Picardo's GSLP … a New Dawn in Gibraltar Politics?

It seems that there is some glitter of hope in Gibraltar politics that may result in less confrontational politics in Gibraltar. We have seen recently the GSLP extending invitations to the GSD that the parties should work together on issues of national interest.  The GSLP has congratulated the Chief Minister on his appointment as an Overseas Bencher of the Inner Temple; I also join in those congratulations. The GSD has invited the GSLP to participate jointly in parliamentary reform.

I hope that these signs truly reflect a new dawning for politics in Gibraltar. I hope that it not just a ploy to sow dissent amongst those in the GSLP who agree with electoral and parliamentary reform and those who may not. I hope that something positive and constructive will come from these developments. I hope that electoral and parliamentary reform does become a reality. I hope that, because it is such an important issue, that it does not get mired in party political dissent causing the new impetus to hit a dead end. 

The PDP reaction is not helpful. It militates at making the issue party political, precisely because of the views it has expressed, which will tend to polarise the issue at a party political level. The PDP are not represented in Parliament. They have to accept this distinction in status from the other three parties. This will not prevent the PDP from having an input through representations and lobbying. The PDP’s input cannot be at parliamentary committee level, put simply, the PDP has not been elected into Parliament. 

I would like to make a positive gesture following these developments. A few commentators have credited this blog with having agitated the issue of electoral and parliamentary reform in manner that has led to recent developments. I thank them for expressing that view but the reality is that the most that this blog has done is to bring the issue to the forefront of the minds of the mainstream parties. Others have also had similar views and policies.

The truth is that the GSD promised reforms in its manifesto. The Chief Minister subsequently confirmed his desire to give effect to reforms. He then put the issue on the back burner using the excuse that the GSLP did not support reforms. I do not agree with this reasoning and have so said in the past. The GSD could have pushed for reforms by publishing its policy on the subject and then criticized the GSLP had it vetoed the ability of Parliament to pass them or an adaptation into law. The GSD has now reacted to the change of opinion by the GSLP expressed by Fabian Picardo to the effect that it would support reforms. The Chief Minister has given a new impetus to the process by inviting a cross-party approach, which would now be difficult for the GSLP to turn down.

Electoral and parliamentary reforms are the main focus of my politics, which are contained in the "Core Principles" that I published. On the basis of giving both the GSD and the GSLP the benefit of the doubt that they will together enact reforms to promote democracy, I have taken the decision not to stand for election. I will continue writing this blog. My decision not to stand for election is also predicated following careful thought over the period of the recent holidays. The reality is that, although I have many offers of active help and support, these do not translate into persons willing to stand for election. Each has his or her reasons for not putting their head above the parapet. I understand fully their reasoning. It is not an easy thing to do. Often business, employment or family considerations militate against standing for election. Consequently, I would need to stand-alone. 

The chance of election standing alone, as an independent, is very limited. Additionally, as has been pointed out by some commentators, there is a school of thought that my standing for election detracts from my ability to be considered "independent" when writing this blog. It is clear that being seen to be writing "independently" provides a useful forum and catalyst for change. I believe that the move toward parliamentary reform, in part, has been stimulated by this blog and my publication of the "Core Principles". I want to give our mainstream politicians a chance to deliver the reforms, which are needed and so clearly wanted by the electorate. 

My ability to promote change alone, even if elected into Parliament as an independent, will be no greater than my ability to agitate for that change by writing this blog. I have decided that I wish to retain the strength and credibility of this blog by not standing for election whilst I have such limited chances of either success or, even if I were to be successful, of influencing the subject of electoral and parliamentary reform. I believe that the mainstream politicians will deliver some reform. Perhaps they will not go as far as I am suggesting but the benefit of some reform is that the advances it will provide will itself create the way by which further reform may come about.

What I have done, do and will continue to do on this blog is to express my political opinions. I make great efforts not to make personal criticisms of anyone in what I write. I try my utmost to moderate comments to avoid personal criticisms; I may not succeed but, when anyone points any failures out to me, I do reconsider and delete offending comments.

