http://www.gibnews.wordpress.com/

Llanito World, Gibraltar (2025)

02/09/2025

ALL QUIET ON THE BORDER FRONT

There is not much happening on the Gibraltar-EU front despite that August, the month when nothing much happens in Brussels and Spain, has come to an end.

The Spanish press is convinced that a Gibexit treaty, governing Gibraltar’s relations with the EU, will be reached in the autumn. It has been reporting as much over the last few days.

The press also suggests that the border controls will be dismantled in early 2026.

Spanish Foreign Minister, Jose Manuel Albares, has said, in the past, that he expected the Gibexit treaty to be ready By October.

If so, two important events involving Gibraltar will be made public in the autumn. The second one is the Report of the McGrail Inquiry,
about which see yesterday’s blog. Although unrelated they will both reflect on the GSLP-Liberal Government.

DEAL CLOSE

The position, according to the Chief Minister’s Office, No. 6 Convent Place, is still that the text of a UK-EU treaty over Gibraltar needs to be finalised “as soon as possible”.

It has been so for months. Progress is being made apparently, but announcements are still awaited.

The need was repeated in a telephone discussion between Chief Minister, Fabian Picardo, and UK Minister for Europe, Stephen Doughty.

No. 6 Convent Place described that conversation as being “… a catch-up … in preparation of for the meeting in London …”.

PRIME MINISTERIAL MEETING

There will be a meeting in London, tomorrow, between Spanish Prime Minister, Pedro Sanchez, and UK Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer.

The meeting will not be about Gibraltar. It will deal with UK/Spain bilateral matters, and other major international issues like US tariffs and the wars in Ukraine and Gaza.

GIBRALTAR WILL BE MENTIONED

Gibraltar will feature peripherally, however, in the London meetings.

It is expected to be mentioned in terms of acknowledging progress, and the commitment of all to reach agreement to a Gibexit treaty text.

It follows the announcement, on June 11, 2025, that a political agreement had been reached.

Mr Doughty reassured the Chief Minister that ‘nothing about you without you’.

The reality is that will mean that Gibraltar’s GSLP-Liberal Government will be solely responsible for the Gibexit treaty outcome. No other political party is taking part in the negotiations.

01/09/2025

NO MCGRAIL INQUIRY DELAY, BUT CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION?

The McGrail Inquiry has ruled that it will not go into the findings of the 2018/19 former Principal Auditor Report [Auditor’s Report] relating to alleged payments made, by the GSLP-Liberal Government, to some of the 31 former RGP officers.

It had been requested by Ian McGrail's lawyers, Charles Gomez and Company in a letter of 11th July 2011 [Letter].

The Inquiry Chair found that the Auditor’s Report did not reveal any fresh allegations that affected his findings on what gave rise to Mr McGrail’s retirement.

The relevant Inquiry ruling was published at noon on 29th August 2025.

It confirms that its final report is still scheduled for publication this autumn.

FURTHER RGP INVESTIGATION?

The Inquiry Chair has however said, “The newly appointed Commissioner of the RGP can review [the previous decision not to prosecute] in the light of changed circumstances … if the Commissioner does decide to pursue the matter, then that would be another reason for the Inquiry to decline to do so.”

The Letter is relevant to that review. It has been published with the ruling in question.

The Inquiry Chair finds that, “If these payments bore directly on the issues that I had to decide, and if they might affect my conclusions, I would not hesitate to pursue the matter despite the possibility a criminal investigation might be re-activated. Since they do not, I consider that possibility to be irrelevant to the decision I must now make.”

It would be odd for the RGP not to think again and re-activate its investigation, taking those comments into account, following the allegations made to the Inquiry in the Letter which led to this Inquiry ruling.

Yet there is no news on that front at present. Perhaps, it is for Mr McGrail to pursue that avenue directly with the RGP Commissioner.

TIME OF THE ESSENCE

The Inquiry Chair reaffirms that his remit is “to assess [Mr Pyle’s and Mr Picardo’s] loss of confidence, based on what they knew or believed at the time, and not on what they learnt thereafter.” ‘The time’ being that leading up to and ending with Mr McGrail’s retirement.

