Falklands

The Falklands is in the news this week. First off, the UN has set Argentina’s territorial waters. The result is that Argentina’s extended boundaries now surround the Falklands, putting the ownership of resource claims into dispute.

It has also been revealed today that we haven’t had a warship guarding the islands since November 2015.

Seems weird that this issue was being used to attack Corbyn a while ago, seemingly dredged up as just another stick to beat him with. However, the outrage is being directed at the other side atm.

What’s the long term future for the islands?

For as long as the people of the Falklands wish to remain a British Overseas Territory we should respect that, the Argentinians have no legal claim to the Islands and South Georgia, case closed until the people want change.

2 Likes

I struggle with this. I agree that the people who live need to be taken into consideration, but when you consider how far away it is from us, it would make more sense if we at least shared sovereignty. The Argies were well out of order when they invaded and I supported the military action then. Dont know if I want any more lives lost if it were to happen again. I suspect I am in the vast minority though.

2 Likes

I am with soggy on this

I have been trying to get my head around the history of the settlement of the islands. It seemed like we had a tussle with the French for a while before the French sold their interest to the Spanish. Whilst legally we would seem to have a stronger case, it would be better if common sense prevailed and we came to some arrangement with the Argentinians. Really do not want to see it escalate again.

Without offense that is politically naïve, claims would be drawn up from that in minutes if that happened.

The right to self determination is paramount.

Erosion is democracy is being advocated here, distance isn’t a barrier to equality, what next complete power sharing for Ireland?

Populist opinion will not and should not ride roughshod over the right to vote for internal affairs without foreign interference.

1 Like

Originally posted by @pap

What’s the long term future for the islands?

I’ve been watching from afar with a finger on the pulse for some time, getting a feel for the prevailing vibe on the Islands, and would offer a prognosis of the following potential scenarios playing out at some point in the not too distant future:

Bull Point going into a terrifying rage, charging - and breaking The North Arm. Mount Challenger calling out Bluff Cove over its deception. Foul Bay cleaning up its act, Volunteer Point (after years of long and dedicated service), deciding that it just doesn’t give a fuck anymore, and the depressed plains of Lafonia finally cheering up upon the realisation that had fate dealt them a crueler hand, they could’ve been in portsmouth and that life could be a lot fucking worse.

1 Like

Completely agree that it is politically naive. Self determination is all well and good though but is there a will to lose more lives from the mainland if it was to come to that?

Having spent a deployment down there as Falklands guardship all I can say is thet aren’t worth a single life.

The Islanders have the right to self determination but fuck to spilling anymore blood over them.

As for the RN no longer having a ship deployed, that’s what happens when you destroy the senior service. We need a surface fleet but we will waste tens of billions on Trident replacement that is, in effect, controlled by a foreign government.

1 Like

There are practical considerations with the islands that are borne of them being so far away and Argentina’s persistent claims that they belong to them. We’re seeing some of them now. The UK cannot afford to have a serious warship in the area, and this is despite the apparent resource finds in the area.

The MoD reckons we’re still well covered in the area. They reckon they’ve got 1200 personnel in the area, protecting a population of 2,932.

No wants to lose lives. But if any country thinks we are not going to risk a fight to protect our people, that will be a sad day indeed. Where do we draw the line about them being far away? What if France wants Guernsey? Its small, it hardly matters and its much closer to France than here. What about all those killed and injured protecting the Falksland people from the agressor last time around? Do we roll over, if, heaven forbid, there is another time?

Originally posted by @pap

The MoD reckons we’re still well covered in the area. They reckon they’ve got 1200 personnel in the area, protecting a population of 2,932.

They do.

Originally posted by @Bucks

No wants to lose lives. But if any country thinks we are not going to risk a fight to protect our people, that will be a sad day indeed. Where do we draw the line about them being far away? What if France wants Guernsey? Its small, it hardly matters and its much closer to France than here. What about all those killed and injured protecting the Falksland people from the agressor last time around? Do we roll over, if, heaven forbin, there is another time?

We lack the capacity to deploy and re-capture the islands if they were to be invaded again.

I can well believe that. But i hope that the desire and commitment to protect our people remains, using whatever resources we have.

Other Nations have overseas territories miles away, should they offer them up?

I can imagine Spain being well pleased to give up the money concerning the Canaries.

Possibly, but invasion would cost an awful lot of lives and Argentina would need popularity for an invasion, body bags coming back last time and the truth coming out caused mayhem.

There is no “possibly” about it. We lack the seabourne capacity to establish and control the air superiority needed above the islands and to land the troops required. That will be the case until the carriers are complete and fully operational but we will still be woefully short of frigates and destroyers.

IF they were to consider military action then it will be before the carriers are up and running.

I am pretty sure since the new base was built they have the capability of digging in properly and putting up a solid resistance, I am sure we could land in Chile (on the sly) and cause them a few problems from the West, they would lose an awful lot of men and those Falklanders wouldn’t go down easily this time.
It would fall but by fuck it would cost them an awful lot.

Taking a couple of points and perhaps coming up with the wrong answer, it does appear as if we are spending a lot of money per capita on the Falklands, yet lack any serious force to deter an invader or according to what Flahute says, the country lacks the ability to get them back.

FWIW, I think it is unlikely that Argentina will invade. They don’t need to, and it would be counterproductive to their aspirations if they tried. They already have international support. They have their neighbours for a start, and the US has never really had our back on this issue. Reagan didn’t back in the 1980s - he was too busy invading a former British colony to lend us any support.

British ownership of the islands was always able to be spun into imperialist self-serving shite. The resource finds make that even easier. We can’t really claim that the wishes of the citizens trumps all, not when people on the mainland are having such a hard go of it. Their wishes are not being taken into consideration.

I just wonder long-term, if it is tenable, and whether we might be better seeking a more conciliatory path. We don’t have to, and certainly not legally obligated to, but face facts - it’s on the other side of the world and in some eyes, we look like self-interested hypocritical dicks.

I’ll think you’ll find a few Countries backed us Pap and the US were one of them, you have extreme leftist anti imperialists and to acheive their aim they invade a legitimate territory.