Neither this blog nor I have the power to promote anyone into government or remove anyone from government, as some have suggested. That power lies in the hands of the electorate alone. All that can happen is that my opinions may or may not sway voters. I trust that my decision not to stand for election will be indicative that what I do is express very much how I see politics. I do not believe that this delivers “independence”, as no one is “independent” in politics. What it delivers is my subjective analysis and view. You may or may not agree with my views, which is a right I deeply respect as a democrat.

What I do promise is that, on this blog and elsewhere, I will tirelessly pursue my campaign to achieve electoral and parliamentary reforms in order to correct the deficit that I feel exists in democracy today in Gibraltar. All I am doing by deciding not to stand for election is to have faith in the new impetus given to this issue by the mainstream parties. I am of the view that the statements made by both the GSD and the GSLP are now sufficiently robust for them not to retreat from their commitment to improve democracy in Gibraltar. The credibility of both of them will suffer no end, should they fail to deliver on these promises.

I make no excuses or apologies for vociferously pronouncing on policies and views that I adhere to and issues that I fervently believe in. I make no excuse or apologies for campaigning for greater democracy in Gibraltar. I believe we deserve it. I believe that we did not resist Franco’s Spain to accept any deficiencies in our democracy that are capable of being remedied by our Parliament. I hope that the GSD and the GSLP do not disillusion the electorate. If they do, they will not just be letting me down. They will be letting down all Gibraltar.

More Democracy in the UK ... Less Here?

The quest for electoral and constitutional reform is not a quest that is unique to Gibraltar. In the United Kingdom the last Labour Government made substantial improvements to the constitution and consequently to improving democracy in the UK. It is important to understand that this is an ongoing process in the UK, which now continues under the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition. The UK was already streaks ahead of Gibraltar on the democratising front. Gibraltar needs to catch up  on many fronts, even if, mainstream politicians do not, at the present moment, aspire to allow the people as many democratic safeguards as are envisaged for the UK. I am personally of the opinion that democratisation is long overdue in Gibraltar.

The Labour administration made substantial constitutional changes in the UK to improve democracy during its time in power. Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales achieved greater democracy with devolution. The much criticised (by the European Courts, because it broke the rule of the separation of powers) ) office of Lord Chancellor was divided into its three constituent parts., The Supreme Court of the UK replaced the House of Lords as the highest Court in the Land. Proportional representation was adopted for elections to the European Parliament, devolved assemblies, the Greater London Assembly and direct election of mayors was introduced. The process now continues under the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition.

One area of reform that I have proposed for Gibraltar is electoral reform. This week, the UK has voted against electoral reform in the form of the Alternative Vote system. Opportunistic politicians in Gibraltar might want to jump on this bandwagon to argue that Gibraltar's electoral system also does not require change. This would be to come to the wrong conclusion. The UK has a constituency based electoral system, in which direct representation by an MP is the focus. Gibraltar elects MP's territory wide; that is the main reason and an important distinction making the requirement for electoral reform, in favour of Proportional Representation, more pertinent to and fairer for Gibraltar. My suggestion of district MPs also provides a system of direct representation of people in Parliament, which puts right another major failing in our system.

Despite the results of the UK referendum, the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition intends to embark on constitutional reforms in the UK. One part of the plan is to reduce the House of Commons from 650 to 600 members by redrawing constituency boundaries and making them the same size, numbering 76,000 electors in each. A fixed term of 5 years is also planned, which would remove the element of surprise that now exists with the power to dissolve Parliament (within 5 years) being vested, at present, in the Prime Minister.  In Gibraltar that same power is vested in the Chief Minister.

Additionally there are ongoing discussions to improve democracy by electing Members of the House of Lord, possibly to be renamed the Senate. This House of Parliament would be reduced from approximately 790 to around 300 members. The proposal is thought to be that about 80% would be elected by proportional representation and 20% appointed as is the case now. The idea behind this is to ensure that the appointed element comes from necessary professions that provides required legislative expertise, for example scientists, military men, judges, professors etc. Hereditary peers and most Bishops would cease to be members. Electing the upper house would give it much greater sway with the House of Commons by the mere fact that it becomes representative of voters. The requirement to break with the tradition of an unwritten constitution begins to come to the fore, not least, because of the need that would arise to regulate the relationship between the two Houses of Parliament.

