Falkland Islands

[Awol]

The BS that the Tory party especially spout about that war not being about Oil hae long since been shown to be bollox.

Really? When and by whom?

The Falklands is all about oil and nothing else.

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.

The Falklands cost the UK tax payer a fair chunk of money at the moment and at a time when this Gvmt are happy to hit the unemployed, the poor and the elderly with cuts you have to ask why they have not decided to cut the money flow to the Falklands. The reason is because of oil revenues that may come from there at some point. (Note: Most of the money is to support the armed forces based there)

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!!

 

In 2010 the Grud ran this article link that is still pretty much valid today.

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?

[Ingram85]

Oh look, the beginnings of another drat v awol nerd off

[Dr_Pangloss]

For accuracy, AWOL's information can be found at http://www.falklands.gov.fk/our-people/our-history/. It's always nice to provide sources.

Edited March 16, 2013 by Dr_Pangloss

[drat01]

So awol simple question do you think yes or no that oil has any relevance in the continued investment by the uk gvmt?

[Brumerican]

I was posted there for 6 months and trust me the reason we are there is penguins .

[snowychap]

I was posted there for 6 months and trust me the reason we are there is penguins .

It can't be that black and white, surely?

[Brumerican]

I was posted there for 6 months and trust me the reason we are there is penguins .

It can't be that black and white, surely?

Yup. And don't call me Shirley .

[snowychap]

I apologize in advance for this:

 

[Awol]

So awol simple question do you think yes or no that oil has any relevance in the continued investment by the uk gvmt?

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.

[drat01]

So awol simple question do you think yes or no that oil has any relevance in the continued investment by the uk gvmt?

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. I appreciate you do not like the author of one of those Grud articles I posted, but interestingly you failed to comment or missed that a lot of the factual info actually came from the Telegraph (not exactly the "left wing" monster you see the Grud and its contributors as). This Gvmt has a track record of cutbacks so why then does it continue to pump in millions, if not billions over a period of time to a small set of islands thousands of miles away? If you take off the Pro_Thatcher glasses for one moment and look at the facts re Oil - as said presented by world bodies so not exactly Left or Right UK political, then the reality is that the Falklands are seen as potential Oil revenue generators.

 

I am struggling to believe that you actually really do think that any oil revenues will just be divided between the few Hundred Falkland Islanders and that the UK Gvmt would not see any of it. 

[Awol]

So awol simple question do you think yes or no that oil has any relevance in the continued investment by the uk gvmt?

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 appreciate you do not like the author of one of those Grud articles I posted, but interestingly you failed to comment or missed that a lot of the factual info actually came from the Telegraph (not exactly the "left wing" monster you see the Grud and its contributors as).

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.

This Gvmt has a track record of cutbacks so why then does it continue to pump in millions, if not billions over a period of time to a small set of islands thousands of miles away?

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.

 

I am struggling to believe that you actually really do think that any oil revenues will just be divided between the few Hundred Falkland Islanders and that the UK Gvmt would not see any of it.

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?

[blandy]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/falklands-offer-to-split-oil-profits-1913021.html

[drat01]

AWOL - are you deliberately missing the point?

 

Do the UK pay a lot of money for the Falklands? yes or no? - I can probably answer that for you it's yes. You may claim as much as you like that this is not paying for the "oil industry" but do you really believe that at a time when there is so much financial cutback and austerity measures that without oil they would continue to do so? If you do then I think you are massively wrong. You may not want to admit it but the sensible see that Oil is the key to the UK remaining in the Falklands and investing millions, if not billions over time into the islands. 

 

Where have I said that Jenkin's view on self determination is correct? - oh that's right I have not, but don't let a little matter like that get in the way of your argument.

 

You may still see the Falklands as some sort of utopia that shows all that was good about Thatcher and needs millions of pounds to see off that evil Argentinian woman, but the simple reality is that contrary to other UK policies of the Gvmt you support, they cost a fair amount of money. Oil is being explored for and that this Gvmt (and some of its key supporters) will benefit massively once oil revenues start to be realised. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/falklands-offer-to-split-oil-profits-1913021.html

 

Thanks Pete

 

EDIT: And before you get on any high horse, the Gvmt includes the last Labour one obviously, but the austerity cuts etc are not the same

Edited March 17, 2013 by drat01

[Ads]

The defence spend on the Falklands is based on a history of an aggressive neighbour.

