MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency

“Gibraltar, the Falklands and other overseas territories deserve MPs” from LabourList

Gibraltar, the Rock in the strategic position controlling access to the Mediterranean and the Atlantic Ocean

The suggestion, proposal, or idea or however you may wish to call it is not new. Still, the UK government’s recent decision to hand sovereignty of the Chagos Islands, British Indian Ocean Territory, to the Republic of Mauritius has caused outrage from some and disbelief from others. Still, it has again brought to discussion if other Overseas Territories such as the Falkland Islands and/or Gibraltar need to have representation at Westminster.

Such is the challenge set out in LabourList, through its website, social media and daily email. Launched in 2009, it is clearly supportive of the Labour Party, but independent of it and defines itself as a “critical friend”. Readers and contributors alike come from across the party and beyond the party, from MPs, advisers, councilors and members to experts, pollsters, historians and campaigners.

And Will Barber Taylor, a freelance writer with an interest in history and politics, who recently graduated from the University of Warwick and is host of the British political podcast the Debated Podcas writes that “Gibraltar, the Falklands and other overseas territories deserve Mps”

The Chagos islands, often referred to as the British Indian Ocean Territory, have been the source of controversy for nearly sixty years since the forced removal of its inhabitants by the British government between 1968 and 1973.

Used as a military base by both Britain and the United States since then, the transfer does not include Britain’s key strategic base on the island which the government retains in the planed deal for a 99-year lease. Despite these attempts of reassurance and the justifiable argument that the judgment reached by the International Court of Justice in 2019 that Britain should not continue to claim sovereignty over the islands means something has to change, there has been strong opposition to the move from across the political spectrum.

What’s the argument?

Of the two main objections to the deal, the first being that that Mauritius has no legitimate claim over the island and as an ally of China may effectively seed the islands to the Chinese government is the one that has most incensed conservatives. Yet it is the second main objection that should concern the Labour Party and the wider left more broadly.

The failure to restore the islands to the Chagossian people, illegally removed by our government in the 1960s and 70s is frankly shaming and any transfer of sovereignty should be to them and not to a third-party state. A party that naturally takes pride in ensuring Indian independence in 1947 and Barbados’ independence in 1966 should not ignore the concerns and wishes of the Chagossian people. The island and its governance should be returned to them.

The debate around Chagos opens up a much wider area of discussion – what should Britain’s relationship with its overseas territories be? After concerns about the continued sovereignty of the Falklands Islands and Gibraltar, the Prime Minister addressed anxieties in the House of Commons by remarking he would ensure both remained British, citing his uncle’s service during the Falklands War as part of his motivation.

Like the Prime Minister, I have a similar but deeper connection– my great grandfather was born on Gibraltar, the son of British and Spanish subjects who lived harmoniously on the island. He was proud of his heritage and of being British, serving his country during the First World War. He never doubted that Gibraltar was British and, as was reiterated by the 1967 and 2002 Sovereignty Referendums, nor do the people of Gibraltar.

Yet if we are to make clear that the people of the British Overseas Territories are British, we need to strengthen our ties to them. Gibraltar, the Falklands, Anguilla, The British Virgin Islands and most other overseas territories have their own form of devolved administration yet they do not have the kind of representation in our Parliament that, as British territories, they deserve.

Finding a solution

Although Gibraltar, for example, was included in the Southwest England Region in European Parliamentary elections from 2004 onwards, there is no MP for Gibraltar or the Falkland Islands who sits in our Parliament. To demonstrate Britain’s commitment to Gibraltar, the Falklands and other overseas territories the introduction of Overseas MPs, working in tandem with local governance in the territories, would signal not only that the voices of these British citizens are being listened to but that the government will continue to respect and defend their rights.

Such a move would further spotlight some of the discrepancies around how our overseas territories are governed as compared to the rest of the United Kingdom. Tax avoidance is a common occurrence connected to the British Virgin and Cayman Islands due to the number of offshore and shell companies that are set up there by businesses that would otherwise have to register their businesses in the UK.

To have a Member of Parliament for either would likely raise further awareness of the deliberate abuse of the lax system of taxation present in both overseas territories and may encourage the government to work with the island’s administrations to resolving the issue.

Formerly creating constituencies for these Overseas Territories would also provide opportunity for further discussion on Britain’s presence in Cyprus, the territory consisting of two military bases that Britain had planned to withdraw from in the 1970s but remain occupied by British military forces to this day.

The need to formerly clarify which Overseas Territories could elect representatives and which, like Cyprus, it would seem ludicrous to create constituencies for would encourage discussion over how useful these bases are and whether Britain’s continued presence on the island does enough good to warrant our military’s continued presence there.

Ultimately, if Britain is to come to terms with its long and complex relationship with the remains of what was once the British Empire, it must be honest about how it views its overseas territories.

Providing the people of these territories the opportunity for their voices to be heard in the Parliament of the country that they are inextricably connected to is the only way forward and will signal both to the inhabitants of the overseas territories and to the wider world that Britain’s commitment to them is unwavering and consistent.