Bossino welcomes treaty objective of mutual cooperation, despite multiple concerns about provisions 

GSD MP Damon Bossino welcomed many aspects of a treaty that sought a “mutually cooperative relationship” with the EU, while warning that MPs and the public were being asked to absorb a “dense” and far-reaching agreement with many uncertain outcomes in a short period of time. 

Mr Bossino said the Opposition had tried to approach the debate “in a responsible way” but stressed that the treaty was not just the 1,000-page document published in recent days, but also the wider body of EU law that would sit behind its operation.  

He said it was difficult for the public, and for the Opposition, to make a “value judgement” about whether the treaty was good or bad, adding that the Government had an advantage because it had been “enmeshed in the negotiations” and had access to reports that were not shared with the Opposition.  

Mr Bossino said Gibraltar’s experience since 1985 showed why border fluidity mattered, describing the frontier as a gateway “not just to have montaditos in La Linea, but actually to the rest of Europe”.  

He linked that openness to the development of tourism, construction, financial services and gaming, and warned that “isolation is not something that anybody should really want”.  

In outlining what he saw as positive features of the treaty, Mr Bossino drew attention to the opening article of the text, which he said set out the tone for everything else.  

He quoted the text directly: “The objective of this agreement is to establish a mutually cooperative relationship between the parties.”  

He said that principle reflected a long-standing consensus in Gibraltar after the frontier reopened, and he described Article 1 as “the foundation stone of everything else”.  

Mr Bossino addressed too concerns that the treaty could undermine Gibraltar’s Britishness, especially once the frontier immigration controls were removed.  

“If we as a people have to be defined by a frontier, then we have a deeper problem than we think,” he said. 

“I have personally always thought from my very young days that the biggest threat that we can face as a community from Spain is actually a more friendly and wooing type of Spain.” 

“But we need to guard against that, not in a negative way, but in a self-confident way.” 

“We need to be open and not be ashamed of our identity because we are who we are.” 

Mr Bossino nonetheless said his support came with clear concerns, starting with the limited time and information available before provisional implementation envisaged on April 10. 

He questioned why economic modelling, “heat maps” and other assessments referenced in debate were not shared with the Opposition on a confidential basis, arguing it would have helped Parliament and the public understand the practical impact both of the treaty and the ‘no deal’ alternative. 

He also raised business issues, saying he had heard complaints from small operators about the extent and timing of detailed guidance they need to navigate the changes. 

On “boots on the ground”, an issue raised by all Opposition MPs, Mr Bossino said the phrase was emotive and had been used repeatedly as a “red line”. 

He said the text suggested Spanish agents could be required to go to Gibraltar’s E-gates, accompanied by Gibraltar officers, and questioned whether silence in the text meant they could be armed.  

Mr Bossino added the issue had always been about ensuring no Spanish presence in Gibraltar and urged ministers to clarify what had changed.  

He said he wanted an honest account of what Gibraltar had accepted, rather than what he described as “mental gymnastics” over how the red line was being defined.  

He also questioned Government assertions that the treaty would provide certainty, saying the termination clause meant it was “qualified certainty [and] certainly not the bedrock of certainty” some ministers had spoken about. 

Despite these and other reservations, Mr Bossino said the Opposition had backed the amended motion to ensure Gibraltar spoke with one voice, while signalling that scrutiny would continue as the treaty moved towards ratification and implementation.