Critics of the new Gibraltar agreement argue that the removal of the border fence represents a missed opportunity for Spain to assert its rightful sovereignty over the territory. By focusing on the free movement of people and goods, the government has effectively normalized the status quo, leaving the core issue of British control over the Rock unaddressed. Skeptics contend that the concessions made by Madrid, particularly the abandonment of a physical border, weaken Spain's long-term leverage in future negotiations and provide the British territory with a special status that is fundamentally detrimental to Spanish interests.
There are also significant concerns regarding the economic impact of the deal. Critics point out that Gibraltar’s prosperity has long been built on a model of financial services, online gambling, and low tax rates that effectively function as an offshore jurisdiction. By integrating the territory into the European customs union without forcing a total overhaul of this economic model, the agreement may fail to address the historical imbalances that have disadvantaged neighboring Spanish towns. The fear is that Gibraltar will continue to benefit from its unique position while the surrounding Spanish region remains economically dependent and vulnerable to the territory's fiscal policies.
Finally, some observers question the effectiveness of the new security arrangements. While the treaty mandates joint checks at the airport and port, critics worry that the practical application of these controls will be insufficient to prevent smuggling or to ensure full compliance with European tax and regulatory standards. By dismantling the physical fence, the government may have removed the most visible symbol of the border, but it has also created new, less transparent challenges for law enforcement and tax authorities tasked with monitoring the flow of goods and people in an increasingly porous environment.