War Over Gibraltar? Spanish Threats and Britain’s Post-Brexit Weakness

Between June 1779 and February 1783 British forces in Gibraltar survived an almost unrelenting Franco-Spanish siege, fighting one of the most remarkable defensive actions in early modern history. Given this heroic feat it is perhaps unsurprising that, more than 200 years later, the British government is not willing to give up its Iberian exclave without a fight.

The Great Siege of Gibraltar

Whether it is wise to threaten the claimant Spaniards with war should they attempt to use Gibraltar as a bargaining chip in negotiations over a post-Brexit EU trade deal is somewhat debatable. What is certain, though, is that London is acutely aware of the symbolic importance of their Mediterranean outpost, even if its strategic significance at the gateway to Europe is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

Captured from the Kingdom of Castile during the War of the Spanish Succession in 1704, Gibraltar was formerly ceded to Britain by the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. Attempts by the Spaniards to recapture the territory in 1727 and then during the siege of 1779-1783 failed, leaving Gibraltar as an important base for the Royal Navy in the Mediterranean.

Spain has never relinquished its claim to Gibraltar, a somewhat hypocritical stance mindful to overlook Madrid’s remaining colonial possessions on the North African coastline at Ceuta and Melilla. Periodic diplomatic spats have led to border closures and delays, often carefully orchestrated by Spanish crossing guards.

Border delays following a diplomatic row in 2013

Just as Ceuta and Melilla have a centuries-long affinity with their Spanish motherland, Gibraltar remains unapologetically British. Despite their overwhelming preference to remain within the EU, Gibraltarians have no desire to become part of Spain.

There are of course parallels here with the Falkand Islands, over which Britain went to war against Argentina in 1982. That Spain would attempt a brazen assault on Gibraltar comparable to that launched by the Argentinians against the Falklands is unthinkable, their democratic rulers far more encumbered in their actions than the brutal junta in Buenos Aires ever was.

A classic British telephone box at the Gibraltar walls

What George Augustus Eliott, commander of the Gibraltar garrison during the siege of 1779-1783, would think of the petty squabbles of today one can only guess at. Probably he would be gratified by continuing British sovereignty over the outpost his men fought so hard to maintain, no doubt more than eager to throw himself back into the fiery cauldron of battle.

Fortunately, despite the crass comments of some naive politicians, such a scenario is more than unlikely. However, the Spanish decision to publicise this potential stumbling block for Britain’s future economic relations with Europe points to the dissatisfaction on the continent surrounding the Brexit verdict.

Britain has often been seen as an outsider in Europe, an aloof power whose imperialistic history has not endeared it to many of the nations that remain tightly ensconced in the grip of Brussels.

Undoubtedly further tribulations await Theresa May and her Conservative government. Britain’s European neighbours are likely to resurrect these historical enmities in a vindictive attempt to punish one whose dismantling of the long fought for European federalist project is most unwelcome.

Elliot and his officers in discussion during the Great Siege of Gibraltar, 1782

As the British and the Spanish have long recognised, the power of a rock cannot be measured by conventional indicators. History, nationalism and symbolism combine to make the most toxic of concoctions.

Advertisements

Royal Navy ‘Woefully Low’ on Warships: a testament to Britain’s General Decline?

In 1495, the world’s first dry dock was built in Portsmouth during the reign of Henry VII, the first monarch of the House of Tudor. Two years later the warship Sweepstake was completed, setting in motion Portsmouth’s place at the forefront of British naval history, which it is yet to relinquish.

Today, major dredging works are underway in preparation for the arrival of HMS Queen Elizabeth, the first of two new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy. With the exception of the occasional unexploded bomb find, these works are progressing smoothly in anticipation of the docking of the £6bn craft next year.

HMNB Portsmouth
HMNB Portsmouth

Yet despite such a seemingly positive addition to Britain’s naval pedigree, a new report authored by the Defence Select Committee has slammed the ‘woefully low’ number of warships currently in operation for the Royal Navy, whilst raising serious questions about the government’s ability to adequately replace older vessels.

