Argentina withdraws from Falklands agreement.
This topic has been discussed at length here before - some of the following is cut and pasted from my previous reply to a similar comment -
The UK does not “own” the Falkland Islands, and is not “holding on” to them. They are owned by the people who live here.
The Falkland Islands are not “part of the UK”
Historically, they were certainly referred to as a “Colony” (until 1983), but were never a colony in the sense of a minority ruling class governing an unwilling indigenous population. They had no human population at all when discovered by Europeans.
From 1983 to 2002 they were classed as a “British Dependent Territory”, and since then they have officially been a “British Overseas Territory”.
And the Islands are not “p!ss poor” by any definition. The GDP per capita (figures directly off google, and not checked by me, but seem reasonable) for UK is about £40,000, the Falklands about £58,000.
I do not know the detail of whether the Falklands were economically “dependent” on the UK in any way prior to the mid-1980s. Certainly, a lot of money flowed out of the Islands, to owners of Falklands farms and businesses who were in the UK and elsewhere - I do not know how much flowed into the Islands from the UK.
But since the mid 1980s (with the establishment of the fisheries licensing, and subsequently, the wildlife tourism industry), the islands have been economically self-sufficient in everything except (the very big exception of) defence.
As for “giving it back” to Argentina, what is your basis for the word “back”? Britain had a claim to the Falklands (disputed by France and then Spain) dating back to at least 1765; Argentina did not exist until after 1816, and did not extend more than 100 miles South of Buenos Aires (almost 1000 miles from the Falklands) until the 1870s, by which time Britain had had an effective administration for over 40 years. (And it is worth noting that Argentina only extended its territory southwards by 1000 miles in the 1870s by military conquest, deliberately hunting and killing many of the indigenous population in the “conquest of the desert”, commemorated until recently on their 20 peso banknote)
My wife’s family go back to at least the 1880s here. Many families can trace their ancestors right back to the mid-1840s. Why should their home be given “back” to Argentina?
Imagine if the UK “owned” a small group of islands just off the coast of France…..what would the French be saying and doing?? - Not very much as far as I can see - the Channel Islands seem not to be causing too much diplomatic problems between France and UK (certainly not to the extent of going to war over them). And as for the “proximity” argument for ownership, France is exactly 0.00000 miles from Germany, so who should take over who?
Tiger G
“It's ridiculous in this day and age that we "own" a p!ss poor island thousands of miles away from the UK but on the doorstep of Argentina…”
Asturias56
“left over bits of Empire but the inhabitants want to stay part of the UK”
“It's ridiculous in this day and age that we "own" a p!ss poor island thousands of miles away from the UK but on the doorstep of Argentina…”
Asturias56
“left over bits of Empire but the inhabitants want to stay part of the UK”
The Falkland Islands are not “part of the UK”
Historically, they were certainly referred to as a “Colony” (until 1983), but were never a colony in the sense of a minority ruling class governing an unwilling indigenous population. They had no human population at all when discovered by Europeans.
From 1983 to 2002 they were classed as a “British Dependent Territory”, and since then they have officially been a “British Overseas Territory”.
And the Islands are not “p!ss poor” by any definition. The GDP per capita (figures directly off google, and not checked by me, but seem reasonable) for UK is about £40,000, the Falklands about £58,000.
I do not know the detail of whether the Falklands were economically “dependent” on the UK in any way prior to the mid-1980s. Certainly, a lot of money flowed out of the Islands, to owners of Falklands farms and businesses who were in the UK and elsewhere - I do not know how much flowed into the Islands from the UK.
But since the mid 1980s (with the establishment of the fisheries licensing, and subsequently, the wildlife tourism industry), the islands have been economically self-sufficient in everything except (the very big exception of) defence.
Tiger G
“and I can fully understand why they want it back.”
“and I can fully understand why they want it back.”
My wife’s family go back to at least the 1880s here. Many families can trace their ancestors right back to the mid-1840s. Why should their home be given “back” to Argentina?
Tiger G
“Imagine if Argentina "owned" the Shetland Islands.....what would we be saying and doing ??”
“Imagine if Argentina "owned" the Shetland Islands.....what would we be saying and doing ??”
Last edited by Ant T; 5th Mar 2023 at 22:48.
The following 23 users liked this post by Ant T:
The proximity argument has always been a bit daft. It's like saying Cuba should be part of the United States.
As for Argentina trying another invasion, don't we have a bunch of Typhoons permanently based down there? Good luck getting past them.
As for Argentina trying another invasion, don't we have a bunch of Typhoons permanently based down there? Good luck getting past them.
about 4 IIRC at the moment plus a Voyager and an Atlas
The UK does not “own” the Falkland Islands, and is not “holding on” to them. They are owned by the people who live here. The Falkland Islands are not “part of the UK”
This is correct up to a point - actually they are legally still part of the British Empire - so not independent either. How you seperate the "British Empire " from the "UK" I'm not certain.
