Falklands

Mo should post more in the CE forum. I like what I read.
 
skeeta said:
So is it your contention that Britain was acting out of altruism and moral fervor in the 20th century or would you argue it predates this period?
Click to expand...

Britain always did it to maintain a balance of power on its doorstep. It didn't like the idea of one single superpower sat there 26 miles off shore, so without ever having a large standing army, intervened against Louis XIV, Napoleon, Hitler, etc. Portugal has its independence now down to British support, so do many other European nations. Britain couldn't be arsed with buggering around on the continent for political or land or wealth gain, it got over that with Normandy, it also got over its own civil war very early, Europe was a place to trade with, not to bugger around with, the trouble is the Europeans couldn't behave themselves for a reasonable amount of time.
 
WeasteDevil said:
Ireland was never a colony, it was incorporated into the Union. Was it oppressive? Yes, but that's a different matter. Were English people oppressed, yes to that question also. All of the people on the British Isles were oppressed and abused by the ruling classes of the time.
Click to expand...

Your analysis is true after a certain point in time. There were other phases when Ireland was treated like a colony.
I don't think it's possible to call it either way. Ireland has been both colony and constituent country of the union at varying times.

If Northern Ireland had not been created, the whole island would have ended up a total bloodbath and would now have a human population similar to that of the Falkland Islands and half a million sheep.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. It's definitely a possibility, but I believe the unionists were at heart a pragmatic people and would have retained significant influence and power in a new state. The conditions for the potential bloodbath were partly created by parties in Britain (ie the Liberals and Tories) jumping on the Irish Question for political gain.
Without them sticking the oar in, a bloodbath was still possible but not inevitable.
Obviously religion was a major factor too.

I guess I just disagree on how likely a bloodbath would have been.

MikeUpNorth said:
Finally someone who is willing to admit that the Northern Ireland conflict is, at heart, a religious one.
Click to expand...

Only from one side's perspective though. There are two central issues to the northern conflict in my view, with different drivers for each side (religion for one, nationalism for the other) - and neither of those are particularly appealing!
 
peterstorey said:
It's not religious per se - it's cultural with religion a badge.
Click to expand...

I don't know. There was a significant element within the loyalist community for whom religion was the primary factor. Going back to the pre-independence days - Home Rule is Rome Rule, and all that.
Even in the 60s, sections of the loyalist community were outraged at Terence O'Neill's suggestions that catholics would live like protestants if they were treated like protestants.

Identity is a huge part too, obviously - I had always considered identity from a political standpoint, but I suppose you're right that cultural identity is as significant.
 
WeasteDevil said:
Errrm, many countries were fannying around with those Islands before Argentina existed.

Falklands.permanence.png


So what the hell are you talking about? Every time the British left it without any population, someone else came along and fannied around on it, only for the British to take it back due to its strategic importance of controlling shipping between the South Atlantic and South Pacific.
Click to expand...

argentina declared its independence and started being a sovereign country in 1816, thats over 20 years before england went to the islands and settled

i dont want to fight over the islands, if it was it for me i'd stuck them an engine and sent them to england for all i care
 
shaydun said:
I don't know. There was a significant element within the loyalist community for whom religion was the primary factor. Going back to the pre-independence days - Home Rule is Rome Rule, and all that.
Even in the 60s, sections of the loyalist community were outraged at Terence O'Neill's suggestions that catholics would live like protestants if they were treated like protestants.

Identity is a huge part too, obviously - I had always considered identity from a political standpoint, but I suppose you're right that cultural identity is as significant.
Click to expand...
I guess what I'm saying is that no-one's really getting upset about differences of liturgy - it's an animosity between a disadvantaged native population and an imported extension of a colonial presence.
 
marcosdeto said:
if that is going to be your input here, you better stay away
Click to expand...

This is not the first time a discussion on the Falklands has occurred on here, and I'm of the opinion that Britain did well to protect it's territory decisively. Other posters have made arguments supporting my belief, so I won't repeat them. I was genuinely wondering what Moses was talking about, his arguments are all over the place
 
adexkola said:
This is not the first time a discussion on the Falklands has occurred on here, and I'm of the opinion that Britain did well to protect it's territory decisively. Other posters have made arguments supporting my belief, so I won't repeat them. I was genuinely wondering what Moses was talking about, his arguments are all over the place
Click to expand...

Then the simple solution would be to address his points. Educate us Adex.
 
Very convenient that we repeatedly hear "falklands and Ireland are two different situations", at least it lets you avoid the hypocrisy of saying the population of only one of them should be allowed to decide their own fate (the ones who choose you of course).
 
