Critics of the agreement, including members of the political opposition, have raised significant concerns regarding the potential security implications of removing the physical border. There is apprehension that the transition to a fluid frontier could undermine the integrity of the European Union's external border, particularly if the new surveillance technology and facial recognition systems prove insufficient to prevent unauthorized entry or illicit activities. For skeptics, the removal of the fence is a premature concession that prioritizes political optics over the safety and security of the region.
Beyond security, the process behind the agreement has faced sharp criticism. Opponents have accused the government of bypassing the national parliament, the Cortes, to implement the treaty provisionally. This has led to claims that the deal lacks the necessary democratic mandate and transparency, with some political figures labeling the move a fraud. Critics argue that such a significant change in the status of a territory claimed by Spain should have been subject to more rigorous legislative scrutiny and public debate before being finalized.
Finally, there is a lingering fear that this agreement could weaken Spain's long-term negotiating position regarding sovereignty. By normalizing the status of Gibraltar within the Schengen area without a clear path toward resolving the territorial dispute, critics worry that the government has effectively relinquished its leverage. They argue that the removal of the fence is a permanent change that may be difficult to reverse, potentially leaving Spain with fewer options to press its claims in the future while creating a new, potentially irreversible reality on the ground.