Forum menu
Is there really any benefit to the UK from " owning" territories on the other side of the globe such as the Falklands ? We keep a large armed force there at vast cost to the taxpayer and if you look on the globe it would be much more sensible for Argentina to have it as an overseas territory as it's the nearest major country . Possibly joint sovereignty with Britain and Argentina could work . Why should Gibraltar be British not Spanish ?
Oil
UK have nuclear subs they(Argentina) don't. 😈
Do you think they can manage without massive corruption? 😛
Advertising innit?
Just like I heard some branches of McDonald's never make a profit and are effectively just brand name carriers. 😉
Access to the [b]HUGE[/b] Antarctic oil fields.
*That is of course after develop "Super Humans" that can withstand the cold long enough to extract it. And obviously after the war to secure access to it.
Access to the HUGE Antarctic oil fields
this.
It's position gives us a credible claim to a portion of the Antarctic, which may or may not have lots of oil under it.
At the moment it's protected by international law which forbids mining it or I think even finding out if the oil exists - but prior to the financial crash of 09 with oil prices hitting record highs it was looking like the last Gold Rush on earth.
Other than that it's a political pawn, the a failing Argentinian govement made a pledge to "take them back" (I don't believe they've ever actually belonged to Argentina) and of course it's music to the ears of some people that we might go to war again over them.
I can imagine some value in the Falklands, and they are islands not part of Argentina.
Gibraltar however is a bit like a warm Doncaster, the Spanish would do a much better job than we have give it back.
edit oils had its day.
ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE! BURN HIM!
not really sure we should be handing over Gib to the Spanish without consulting its inhabitants who weren't keen last time the question was asked
[url=
of oil under them we've known about since the late 70's.[/url]
They'd get over it.
Do the top corner of Ireland at the same time.
Empire?
not really sure we should be handing over Gib to the Spanish without consulting its inhabitants who weren't keen last time the question was asked
Remove them.
We didn't have a problem with this when it came to "expel" the chagossians from the Chagos Archipelago.
Penguins innit
Why should Gibraltar be British not Spanish ?
Well, Spain might be able to make a valid case, if it wasn't for its own equivalent possessions in North Africa, which Morocco takes a dim view of:
And the Falklands have never, ever been an Argentinian colony, other than as a prison, where a bunch of felons were kept during a period when the British took their eye off of them for a while, and Spain was the country in control of what is now Argentina at that point anyway. When the British took back possession a number of the former inmates decided to remain on the islands, obviously seeing which side their bread was buttered.
If Argentina wants to claim the islands as theirs, perhaps they'd like to return to being the Spanish colony that they were at the time.
93% of the people who live on the islands voted in a referendum to remain part of the British Commonwealth, and a British protectorate, a vote that Argentina refuses to acknowledge, saying it was illegal.
I think Argentina's decidedly undemocratic, in fact decidedly dictatorial recent history leaves them unqualified to comment on a democratically voted for decision.
Penguins. Lots of penguins. How else do zoo's source them. Surroundedbyhills assures me a good pedigree penguin is worth a lot.
Is there really any benefit to the UK from " owning" territories ....... at vast cost to the taxpayer
Plenty of places cost the taxpayer, do you want rid of them as well?
and if you look on the globe it would be much more sensible for Argentina to have it as an overseas territory as it's the nearest major country .
Why not chile? At least they would have cultural links with the Patagonian Welsh
Possibly joint sovereignty with Britain and Argentina could work
How? The islanders still remember Argentinian Conscripts taking over their houses
. Why should Gibraltar be British not Spanish ?
Why not?
UK have nuclear subs they(Argentina) don't.
But they did (and still do) have some conventional diesel-electric subs though.
The Falklands was a staging post for antarctic expeditions which gave us huge kudos in the world back in the day and enabled us to be the leading scientific nation at that time. Now of course there are huge reserves of oil and the islanders happen to be British and don't want to be taken over by the Argentinians so we have just as much of an obligation to protect them as if someone was looking to invade the Isle of Wite. Why should the Falkland be ruled by Argentina? It's been under British rule for longer than it has Argentineans (and longer than the nation of Argentina has existed) and Ireland is closer to our coastline than the Falklands are to the Argentinians coastline, but the Irish would argue that proximity to a coastline doesn't give any nation a right to rule over antoher.
Gibraltar is of significant and huge naval strategic significance. Whoever controls it controls the traffic in and out of the med. Not having free access to the med means we have to go all the way around Africa to get to the far east to trade - we can't have another nation dictating if and when we can trade - we even went to war to protect our access to the far east (with disastrous consequences) . Also the Gibraltans are democratic people under a British protectorate and have no wish to be taken over by the Spanish no matter how hard they try to take them over, as is their democratic right, so we have an obligation to protect.
So does Britain control the traffic in and out of the Med currently ?
Didn't Woody Woodpecker come from the Falklands?
So does Britain control the traffic in and out of the Med currently ?
We could easily stop it if we wanted. But we're nice, so we don't.
I dont think we could, not without extreme force and thats not going to happen.
Theres a difference between being able to protect yourself and projecting your reach in other peoples affairs.
Theres also a different mindset in those who grew up in the shadow ot a world war ( or are tank fanbois) and young people today who socialise with other young people from all around the world.
