Britain should stop behaving like a 19th-century colonial power and start discussing Falkland sovereignty with Argentina! A headline from the Guardian.

 

 

With the discovery of oil reserves in the waters surrounding the Falkland Islands, and the arrival of the first drilling rig, should any oil belong to Britain?

 

This week the 32 nations of Latin America unanimously backed Argentina in the recent dispute over oil because for most developing nations it is a simple question of colonialism.

 

Britain went to war with Argentina in 1982 (Thatcher's war) and drove them from the islands. I remember all the jingoism at the time, without this war Thatcher was heading for an election defeat, suddenly she won a landslide. I wonder if we are heading for a case of dejavu.

 

Are things the same today, if this disagreement develops into a conflict should Britain fight to protect these islands once again or should another outcome be decided this time? Can Britain afford another conflict when they are fighting in Afghanistan, and the Country is nearly bust?

 

Should the United Nations decide who the islands belong to, or is it all a storm in a teacup?

the argies were not bothered about those desolate islands until there was a possibility of oil there. we populated them for many years and the argies just sat back and let it happen. now the falklands have been settled by brits, they are british. if the argies wanted those islands then they should have stopped the initial colonisation, and theyd still stay quiet even now if there was no oil.

It's hardly colonialism, what language do the Argentineans’ speak? SPANISH, well Spain lost control in the 19th century.

 

The Falkland Islands were uninhabited islands settled on by British citizens, before Argentina even existed, who have every right to live there and exploit the natural resources around the islands.

 

The idea that the lives of the 255 brave British soldiers, who fell in the 1982 Falklands war; to protect the wishes of the British citizens there, for as long as they wish to the be part of the UK; were lost only to surrender the islands 30 years later is ludicrous.

 

If the Argentineans’ try it again we should not only retake the islands, but destroy their military capabilities.

the argies were not bothered about those desolate islands until there was a possibility of oil there.

Erm, what? :lol: They've maintained their claim over 'Las Malvinas' since the last war you know, they just haven't acted on it because they realised the same thing would happen again...

 

if the argies wanted those islands then they should have stopped the initial colonisation, and theyd still stay quiet even now if there was no oil.

...bearing in mind that Argentina owned the islands from 1820 and then the UK invaded in 1833?

 

I'm of the opinion that the oil should be split half and half. We don't have a right really to be there, but given the population there is now overwhelmingly British the land should remain under British jurisdiction...

The Falkland Islands were uninhabited islands settled on by British citizens, before Argentina even existed, who have every right to live there and exploit the natural resources around the islands.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The predecessor nation to Argentina, the United Provinces of the River Plate, took the islands in 1820. The British then invaded in 1833...

 

If the Argentineans’ try it again we should not only retake the islands, but destroy their military capabilities.

Yeah, that'd go down well with the whole neo-colonial brigade wouldn't it? :P

... so for 150 years they couldnt give a damn?... and as ethan rightly says, they arnt exactly a true race themselves are they!

 

if theres no oil the only ones calling for the return of the islands are the beligerant. if they wanted them they could easily have took them from 1833 onwards.

To just hand the islands to Argentina would be an insult and disrespectful to our boys who laid down their lives fighting for this country in the Falklands conflict

It's said there were secret negotiations going on about the islands just before the Argentinian Junta jumped the gun and decided to rattle sabres by occupying the islands, firstly pretending to be a civilian enterprise and then more openly when their subterfuge was rumbled.

 

Argentinia will only ever get the islands, with the consent of the Falkland islanders. To even talk of holding a referendum of its people would be very risky for any British government.

 

The next government is likely to have a very slim majority or even to have to rule in coalition or, like the Scottish Executive, have to form a consensus to get each bill through on merit.

 

The Falkland will be off the agenda unless Argentinia makes a move.

... so for 150 years they couldnt give a damn?... and as ethan rightly says, they arnt exactly a true race themselves are they!

 

if theres no oil the only ones calling for the return of the islands are the beligerant. if they wanted them they could easily have took them from 1833 onwards.

What kind of foolish nation would take on the might of the British Empire! Don't be ridiculous Rob :P

I'm with Brian on this.. We should be entering into co-operation with the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED govt of Argentina... How will UK be able to actually extract the oil without the help of the Latin American countries anyway...? Chile is already a vital conduit for the islands with regards to shipping, trade, etc... We couldn't exactly extract our own in the North Sea without the significant help of foreign oil companies and expertise, particularly from US and Canada...

 

I think it's about high time we stopped being such Imperialist assholes and entered into a mutually beneficial partnership with Latin America instead of just continually kissing USA's arse all the time, leave these c'unts out of it altogether, WTF has our "special relationship" with the US really done for us...?? Two horrific wars which have lasted almost a decade, which has cost us over £300bn of taxpayers money and counting, and that's to say nothing of the human costs.... <_<

 

Oil producing countries in the region, such as Venezuela, would have invaluable expertise, we dont NEED the US of fukkin' A.... "Oh, but they're a dictorship" I hear you cry (even though Hugo Chavez was actually elected).... Yeah, and Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait and Qatar aren't I suppose..... :rolleyes:

... so for 150 years they couldnt give a damn?... and as ethan rightly says, they arnt exactly a true race themselves are they!

