Who is King Con?

Who is conning whom? Who is the greatest con man of all time? Who is the King of the Con? Who is King Con?

Political controversy has now descended to new depths, further risking any prospect of the kind of internal political cooperation that should be prevalent as Gibraltar treads, seemingly unwarily, over the political minefield that has been placed along its path to political emancipation.

But the real King Con is not to be found within, but rather outside our shores, in places like foreign ministries and the United Nations committees.

It was not that long ago when some mandarins in the UK and Spain sought to con Gibraltar into a joint sovereignty deal, knowing full well that the people of Gibraltar were against any notion of sharing sovereignty, as was later made manifest by the 99% referendum.

Gibraltar was recently told that it was not UK policy to produce a Preamble until after a referendum takes place. It was another attempt at misleading Gibraltar.

In other quarters a smiling face is being projected when, in real terms, what lurks behind the facade are the same old policies, geared to take over our homeland.

At the UN decolonisation committee they are not intent in finding a solution to the Gibraltar issue in keeping with established UN decolonisation policies, but instead they are acting outside their remit and treating Gibraltar, not as a colonial issue but as a territorial dispute, which is none of their business. The list is endless.

While all these negative factors are trained against Gibraltar and its people, at a time when there ought to be concerted unified action, there are those who can think of nothing better than to engage in the kind of personal political controversy that can serve only to weaken our political fabric at this crucial time in our history.

We have rows about whether or not it is right to vote in a referendum without knowing what the Preamble says, and then we all agree that unless the Preamble is known there can be no vote.

We are now immersed in what looks like another artificial dog fight over a Yes or a No vote. The Government say they are not concerned about delisting being achieved and that they would recommend a Yes vote in a nondecolonising referendum.

The Opposition, for their part, would prefer a referendum that would signal decolonisation . They would recommend a No vote if the Government presents the referendum as a decolonising instrument, if it is not But if this is not the case, they would not stand in the way of a Yes vote. So, what is all the fuss about?

What is detrimental to Gibraltar is that, while we argue endlessly about who is conning whom, there are those outside Gibraltar who are laughing all the way to their ministries at the expense, of Gibraltar.

Differences there will always be. It is part and parcel of a democratic society. We must not be a one-party state in any shape or form.

But there must be an attempt at a new way of doing things at a political level that ensures that opposing political parties can give vent to their policies without resorting to personal insults and never-ending acrimony, as if trying to dislodge an opponent, not through valid political reasons but for personal reasons and considerations.

And we cannot keep looking at the past to determine how we behave in the present We have to look at Gibraltar today.

Gibraltar and its people are at a crucial juncture in their history. Our future is at stake. That must be the primordial consideration.