Awol

Thanks to Blandy, I hadn't seen that before. If they have now struck a deal for London to take 50% of the revenue then that's great news, why wouldn't we want the money?! That depends what you call "a lot of money". In terms of Government spending then 75 million per annum is a pittance so my asnweer is 'no'. As said about 5 times already now, oil or not, any UK Gov is politically hostage to the situation down south. They literally couldn't now (or at any point in the last 30 years for that matter) turn round and say, "sorry, but you Bennies are on your own". The better question in light of Blandy's article is why the Gov aren't investing directly in the exploration and getting into where the real money will be instead of just going Dutch on the tax receipts. Well you posted this: In that article was Jenkin's proposition that the Islanders didn't really matter. As you said the article was "pretty much valid" I was asking whether you supported his view? Not sure why you're getting upset about that, I was just asking you a question. Er, I think it's you with Thatcher obsession actually fella. Given the rhetoric coming out BA then yes, I think the negligible discretionary defence spending is rather important as a deterrent if nothing else. Question, do you think the UK apparently now being set to benefit to the tune of billions is a bad thing? Could we not do with the extra? Do you think that money will be siphoned off to Tory supporters? If so, how is that going to work? There seems to be a level of paranoia about Conservatives in your post that is maybe a little over done, don't you think?

Is the presence of oil a disinsentive? No. If there was no oil would UK PLC still be footing the bill for Falklands defence? Yes, for the reasons given in the previous post. I repeat, any potential tax revenues will go to the Falklands Government not to the UK, so oil is frankly irrelevant to the issue. Suffice to say I disagree. Disregarding your verbatim quoting from the "Falklands Tourist Board" or whatever that was, the reality is that investment such as we have seen previously and continue to see from the UK Gvmt is still pretty much based on potential Oil revenues. UK PLC isn't putting a penny into oil in the Falklands or anything to do with the oil industry down there. £0.00, nada, nothing, zilch. You can disagree all you like but that is just a fact. All the investment on the oil side is coming from the private sector. The only money the UK Goverment spends down the is on defence. That's it. I read the Guardian (among other papers) and have done for years, but cheers for telling me what I think. The history timeline was just to show Jenkins was spouting his usual shite. I didn't realise I was expected to rebut an entire article just because you happened to post a link to it - and then ignored my response anyway. For the reasons already stated, after the war no government that wishes to survive politically has an option other than to maintain the defence posture down there. However the cost is, as illustrated, a pittance in the grand scheme of things. For further perspective UK PLC is currently spending £2 billion a day. Show me some evidence to the contrary, then. The tax revenues will belong to the Falklands Government, not the UK Gov. It's that simple. I believe that they are aiming to set up a sovereign wealth fund for the revenues (like Norway, Qatar et al) which will then be used to develop the Islands further. Maybe in time UK firms might get a piece of that for contracts down there, but it's not going directly to the exchequer. To the question I asked you (which you haven't answered), do you hold Jenkin's view that the Islanders have no right to self determination?

Is the presence of oil a disinsentive? No. If there was no oil would UK PLC still be footing the bill for Falklands defence? Yes, for the reasons given in the previous post. I repeat, any potential tax revenues will go to the Falklands Government not to the UK, so oil is frankly irrelevant to the issue.

