Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
The ironic thing is that the Falklands war never happened the Islands would probably be part of Argentina by now.
No, it wouldn't - the rumours of Falklands oil have been circulating consistently since the late 1970s. (Never ever realised - almost as if there were some group of people that had an interest in making sure that the Brits don't lose interest in the islands).
Not the same
Exactly the same - I can make any number of invitations to you to enter into discussions about the possession of your wallet but as long as you have it and you want it, the response is going to be the same: piss off.
Just to fit in with your childish pantomime....
Fred:
And as I, as you all know, am always [s]right[/s] wrong, that must therefore mean you are in fact [s]wrong[/s] right.
Despite your over-inflated ego, this is actually how it usually turns out on most threads you contribute to.
TandemJeremy - Member
big and daft - if the wishes of the islanders are the only thing that counts why does this not apply to Diego Garcia?
TJ - you make a valid point about Diego Garcia and then blow your own logic out of the water by failing to apply the same standards to the Falklands.
At the time of the original Falklands conflict there were three "interested parties" (source Franks):
1. The Arg government for who possession of the Malvinas was always a major issue of policy and a national issue (an assymetric position vs the UK gov)
2. All British Governments asserted British sovereignty over the Islands and the Dependencies, without reservation as to their title, coupled with an unchanging commitment to the defence of their territorial integrity
3. [b]Thirdly, the Islanders always made it clear that they wished to remain British and
consistently resisted any change in their constitutional relationship with the United
Kingdom. [/b]
The Franks report also noted after the war that, the British government cast doubt over the commitment to the FI, they continued to supply arms to the Argies and they withdrew HMS Endurance. All these sent the wrong signals to BAires.
So fast forward to today:
1. Still true
2. Still true
3. Still true
...and again, the messages we are sending. Defence cuts, major cuts to carriers and ability to respond with air/naval power etc...
I predict the Argies will escalate tension in the area over the next 12-24 months.
I think TJ is trying to work out which country he loves based on his complex moral compass 😉
Teamhurtmore - I pointed out the hypocrisy - thats all. that and ainflamatory spanish phrase. I didn't actually state what I thought should be done with the islands did I
FWIW I have no time for places not in Britain but that want to be British. I thin the islands should be given independence under UN protection. Same as Northern Ireland or Gibralter.
I predict the Argies will escalate tension in the area over the next 12-24 months
especially when Wills does a tour down there as keeps getting trailed in the news
Despite your over-inflated ego, this is actually how it usually turns out on most threads you contribute to
It does not in any way actually, but you carry on with your little fantasy, if it makes you feel better. 🙂
Do you think there's a fair bit of inbreeding in the Falklands, what with such a tiny population/gene pool?
Can we not share them with the Argentinians? Would that not suit both nations a lot better?
TJ - there [b]isn't[/b] any resident population on Diego Garcia [i](which was pretty much the point of the court case)[/i]
So how can we offer them a right to self determination?
❓
FWIW I have no time for places not in Britain but that want to be British
do you have a defined geographic boundary in mind? care to share it?
still waiting to hear which country you love 😉
Well TJ - you will have to admit that if all you post is this:
TandemJeremy - Member
La malvinas son argentinas
...then it is hard not to interpret that as a "belief" 😉 that the FI should be given to Argentina!!
But you have explained your position above - and my point remains. The population of the FI have stated their desire and it is not to given independence under UN protection (misnomer?). So whoever you have time for, is frankly pretty irrelevant.
I have no time for places not in Britain but that want to be British.
Kind of a recursive statement if you think about it.
I didn't actually state what I thought should be done with the islands did I
You may not have stated explicitly what you think should be done with the islands, but there's a pretty strong inference to be made from saying something should be done and "the Malvinas are Argentinian", don't you think?
And btw, anyone who believes the British government gives a monkeys what the Falkland Islanders want is living in cloud cuckoo land. The Falkland Islanders were stripped of their full UK citizenship just before the Falklands War. Not something which they asked for, I can assure you, and something which sent a signal to the then Argentine government that Britain was uninterested in them.
I agree with the sentiments Ernie, but not sure they were stripped. I though that is was more the fact that they were not granted citizenship under the Nationality Bill. But either way, we did send mixed/wrong messages to the Argies. But that is not the point surely....the issue remains that they wanted to remain part of Britain and rejected any concept of independence or transfer of sovereignty to Arg.
