Britons could be stopped from entering Gibraltar by Spanish police, Lammy admits
Spanish border guards will be able to stop Britons entering Gibraltar because of the new Brexit deal for the Rock, the Government has admitted.
Fabian Picardo, Gibraltar's chief minister, furiously denied surrendering any sovereignty to Spain or the EU after The Telegraph reported details of the deal on Wednesday.
But David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, was forced to concede in the House of Commons on Thursday that Spanish guards working for the European Union would have control over who entered Gibraltar.
Under questioning, Mr Lammy told MPs that a British person stopped by Spanish guards at Gibraltar airport would have a choice: they could either voluntarily go over to Spain for questioning, or be returned to the Gibraltarian authorities and return to the UK.
'It is clear from the Foreign Secretary's answer that Spanish border officials can prevent a UK citizen from entering one part of the UK from another part of the UK,' Richard Tice, the Reform UK deputy leader, said.
'This appears to be a significant sovereignty compromise,' he told The Telegraph.
The deal ensures Gibraltar's border with Spain remains open after Brexit, and means the 15,000 people who cross it every day will not have to have their passports stamped.
Border checks will be moved to Gibraltar's nearby airport after the Rock effectively becomes part of the EU's Schengen zone of passport-free movement.
People flying into Gibraltar from the UK will face one check from Gibraltarian officials and another by the Spanish on behalf of the EU.
Mr Lammy said: 'For those arriving by air into Gibraltar's airport, there will be a dual border control check, in a model similar to French police operating in London St Pancras station.'
Dame Harriett Baldwin, a former Conservative minister, asked: 'Can a British citizen flying from the UK to Gibraltar now be stopped by a Spanish official as they land?'
Mr Lammy replied: 'There will be a second line queue, as there is in St Pancras, and there will be Spanish border guards and police situated in that second line.
'And of course, if there was an alert, then at that point, not on their own, but at that point, there would be a hand-back facility with the Gibraltar police, so they are working alongside that Spanish team.
'And if there was an alert, then the individual would have a right to legal advice. They would either be able to return to their country of origin, let's say the UK, or they would be able to voluntarily go over to Spain to face the questions they are facing.'
Mr Tice asked whether Spanish border officials 'have an effective veto on the entry of a British citizen from the United Kingdom landing on British sovereign territory in Gibraltar'.
Mr Lammy said if Mr Tice flew to Gibraltar and there was an alert in the Schengen system, 'he would be handed back to the Gibraltarians, where he might feel more comfortable' before returning to the UK.
'No doubt the Spanish would seek to extradite him, and many in this House would be rather pleased,' he added.
Mr Lammy said he had insisted on a 'sovereignty clause' in the treaty and added that immigration, policing and justice remained the responsibilities of Gibraltar's authorities.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
37 minutes ago
The US commemorates 250th anniversary of the 'great American battle,' the Battle of Bunker Hill
NEW YORK -- As the U.S. marks the 250th anniversary of the Battle of Bunker Hill, it might take a moment — or more — to remember why. Start with the very name. 'There's something percussive about it: Battle of Bunker Hill,' says prize-winning historian Nathaniel Philbrick, whose 'Bunker Hill: A City, A Siege, A Revolution' was published in 2013. 'What actually happened probably gets hazy for people outside of the Boston area, but it's part of our collective memory and imagination.' 'Few 'ordinary' Americans could tell you that Freeman's Farm, or Germantown, or Guilford Court House were battles,' says Paul Lockhart, a professor of history at Wright University and author of a Bunker Hill book, 'The Whites of Their Eyes," which came out in 2011. "But they can say that Gettysburg, D-Day, and Bunker Hill were battles.' Bunker Hill, Lockhart adds, 'is the great American battle, if there is such a thing.' Much of the world looks to the Battles of Lexington and Concord, fought in Massachusetts on April 19, 1775, as the start of the American Revolution. But Philbrick, Lockhart and others cite Bunker Hill and June 17 as the real beginning, the first time British and rebel forces faced off in sustained conflict over a specific piece of territory. Bunker Hill was an early showcase for two long-running themes in American history — improvisation and how an inspired band of militias could hold their own against an army of professionals. 