The EU is prepared to ramp up tensions over Gibraltar as a leveraging tactic in Brexit negotiations

The dispute between Spain and the UK over Gibraltar is not new – it is in fact 300 years old. Until now it has generated few headlines, mostly within the two countries concerned. Both countries and the people in Gibraltar and surrounding area have been able to manoeuvre around this issue for a long time reasonably well.

Brexit seems to be already disrupting the fine balance that had been achieved to this day. Discussions over Gibraltar have remained in a stalemate with occasional flare-ups, such as the one in 2013 regarding territorial waters. Diplomatic efforts between both countries have accounted for the relative calm and functional relations between the UK and Spain so far. Despite such tension, there has been a harmonious and mutually beneficial relationship among the inhabitants within the Gibraltar region.

Both the UK and Spain have grown used to living with the unresolved status of Gibraltar. Even though Spain wishes for Gibraltar to once again fall within its territorial boundaries, severe conflict has not occurred with the UK in the last 200 years.

Unfortunately, some Tories’ response to point 22 of the EU draft guidelines for Brexit negotiations, which concerns Spain’s right to veto over Gibraltar, is far too aggressive to be a sustainable approach for negotiation. Entering into a deeper conflict with Spain may divert attention from facts such as the failure of the government’s economic policies, but it is not a constructive way to strike any deal with the Union.

An additional layer of complexity for the seemingly ever-lasting dispute over Gibraltar has been added by the international media. The echoing of the underlying tensions between the two countries has escalated due to recent press coverage. Reports have quickly picked up on the role the EU is already playing in giving Spain the veto on allowing Gibraltar to benefit from any future agreement between the EU and the UK.

Until now, the disputed status of Gibraltar was a rather measured, periodical rekindling of old demands and refusals, very much ignored by the EU.

In order to sustain peaceful relations during the process of Britain leaving the Union, there is no need to change the way Spain and Britain have been engaging over Gibraltar. To propose otherwise could further catalyse the dispute that has until now been given very little attention internationally. The problem is that the EU, in seeking to protect its interests, views the question of Gibraltar with new eyes.

Before Brexit, both Spain and the UK would have continued with good working relations for the foreseeable future, despite Gibraltar remaining an open wound in the fabric of their relationship. Recent history offers evidence to support that this is possible. Particularly as the EU was not taking sides.

Now, we know that Brexit can challenge many assumptions. All of a sudden warmongering is being thrown into the public discussion as a reaction to the EU draft for negotiation, which is perhaps simply another sign that the implications of the referendum were not fully understood by politicians and ample sectors of the UK’s population before voting. Exiting the EU makes it possible for under-control bilateral tensions to escalate, and for the EU to take sides.

The Brexit negotiations, which are still in their infancy, are generating much anticipation due to their possible after-effects. However far the bravado may go, we must remember that European security and stability is of paramount consideration for all Europeans. Any handling of conflict between European countries should prioritise restraint and prudence.

An example of the need for restraint is the astounding comment by Michael Howard, stating that giving Spain the right to veto could spark a situation leading to another Falklands War scenario. He seemed to be unaware that the UK and Spain not only are part of the EU but also of NATO.

I predict that the majority of politicians will try their best to instil a reasonable approach, eventually focusing on the bigger issues and avoiding at all costs polarizing public opinion on more peripheral matters.”