Chief Minister Bossano and the UK

By Robert Vasquez

GBC has made public conflict in 1994/5 between the GSLP Government, under then Chief Minister Joseph Bossano (now Sir) [Sir Joe], and the UK.

It follows a review of documents revealed now by the UK.

The clue is that clashes were due to the UK’s desire to ‘influence’ issues in Gibraltar relying on the ‘reserve powers’ under the1969 Constitution, but reticence to use them in the end.

The reluctance to use those powers leads to a greater need for local checks and balances.

Sir Joe showed also, in his TV appearance on Viewpoint following the revelations, that the UK was unhappy that he was Chief Minister.

‘RESERVE POWERS’
‘Reserve powers’ engage external affairs, defence, and internal security, as well as the ability to impose UK partial or overall ‘direct rule’.

History shows that any governor (the UK) will suggest using those powers in discussions but be very shy to do so.

Those powers are still in the 2006 Constitution.

My Opinion piece, published on 17th March on these pages [Opinion], suggested, coincidently, the probability of clashes between any elected government and any incumbent governor over any implication that ‘reserve powers’ may be used.

A conflict is made more likely as most situations do not fall exclusively within the remit of ‘reserve powers’. They engage also powers devolved to the elected government.

It leads to the need for the UK (the Governor) and Gibraltar to act in tandem to avoid a confrontation.

UK RESTRAINT
History shows reticence by the Governor/UK to use its ‘reserve powers’ in the face of a steadfast local government, even if there is disagreement between the UK and the elected government.

The UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office [FCDO] seem to have learnt lessons from the period during which Sir Joe was Chief Minister.

They look to be applying them to the ongoing Gibexit process.

For example, the involvement of Gibraltar elected representatives and public officers in the Gibexit negotiation aimed at an agreement over Gibraltar’s future relationship with the EU/Spain.
What is unknown is what background pressures (if any) may influence Gibraltar’s representatives.

1994/5 EVENTS
Sir Joe showed, on Viewpoint, that disagreements with the UK were over progressing decolonisation, implementation of EU measures (specifically banking), Community Care issues, and social security pensions.

However, his peripheral revelations concern other events that were happening during his term in government, which he did not expand on, but may have been the ‘fast launch’ problem.

‘FAST LAUNCHES’
During the GSLP Government smugglers were very visibly smuggling tobacco to Spain. They were using high-speed boats (‘fast launches’) openly and blatantly.

Sometime during 1994/5, police action was taken. The police, who then came directly under the command of governors, confiscated tobacco and ‘fast launches’. It was rumoured that Michael Robinson, the Deputy Governor at the time, ordered that action.

An element of ‘direct rule’?

The GSD won the 1996 election, after riots by those engaged in ‘fast launch’ activities and following a massive anti ‘fast launch’ demonstration.

CONFLICT WITH GOVERNOR
The disclosures, published by GBC, also show that, there was a row with the then Governor, Sir John Chapple and so the UK, leading Sir Joe to threaten withdrawal of cooperation.

It shows that any governor will have trouble dealing with an elected representative, as that would bring possible consequences in the future.

Those include, not least, protests, strikes and refusal by public servants and institutions to obey Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office [FCDO] /governors instructions conflicting with those of the locally elected government.

DIRECT RULE?
The choice for the FCDO is to apply an element of direct rule. The FCDO have been very shy to take such action. Other more subtle methods may be, and may have been, played out. The recent revelations show that using the ‘reserve powers’ was likely considered in 1994/5.

GBC’s online report suggest that, “The 1994 Gibraltar crisis over the Governor's reserve powers was more than just a constitutional battle - it was a dramatic clash of personalities, political manoeuvring, and a simmering distrust between Gibraltar’s Chief Minister and the British government.”

“At the heart of it was a long-standing tension: who truly governed Gibraltar - the elected government, or the Governor acting on behalf of London?”

SIR JOE’S WAR
GBC reveals that Sir Joe warned that if the UK used ‘reserved powers’, Gibraltar would go to the United Nations demanding international intervention.

GBC reveals also that he threatened personal participation in demonstrations. Sir Joe saw certain actions by the British as his being deliberately humiliated and portraying him as weak.

Sir Joe refers also to the UK having given Gibraltar a firm assurance in 1964 that it was "inconceivable" that the UK would ever invoke ‘reserve powers’.

Does that assurance still stand?

UNDERMINING DEMOCRACY
The Opinion coincidentally reflects what played out during 1994/5, namely no visible UK involvement, and hesitation on the use by a governor of ‘reserved powers’.

It noted that a deficiency arises from the influence in practice that an elected Parliament and government has over a governor, despite the existence of ‘reserved powers’, and the difficulty for a governor to impose the UK over an elected body.

The elected government could embarrass a governor by taking any act of a governor to the elected Parliament or in the extreme, to a general election, with the possible (perhaps probable) result of public disagreement being expressed.

Such events undermine the reality of any governor having real power, as the law and actuality diverge, absent an element of unpopular and undemocratic direct rule.

DEMOCRATIC SHORTFALLS
The need therefore for greater democratic safeguards to be included in the Constitution is large, considering the extent of the actual power of an elected government, which are concentrated in the Chief Minister.

The lack of parliamentary checks and balances places too much power in the elected government, and so a chief minister.

Our Parliament does not include the usual democratic constraint of being able to defeat a government and so force a general election, generally known as ‘the separation of powers’.

There seems to be no appetite to change that, however.

Robert Vasquez, KC, is a retired barrister and political commentator. He stood as an independent candidate at the last general election on a platform of democratic reform.