British sovereignty: caught between a rock and a hard place

The reactionary side of British politics seems to be absolutely wedded to the concept of sovereignty... apart from when it's not.

This is a week when the hypocrisy has been laid bare for all to see.  When the xenophobic masks slips and when our complicity in war crimes has never been more open to scruitiny.  And why? in an ironic attempt to placate the far-right and its paymasters in Israel, our Government has both recognised it's responsibilities for a British sovereign dependency abroad and abrogated it's responsibilities for British sovereignty at sea. 

Gibraltar is a small but strategically vital British Overseas Territory located at the southern tip of the Iberian Peninsula, and it has long been a geopolitical flashpoint. Sitting at the entrance to the Mediterranean, it borders Spain and overlooks the Straits of Gibraltar, a crucial maritime chokepoint.  The territory has been under British control since 1713 but remains the subject of a sovereignty dispute with Spain.  Despite its tiny size, Gibraltar's location makes it critically important for trade, military strategy, and regional security. This week, UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer reached an agreement with the European Union that would place Gibraltar within the Schengen zone for the first time.  

This means EU officials, likely Spanish or from Frontex, will carry out passport checks at Gibraltar's port and airport.  In return, the land border with Spain, used daily by over 15,000 cross-border workers, will remain open, preserving economic stability and daily life for residents on both sides. Though sovereignty over Gibraltar remains legally British, the symbolic presence of EU agents has ignited furious backlash from pro-Brexit factions, who see it as a betrayal of the post-Brexit mandate to ‘take back control’. The UK’s agreement with Spain and the EU to allow Spanish/EU passport checks in Gibraltar has unleashed a torrent of outrage from the right‑wing, pro‑Brexit establishment.  The ‘net is alive with the sound of gammon.  Accusations include everything from ‘betrayal’ to ‘a sell‑out’ of British sovereignty.  But when it comes to international incidents that really involve UK sovereignty, and even the lives of people under British protection in International las, the irony is those voices are nowhere to be heard. 

The Gibraltar Deal: Why the Right Rages 

Under the deal announced in June 2025, Gibraltar will: 

• Become part of the Schengen area for purposes of airport and seaport entry.
• Allow Spanish or Frontex officials to conduct passport checks there.
• In return, maintain a frictionless land border with Spain for commuters and tourists.

Hard‑line Brexiteers, including Reform UK’s Richard Tice are incandescent with rage. Tice calls it a ‘surrender’ a betrayal akin to Keir Starmer’s role in the withdrawal of sovereignty over the Chagos Islands. The argument: any form of EU control on UK soil is an existential threat to sovereignty. These critics point to two inviolable principles: 

1. Border control cannot be outsourced.
2. No foreign officials should have a role in UK‑linked jurisdictions.

And the Tories?

Kemi Badenoch, has consistently taken a firm stance regarding the Gibraltar‑Schengen agreement, emphasising the preservation of British sovereignty as the non‑negotiable red line. Here’s a closer look:

• In the House of Commons on 11 March 2024, she reassured MPs that the UK would “not agree to anything that compromises sovereignty”, and that any treaty would require the express consent of both the Gibraltar Government and Parliament r
• She echoed these concerns in later discussions, making it clear that the Government would only proceed with terms “with which the Government of Gibraltar are content”, and again stressing no compromise on sovereignty 

Tice and the Rabid-right showed their true colours when it comes to democracy.  That they are fundamentally anti-democratic.  In Gibraltar’s participation in the UK-wide Brexit referendum held on 23 June 2016, the results were overwhelmingly in favour of staying in the EU:

• 19,322 votes (95.9%) were cast for Remain
• 823 votes (4.1%) were cast for Leave (i.e., to support Brexit) 

This took place on a high turnout of approximately 83–84% of Gibraltar’s roughly 24,119 registered electorate.  What this agreement does is redress the balance and make good the mess that Brexit caused Gibraltar. 

So Sovereignty over everything at all costs?  Well hardly: 

When Israeli forces boarded a British‑flagged ship and detained its crew, those same principles vanished and reactionary dog-whistlers like Tice said nothing. 