Zulu - we threw them off the island in the 60s and 70s.
they had been there a similar length of time to the Falkland islanders. The UK courts have recognised their right to return
big_n_daft - MemberFWIW I have no time for places not in Britain but that want to be British
do you have a defined geographic boundary in mind? care to share it?
Great Britain? its a defined geographic area - the island that makes up England Scotland and Wales
Britainstill waiting to hear which country you love
So why defend their right to return (if that is what you are saying) and not the right of the Falklands to maintain the status quo of their sovereignty. Where is the consistency?
You may not have stated explicitly what you think should be done with the islands, but there's a pretty strong inference to be made from saying something should be done and "the Malvinas are Argentinian", don't you think?
Yes, but we're talking about TJ here, and just because he doesn't believe in God, it doensn't mean he doesn't believe there is no God, or something like that... so you'll forgive him for holding together a personal belief system so rifted with dichotomy that its got its own gravity field 😀
[b]the island[/b] that makes up England Scotland and Wales
only one island?
TandemJeremy - Member
Britain
How will the Irish (N&S) cope without your love and celtic solidarity?
FWIW I have no time for places not in Britain but that want to be British. I thin the islands should be given independence under UN protection. Same as Northern Ireland or Gibralter. (sic)
And Skye? The Shetlands? Isle of Wight? Where's the line?
the island that makes up England Scotland and Wales
Freedom!
[img] 
[/img]
And we're taking our Oil with us 😉
[img] 
[/img]
For reference, the Shetlands were former posessions of the Danish crown, and arguably retain legal status as Crown Dependencies in their own right, same as the Channel Islands...
teamhurtmore - all I am doing is pointing out the massive hypocrisy here.
Two groups of islanders who took up residence of their islands taht are british owned in the 19th century. We even have better legal title to Diego Garcia as we bought it :-0
One lot is defended at all costs, the others were forcibly removed, impoverished and dumped in another land and successive government have spent millions on court fees in attempting to stop the return.
If we have to defend the falkland islanders at all costs why not the chagossians?
tahts the point
Thats what great Britain is. the one island. Check it out.
TJ - you're dug your own hole with the "one island" thing, and I'm really looking forward to see how you dig yourself out of it 😉
TJ there is no right and wrong in history. It just happens. I am sure if the Shetlanders were offered independence with all the oil rights they would take its not going to happen. Why do the Argentinians want the islands anyway? It is not as if they will be of much use unless they have oil.
Thats what great Britain is. the one island. Check it out.
We know. But we don't know why you seem to think boats are immoral.
TandemJeremy - Member
Thats what great Britain is. the one island. Check it out
who gets all the other 1000+ islands and islets in the British Isles?
I am sure if the Shetlanders were offered independence with all the oil rights they would take it
Very interesting point. I wonder what Alex Salmons (and TJs) position on this would be.
Big and daft
some of them are a part of the united Kingdom of great Britain and northern ireland, some have other status in complex ways.
Yes, don't they have more right to NS Oil than those blighters in the borders. Independence for Shetlands (and they wouldn't have to bail out RBS!!!) 😉
So - why do we defend the Falkland islanders and not the chagossians?
some of them are a part of the united Kingdom of great Britain and northern ireland, some have other status in complex ways.
yes
but you only love the single island of Britain / Great Britain
still waiting to hear which country you love
Britain
TandemJeremy - Member
Thats what great Britain is. the one island. Check it out.
what have the 1000+ other islands/ islets in the British Isles done to not have your love? 😉
And why don't you like boats!
So - why do we defend the Falkland islanders and not the chagossians?
Maybe because politics is about making decisions to further your own interests? It is not about idealism.
Big and daftsome of them are a part of the united Kingdom of great Britain and northern ireland, some have other status in complex ways.
Keep Digging TJ!
[img] 
[/img]
Theres a bit more to Chagos as far as I can see; the US military wanted it and they get what they want. Look at Guantanamo Bay for a good example.
The world is going to become an ugly and expensive place as oil becomes thin on the ground....if there is oil at the Falklands then Britain should do all it can to keep them.
Not really interested in the 'who was there first' argument as it just gets silly, where do you draw the line?....chuck all European descended Yanks out of the US?....hand Brazil, Argentina etc back to the Native South Americans?....turn Oz back to an Aborigine country?
