I think it's more handbags than a spat.

5% of Spanish GDP is tourism. Such a good idea to introduce 6 hr waits at the border and an introduction of a 50 Euro fee

For none British-English speakers handbags is described here

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/handbags-at-ten-paces.html

First they steal our fish now they want to slightly inconvenience people in Gibraltar. What next?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23668589
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23617910

Interesting, laws of the sea bringing up questions about land ownership. Just what you'd expect to see between Japan, China, Taiwan and Korea... (who owns all those little islands anyway?)

Octavious: Spain makes lots of stuff. They are one of Europe's biggest manufacturers of railway locomotives and rolling stock. They make quite a lot of cars and automotive components. They still have something of a steel industry although not on the scale it once was. And yes, they are a fairly large agricultural producer. Pretty big in fisheries too.

However it would be very hard for the UK to impose a boycott of Spanish goods, I think, because this would surely violate the UK's EU Treaty commitments...

I'm pretty sure what the Spanish are doing right now violates their Treaty commitments. Freedom of movement and freedom of goods primarily.

Those dirty rotten Spics are asking for it ..... I think this calls for an invasion.
I suggest we send thousands of our hardest fighters (men and women) over there and cause havoc in their Towns all Summer in some drunken rampage.
They will be begging for mercy at the end of that ......

And those EU treaty commitments don't apply to Gibraltar, because nothing is ever that simple:

"Gibraltar is a British overseas territory located near the southernmost tip of the Iberian Peninsula and overlooking the Strait of Gibraltar, sharing a border with Spain to the north. It is part of the EU, having joined the European Economic Community under the United Kingdom in 1973. Article 355(3) (ex Article 299(4)) applies the treaty to "the European territories for whose external relations a Member State is responsible", a provision which in practice only applies to Gibraltar. Although it is part of the EU, Gibraltar is outside the customs union and VAT area and is exempted from the Common Agricultural Policy; it does not form part of the Schengen Area." (src: wikipedia)

If Gibraltar is part of the EU then the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (the Lisbon Treaty, the most recent iteration) then Article 45 dealing with free movement of workers and Article 28 dealing with free movement of goods apply.

Neither of those articles, as far as I'm aware, are nullified by not being a party to the customs union. Those articles have direct effect and even if they didn't the Spanish introduction of border fees and restrictions could be an MEQR or 'measure equivalent to quantitative restriction'. This would be arguable but has legs.

Basically, we don't win automatically due to the law but we can produce a compelling case if taken to the European Court of Justice.

"it does not form part of the Schengen Area" - There's our solution. David Cameron commits the UK to joining Schengen (obv Ireland has to follow suit).

I can't see a downside.....

The problem for Cameron is that he wants to retain border restrictions whilst relaxing them at Gib/Spain border. Heathrow has seen queueing for hours so that immigration status can be checked. He won't want to take a test case to EU and then leave himself open to charge from UK media of letting more EU nationals in easier.

@Hereward, there is 'free movement' across this border, I've been stopped and asked a few questions upon entering the UK, (not part of Schengen either) but I have not been refused entry or turned back.

This entitlement of national governments is something which the UK government has fought for. Not being part of the Schengen zone is something which means the UK (and Ireland) can impose much tigther border checks; but it also means that those same borders count as external to the Schengen zone. Thus Spain has a duty, under Schengen, to check people crossing into this territory.

I mean legally speaking, they're well within their rights. Though this is clearly a political stunt.

This is true but there's no question of restricting EU nationals. They must be treated the same on entry to the UK as British citizens. Almost all statements made about immigration carry the qualifier 'other than EU' or 'from outside the EU'.

Ugh, I need to check more often before posting, I keep double posting.

Spain may check people at the border due to the Schengen issue yes. That wouldn't be the basis of a legal challenge though. What I'm saying is that these restrictions can be challenged under other elements of the TFEU. 'Free movement' doesn't just mean free movement in the most literal sense. There are multiple ECJ cases that have demonstrated this. Freedom of movement of goods is the same. If there is ANY effect on the movement of goods between Spain and Gibraltar (part of the EU under article 355(3) as you pointed out) then it can be challenged in the ECJ.

