Gibraltar: Mrs May’s Falklands? History tells us why it shouldn’t be…

It didn’t take long did it? Less than 48 hours and already a spanner has been thrown into the Brexit works. On Wednesday 29^th March at around Midday, Mrs May published the letter she sent to Donald Tusk invoking Article 50 and triggering the starting gun on the UK’s divorce from Brussels. On Friday 31^st March, again at around Midday, Donald Tusk published draft guidelines of the EU’s position on the forthcoming negotiations. Tucked inconspicuously away in ‘Core Principle 22’, was the said 2.625 square mile spanner. Did Mrs May forget about Gibraltar in her letter to Mr Tusk? Or do we believe the narrative that has since come out that Gibraltar had been consulted about the letter and it was agreed to leave it out for ‘tactical reasons’, or more probably in the hope the EU, and especially Spain, would forget about Gibraltar.

Well unfortunately that has not happened. Now, I would like to think I am as patriotic as the next man on the street, but after Lord Howard’s comments on Sunday 2^nd April I did have to check I was actually living in 2017, and not 1917. Yes, clearly the sovereignty of British citizens is imperative and of course Britain should stand with countries like Gibraltar and allow them to live the way they desire and not be bullied. But in 2017, as civilised nations, is it wise to call for the Navy to turn on its engines and a task force to be assembled ready to sail down and ‘dig in’ on the Spanish-Gibraltarian border? I’d like to think not.

It is clear that the negotiations with the EU will be fraught and hostile, but the scary thing is it took less than 48 hours for some to begin talking about going to war with Spain. I’d happily invite people to say what they want about the EU, as it is certainly far from perfect. But it is an undeniable fact that the EU has calmed a continent down that had a taste for conflict in the first half of the twentieth century. We shouldn’t forget that; and not only has it calmed it down, it has facilitated it in coming together in a spirit of mutual co-operation through political, economic and social integration. I repeat again that the EU is far from perfect and Britain may very well thrive outside it, but we cannot ignore the lessons of history, as much as some would like too. However, for some people those lessons have disappeared from their mind and less than 48 hours after both sides draft negotiating positions had been revealed, they were ready to fire up the gunboats and begin talking about war.

The row has given rise to links to the war with Argentina over the Falkland Islands in 1982, when another female Conservative PM sent a task force to re-take an overseas territory against a foreign invader. It can be suggested that history has shown us that was the correct move, as it was always clear that the Falklanders wished to remain part of the UK, as do Gibraltarians today. Their wishes are the most important and should be the ones listened to and respected. Fortunately, it seems the UK is on the right side of public opinion in Gibraltar, as it was in the Falkland Islands. However, in 1982 Argentina was governed by a military junta; Spain clearly is not.

The link is an obvious one, but let’s hope that’s where the comparisons stop. I’m sure for some in the UK, an under-dog Britain fighting for the rights of a smaller nation against a bigger bully would be a tremendous renewal of British spirit and patriotism, a cause the whole country can rally behind as we stick it to the Spanish in their own backyard. Really? Is that the ‘truly global’ Britain we want to build as we depart the EU? Again, I’d like to think not. I’d like to (safely) assume we have a lot more to be proud of in Britain and we don’t need a war to show our British spirit.

Britain stood up for a smaller nation in 1914, 1939 and 1982 and I’m sure at some point in the future we may again. British foreign policy should always be outwardly-looking and ready to lead in the world. It’s part of being British, it’s part of our identify and our history. We shouldn’t be ashamed of it. But we should also be proud of our efforts since 1945 to bring peace and stability to Europe and the wider world by exporting our values. Britain, I hope, will always be a nation ready to stand behind smaller countries and their right to self-determination.

Having said all that, we are in 2017 and not the early part of the twentieth century. There are better ways to solve disputes than armed conflict. We mustn’t let the disputes that will almost certainly cause hostility towards the UK from the remaining 27 states and towards those states from Britain, from throwing us back a century into the arms of conflict.

We can be patriotic without having to hang out the bunting for ‘victory in Gibraltar’ day. We can save the bunting for support of our nation’s sports men and women surely?

So, let’s hope we continue to sit around the table and talk to fellow nations about disputes, safe in the knowledge of what history has taught us about how far those disputes can and have been taken. We don’t need a repeat of that, there are enough textbooks for people to get stuck into if that’s their cup of tea; they don’t need to watch it on the news every night.

Let’s hope we won’t see a return to gunboat diplomacy or the Navy assembled on the Southern Spanish coast any time soon. It is 2017, not 1917, after all.