Its not brimming with kit, it has the bare minimum required. Four Typhoons based on an unsinkable aircraft carrier, one SSN and the occassional T23/45.

We have more platforms in the Carribean scouting for cocaine smugglers.

Awol is correct when he says that post-82, not defending the islands is to run the risk of political weakness

[drat01]

The defence spend on the Falklands is based on a history of an aggressive neighbour.

Its not brimming with kit, it has the bare minimum required. Four Typhoons based on an unsinkable aircraft carrier, one SSN and the occassional T23/45.

We have more platforms in the Carribean scouting for cocaine smugglers.

Awol is correct when he says that post-82, not defending the islands is to run the risk of political weakness

so the aggressive as you call it neighbour, why do they want the falklands? Could it be oil?

[Ads]

They wanted it in 82 to distract and give capital to the prestige of the Junta.

They had access to he oil with the shared profits agreement, right up until the Botoxed ones late husband ripped up the treaty in 2007. Their bleating now is to divert the population from yet another moronic decision by the Kirchner clan which has badly let down its people.

[dont_do_it_doug.]

Ian, how much is "a lot"?

I think he's answered all of your points, over and over again and with consistency. I'm not sure where you're coming from now.

You want to give the Falkland Islands to Argentina?

[drat01]

Ian, how much is "a lot"?

I think he's answered all of your points, over and over again and with consistency. I'm not sure where you're coming from now.

You want to give the Falkland Islands to Argentina?

Didn't say that though did I

 

I just find it interesting the denial's about what the main interests are and have been re the Falklands. As the many articles have shown there are a lot of oil companies now in the process of setting up the extraction of the oil reserves. At a time when this Gvmt especially cut back on things like aid to the terminally ill, the poor, the elderly, primary care etc all under the name of austerity, they still then fund the so called "defence" of a thousand or so people with many millions of pounds. some people buy into the idea that it's to protect these few from this "aggressive" force of Argentina and that alone when as the articles have shown the UK will benefit from oil revenues should they arrive.

 

The people said they wanted to remain as they are and I suppose if you are possibly about to become very rich then of course you will want a status quo (and no not the elderly rock band) that will enable the oil monies to make you very rich. Argentina want the land as much for the oil as they supposedly do for national pride, a country like theirs has no other real need for them, hence the rhetoric at times of economic problems.

 

Nothing that has been posted in this thread has convinced me that oil and the wealth that it will maybe bring is not the main reason for the monies that the UK continue to send down to these few people and why the Argentinians are so keen to get their hands on it.

[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?!

AWOL - are you deliberately missing the point?

 

Do the UK pay a lot of money for the Falklands? yes or no? - I can probably answer that for you it's yes.

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'.

You may claim as much as you like that this is not paying for the "oil industry" but do you really believe that at a time when there is so much financial cutback and austerity measures that without oil they would continue to do so? If you do then I think you are massively wrong. You may not want to admit it but the sensible see that Oil is the key to the UK remaining in the Falklands and investing millions, if not billions over time into the islands.

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.

Where have I said that Jenkin's view on self determination is correct? - oh that's right I have not, but don't let a little matter like that get in the way of your argument.

Well you posted this:

"In 2010 the Grud ran this article link that is still pretty much valid today"

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.

You may still see the Falklands as some sort of utopia that shows all that was good about Thatcher and needs millions of pounds to see off that evil Argentinian woman, but the simple reality is that contrary to other UK policies of the Gvmt you support, they cost a fair amount of money. Oil is being explored for and that this Gvmt (and some of its key supporters) will benefit massively once oil revenues start to be realised.

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?  

[drat01]

75 Million is a pittance to spend on 1000 people? I look forward to your comments about welfare reforms using the same logic

 

So AWOL are you now accepting that oil is the major force as to why Gvmts are interested in the Falklands?