Interesting, care to ellaborate? I don't know which ECJ cases you are talking about.

Also, even within Schengen (assuming Gibraltar was allowed join separately from the UK) countries are allowed to impose temporary controls under certain circumstances - which given the nature of this dispute, Spain could easily claim.

ECJ cases are very interesting, but more importantly, should we think about colouring the southern tip of Spain pink on our map? Just for historically correctness. We'll leave Ireland as it is of course.

@ Jamie

Trains, eh? Very well. Until Spain backs down from their dastardly ways I will point blank refuse to buy any locomotive, carriage, or those little platforms on rails with the two man handle you have to pump to make it move that you only ever see in a certain type of Western. And I hope all other Brits on this website will join me!

In all seriousness though neither the British government nor the Spanish has any appetite for a real political fight. I suspect there will be a bit of posturing for the sake of it and the whole thing will be forgotten about.

Gibraltar,The Falklands,Northern Ireland,etc.etc... allways the same story... They just don't understand. The rest of the world is allways wrong and we are right! Allways and forever! We just want what's our's in right - the Universe! God save the Queen!

I think we should boycott buying Spanish footballers until all this is over.

Does anyone think there is even the slightest possibility that 1 bullet would be fired?

I'll have to dig out my text books and notes on free movement of workers within the European Union but simply reading Article 45 outlines that people's movement for work purposes cannot be restricted unless justified on several grounds (imposing a nationality-based fee would, I imagine, constitute a restriction). As you point out Spain might be able to justify on the grounds of public policy or some such. That's why I said the UK doesn't win automatically but has a case to make. As you say, Spain can claim an exception... whether it is granted is another matter.

Having just checked there are examples of how 'free movement of workers' has all sorts of nuance to it:

Adoui & Cornuaille v Belgian State - a state cannot exclude or restrict movement on grounds which it does not apply to its own citizens.

Carpenter v Secretary of State for Home Development - even if the Directive (here 2004/38) on free movement does not cover the exact situation, the ECJ may still apply the article rights in the treaty.

Bullets? i'm not sure, do the bullet point in documents filed with the ECJ, or the UN general assembly count? (can't go to the UN security council, because even if this was a security issue, the UK has a veto)

@Maniac - "I think we should boycott buying Spanish footballers until all this is over."
I'm not sure Englishmen buy footballers,I think Americans,Russians and Arabs do.

No bullet points don't count. I just wonder if some over jealous fisherman might take a pop shot and cause an international incident?

UK has a veto for a reason, but I'm not sure what it is.

@Split - "I'm not sure Englishmen buy footballers,I think Americans,Russians and Arabs do" - true but surely they're our allies on this one

"Those dirty rotten Spics are asking for it..."

Nigeeeeeee....just curious? Is it because of your wife that you have special dispensation to use offensive language (even in jest)? Or is it because those "Spics" aren't dark enough to qualify for protection from assholery?

And where is Thucy? Thucccccyyyy? One of your comrades is being an asshole....care to comment?

@Maniac, UK has a veto because the security council was setup on political grounds, with the losers of a war not in any position to challenge that at the time.

Japan and Germany are now two of the worlds four largest economies. The realities on the ground have changed, and the disagreement between the G4, the UfC (or Coffee Club) and the permanent security council members without reform over the past 20 years.

@NigeeBaby: I'm already over here in Mallorca leading the charge. I don't think they've noticed though.That said, wander past the Brit bars in Magaluf after midnight and you'll inhale a heady mixture of stale San Miguel and pot, so we may need new tactics 'cos the old ones (tried and tested over many many years) aren't working...

@Nigee,
In this case Krellin is right. You should disavow the use of racial epithets of all stripes, including that one. Perhaps that doesn't carry the stigma in the UK that it does in the US, but that's not much of an excuse. If we expect Krellin to change his ways regarding the n-word, I request that you do the same with the s-word.

@ hecks

Nigs says Spics purely to get a reaction from Americans. In the UK it doesn't exist as a word. The mild derogative of choice for Spaniards (akin to Kraut, Hun and Frog) is Dago, although when this is used as an insult it has to be combined with something else to carry any real weight... "greasy haired Dago", "lazy arsed Dago" etc etc