Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login

The Falklands have been reinvaded!

Quote by Dave__Notts
The starnge thing in this thread, and others about the Falklands, is that we keep saying they were British and thats why we went to war.
An interesting bit of trivia is that the British Gov refused to allow the population British citizenship prior to 1982. Then after the war a piece of legislation came in so they could become citizens from 1983 onwards. Bolt the door after the horse has bolted springs to mind here.
Another bit of trivia is that Argentina has to make claims to the islands. If they stop, then under international law then the islands automatically belong to the other nation.
Dave_Notts

Yea but did they need citizenship anyway ? I mean we let anyone in here with or without it ..... giggles
As part owner of the Falkland Islands I will certainly fight to keep them British lol
Quote by GnV
It does smack of agitation as you are resorting to slagging people off in order to carry your point.

something we can never accuse you of on here eh GNV? rolleyes but moving on from that.
forget about asia or japan or whatever else it may be on a world map. my point was the french were the FIRST settlers on the falklands, then the spanish. how then the british managed to get hold of it 8000 miles away from where britain is, baffles me.
the british in 2012 hold no rights over a land that is the other side of the world, probably taken by force many moons ago. argentina should have the sovereignty over the falklands i believe.
how does that sound GNV? :bounce:
this link is confusing to say the least but the early colonisation chapter is interesting. the trouble is this goes back hundreds of years, culminating in todays time when peeple on the island say they are british?? sorry i think we have no rightful claim to those islands.
Quote by starlightcouple

It does smack of agitation as you are resorting to slagging people off in order to carry your point.

something we can never accuse you of on here eh GNV? rolleyes but moving on from that.
forget about asia or japan or whatever else it may be on a world map. my point was the french were the FIRST settlers on the falklands, then the spanish. how then the british managed to get hold of it 8000 miles away from where britain is, baffles me.
the british in 2012 hold no rights over a land that is the other side of the world, probably taken by force many moons ago. argentina should have the sovereignty over the falklands i believe.
how does that sound GNV? :bounce:
this link is confusing to say the least but the early colonisation chapter is interesting. the trouble is this goes back hundreds of years, culminating in todays time when peeple on the island say they are british?? sorry i think we have no rightful claim to those islands.

So do we give up on all our Commonwealth Countries and Islands, give the Channel Islands to the French who claim them, Gibralter to Spain that claims it, Malta to Scicily or Spain, the Orkney Islands to Norway along with the North Sea Oilfields, do we go to war with any other Country to make them give back disputed territories, declare war on America unless they give over rule to the Native Indians, where do we draw the line ?
Who will actually decide and do we give the Falkland Islands to Argentina or to Chile who also claim them (but quietly).
Will the British Government buy back the land I own in the Falklands that I purchased ?
Will you also search for the International law regarding ownership and sovereignty especially that pertaining to the rules about actually inhabiting land to retain the right of ownership ?
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
Quote by Dave__Notts
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

Could they not borrow it off the rest of the South American Countries who they are trying to get on board to say Falklands should be Argie ? Or borrow it against the potential oil in the surrounding waters ?
John
Quote by Geordiecpl2001
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

Not a bad idea, might work, if the Islanders were the only owners of the Falkland Islands, but they aren't, they sold a lot of the Islands in 1982, there are at least another 3000+ owners, me being one of them. I bought 1 square metre, many of the guys that were there bought plots as did many people in the UK, the idea being that we could make it difficult for any subsequent government to relinquish Britains rights to the land, there could even be 15-20,000 legitimate owners of plots of land. The idea came from the Swiss where people own very small plots of land in strategic places, when I worked there my employer had to pay a revenue to a farmer in order to cross the farmers land to get cars into the Hotel garage, the plot of land was a triangle measuring less than a metre in total area.
Quote by MidsCouple24
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

Not a bad idea, might work, if the Islanders were the only owners of the Falkland Islands, but they aren't, they sold a lot of the Islands in 1982, there are at least another 3000+ owners, me being one of them. I bought 1 square metre, many of the guys that were there bought plots as did many people in the UK, the idea being that we could make it difficult for any subsequent government to relinquish Britains rights to the land, there could even be 15-20,000 legitimate owners of plots of land. The idea came from the Swiss where people own very small plots of land in strategic places, when I worked there my employer had to pay a revenue to a farmer in order to cross the farmers land to get cars into the Hotel garage, the plot of land was a triangle measuring less than a metre in total area.
Compulsory purchase orders. Simples
The FIG can pass any legislation to benefit the inhabitants and those off-shore holders won't have a leg to stand on.
Would they though? Not in this climate but given a generation or two, or when the UK government want them to contribute to their own defence then they may look towards the economic area they live in for commercial interest. A bit like Australia and New Zealand, they now look to tie themselves in to the Tiger economy rather than the UK.
Dave_Notts
Quote by Dave__Notts
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

