Not just because Christmas is coming but Keith Azopardi, the breakaway former GSD deputy, now PDP leader, may find that the timing of his new book 'Sovereignty and the Stateless Nation' is highly topical.

 

n its densely legal pages that examine the status of Gibraltar he poses a number of questions such as how UK would behave in certain circumstances in relation to the reserve powers that remain under the new Constitution.

Most of us thought that all was resolved and happily agreed with the 2006 Constitution done and dusted but it seems that, as between Gibraltar and UK, there may be claims of grey areas, depending on one's vantage point.

The issues are sensitive and important. The interpretation for most was that the 2006 Constitution codified many of the practices that were long established but which technically defied the text of parts of the old 1969 Constitution. It also moved things forward to our times. There was a desire for both clarity and modernity and since then the assumption is that what reserve powers exist are for extreme situations. Otherwise, as far as the day to day business of government is concerned, the Convent is essentially just an onlooker.

In such circumstances the continuation of the title Deputy Governor is not unreasonably considered unhelpful by the Government since a new title would mark the break from the role that this title once signified - a Siamese bond between two separate governments that were once Empire and colony.

Far from resolved it seems Gibraltar and UK still have areas to clarify on where some final decisions lie. Traditionally the example came with the implementation of EU directives. This has always been an area of discussion given UK highlighting its ultimate vulnerability to infraction proceedings and Gibraltar on the other hand making the more immediate assertion that it had to live with the manner of implementation as well as the cost.

But if, as we were told by UK itself, the new Constitution takes us as deep into self-government as we could possibly go whilst maintaining the UK constitutional link, then why now bring in ambiguity? And why the need for the Government to consistently reiterate the new position of the Governor, be it in relation to Remembrance Day or as the person who, representing the Queen, in effect rubber stamps the decision taken by the Judicial Service Commission?

The new Constitution confirmed that the man who wears the grey suit in Gibraltar is the Chief Minister and that the responsibility for ensuring that we are delivered good democracy lies with us, the Gibraltarians. Our ministers are there, as are civil servants, to serve and answer to the public.

The Convent remains an important symbol of our British bond but its role has changed and has been reduced by the passing of responsibilities to Gibraltarians and their elected government.

The debate may be 'what is its exact role today'?

But if there is something going on, please let us know.