But since the FI is totally dependent on the UK for defence and all sorts of other support in practical terms we own it, lock , stock & Barrel. And since a lot of Brits died to keep it I think we've earn't it.
This is correct up to a point - actually they are legally still part of the British Empire - so not independent either. How you seperate the "British Empire " from the "UK" I'm not certain.
But since the FI is totally dependent on the UK for defence and all sorts of other support in practical terms we own it, lock , stock & Barrel. And since a lot of Brits died to keep it I think we've earn't it.
The following 2 users liked this post by Asturias56:
The UK does not “own” the Falkland Islands, and is not “holding on” to them. They are owned by the people who live here. The Falkland Islands are not “part of the UK”
This is correct up to a point - actually they are legally still part of the British Empire - so not independent either. How you seperate the "British Empire " from the "UK" I'm not certain.
But since the FI is totally dependent on the UK for defence and all sorts of other support in practical terms we own it, lock , stock & Barrel. And since a lot of Brits died to keep it I think we've earn't it.
This is correct up to a point - actually they are legally still part of the British Empire - so not independent either. How you seperate the "British Empire " from the "UK" I'm not certain.
But since the FI is totally dependent on the UK for defence and all sorts of other support in practical terms we own it, lock , stock & Barrel. And since a lot of Brits died to keep it I think we've earn't it.
I'm talking practical politics - whatever the notional idea is they're effectively as much part of the UK as the Isle of Wight
In fact it would be better if we had the French system whereby they were a District Council of the UK - and maybe elected an MP (with the other Territories) to Westminister
That would make an Argentinean claim even more ridiculous
In fact it would be better if we had the French system whereby they were a District Council of the UK - and maybe elected an MP (with the other Territories) to Westminister
That would make an Argentinean claim even more ridiculous
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
This is correct up to a point - actually they are legally still part of the British Empire
Not sure how yo7 can legally be part of something which doesn’t have a legal identity.
The following users liked this post:
…. they are legally still part of the British Empire - so not independent either. How you seperate the "British Empire " from the "UK" I'm not certain.
But since the FI is totally dependent on the UK for defence and all sorts of other support in practical terms we own it, lock , stock & Barrel. And since a lot of Brits died to keep it I think we've earn't it.
But since the FI is totally dependent on the UK for defence and all sorts of other support in practical terms we own it, lock , stock & Barrel. And since a lot of Brits died to keep it I think we've earn't it.
The exact status of the Fi within the messy pantheon of British government isn't very important - no UK Govt will sell them down the river - at least not for the next 50 years I'd guess. The problem is how to get the Argentineans to see sense. If they actually tried to change tack they might, in the very long term, have some success. But its a dog-whistle issue on the mainland and there's always some politician or newspaper willing to fan the flames for short term gain.
We just have to keep enough forces there to deter
We just have to keep enough forces there to deter
As for the citizens of the United Kingdom, the Crown power comes from God...and as an Argentinean, I can not discuss their beliefs, my country, and my National Constitution state that those islands are part of Argentina, and we will claim our "beliefs" until the end of the history.
The Constitution of Argentina also states that the claim should always be pacific. So, the United Kingdom should not be worried about using force from our side.
For the ones who are unaware, when Argentina took over the islands in April of 1982, the force didn´t cause any casualties to the British Forces...the ones who shot first were the British...
The Constitution of Argentina also states that the claim should always be pacific. So, the United Kingdom should not be worried about using force from our side.
For the ones who are unaware, when Argentina took over the islands in April of 1982, the force didn´t cause any casualties to the British Forces...the ones who shot first were the British...
Typical RM, firing first on a fully armed invading force. Someone must have left out pre-emptive surrender from the manual.
The following 11 users liked this post by Ninthace:
As for the citizens of the United Kingdom, the Crown power comes from God...and as an Argentinean, I can not discuss their beliefs, my country, and my National Constitution state that those islands are part of Argentina, and we will claim our "beliefs" until the end of the history.
The Constitution of Argentina also states that the claim should always be pacific. So, the United Kingdom should not be worried about using force from our side.
For the ones who are unaware, when Argentina took over the islands in April of 1982, the force didn´t cause any casualties to the British Forces...the ones who shot first were the British...
The Constitution of Argentina also states that the claim should always be pacific. So, the United Kingdom should not be worried about using force from our side.
For the ones who are unaware, when Argentina took over the islands in April of 1982, the force didn´t cause any casualties to the British Forces...the ones who shot first were the British...