It was that alleged loss of confidence of the Chief Minister, Fabian Picardo, and the interim Governor, Nick Pyle, which is said by them to be what led to Mr McGrail’s ‘forced’ retirement. Mr Pyle was the only person with the power to ask Mr McGrail to resign.

It is the reasons and circumstances leading to Mr McGrail’s early retirement, which is the remit of the Inquiry.

They, Mr Pyle and Mr Picardo, could not “rely on some fault or misconduct alleged against Mr McGrail, of which they did not know, and did not consider, at the time.” It means that much evidence will not be considered relevant.

EX-POLICE PAYMENTS

Solicitors for Mr McGrail had asked that the Inquiry should investigate the Auditor’s Report relating “to payments made to 31 former officers of the RGP” many of whom had made witness statements given to the Inquiry.

The Inquiry had already found that only three of 19 witness statements met the time requirement, but that of those “only one part of the statement of Mr Morello had any real bearing on the matters in issue”. It related to complaints made by the Gibraltar Police Federation.

The Inquiry Chair reveals that he has “already been able to come to firm conclusions” on that matter. His conclusions are not revealed at this stage.

He also confirms that “the same considerations apply to the other former officers of the RGP to whom payments were made on the same or similar grounds.”

He adds, “I am unpersuaded that the alleged witness inducements amount to a ‘matter in question at the inquiry’…”, but they would amount to a matter for a new investigation by the RGP.

NO WEIGHT

The Inquiry Chair has found that he “did not – and do[es] not – consider that any potential impact on Mr McGrail’s credit caused by the allegations made by the other witnesses – even if true – merited the very significant resources and time that would have to be invested in investigating those allegations.”

In short, he considers the evidence available to him already sufficient to reach his conclusions, and those would not be altered by any added allegations, even if true.

What those conclusions are, remain unknown.

However, it is known that several people will be criticised in the final Inquiry Report, as ‘Maxwellisation’ letters, warning of such criticism, have been served and are being replied to.

The extent or nature of the criticism is still unknown.

UNNECESSARY FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS

Further, the Inquiry Chair has decided that investigating the truth or falsehood of allegations of unlawful inducements of bogus ‘job offers’, or whether they were true ‘jobs offers’ allegedly intended to protect ‘whistleblowers’ would cause too much delay and cost.

Delay and cost that, according to him, is not “justified, since it would not begin to bring any – certainly not any proportionate – benefit to help … to determine the facts and circumstances of Mr McGrail’s retirement, which I can properly find upon the material put before me…” already.

NOTHING NEW ON PAYMENTS

The Inquiry Chair confirms that he knew that many of the 31 officers had “received some form of payment…” and that he had taken that “into account in [his] original Closed Ruling of 1 March 2024”.

That ruling found that only parts of three statements by current or former members of the Gibraltar Police Federation were relevant to the Inquiry. Further that the Inquiry team would investigate any allegations that incentives were offered in exchange for giving evidence to the Inquiry.

Additionally, that the Principal Auditor does not “reveal any fresh allegations which could affect [his] findings about the facts and circumstances of Mr McGrail’s retirement”.

In any event, he holds that he is not bound by any conclusions of the Principal Auditor on the issue of “whether the payments were made to procure false or distorted evidence … or to allow true evidence to be given free from fear of reprisal”.

The integrity of the Inquiry process has been kept by investigations made by the Inquiry team. Further unwarranted delays and unnecessary costs would greatly damage confidence.

AUTUMN RULING

This last Inquiry Ruling clears all current obstacles, so everything, at present, is set for an Inquiry Ruling to be published in the Autumn.

What is known is that several players will be criticised, as they have been given a chance to make submissions in reply to the criticisms. Criticisms have been shown to the criticised parties following the ‘Maxwellisation’ process. #

29/08/2025

TWO-HORSE TOWN, OR REAL CHANGE?

Politically Gibraltar continues to be an electoral two-horse town (sorry nation, for those who believe that).

It has the GSLP-Liberals as one horse, and the GSD as the second horse, with the latter having recently lost the last four races.

There is a need to break that cycle to achieve substantive political change and progress by improving the democratic offering.

BREAKING THE CYCLE

There is another way.

It is for voters to vote for just two strong independent candidates who would need to come forward and be elected to hold the balance of government to force the necessary changes.

This would be the strongest way to achieve the needed reforms.

