The Falklands War plus 30

Not defend Queen Elizabeth land, which is the British Antarctic territory, but support it with supplies, ice breaker, aircraft and materials much of which is brought in from South America and the Falklands currently. South Georgia is the largest island in the South Sandwich islands chain, it has the largest mountain under British control. It is called the British Overseas Territory of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. I would be happy for the UK to take back the US state of South Georgia if the people there want to be part of the UK.

You must be joking, I know the US dollar is the reserve currency, but it is not the currency of the Falklands or Britain. £1 million since the Falkland pound is pegged to the British pound. £650,000 isn't that much money, I would hardly call someone with that much money rich. After they have a new house and car they would be left with £300,000 or something like that. I wouldn't sell my one acre house for £650,000, its worth at most £250,000 but I love were I live, so it would take more than that for me to leave.

Hahahaha, yes I did. However isn't not a dumb idea to have a larger Royal Navy. Infact its I brilliant one, haha. It is not rational at all, it is stupid. Makes no economic, political or military sense for the UK.

Sorry about the last paragraph before I just went off on one. Hahaha.

 

Very few of them want to be part of Argentina, lose common law, church of england, self-deterination and language. Of couse some would have there minds changed by money, but most wouldn't, mainly the ones that were around in 1982. If someone offered you $2 million to leave the US and move to the UK would you take it?

There was a poll a few years ago that found a majority of Scottish people would vote to leave the UK if they were going to be just £500 a year better off.

 

It is 20 times the average annual income of a Falklander family.

If you think that amount of money wouldn't be enough for to convince a bar maid or sheep farmer to give up the luxury of living in the Falklands, well maybe you are right.

If someone gave me a $1,000,000 dollars on the condition that I move to Australia or New Zealand- I would certainly give it some serious consideration. I am sure that if they tried- they could find some place as desolate and isolated to live as the Falklands.

 

Seriously? I would certainly consider it. More likely though I would choose New Zealand or Australia.

 

The problem is all of them wouldn't accept it, so what's the point. Some would some wouldn't they you up the offer to the people that refuse to leave and other people then they want that much money. The only way to get them all of is to kill them all or remove them by forces.

I am already have enough money, I don't need more so I would leave for less than £50 million, but I would have to be able to stay in the UK. The only other part of the world with a population that small is Greenland, hahaha.

- - - Updated - - -

No you have to move to the UK.

 

Well thats just being mean.......

 

You obviously didn't know Margaret Thatcher too well.

 

The military base was only set up in the 1980s, AFTER the Falklands War. RAF Mount Pleasant wasn't opened until 1985.

If the UK Government is so desperate to have a military base on the Falklands it would have built one a lot sooner. Instead it couldn't be bothered building one until the mid-Eighties.

I sincerely believe that the UK Government will respect the wishes of the Falklanders. If the Falklanders ever vote to cut ties with the UK then the UK will respect those wishes.

It's Argentina, not Britain, which isn't prepared to accept the islanders' democratic wishes.

 

Why not pay the Argies to move to Spain?

 

You're taking a very selective "pro-British" view of history here. The islands early history is so complex and open to debate there's nothing concrete to really back up anyone's claim. Britain obviously ended up with the islands by asserting their right over it firmly in the early 19th century, but there's no legal precedent that they should own the island. If you really delve into the history you have an incredible amount of conflicting claims. You also have to consider that there are multiple islands, can one country legally claim the entire chain when it only occupies one islands and another country (or even private entity in the Falkland's case) occuipes another? You'll find that in history, particularly when it comes to claiming territory, there's a lot that's open to interpretation. Britain ended up with the islands because they had the force to do so, not because they were the legal claimant.

In an earlier post you brought up how the Treaty of Utrecht solidifed British claims to Gibraltor. Spain uses that same exact treaty as evidence of their claims over the Falkland islands, which Britain rejects. The point being that all of these early treaties were subject to the interpreations and whims of the signatories and hardly legally binding. You can't use legal evidence to back up British claims but then dismiss the same exact treaty when Spain uses it to claim the Falklands. In those days it came down to military might, and Britain asserted this by taking back the islands.

 

The Falklands have been a refueling station for the British navy for over 100 years. So the Falklands have been used as a military base for over 100 years.

 

Hopefully my last post on Falkland Islands. Make the Falkland Islands or Las Islas Malvinas an independent nation without influence of either Argentina or the U.K. Though people differ with me on Gibraltar, make Gibraltar an independent nation. But Argentina doesn't want Falkland Islands or las Islas Malvinas to be independent. Anyhow, that's best solution-Falkland Islands becomes a demilitarized independent country which neither Argentina nor the U.K. controls with those in las Islas Malvinas or the Falkland Islands deciding how to run their nation democratically.

 

And yet, as someone pointed out, the British were keen on handing the Falklands to Argentina in the 1960s and 1970s.

 

Why? The Falkland Islanders don't want that. That will only happen should the Islanders ever decide that that's what they want.

Again, Gibraltareans wish to be British. And that's before I even mention the fact that Gibraltar is Britain's for eternity.

Why should the Falklands be demiltarised? Haven't they got a right to be defended? What about Britain and Argentina? Or the US and France? Should they be demilitarised, too?

The Falkland Islanders HAVE decided democratically on how they want their nation run. They overwhelmingly voted in favour of remaining British, and it will remain that way until they democratically decide otherwise.