Not a bad idea, might work, if the Islanders were the only owners of the Falkland Islands, but they aren't, they sold a lot of the Islands in 1982, there are at least another 3000+ owners, me being one of them. I bought 1 square metre, many of the guys that were there bought plots as did many people in the UK, the idea being that we could make it difficult for any subsequent government to relinquish Britains rights to the land, there could even be 15-20,000 legitimate owners of plots of land. The idea came from the Swiss where people own very small plots of land in strategic places, when I worked there my employer had to pay a revenue to a farmer in order to cross the farmers land to get cars into the Hotel garage, the plot of land was a triangle measuring less than a metre in total area.
Compulsory purchase orders. Simples
The FIG can pass any legislation to benefit the inhabitants and those off-shore holders won't have a leg to stand on.
Would they though? Not in this climate but given a generation or two, or when the UK government want them to contribute to their own defence then they may look towards the economic area they live in for commercial interest. A bit like Australia and New Zealand, they now look to tie themselves in to the Tiger economy rather than the UK.
Dave_Notts
One reason why Argentina might like the idea but the reason the United Kingdom might not like the idea is Antartica, many believe that there are huge untapped resources beneath the ice and in the surrounding area, at the moment tests are being conducted by many countries but the general concensus of opinion is that with current technology it would be too expensive to recover those resources, but it is hoped that future developments will make those resources accessible, having a base of operations so close to Antartica in the Falkland Islands would give any nation a huge advantage in that recovery. South Georgia and the Falklands would make a great asset to any move the UK make to get access to those resoures.
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
Quote by Dave__Notts
Argentina has a claim on Antartica and their land mass is closer than the Falklands.
Dave__Notts

How much closer ? 10 miles, 20 perhaps and even that is debaeable since King George Islands (part of Antartica is closer to the Falklands than it is to Argentina) but the actual Antartic land mass is about as close to the Falkland Islands as it is to Argentina, as the ship sails the Falkland Islands are closer to the Antartic land Mass and whilst the Falkland Islands has very good port facilities which have served our Navy for decades the nearest port in Argentina (Rio Gallegos) is very under-developed as a Sea Port.
Chile is the closest land mass to the Antartic land mass and you should bear in mind that it is chile who own the territory to the south of Argentina.
The nearest Chilean Port to Antaritica is probably 3-400 miles South of both Argentina and the Falkland Islands and the Chilean land mass extends about another 100 miles south of that port making Chile the closest land mass by around 500 miles over Argentina and the Falklands, it is even possible that New Zealand is closer to Antartica than Argentina is so where you get that statment above from baffles me.
Chile also claims ownership of the Falkland Islands but stated a long time ago that they have no interest in the islands as they are occupied by Britain and they have no desire to occupy them, Chile is as close to the Islands as Argentina is, so how does that affect peoples opinion of "the nearest owns them"
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!
Quote by MidsCouple24
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.

Great Britain is England, Wales and Scotland. Unless the Falklands have slid into the northern hemisphere in the past 24 hours then the Beeb is right.
Googled last battle and the top two were Culloden and Graveney Marsh. Half way down the page was the first mention of the Falklands and that had a caveat that "if you class the Falklands as British soil"..........but they are not British soil, they are UK dependants
Quote by MidsCouple24
Chile is the closest land mass to the Antartic land mass and you should bear in mind that it is chile who own the territory to the south of Argentina.

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
Quote by MidsCouple24
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.

Google doesn't give the Falklands War as the answer. Type "last battle fought on british soil" into Google nad it gives the answer as Battle of Culloden.
The Falklands are a British Overseas Territory.
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
Quote by MidsCouple24
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.

Which of my statements is simply not true?
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.
Quote by MidsCouple24
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.

Except it's governed by Falkland Islanders, inhabited by Falkland Islanders and the only place on the Falklands that flies the Union Flag is the governers residence as the Falkland Islands has it's own flag. It's not British soil as they are a United Kingdom Overseas Territory by choice, which means the Falkland Islanders can tell the British to sod off at anytime they wish.
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.
Quote by starlightcouple
sorry but at the end of the day who gives a shit about an island 8000 miles away from the uk ffs?