Is this naval deterioration testament to the general decline of Britain’s global power status?

It was during the Tudor era that wide-reaching reforms were enacted to create Britain’s first modern navy. In addition to Portsmouth, naval dockyards were established at Chatham, Deptford, Plymouth and Woolwich, with warships designed to specification and designs standardised.

Deptford Dockyard by John Cleveley (1757); established as a royal naval dockyard by Henry VIII
Deptford Dockyard by John Cleveley (1757); established as a royal naval dockyard by Henry VIII

Over the succeeding centuries, Britain became synonymous with naval power, which served a wide array of purposes. Perhaps its most important function was to defend the English Channel. From repulsing the Spanish Armada in 1588, to defying French imperial ambitions in the 18th and 19th centuries, countering the U-Boat threat during the First World War, and rendering the Nazis’ ‘Operation Sea Lion’ nothing more than a pipe dream, the Royal Navy has served as an integral, unbreachable barrier between Britain and the European continent.

Only when the government has lost the support of its naval forces, such as during the ‘Glorious Revolution’ of 1688, has an invasion from mainland Europe succeeded, and hardly a bloody one at that.

Historically Britain not only needed to defend its homeland, of course, but also its empire which itself could not have been won without the might of the Royal Navy. Initially aimed at ravaging the overseas possessions of European rivals, state-of-the-art warships underpinned almost every one of Britain’s colonial endeavours, from the Far East, to India, to Africa and the Caribbean.

The British Fleet closes in on Spanish Havana during the Seven Years' War (1762)
The British Fleet closes in on Spanish Havana during the Seven Years’ War (1762)

As with their Iberian predecessors, British conquerors were reliant on overwhelming naval force to project power thousands of miles from home, at a time when communication between subject and crown invariably took many months.

Once a colonial empire had been established it needed defending and here again the Royal Navy was integral in thwarting the machinations of rival European states as their great power struggles spilled into the New World.

It could also be argued that Britain’s traditional mercantilist bent, when coupled with its naval capacity, helped facilitate worldwide trade and technological dispersion, setting the course for globalisation.

Additionally, naval patrols helped disrupt and finally end the Atlantic and Arab slave trades in the 19th century.

The first global military and economic power left few countries untouched in pursuit of an empire where the sun never set, a world created in its own image.

The real and symbolic power of the Royal Navy could be felt as recently as 1982, when a naval task force was mobilised to put the Argentinian invaders to flight during the Falklands War. The exploits of the British naval force – aided by the RAF – so far from home captured the public imagination and gave a much-needed injection of popularity to the embattled administration of Margaret Thatcher.

Flagship HMS Hermes makes a triumphant return to Portsmouth in July 1982 after deployment in the Falklands
Flagship HMS Hermes makes a triumphant return to Portsmouth in July 1982 after deployment in the Falklands

However, the end of the Cold War precipitated a marked contraction in defence spending for most European states and Britain was no exception. With the rationale to retain such a mighty operational fleet in an era of post-colonial peace diminished, money could be set aside for pressing domestic matters.

British defence spending as a % of GDP 1988-2015. Source: World Bank
British defence spending as a % of GDP 1988-2015. Source: World Bank

As a result, Trident has barged to the forefront of British defence policy in recent years. The permanent presence at sea of one of four nuclear-armed submarines is arguably all that keeps Britain at the top table for debating global security matters. It is a sinister programme, decidely unglamorous when compared to the romanticised past of the invincible Royal Navy and its formidable, sumptuous warships. Yet it is a necessary and justified expense, one which has resulted in the sacrifice of a more visible British naval presence around the world.

One must accept that the days of Britain’s naval predominance have long since disappeared. For too long Britain played a role in the securitisation of the world at odds with its small size. Scaling back is not a sign of decline or an admission of relegation to the second rung of global nations.