The MV Madleen Incident: A Clear‑Cut Sovereignty Case 

This discrepancy reached a boil earlier this week with the Israeli military boarding of the MV Madleen, a British‑flagged humanitarian vessel in international waters. The hijacking of the ship, with a crew including an EU MEP and climate activist Greta Thunberg kidnapped, was met with widespread legal condemnation. Under International law this vessel is sovereign property of the UK and under the British Government’s protection and jurisdiction. Yet for many Brexit purists, and it has to be said the UK Government, the reaction ranged from bemused dismissal to near silence. The double standard is striking. Key issues raised: 

• International law: Boarding a vessel in international waters is a violation of maritime convention unless piracy or clear threat is evident. Many legal experts labelled it illegal, even “piracy.”
• UK sovereignty: The Madleen flew the UK flag, underscoring British responsibility.
• Civilian crew: The detained individuals were civilians on a humanitarian mission.
• Human rights concerns: International bodies, including the UN and Amnesty International, condemned the interception and treatment of the crew.

 Despite this, mainstream right‑wing commentary was nowhere to be seen . Media outlets like GB News and the Daily Mail gave it mere lines; political figures largely avoided pressing the UK government to act.  In contrast, when Spanish agents would hypothetically check passports at Gibraltar Airport, a deal made with UK consent, the uproar was deafening. 

Hypocrisy Exposed: Selective Sovereignty 

This dichotomy reveals three core contradictions: 

1. Principled vs. Politically Convenient
   Brexit loyalists invoke sovereignty as a moral absolute, unless it seems it clashes with their unwavering loyalty to Israel.
2. Passionate vs. Convenient Outrage
   ‘Spanish officials on Gibraltar soil’ becomes a rallying cry. ‘Foreign commandoes board a British ship’ elicits indifference.
3. Rules‑Based Order vs. Tribal Appeasement
   Opponents of the Gibraltar deal warn of a slippery slope. Israel’s war crime, by contrast, becomes a non‑story: a context‑dependent approach to rule‑based norms.

One Redditor captured it succinctly: 

‘Some are more worried about legal Spanish control than illegal Israeli control’ 

This sums up the inconsistency: where sovereignty can attack Brussels, it’s heroic. Where it might challenge Israel, it evaporates. 

Britain’s Selective Outrage in Context 

• Gibraltar: Spanish or Frontex passport checks—even agreed ones—are framed as a national humiliation.
• MV Madleen: A UK‑flagged ship forcibly boarded in international waters? A worldwide incident. Politically, often shrugged at.

Such selective indignation undermines the credibility of the sovereignty argument, twisting it into a weaponised political cudgel rather than a universal principle. 

What a Consistent Approach Would Look Like 

To maintain ideological integrity, right‑wing voices would need to: 

1. Condemn both instances of foreign control, Spanish checks and Israeli boarding, with equal vigour or acknowledge and protect our sovereign responsibilities.
2. Demand action: British diplomats should press Israel to explain, compensate and guarantee non‑recurrence or impose sanctions like it would do to any other nation.
3. Uphold the same maritime sovereignty laws whether dealing with EU neighbours or non‑EU allies.

Of course that’s not happening.   Instead, Brexit hardliners treat sovereignty like selective caffeine, energising only the battles they choose. The Human Cost: People, Not Symbols Real people are hurt when sovereignty becomes inconsistent: 

• 15,000 daily cross‑border workers rely on Gibraltar remaining frictionless.
• The crew of the Madleen faced legal limbo, distress, and potential harm even though they were exercising peaceful humanitarian intent.
• UK citizens expect their government to defend them and British sovereignty regardless of political consequence or diplomatic discomfort.

When sovereignty is selective, citizens pay: not abstract political narratives.   

Gibraltar’s Schengen deal, negotiated by consent and rooted in pragmatism, became a flashpoint for nationalist populism. But when sovereignty was actually violated, in stark international breach, it was rendered invisible. 

If sovereignty truly matters, it must withstand moral scrutiny across every context: even when it bites into ideological convenience.  Right now, the spotlight reveals a moral shadow: a sovereignty argument strong enough to attack the EU but too fragile to confront a geopolitical ally that has been indicted for war crimes.  

And the gammon – devoid of critical thinking and too fucking racist and stupid to see why this contradiction matters.

The world has gone mad. If you enjoyed reading this, please feel free to look at the rest of the blogs on www.TetleysTLDR.com. They're free to view, there's no paywall, they aren't monetised and I won't ask you to buy me a coffee. Also please free to share anything you find of interest, we only get the message out if people are aware of it. Just a leftie, standing in front of another leftie, asking to be read. All the best, Tetley