Really? When and by whom? No, it's really not. The evidence from the time has made it quite clear that Thatcher made the decision to go ahead with the liberation almost immediately following the invasion and there is no indication at all that potential future oil revenues were even a factor in that decision - if you have evidence to support your argument then please, post a link or two. There is however evidence to support the opposite view, like the fact that the FCO was slowly getting ready to come to an accomodation with Argentina over Falklands sovereignty. That in itself completely destroys the credibility of what you saying and it was, in short, seen at the time as an issue of national prestige for the UK. Supporting the military presence in the Falklands costs about 75 million per year. To put that number in perspective it is the equivalent of 36 hours worth of the UK's annual contributions to the EU, not exactly a King's ransom and only necessary as a guarantor against further Argentine aggression. If and when exploration turns to production then those revenues will cover the only net cost to UK of the Islands, i.e. their defence. Also worth noting that tax from the oil revenues will go to the Falklands Government, not to the Treasury in London. Again the evidence points to the complete opposite of the theory you hold that we only went south in 82 for the oil - yet ironically you still can't accept the true motivation behind the one war we had that so obviously was about oil!! Simon Jenkins spouting his usual ill informed parp.. He says that the Falklands is like Hong Kong so we'll have to give it back. Well Hong Kong was on a 99 year lease from China and therefore nothing like the same thing. The Falklands are also 250 miles offshore from South America and beyond the EEZ waters of Argentina - the internationally recognised 200 naultical mile limit when it comes to claiming anything. They can no more claim sovereignty on the basis of proximity than the Falklands can claim ownership of Argentina. He then goes on to say that Argentina inherited the claim from Spain before the nasty brits came and kicked them out. Again, complete arse I'm afraid. For what it's worth the actual timeline goes like this: 1592 First recorded sighting on August 14, by English sea captain John Davis in the ship ‘Desire’. 1690 First recorded landing made by English navigator, Captain John Strong in his ship the ‘Welfare’. He named the channel dividing the two main islands ‘Falkland Sound’ after Viscount Falkland, then Treasurer of the Royal Navy. Over the years several French ships visited the Islands, which they called Les Iles Malouines after the French port of St. Malo. 1740 Lord Anson passed the Islands on an exploration voyage and urged Britain to consider them as a preliminary step to establishing a base near Cape Horn. 1764 The French diplomat and explorer, Louis Antoine de Bougainville, established a settlement at Port Louis on East Falkland. 1765 Unaware of the French settlement, Commodore John Byron landed at Port Egmont on West Falkland and took possession of the Islands for the British Crown. 1766 Captain John MacBride established a British settlement at Port Egmont. The Spanish Government protested about the French settlement and Bougainville was forced to surrender his interests in the Islands in return for an agreed sum of money. A Spanish Governor was appointed and Port Louis was renamed Puerto de la Soledad, and placed under the jurisdiction of the Captain-General of Buenos Aires; then a Spanish colony. 1770 British forced from Port Egmont by the Spanish. 1771 Serious diplomatic negotiations involving Britain, Spain and France produce the Exchange of Declarations, whereby Port Egmont was restored to Britain. 1774 Britain withdrew from Port Egmont on economic grounds as part of a redeployment of forces due to the approaching American War of Independence, leaving behind a plaque as the mark of continuing British sovereignty. 1811 The Spanish garrison withdrew from Puerto de la Soledad. At this time, South American colonies were in a state of revolt against Spain. 1816 The provinces which constituted the old Spanish vice-royalty declared independence from Spain as the United Provinces of the River Plate. 1820 A Buenos Aires privateer claimed the Falkland Islands in what was probably an unauthorised act – which was never reported to the Buenos Aires government. No occupation followed this. 1823 A private attempt was made to establish a settlement on the Islands, but this failed after a few months. The organisers requested the Buenos Aires government to appoint one of their employees the unpaid ‘Commander’ of the settlement. 