I've always been bemused that the Argies don't play the trump card that would REALLY set the cat amoung the pigeons.
Offer to BUY the Falklands !!!
I think there are about 3000 islanders living there. So if the Argies offered them say £10,000,000 (ten million) each, see how many would take it or prefer to stay. The Argies could then offer say 10,000,000,000, (ten billion) to the UK to take all the islanders, with their ten million each in their pockets, and vacate the premises. Total outlay @40 billion, not that much in the big scheme of things.
We of course could then ask the newly rich islanders to buy UK farms, hence putting more money in our economy, save all the dosh of garrisoning the Falklands and walk away smiling.
The other side of the coin is that the UK Gov could say to the Argies, OK put your money where your mouth is and give us about £100,000,000,000 (one hundred billion) again giving the islanders £10,000,000 each, and we'll sell you the islands and resettle the islanders. There settled...............much easier than battling about it.
John
It seems a sensible idea John, but the Argentines do not have that kind of money. I think they defaulted on money that they owed the UK (or some other country) in the past
Dave_Notts
Argentina has a claim on Antartica and their land mass is closer than the Falklands.
So does the UK and 5 other nations have claims, but none can own it due to the international treaty on the place. So if people found resources, they wouldn't be able to extract it
Dave__Notts
I was annoyed at the BBC this week when on the weakest link the question was asked
Which was the last battle fought on British soil and the options given Graveney Marsh or Culloden, to me the answer is The Falklands War, even google gives this as an answer.
Bad bad Beeb you boobed on that one in my book.
And Graveney marsh was hardly a battle!
That simply is not true Alberto de Agostini National Park is a park located in the Chilean part of Tierra del Fuego and clearly below Argentina as is Isle Navarino
I said British soil not Britain as in occupied soley by British subjects not a commonwealth country with allegance to Britain, not a rented place as was Hong Kong.
and the Chilean Parque Nacional Cabo de Hornos is even further south than the above two places
Aren't they one of the seven who have a claim? Look at a map of South America. South of Argentina is the sea then Antartica, not Chile. The tip of South America is Argentine not Chilean
Dave_Notts
That statement the Chilean border at it's base is L shaped and goes below the Argentine border, and in my opinion a place that is ruled by the British, inhabited soley by the British and flies the British flag as it's National Flag is British Soil.
Cool if true but not true, it is not occupied soley by Falkland Islanders, firstly you have to ask yourself what is a Falkland Islander ? someone who lives there ? someone who was born there ? someone who works there ?
Apart from the many forces personnel living there at any given time there are many reaserchers who choose to live on the Islands, tourists who visit the islands to experience the wild life there (including the wildlife known as squaddies), people who use it as a base when working or visiting Antartica, workers that have spent a long period down there since the war making improvements to the islands including defence contracts and some who have chosen to move there since the war (including at least one friend of mine).
Where you say that Union Jack flies seems very relevant to me, it is not on some patriotic ex pats house, it is on the Government building, it is a union jack with a small falkland islands emblem, unlike the Commonwealth Countries who fly thier own flag which carries a small union jack on it.
The Governer of the Falkland Islands is appointed by the British Parliament unlike Commonwealth Countries like Australia who appoint thier own officials, the Police Officers is trained and commissioned by the British Home Office, the Falkland Islands is garrisoned by British Troops paid and supplied by Britain, the Falkland Islands defence force is under the direct control of the British Army. The population of the Falkland Islands cannot refuse entry to any British official or subject and yes they choose to call themselves British, they are Proud to call themselves British just as the Protestant population of Northern Ireland does despite not being indigenous to Ireland.
I haven't had the priviledge to visit the Islands for many years but the people I met there when I did consider themselves to be 100% British, were proud to be called British and wanted to be part of Britain not the Commonwealth or an overseas territory such as Hong Kong used to be or as the SBA in Cyprus are.
None I ever spoke to considered themselves anything but British in a part of Britain unlike many of the Channel Islanders much closer to home.
Britains fought in France but never considered France to be British Soil, they fought in theatres of war all over the world but always considered themselves to be in occupation and not owning the countries they fought in, those that fought in the Falklands Islands always believed they were fighting for British people on British soil.
At the end of the day there can be International laws and percieved points of ownership but in the Falkland Islands people believe they are British in Britain albeit a little further away than islands we have such as the channel islands, Isle of Man, Hebrides etc.
sorry but at the end of the day who gives a shit about an island 8000 miles away from the uk ffs?
were are not part of the admirals fleet anymore but in 2012 and the islands should belong now to argentina, end of. what possible claim should we have to those islands? anyone would think we were still in 1753 where britain rules the earth, we dont anymore.
Mids,
We always understood that the islands are a self-governing British Overseas Territory, with the United Kingdom only responsible for their defence and foreign affairs.
To date there are 14 such British Overseas Territories, as defined by British Overseas Territories Act 2002, replacing the classification of British Dependent Territory or before that the term Crown colony.
These 14 comprise Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antartic Territory *, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Monserratt, Pitcairn Islands, St. Helena, Ascension & Tristan da Cunha, South Georgia & South Sandwich Islands, Soverign base Areas of Akrotin & Dhekelia, and Turks & Caicos Islands.
* British Antarctic Territory is part of a mutual recognition agreement with 4 other sovereign nations and their Antarctic territories, as per UK participation in the Antarctic Treaty System.
Each overseas territory has its own legal system independent of the United Kingdom, though the UK may appoint a UK-based lawyer or judge to work on legal case, e.g. the Pitcairn trial of 2004.
By the way Jersey, Guernsey, and the Isle of Man are classified as the Crown Dependencies and whilst under the sovereignty of the British Crown but have a different constitutional relationship with the UK, whilst the Hebrides (given they are an archipelago off the west coast of Scotland) are classified as being part of the United Kingdom.
As for those living in the Falklands, we understand that they are British Overseas Territories citizen (BOTC), i.e. persons holding British nationality by virtue of a connection with a British Overseas Territory, rather than being British citizens, British Overseas citizens, British subjects, British Nationals (Overseas), or British protected persons.
In response to Star's question, what possible claim should we have to those islands?
As geological surveys had shown there might be up to 60 billion barrels (9.5 billion cubic metres) of oil under the seabed surrounding the islands and last September Rockhopper Exploration announced that plans were under way for oil production to commence in 2016, would you like to hazard guess ?
but moving on from that.
