Peers support Gib treaty but Eurosceptic critics warn of long-term risks

Peers weighed the UK/EU treaty’s promise of stability and prosperity against concerns over its long-term implications on Tuesday, during a House of Lords debate in which Gibraltar’s right to determine its own future emerged as a central argument.
The debate on a report by the European Affairs Committee explored whether the agreement struck the right balance between securing a fluid frontier and preserving control over laws, borders and economic policy.
Peers signalled their approval and consent at the end of the debate, which offered insight into their thoughts on the agreement but had no practical impact on the ratification process itself.
Supporters argued it resolved damaging uncertainty after Brexit, protected British sovereignty and reflected Gibraltar’s unanimous parliamentary backing.
But others, all of whom have well-documented Eurosceptic views and supported Brexit, warned that its obligations could give Spain and the EU new leverage, particularly under a less sympathetic government in Madrid.
Yet even among those expressing at times strong reservations, there was recognition that Westminster should respect the choice Gibraltar had made.
The debate was watched by a delegation from Gibraltar led by Chief Minister Fabian Picardo and including Dr Joseph Garcia and Attorney General Michael Llamas, alongside officials.
Opening the discussion on behalf of committee chairman Lord Stirrup, who secured the debate but was unable to attend, cross-bench peer Lord Barrow stressed that a successful negotiation had never been inevitable.
He said the treaty addressed fundamental problems which, left unresolved after Brexit, threatened Gibraltar’s economy, adding peers should take account of Gibraltarians’ views as expressed through the Gibraltar Parliament, which unanimously backed the agreement.
Lord Barrow, who as a former permanent representative to the UK had been involved in the discussions over Gibraltar’s post-Brexit future, highlighted assurances that the UK military base’s operational autonomy remained unchanged, with no Spanish role in approving or controlling UK military operations, deployments or movements.
Conservative peer Lord Tugendhat argued that the UK had a duty to mitigate the consequences of a Brexit decision opposed by the Gibraltarians and that the Gibraltar Parliament was the best judge of their interests.
“I think that we in London mustn't assume that we know better than other people what their own best interests are,” he said.
Going against the Gibraltar Parliament’s decision “would be an act of some impertinence on our part”.
He also challenged the argument that accepting common rules with the EU and agreeing to dynamic alignment necessarily amounted to surrendering sovereignty.
Sovereignty included the ability to share powers if that served people’s interests, Lord Tugendhat said.
For Lord Tugendhat, the agreement also demonstrated what constructive UK/EU negotiations could achieve, offering a chance to move beyond longstanding disputes and build prosperity.
Cross-bench peer Baroness Butler-Sloss drew on recent visits to Gibraltar during which she and Conservative MP Martin Vickers had spoken to businesses, ministers and the Opposition.
“This is a treaty that Gibraltar has studied with great care and wants,” she said.
Frontier fluidity was crucial to Gibraltar and neighbouring La Línea, while sovereignty and the military base remained protected, she said.
Although concerned about Spain’s forthcoming general election, she stressed that the treaty was between the UK and EU and considered it sufficiently robust to withstand a change of government.
Another cross-bench peer, Lord Hannay, similarly argued that rejecting the agreement risked substantial economic damage to Gibraltar.

WARNINGS

The strongest warnings against the agreement came from former Tory Brexit minister Lord Frost, now a non-affiliated peer, who acknowledged the importance of a fluid frontier but questioned what he described as the price paid to achieve it.
He sought clarity on whether British visitors or residents refused Schengen admission could still enter Gibraltar – they can - and raised concerns about cross-border police pursuit, alignment with new EU laws and the European Court of Justice’s role in resolving disputes.
He warned that termination provisions created potential leverage for Spain and asked what the UK would do if a future Spanish government used the arrangements to pressure Gibraltar.
“My personal view is I do not think this treaty is going to be good for Gibraltar in the long run,” he said.
He suggested its effects would lead to “a tilt towards Spain and the EU and away from the UK”. gradually draw Gibraltar towards Spain and the EU.
But Lord Frost explicitly distinguished those warnings from opposition to the agreement.
“I would personally rather something different have been agreed but I do not oppose it,” he said.
Gibraltar’s Parliament had backed it unanimously, with no suggestion of UK pressure. He did not believe Westminster should overrule Gibraltar or a future UK government reverse its decision.
“Gibraltar has made its choice and I accept it,” Lord Frost added.
“We aren't losing Gibraltar and sovereignty over it. I agree with that.”
“But we are sort of sharing it more than we ever have, it seems to me, and I think a bit of honesty about this would be welcome.”
“Dynamic alignment and outsourcing of legal powers is a bargain whose terms are easy to sign and sometimes hard to live with.”
“I hope I'm wrong but fear that future ministers here [and] in Gibraltar, perhaps facing a less friendly government in Madrid, will come to understand these risks, the risks of what's been agreed, and maybe even come to regret it.”
Veteran Eurosceptic Lord Redwood questioned the effects of customs arrangements, taxation and regulation on Gibraltar’s competitiveness, while Lord Jackson raised concerns about residency rules and challenged the priority given to Gibraltar’s wishes over wider UK interests.
The autonomy and rights of the people of Gibraltar were “not the primary issue”, he said.

