One reason that spurred the late Mr. Wilson in this direction was that Spain kept saying that constitutional change in Gibraltar would represent a breach of the Treaty of Utrecht.
A confidential paper dated 7 December 1966 (reproduced on cover) shows the then Prime Minister had requested "some further study into the possibility of integrating Gibraltar with the United Kingdom."
His private secretary Michael Palliser added: "The Prime Minister tells me that he is still somewhat taken with the possibility of a future integration of Gibraltar with the United Kingdom not least because he is concerned to outflank the Spanish argument that any form of constitutional change in Gibraltar represents an infringement of the Treaty of Utrecht."
When he was out here for the talks onboard HMS Tiger with Ian Smith about Rhodesia's UDI, Mr. Wilson had a brief discussion about it with the then Chief Minister Sir Joshua Hassan who "told him that there was no real support in Gibraltar for the integration concept."
Both the AACR and the other coalition party "had considerable reservations about it," added the confidential paper, saying that there was a movement of support amongst the inhabitants of the Rock, "but this was confined to a relatively small group of people and their views carried little weight in the colony as a whole."
The movement was later to become the Integration With Britain Party which went on to gain power in the general election less than three years later.
"The Gibraltar Government takes the most serious view of this incident which appears to amount to a premeditated and orchestrated challenge to British sovereignty of Gibraltar waters and to the validity in those waters of the laws of Gibraltar," he added.
The incident, on Friday evening, started with a Spanish fishing boat refusing to leave on the grounds that "Gibraltar does not have territorial waters." An SVA launch soon on the scene supported the Spanish vessel's contention. This was followed by the SVA helicopter which hovered so close and so dangerous to the patrol boat of their Gibraltar "colleagues" that the lives of the Gibraltar officers were put at risk. Meanwhile, an armada of ten other Spanish fishing vessels was despatched to the scene of the incident, escorted by two boats from the paramilitary civil guard.
Many people were saying today that the police - or the Governor's office which controls the police - was partly to blame in that, in the name of cooperation, they have been behaving too soft in handing to the Spanish authorities, boats and crews arrested around Gibraltar, weakening Gibraltar's territorial rights in the eyes of Spain, and strengthening Madrid's view that we have no territorial waters. All for a "private thank you" - but the SVA's gratitude shown last Friday was to treat the Gibraltar police as they would have treated suspected smugglers!
Britain must have an adequate military presence to support the local police in the discharge of their duties out in the bay and to deter any further incidents which can so easily end up costing more - or hasn't the Falklands lesson been learnt?
Apart from the diplomatic protest, the Gibraltar Government is urging Britain to deploy to Gibraltar MOD assets to allow the enforcement of British sovereignty and jurisdiction in Gibraltar's territorial waters.
Meanwhile, fishermen from Algeciras and La Linea are planning to stage joint fishing expeditions in Gibraltar waters while La Linea fishermen are threatening to hold a demonstration at the frontier if they don't have their way before the 23rd.
In accordance with an agreement between the EU and Morocco, a two-month stoppage is now in force affecting Algeciras fishermen.
It is an extremely serious matter that the official agencies of the Spanish state should support the illegal presence of Spanish fishermen in Gibraltar waters. The nature of the incident shows that they set out to prove that they can do what they like. This suggests that the incident was planned and coordinated with the blessing of the central government in Madrid.
The Joint Committee between the GSLP and the Liberals consider that it is pointless for the House of Assembly to pass legislation which covers the waters around Gibraltar, if those laws can then be broken by outsiders with impunity. It is scandalous that the defence of Gibraltar should have to fall on the Royal Gibraltar Police on their own. The role of the police is to enforce the law but not to have their lives put at risk in the actual physical defence of Gibraltar.
Gibraltar's defence is a matter for the United Kingdom. The British government must understand that this includes not only the present wider NATO role, but also the physical protection of the border of Gibraltar including jurisdiction over the sea around the Rock. It is up to Britain to determine its military requirements in order to be able to adequately exercise this defence function.
