the falklands

[russycarps]

so we actually have no legal claim to them at all and did in fact invade and kick out argentinians in 1833? Fancy that.

The idea that we colonised the islands when they were devoid of human life and before argentina even existed is an outright lie put out there by the tory government.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/apr/01/falkland-islands-principle-international-law

I cant see how we can have any claim to the islands whatsoever assuming that article is true.

It's quite outrageous really.

[Stash]

I think that letter to the Guardian, it wasn't an article in itself, is rather simplistic and perhaps shouldn't be used as definitive guide to the very complex situation. There is a lot of information on the web about what happened, when and why. A lot of this can be very contradictory dependant on which side of the argument the author is coming from.

I read this article in the Buenos Aires Herald and found it quite interesting, and a juxtaposition of your link above.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

A the moment the main British stance is based on UN Resolution 1514 which Argentina dont seem to accept. There are many groups in Argentina that do wonder why they want them in the first place.

[eFestivals]

Who cares?

Worse than how we might have come by the islands is how we went to war over the islands. Thatcher told the argies to take the islands cos we'd let them have them.

She did that so the UK could go to war, so that she could win the '83 election.

It really is that simple, and there's the documentary evidence to prove it.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Who cares?

Worse than how we might have come by the islands is how we went to war over the islands. Thatcher told the argies to take the islands cos we'd let them have them.

She did that so the UK could go to war, so that she could win the '83 election.

It really is that simple, and there's the documentary evidence to prove it.

[russycarps]

I think that letter to the Guardian, it wasn't an article in itself, is rather simplistic and perhaps shouldn't be used as definitive guide to the very complex situation. There is a lot of information on the web about what happened, when and why. A lot of this can be very contradictory dependant on which side of the argument the author is coming from.

I read this article in the Buenos Aires Herald and found it quite interesting, and a juxtaposition of your link above.

[russycarps]

Who cares?

Worse than how we might have come by the islands is how we went to war over the islands. Thatcher told the argies to take the islands cos we'd let them have them.

She did that so the UK could go to war, so that she could win the '83 election.

It really is that simple, and there's the documentary evidence to prove it.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

She wishes she'd never gone into politics now. We all thought that all along.

[t8yman]

i honestly dont give a flying feck about the falklands, its a shame that people died "defending" them from the argies, but why we owe a debt to people thousands of miles away is beyond me. i heard on a radiio show the other day that it would be cheaper to repatriate every single person on that island and give every single one of them a million pounds each, and some land, than it would be to run the islands for a year. its not a british empire any more, why the fuck are we acting like it is?

they may be 700 miles from the argentinian coast, but they are a damn site nearer than we are.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

Oil. That's why both sides want the Falklands. There's potentially shed loads there. Which British politician wants to go down in history as giving that lot away.

[t8yman]

Pushing aside what we think about the government etc...

Surely a group of people who have occupied land for generations have some say in there own future. How they wan't to be governed. What rights and freedoms they should have.

I find some of the attitudes displayed on here very two faced. If it wasn't "us" I think many would be outraged by the Argies actions.

[eFestivals]

Pushing aside what we think about the government etc...

Surely a group of people who have occupied land for generations have some say in there own future. How they wan't to be governed. What rights and freedoms they should have.

I find some of the attitudes displayed on here very two faced. If it wasn't "us" I think many would be outraged by the Argies actions.

tell that to the inhabitants of Diego Garcia.......

A great point, nicely made. The exact same thing could have been said about Hong Kong too (the island, not the New Territories - tho of course they could be included on the same basis too).

It gets to prove that the argument that Barry has made is simply the one of political convenience, to use for people of Barry's thinking to manipulate him into the thinking that those politicians want. Propaganda.

[eFestivals]

The issue involving Hong Kong was the majority thought it was right they should become part of China.

PMSL - 100% wrong.

Hong Kong island was 'owned' by the UK no less than the Falklands are. The majority wanted to remain British.

The 'New Territories' of Hong Kong were on a 99 lease from China which expired the year the whole thing was handed over. The majority of the inhabitants of there wanted to remain British too.

An argument can be made that the inhabitants of the 'New Territories' had unrealistic expectations, but the inhabitants of the Island itself had no less rights to a British passport (which they had) and British nationality (which they had) and self-determination (which they didn't) as the inhabitants of the Falklands.

We didn't even give those inhabitants of Hong Kong the right to vote for a local council - but demanded it of China when we gave them those bits of land.

[t8yman]

my point about diego garcia is that the uk govt decided they not only didnt give a fuck about them any more, but were quite happy to evict them and not even repatriate them anywhere properly, just to curry favour with the US military/govt.

what makes the falklands so different?