Why do politicians consider that it is important to reform the system in the UK in this manner? Many believe that the incentive is the demands of the public. The expenses debacle in the UK undermined confidence and trust in politicians. Surveys have also reflected this public lack of confidence and trust. Does this sound familiar? Not fiddling expenses but the lack of confidence and trust in politicians? This deficit certainly comes through loud and clear from comments made on this blog.

Well, the GSD have been promising democratic reforms for 16 years and delivered next to none. The GSLP now talk of democratic reforms if it were to be elected into government. Will either deliver? Well, surely, it is too late to believe the GSD. The GSLP might deliver but there again ... Perhaps, if an enlightened electorate were to break the "Block Vote" and force a coalition government then the much needed electoral and parliamentary reforms may become a reality, otherwise I do not know whether it will happen.

The ability of any government anywhere to govern is down to trust and confidence. If that gets to an unacceptably low level, anarchy is round the corner. Its happening in North Africa and the Middle East now. It would be a disaster, both socially and economically, if any unrest were to develop in Gibraltar. It will only advantage Spain. It is time for our politicians to be mature and selfless. They must practice what they preach in their rhetoric and treat the electorate as a mature people. They keep saying we are. It was the main argument that they marshalled in support of the 2006 Constitution.  They need to give more democratic power to the people both to restore trust and confidence in the political classes and to accept the responsible exercise of democratic oversight by a mature electorate. Failure to do so could have dire consequences, not least, that the UK is still responsible, even under our new Constitution, for good governance in Gibraltar.

All I See is Sea but Whose Is It?

The Chief Minister has again called on Spain to resolve the  British Gibraltar Territorial Waters ("BGTW") issue in the International Court of Justice ("ICJ"). Personally I am not one to favour resolution of international disputes in a court. It is, however. difficult to see how else this issue might be resolved by any alternative means. The positions of each sovereign state are so opposed that negotiations would seem impossible, especially as compromise on the fundamental issue of sovereignty is simply not within the realms of reality. The received wisdom, both within informed circles in Spain and both the UK and Gibraltar, is that the UK's case before the ICJ to support BGTW is inviolable.

One cannot but agree with the Chief Minister when he describes the actions of the Government of Spain, through the agency of its Navy, as unacceptable and not being the manner in which EU members should treat each other in the 21st century. The Chief Minister's offer of co-existence with Spain despite such aggravated provocation is a brave political statement, safeguarded by his express view that in the Trilateral Process Spain cannot expect from Gibraltar what it is not itself predisposed to concede. It is also clear that, whilst the Trilateral Process may be the correct forum to agree law enforcement cooperation, it is not the forum for the discussion of issues of sovereignty. The Chief Minister has categorically stated, now, that he is not prepared to talk about "the sovereignty of [his] homeland with Spain or any other country, inside or outside the Tripartite Forum".

Talk about buying larger boats for the RGP by both Peter Caruana and Fabian Picardo is no solution. It could be an escalation. The purchase of bigger boats does nothing to resolve the issue that Spain has brought to the fore by its actions within BGTW. That the RGP should be bought better boats and equipment to fight crime and/or to protect themselves from injury or death are both good reasons for incurring this expense. If those are the reasons then so be it, let us certainly spend the money.

Why, then is Spain behaving in this way? One can but speculate in order to answer this question. I would suggest two possible reasons, which are not alternative but rather cumulative. The first is that there is some truth in reports that Trinidad Jimenez, the Spanish Foreign Minister, does want to put the Trilateral Process into the deep freeze. Secondly, that she and her government want to provoke bilateral discussions on sovereignty with the UK.