Personally I would more likley go to war with Slough than I would Madrid so dont count on me if they kick off over Gibralter.
Having lived and worked in the Falklands, the Islanders believe they are of important military strategic planning. If the eventuality ever arose of the Panama Canal being denied to the Americans they would have to sail south to join their Atlantic and Pacific seaboards. This would give the Argentinians and others opportunity to deny them transporting commodities from West to East and vice versa. More of the American economy than you would think is in shipping from coast to coast. If the British hold the Falklands then the likelihood is the route would remain open to them, at a cost of course. Like Gibraltar, with it being the mouth to the Mediterranean, you can effectively control in it's entirety from one effective position. So it is really just all about location location location. The oil thing is a mere bonus. Not my opinion, just what I was told when I was there.
so we have just as much of an obligation to protect them as if someone was looking to invade the Isle of Wite
Yet they don't pay tax to the UK nor make any financial contribution towards the UK armed services,neither does Gibraltar and they are not obliged too AFAIK.If oil is discovered in the Falklands territories the Falklanders keep any revenue/tax generated from it.They may be more inclined to sell the oil rights to a UK company but that is not a given and they could quite as easily sell them to Russia,China or the US.
Do the top corner of Ireland at the same time.
Fair enough, although if it happens I'm gonna come live in your house and bang your wife.
genesiscore502011 - Member
Oil
have we pumped any oil out yet since knowing about it since the 70s?
theres apparently a field there but its even more difficult to extract than the north sea
at present prices its not viable
Im not sure how much it costs to sends ships down there all the time but my bro in law whos in the navy does not like the place!
hes on a t45 and the fuel bill is 6 million a year
anyway costs at least 60 million a year for us to defend it, probably >twice that
still we can pretend we are still an empire right?
in these days of Red, White & Blue Brexit thats pretty important 😉
Plenty of places cost the taxpayer, do you want rid of them as well?
Fiscal deficit of £9billion for Northern Ireland and the north/midlands/SW are also running a deficit.
Whatever the Falklands costs its small change.
People here are aware that the Spanish have two ports on the North African coast that where originally part of Morocco ?
Yes Jamba, CountZero already furnished us with that nugget 2 hours ago.
Any benefit? Mgt Thatcher re-elected.
do-we-get-any-benefit-from-the-falkland-islands-being-british
No idea, but I'll ask my mate Stu. he went there in 1982 for some reason or another.
That's him on the right, you could always ask him yourself though. 😆
[img]
C1.STATICFLICKR.COM Middle aged fatty with a goatee... Orange 5? Audi?
have we pumped any oil out yet since knowing about it since the 70s?theres apparently a field there but its even more difficult to extract than the north sea
at present prices its not viable
Kind of the point, plenty of places are waiting for either the tech to make them viable or the price. Having the last of something is a strategic advantage so long as you can look after it. There is no point selling it for a fraction above production cost.
What makes anyone think the UK would get any money from Falklands oil fields?
We don't get anything from the gambling companies being in Gibraltar either, just like the channel islands, IOM and Monaco it exists to steal taxable revenue from the UK and Europe.
Gibraltar is also only of military importance if supported by Europe, if the UK unilaterally decided to use it as a base to blockade the med, it would be flattened.
These areas are a drain on the UK not a benefit
Plenty of places cost the taxpayer
London, for instance, is very expensive.
Stu looks familiar - did he used to be a driving instructor?
if you look on the globe it would be much more sensible for Argentina to have it as an overseas territory as it's the nearest major country
You can use that argument about any piece of land though. Lets give the Channel Islands to the French, Corsica and Malta to the Italians, Rhodes and a load of other Greek islands to the Turks, Tsushima to the South Koreans etc. If we're going on geography alone, the Shetlands are closer to Oslo than London so they can be handed over too, and then there's all those little Belgian and Dutch enclaves we should normalise.
Luckily, this stuff isn't decided by geography alone.
Luckily, this stuff isn't decided by geography alone.
erm...Apart from when it is exactly done like that: for example Indian Partition, Sykes/Picot etc etc etc etc...
for example Indian Partition
Except that was a situation where religious violence effectively caused the creation of a new, independent country rather than just saying to Afghanistan "hey, here's a load of India for you". Once you're creating two countries, it has to be geographic, you can't just draw circles around muslim areas and say that those bits, unconnected are all ****stan.
Sykes–Picot
Rights of conquest old chap.
It gives the Engerlund fans something to sing about, whilst getting pumped from the 'Argies' surely?....
It has to be geographic, you can't just draw circles around muslim areas and say that those bits, unconnected are all ****stan.
look up where ****stan and Bangladesh are (formally East ****stan, clue is in the name there) and why they had a War of Independence (another clue , right there)
Rights of conquest old chap
Yep, can't have those pesky brown people deciding for themselves!
look up where ****stan and Bangladesh (formally East ****stan, clue is in the name there) and why they had a War of Independence (another clue , right there)
Well that sort of proves both our points. The partition didn't just slice off another bit of India arbitrarily to make a single contiguous ****stan, excusing it by saying it was closer to Karachi. They chose a bit that made slightly more sense to the people living there.