'It was a horrific bloodletting, and provided the British high command with proof that the Americans were going to be a lot more difficult to subdue than had been hoped,' says the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Rick Atkinson, whose second volume of a planned trilogy on the Revolution, 'The Fate of the Day,' was published in April. The battle was born in part out of error; rebels were seeking to hold off a possible British attack by fortifying Bunker Hill, a 110-foot-high (34-meter-high) peak in Charlestown across the Charles River from British-occupied Boston. But for reasons still unclear, they instead armed a smaller and more vulnerable ridge known as Breed's Hill, 'within cannon shot of Boston,' Philbrick says. "The British felt they had no choice but to attack and seize the American fort.' Abigail Adams, wife of future President John Adams, and son John Quincy Adams, also a future president, were among thousands in the Boston area who looked on from rooftops, steeples and trees as the two sides fought with primal rage. A British officer would write home about the 'shocking carnage' left behind, a sight 'that never will be erased out of my mind 'till the day of my death.' The rebels were often undisciplined and disorganized and they were running out of gunpowder. The battle ended with them in retreat, but not before the British had lost more than 200 soldiers and sustained more than 1,000 casualties, compared to some 450 colonial casualties and the destruction of hundreds of homes, businesses and other buildings in Charlestown. Bunker Hill would become characteristic of so much of the Revolutionary War: a technical defeat that was a victory because the British needed to win decisively and the rebels needed only not to lose decisively. 'Nobody now entertains a doubt but that we are able to cope with the whole force of Great Britain, if we are but willing to exert ourselves,' Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend in early July. 'As our enemies have found we can reason like men, now let us show them we can fight like men also.'
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
The US commemorates 250th anniversary of the 'great American battle,' the Battle of Bunker Hill
NEW YORK (AP) — As the U.S. marks the 250th anniversary of the Battle of Bunker Hill, it might take a moment — or more — to remember why. Start with the very name. 'There's something percussive about it: Battle of Bunker Hill,' says prize-winning historian Nathaniel Philbrick, whose 'Bunker Hill: A City, A Siege, A Revolution' was published in 2013. 'What actually happened probably gets hazy for people outside of the Boston area, but it's part of our collective memory and imagination.' 'Few 'ordinary' Americans could tell you that Freeman's Farm, or Germantown, or Guilford Court House were battles,' says Paul Lockhart, a professor of history at Wright University and author of a Bunker Hill book, 'The Whites of Their Eyes," which came out in 2011. "But they can say that Gettysburg,D-Day, and Bunker Hill were battles.' Bunker Hill, Lockhart adds, 'is the great American battle, if there is such a thing.' Much of the world looks to the Battles of Lexington and Concord, fought in Massachusetts on April 19, 1775, as the start of the American Revolution. But Philbrick, Lockhart and others cite Bunker Hill and June 17 as the real beginning, the first time British and rebel forces faced off in sustained conflict over a specific piece of territory. Bunker Hill was an early showcase for two long-running themes in American history — improvisation and how an inspired band of militias could hold their own against an army of professionals. 'It was a horrific bloodletting, and provided the British high command with proof that the Americans were going to be a lot more difficult to subdue than had been hoped,' says the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Rick Atkinson, whose second volume of a planned trilogy on the Revolution, 'The Fate of the Day,' was published in April. The battle was born in part out of error; rebels were seeking to hold off a possible British attack by fortifying Bunker Hill, a 110-foot-high (34-meter-high) peak in Charlestown across the Charles River from British-occupied Boston. But for reasons still unclear, they instead armed a smaller and more vulnerable ridge known as Breed's Hill, 'within cannon shot of Boston,' Philbrick says. "The British felt they had no choice but to attack and seize the American fort.' Abigail Adams, wife of future President John Adams, and son John Quincy Adams, also a future president, were among thousands in the Boston area who looked on from rooftops, steeples and trees as the two sides fought with primal rage. A British officer would write home about the 'shocking carnage' left behind, a sight 'that never will be erased out of my mind 'till the day of my death.' The rebels were often undisciplined and disorganized and they were running out of gunpowder. The battle ended with them in retreat, but not before the British had lost more than 200 soldiers and sustained more than 1,000 casualties, compared to some 450 colonial casualties and the destruction of hundreds of homes, businesses and other buildings in Charlestown. Bunker Hill would become characteristic of so much of the Revolutionary War: a technical defeat that was a victory because the British needed to win decisively and the rebels needed only not to lose decisively. 'Nobody now entertains a doubt but that we are able to cope with the whole force of Great Britain, if we are but willing to exert ourselves,' Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend in early July. 'As our enemies have found we can reason like men, now let us show them we can fight like men also.'