The world changes all the time, populations move around....its not always pleasant when done by force but trying to reverse hundreds of years of immigration, colonisation etc seems pointless.
Great Britain? its a defined geographic area - the island that makes up England Scotland and Wales
Screw the Isle of Wight and their bloody twee tea shops!
FWIW I work with a fair amount of Argentinians, get on really well with them - although they don't half talk a lot - and most of them a) think "Las Malvinas" are theirs, and b) don't really think about "Las Malvinas" on a day-to-day basis. It really isn't an issue to them.
Deviant +lots
And TJ, it appears that boats are out of the question, but where do you stand on bridges? Should I tell my in-laws on Anglesey to tear up their British passports?
I really should have said united Kingdom as my country - I got caught in the same trap others did 🙂
However I am warned off by the mods for obsessive arguing so cannot debate the is further 🙂
zokes - Member
And TJ, it appears that boats are out of the question, but where do you stand on bridges? Should I tell my in-laws on Anglesey to tear up their British passports?
they will be inconsolable when they realise they don't have his love! 😉
[b]stop press[/b] TJ loves them!
TandemJeremy - Member
However I am warned off by the mods for obsessive arguing so cannot debate the is further
the new Edinburgh defence? 😉
Great isn't it. True as well 🙂
So - why do we defend the Falkland islanders and not the chagossians?
Maybe what we're defending is that the land is British? So regarding the Falklands, it's British and folk live there, reference the chagossians, perhaps the islands are like a bit of mod land. It's British, but you can't live there even if your forefathers did. And while there might be cheeky trails, watch out for unexplored ordinance while you're at it!
Edit: Dammit, in behind the mods!
Free Inchgarvie from the British oppressors!
Thirdly, the Islanders always made it clear that they wished to remain British andconsistently resisted any change in their constitutional relationship with the United Kingdom.
So why defend their right to return (if that is what you are saying) and not the right of the Falklands to maintain the status quo of their sovereignty. Where is the consistency?
Ok again two points
1. We put the people there they are not the islanders they are settlers - settlers who booted out the argies as well
2. The UN rules the people have no say for the reasons i mention
, on the question of the Malvinas Islands, had determined that such a principle did not apply, he said, since the inhabitants of the South Atlantic Islands had not been subjugated to a colonial power.
Yes a lot of time has passed but no one has explained to me yet why it would be ok for say Israel to invade Palestine send them all away , settle there with a jewish population and then “respect the wishes of the population there to stay Jewish/Israeli from that pooint forward...Can I assume you would all be fine with this principle in action?
What claim , beyond imperialism and expansionism, would we have to an sland that far away from us?
The world changes all the time, populations move around....its not always pleasant when done by force but trying to reverse hundreds of years of immigration, colonisation etc seems pointless
Not pointless but impossible IMHO
With the falklands it would be rather simple to address the issue gieven how small it is and how small the population is. i am sure we can find them a windy wet and cold island with F all on somewhere of Scotland they can call home.
ernie_lynch are you an argie? seem very informed
Half Argie. Although almost born Argie - my mum left Argentina when she was 8 months pregnant with me and returned 3 years later. Most of my relativities are Argies.
And yes, I understand the passion which [i]all[/i] Argentines feel about the Falklands, and btw most of Latin America too. Yet despite that I am actually fairly ambivalent about the whole issue. I just think the UN resolutions on the Falklands are the way forward. IMO Britain really needs to let go of the past and not hang on to remnants of a former empire. And that goes for all former European colonials powers and far flung outposts such Hong Kong, Macau, etc.
The UN rules the people have no say for the reasons i mention...
Don't you think it's relevant that that was not, in fact, a "UN ruling", but the words of an Argentinian diplomat speaking as an observer at the UN Special Committee on Decolonization? http://overseasreview.blogspot.com/2011/06/guam-falkland-islandsmalvinas-subject.html
Edit: to be clear, I see that you did give a link to a link which wasn't originally displayed on my screen, and in that it was clear who said the words. Apologies for confusion and unnecessary sarcasm.
With the falklands it would be rather simple to address the issue gieven how small it is and how small the population is. i am sure we can find them a windy wet and cold island with F all on somewhere of Scotland they can call home.