PJ said:
Very convenient that we repeatedly hear "falklands and Ireland are two different situations", at least it lets you avoid the hypocrisy of saying the population of only one of them should be allowed to decide their own fate (the ones who choose you of course).
Click to expand...

Well there is a clear difference in that the population of the Falklands want to stay British pretty much without exception, whereas the population of Northern Ireland have split allegiances.

It's easy to keep the people of the Falklands happy. Not so much with Northern Ireland.
 
It's not even comparable on any level! One is part of the United Kingdom - they send MPs to the British Parliament, the other is simply a British protectorate.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
Well there is a clear difference in that the population of the Falklands want to stay British pretty much without exception, whereas the population of Northern Ireland have split allegiances.

It's easy to keep the people of the Falklands happy. Not so much with Northern Ireland.
Click to expand...

WeasteDevil said:
It's not even comparable on any level! One is part of the United Kingdom - they send MPs to the British Parliament, the other is simply a British protectorate.
Click to expand...

How about trying the Irish solution then? Draw a line so that the minority get their own country too?

Britain could continue to protect the Falklands, and Argentina can have the newly created Northern Falklands. Democracy in action:angel::smirk:
 
adexkola said:
What the feck is Moses rambling about?
Click to expand...

That was yesterday, even I don't care today.

It was about ethics I think, and not scattergun policy to suit one viewpoint as the panorama changed.

And that there was two sides to the same story, even if they arrived at the same finale.
 
shaydun said:
How about trying the Irish solution then? Draw a line so that the minority get their own country too?

Britain could continue to protect the Falklands, and Argentina can have the newly created Northern Falklands. Democracy in action:angel::smirk:
Click to expand...

What minority?
 
adexkola said:
What the feck is Moses rambling about?
Click to expand...

He feels and he is not alone in this, that Britain (England really) owes the world a shed load of money because it became rich by colonising loads of the world. He further thinks that those people have done really badly since that colonising and that is Britain's (England’s) fault as well.

He would prefer there to be some kind of theoretical time machine which could take us all back to just before Britain(England) got to be so powerful and calculate exactly how the world would have turned out for everyone. Then he can decide to the penny how much each person is owed by Britain (England) so that damages can be paid and the world set to right. He hasn't said who the money goes too yet.

If at that point it turned out that things would have been much worse or equally as bad if say the French, Spanish, Germans or A.N.Other nation had become as powerful as the British (English), it would complicate things for him.

He hasn't said yet whether Britain (England) has to take the blame for everything the colonists have done since they threw off the imperialist yoke. I am guessing it will be yes because that is the way his theory seems to be rolling.

Lastly, I don't think he is going to let anyone else play with his theoretical time machine after he has finished with it. :(
 
He may be referring to the fact Spain ceded the rock to Britain "in perpetuity"
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
He feels and he is not alone in this, that Britain (England really) owes the world a shed load of money because it became rich by colonising loads of the world. He further thinks that those people have done really badly since that colonising and that is Britain's (England’s) fault as well.

He would prefer there to be some kind of theoretical time machine which could take us all back to just before Britain(England) got to be so powerful and calculate exactly how the world would have turned out for everyone. Then he can decide to the penny how much each person is owed by Britain (England) so that damages can be paid and the world set to right. He hasn't said who the money goes too yet.

If at that point it turned out that things would have been much worse or equally as bad if say the French, Spanish, Germans or A.N.Other nation had become as powerful as the British (English), it would complicate things for him.

He hasn't said yet whether Britain (England) has to take the blame for everything the colonists have done since they threw off the imperialist yoke. I am guessing it will be yes because that is the way his theory seems to be rolling.

Lastly, I don't think he is going to let anyone else play with his theoretical time machine after he has finished with it. :(
Click to expand...


:lol:
 
PJ said:
He may be referring to the fact Spain ceded the rock to Britain "in perpetuity"
Click to expand...

Correct, the treaty of Utrect ceded control of Menorca (the Spanish took this back by force) and Gibraltar to Britain states that if Britain ever releases sovereignty to anyone, Spain has the right of reclaim.

