Simon Jenkins is an annoying writer. On occasion his opinion is close to loathsome; on others so accurate that he can easily justify his position as a columnist, anywhere. This morning's Guardian has brought an example of the second type of article, in which he says in response to British warships being sent to Gibraltar this week:
The British empire had much to be said for it, but it is over — dead, deceased, struck off, no more. The idea of a British warship supposedly menacing Spain is ludicrous. Is it meant to bomb Cadiz? Will its guns lift a rush-hour tailback in a colony that most Britons regard as awash with tax dodgers, drug dealers and right-wing whingers? The Gibraltarians have rights, but why British taxpayers should send warships to enforce them, even if just "on exercise", is a mystery.
Any study of Britain's currently contentious colonies, Gibraltar and the Falklands, can reach only two conclusions. One is that Britain's claim to them in international law is wholly sound, the other is that it is nowadays wholly daft.
He is right, of course. As he adds:
Relics of the British empire now mostly survive in the interstices of the global economy. They are the major winners from the fiscal haemorrhage that has resulted from financial globalisation. Many have become synonymous with sleaze. American tax authorities wax furious over Bermuda. George Osborne is out to get the tax dodgers of the Caymans and British Virgin Islands.
Spain has long held grievances over Gibraltar's role in aiding people smuggling, money laundering and offshore gambling beyond its own regulatory reach. This culminated in a 2007 IMF report on shortcomings in the colony's financial regulation. Gibraltar's status as a tax haven has brought it surging wealth, fuelling Spain's rage at so much money pouring untaxed through what it regards as its own territory.
Such colonies claim to be "more British than the British", except that they pay no UK tax and act as tax havens for funds from Britain. Gibraltar has made a particular specialism of internet gambling. Colonies claim allegiance to the crown, but not to its exchequer, or its financial police. They are Churchillian theme parks of red pillar boxes, fish and chips and warm beer. But they want the smooth without the rough. When the neighbours cut up nasty, they demand that those whose taxes protect them should send soldiers, diplomats and lawyers to their aid.
Quite so, and not just in Gibraltar. Almost all our tax havens would show the same enthusiasm Jenkins' notes when a 2002 Gibraltar referendum gave 98% support for continued colonial status. Of course they did: they pay 30% income tax, 10% (notionally) corporation tax and almost no other tax and yet can summon the UK navy to defend them whenever they wish. Anyone in such a free-riding position is bound to favour continuation of the abuse from which they benefit. And as Jenkins concludes:
Meanwhile, the inhabitants of Gibraltar can go on voting "to stay British" as long as they like. But if they do not accept the taxes and disciplines most Europeans accept, while sucking business from Europe's financial centres, they can hardly expect one EU state to protect them from another. An occasional six-hour queue at La Linea is a small price to pay for declining to join the real world.
Absolutely right.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
As you say Richard, sometimes I absolutely agree with Simon Jenkins, at other times I absolutely disagree. This is one of the latter occasions.
“When the neighbours cut up nasty, they demand that those whose taxes protect them should send soldiers, diplomats and lawyers to their aid.”
Too damn right. Don’t you just hate scroungers who expect something for nothing? I hope all the UKIP types in the UK appreciate just what a bunch of freeloaders the Gibralterians are.
Also, isn’t it odd how our esteemed PM has been talking about recourse to EU law? I thought he was, along with most of his party and UKIP, bitterly opposed to ‘the endless interference from Brussels’. Typical right wing hypocrisy I suppose.
Jenkins is right, but he does miss the obvious point that Spain continues to hold onto Ceuta and Melilla in Morocco (both of which would just as easily work as avenues for smuggling and tax avoidance). Double standards?
Utterly wrong!
Ceuta and Melilla (and Canary Islands) are geographically located in Africa, but are integral part of Spain, as it is, for example, the European part of Turkey for Turkey. Morocco not only reclaims Ceuta, Melilla (and Sahara), but half Algeria, whole Mauritania and part of Mali (Le Grand Maroc). Spain Is a country that lived between 2 continents, It is natural have territories in “the other side”, or UK has nothing at the other side of the Irish Channel? LOL . And your tax avoidance and smuggling in Ceuta and Melilla sentence, really: troll level.
I note what you say but respectfully think you have ignored the existence of Northern Ireland, amongst other issues
With “UK has nothing at the other side of the Irish Channel?” (North Channel, mistake)I wanted to point that, that Ceuta and Melilla and Canary Islands are like Northern Ireland, not like Gibraltar, so that argument is not valid. Sorry if it is was not clear enough.
Respectfully, I find that logic very hard to follow
Maybe I don’t know enough Spanish / African history
But I do know a lot of Irish histiory
The role of Gibraltar is to act as a conduit for “goods” and money to the Crown and the City and it is likely that they are protecting their interests rather than Gibraltar’s request for assistance. Gibraltar does also act as a listening and observation post for all activities in the Straits and will still be seen to have a significant strategic importance.
It must be frustrating for young unemployed Andalucians to see that Gibraltar is unaffected by the economic woes with which they have been afflicted but many do cross the frontier daily to work there. Those familiar with the frontier procedures will walk over – the problems come when taking a vehicle. This stops the Spanish from filling their cars with duty-free fuel.
