The Falklands - Who should own these godforsaken islands?

Do you not understand that pragmatically it's not in the UK national interest to effectively grant 3,000 people a veto over 60 million people?

Why should 3,000 UK citizens who live on a rock 8,000 miles away essentially dictate the foreign policy interests of a nation comprising 60 million of their fellow citizens?

 

At that particular date the word 'British' referred to the only people who chose to emphasise their descent from the Roman citizens of Britannia, the people now offensively called 'Welsh'. The English were at the time being ruled by a British dynasty, the Tudors, descended in the male line from Ednyfed Fychan, Seneschal of Gwynedd, and a little later John Dee (Du) was to convince Elizabeth 1 that she had a justified claim to an overseas 'British' Empire which had (entirely mythically) been established by Arthur. That is why it was to be called the British, rather than the English Empire.

Ironically, the part of Argentina opposite these islands was - as part of an unofficial deal the Argies went back on by 1902 - supposed to have become the Cymraeg (British) speaking province of Chubut, which is why I have so many relatives there.

 

How abt producing some reliable evidence of UK Colonial Conquest - apart from your say so.

AFAI can tell France/Spain/Britain - all claimed different parts of the archipelago - long before Argentine's creation gaining its own independence from its former Spanish colonial master. A British flag flew on the islands long before the Argies even dreamt of having a flag.

The distance of separation is irrelevent . The Falklands belongs to Falklanders . Would you deny the inhabitants the right to self-determination ? the right to choose whether to be ruled by corrupt Argies or continue determining their own future ?



....

 

So your position is that 3,000 UK citizens whose descendents appropriated the Malvinas as part of a colonial conquest over a century ago, have the veto over 65 million of their fellow citizens? Of course, if knuckle-dragging and flag waving jingoists like you have their way, some of the 65 million will potentially sacrifice their life's blood for this 3,000. Presumably you too will fight the good fight and put on your tin hat.Or are you content on allowing other people's sons and daughters to be sent in harms way on your behalf?

Now, as for the the self-determination thing, these are settlers whose nationality is British, so by definition, the issue about self-determination is a misnomer.
Also those espousing self-determinating rights are invariably the people who are more than happy to deny, for example, the self-determination rights of the Chagos Islanders - you know those 'brown' people that we ethnically cleansed in order to make way for a US military base. So excuse me for calling you a hypocrite.

Argentina is no longer a fascist dictatorship but a thriving democracy, a potential trading gateway to the rest of Latin America. Argentinian claims are territorial and no Brit will be in harms way. The issue is oil not the possession of a specific passport. Flag waving Brits will still stand to the national anthem, listen to Queenie on christmas day, display their union jacks and moan about the growing penguin immigration problem. It makes pragmatic sense for us to negotiate with them not to start another war.

 

The rest of yr post :

I'm afraid you'll find very few , other than entrenched Argies agreeing with you. Most Argies could'nt care a fek abt the Falklands.

Like Gibraltarians / Pitcairns/Tristan de Cunha/Bermuda etc,etc inhabitants who chose to remain within British Overseas Territories , largely self governing.

You can call me whatever you like , should I care ? LOL . (stick + stones etc)

Daft comparison often lead to stupid conclusions , the removal of Chagos islanders had nothing to do with skin colour - Diego Garcia was considered of strategic importance as a military base - . The main Island wasnt big enough for a base and also accommodate civilian population.

Its early days , time will tell how good their "thriving democracy" is and they do not revert to their old corrupt fascist habits again.

Remember, it wasnt the British Govt who started a war and its unlikely to do so in future.

Any negotiation will first of all have to be with the Falkland Island Govt and the wishes of the Islanders. The ball is in Argie govt. court to win the trust of the Islanders.

....

 

I believe that the islands should belong to whomever is willing to fight for them and win.

Ultimately, in international relations that is all that matters.

 

Don't be naive. The only people who care are those who want the oil and the politicians who don't want to be knifed by the tory papers. If you think any of those scum are ever going to fight, you are crazy. They send working people to fight.