Neither are we.

 

 

I agree with Scott and Tyron here. The land is ours, but there is no reason what so ever we can't give some oil to Argentina and build closer links to Latin America. It's not as if the links wouldn't be mutually beneficial. A lot of that region is still developing, if we built up our relations with them there is no reason why British companies couldn't be involved in the development benefiting not only their economy, but ours.

Neither are we.

I agree with Scott and Tyron here. The land is ours, but there is no reason what so ever we can't give some oil to Argentina and build closer links to Latin America. It's not as if the links wouldn't be mutually beneficial. A lot of that region is still developing, if we built up our relations with them there is no reason why British companies couldn't be involved in the development benefiting not only their economy, but ours.

 

Exactly.... Look at where all the proceeds from North Sea Oil went... Quite a bit of it went to North American oil companies, and then a HELL of a lot went to pay for tax breaks for rich Tory voters in the South East... The actual SCOTTISH benefited not one JOT from North Sea oil or gas..... And NOT A SINGLE ONE of these buggers who wrote for The Scum or the Hate Mail chose to report on that little scandal did they.....?

Exactly.... Look at where all the proceeds from North Sea Oil went... Quite a bit of it went to North American oil companies, and then a HELL of a lot went to pay for tax breaks for rich Tory voters in the South East... The actual SCOTTISH benefited not one JOT from North Sea oil or gas..... And NOT A SINGLE ONE of these buggers who wrote for The Scum or the Hate Mail chose to report on that little scandal did they.....?

I personally believe that the Scottish Government should control the North Sea Oil/Gas and get the cash from it. It is after all Scotlands Oil/Gas

What kind of foolish nation would take on the might of the British Empire! Don't be ridiculous Rob :P

 

in 1833?...:lol: they could have taken the islands easily.

 

Neither are we.

 

a thousand years of reletive cultural stabilty would suggest otherwise.

 

 

I say let Argentina have them. Nothing there anyway, just a few sheep and about a dozen islanders. :lol: Not worth another fleet going there and lives lost for a few big rocks in the sea. :rolleyes:

Edited March 2, 201015 yr by Victor Meldrew

a thousand years of reletive cultural stabilty would suggest otherwise.

 

"Relative cultural stability"??? What you mean apart from wars in Scotland and an invasion, massive civil unrest, attempted genocide (potato famine, deliberate starvation, turning about a million Irish into refugees, partitioning, etc) and terrorism in Ireland which has only really abated in the 1990s.....? Oh, and there is the small matter of Scotland maybe declaring independence in the next few years..... Frankly I'd say historically Britain has been about as culturally "stable" as the Indian sub-continent.....

 

 

"Relative cultural stability"??? What you mean apart from wars in Scotland and an invasion, massive civil unrest, attempted genocide (potato famine, deliberate starvation, turning about a million Irish into refugees, partitioning, etc) and terrorism in Ireland which has only really abated in the 1990s.....? Oh, and there is the small matter of Scotland maybe declaring independence in the next few years..... Frankly I'd say historically Britain has been about as culturally "stable" as the Indian sub-continent.....

 

perhaps you dont understand the term 'reletive' . as in there has been no invasions of foreign peoples (albeit when there was they were from the same gene pool) and our culture and society has grown. yes there has been troubles over the years, but that hasnt stopped us growing as a nation and id strongly argue that its the past conflicts that have made us stronger .... but you hate the english anyway <_<

 

as stable as the indian sub continent? well thats great seeing as they are recognised as a race! :lol:

 

you make it sound like britain was the only country to suffer internal upheavals... IT WASNT.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The predecessor nation to Argentina, the United Provinces of the River Plate, took the islands in 1820. The British then invaded in 1833...

Yeah, that'd go down well with the whole neo-colonial brigade wouldn't it? :P

 

I suggest (yet again) you check your facts,

 

In 1826 and 1828, Luis Vernet approached the British Consulate in Buenos Aires seeking permission to form a settlement on the Falkland Islands; Vernet had also been tasked by the Government of the United Provinces (Argentina) with the same task. After receiving consent, Vernet agreed to provide regular reports to the British and expressed the desire for British protection for his settlement should they decide to re-establish their presence in the islands.

 

In 1829, the United Provinces (Argentina) proclaimed Luis Vernet as Governor of the islands. British diplomatic protests at the appointment and declarations of sovereignty were ignored. The United Provinces also granted Vernet exclusive rights to seal hunting in the islands. This too was disputed by the British and American consulates but once again the diplomatic protests were ignored.

 

In 1831, Luis Vernet began to seize American fishing vessels hunting seals in Falklands waters, confiscating their catch and arresting their crews. Vernet returned to the mainland, bringing senior officers of the American vessels to stand trial for violating restrictions on seal hunting. On 28 December 1831, the American corvette USS Lexington destroyed the Puerto Luis settlement in response. The captain declared the islands to be free of government.