Moreover the Catholic King doth in like manner for himself, his heirs and successors, yield to the crown of Great Britain the whole island of Minorca, and doth transfer thereunto for ever, all right, and the most absolute dominion over the said island, and in particular over the town, castle, harbour, and fortifications of the bay of Minorca, commonly called Port Mahon, together with the other ports, places, and towns situated in the aforesaid island. But it is provided, as in the above-written article, that no refuge or shelter shall be open to any ships of war of the Moors in Port Mahon, or in any other port of the said island of Minorca, whereby the Spanish coasts may be infested by their excursions: and the Moors and their ships shall only be allowed to enter the island aforesaid on account of traffic, according to the agreement of treaties. The Queen of Great Britain promises also on her part, that if at any time it shall happen that the island of Minorca, and the ports, towns, and places therein situated, be by any means hereafter alienated from the crown of her kingdoms, the preference shall be given to the crown of Spain, before any other nation whatever, of redeeming the possession and propriety of the aforesaid island. Her Royal Majesty of Great Britain moreover engages, that she will take care, that all the inhabitants of the said island, both ecclesiastical and secular, shall safely and peaceably enjoy all their estates and honors, and the free use of the Roman Catholic religion shall be permitted: and measures shall be taken for preserving the aforesaid religion in that island, provided the same be consistent with the civil government and laws of Great Britain. Those likewise who are now in the service of his Catholic Majesty, shall enjoy their honors and estates, though they continue in the said service , and it shall be lawful for any person, who is desirous to leave the said island, to sell his estate, and pass freely with the value thereof into Spain.
Click to expand...
The Catholic King does hereby, for himself, his heirs and successors, yield to the Crown of Great Britain the full and entire propriety of the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging; and he gives up the said propriety to be held and enjoyed absolutely with all manner of right for ever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever. But that abuses and frauds may be avoided by importing any kind of goods, the Catholic King wills, and takes it to be understood, that the above-named propriety be yielded to Great Britain without any territorial jurisdiction and without any open communication by land with the country round about. Yet whereas the communication by sea with the coast of Spain may not at all times be safe or open, and thereby it may happen that the garrison and other inhabitants of Gibraltar may be brought to great straits; and as it is the intention of the Catholic King, only that fraudulent importations of goods should, as is above said, be hindered by an inland communications. it is therefore provided that in such cases it may be lawful to purchase, for ready money, in the neighbouring territories of Spain, provisions and other things necessary for the use of the garrison, the inhabitants, and the ships which lie in the harbour. But if any goods be found imported by Gibraltar, either by way of barter for purchasing provisions, or under any other pretence, the same shall be confiscated, and complaint being made thereof, those persons who have acted contrary to the faith of this treaty, shall be severely punished. And Her Britannic Majesty, at the request of the Catholic King, does consent and agree, that no leave shall be given under any pretence whatsoever, either to Jews or Moors, to reside or have their dwellings in the said town of Gibraltar; and that no refuge or shelter shall be allowed to any Moorish ships of war in the harbour of the said town, whereby the communication between Spain and Ceuta may be obstructed, or the coasts of Spain be infested by the excursions of the Moors. But whereas treaties of friendship and a liberty and intercourse of commerce are between the British and certain territories situated on the coast of Africa, it is always to be understood, that the British subjects cannot refuse the Moors and their ships entry into the port of Gibraltar purely upon the account of merchandising. Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain does further promise, that the free exercise of their religion shall be indulged to the Roman Catholic inhabitants of the aforesaid town. And in case it shall hereafter seem meet to the Crown of Great Britain to grant , sell or by any means to alienate therefrom the propriety of the said town of Gibraltar, it is hereby agreed and concluded that the preference of having the sale shall always be given to the Crown of Spain before any others.
Click to expand...

So, the people on Gibraltar have a choice. They either stay a British dependency or they become part of the Kingdom of Spain.
 
A South American trading bloc has agreed to close its ports to ships flying the Falkland Islands flag.

Mercosur, which includes Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay, came to the decision at a summit in the Uruguayan capital, Montevideo.

But Uruguayan President Jose Mujica said British-flagged civilian ships that may supply the islands would still be allowed to use its ports.
Click to expand...

BBC News - South American states ban Falklands vessels from ports

More:
A South American trading bloc has agreed to close its ports to ships flying the Falkland Islands flag.

Mercosur, which includes Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay, came to the decision at a summit in the Uruguayan capital, Montevideo.

But Uruguayan President Jose Mujica said British-flagged civilian ships that may supply the islands would still be allowed to use its ports.

The Foreign Office said there was "no justification" for the action.

The Falklands flag is flown by 25 boats, mostly fishing vessels operated in joint ventures with Spanish companies.

The Mercosur decision is the latest in a series by Latin American regional bodies designed to show solidarity with Argentina which has long claimed sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, which it calls Las Malvinas.

Britain has held them since the 1830s and says their future is not negotiable. The two countries fought a brief but bloody war over the islands in 1982.

Their dispute has flared again recently. Last year, Argentina accused the UK of breaking international rules by allowing oil drilling under a seabed off the islands, located in a vast area of potentially mineral-rich South Atlantic waters.