 

I agree , its unlikely that UK politicians will sacrifice /send their r sons to fight for the Falklands - however , whether there's oil or not , one cant totally ignore the rights of those people who were born on the Islands . I'd say they've as much a love of country as any Welshman has to Wales.

I'm not sure the Falklands dispute is just about oil. IMO its also abt the wishes/aspirations of the Falklanders.
...

 

The Falklands have been UK for how long? And when was oil first suspected to be there?

 

I have a hard time feeling proud of European colionalism. No matter which angle you take, it remains very shameful.

 

So according to your reason , America fought for Afghanistan /Irag and a few other place , they believed /deluded themselves into thinking that they've "won " - do those areas "belong " to America ?

I think you should brushup /familiarize/learn about international law and how signatories to international treaties are supposed to conduct themselves.

The law of the jungle , wont do.


.......

 

Marlowe - fair enough, it that's where they want to be, though it would be hugely cheaper to bring them home, if they could be persuaded. I'd like to have seen the principle of very small populations having absolute rights more widely observed, mind you.

Viv - not long. Before that it was Thatcher's head, and subsequent heads thereafter. Oil makes it principled!

 

Are you reading what you write? Nobody was living there. How can you take something by force when there is nobody there but yourself? Hundreds of years ago.

I understand the people who live on those islands want to remain British and do not want to be Argentinian, just as the people who live in Gibraltar chose to remain British and not Spanish and the people who live in the US chose not to be British. Do you not understand that pragmatically it's not in the UK ethical manual to refuse 3000 people who are already British, that which any British person at home or abroad is entitled to expect? (protection of the UK military)

 

Just before the Argies woke up to the possibility of there being some off shore oil reserves ..

For centuries the Argies were'nt interested in the Falklands. The British flag was flying on Falkland Islands while the so-called "Argentina" was nothing more than a Spanish colony , long before the creation/establishment of what is now known as Argentina

.....

 

No oil makes it unprincipled. Prior to that recent discovery, it was regarded a matter of principle. Now detractors are happy to cast aspersions and allocate untoward motives for retaining the Falklands under UK sovereignty.

 

Easy answer:- Falklands is British

British people live there, and they want to be British.

Argentina is the aggressor they invaded the islands for political reasons (ie: to make the people of Argentina forget its appalling politicians....remember, they murdered their own people).

All the UK goverment is doing is protecting the wishes of the Falklands people.

It amazes me that a Hollywood (*)(*)(*)(*)wit like Sean Penn, who doesnt live in the real world should get involved.

So what if the Falklands is 8000 miles away......i mean Hawaii is thousands of miles away grom the US.

 

Just remember 3,000 people, and just how important they'd be here. The only principle was that Thatcher didn't want to he strung up on a lampost. As to the oil 'principle', that was a joke, except from a capitalist viewpoint, which is the only one that counts. Money IS principle, Viv: you know that!

 

I'm no Thatcherite, I took part in several anti-Thatcher protests demonstrations , but let's stop blaming Thatcher. It was the Argie Military Junta who , in their arrogance , decided to use military force and invade the Falklands - which gave the British govt no other option , but to use whatever available means to oppose the invasion.

.

 

The Argies was'nt interested in the Falklands prior to anyone suspecting /exploring for oil.


.....

 

I do not understand the question. The Islands are British, the population is British and no one living there has any confusion at all about who 'owns' them. Just because goodies have been found in the region does not give the areas predators a right to step in.

 

So, folk who have been somewhere for generations, a place with no one but this population, should flee, give up their homes, their way of life, and the resources of the area, to appease a thug hundreds of miles away with no claim on the place but lust for resources!

Wow! I am reminded of the Sudetenland.

 

Because 3000 people who live on the Falkland Islands want the islands to remain a BOT.

 

Hong Kong was Chinese for 5000 years until the 1840's and was only British under treaty with an end date. The Falklands have never been Argentine and the population has never been anything but British.

 

No, the question is, CAN the British hold them...No carriers...1/3 the navy they once had 30 years ago and a wimpy government.