Alternatively, voters can vote for two independent candidates and a few others, with the ability to mix their votes between both parties but not use their full ten votes. This would be a weaker, yet strong, statement to gain the needed changes.

Finally, each elector can split their vote between the two strong independent candidates and the party supported.

So GSLP-Liberal supporters would vote for the two independents and 8 for their party. Likewise, GSD supporters would vote for the two independents and8 for their party. Still an effective act but not as powerful as the earlier two suggestions.

Contact me on the email at the end of this blog if you want to support that way forward.

REASON AND EFFECT

Getting independents elected allows them to decide which party gets into, forms, and stays in government, as the eight MPs of each party would need the support of the independents to form government.

The independents would negotiate with the GSLP-Liberals and the GSD with a view to supporting one or the other.

In the negotiation the independents would put forward their policies and their clear priorities of what measures must be given urgency.

Those are outlined below and would be explained in a manifesto.

The independents would have the power to ensure that whatever was agreed would be done once a government is formed. It is the power that comes from being able to defeat the government. They would not take ministerial office but remain as backbench MPs.

CURRENT SYSTEM

The current system results in people voting for their perceived party preference irrespective of actual performance or expected performance, so it results in mediocrity and self-serving governance.

Both parties promise much, do not do as promised, yet get re-elected by ensuring that the party in government, just before a general election, gives enough ‘sweeties’ to a section of voters to gain enough votes to win.

The cycle continues until enough of the electorate have been upset by the sitting government and decides to change their vote and elect the other party into government; and so, the cycle continues.

NEGATIVITY

It is wastage over long periods of time, usually three or four terms (12 to 16 years), that changes a government.

Usually, the reason is that the governing party has upset enough people to lose its majority.

It is a negative vote that transfers to put the other party in government.

The other party knows that. It knows also how much it can get away with and for how long, so it does as it pleases ignoring many electoral promises.

SOMETHING NEW

The election of two serious independents would be a catalyst for change. Picking them will provide needed impetus for real change.

Now we have the GSLP-Liberals in government.

The change to the GSD will come in time, undoubtedly.

The wheel turns but generates no real change. So, isn’t it time for something new?

NO NEW PARTY

A new party is not appearing. Even if one were to start now, it would need to work very hard to be ready and have the credibility necessary to win and govern.

Voters will likely not believe that a change to the new party would be successful, so they would be hesitant to vote that way.

However, voting for two strong independents gives voters a clearer expectation that what would be done will be done for the greater benefit of Gibraltar.

A CATALYST

Those two independents would be a spur to true and real change.

The priority, and so the first part of any negotiation by those independents with both the GSLP-Liberals and the GSD would be electoral, parliamentary and constitutional reform to deliver truer democracy.

It is that reform that would break the current cycle. It would also encourage much needed greater prudence in public finances.

The GSD would likely be the more amenable party to such change, but not necessarily so, following the envisaged leadership change in the GSLP-Liberals.

It is difficult to believe that the GSLP-Liberals would be serious about reforms, unless their new leader showed real desire.

REFORMS

The electoral system needs reforming to secure a more diverse choice of MPs. A form of proportional representation is needed.

The current system translates itself to one vote for the Chief Minister. It must be broken by electing two strong independents.

Additionally, there is a need for separation of powers between the legislature (Parliament) and the executive (the Chief Minister and his ministers). A separation is an essential ingredient for there to be true democracy.

The election of two independents starts to achieve that, but reforms instigated by them cements it.

In the absence of separation, the only democracy is a general election every four years. Even that is skewed currently by the voting system.

VOLUNTEERS

I am up for it. I managed to get 3262 votes in the last general election alone!

Go on some of you, be devils, contact me on [email protected] and see what we can do to get true democracy.

Enhance democracy by making a real change to the political scene, come forward to achieve the election of two reform minded independents to improve governance.

28/08/2025

SOVEREIGNTY SHARED WITH EU

The UK entering a treaty with the EU to govern Gibraltar’s relationship with the EU [Gibexit treaty] will have governmental and practical, but not nationalistic, sovereignty implications favouring the EU.

Those implications will be only to the extent that membership of the EU has for all its members and had for the UK whilst it was a member.

Gibraltar will remain as nationalistically British after any Gibexit treaty as it is before.