1825 Britain and the Government of Buenos Aires signed a Treaty of Amity, Trade and Navigation. No reference was made to the Falkland Islands. 1826 Louis Vernet, a naturalised citizen of Buenos Aires (originally French with German connections), undertook a private venture and established a new settlement at Puerto de la Soledad. 1829 Buenos Aires appointed Vernet unpaid Commander of his concession in the Falkland Islands and Tierra del Fuego, on the grounds that they claimed all rights in the region previously exercised by Spain. Britain registered a formal protest, asserting her own sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. Vernet made the first of several approaches to Britain then to re-assert its sovereignty over the Islands. Earlier he had got the British Consul in Buenos Aires to countersign his land grants. 1831 Vernet seized three American sealing ships, in an attempt to control fishing in Falkland waters. In retaliation, the US sloop ‘Lexington’ destroyed Puerto de la Soledad, and proclaimed the Islands ‘free of all government’. Most of the settlers were persuaded to leave on board the ‘Lexington’. 1832 Diplomatic relations between the US and Argentina broke down until 1844. Supporting Britain, the US questioned the claim that all Spanish possessions had been transferred to the Government of Buenos Aires and confirmed its use of the Falklands as a fishing base for over 50 years. The US declared that Spain had exercised no sovereignty over several coasts to which Buenos Aires claimed to be heir, including Patagonia. Buenos Aires appointed an interim Commander to the Islands, Commander Mestivier, who arrived (with a tiny garrison and some convicts) about a month before Britain re-asserted its claim at Port Egmont. 1833 Commander Mestivier had been murdered by his own men by the time Captain Onslow sailed from Port Egmont in the warship ‘Clio’ and took over Port Louis, claiming the Islands for Britain. Buenos Aires protested, only to be told: “The British Government upon this occasion has only exercised its full and undoubted right … The British Government at one time thought it inexpedient to maintain any Garrison in those Islands: It has now altered its views, and has deemed it proper to establish a Post there.” Since this time, British administration has remained unbroken apart from a ten week Argentine occupation in 1982. 1845 Stanley officially became the capital of the Islands when Governor Moody moved the administration from Port Louis. The capital was so named after the Colonial Secretary of the day, Edward Geoffrey Smith Stanley, 14th Earl of Derby. 1965 United Nations Assembly passed Resolution 2065, following lobbying by Argentina. This reminded members of the organisation’s pledge to end all forms of colonialism. Argentine and British Governments were called upon to negotiate a peaceful solution to the sovereignty dispute, bringing the issue to international attention formally for the first time. 1966 Through diplomatic channels, Britain and Argentina began discussions in response to UN Assembly pressure. 1967 The Falkland Islands Emergency Committee was set up by influential supporters in the UK to lobby the British Government against any weakening on the sovereignty issue. In April, the Foreign Secretary assured the House of Commons that the Islanders’ interests were paramount in any discussions with Argentina. 1971 Communications Agreement was signed by the British and Argentine governments whereby external communications would be provided to the Falkland Islands by Argentina. 1982 On 2 April Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands and diplomatic relations between the two nations were broken off. Argentine troops occupied the Islands for ten weeks before being defeated by the British. The Argentines surrendered on 14 June, now known as Liberation Day. Putting aside the historical basis for this squabble the single most important factor is the right of self determination today for the Islanders. They've made their choice very clear and as such the UK Government will rightly continue to support them. After the blood that was spilled in '82 and the now iconic significance of the Falklands in the UK, even if a government (or more likely the FCO) decided it wanted to abandon the Islanders they couldn't, because to do so would be political suicide. Maybe you share the view of Jenkins and Kirchner that the Islanders (your fellow British citizens) have no rights?

