The Falklands - Who should own these godforsaken islands?

Yes UK citizens do determine UK economic and foreign policy that reflect the interests of 65 million people - NOT exclusively 3,000 people living on a bunch of rocks 8,000 away. Your argument is that it serves our long term economic interests to cling on to a colonial relic. However, I argue, correctly, that it's not.

It would appear on the surface that there is political consensus over maintaining UK territorial sovereignty of the Falklands. But the full arguments have not been publicly aired in a fair and objective way in our media by way of the full expression of, for example, the issues of the kind I have brought to the discussion on this board.

You say my arguments are not pursasive and the majority of the British people agree with your line of reasoning but I'm not so sure. It seems to me once the jingoism and empty rhetoric is stripped away, your side hasn't much of an argument at all.

My argument isn't contradictory at all. Again, comprehension isn't your forte. My position is that preferably we are better served if we negotiate our way to sharing the resources. But failing that, it is my contention that we would still be quids in on a medium to long-term economic basis as a result of the total secession of territorial sovereignty of the Falklands.

Your argument that in principle the people of the Falklands should determine the government and constitutional governance of the Falklands, is intellectually unsound.

 

They were no more alien than any other human beings who first settled there, when no-one else was in sight, if we have to tell the truth.

The fact the British carried bigger weapons when they tried to regain control, does not make them more familiar - save for the rudeness!

 

A pretty wacky idea built around an imaginary situation in the middle east and revealed as an undisputed fact....

 

Just a question...what if Oil was discovered on Martinique and Cuba invaded. Would France simply let it go...

 

Well, they would be wrong. The people on the Falkland's are UK citizens who are in possession of UK passports. Nobody will deny the right of Brits to remain Brits living on a bunch of rocks 8,000 miles away, including Argentina.

 

I look forward to you posting a pic of a passport of the independent sovereign nation state of the Falkland's. It's gonna be difficult for you, because, hey, there isn't one. The fact that they "consider themselves" as a nation is irrelevant. The bottom line is that it is NOT a nation but a bunch of rocks 8,000 miles away where UK passport holders happen to reside as a result of a colonial aquisition of their forebears.

 

Lol...Too funny.

 

And I'm the one who his attempting to fit an argument to get a desired result?

 

A strawman argument since as far as I'm aware there is no dispute between claims of contending parties in relation to St. Helena.

 

I wish I knew. Why don't you ask Sarkozy (he loves you)? As for me, I certainly hope the French will keep the fight at home.

 

Contortions are certainly not logic. Somebody needs to inform you of this fact, because your post is contortion loaded. Self-determination exclusively attributable to people is, by defintion, meaningless unless simultaneously anchored to sovereign territory of the inhabitants to which the question of self-determination relates. This is simple logic.

 

As long as you're noticing, the Falklands are miles away from Argentina and no more Argentinian property than Chile, Bolivia or Paraguay. Is it ok if they just declare those Argentinian?

 

Are Chile, Bolivia or Paraquay making a territorial claim for the Falkland Islands?

 

Argentina have no valid claim to Falklands, , its NOT within their territorials water. It was claimed + under British control long before the establishment of an Argentine Republic = the Argies was a Spanish colony /part of Spanish empire. THere's never been a permanent Spanish or Argentinian settlement on any of the islands.
.

 

Argentina and the majority of world opinion expressed through the General Assembly of the UN disagree with you. 'Ownership' of the Falklands is highly contentious and it's incongruous and an anachronism that in the 21st century a nation 8,000 miles away maintain sole ownership of this bunch of rocks by vitue of the fact that it was appropriated as a result of a colonial grab.

 

Link? Please?

 

"Considering that its resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 was prompted by the cherished aim of bringing to an end everywhere colonialism in all its forms, one of which covers the case of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)":

http://www.un.org/en/documents/index.shtml

 

Colonialism of the Argentinians not the British.

 

"In all it's forms"

 

Zulu - Are you suggesting that the Falkland inhabitants relinquish their British Passports ( end being a British "colony " ) and be forced to either leave their homes or surrender their British Passports change it toAgentinian Passports - and thereby become an Argentinian Colony ?

I'm afraid you're either barking up the wrong tree or just barking mad.


....

 

It would be as valid as Argentina's.

Now back to the question. Is it ok with you if Argentina claims Bolivia, purely because it's in the general area of Argentina? It is in fact much closer to Argentina than the Falklands.

Argentina claiming the Falklands against the will of the people who inhabit them, is worse than UK claiming them hundreds of years ago when a gecko lived on them.

 

Yes, Argentina should grab it instead.

 

Of which this current land grab by the Argentinians must be one of the more egregious forms in modern times.

 

No that's not what I'm suggesting. I have expressed my position on this repeatedly throughout the thread.