The extent of EU governmental and practical sovereignty accepted by Gibraltar will be to the level agreed in the Gibexit treaty.

It will not be more than that agreed by other member states and Schengen adherents.

BRITISH NATIONALISM WILL REMAIN

Gibraltar’s national sovereignty, namely being British, will not change. The Gibexit treaty will specifically safeguard against any such change.

Gibraltar will continue the same constitutionally and governmentally as it was during the UK’s membership of the EU. However, it will be up to every Gibraltarian to keep and support Gibraltar’s unique identity within its British national sovereignty.

What the EU is not is an absorber of any individual member’s nationalistic attributes. Each member keeps its nationalistic sovereignty characteristics, behaviour, symbols and signs.

Gibraltar will keep its unique British national traits in that same way, and its Constitution and self-governance following any Gibexit treaty. The EU has not tried to change the national constitutional structure and bodies of any member state.

One assumes the Gibexit treaty will respect that for Gibraltar. The Gibraltar delegation in the British negotiating team will surely be wise to that.

UK WANTED PRACTICAL SOVEREIGNTY

The UK voted to leave the EU on the argument of recovering the governmental and practical (but not nationalistic, because it had not been lost) sovereignty that it had agreed to share within the EU.

Gibraltar was always content with sharing governmental and practical sovereignty with the EU; so much so that 96% of its voters voted against Brexit in the referendum.

Boris Johnson at the time of Brexit said membership of the EU is “a slow and invisible process of legal colonisation, as the EU infiltrates just about every area of public policy.”

There may be no getting away from that, although it is an exaggeration, but it was something that Gibraltar accepted from the EU (not Spain) in its referendum vote.

PRACTICALITY COMPROMISED ANYWAY

The reality is that the UK, after leaving the EU, has had to enter bilateral agreements, with the EU, that to a degree have needed dilution of its governmental and practical sovereignty anyway.

Those have been necessary to continue trade and relations.

All international treaties have that element of governmental and practical sovereignty compromise. It is unavoidable
The impact is neutralised by the ability to use nationalistic sovereignty to recover governmental and practical sovereignty, as the UK did after the Brexit vote.

In that regard Gibraltar may be at a disadvantage because that reversal will only be possible at the behest of the UK due to it being an external affair, unless the Gibexit treaty provides differently, by giving Gibraltar the authority to leave at its own behest. It remains to be seen.

THE NEED FOR A GIBEXIT TREATY

The UK’s relationship with the EU following Brexit was dealt with in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement. It did not cover Gibraltar.

Gibraltar therefore needed to come to an arrangement that kept border fluidity, not least due to the importance of the 15,000 cross-border workers to its economy, and the supply of essentials.

It was also keen to keep access to the EU single market for some essential parts of its economy, like services.

PRACTICAL ARRANGEMENTS

The Gibexit treaty will do away with checks and controls on people and goods flowing between EU/Spain and Gibraltar.

It also sets up a customs union between the EU and Gibraltar.

It covers taxation, frontier worker rights and ensures equality between the EU/Spain and Gibraltar on matters such as state aid, labour rules, and the environment also.

Immigration, policing and justice in Gibraltar remain the responsibility of the authorities in Gibraltar. The passing of laws, outside the realms of what is agreed in the Gibexit treaty, stays in the province of Gibraltar’s Parliament.

EU LAWS

The EU has regulations and directives.

Regulations bite just as soon as the EU makes them. They bite on every member state equally within the terms of the EU treaties. Gibraltar is safeguarded by that universal application of regulations.

Directives have EU goals. Each member must transpose those into law. One assumes that the Gibexit treaty will deliver that authority to the Gibraltar Parliament. It provides some element of manoeuvre within the manner that each nation transposes those directives.

JUSTICE

The Court of Justice of the EU in Luxembourg interprets EU law.

It includes upholding rights contained in the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights, which must be followed by the EU Commission, Parliament and the Council. Those should not be an issue as Gibraltar has them already in Part 1 of its Constitution.

The Gibexit treaty will likely define exactly how regulations, directives and fundamental rights will apply and impact on Gibraltar.

NO CHANGE

There will be no real fundamental change in Gibraltar from what it has today based on the UK’s past relationship with the EU.

