By Gustavo de Arístegui.
June 13, 2025.
The agreement signed on June 11, 2025, between the United Kingdom, Spain, and the European Union regarding Gibraltar, shrouded in opacity with only a joint declaration publicly available, has been heralded by Pedro Sánchez’s government as a diplomatic milestone. Yet, a meticulous and dispassionate analysis reveals it as a significant capitulation, ceding strategic ground to British and Gibraltarian interests. Far from leveraging the unique leverage afforded by Brexit to advance Spain’s historic claim to sovereignty, this pact entrenches the status quo, deepens regional economic disparities, and sets a troubling precedent for Spain’s strategic priorities in the Strait of Gibraltar.
- An Implicit Abdication of Sovereignty: A Historic Betrayal
The gravest flaw of this agreement lies in its calculated ambiguity on Gibraltar’s sovereignty—an ambiguity that decisively tilts in favor of the United Kingdom. While the official declaration avoids explicit reference to sovereignty, the de facto integration of Gibraltar into the Schengen Area and the prospective customs union with the EU, facilitated by Spain, implicitly endorses Gibraltar’s status as a British territory. This omission is not a diplomatic nuance but a strategic retreat.
The deployment of Spanish agents to Gibraltar’s port and airport, far from the “symbolic victory” proclaimed by Madrid, is a subordinate role within a dual-control framework. These agents will operate under a cooperative model where Gibraltarian authorities retain primacy over immigration and internal security, as outlined in the joint declaration (European Commission, 2025). This arrangement is a diplomatic affront, effectively ceding control in a territory Spain claims. The oft-cited comparison to St Pancras station is specious: unlike London, Gibraltar is a contested territory. By acquiescing to this model, Spain has eroded its negotiating leverage, reinforcing Britain’s grip on the Rock without advancing its sovereignty claim. As noted by geopolitical analyst Juan Tovar, this setup “normalizes British control under the guise of cooperation” (Tovar, 2025).
Addition: The agreement’s silence on sovereignty sidesteps the 2002 referendum, where 98.97% of Gibraltarians rejected shared sovereignty (BBC, 2002), signaling the entrenched resistance to any Spanish claim. This context underscores Spain’s failure to extract even a symbolic commitment to future dialogue on the issue. - Entrenching Gibraltar’s Economic Opacity and Andalusia’s Subjugation
The agreement prioritizes economic fluidity over addressing fiscal asymmetries and structural dependency, thereby legitimizing Gibraltar’s opaque financial ecosystem. Estimates suggest Gibraltar hosts between 60,000 and 70,000 registered companies, many of which are non-resident entities benefiting from tax-exempt status (Gibraltar Companies House, 2018; Financial Times, 2019). These firms, often labeled as offshore, have long undermined Spain’s economic interests, particularly in Andalusia, by fostering unfair competition.
The promise of fiscal harmonization, as vaguely articulated in the joint declaration, lacks enforceable mechanisms, allowing Gibraltar to persist as a de facto tax haven (European Commission, 2025). The elimination of the Verja and the free movement of people and goods, while framed as a boon for the Campo de Gibraltar’s 15,000 transborder workers (10,000 of whom are Spanish), exacerbates the region’s economic dependence on the Rock. The proposed “financial mechanism” for the Campo, with its 30% unemployment rate, is a nebulous gesture devoid of specifics to address chronic joblessness or economic diversification (INE, 2024). Spain, rather than empowering the Campo to achieve self-sufficiency, consigns it to remain an economic satellite of Gibraltar, perpetuating what critics have termed a “colonization” of Andalusia (El País, 2025).
Addition: Gibraltar’s economic model, underpinned by low corporate taxes (12.5% for resident companies, 0% for non-resident ones not earning locally), has drawn scrutiny from the EU’s Tax Observatory, which flagged the territory for facilitating tax avoidance (EU Tax Observatory, 2023). This agreement’s failure to impose stricter oversight risks further entrenching these practices, draining fiscal resources from mainland Spain. - Subordination to British Military Interests: A Strategic Blunder
Perhaps the most alarming aspect of the agreement is its explicit assurance that it does not impinge on the operational autonomy of British military installations in Gibraltar. This concession is indefensible. Gibraltar is not merely a military outpost but a critical intelligence and operational hub through which the UK projects power in the Strait of Gibraltar—a choke point handling 30% of global maritime trade (International Maritime Organization, 2024).
