Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Should we be talking to Argentina about the Falklands?



goldstone

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
7,127
Absolutely in my opinion.

Why would we refuse to talk to them?

We cannot continue to bear the costs of maintaining our military presence on a bunch of rocks 8000 miles away in the South Atlantic, so we may as well start talking to the Argies and agreeing a workable solution.

The Argies are not cannibals. They are unlikely to put the Falkland Islanders in pots, boil them, and then eat them. What's the worst that could happen if some kind of joint sovereignity was agreed?

Jaw, jaw; not war, war.
 






User removed 4

New member
May 9, 2008
13,331
Haywards Heath
Absolutely in my opinion.

Why would we refuse to talk to them?

We cannot continue to bear the costs of maintaining our military presence on a bunch of rocks 8000 miles away in the South Atlantic, so we may as well start talking to the Argies and agreeing a workable solution.

The Argies are not cannibals. They are unlikely to put the Falkland Islanders in pots, boil them, and then eat them. What's the worst that could happen if some kind of joint sovereignity was agreed?

Jaw, jaw; not war, war.
In short, no.
 


chucky1973

New member
Nov 3, 2010
8,829
Crawley
it provides an excellent training destination for our troops, and more importantly the locals want it to stay as British.
 


Frutos

.
Helpful Moderator
NSC Patron
May 3, 2006
35,576
Northumberland
The islanders see themselves as British, and have consistently re-affirmed their wish to remain so.

So, basically, no.
 




Zebedee

Anyone seen Florence?
Jul 8, 2003
8,000
Hangleton
The views and feelings of the islanders should be paramount. Incidentally, the FIG meets most of the running costs of the military presence on the Islands so there is little if any cost to the poor UK tax payer. If savings need to be made, Child Benefit should be limited to the first two children and shouldn't be paid to any family or individual earning more that £40,000. The savings would be phenomenal. Means testing winter fuel payments would also be sensible.
 




Simster

"the man's an arse"
Jul 7, 2003
54,227
Surrey
Absolutely in my opinion.

Why would we refuse to talk to them?

We cannot continue to bear the costs of maintaining our military presence on a bunch of rocks 8000 miles away in the South Atlantic, so we may as well start talking to the Argies and agreeing a workable solution.

The Argies are not cannibals. They are unlikely to put the Falkland Islanders in pots, boil them, and then eat them. What's the worst that could happen if some kind of joint sovereignity was agreed?

Jaw, jaw; not war, war.
If they hadn't invaded in 1982, they'd already have the islands by now.

As it is, we can't let them have the islands all the while there are Falklands veterans still alive. Some of these people saw their friends burned alive all in the name of protecting the islands on behalf of our country. The subject should be dropped for another 30 years, IMO, at which point we should give consideration to handing Argentina some sort of say in the running of the islands.
 




GreersElbow

New member
Jan 5, 2012
4,870
A Northern Outpost
Government thousands away cannot speak for the Islanders themselves, and the Islanders have regularly expressed vocal opposition to talks with Argentina. The Argentinian government is in a dier state, they need a populist nationalist issue to create a smokescreen to their stumbling economy, there is no need for talks. The Islanders have spoken for themselves.
 


Seagull on the wing

New member
Sep 22, 2010
7,458
Hailsham
That has it's merits,we offered to talk with but not about sovereignty...it was the wish of the Falkland Island people.
The real reason the Argies are stirring the pot now is the discovery of massive fuel and mineral deposits around the islands.
 


Biscuit

Native Creative
Jul 8, 2003
22,220
Brighton
it provides an excellent training destination for our troops, and more importantly the locals want it to stay as British.

This, the oil and its strategic location.

I see their PM wants to talk to Cameron about it, but I'm not sure what there is to discuss? Their economy is f***ed and they're trying to avert attention.

Carry on as usual I say.
 




Goldstone Rapper

Rediffusion PlayerofYear
Jan 19, 2009
14,865
BN3 7DE
Don't you mean Las Malvinas? :jester:
 




Goldstone Rapper

Rediffusion PlayerofYear
Jan 19, 2009
14,865
BN3 7DE
If you play the final of a football tournament and you lose, you don't get half the trophy.

If you start the Falklands War, and you lose, you don't get joint sovereignty.
 








Waynflete

Well-known member
Nov 10, 2009
1,105
Negotiating isn't the same as just giving the islands up. We should definitely be talking about how to enable the islanders to stay British as they wish, while potentially negotiating over the oil etc.
 


Brovion

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 6, 2003
19,383
I think they (the Argies) should tone it down a bit, but yes we probably should talk to them. And that is nothing to do with their 'right' to the Falklands as they don't have one, it just makes economic and political sense. And military too as there's no way we could mount an operation similar to the last one to recapture the islands, and given the distance and logistical problems we couldn't hold them indefinitely either.

One could argue that perhaps a bit of old-fashioned imperial politics is what's needed; in the 'old days' it was quite common for governments to horse-trade territory after a war. Some sort of joint sovereignty and joint mineral rights deal may be the way forward.
 




Goldstone Rapper

Rediffusion PlayerofYear
Jan 19, 2009
14,865
BN3 7DE
I can imagine us trying to sign Leonardo Ulloa and then him making himself unpopular by demanding the Falklands.
 


Lethargic

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2006
3,465
Horsham
This, the oil and its strategic location.

I see their PM wants to talk to Cameron about it, but I'm not sure what there is to discuss? Their economy is f***ed and they're trying to avert attention.

Carry on as usual I say.

This, the strategic location is huge, landrights in Antartica are greatly influenced by the amount of land and location that countries have and with the Falklands and South Georgia we get a lovely big slice of the Antartic cake lose the Falklands/South Georgia and we ger bugger all.
Neither government is that bothered about the locals its the boost to the economy when exploitation of Anatartica starts that matters.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here