The noticeable changes will be the ending of frontier checks, save for payment of VAT on entry of goods through the commercial entry point, and the introduction of a 17% VAT charge on goods, but not services.

Freedom of movement of people and goods with the EU will allow Gibraltar to breathe, whilst it continuing to be nationalistically British into the future.

Termination of the Gibexit treaty will presumably need EU-wide consensus. It will not just be in the hands of Spain.

27/08/2025

NO FRONTIER IN JANUARY?

There is increasing speculation in Spanish news media that the Gibraltar-EU/Spain frontier will be dismantled in January 2026. Chief Minister Fabian Picardo has dampened that suggestion.

He reflects the stance also taken by the treaty negotiators. They have not put any deadline for the completion of the ongoing Gibexit negotiating process.

El Pais reported that the hope was to have the Gibexit negotiations, leading to a treaty between the UK/Gibraltar and the EU/Spain governing Gibraltar’s post-Brexit relations with the EU, finished in time to allow finalisation of the ratification of the treaty by Christmas 2025.

INTENTION VERSUS REALITY

The speculation is in line with the stated aim, which has been always and is to have the legal text of the Gibexit treaty completed in the autumn of 2025, but there is caution in the EU even over that estimate.

Mr Picardo expresses some optimism. It comes in the form of reflecting that all work on the treaty negotiation is working to an early timetable. However, he also stays cautious over giving any absolute deadline.

What is known is that good progress is being made towards finalising a Gibexit treaty.

POTENTIAL DELAYS

The current treaty text (as far as agreed) is in English.

An EU official has suggested that whilst that text could be ready in October, the practicalities that follow made EU ratification before Christmas difficult.

The treaty in English will need to be translated in the 23 official languages of the EU. Only after that will ratification procedures in the EU Parliament begin.

Additionally, the EU official pointed out that some of the treaty’s detail may cause complications with MEPs from some members, which would require some diplomatic effort on the part of Spain to overcome.

UK RATIFICATION

Ratification in the UK will not start until the Gibraltar Parliament debates and approves, by motion, the treaty. The Gibraltar parliamentary motion will support that the UK starts its own ratification process.

The Gibraltar Parliament involvement must be concessionary on the part of the UK, as from a constitutional point of view, the Gibexit treaty is an external affair, which is in the constitutional power of the Governor, and through him the UK.

Additionally, the sovereign power of the UK Parliament is not restricted at all by the Gibraltar Parliament.

GIBRALTAR FORMALITY

The Gibraltar parliamentary process is likely a formality in any event, as the GSLP-Liberal ministerial executive government will have already agreed the Gibexit treaty text and that cannot be defeated in Gibraltar’s Parliament. However, the Gibraltar parliamentary process will take its time, despite that.

If the GSD Opposition were to take an opposing view, seeking that the Gibexit treaty as agreed should not be accepted, it will be defeated due to how the Gibraltar Parliament is structured.

The democratic veneer of the parliamentary process is so thin as to be near non-existent.

A minor issue is that there are increasing voices of dissent online who are seeking that an anti-Gibexit treaty demonstration should be organised. Such a demonstration, should it take place, will likely not derail the Gibexit treaty process but may cause political aggravation.

AUTOMATED BORDER CONTROL

It seems most unlikely that the new EU Entry/Exit System [EES] will interfere with the current concessionary ease of passage that exists at the Spanish – Gibraltar border, especially as the removal of immigration control is agreed.

The decision rests with Spain, but if agreement on the Gibexit treaty has been reached in English, it is most unlikely that EES will be introduced, whilst the Gibexit treaty process is under way.

In any event EES will be phased over a period of six months starting on 12th October 2025. The procedures engaging the Gibexit treaty will likely be completed within that timeframe.

EES is a new EU immigration process requiring non-EU nationals to create a digital record on first visiting a Schengen state.Fingerprints and a photograph will be taken. The queues that will cause at the frontier will be huge initially.

A digital EES record will be valid for 3 years. On each access to the Schengen area during this period, a fingerprint or photo will need to be provided both on entry and exit.

SANCHEZ UK VISIT

It is not expected that any substantive Gibexit related announcement will be made during the first ever bilateral meeting in London between Spain’s Prime Minister, Pedro Sanchez, and the UK Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer.

The meeting is scheduled for the 3rd September 2025.

