The Gibraltar conflict can be seen as a manifestation of the obsolescence of political decisions. What could once have been a solution, the cession of that territory to the United Kingdom without ceding sovereignty, is now a problem. It has been increasingly acute since new technical means have changed the nature of settlement, especially since World War II. In addition, decolonization and the end of empires have changed the relationship between the powers. All this makes Gibraltar a new case of ancient origin.

The political leaders have perceived this and have tried to reach solutions by negotiating. The lack of fruit of those talks led to the closure of the border in Franco's time. An attempt was made to solve the problem during the Transition and in 1980 Suarez reached a compromise to open the fence. A joint statement made in London in January 1982 by Calvo-Sotelo and Margaret Thatcher seemed to confirm that change was near. Three months later the Falklands war broke out and the Spanish government considered it prudent to postpone the decision.

The Gonzalez administration was able to proceed with the opening a few years later. But that style of consensus is something that perhaps already belongs to our past.

In addition to the above, we must add the fact that the traffic of goods and capital through the Rock is a nucleus of illegal trade or a tax haven.

This set of circumstances may help to understand the complexity of the decisions on the issue. It seems clear that the status of Gibraltar is an anachronism. It also seems clear that the policy of cessions is not conducive to improving the status, nor would a closed confrontation. Once again, the policy faces the challenge of finding solutions that are better than a simple prolongation of the status quo.