There's no need for that. Under UN resolutions the interests of present Falklands Islanders are to be protected. They can remain with wide ranging rights such as property rights etc. A gradual handover of sovereignty and decolonisation is all that is required. Sooner or later Britain will lose her South Atlantic colonies, there's really no point hanging onto the 19th century.
which was not, in fact, a "UN ruling"
It is a UN ruling. The UN considers the Falkland Islands to be a colony, for that reason the wishes of the present occupiers are not paramount.
Yet despite that I am actually fairly ambivalent about the whole issue. I just think the UN resolutions on the Falklands are the way forward. IMO Britain really needs to let go of the past and not hang on to remnants of a former empire. And that goes for all former European colonials powers and far flung outposts such Hong Kong, Macau, etc
I suggest you need to talk to some of the people who's future you are so keen to change. Let us know what they say to you. 😉
I'd also love to understand how a population can't self determine to continue their current status, or change it if they so wish. If devolution/ independence or the status quo is up for a vote for the Jocks why not the islanders?
There's no need for that. Under UN resolutions the interests of present Falklands Islanders are to be protected. They can remain with wide ranging rights such as property rights etc. A gradual handover of sovereignty and decolonisation is all that is required. Sooner or later Britain will lose her South Atlantic colonies, there's really no point hanging onto the 19th century
when do the French get the Channel Islands? after all they are closer to the France as geography seems to be your main criterea for ownership
Sooner or later Britain will lose her South Atlantic colonies, there's really no point hanging onto the 19th century.
Why? Because they're geographically far away?
Edit: High five
Aren't Argentina just as culpable about hanging onto the past?
I suggest you need to talk to some of the people who's future you are so keen to change.
Me ? Why me ? You need to address that issue with the UN. I really couldn't give a toss who owns the Falkland Islands, why should I ? I just recognise Argentina's legal and legitimate claim.
I really couldn't give a toss who owns the Falkland Islands, why should I ? I just recognise Argentina's legal and legitimate claim.
🙄
Aren't Argentina just as culpable about hanging onto the past?
Moreso. Losers clinging on to some historical grievance are much more pathetic than winners celebrating their past. Football teaches us this.
Apologies for confusion and unnecessary sarcasm
I have come to expect it from your every post 😉
I'd also love to understand how a population can't self determine to continue their current status, or change it if they so wish.
would it be ok for say Israel to invade Palestine send them all away , settle there with a jewish population and then “respect the wishes of the population there to stay Jewish/Israeli from that pooint forward...Can I assume you would all be fine with this principle in action?
forgive the repeat but this is what happened just a long time ago..can you really not see that this does not mean you suddenly have rights that need respecting..if you do disagee could you explain with reference to the Israeli example i cite as to why this would be ok.
You should contact the UN as well with your argument
Its like you arguing we should respect the bike thiefs view of what should happen to your bike and not yours.
🙄
when do the French get the Channel Islands? after all they are closer to the France as geography seems to be your main criterea for ownership
at least they are in the same hemisphere
Not sure why you think the distance is irreleavnt tbh..How can it be "ours" at that distance? Imagine if Brazil had the Isle of Mann
a winner earlier
[img] 
[/img]
Even if it is a colonial hangover, that still gives the UK more "entitlement" to the island than Argentina will ever (legitimately) have. If the populace want self determination, then fine let them vote on it. That would satisfy the UN ruling.
At the end of the day, the UK can put its fingers in its ears and completely ignore all of the boring, macho posturing and sabre rattling from the argies. They do not have anywhere near the capability to take it and nobody else is bothered about it enough to do it for them. It really is a case of tough tits, argie. No amount of bleating will change that.
forgive the repeat but this is what happened just a long time ago..can you really not see that this does not mean you suddenly have rights that need respecting..
when do we get the half of France we have a legitimate claim to back?
If the populace want self determination, then fine let them vote on it. That would satisfy the UN ruling.
No it wouldn't "satisfy the UN ruling".
Can't we just nuke the shitty little falkland islands? End of the problem.
Imagine if Brazil had the Isle of Mann
If they'd had it for several hundred years, there were only Brazilians living there and we as a country had never actually owned it, (i know we actually dont own it) then it would be fair enough maybe? Be a nice place for a holiday, racing and carnival!