You feel the same way about Northern Ireland?
Hardly 8000 miles away, but the same princple applies surely dunno
Quote by starlightcouple
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.

Perhaps those that lost loved ones there, those that watched friends maimed and injured, those that put thier lives on the line all those years ago and those that were assisted by the islanders during World War II, maybe even the tourists and nature lovers that visit the islands now.
You don't give a toss, that's your perogative but some do care and it is not your perogative to dictate wether people should care or not, it is not your perogative to decide if it should be debated in a forum or not, if you are not interested in the islands then ignore this thread, obviously to comment on it you have an opinion on the subject, have the decency to respect other peoples opinions even if they don't match yours lol
AT THE END OF THE DAY - and at the going down of the sun and in the morning, some of us care.

What is the basis of your claim that the islands should belong to Argentina, the islands are closer to Chile than they are to Argentina so it cannot be on the grounds of proximaty, no Argentines have chosen to live there for decades, they were never the indiginous population.
They have no better claim to the Islands over Britain than the Australians can claim Australia over the Aboriginies.
Quote by Rogue_trader
The ad was in poor taste.
It was needlessly provocative at least and downright offensive to some.
Politics and sport should never meet. Go and watch some of the films on you tube regarding the 1936 summer games in Berlin to see why politics and sport should never come together.
I hope the Argentine team are not made the butt of any retaliation as it is not them who has fuelled this debacle.

:thumbup: + 1
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 ?
Quote by MidsCouple24
What is the basis of your claim that the islands should belong to Argentina, the islands are closer to Chile than they are to Argentina so it cannot be on the grounds of proximaty, .

Are you sure of that fact? Tierra Del Fuego is split between Argentina and Chile, with the south east tip belonging to Argentina. There is also an Island belonging to Argentina further off the east coast of Tierra Del Fuego.
Quote by GnV
sorry but at the end of the day who gives a shit about an island 8000 miles away from the uk ffs?

You feel the same way about Northern Ireland?
Hardly 8000 miles away, but the same princple applies surely dunno
without a doubt GNV, but hardly the same really.
NI was taken by the british government, whereas the falklands was hardly taken in the same way.
Quote by i
sorry but at the end of the day who gives a shit about an island 8000 miles away from the uk ffs?

Quote by MidsCouple24
Perhaps those that lost loved ones there, those that watched friends maimed and injured, those that put thier lives on the line all those years ago and those that were assisted by the islanders during World War II, maybe even the tourists and nature lovers that visit the islands now.

surely then the same could be said for any place that british soldiers fought and died then? and some of them places are a damn sight closer than the falklands are!
Quote by MidsCouple24
You don't give a toss, that's your perogative but some do care and it is not your perogative to dictate wether people should care or not, it is not your perogative to decide if it should be debated in a forum or not, if you are not interested in the islands then ignore this thread, obviously to comment on it you have an opinion on the subject, have the decency to respect other peoples opinions even if they don't match yours lol

hold on to your hat and sit back down, you will give yourself a hernia with all that jumping up and down. :bounce:
i gave MY opion on the matter as you have yours. i think this country has no rightful claim to those islands. i think the loss of life protecting them was a great sadness and those soldiers that lost there lives did so as that is the job THEY chose to do. the blame lies at the foot of thatchers government for sending british soldiers to an outpost of so called british ownership, where they met there deaths.
Quote by MidsCouple24
AT THE END OF THE DAY - and at the going down of the sun and in the morning, some of us care.

bravo. you doing a party political broadcast on behalf of the Falklands or summat dunno
Quote by MidsCouple24
What is the basis of your claim that the islands should belong to Argentina, the islands are closer to Chile than they are to Argentina so it cannot be on the grounds of proximaty, no Argentines have chosen to live there for decades, they were never the indiginous population.

At various times there have been French, British, Spanish, and Argentine you actually aware of the argentinian connection mids at all?
Quote by MidsCouple24
They have no better claim to the Islands over Britain than the Australians can claim Australia over the Aboriginies.

i think you actually beleeve that. innocent
Quote by HnS
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 ?

tut tut and tut again HNS, how cynical of you. rolleyes
as a question, when thatcher sent our troops to the falklands in 1982 to protect the islands, was she or any other minister aware of the oil that lay beneath the ocean at the time? i thought the discovery of the minerals that are there was a more recent discovery. Is that correct HNS?