conditions are not met, absent special reasons like humanitarian ones. Passports will be systematically stamped on entry and exit. 

If all this criteria is strictly applied at our border, one can see easily (not least from past actual experience) that the required checks will cause delays on crossing; delays that would impact on our economy and that of the Campo area.  One casualty could be those persons, be they Spanish nationals or other nationals, who cross the border daily to work in Gibraltar.  The other casualty would be the ability of British nationals (including Gibraltarians) to live in Spain. 

Regulation EC1931/2006 allows for special passes to be given, in certain circumstances, to cross-border workers travelling from a non-EU country to work in an EU member state.  It does not deal with the reverse situation that would be the applicable one at our border.  Accordingly, if no special overall arrangement is reached to govern our border crossing, a bilateral arrangement would be the available solution to facilitate border crossings by cross-border workers from Spain into Gibraltar. The ability of British nationals to reside in Spain would need, also, to be dealt with by agreement flowing from the negotiations.

Only time and negotiations will clarify these issues that impact on our border and those Gibraltarians who live in Spain but an understanding of the current position is needed to inform any discussion during the BREXIT process. Gibraltar did have different arrangements from the UK at the time of the original accession into the EU, when Spain was not an EU member, which indicates the ability for differences to be agreed that are applicable to Gibraltar and not the UK.  Today, however, Spain is an EU member; the extent that Spain will be involved in issues that engage Gibraltar and the extent of the influence that it will yield on this front is still to be seen. Let us hope that realism and pragmatism will prevail for the benefit of the whole area, importantly the hinterland, which can ill afford an artificial and avoidable economic downturn arising out of purely political motives.

Gibraltar Social Democrats (GSD) Vision, Values and Aims.

“Individuality within a Caring Society”

Each of us lives as individuals within society, as such, we are interdependent. For that to work, we must acceptpersonal responsibility for our well being and for making a future for ourselves, within a fair, caring and ordered society.   Within that society the GSD believes those who can’t - and those who can, who fall on hard-times – must be helped.  

We stand for a fair, ordered and caring society where individual responsibility matters.

The GSD will work to improve our society for the benefit of all and not just the few, by standing for individual rights, social justice, strong values and decency. We believe these rights and values flow from a sense of responsibility, a strong community, equal opportunity and equal rights.  Unjust elements within our society must be tackled. 

This vision hinges on clear policies, achievable within our financial means in a British Gibraltar.    

We would:

Recognise the right of individuals to live within the law, as freely and unfettered by government intervention as possible, while protecting the common good;

 

Enhance democratic, open and accountable government and administration with consultation, reforms and measured decentralisation;

 

Manage public funds, all funds used for public endsand public spending prudently, openly and transparently;

 

Stimulate economic growth by both encouraging private investment and by supporting workers’ movements and the trade unions;

 

Only invest public moneys in commercial enterprises that are essential, and not in a way that discourages, interferes or competes with private enterprise; 

 

Improve public services in all fields, including health care, elderly care, child care, and housing; 

 

Assist the less privileged through social services and, where right and possible, with reasonable financial help, without encouraging a culture of reliance;

 

Develop education, training and skills, and increase opportunities for economic diversification; 

 

Support good sports, leisure, arts and culturefacilities and an enhanced historical awareness as an expression of our unique national identity;

 

Place the environment at the core of our thinking;

 

Advance self-determination;

 

Deal with discrimination and prejudice, for any reason inclusive of gender, sexual orientation, race or skin colour, disability or religion, by promoting diversity and taking personal responsibility for our place in society; and

 

Encourage a stable, peaceful and law abiding community, in part, by raising awareness of civic responsibility and addressing the growing culture of entitlement.

Does Picardo have BREXIT Plan?

The Independent newspaper in the UK has suggested that Picardo said that if BREXIT happened Gibraltar would seek a joint sovereignty arrangement with Spain.

That newspaper has corrected that statement following representations made by Picardo. So we should accept that there has been a misquote.

However, this incident highlights one important matter. It is that Picardo is Chief Minister. Consequently he and his Government will have to steer Gibraltar through the extremely difficult times that may follow a BREXIT vote.

The silence of Picardo and his Government on what its policies in this eventuality are is palpable. Should the GSLP Government not be telling the people of Gibraltar what the Government's intentions are in this eventuality? This is especially important in light of the enormous direct and indirect public borrowing that Picardo's Government have incurred. 

This borrowing has weakened Gibraltar's ability to fend off the economic effects that may result from a BREXIT. This has been gross irresponsibility on the part of the GSLP Government. It contrasts sharply with the Bossano GSLP government of 1988 to 1996. At that time the "rainy day" fund was paramount.

