Dastis warns Spain has weakened its hand in Gibraltar treaty

Former Spanish foreign minister Alfonso Dastis said Spain has lost leverage in its relations with Gibraltar as a result of the UK/EU treaty, arguing Madrid has prioritised frontier fluidity while failing to secure wider strategic gains.

In an interview with the Campo newspaper Europa Sur, Mr Dastis said the agreement had diluted the influence Spain secured during the Brexit process, when it won recognition that any future EU agreement relating to Gibraltar would require Spanish consent.

He said that leverage had since been weakened because Spain was not a direct contracting party to the treaty, which is between the EU and the UK.

As a result, he said, Spain would have less control over the detailed implementing arrangements that still need to be developed.

He said that while Spain may retain a consultative role and some influence through the European delegation in the oversight committees, the resulting arrangements would no longer be subject to the approval of the Spanish state.

“Spain has lost its position in the Gibraltar dispute through the agreement,” Mr Dastis said.

Mr Dastis, who was Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Partido Popular government of Marian Rajoy, was speaking after retiring from a long career as a diplomat.

Formerly Spain’s permanent representative to the EU, he was appointed Foreign Minister by Mr Rajoy soon after the 2016 Brexit vote and succeeded the hawkish Jose Manuel Garcia Margallo with a more moderate tone and approach.

He was in post during the negotiation on the withdrawal agreement and had firsthand knowledge of the complexity of reaching any agreement relating to Gibraltar.

In 2018, for example, as the EU and the UK negotiated the withdrawal agreement, he made a firm public statement during a BBC interview that there would be no agreement for Gibraltar’s exit from the EU unless it included joint management of the airport, a position he later had to step back from.

But his approach was pragmatic and included the first tentative bilateral discussions between Gibraltar and Spain that later evolved into the negotiations that led first to the New Year’s Eve agreement and later to the treaty itself.

In the interview with Europa Sur, Mr Dastis clearly felt Spain could have achieved more from the treaty negotiation, though he would not be drawn on whether he would urge PP MEPs to vote against the deal when it comes before the European Parliament.

He said the treaty had given clear priority to the removal of barriers and to the circulation of people and goods, but argued that other longstanding Spanish concerns had either not been addressed fully or had been left unresolved.

Asked whether Spain had effectively set aside historical demands in exchange for smoother movement across the border, Mr Dastis replied: “Yes, it’s clear.”

He pointed to environmental, military and jurisdictional issues as areas where Spain could have pushed harder in the negotiation, and said the agreement contained an implicit recognition of British and Gibraltarian jurisdiction on the isthmus, which was not ceded under the Treaty of Utrecht.

Mr Dastis also questioned the extent to which the agreement tackled other contentious issues often flagged in Spain such as money laundering, tobacco smuggling, polluting emissions, wastewater treatment and bunkering.

“In my personal view, I think they should have insisted more to achieve more ambitious goals,” he told the newspaper.

Mr Dastis was especially critical of the military dimension of the agreement.

He said the British military presence in Gibraltar had long been the most difficult obstacle in any understanding between Spain and the UK, but argued that NATO membership on both sides could at least have opened the door to discussion on some form of joint use of the port and airport.

Instead, he said, the text appeared to entrench the status quo, facilitating the movement of British military personnel and goods for official Ministry of Defence use without Spanish frontier controls in the traditional sense.

“The United Kingdom cannot be unhappy with the result of this negotiation,” he said.

Reflecting on his own time in office, Mr Dastis described a joint sovereignty proposal made by his predecessor, Jose Manuel Garcia Margallo, as theoretically attractive, but said he had long been sceptical about how feasible it would have been in practice. It was rejected outright at the time by Gibraltar and the UK.

He said that during his time as minister he had tried to defend the foundations of Spain’s sovereignty position while also preventing disagreements on Gibraltar from damaging wider relations with the UK.

Mr Dastis said Brexit had offered Spain an unusual opportunity to improve its position but insisted more could have been achieved.

Asked whether Spain had missed “a golden opportunity” to rebalance conditions on either side of the frontier, he said: “Honestly, I think it should have been possible to achieve more.”

Mr Dastis also linked the treaty to the economic future of the Campo de Gibraltar, warning that unless Spain followed up with public investment and targeted measures, the agreement could reinforce existing dependence on Gibraltar rather than reduce it.

He said the treaty’s stated objective of creating a zone of shared prosperity was positive in principle, but that the resulting position was “not ideal”.

Spain, he said, still had much to do to improve conditions in the Campo, including through investment and policies that could strengthen the surrounding area.

Otherwise, he warned, “we run the risk that the Campo de Gibraltar’s dependency on Gibraltar will become chronic”.

His overall assessment was that Spain had emerged from the negotiations with fewer tools to defend its long-term position on Gibraltar, even if the agreement may deliver practical benefits in terms of cross-border movement.