Lieutenant-Commander Sanchez-Sabarots continues his account:
Although there were no Royal Marine witnesses to the assault, descriptions of the state of Moody Brook barracks afterward contradict the Argentine version of events. After the action, some of the Royal Marines were allowed to return to barracks to collect personal items. Major Norman describes walls of the barracks as riddled with machine gun fire and bearing the marks of white phosphorus grenades - "a classic housekeeping operation".
- It was still completely dark. We were going to use tear-gas to force the British out of the buildings and capture them. Our orders were not to cause casualties if possible. That was the most difficult mission of my career. All our training as commandos was to fight aggressively and inflict maximum casualties on the enemy. We surrounded the barracks with machine-gun teams, leaving only one escape route along the peninsula north of Stanley Harbour. Anyone who did get away would not able to reach the town and reinforce the British there. Then we threw the gas grenades into each building. There was no reaction; the barracks were empty.
Although there were no Royal Marine witnesses to the assault, descriptions of the state of Moody Brook barracks afterward contradict the Argentine version of events. After the action, some of the Royal Marines were allowed to return to barracks to collect personal items. Major Norman describes walls of the barracks as riddled with machine gun fire and bearing the marks of white phosphorus grenades - "a classic housekeeping operation".
The following users liked this post:
As for the citizens of the United Kingdom, the Crown power comes from God...and as an Argentinean, I can not discuss their beliefs, my country, and my National Constitution state that those islands are part of Argentina, and we will claim our "beliefs" until the end of the history.
The Constitution of Argentina also states that the claim should always be pacific. So, the United Kingdom should not be worried about using force from our side.
For the ones who are unaware, when Argentina took over the islands in April of 1982, the force didn´t cause any casualties to the British Forces...the ones who shot first were the British...
The Constitution of Argentina also states that the claim should always be pacific. So, the United Kingdom should not be worried about using force from our side.
For the ones who are unaware, when Argentina took over the islands in April of 1982, the force didn´t cause any casualties to the British Forces...the ones who shot first were the British...
There is clearly no point in arguing with you about the Argentine interpretation of events that happened hundreds of years ago. That interpretation is part of your national identity and you are unlikely to listen to alternative views. The most important factor today is the right of the population of the islands to self determination, and if successive Argentine governments continue their hostile and obstructive attitude to them they are unlikely alter their view of your country. It all seems so pointless - why not make friends with them and create mutually beneficial opportunities for trade and tourism?
I am just expressing our side of the claim.
You do not have to be offensive to others point of view.
The following users liked this post:
That wouldn’t have been phosphorus grenades that the invading non aggressive force used on Moody Brook barracks then. ? Thankfully most of the NP were elsewhere. And don’t tell me it wasn’t. I saw the aftermath shortly thereafter.
Passive invasion….? Non sequitur. All the more so with Buzo Tactico and amphibious personnel carriers. So frankly Argie bollocks.
Or maybe we should talk about some of the **** that went down at Top Malo Ridge. ?
Passive invasion….? Non sequitur. All the more so with Buzo Tactico and amphibious personnel carriers. So frankly Argie bollocks.
Or maybe we should talk about some of the **** that went down at Top Malo Ridge. ?
As for the citizens of the United Kingdom, the Crown power comes from God...and as an Argentinean, I can not discuss their beliefs, my country, and my National Constitution state that those islands are part of Argentina, and we will claim our "beliefs" until the end of the history.
The Constitution of Argentina also states that the claim should always be pacific. So, the United Kingdom should not be worried about using force from our side.
For the ones who are unaware, when Argentina took over the islands in April of 1982, the force didn´t cause any casualties to the British Forces...the ones who shot first were the British...
The Constitution of Argentina also states that the claim should always be pacific. So, the United Kingdom should not be worried about using force from our side.
For the ones who are unaware, when Argentina took over the islands in April of 1982, the force didn´t cause any casualties to the British Forces...the ones who shot first were the British...
Can't let you get away with that! The Argentinian forces who invaded in April 1982 most certainly DID shoot first! They carried out a surprise no notice no warning Mortar and GPMG attack on the Royal Marines Barracks at Moody Brook hoping to catch the RM all asleep in bed, and kill them. They failed totally as the RM had deployed into their defensive positions and Moody Brook Barracks were empty. The Argentinian forces did not know that and their intent was to kill. While the British forces did NOT shoot first, they did kill first when they engaged the Argentinian forces at various points on the islands.