The GSLP and the Liberal Party believe prompt action from Britain is required in order to prevent the conflict from escalating the spreading to other areas of the use of Gibraltar's territorial waters by commercial vessels. The Joint Committee considers that there must be a public response from the United Kingdom making it clear that they will not tolerate this kind of behaviour on the part of Spain.
There is no doubt that Gibraltar must implement EU directives. However, it is important that a clear detailed and unambiguous legislative programme is published. This is especially so in relation to financial services. John Milner, the Financial Services Commissioner, in an article published by him in a local newspaper recently indicated that those practitioners who were now complaining about implementation of directives were those who had not adjusted to the new situation. As I recall all bodies representing the finance centre, namely lawyers, accountants, bankers, company and trust managers and insurance operatives recently complained about the proposal to implement the 4th and 7th Company Directives. What the Financial Services Commissioner has in fact highlighted is a failure by someone to properly communicate in a timely manner to the financial services industry a legislative intention with potentially severe consequences to the industry.
The local government also has a responsibility when implementing directives to ensure that they have the minimum adverse effect on the Gibraltar economy, and in particular its ability to maintain its population in employment. They must mitigate adverse effects because the ultimate electoral and political responsibility rests with them, our locally elected representatives. If implementation of EU directives have severe repercussions on employment, those made redundant cannot punish faceless bureaucrats in London or Brussels. They can and will blame local politicians at the ballot box. Therefore, politicians should be conscious of the political repercussions to them of implementation of EU directives without sufficient lead in times which can be constructively used to reduce any potentially adverse economic consequences. It is in this context that a legislative timetable is important.
I have brought this subject up informally on two occasions with Government Ministers, but they seem unable or unwilling to take up the case despite the fact that were they to intervene and achieve at least the elimination of the minimum £500 credit rule, it would be a very popular move which would be widely appreciated as the effect would be tantamount to giving hundreds, if not thousands, of personal current account holders £500 extra to spend.
As I have also said on other occasions there seems to me to be a case for the Banking Supervisor or some other member of the Finance Commission hierarchy to take this matter up with the offending banks.
It has to be said that to the best of my knowledge, the other banks in Gibraltar do not offer any better conditions to current account holders, in fact in some cases they are considerably more demanding although in those cases I am not in a position to say whether there is discrimination vis a vis the practice in their home country.
So having said all this, I, in any possible ignorance of political matters, would adopt a more direct and positive approach when speaking to the British Government. I would tell Mr. Blair and company to stop doing us any disfavours by quoting the Treaty of Utrecht. We cannot possibly ever aspire to independence and the British Government should know this. Three square miles of Gibraltarian nationalistic pride, how can we ever stand alone on our own two feet and specially with a neighbour like ours. So if independence is out, why the continued reference to treaty obligations? How is this seen on the wider international context? Britain is always looked at with suspicion as she was the largest colonial power. Let Britain be seen to want to give Gibraltar what Gibraltar wants, no strings attached. She would find favour with C24 etc., the Gibraltarians would for the first and only time in their lives feel the warmth of friendship and the genuine will to help and would (I hope and doubt) keep Spain in her place.
Again I must plead total ignorance of political manoeuvrings but should we not start calling a spade just that? Give Britain unconditional use of the base as she has had and still has and let us all stop beating about the bush.
Claro. Nos dicen que he said neither yes nor no, con lo que dijo todo.
What Paul asked Peter was the size of Gibraltar, which also explains everything. Mind you, yo quisiera que viniera Su Santidad, like everybody else.
Lo que no se es que es lo que hacia un FO diplomat con un French name in Madrid talking about our future without our permission. Or hasn't he read the Constitution?
I am sure you are referring to un tal Fontblanque, el que vino a nuestro Gibraltar recently and was not allowed to meet everyone he should have met.
A lo mejor se cree que tiene un blank cheque este Fontblanque, como me lo encuentre un dia le voy a contar hasta lo del callejon.