It seems odd and awkward that Spain should want to do escalate the dispute over BGTW at this juncture whilst there is much unrest and upheaval in North Africa and the Middle East. It is a time to promote cooperation and not divisiveness to ensure that security in this part of the world is not compromised. The alternative could be that Spain believes that it is its primary responsibility to protect this region against any violent uprising in Morocco. Could it be that the UK recognises it has other geographical areas further into the Mediterranean that it is responsible for, which it has to cater for within its military capability and so it needs Spain to take on responsibility for the security of this part of the globe? Is Spain acting opportunistically at this juncture to force issues that might turn out to have wider favourable consequences in its quest for sovereignty concessions over Gibraltar from the UK?

Gibraltar needs to act carefully and vigilantly at this juncture placing continued reliance on the UK's undertakings in the 2006 Constitution. Gibraltar needs to work closely with the UK to ensure that the BGTW dispute does not escalate but rather subsides, so that greater adverse consequences do not flow to Gibraltar from the events being so overtly and purposely perpetrated by the Spanish State. Gunboat diplomacy is not the way to achieve this but undoubtedly it is a difficult diplomatic problem to resolve. I have no magic solution for it. It seems unlikely that Spain will submit the issue to judicial scrutiny by the ICJ.

Depersonalise Comments to Improve this Blog

I make great efforts to write what I consider to be topical and interesting pieces on this blog. Sometimes I succeed better than other times. I am constantly hopeful that people who comment will join in the debate making substantive argument. I do not expect or want everyone to agree with me. I give my honestly held opinion but it is not one that is right or wrong. It is just that: an opinion. I would like people to comment with opinion and good argument and prove my views wrong or convince me to change them.

More frequently than not, I get personalised views about individuals in politics. I can and do publish some of these but often they are unpublishable. I will continue to publish those that I am of the view are publishable. I would make a plea, however, that commentators should try to make substantive points and arguments. Using this blog in that fashion would make it much more interesting, constructive and useful in forming opinion in Gibraltar.

The personalised comments unfortunately reflect the personality based nature of politics in Gibraltar. This is something that I am campaigning to change with my quest for electoral and parliamentary reforms, so I find personalised comments a contradiction to that which I am seeking to achieve. The present electoral system converts the 10 votes that each voter has into one vote for a president who is known as the Chief Minister. This fact alone militates to comparisons  being made as between one potential candidate for the post of Chief Minister and another and criticisms of each. I would ask readers who comment to please attempt to avoid this type of personalised commentary.

It may well be that the prediction that this coming electoral campaign will be dirty may come true. I will not consciously allow this blog to be taken over by those who may attempt to turn it into an instrument for such a campaign. Despite the likelihood of criticism from some sectors of my readership, I will make every effort to apply this policy on this blog.My plea would be for the campaign to remain clean. This plea does not mean that facts that are relevant for voters to make an informed decision should not be made public but not through the instrumentality of this blog. It is not the purpose of this blog to do that nor do I have the resources to research and investigate any or every allegation which may be made.

Gibraltar goes to the polls, under the present electoral system, not to elect a government and opposition but a presidential Chief Minister. The Chief Minister is the embodiment of what Gibraltar is. He mirrors to the outside world the morals and values that Gibraltar represents. These are, at least, honesty, trust, transparency, openness, security, safety, good governance and a good reputation as a place to visit and to do business in and from. The continued economic prosperity and success of Gibraltar are dependent on avoiding any circumstances that may undermine these. Those who offer themselves to the electorate as candidates have the primary responsibility and duty to ensure that these values are not put at risk. If they take a decision to offer themselves up for election they should accept that they will be closely scrutinised. That alone does not make a campaign a dirty campaign.

My personal sadness is that the risks of the personal circumstances of anyone elected to the office of  Chief Minister having an adverse effect on Gibraltar are heightened by the democratic deficit that exists in Gibraltar. The very fact that our electoral system results in the election of a presidential style Chief Minister magnifies that risk, should the person offering himself or herself for election to that office be found to be wanting. If the electoral system was reformed to elect a truly representative government from amongst whom a Chief Minister would emerge, the risk would be somewhat diluted. I maintain my position that the electoral system needs urgent reform for the benefit of Gibraltar. Parliamentary reform will consequntly be needed and is needed irrespective of electoral reform.