The Correspondent One foot in ‘another place’

So who might be Lord Calpe? Or better said, will there be a Lord Calpe?

Politics may well be, as Sir Joshua Hassan often used to remind people, the art of the possible. But it is also often the art of setting out intangible rabbits to chase.

This debate gets a resurgence, not just because the Gibraltar in Westminster Group are preparing for a post- UK-EU Gibraltar agreement beef up of their campaign. Their push has always been primarily for Gibraltar to have its own MP in Westminster (more of that later).

Early Sunday morning 22/2 readers of The Sunday Times may have been as surprised as I was that in a column on Chagos, Ben Judah, who was special adviser to the now former Foreign Secretary David Lammy from 2024-2026, was advocating integration for British Overseas Territories (BOTs). And, for them to have their own member in the House of Lords.

Admittedly, he himself caveats that he was a loner on this. He says most colleagues thought him “mad” on what was his mission to cure a psychic of the UK: “ its vast diminishment”.

Judah had been working on a policy proposal in which Overseas Territories would be offered seats in the Lords.

“I wanted to answer this by wrapping up the colonial entities that are Overseas Territories and replacing them with Overseas Kingdoms, integrated like France’s départements d’outre-mer into the UK. I wanted to show that Chagos was an exception for an exceptional place. That Labour had no surrender agenda but an expansion agenda.”

“Most colleagues thought I was mad. Last autumn, I was working on a policy proposal in which Overseas Territories would be offered seats in the Lords to represent them and an Overseas Territories Volunteer Corps as part of a campaign to start talking, educating and dreaming about them.”

Of course, the idea was also to show public opinion/morality that the Chagos was a different case.

Judah has said the proposals are “working their way through the system” and Lord Hannan has long pushed for OTs to have representations. None of which makes me optimistic.

PROS AND CONS
Movements / debates calling for representation at the Westminster Parliament have emerged alongside, or as an integral part of, the integrationist movement i.e a project to totally integrate a territory with UK.

Surely, if the Judah plan were to have legs, then, like other Departments (Martinique or Dutch Antilles), the BOTs should have MPs, and , as it’s UK, Peers too.

Other EU former imperial powers, notably France, Holland and Spain have integrated their territories and include ‘home’ parliamentary representation in various forms.

How much cherry picking and autonomy such territories can have on e.g. tax rates, social etc is an interesting debate.

As we know, all agreements and treaties - like being part of the EU or having trade deals with the US or EU - tend to demand some surrender of national powers. Even the Treaty we are about to see unfold for a free-flowing border requires some substantial alignment with EU norms.

The current Gibraltar government position on an MP in Westminster has been publicly stated and indeed both the Chief and Deputy Chief Minister have signed the petition organised by the Westminster pressure group for that objective.

Formally, unlike some territories, Gibraltar does not oppose the concept of a Gibraltar MP in the Commons, but the main caveat is the principle that this should not in any way stop or impinge on Gibraltar’s constitutional status or future development of its self-government and the right to self-determination.

The position on the one hand reflects the emotional position of many Gibraltarians but at the same time is classic pragmatic politics. Why get into a row about something that, objectively assessed, is either not going to happen soon or, more probably, not at all. Almost like waiting to win the lottery to solve immediate issues.

I am guilty of a similar non-statement when, genuinely, I say that if Gibraltar were large enough – in every sense – I would see independence as the most desireable political state of being. But we ain’t going to grow big enough to outsize our realpolitick.

What are the challenges if we were to have, say, one MP for each territory?

Well, don’t underestimate how valuable and effective cross-party support is as a reinforcement of the OT government’s position in dealings with the UK government. And pay heed to the complaints from the devolved nations who do have MPs in Westminster as well as their own nations.

TWO-EDGED SWORDS
So:
• The impact on our lobbying could be negative. Many MPs might feel that that if the OT has a voice of its own we can be left to our own devices.
• Might the OT MP, in the way they speak and vote, not come under pressure to take positions and then consequently find it difficult to sustain cross-party support?

The mechanics are also complex. How would our MP be appointed?

When we ‘had’ and MEP many challenges were obviated by Gibraltar having a vote but being pooled into a large UK region. That meant Gibraltarian candidates could stand in that region (i.e. not just to a Gibraltar based vote) but were competing with other UK party members and parties in a vast constituency that really knew nothing about (and maybe had no genuine interest in) Gibraltar’s very distinct issues and concerns. It was a way in which the UK met its obligations with no major impact. The upside, in fairness and going back to the cross-party lobbying argument, is that Gibraltar was an issue any South West aspiring MEP would naturally support and lobby for – every vote counts!

WESTMINSTER
Back to Westminster. If the position were achieved by a plebiscite in Gibraltar who would decide who stands? If its an open election, might we not end up with an MP in place who supports neither the Gibraltar government nor the local opposition positions? A maverick, if elected at a time when the public is unhappy, could prefer policies contrary to the elected OT government or even much of the parliament in the home OT.

What would the relationship with the elected government be? How would that interfere with OT government work and that of its Representative in the UK.

Having our own elected MP, rather than a Representative/diplomat, could put that MP into a fairly impotent position. It invites declarations in parliament putting open political pressure on UK ministers rather than private, diplomatic negotiation. If you have both the MP effectively becomes the Representative. Politicians feel bound to respond curtly to public criticism or might be forced into quick, negative decisions.

The European Parliament did away with the concept of people being both MPs in the home country and MEPs in the European Parliament. Would that be allowed as between OTs and Westminster. Probably not.

And does this idea really work if the territory is not integrated?

THE LONG GRASS
Setting aside the challenges, another issue is that, unless the idea is popular with the UK government, the debate itself tends to raise expectations that can distort the current needs and constitutional ambitions of an elected OT government. It creates a tension passed on a long shot. This is because the public generally - especially, in a place like Gibraltar where we live under sovereignty threats from Spain – favour anything that ostensibly bonds us more deeply with the UK.

The concept of a Peer has its attractions – again who/how appoints - and would be more likely to preserve the individual aspirations of OTs. Peers comment on, rather than effect, change.
But the arguments in relation to having an MP would largely also apply.

The right person from an OT in the House of Lords they could be an invaluable influencer.

However, dare one say, politicians can be very jealous animals, would they really want someone speaking live on Parliament TV from London whilst they sweat it out trying to solve the quotidian nightmares of local politics? I doubt it very much.

We could do with mechanisms to enhance our platform in the UK, greater access – which it must be recognised Sir Lyndsay Hoyle as Speaker has pressed for and opened some doors in Parliament - but that may not really be met by having an MP. Again, the question of whether the proposed MP / Peer represents the OT government or voters who elects/appoints them remains.

Clearly, if a territory is optimistic and has integrationist agenda, then having an MP is a logical part of that objective.
But mi Lord…..be careful what you wish for.

Bedside reading: The Great Wave Francis Turnley
Podcast at https://substack.com/@dominiquesearle