Forum Topic

The Falklands vote YES

It's all very well that the Falkland Islanders wish to stay British, and given how unpopular we are in the rest of the world anyone who actually likes us is O.K. by me. But I do wonder if Dodgy Dave puts his brain into gear at times. "People should know we will always be there to defend them", what he doesn't say is with what - we barely have any forces left and unless I'm mistaken we certainly aren't going to have an aircraft carrier for some years. If the Argies decide to cut up rough we could well find ourselves in a mess, as we certainly won't be able to rely on the Yanks who have decided to be non-committal on this one.

Vanessa Smith ● 4797d12 Comments

Good article on the Falklands here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/02/falklands-islanders-sold-outAs has been pointed out elsewhere, democracy in British colonies is reserved for those colonies which can be relied upon to vote the right way (and as John points out, it helps to be caucasian)On the one hand, is it a good use of taxpayers money to spend £30K per head each year just on defending Falkland Islanders (and god knows how much more in subsidies etc)?On the other, we come to the real reason: there's oil in them thar islands, or in the seas around them. I think that has always been the reason we've hung on to them.

Guy Lambert ● 4794d

The Chagos islanders have made their choice crystal clear as well. However, they remain stranded in the UK, Mauritius etc. and look like they will never be allowed to go home. Pity about their complexions.

John Connelly ● 4796d

British settlers have been on the Falkands since before Argentina was a country.It was Spain we defeated John,and as they were also a colonial power,in the scheme of the world's history at the time,the islands were the spoils of victory.It is scandalous what you say regarding Diego Garcia if correct,but it does not alter the fact that the Falkand Islanders have made their choice crystal clear.

Keith Iddon ● 4796d

The referendum result in the Falklands/Malvinas was as predictable as the forecast that the Sistine Chapel vote would produce a male Catholic, currently a Cardinal, as the new Pope.What is disgusting is that the treatment of people living in far-flung British dependencies continues to be as dependent on ethnicity today as it was in the bad old days of Empire.Contrast the fate of the Chagos Islanders, forcibly evicted by Britain in the 1960's and 1970's to make way for the US air base built at Diego Garcia, with that of the Falklanders. Today, the Chagos people remain exiled thousands of miles from their home. The UK Government has resisted every attempt they have made to re-establish their right of return. Gordon Brown, to his shame, was the latest to resist their legal attempts to return to their homeland.So, what is the difference between the two groups? The Chagos people were there when the British occupied their islands. The Falklanders moved in after the British defeated the Argentinians and took over the Falklands/Malvinas. Just as the white settlers in Australia/New Zealand/Canada were allowed self rule under Empire in the past while Indians and Africans faced the wrath of the British Army if they sought the same, todays's white settlers have rights in our overseas dependency in the South Atlantic that don't apply to the natives of the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean.Shameful!

John Connelly ● 4796d

listen to news this morning speech he gave last year he supports take over of Falklands

Robert A Field ● 4797d

Hopefully he'll have a calming influence on the rabble rousers there.

Keith Iddon ● 4797d

Is having an Argentinian pope going to have any bearing on things I wonder?

Phil Andrews ● 4797d

The informed view is that the islands would be extremely difficult for Argentina to take, but if they did somehow manage it they would be impossible for us to retake.I don't think the current government in Argentina is interested in an outright military solution, although the aforementioned civilian invasion would certainly be an option for them.  This could be precision-timed to coincide with an attack by Argentinian special forces, which are reportedly very good and highly respected by our own SAS and SBS, on our artillery and aircraft before they could be scrambled into action.  In the confusion caused by the arrival of a civilian force this is not as fantastic a proposition as it may at first appear.

Phil Andrews ● 4797d

There are also about 1200 troops on the Island as opposed to 300 last time.A friend of mine is in the Grenadier Gaurds and he did a 3 month stint on the Falkands as routine training,possibly in readiness.More kerfuffle about oil and averting the gaze of the public from the dire state of Argentinian politics.

Keith Iddon ● 4797d

Not just Spain but indeed Italy, Germany ... and the UK!  I believe Welsh is widely spoken in parts of Patagonia.

Phil Andrews ● 4797d

Actually there is a division in the military defence of the Falklands.It is vulnerable and the possibility of a UK strike force is no longer a possibility.They are most likely to launch a civilian invasion similar to what happens in Israeli disputed territory.No way could British forces fire on civilians as that would be catastrophic.However, much of the islands are still riddled by Argentinian mines and unless they do have maps, this would be the biggest risk to would be invadersThe spectre of a submarine is probably the best defence as it is virtually undetectable. Although the americans could pass information to the Argentinians as the hispanic lobby in the senate is becoming increasingly influential.However the Argentinians claim that the Falkland Islanders are not indigenous to the Islands is a bit rich. Most Argentinians in particular, the political classes originate, after all, from...er..Spain and are not native either.

Raymond Havelock ● 4797d

You really should stop spouting forth from a position of near total ignorance. The following article should help:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17157373and the salient quote from it:"Military experts believe the islands are now virtually impregnable. The new air base has completely altered the balance of power. Any sign of Argentine invasion and the islands could be quickly reinforced by air. "There's no way Argentine forces could ever take Mt Pleasant air base," says Prof Clarke. They would need to land a large number of troops to capture it. And with more than 300 miles of sea to cross from the mainland, and Typhoon fighters and HMS Dauntless in the way, it is not going to happen, he says."So the lack of aircraft carriers, whilst a pretty bone-headed decision to get rid of them in the first place isn't strictly relevant due to the relative sophistication in terms of hardware and the vastly superior defence force in place now vs then:"The Falklands War was 30 years ago. "But in military terms it is 100 years ago," says Clarke. British forces have advanced about 60 years in sophistication, but Argentine forces have barely improved, still using military hardware from the 1970s and 80s."

Huw Burford-Taylor ● 4797d