 

HMS Beagle arrived on 15 March 1833. Charles Darwin (yes THE naturalist) commented that:

After the possession of these miserable islands had been contested by France, Spain, and England, they were left uninhabited. The government of Buenos Aires then sold them to a private individual, but likewise used them, as old Spain had done before, for a penal settlement. England claimed her right and seized them back. The Englishman who was left in charge of the flag was consequently murdered. A British officer was next sent, unsupported by any power: and when we arrived, we found him in charge of a population, of which rather more than half were runaway rebels and murderers. (The Voyage of the Beagle.)

 

Lt. Henry Smith was installed as the first British resident in January 1834; he immediately set about establishing British authority, arresting the murderers. The United Kingdom has held the territory ever since, but for a two months period after the 1982 invasion, during the Falklands War.

 

So Argentina claims to the island is based on an illegal claim made in 1829 which lasted just 28 months which they used as a Penal colony!

 

Or rather long enough for the news to travel and then for the UK navy to send a ship to reclaim the island.

 

Some fukkin' right the Argies have. :rolleyes:

 

 

But on a serious note the sensible move from a trade & public relations point of view would be to go into a trade partnership with the elected Argentinian Government over this issue of potential oil fields.

I suggest (yet again) you check your facts,

 

In 1826 and 1828, Luis Vernet approached the British Consulate in Buenos Aires seeking permission to form a settlement on the Falkland Islands; Vernet had also been tasked by the Government of the United Provinces (Argentina) with the same task. After receiving consent, Vernet agreed to provide regular reports to the British and expressed the desire for British protection for his settlement should they decide to re-establish their presence in the islands.

 

In 1829, the United Provinces (Argentina) proclaimed Luis Vernet as Governor of the islands. British diplomatic protests at the appointment and declarations of sovereignty were ignored. The United Provinces also granted Vernet exclusive rights to seal hunting in the islands. This too was disputed by the British and American consulates but once again the diplomatic protests were ignored.

 

In 1831, Luis Vernet began to seize American fishing vessels hunting seals in Falklands waters, confiscating their catch and arresting their crews. Vernet returned to the mainland, bringing senior officers of the American vessels to stand trial for violating restrictions on seal hunting. On 28 December 1831, the American corvette USS Lexington destroyed the Puerto Luis settlement in response. The captain declared the islands to be free of government.

 

HMS Beagle arrived on 15 March 1833. Charles Darwin (yes THE naturalist) commented that:

After the possession of these miserable islands had been contested by France, Spain, and England, they were left uninhabited. The government of Buenos Aires then sold them to a private individual, but likewise used them, as old Spain had done before, for a penal settlement. England claimed her right and seized them back. The Englishman who was left in charge of the flag was consequently murdered. A British officer was next sent, unsupported by any power: and when we arrived, we found him in charge of a population, of which rather more than half were runaway rebels and murderers. (The Voyage of the Beagle.)

 

Lt. Henry Smith was installed as the first British resident in January 1834; he immediately set about establishing British authority, arresting the murderers. The United Kingdom has held the territory ever since, but for a two months period after the 1982 invasion, during the Falklands War.

 

So Argentina claims to the island is based on an illegal claim made in 1829 which lasted just 28 months which they used as a Penal colony!

 

Or rather long enough for the news to travel and then for the UK navy to send a ship to reclaim the island.

 

Some fukkin' right the Argies have. :rolleyes:

But on a serious note the sensible move from a trade & public relations point of view would be to go into a trade partnership with the elected Argentinian Government over this issue of potential oil fields.

The fact that he sought permission for a settlement from the British Consulate after having been tasked by the Argentinians would indicate more that he was giving them awareness, seeing as the British had temporarily occupied the islands before. Seeing as the Argentinians allowed this and appointed him governor, do you not think that indicates their ownership? (Regardless of what they did with it!)

 

Why is it necessarily an illegal claim just because we disputed it? :/ And for the record, the frigate Heroina, captained by Colonel David Jewett, claimed the Falklands for Argentina upon landing in 1820...

 

But yeah, what has us holding it really got to do with our rights there? :lol: You could equivalently say that (had we not given them independence) we have a right to Tasmania by virtue of the fact that we had held it since the 18th century...regardless of the fact that our occupation and ownership of the islands makes no geopolitical sense without colonial context.

 

That said, due to the fact it is now populated by us I don't think we ought to hand it over, however, it would be nothing short of ridiculous to make no deal whatsoever with the Argentinians over land that is rightfully theirs.

But yeah, what has us holding it really got to do with our rights there? :lol: You could equivalently say that (had we not given them independence) we have a right to Tasmania by virtue of the fact that we had held it since the 18th century...regardless of the fact that our occupation and ownership of the islands makes no geopolitical sense without colonial context.

You do know that Tassie is very close to Melbourne and the state of Victoria? and was connected to mainland Australia by land until the bass straight was flooded 10000 years ago?

 

Tasmania also has no independence, it's a State of Australia. Governed by Australian law, Kevin Rudd and was first inhabited by Australian Aboriginals.

 

It's a former colony which federated with the 5 other colonies to form the Commonwealth of Australia [As it is still known today]

 

Unlike the Falklands, Tasmania aligned itself with Australia, and thus we have no claim over it without renouncing the independence of Australia in the process