Las Malvinas / The Falklands

[looney]

How long will this policy last? How long before the UK government revert to Thatcher's pre-1982 policy that supported ceding the Islands to Argentina and leasing them back for a limited period, say 70 years (the policy that led to the war in the first place)?

This is of course RUBBISH. The only agreement was the communications agreement which was about increasing trade links between the Falklands and argentina.

Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Northstander]

Is it about the Islanders or the oil fields surrounding the wind swept, desolate island that has penguins for company?

 

[maltaseagull]

...unless your name is Mauricio Taricco.

Why did we hand back Hong Kong, and keep a craggy rock in the South Atlantic. We didn't seem too bothered about the hong Kong Chinese?

Cos we knew we could beat the Argentinians

 

[Mutts Nuts]

Recognition for the greatest Prime Minister of the modern era.

This,Maggie is f***ing brilliant

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I'm feeling quite generous and benevolent today so Id give it back.

 

[Mutts Nuts]

No. It'll be déjà vu all over again.

As Thatcher found, it's the way to say to Argentina "Las Malvinas are all yours. Walk in whenever you want. We don't care". What happens next is that the UK is panicked into a war, without proper preparations being made, once the Falkland Islanders win over the hearts and minds of middle England which, inevitably, they would do.

What is your point

 

[Mutts Nuts]

I'm feeling quite generous and benevolent today so Id give it back.

Would you make that statement if you were one of the English people currently living there

 

[clapham_gull]

What is your point

I think the point is that successive Governments would rather be shot of the Falklands in the long run. They are quite to tell anyone who will listen that there are ours and should be protected, but behind the scenes the reality is quite different.

Hilarious Thatcher taking the salute after the war when a while before her ministers were trying to negotiate getting shot of the place. Ideally they wanted a lease back deal (like Hong Kong) with an eventual transfer to Argentina. Unfortunately, they couldn't come to an agreement with that country or the Falklanders themselves.

Argentina don't appear to have much of a claim over the place in my opinion either.

 

[Stoo82]

I'm feeling quite generous and benevolent today so Id give it back.

Give them back to who?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Would you make that statement if you were one of the English people currently living there

Chill. I'm just going with the NSC flow. A sizeable chunk of NSC wants to get rid of Scotland so I figure that by extension it would make even more sense to off load the Falklands. Wouldn't it?

 

[beorhthelm]

Chill. I'm just going with the NSC flow. A sizeable chunk of NSC wants to get rid of Scotland so I figure that by extension it would make even more sense to off load the Falklands. Wouldn't it?

thats a good piont. however one key difference is all the Falklands popultation wants to remain tied to UK, with no hint of pursuing independance. which would probably suit us best if they did (if Argies still make a fuss, becomes UNs problem)

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

thats a good piont. however one key difference is all the Falklands popultation wants to remain tied to UK, with no hint of pursuing independance. which would probably suit us best if they did (if Argies still make a fuss, becomes UNs problem)

Fair point, but is this any different to thousands of immigrants who also wish to be part of Britain?

Again, I'll go with the NSC flow and suggest that we get shot. If the chat wants to get rid of immigrants then by extension they should also get rid of a load of islanders on the other side of the planet.

 

[vegster]

Chill. I'm just going with the NSC flow. A sizeable chunk of NSC wants to get rid of Scotland so I figure that by extension it would make even more sense to off load the Falklands. Wouldn't it?

The Islanders are probably more proud to be British than the average poster on NSC, most Sweaties would appear to harbour some kind of grudge against us as they stagger about the home counties swearing in an unintelligible accent while swigging our Buckfast. I don't ever remember being stuck with a drunken Falkland Islander telling me what's wrong with the country.. thats why I want rid

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The Islanders are probably more proud to be British than the average poster on NSC

It's convenient for them, that's why.

 

[Chicken Runner61]

I doubt the argies or any other country really wants the islands except for the territorial waters around them.

We never wanted them until a desperate evil and mad dictator realised how much there was to gain by being able to hide away the political and economic problems ther country had and stir up patrotic jingoistic feelings to make your citizens do what you wanted. The people fell for it and the leaders got rich and led their country to the edge of financial meltdown.

I think the same thing happened to the argies too!

Joking aside

We didn't want the isles and Shell had tried drilling but the oil at that time was too difficult and expensive to get out. We had North sea oil so at that time the only reasons to keep the isles was propaganda. I don't think the Tories had the intelligence to think 30 years ahead and realise that then the oil would be worth extracting for the uk.

I suspect the idea was to make the most out of the war to save thatcher and strengthen the defences so we would have some bargaining power now when the oil is worth getting out. I can see Rockhopper Desire & The rest of the falkland oilies selling out to bigger companies over the next few years and that will result in the yanks getting involved and doing a deal with the Argies etc to extract all the resources. we might get some tax revenue but most of the money wil go straight into the foreign bank accounts of the people who tell our government what to do.

When that happens we won't want the isles then and the truth will be apparent to anyone with half a brain.

 

[beorhthelm]

... I can see Rockhopper Desire & The rest of the falkland oilies selling out to bigger companies over the next few years and that will result in the yanks getting involved and doing a deal with the Argies etc to extract all the resources.

i'm not sure wher this idea comes from that the US will back the Argies. we've recently given them political cover for two wars and backed them heavily on the ground - they owe us. one might also note that the news from Rockhopper etc is always duff, unless i miss the good stuff, it seems theres oil there but not much.

to add there is another (orginal?) purpose to the Falklands, as a remote naval stop over. you can control the whole south atlantic and the magellan straights from there, as we did in two world wars. i foresee independance for the island with a UK base remaining.