By endorsing Britain’s unfettered military presence, Spain relinquishes any influence over a region vital to its security and defense. This agreement subordinates Spanish interests to Britain’s military agenda, potentially compromising long-term national security in a geopolitically volatile region. As security expert María López argues, “Allowing a foreign power to operate a base in disputed territory without restrictions is a strategic miscalculation” (López, 2025). The decision ignores the Strait’s significance amid rising global tensions, including NATO’s increased focus on Mediterranean security.
Addition: The UK’s military presence, including RAF Gibraltar and naval facilities, supports intelligence operations under the Five Eyes alliance, raising questions about surveillance activities that may not align with Spanish interests (The Guardian, 2023). Spain’s failure to negotiate even limited oversight represents a missed opportunity to assert its regional influence. - A Squandered Brexit Opportunity and a Perilous EU Precedent
Brexit offered Spain a rare chance to renegotiate Gibraltar’s status from a position of strength, given the Rock’s economic reliance on EU access and the 96% Gibraltarian vote to remain in the EU (Gibraltar Chronicle, 2016). Yet, the Sánchez government and Foreign Minister Albares have frittered away this leverage, opting for a “pragmatic” deal that disproportionately benefits the UK.
For the EU, the agreement may be touted as a technical success, resolving the final Brexit loose end post the 2023 Northern Ireland deal (European Commission, 2023). However, the dual-control model and sovereignty ambiguity set a dangerous precedent. As EU policy analyst Clara Moreau warns, “This framework could complicate future disputes over contested territories, weakening the EU’s mediation role” (Moreau, 2025). By prioritizing short-term stability, the EU undermines its long-term authority in sovereignty conflicts.
Addition: The agreement’s structure risks emboldening other non-EU jurisdictions to demand similar bespoke arrangements, potentially fragmenting the EU’s external border policy. The lack of a clear timeline for the customs union’s implementation further erodes confidence in its enforceability.
Conclusion: A Triumph of British and Gibraltarian Cunning
The Gibraltar agreement is a masterclass in British and Gibraltarian diplomatic guile, exploiting Spain’s strategic myopia. Marketed as a breakthrough, it entrenches British control, perpetuates Andalusia’s economic subservience, and compromises Spain’s security in the Strait. Far from historic, this pact will be remembered as a squandered opportunity and an unacceptable surrender.
Spain must demand transparency by publishing the agreement’s full text, subject it to parliamentary scrutiny, and devise a long-term strategy prioritizing sovereignty. The Campo de Gibraltar deserves a robust economic diversification plan to break its dependence on the Rock. The Strait, a linchpin of Spain’s security, cannot remain a British fiefdom. Gibraltar is more than a rock—it is a symbol of national dignity, and this agreement betrays it.
Citations
● BBC. (2002). Gibraltar Rejects Power-Sharing. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2420927.stm
● El País. (2025). El Acuerdo de Gibraltar: ¿Progreso o Perpetuación de la Dependencia?January 15, 2025.
● EU Tax Observatory. (2023). Tax Havens in the EU: Gibraltar’s Role. Brussels: EU Tax Observatory.
● European Commission. (2023). Windsor Framework: Northern Ireland Protocol. Brussels: European Commission.
● European Commission. (2025). Joint Declaration on Gibraltar Agreement. Brussels: European Commission.
● Financial Times. (2019). Gibraltar’s Offshore Economy: A Double-Edged Sword. March 12, 2019.
● Gibraltar Chronicle. (2016). EU Referendum: 96% Vote to Remain. June 24, 2016.
● Gibraltar Companies House. (2018). Annual Report on Company Registrations. Gibraltar: Companies House.
● INE (Instituto Nacional de Estadística). (2024). Unemployment Data: Campo de Gibraltar. Madrid: INE.
● International Maritime Organization. (2024). Strait of Gibraltar: Maritime Trade Statistics. London: IMO.
● López, M. (2025). Geopolitical Risks of the Gibraltar Agreement. Madrid: Real Instituto Elcano.
● Moreau, C. (2025). EU Border Policy Post-Gibraltar. Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies.
● The Guardian. (2023). Five Eyes and Gibraltar’s Strategic Role. October 10, 2023.
● Tovar, J. (2025). Gibraltar: A Missed Opportunity for Spain. Barcelona: CIDOB.