Yep, all except that little bit of Britain down south. Oh, and the French bit. And Canada I suppose. Incidentally a number of Amercian mercenaries fighting for Argentina were captured by the Paras (one was a sniper who it is thought accounted for a number of our fatalities in one battle) but they were quitely executed in the field.

No, sensible stuff really. If the people executed every leader who said "let's go war" then pretty soon they'd all stop doing it.

If that was in reference to the Falklands then I'm not really sure how the "we were here first" argument is untenable? Argentina has no valid claim, the Islanders do, by virtue of the fact they've lived there for 9 generations. I can't figure out how it now being the early 21st century is relevant to the issue?

It's only NATO membership and the "special relationship" that caused the US to look the other way 30 years ago; absent those, the US would have considered the attempt to retake the Falklands an act of war against this country. The UK first claimed the Falklands in 1765 (and first landed there in 1690)and the Monroe Doctrine was adopted in 1823. Given your quote that "With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere." then actually events in 1982 were none of the USA's business at all.

SOMO (the state run organisation that sells Iraqi light crude) offers two prices, one to US refineries and another to the rest of the world. I will let you guess which of two has a very substantial discount. That situation may not have been signed into Iraqi law but it is the defacto reality on the ground - I've had dealings with SOMO very recently.

For the sheer stunningness of their stewardesses Kingfisher in India was incredible. Sadly I think they went bust.

Can't disagree with that. If you'd be kind enough to PM me your bank account details and sort code I'll do you the service of removing and spending any wealth therein. It's not like you actually own it anyway. After that please send your address then leave your front door open tonight and I'll see who wants to help liberate the property you don't own. Oh wait, that's a bloody ridiculous idea, isn't it?

I'd rather politicians of all stripes stopped inventing more ways to tax people.

Before he got elected he launched a failed military coup. After he got elected he changed the constitution to ensure he could serve more than two terms (Putin-esque), used third party organisations to attack and intimidate political opponents and controlled the media. Those are not the hallmarks of a social democrat. I don't think anyone is arguing that he didn't have a broad popular support base amongst Venezuela's poor but that is irrelevant to an assessment of his style of rule. This is a long but interesting analysis of his autocratic approach to governing:- Link

Just out of interest, what does "functionally retarded" mean in this context? would it mean asking for, buying and storing several billion pounds worth of supplies they don't want and can't use? Clever, I see what you did there. Thing is if your job is to fight the wars the government instructs you to then its far better to have and not need something, than need and not have it - as guys who crossed the start line in Iraq with 30 rounds of ammunition and no body armour will testify. EDIT: That's not to say military procurement hasn't historically been a colossal mess, driven largely by the requirements of defence manufacturers rather than defence professionals.

The actual Conservatives in the Conservative Party have noticed that there is an alternative to Dave's brand of Blairism though. It might not be an alternative that could win a general election, but they could vote for it without feeling soiled afterwards. If someone is genuinely a centre right voter than Cameron is no choice at all next time around.

Good spot, that theme had gone right over my head.

An interesting and fair article below from The Economist about Chavez: Hugo Chávez’s rotten legacy

Whilst buying oil from them... .http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/02/19/289721/turkey-defies-us-iraq-in-kurds-deal/ True, but it is on the Northern Iraqi Kurds (and their Peshmerga) to permanently reign in the PKK in return. Call me cynical but that seems unlikely. This is quite long but intertesting look at the whole regional dynamics taking shape: Syria Spillover, al-Qaida Strain Iraq Security

I take it from the tone of your comment that you think this is a good thing then? Presumably you won't be complaining as the relative wealth of the West continues to decrease, living standards fall and the general public finally cotton on that the cushy welfare state of the last 50 years is grinding to a juddering and unaffordable halt. It's easy to sit in the comfort of Western civilisation and cry about feeding the world, but not so easy when the question is 'how do I feed my family'?

Chavez dead? Good news.

Yes, frankly. Iraq has been on the slow boil back to civil war since not long after the Americans left and the likelyhood of Syria and Iraq blending into one giant mess is not remote. Throw in the Turks who have a beef with Assad and their own problems with the Kurdish rulers of northern Iraq (and now also areas of Syria too) and it could all go spectacularly wrong. That's without mentioning the Iranian regime's moral and material support of Assad, Turkey's NATO membership and Russia's desire to do the worst possible thing whenever and wherever possible. Anyone with reason to be who is not concerned about that potential cocktail needs their head examined.

Just out of interest, what does "functionally retarded" mean in this context?

It is of course disgraceful, but how many Middle Eastern club sides outside Israel would or do employ Jewish Israeli players? The hate flowing in both directions is so intense it overwhelms reason and humanity.

I thought the accusation was he'd been touching other priests, not kids?

Agree with this. As England rugby fans we know the passing of a golden generation requires a rebuilding project that takes a long time, and it takes a coach with guts to drop the big names and bring in youth - especially knowing that they'll get smacked everywhere for the first few years.