[Ed209]

Surprisingly I'm with Barry on this one. Ask the people of the falklands.

It's not a overly simplistic solution. It might be simple, but that doesn't stop it being the best thing for the current inhabitants of the falklands. While Hong Kong and Diego Garcia are interesting history lessons, I don't see how our failings there have any relevance to what Barry proposes should be done with the falklands

[eFestivals]

Do you think they should of had a say ?

From the point of practicality - that sooner or later the Chinese would come and take it anyway - no. There's no point at all in costing people's lives in trying to physically defend the physically undefendable.

And funnily enough, the same applies with the Falklands.

Sooner or later the Falklands will not be British. It's better to accept that reality and put in place the things to ensure that the change happens with the least distress to the people who live there than try to fight a battle that cannot ultimately be won and cause deaths in fighting that losing battle.

My view at the time of the Falklands war was that a treaty should be signed that hands the Falklands over to the Argies - hands them over in perhaps one hundred years time, but hands them over.

[eFestivals]

My only point is that the islanders should get to decided what happened to them... Its not to defend the British governments past, present and future mistakes.

I think if they want to stay British then that should be respected by the Argies.

what about the rest of the British people? Don't they get a say too?

For example, you think you should get a say on what benefit payments are made to people in need (and you say "cut them").

Aren't the British people to get the same say over whether they want to financially support a bunch of people who are a much huger financial drain per-person supported on the British taxpayer than benefit claimants, and who are never likely to give any financial return for that support (unlike benefit claimants)?

[Stash]

You seriously suggesting to me the majority of the UK would back moves to leave the Falkland islanders to it ? Specially given the actual financial value to us if the islander wish to remain our friends ?

You are having a laugh...

[eFestivals]

The concept of handing them over to a country who themselves has very little real claim to Islands... While the people living there have stated time and time again they don't want to handed over is disgusting to be frank.

it's what the UK govt and its population has happily done with Diego Garcia and Hong Kong. Why should the Falklands have a different reasoning for no reason apart from jingoism?

Its either right or wrong that people should be able to choose who leads and rules them. or you are in favour of the old school colonisation's of the past. Because that is what this would be. The Argies have no real clim. No more so than France, Dutch, Spanish or US...

PMSL - what are the Falklands except a continuation of colonisations of the past?

Just because someone wants British rule doesn't mean they should get it. Should Northern Ireland remain a part of the UK because some of its population demands it even when (in the future?) most of its population would rather be a part of the RoI?

The own true claim we should be concerned about it is the people living there in my eyes.

Then that concern should also recognise the reality that we're already at the point where we can't defend them from attack.

It's no good basing a policy on having our heads in the sand.

You seriously suggesting to me the majority of the UK would back moves to leave the Falkland islanders to it ? Specially given the actual financial value to us if the islander wish to remain our friends ? And remember its not about money, its about fuel security as well.

You are having a laugh...

No, I don't think the majority of the UK would back a move to see the islands handed to the Argies - but that's more the result of the war 30 years ago and the jingoism that it stoked. Jingoism cannot defend the islands forever.

The islands are not a financial benefit to the UK, never have been, and never will be.

There is no fuel security from an oil source that we cannot defend.

[eFestivals]

Ever heard of Oil / Fuel / Energy Security ?

We couldn't defend the Isle of Wight from attack. We certainly couldn't defend the Falklands.

So there is no oil / fuel / energy security to be had from there.

[russycarps]

I cant understand why the islanders would want to live there anyway. It looks a proper shit place to live. Like Craggy Island Vs the Wickerman. I can only imagine that every person who lives there is a massive weirdo and everyone has a picture of the queen on the mantle piece

[eFestivals]

PS - St Helena.

[Alcatraz]

Who exactly are the 'islanders'?

I can't recall ever actually seeing one on the news or anything. Just soldiers. Or is that the point?

[russycarps]

Who exactly are the 'islanders'?

I can't recall ever actually seeing one on the news or anything. Just soldiers. Or is that the point?

[eFestivals]

Who exactly are the 'islanders'?

I can't recall ever actually seeing one on the news or anything. Just soldiers. Or is that the point?

there were just over 200 of them at the time of the war (214 if I remember rightly).

There's a huge number of squaddies, etc, there now. There were about 30 at the time of the Argie invasion.I

I'd guess that the number of real islanders is lower now than there were 30 years ago - after all, no different to the likes of Scottish islands, people in general want to leave them for somewhere with a life. But the numbers might have gotten a boost off the back of the publicity from the war.