CBS News
2 hours ago
- CBS News
Colorado Congressman Joe Neguse leads effort to end corruption in the federal government
Americans' trust in the federal government has been eroding for years. According to Pew Research, 77% of Americans trusted the federal government to do the right thing "all or most of the time" in 1964. Today, only 22% do. Rep. Joe Neguse, the U.S. House Assistant Minority Leader and a Democrat who represents Colorado's 2nd Congressional District, is now leading a bipartisan effort aimed at restoring that trust. "End Corruption Now" is a sweeping package of bills that targets corruption and cronyism at the highest levels of government. While scandals involving bribery, extortion, kickbacks, and conspiracies have permeated American politics throughout history, Neguse says the graft today is next level. "The difference in my view is the normalization that I think citizens have become almost desensitized to the everyday corruption that is now so rampant in our nation's capital," he said. Rep. Joe Neguse, the U.S. House Assistant Minority Leader and a Democrat who represents Colorado's 2nd Congressional District, during the House Democrats 2025 Issues Conference at the Lansdowne Resort in Leesburg, Virginia, on March 12, 2025. Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images From insider trading by members of Congress, to self-dealing by the president, Neguse says corruption is endemic in D.C. Many politicians have lost their moral compass, he says, and the public has lost faith. "I think the president and frankly I think members of Congress are constantly testing to see how much they can get away with. And the more that voters become and citizens become apathetic and desensitized to this type of corruption, the more corruption will occur," Neguse said. Which is why he is leading an effort to change the status quo with bills that among other things ban members of Congress from ever serving as lobbyists, prohibit them from serving on corporate boards, and bar them, their spouses, and children from trading stocks. "We ought to be willing to condemn that and to stand up and say that that's wrong irrespective of one's political affiliation," he said. The bills also take aim at the executive branch by prohibiting CEOs convicted of financial crimes from serving in the White House. They also install new oversight measures for the president after Neguse says Trump dismantled many of them. He fired about 18 inspector generals -- government's independent watchdogs -- and suspended enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act even as he accepts a luxury jetliner from Qatar and other foreign governments spend billions of dollars on his family's real estate ventures and his crypto meme coin. Neguse says Trump's pay-to play schemes are brazen and dangerous. "It gives him an immense amount of power that no chief executive has had or has attempted to acquire in our country's 250-year history. The silver lining here is we have the agency to be able to stop it, right? We can ameliorate all this corruption. We can prevent it, we can end it and we can end it now with these common sense measures if we have the political will to do it." The package of bills also includes legislation to clearly define an "official act" by a public official after the Supreme Court redefined the definition of bribery and a bill called the "Musk Act," which requires government employees to recuse themselves from any matters that affect their financial interests or that of previous employers. Neguse says when he first introduced the bill placing a lifetime ban on members of Congress serving as lobbyists seven years ago, he had two co-sponsors. He now has 85. But while leadership in both parties and President Trump support reforms like banning members of Congress from trading stocks, Neguse says the bills will only pass if the public demands it.