Under UN resolutions the interests of present Falklands Islanders are to be protected. They can remain with wide ranging rights such as property rights etc. A gradual handover of sovereignty and decolonisation is all that is required.
how this works in Argentina
Can I assume you would all be fine with this principle in action?
I'm not unveiling (yet 😉 ) whether I think it is fine or not, but Israel, the Palestinian Authority and (not officially) Hamas have all accepted this in practice. None of them believes that the 1967 borders will exactly be resurrected and none of them believes that population transfer for all of the post-67 settlements would occur in the event of a final settlement.
now it may have been lost in all the rhetoric but back to the original point. Boats under the Falklands flag won't be allowed entry to various south american ports. Reports suggest this could be as many as up to 25 vessels, mainly fishing boats. I'm just curious as to how many of this fleet are actually affected by this ban. Presumably, if none of them dock on the mainland this means bugger all apart from the political slanging match??? Anyone?
I'm just curious as to how many of this fleet are actually affected by this ban
none, they can all fly the red ensign instead IIRC
Trolling again B n D Why not ask the french people what they want to do 🙄
why not explain with the Israel example why it would be ok. That is what i have asked numerous times now ...cant understand why all you folk dont explain it to me ?? Surely its easy.... you know you are on weak ground and wont even enter the field as your argument is that weak
That would satisfy the UN ruling.
FFS have you read the thread No non and no
At the end of the day, the UK can put its fingers in its ears and completely ignore all of the boring, macho posturing and sabre rattling from the argies.
YES YES YES this is the kind of sensitive non sabre rattling kind of an attiutude we need well done you for doing as you preach..admirable 🙄
No it wouldn't "satisfy the UN ruling".
Actually you're correct. All the UN states is
to proceed without delay with the negotiations... with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly UN Resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas
So we just need a bit of a chat, agree to disagree and that's it. Done.
this is the kind of sensitive non sabre rattling kind of an attiutude we need
Actually, it is. Rather than reply with an equally aggressive stance. Keeping mum is positively passive in comparison to current argie rhetoric.
having read the u.n link, am i the only one that sees the massive irony in all those south american countries and russia championing decolonization 😆
seriously guys, a little self awareness might not go amiss.
why not explain with the Israel example why it would be ok. That is what i have asked numerous times now ...cant understand why all you folk dont explain it to me ?? Surely its easy.... you know you are on weak ground and wont even enter the field as your argument is that weak
start a different thread, I'm sure you will get plenty of contributions
back on topic, I suggest you go and tell the islanders how other people can determine their future and come back and tell us what they say.
Not sure why you think the distance is irreleavnt tbh..How can it be "ours" at that distance?
at what distance do you have to give up sovereignty please give us a number
Not sure why you think the distance is irreleavnt tbh..How can it be "ours" at that distance?
How can Germany not be French at that proximity?
... I don't understand where you're drawing the lines
Junkyard - you've asked people again about the Israeli's, but I'm afraid you've still not come back to me with an answer on the validity of a possible Mexican claim to the southern United States... 😉
ps - I don't accept your proposition that the The UN ruled the people have no say for the reasons - since UN Resolution 38/12 specifically states
[i]Reaffirming the need for the parties to take due account of the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) in accordance with the provisions of General Assembly resolutions 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII) and 37/9, [/i]
why not explain with the Israel example why it would be ok
You and TJ do love to rail against a hypocrisy that no-one is espousing, don't you?
at what distance do you have to give up sovereignty please give us a number
start a thread I am sure you will get lots of answers
Zulu I did start reading Wiki on texas tbh but then it just confused me as I was skimming there was alot there to read can i take the Fifth?
Excellent kona now explain why if Israel did this it would be ok ...perhaps you are claiming noone on this thread said we should respect the wishes of the people of the island ?
These just end up as pointless attempts to point score ..no one will use Israel as and example they are on to losser trying. i wont give a definitive answer re distance for the sme reason - both sides have a point but one that is ahrd to define.
It is rather a dull sport and has reminded me why i left the politcs stuff alone for a while
Had eneough banter Happy Christmas see you all when I get back to work and it is another quiet day.
EDIT: Evn though i wont read it dont forget to say I flounced or accuse me of loosing or some other usual STW "winners " stuff- winner meaning stayed on thread longest ....no one changes their view.