Should we be talking to Argentina about the Falklands?

[clapham_gull]

So if someone invaded the Isle of Wight, Isle of Man, Shetland Islands etc we should just sit on by while it happens?
It is about citizenship, not distance, although of course the future resources are also important. If the people vote to be British how can we deny them their birth right?

Mmmm....

Not sure about that though - birth right ?

More an unfortunate complicated historical mess. On the subject of citizenship of the Falklanders remind me what Thatcher tried to get away with....

 

[melias shoes]

I advocate nothing of the sort... the question is 'should we talk' and the answer is 'yes'. Should we hand anything over is a completely different question and not one I would fully subscribe to. My entry was predicting the type of response our good friend Mr London Blue supplied us with... the difference between mine and his being that mine is ironic.

Talk? Why should we talk? They lost the right to talk 30 years ago when they invaded. Many British troops lost their lives and that is the reason why we should never talk to them. So that's a NO.

 

[somerset]

Falkland Islands ‏@falklands_utd
PRESS RELEASE: Falklands residents tell Argentina: "We have our OWN voice" PRESS RELEASE: Falklands residents tell Argentina: "WE have our OWN voice." Press: @tinyCOWcreative @CFKArgentina
The end of the press release gives a list of all the historical dates.

Good read that

 

[Dr Q]

No, F**k em.

 

[clapham_gull]

Talk? Why should we talk? They lost the right to talk 30 years ago when they invaded. Many British troops lost their lives and that is the reason why we should never talk to them. So that's a NO.

How do you lose the right to talk ?

 

[GT49er]

They call us colonials. Bit of a cheek when they themselves want to colonise the Falklands!

Perhaps we should support Spain in a bid to get Argentina back! Long term, I think we need to get the Falklanders to go to the UN themselves and demand independence - then we are no longer 'colonising' them, and they will be protected by UN charter (at which point, fcuk off Argentina - the UN won't sanction you colonising independent nation states).

 

[perseus]

Falklands are like the Isle of Wight. Full of Portsmouth supporters.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Good read that

A local perspective , not the viewpoint of a millionaire despot 8,000 miles away who will do anything to win a general election.

 

[User removed 4]

I think you've just made a very good case for why we should be talking to them then. Neither side comes out of this with any credit at the moment as both are just using empty rhetoric, and rather like in Ireland some compromises will have to be made.

Can you explain exactly why compromises wil HAVE to be made ?

 

[somerset]

They call us colonials. Bit of a cheek when they themselves want to colonise the Falklands!

Perhaps we should support Spain in a bid to get Argentina back! Long term, I think we need to get the Falklanders to go to the UN themselves and demand independence - then we are no longer 'colonising' them, and they will be protected by UN charter (at which point, fcuk off Argentina - the UN won't sanction you colonising independent nation states).

But that is the point, they don't want independence, they want to be British.... simples.

 

[Brovion]

Can you explain exactly why compromises wil HAVE to be made ?

Because you've got two parties who both sincerely believe they are right.

 

[mwrpoole]

I see The Sun are doing their bit:

BBC News - Falklands row: Sun places advert in Argentina newspaper

 

[Seagull58]

Well not according to the Argentinian version of events. They claim the islands were legally transferred from the Spanish and there were Argentinians there when the British arrived.

The islands had been completely uninhabited for more than 3 years when the Brits arrived. The Spanish had left.

 

[Seagull58]

We forcibly took the Island so frankly the wishes of the occupying foreign islanders shouldn't be in the equation. Give it back, rocky little shithole.

We didn't forcibly take it. There was nobody there to take it from. We settled an uninhabited island that was claimed by nobody.

 

[User removed 4]

Because you've got two parties who both sincerely believe they are right.

That doesnt answer the question at all, lets be frank here , we hold all the aces , we dont NEED to make any compromises at all.

 

[Brovion]

That doesnt answer the question at all, lets be frank here , we hold all the aces , we dont NEED to make any compromises at all.

I disagree, I don't think we hold all the aces. We currently have possession of the islands (re-established by force of arms), the inhabitants want to stay British and our historical claim is at least as valid as Argentina's. But this isn't 1982 any more and the sensible, 'realpolitic' position is to accept that we've got a very good bargaining position that we definitely shouldn't just give away. But on the other hand if Argentina, covertly or overtly backed by all their supporters, try it on again (and don't emulate Lord Carrington and say it couldn't happen), the outcome won't be the same. That would be the ultimate betrayal of those who died there last time.

 

[BigGully]

I disagree, I don't think we hold all the aces. We currently have possession of the islands (re-established by force of arms), the inhabitants want to stay British and our historical claim is at least as valid as Argentina's. But this isn't 1982 any more and the sensible, 'realpolitic' position is to accept that we've got a very good bargaining position that we definitely shouldn't just give away. But on the other hand if Argentina, covertly or overtly backed by all their supporters, try it on again (and don't emulate Lord Carrington and say it couldn't happen), the outcome won't be the same. That would be the ultimate betrayal of those who died there last time.

An odd analysis from you.

A strange turn of phrase too, that we 're-established by force of arms' as if we are only there due to us invading our own territory, hmmmmm,

Why would you wish to compromise on something that we legitimately already have, unless you infer that if we dont then the Argentinians would invade again.

Based on that alone I would not wish to enter talks with them, why would we.

Capitulation would be the ultimate betrayal.

 

[Curious Orange]

Argentina trying to claim sovereignty over the Falklands because they are close by would be a bit like France trying to claim Britain for the same reason.

There are people who live on the Falklands and their families have done so for generations, they are quite capable of deciding whom they wish to have sovereignty over them, if anyone at all, and so the opinions of the Argentine and British governments are totally irrelevant.

Edit: And the Sun can f*ck off out of it too!

 

[User removed 4]

I disagree, I don't think we hold all the aces. We currently have possession of the islands (re-established by force of arms), the inhabitants want to stay British and our historical claim is at least as valid as Argentina's. But this isn't 1982 any more and the sensible, 'realpolitic' position is to accept that we've got a very good bargaining position that we definitely shouldn't just give away. But on the other hand if Argentina, covertly or overtly backed by all their supporters, try it on again (and don't emulate Lord Carrington and say it couldn't happen), the outcome won't be the same. That would be the ultimate betrayal of those who died there last time.

You're absolutely correct, the nuclear hunter killer submarine permanently on patrol, the fighter aircraft based there, the modern airfield ensuring rapid reinforcement capability and infantry presence would ensure they wouldn't get anywhere near the islands this time, as I said , we hold all the aces.

 

[Doc Lynam]

I see The Sun are doing their bit:

BBC News - Falklands row: Sun places advert in Argentina newspaper

Vile paper.