No argument with the first part of your post though. Other than to say that the indigenous population of the islands think in a very similar way, but with a very different outcome!
here's the thing... the constitution you speak of was written in.... 1853 AD. The UK had reasserted it's rights from the Spanish, and more correctly from the Provincias Unidas del Río de la Plata, in 1832 AD. Previously, the Inca's had a bit of a say in the matter, until the Spaniards turned up and made a feast of it all, gained a taste for chocolate, and more or less got rid of the Inca's, circa, 1616, give or take a few chocolate bars. In 1810-1818, Argentina had another bout of years of living dangerously, the civil war... at the end of that show, in curtain call, Argentina called themselves the continuing state from los Provincias Unidas del Río de la Plata. Under convention, that would have annoyed the stuffing out of Brazil, Bolivia & Uruguay. A lot. Ordinarily, the continuing state has to meet certain criteria, and that would have made the others the continuation, not Argentina. At that point, Argentina did not claim the Malvina's, that came about in 1853, and by then, sorry, the poms had been there, done that and had done so for 21 years.
I like the try, love the constitution, but the basis of the 1st constitution was the USA, and they have as much right to it though plagiarism of their constitution as the great southern land that isn't African or Austrayl'yan. The islands aren't terra nada, as the brits called the other southern land, and did a fair effort at trying to make North America to be, (forget about greeks 'n grits, what about pommes a là mantas con viruela!).
Can you make sure you bring blanks only next time?For the ones who are unaware: BBC and CNN gave 'xullunt cover of the war, it was CNN's first, Christianné was a lot younger then.
when Argentina took over the islands in April of 1982: "...." and were beaten militarily by a grumpy lady in #10 Downing, who was annoyed about her favourite telly show (Coronation St) being interrupted incessantly by CNN and the aforementioned lovely Christianné. Maggs was also miffed by having her favourite musical group Split Enz having a top song banned by her loyal followers, "6 months in a leaky boat...." .
the force didn´t cause any casualties to the British Forces...: would have been rather rude to have done so, after all, they were uninvited guests that "gate crashed" made a noise and commotion, and set off some lambing early from the ruckus around the inhabitants who had 4 legs, wool, and no voting rights. I am sure that the continuation state of Provincias Unidas del Río de la Plata, which arguably is Bolivia-Brazil and Uruguay would be a bit miffed if your mob had trampled across their lawn as uninvited guests and yelling "Monty Video Easy R Us". It is impolite to gate crash, please get in the queue, take a ticket and go through immigration like everyone else does. Keep your sporting firearms at home.
the ones who shot first were the British... not quite so sport. "Although there were no Royal Marine witnesses to the assault, British descriptions of the state of Moody Brook barracks afterwards contradict the Argentine version of events. After the Royal Marines were allowed to return to barracks to collect personal items. Norman describes walls of the barracks as riddled with machine gun fire and bearing the marks of white phosphorus grenades – "a classic houseclearing operation". The visiting team state otherwise, but walls probably don't fib. The story later was that it was the perfidious poms in them harriers, 11 days later, what done the rearranging of the decor with machine guns. I'm pretty sure that Mogs will attest to the fact that his ride at that time was fitted with a couple of 30mm Adens, and the lumpy bits that an Aden take out is quite different to a 7.62 x 51 Nato from a GPMG or FN SLR. Rather think that the decorating was done by the visitors. That is a bit off, if you visit, you should arrive and depart politely and then you would be welcome on your next visit. Unless you are a footy fan, then bad behavior is more common. In all cases, breakages are normally to be paid for.
The islands have an indigenous population, (now, they have a flag...) and a historical tie that predates the Argentine 1st draft of a constitution. Had the natives been wanting to invite the blue team along, they would have done so. You need to stand in the queue on a log of claims for those windswept rocks, Brazil, Bolivia and Uruguay have a better claim to them than Argentina, and in fact, they arguably have as viable a claim against Argentina. Certainly, the Inca's have as much of the claim, and deffo, the Spanish have a claim to the lot, except of course, they are the remnants of Iberian and Celtic groups, and that means, Argentina should be claimed by Ankara, or Rome, or Paris. the good news is, the food would tie in and you could increase tourism what with baclava, pita bread, pizza and escargot, and perhaps a lot of pomme frites, and a cheeky red.
Seems a bit silly really. Is there not anything better on telly in Buenos Aires?
Now, just to play devils advocate, in 1975, A. P. McCartney proposed that Aleutian and Fuegian populations shared a number of common subsistence and technology features, resulting from convergence in adaptation to maritime resources in cold archipelagos [1]. Wouldn't it be a riot if the Aleutians are in fact the rightful owner of Patagonia, and they own the Deep South n' falklands... ?
[1] Prehistoric Maritime Adaptations of the Subarctic and Subantarctic Zones: The AleutianFuegian Connetion Reconsidered David R. Yesner Arctic Anthropology Vol. 421. No 2 (2004), pp. 76-97
Last edited by fdr; 8th Mar 2023 at 05:34.
The following users liked this post:
The thing is its hard to find an Argentinean that wants to go to the FI. If they want cold, windy and desolate there's already plenty of that in the deep South on the Mainland.
Its purely a political drum to bang
Its purely a political drum to bang