Clinton asks ‘Cui Bono?’ and calls for key safeguards 

GSD MP Roy Clinton told Parliament he would support a motion calling on the UK to ratify the UK/EU treaty on Gibraltar, but only on the basis that Gibraltar secures clear guarantees to retain control in key areas, including the right of termination. 

Speaking during the debate, Mr Clinton said the House had to judge whether the agreement was truly “for the benefit of Gibraltar and its people”, and whether Gibraltar’s red lines on sovereignty, jurisdiction and control were protected.  

He framed his approach in the words of Cicero, asking “Cui Bono?” – who benefits? – from the treaty’s provisions, while warning that “Spain has not abandoned its sovereignty claim”.  

Mr Clinton also placed the agreement in a human and historical context, recalling a childhood shaped by the frontier closure and saying those memories remained real for many Gibraltarians.  

He argued that history could not be “ignored or airbrushed away for political convenience” and suggested Gibraltar needed political honesty about what the treaty delivered and where it fell short.  

Mr Clinton highlighted the scale and complexity of the text and said it was not easy to analyse “given the breadth and legal depth of the agreement”, adding that public debate had been distorted by “AI-generated opinions”.  

He raised concerns about the balance of the treaty, noting his own count that more than half of its 336 articles related to “Circulation of Persons”, and saying he was surprised at the weight given to law enforcement and judicial cooperation.  

Mr Clinton said the Opposition had not been given access to impact studies, stress tests or scenario planning on the economy or public finances.  

He pointed to specific areas he believed could affect Gibraltar’s control, including residency permits, customs arrangements and the replacement of import duties with a transaction tax.  

He also highlighted provisions on review and termination, including a four-year review and what he described as the ability for either side to terminate with notice.  

Despite these reservations, Mr Clinton said the alternative of no agreement was “unknown” and that the Government was best placed to assess whether the treaty was better than ‘no deal’.  

“The implications of the alternative of no agreement is unknown to us and the public and unexplored territory,” he said.  

“The Government are the only ones in a position to assess whether what has been delivered, however imperfect, is beneficial and better than the alternative of ‘no deal’.” 

“What we can do is to ensure that the agreement is at least safe and future proof against any political eventualities.” 

He said he could back the motion, but only if Gibraltar secured a concordat with the UK to protect representation in the treaty’s structures and to ensure “the right of termination by the people of Gibraltar”.