‘ENVIOUS’

That approach drew resistance from supporters of the treaty, who maintained that respecting Gibraltar’s democratic judgement was essential to the UK’s commitment to its people.
Liberal Democrat peer Lord Purvis challenged the economic and sovereignty arguments advanced by Lord Frost and Lord Redwood, saying Gibraltar had sought both to address Brexit’s consequences and secure future prosperity, adding closer access to the world’s largest trading bloc offered opportunities.
“I am rather envious of my friends in Gibraltar to be part of it,” he said, describing the new framework as “not a disadvantage” but “potentially an advantage”.
Lord Purvis also challenged abstract arguments about control by pointing to Gibraltar’s dependence on cross-border workers, particularly in health and care.
“When 70% of your care sector operates across a frontier, then you have to work with partners in a pragmatic and sensible way,” he said.
“And this is exactly what the treaty is designed to do.”
On safeguards, he welcomed the treaty’s dispute resolution mechanisms and the UK/Gibraltar concordat, saying its additional lock on termination protected the decision-making autonomy of the Gibraltar Parliament and people.
Gibraltar’s experience of frontier disruption made timely, enforceable protections essential, even if everyone hoped they would never be needed.
But he pressed the UK Government to explain how urgently those mechanisms could operate if problems arose, and whether EU partners had been told Britain would act without hesitation.
“Because there is little point in having a dispute resolution mechanism that will take a considerable time given the context of the scale of the daily crossings and the essential nature for the Gibraltar care and retail services for those workers crossing the frontier,” he said.
Lord Purvis said Gibraltarians had developed a practical response to problems they had neither created nor wanted, and that Westminster and Whitehall had a duty to support them and ensure the treaty and concordat were implemented effectively.

LORD WOOD

Wrapping up the debate was Lord Wood, Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office and Minister for Europe, Eastern Europe, International Security and Growth, who said the agreement provided stability while protecting British sovereignty and the military base’s operational autonomy.
Lord Wood addressed what he described as the character of the arguments advanced from a “sovereignty dominated perspective from a Brexit background”.
Referring to Lord Redwood, Lord Moynihan, Lord Jackson and Lord Frost, he identified three features of their approach, including the suggestion by some that Westminster understood Gibraltar’s interests better than Gibraltarians themselves.
“There's a sense that somehow we in the UK know what’s best for Gibraltarians better than the people of Gibraltar,” he said.
He spoke too of a tension between “constitutional nationalism on the one hand and free market liberalism on the other hand”, which he suggested had characterised the Conservative Party for years.
“This is an issue where these two principles collide,” he said, having earlier questioned how Lord Redwood’s advocacy of free markets and open trade could coexist with his scepticism about Gibraltar choosing a trade agreement with its neighbour.
And while acknowledging that dissatisfied peers had not advocated abandoning the treaty, Lord Wood said it was “frankly fanciful” to suggest that a better agreement could be secured for Gibraltar.
On the practical arrangements, Lord Wood said implementation was progressing well despite acknowledged teething problems, which authorities were addressing through daily cooperation.
The removal of routine land frontier checks was delivering benefits for workers, residents and businesses on both sides, while ratification would provide further certainty, he told the Lords.
He said Gibraltar had freely chosen the customs arrangements and their associated obligations, and that new residency criteria were Gibraltar Government policy decisions rather than requirements imposed by the treaty.
Lord Wood also rejected suggestions that Spain could itself terminate the treaty, stressing that it was not a party to the agreement although it could request EU termination through the mechanism following the four-year review.
“The suggestion that there is a Spanish veto is technically not correct,” he said.
Lord Wood declined to speculate the outcome of the Spanish general election of its impact on the treaty, save to say that “that this is a UK/EU agreement that provides a stable long-term framework for Gibraltar's relationship with the European Union” and is of “significant mutual benefit to Gibraltar and Spain”.
He used the debate to reaffirm the UK’s double-lock commitment and said sovereignty had never been on the negotiating table, adding the task now was to secure full ratification and effective implementation.
While the majority of peers signalled approval of the agreement, the vote on the motion in the House of Lords does not have any impact on the ratification process under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, known as CRAG.
The CRAG process allows 21 sitting days for parliamentary scrutiny.
That period expires on Thursday and absent a resolution in the House of Commons that could trigger further 21-day period of consideration, the UK Government can proceed to ratification.