'Very concerned'
Britain has also refused recent requests to re-open negotiations on the sovereignty of the Falklands.

Uruguay proposed the move to close ports to Falklands-flagged vessels. Mr Mujica said: "We hold nothing against the UK. But we have a lot in favour of Argentina."

He said solidarity among South America's neighbours was key to his country's foreign policy, adding: "For the moment, this means accepting that this territory is a colonial British position in our America."

However, the president of the Falklands Chamber of Commerce, Roger Spink, told the BBC that they were a small community, and felt increasingly under blockade.

"If we were Palestine, the European Union would be up in arms," he said.

The Foreign Office, who called on Uruguay's ambassador in London to explain the move last week, said it was discussing the developments "urgently with countries in the region".

A spokesman said: "We are very concerned by this latest Argentine attempt to isolate the Falkland Islands people and damage their livelihoods, for which there is no justification.

"It is not immediately clear what practical impact, if any, this statement will have, which mirrors the language already used by the Union of South American Nations in 2010.

"But no-one should doubt our determination to protect the Falkland Islanders' right to determine their own political future."

Oil exploration
The Foreign Office called on Uruguay's ambassador in London to explain the move last week.

The chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, Richard Ottaway, said the situation was "very unsatisfactory", with the ban seeming to be a breach of international law and tensions in the region escalating.

Tory MP Patrick Mercer called the ban "needlessly provocative".

Shadow foreign minister John Spellar said: "While this looks like a bit of a flag-waving gesture, Argentina should be in no doubt of the united determination of all parties in the United Kingdom to protect the Falkland Islanders' right to determine their own future."

But former Foreign Office minister Denis MacShane said the "hostile action" was aimed at London, not the Falklands, and blamed the coalition for weakening Britain's international standing.

The Labour MP said: "South American leaders know that Britain has fewer friends than ever before because of David Cameron's isolationist approach in Europe and the indifference to the Obama administration as most cabinet members are close to US neo-Cons.

"Brazil and other countries know that thanks to Liam Fox's defence cuts, the UK no longer has aircraft carrier capability so British maritime power projection has been fatally weakened by the government."

Argentina's President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, who took over the presidency of the trade bloc from Mr Mujica, thanked her fellow presidents for the show of support.

Delivering a speech to the summit, she said: "Malvinas is not an Argentine cause, it is a global cause, because in the Malvinas they are taking our oil and fishing resources.

"And when there is need for more resources, those who are strong are going to look for them wherever and however they can."

British companies are exploring for oil in the waters surrounding the islands, which are 400 nautical miles from the Argentine coast.
Click to expand...

BBC News - South American states ban Falklands vessels from ports

Obviously Argentine military action is extremely unlikely, if not an impossibility given how well defended the islands are, but it seems Argentina and their South American allies are becoming increasingly aggressive over Argentina's claim of sovereignty. Should this kind of action be tolerated? Just how important is South America to the Falkland Islands economy? In theory, this trading bloc could able cause a hell of a lot of trouble for the islands' inhabitants, as well as for the UK, without having to even lift a gun.
 
Well in all fairness no one knows where the nuclear subs are when they leave port. I would think one is in the south atlantic most of the time anyway.
 
This is all a bit ridiculous isn't it? I mean, surely the UK and Argentina can reach some kind of agreement over the islands?

Strange how the Falklands are more of an issue then the two invasions of Buenos Aires, despite the fact they were uninhabited when the UK claimed them. Ah well.
 
Frosty said:
This is all a bit ridiculous isn't it? I mean, surely the UK and Argentina can reach some kind of agreement over the islands?

Strange how the Falklands are more of an issue then the two invasions of Buenos Aires, despite the fact they were uninhabited when the UK claimed them. Ah well.
Click to expand...

The UK and Spain have been occasionally arguing over the Rock of Gibraltar off and on for over 400 years.

What kind of agreement can the UK/Argentina come to that will make either of them happy? Joint custody? The UK get them in the first 6 months of the year and Argentina gets them the second half? The people on the islands want to remain under British rule.

I suppose Argentina could try to invade again and lose again.
 
Sir Matt said:
The UK and Spain have been occasionally arguing over the Rock of Gibraltar off and on for over 400 years.

What kind of agreement can the UK/Argentina come to that will make either of them happy? Joint custody? The UK get them in the first 6 months of the year and Argentina gets them the second half? The people on the islands want to remain under British rule.

I suppose Argentina could try to invade again and lose again.
Click to expand...

Good question. Offer to bung the islanders a million quid each, man woman and child, easily affordable out of potential oil revenue, and see what the majority think then. Obviously some islanders must be worth a lot more than a million, but the majority?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.