It must also be borne in mind that Spain controls two similar enclaves just across the Mediterranean Sea in Morocco, namely Ceuta and Melilla so to a degree they are maintaining double standards.
As you have pointed out, Richard, it is still the UK taxpayer who picks up the bill and all the profits go to the usual quarters.
Jenkins’ argument has some merits but it’s also rather flawed. I’ve got no particular love for colonial relics or tax havens but he begs at least as many questions as he answers. The fact that Gibraltar is a corrupt, grubby criminal hidey-hole is hardly a reason that it should be handed over to Spain – what should happen is that the government, the British government, clean it up. Simple (in principle at least). Same with all the other British tax havens. No part of Gibraltar being an unholy mess means that it should be handed over to Spain. The part of the argument is simply stated and not argued.
‘Oh, it’s just realpolitik, it’s the twenty-first century, it’s inevitable’ – that isn’t an argument on any level. These territories aren’t off the coast of China, Brazil or India. Even if it were practically inevitable that isn’t an argument for it being just. Weren’t Spain and Argentina colonial powers in the past and dictatorships until a few decades ago? What gives them the moral high ground exactly? If the Falklands are close enough to Argentina to be considered part of its territory then why isn’t Gibraltar close enough to Britain? They’re about the same distance. Since when did proximity become the primary determinant of geopolitical status rather than history? What has changed or is about to change in the ontology of international politics? That change is brewing just stated and left hanging – what kind of change? Things are always changing, so what?
Who stands to gain from turning these territories over to Spain/Argentina, etc.? Spanish and Argentine nationalists looking to divert attention away from the countries’ economic shortcomings with some jingoistic drum bashing – that’s who. Nobody else. And if they were given full independence within their respective suitor-states how would they be cleaned up? What would change crime/tax haven-wise? Nothing by the looks of it. They’d just go from being ‘our’ tax haven to someone else’s.
Among the many horrible crimes of colonialism the Falklands and Gibraltar must surely rank as among the least egregious. Their criminal and anti-social, anti-democratic activities should be cleared up as a matter of extreme urgency but I completely fail to see how they would be better cleared up as autonomous regions of Spain/Argentina rather than as semi-autonomous parts of Britain.
Jenkins is right in his accusations of misconduct and corruption but he’s still wrong about everything else.
I think Jenkins did consider those pints in two words
Hong Kong
I could do so in two more
European Union
Or maybe, just maybe (and it’s a few more words)
Because the Treaty of Utrecht really does not have any more social releavnce
But you can disagree, of course
It would be nice for an accountant such as you Richard to actually discuss this point based on numbers.
1. Gibralter has tax. The local tax rate is ~20%.
2. Gibralter has tax treaties with most EU countries, and the UK, and TIEA agreements with 39+ countries.
3. Just how much is this ‘protection’ costing the UK really? 1 ship taking a trip down to GIB? the people of that ship had to be paid anyways, what’s the incremental cost of this vessel?
4. Spain SIGNED AWAY OWNERSHIP of Gibralter in the treaty of utrecht. do you not believe in agreements?
Why not just call a spade a spade? The Franco inspired right wing government in Spain is in DIRE STRAIGHTS. They’ve been found with their hands in the cookie jar, there’s corruption everywhere, there’s financial mismanagement, and there’s an egregious erosion of democracy (you can no longer record police officers!).
Their reaction? they’ve created a diversion tactic here. They’re playing on old political populist feelings. And hoping to ‘rally the troops’ around the flag and distract from their real screw ups as a failed government.
You and the reactionary left are using this as an opportunity to get your message across. Equally pathetic as a PR strategy. Stick to the facts, you’ll get more credibility.
Fact: Gibraltar is a tax haven promoting abuse that undermines UK government revenues and which corrupts trade
It will remain so under UK control
Spain is not a model of economic or political management right now: far from it
But it is the natural sovereign state that has claim to Gibraltar and The Treaty of Utrecht is a footnote in history
“But it is the natural sovereign state that has claim to Gibraltar and The Treaty of Utrecht is a footnote in history”
Here you go again, a total disregard for all historic constitutions. So, do you claim that the American Constitution should be ignored because its old? That the bloody wars which claimed millions of lives over many centuries in Europe while fighting over sovereignty should be considered irrelevant because they happened a long time ago? What do you consider as acceptable “history”? 1914? 1940-45? The 1920s in Ireland? Where do you draw the line?
The world is what it is today because of what actually happened, not because a few misguided individuals don’t happen to like what it now looks like.
Gibraltar is what it is because Spain gave it away more than two centuries ago. Get over it.
These things – the trophies of war – can be renegotiated
Reality – like statehood – has to be respected
And let’s not pretend Gibraltar has statehood
It’s a military outpost of a long gone empire now used by the new empire of the City of London
IF you don’t believe in international agreements, how the hell will a network of tax agreements be enforceable? If there’s a Chinese Richard Murphy out there advocating for walking away from past written and agreed upon obligations…where does that leave the global tax chase?
I am arguing for the reform of agreements
Only fools stick to what no longer works