 

[Chicken Runner61]

i'm not sure wher this idea comes from that the US will back the Argies. we've recently given them political cover for two wars and backed them heavily on the ground - they owe us. one might also note that the news from Rockhopper etc is always duff, unless i miss the good stuff, it seems theres oil there but not much.

Desire might have been a let down but Rockhopper have done well with Sealion and rumours are someone (possibly all) of the oilies there are in negotiations to sell or do a deal. Cairn seem to be the obvious players as they have a lot of funds presently.

 

[Chicken Runner61]

Oh and the Yanks were torn before about supporting the argies or us and their oil dependance is not going to go away soon. Think aircraft carrier, Straits of Hormuz, think price of oil can't drop below $70, think world shortage by 2015, think $200 a barrel

 

[kjgood]

16 BHA it seems you need to read your history books again. We leased Hong Kong under a 99 year lease. The lease ended as leases do, and so we handed it back to the owner 'China'

The Falklands is a different issue, the inhabitants hold British Passports although they dont have full British Citizenship and Residency rights. As the Falklands are classed as a British Overseas Territory, the Islanders have a right to ask for protection from the British Government. Rightly so, Mrs Thatcher gave them this protection back in April 1982 and we should again afford the Islanders the same protection should they request it.

 

[Dandyman]

This is of course RUBBISH. The only agreement was the communications agreement which was about increasing trade links between the Falklands and argentina.

Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

UK held secret talks to cede sovereignty | UK news | The Guardian

Minister met junta envoy in Switzerland, official war history reveals


Richard Norton-Taylor and Rob Evans
The Guardian, Tuesday 28 June 2005 08.58 BST


Margaret Thatcher's government offered to hand over sovereignty of the Falkland islands at a clandestine meeting with a senior Argentinian official less than two years before the invasion of the British territory, it is revealed today.
Colleagues of the British minister involved set up a diversionary cover story to explain his absence, saying he was off to Switzerland to do a little painting with his wife.

The secret meeting is disclosed in the official history of the Falklands by Sir Lawrence Freedman, professor of war studies at King's College, University of London.

He reveals that in June 1980, the Foreign Office drew up a proposal, approved by the cabinet's defence committee, whereby Britain would hand Argentina titular sovereignty over the islands, which would then be leased back by Britain for 99 years.

The British and Argentinian flags would be flown side by side on public buildings on the islands. British administration would continue with a view to guaranteeing the islanders and their descendants "uninterrupted enjoyment of their way of life".

The driving force behind the plan was the Foreign Office minister Nicholas Ridley.

He proposed a secret meeting with his Argentinian opposite number, Comodoro Cavandoli, in Venice in September 1980. He would be accompanied by his wife, ostensibly on a private holiday.

However, Lord Carrington, the foreign secretary, was worried about the choice of venue. "Why Venice?" he asked. "It all looks very hole in the corner."

Eventually, a Swiss location was chosen - the Hotel du Lac, situated in the picturesque lakeside village of Coppet, about 10 miles from Geneva.

The government invented a cover story - that "Mr Ridley's visit to Geneva with his wife is private, for a short holiday break, and that he hopes to do a little watercolour painting".

Mr Ridley had already agreed the sale of Lynx helicopters and naval missiles to Argentina and he and Mr Cavandoli seemed to enjoy a mutually warm relationship. Their meetings in Switzerland appeared to go well - certainly, Mr Ridley thought so - and they met again in New York soon afterwards.

However, the plan was wrecked after Mr Ridley, whose mission was not helped by a rather offhand and patronising manner, made an ill-fated trip to the Falklands in November, where he tried to sell a deal to the islanders. Suspicion about the government's long-term intentions grew, fuelling opposition among both Conservative and Labour MPs to any such deal.

Sir Lawrence also reveals how the Thatcher government came under unrelenting pressure from Washington to agree a ceasefire after the Argentinian invasion and before the islands had been recaptured.

Lady Thatcher and President Ronald Reagan were engaged in heated exchanges as Washington's concern about its relations with South American countries led to strong pressure on Britain to come to a deal with the Argentinian junta.

Alexander Haig, the US secretary of state, proposed a ceasefire with an international peacekeeping force, including US troops. Lady Thatcher told Reagan in a telephone call at the end of May 1982 that Britain could not contemplate a ceasefire before Argentina withdrew from the Falklands.

According to Sir Lawrence, she asked Reagan: "How would the Americans react if Alaska were invaded and, as the invaders were being thrown out, there were calls for the Americans to withdraw?" She is said to have been "dismayed" by Reagan's attitude and wanted him to know just how "upset" she was.

Washington pointed out that the US had secretly supplied Britain's special forces with communications satellites and ammunition. But Lady Thatcher was adamant. "We have lost a lot of blood, and it's the best blood," she told Sir Nicholas Henderson, Britain's ambassador to the US, on an open line. "Do they not realise," she added, "that it is an issue of principle? We cannot surrender principles for expediency."

Meanwhile, France from the start proved to be Britain's staunchest ally.

But today's official history makes clear that Britain's claim to the Falklands is not as strong as has been made out. Sir Lawrence points out that Britain relied, not on prior discovery, but on a small settlement established in 1766 but abandoned in 1774. When Britain recognised Argentinian independence in 1825, it did so without any claim to the Falklands, which were then under an Argentinian governor living there.

Britain seized the islands by force in 1833.

· The Official History of the Falklands Campaign, Sir Lawrence Freedman, published by Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, volume 1 (£ 39.95), volume 2 (£49.95).