It is a pragmatic and measured approach, one in which strategic alliances, unconventional weapons platforms, elite special operations and intelligence capabilities, and diplomatic negotiation are equally if not more important than traditional power-projection methods.

Britain should be proud of its naval history for it has done a considerable amount to shape much of what is good about the modern world. Whilst efforts should be made to ensure that the Royal Navy is not reduced to a skeleton fleet, the doomsayers must remember Britain’s place in the 21st century, which is not one of a global superpower.

The Spanish Armada is set aflame
The Spanish Armada is set aflame

Harnessing an appreciation of the benefits of past naval prowess with a pragmatic, economical vision of future naval deployment will allow Britain to continue as a relevant player on all of our great oceans.

Heroic it may not be but valuable it will always remain.

Margaret Thatcher: a truly conflicting legacy

Margaret Thatcher has died at the age of 87, leaving behind her one of the most divisive legacies in British political history. Politicians throughout the UK, even outside Thatcher’s own Conservative Party, have been quick to pay tribute to her political skill, if not her actual policies. David Cameron has gone so far to say that Thatcher “saved our country”.

As is often the case when a famous figure dies, the initial reaction, particularly amongst the establishment, is positive. It does, after all, appear rather callous and inconsiderate to criticise someone on the moment of their passing. However, the “popular” reaction is often more enlightening. Here, people’s memories of Thatcher within the UK are highly conflicting, particularly with regards to the economy and class.

Margaret Thatcher oversaw a complete upheaval of the British economy during her tenure at 10, Downing Street (1979-1990). Privatising state-owned industries, she opened up the economy to greater competition, making it more flexible in a increasingly globalised world. Simultaneously, she severely curtailed the powers of the trade unions, which opposed her acts of privatisation and the enforced closures of industrial and manufacturing bases. Her iron will was best displayed in facing down Arthur Scargill and his National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) during the strike of 1984-5.

Thatcher's response to the striking miners divided the nation
Thatcher’s response to the striking miners divided the nation

Thatcher’s policies unarguably led to job losses amongst the working class, particularly as mines closed and industry was outsourced abroad due to cheaper labour costs. Yet the economy was in need of a transformation. To engage with an increasingly competitive global economy, and with the financial miseries of the 1970s still fresh in the memory, her neoconservative approach was a necessity. Without her reforms, Britain would not have so rapidly advanced its technological skills base and would not be one of the world’s leading financial centres. Unfortunately, this resulted in a widening wealth gap between rich and poor that, partly thanks to Thatcher’s uncompromising elitism, became associated with class. The massive sale of council houses to private ownership furthered the impression that Thatcher was unconcerned with the common man.

Perhaps it is not surprising then that people in several cities, including Glasgow, attempted to organise ad hoc street parties on the news of her death.

That said, her handling of the Falklands War in 1982 had received almost unanimous support across the country and helped prevent a complete alienation between the classes. Refusing to bow to aggression from a brutal Argentine regime, Thatcher’s swift and ruthless execution of the war brought a renewed patriotic fervour and unity to Britain, if only temporarily.

Victory in the Falklands War helped bolster Thatcher's popularity despite some controversial policies
Victory in the Falklands War helped bolster Thatcher’s popularity despite some controversial policies

The fact that Thatcher won re-election twice testifies to a persisting popularity amongst large segments of the population. She may never have been loved but there was perhaps a grudging acceptance from some quarters that a leader of her conviction and strength was necessary to revitalise Britain and make it relevant in a modern world. Whilst many will refuse to admit it, her reign at the top was a platform from which New Labour and Tony Blair could bring strong economic growth back to the UK. It is the reason why Britain, despite an obvious downturn, remains a global economic powerhouse in the twenty-first century.

Margaret Thatcher (1925-2013)
Margaret Thatcher (1925-2013)

Rarely loved, revered by some, grudgingly admired by others, and intensely hated by many more, Margaret Thatcher will raise passions in almost every person that experienced her rule as Britain’s Prime Minister. Only someone of immense character and resolve could precipitate such a reaction.