My Radio Broadcast of 20th November 2015

Some have questioned my involvement in frontline politics with the GSD.  My support for a party is not based on dogma.  It is based on adherence to core political values.  Mine are those of a social democrat and not of a socialist of the type and nature exemplified by the GSLP: to me the politics of the GSLP are neither socialism nor social democracy.  The politics of the GSLP are the politics of convenience based on buying votes using savers money, irrespective of the wellbeing of Gibraltar as a whole or its future generations.  I do not believe that these are the politics that voters in Gibraltar want, however much some (and it is a few) gain personally or enrich themselves from such politics.

I have no hesitation in saying that I have voted GSD at every election, except in the 2011 election at which I split my vote.  I realise now that this was a mistake in light of the GSLP’s failures to make good its manifesto promises to improve democracy in and provide good government for Gibraltar.  My passion for decades has been to improve the democratic offering in Gibraltar and systemically reduce the chances of bad government.  The GSD has adopted policies that will help me to deliver on my passion. 

The GSLP made empty promises on issues of good government in its 2011 Manifesto.  The GSLP promised a more inclusive, less divisive and positive style of government, that it would return government to the people, ensure that ministers are servants of the people, that a government is not elected to ‘reign’ over the citizens”, that the GSLP do not believe that one man should be the government, they committed to a root and branch reform of the way our democracy works, they said that such reform must be designed to give people a greater voice in the way government and parliament function and they promised to promote free speech amongst all citizens. 

When you come to vote you will be the judges of whether the GSLP have delivered on these promises. I do not consider that the GSLP have done so.  The GSD considers that The GSLP have singularly failed to deliver on any of these.  What the GSLP have done is to pay lip service to their promises by having more meetings of parliament but using the system not to advance open and transparent government, so much so that lies have been said in Parliament and questions asked by the GSD have not been answered purposefully.

In fact Fabian Picardo has used his absolute privilege in Parliament to make serious and false accusations using venomous language against Daniel Feetham, without the Speaker protecting Mr Feetham.  I refer to the incident when Mr Picardo untruthfully alleged that Mr Feetham had corruptly promised favours in exchange for the Lloyd’s Report on LNG and that he had conspired to deprive young children, the elderly and disabled of electricity:  accusations that Mr Picardo has cowardly refused to make outside Parliament and so become susceptible to a financial claim for defamation.

The very essence of free speech, the cathedral of which is Parliament, is precisely that one must suffer the expression of views by others, which one considers repellent, especially those of minorities, like the Opposition.   Well the GSD wants to return Parliament to being the cathedral of free speech in Gibraltar.  If the cathedral of free speech itself is violated, which is what the GSLP have done, then where does that leave the right of free speech that everyone should enjoy?  I would suggest in tatters, as has happened in Gibraltar under every GSLP administration.

How the GSD will deliver better government and more democracy to Gibraltar is set out in detail in our Manifesto.  Briefly, the GSD will follow open and transparent processes in non-civil service public employment and in tendering for government and government related contracts. 

It will enforce laws to prevent corruption and cronyism and afford the necessary environment and protections for investigation of both.  The GSLP acknowledged the existence of corruption in its 2011 manifesto.  The GSLP failed to introduce the anti-corruption and anti-bribery authority that it promised.  The authority’s remit was to be to “... work with the Attorney General and seconded officers of the RGP in the investigation and prosecution of corruption ... starting in 1988”.  Now, the GSLP in its 2015 Manifesto says that the RGP are resourced to deal with this.  Can you believe the GSLP will meet its commitment?

The GSD will introduce reforms to improve parliamentary democracy aimed at reinstating the supremacy of Parliament to achieve true democratic and fair government.  It will do so by separating the executive and legislature by the election of backbenchers who will not be eligible for appointment as ministers by the Chief Minister. It will restore the Rule of Law. 

The criticism that backbenchers will increase public costs is not a criticism at all.  The entire cost of 8 backbenchers will not exceed approximately £150,000.  Returning 2 or 3 public posts filled by the GSLP Government from the private sector to reasonable salaries will pay for this, with an additional saving in excess of £500,000.  The benefit of the separation of powers to improve democracy and deliver better government more than compensates for this additional cost. 

The choice is clear: more of the same opportunism from the GSLP or giving the GSD an opportunity to improve the democratic and good governance offer in Gibraltar.  I would urge you to think carefully, not least because a vote for the GSLP is a vote in favour of an LNG plant at the end of the North Mole and for a stadium at Lathbury Barracks, once built these will be there for decades.  Careful thought will lead you to conclude that a vote for the GSD is the right vote.  We offer many other exciting and affordable promises.  The GSLP continue now to promise everything that costs and is expensive.  I suggest Gibraltar and its future generations cannot afford the GSLP.  The GSD is not for austerity.  It is for prudence by cutting bad and unnecessary expenditure and wastage.

The GSD is a team of competent persons.  It is a vote for a team not for an individual who will be Chief Minister.  On the 26^th November use your privilege of voting. Vote GSD, vote for Danny Feetham, Roy Clinton, Trevor Hammond, Marlene Hassan, Kim Karnani, Lawrence Llamas, Elliott Philips, Edwin Reyes, Chris White and myself Robert Vasquez.

Thank you.