It is expected that any Gibexit related announcement will be limited to acknowledging progress in the negotiation and confirming the desire of both to successfully conclude a Gibexit treaty.

26/08/2025

GOVERNOR’S SUPPORT FOR PRINCIPAL AUDITOR’S FUNCTIONS

The timing of the Governor’s official visit to the Gibraltar Audit Office is interesting, despite that the person, holding the office of Principal Auditor now, is not the same person as is being widely criticised by the GSLP-Liberal Government.

The visit is described as, ‘to meet the Principal Auditor, Phil Sharman and his hard-working team to learn more about their vital work and how it will be taken forward over the coming years’.

It shows support for the constitutional functions of the team. in exercise of the Governor’s constitutional responsibility for internal security.

The visit comes at a time that there is a political attack from the GSLP-Liberal Government on the constitutional body that is the Principal Auditor and his team.

The current Governor is Lt. Gen. Sir Ben Bathurst.

CRUCIAL AUDIT WORK

Despite the difference in identity of the principal officeholder, the ‘hard-working team’ is still the same as helped to prepare the highly criticised (by the GSLP-Liberal Government) 2018-19 Principal Auditor’s Report [Report].

It was signed off by the former Principal Auditor, Anthony Sacramento.

The Report is at the centre of a massive political attack by the GSLP-Liberal Government.

AUDITOR’S AND GOVERNOR’S ROLE

The Governor’s visit shows support for the crucial constitutional work of the Principal Auditor’s team. It reviews, analyses, audits and criticises how public money is used generally by both public servants and the incumbent political government.

It is work undertaken by a constitutional officer of Parliament, the Principal Auditor, whose appointment and termination comes under the Governor, on the advice of the constitutionally created Specified Appointments Committee.

The constitutional remit of the Principal Auditor is to audit and report on “The public accounts of Gibraltar and of all courts of law and all authorities and offices of the Government…”, and in doing so not being under “the direction or control of any person or authority.”

INTERNAL SECURITY AND THE GOVERNOR

The constitutional role of the Governor also includes internal security.

Internal security engages securing financial systems from internal threats and ensuring the stability of financial infrastructure, institutions, and markets.

Internal security also covers financial stability because threats like fraud, economic instability and corruption can undermine the financial health of a country, and managing these threats is a core aspect of internal security.

In that role the Governor should support officers of Parliament who are undertaking their constitutional functions. It is part of ‘peace. order and good government”.

The Principal Auditor is key to ensuring those aspects of internal security.

PENDING DEBATE IN PARLIAMENT

The Report has been much criticised publicly by the GSLP-Liberal Government, so much so that it is pending the debate of a motion in Parliament.

The Chief Minister, Fabian Picardo has proposed a motion. It is to be debated at the next meeting of Parliament. It is countered by a motion from the GSD Opposition.

Parliament is being converted into a kangaroo court by the actions of the GSLP-Liberal Government, as the Government motion cannot be defeated.

THE MOTIONS

The Government’s motion criticises the Report as failing on independence and objectivity.

Further that it has material errors, reflecting lack of competence and is politically biased against the GSLP-Liberal Government.

It concludes that the Report is therefore not correct and cannot be relied upon, and so it rejects the Report “as not being in keeping with the rigour, objectivity and independence required…”

The GSD has countered with a motion that of no confidence in the Chief Minister due to the GSLP-Liberal Government having orchestrated a scandalous abuse of power and an assault on democracy.

PREDETERMINED OUTCOME

There can only be one outcome in Parliament, if the Speaker allows the Government motion to be debated and voted on, and does not rule it as unconstitutional and contrary to natural justice (see blog of 18th July).

It is that the GSLP-Liberal Government uses its inbuilt majority to pass its motion and defeat the GSD motion.

What will be interesting is the Speaker’s findings (if any, and there have been none so far) and the debate. The latter from the perspective of that which will be said by the GSD Opposition. The public will be hugely informed by what is argued and said by the GSD.

It must prepare itself grounded on what will be a public relations battle and, if permitted by the Speaker, not one for winning in Parliament.

Llanito World

02/09/2025

01/09/2025

29/08/2025

28/08/2025

27/08/2025

26/08/2025

Address

Website

Alerts

Shortcuts

Share

Category