By the way, why do you call the islands "Las Malvinas"? Do you call Germany "Deutschland" and Sweden "Sverige"?

And remember, they became known as the Falkland Islands 74 years before they became known as Las Malvinas.

 

Yea, great idea. And then you have 2 completely bankrupt nations who would make the standard of living in Somalia seem like paradise within 10 years.

Have you paid attention to nothing that has been said in here? The Falklands have almost no income, no real exports, in the profit-loss column they cost the UK far more then they bring in. Their GDP is only around $165 million per year, 90% of that in exporting agricultural products. They have almost no industry, no tourism, nothing but some fishing and sheep farming.

To give an idea how little that is, if the Falklands were an independent nation and it's GDP was placed alongside the top 195 nations on the planet, it would come in at #194, right below Kiribati and above Nauru.

I think it safe to say that if people were to follow your advice, you would make the 2 newest poorest nations on the planet. Congratulations on the advancement in world poverty.

 

16 String Jack, (me commenting again), while Falkland Islanders voted to remain British, it's my view that most Falkland Islanders would rather their nation be independent with their own govt. & way of living. When I mean dimilitarized nations, I mean making both Falkland Islands & Gibraltar similar to let's say Costa Rica-Costa Rica abolished their military in 1948 & Costa Ricans do well.

Mushroom, that's why businesses can work in both Falkland Islands & Gibraltar should both become independent nations. Falkland Islanders & Gibraltarans are smart people who know how to make $. British & Spanish businesses be it Vauxhall, SEAT, Tio Pepe, can do business in Gibraltar. The British have given Falkland Islanders choice of becoming an independent nation & that is what I believe is best for las Islas Malvinas or the Falkland Islands-to become a free nation whose economy is based on fishing, farming & tourism-though tourism makes little money. Falkland Islands do have oil & natural gas reserves which could give them profit, but that must be Falkland Islanders choice. Falkland Islands & Gibraltar wouldn't become poor nations if they became independent because the people there are smart & businesses could also work in both nations as long as they follow laws given by both should they become independent.

 

So teh falklands shouldn't get to decide whether to be independent or not 'fun in snow' should get to decide'.

Anyway. Most of this has been teh mastabatory fantasies of some Americans of Irish descent who want to act out their anti British obsessions.

It is clear that Argentina has NO expectations of getting the Falklands. the current shouting is solely for domestic purposes. You don't get anything by screaming in public against a nation that can beat the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of you.

No other South American nation is going to join in. they won;t want their trade with the EU destroyed nor their navies. Even venezuala for all its tin pot rhetoric would be blown out of the water in days.

 

So what happens if Argentina sends out fishing boats to anoy other ships, then what can the RN do about it. Like the Cod War.

 

If it is inside our 12 mile limits we board the ships and arrest the crew.

 

When what, I don't think the Falklands has a jail large enough.

 

Sab, my belief in making Falkland Islands an independent country is what many Falkland Islanders want. Also me not Irish so don't understand what you mean by that. But here's the contradiction. Posters here such as Mushroom, William Walker (right me if I'm wrong) say that Falkland Islanders should decide their sovereignty agreeing on this point with who they argue with 16 String Jack. Yet when I wrote my belief that the Falkland Islands should be an independent country then criticism. People in Falkland Islands or las Islas Malvinas don't want to be part of Argentina. I agree with Falkland Islanders on this because as they were born on the Falkland Islands, it's their house by birth. So amicable solution is let the Falkland Islands be a free democratic nation like Costa Rica with no meddling by Argentina, U.K. or any other nation. That's what I believe is the best solution. Finally for William Walker, is that your real name or do you use that poster name of a Nicaraguan President in the 19th Century who was American lawyer William Walker

 

Where are you getting all this info from? Are you making it up?

The people of the Falklands are incredibly wealthy. Their GDP per capita is US $55,400. That's compared to US $36,728 for the UK and US $49,200 for the US. The average Falkland Islander is, therefore, wealthier than the average American and Briton and they are the wealthiest people in South America.

The Falklands may have a tiny economy but you have to remember that it's a tiny country with a workforce of just over 5,000 people. But that does not make it poor. It is actually one of the wealthiest places on the planet.

The Falklands now has a vibrant economy and makes a lot of income from tourism, commercial fishing and agriculture.

To say that the islands have no real exports is nonsense. The islands are self-sufficient - apart from defence - and they actually export MORE than they import, with annual exports of $125 million and imports of $90 million.

 

Not according to the poll conducted in March in which 99.8% of the Islanders voted to remain British.

Only three islanders voted against.

- - - Updated - - -

Show me the evidence for that.

99.8% of the islanders recently voted to remain British. Why did they do so if most would rather be a completely independent nation? They weren't forced to take part in the referendum or forced to vote in favour of remaining British, yet all of them, bar three, voted to remain British.

 

The Falklanders are practically independent. They have their own local government and flag. I think that they are pretty happy with the current situation if Argentina would just buzz off and do something interesting. Like trying to fix their ailing economy.

If Argentina did try again then I think it would be a stretch to defend the islands but we ultimately prevail due to the high quality of our troops and equipment.

 

No, it is all publicly available. Their Annual GDP is easy to discover.

And you and others really need to think about this logically. Yes, the people of the Falklands have a high gross individual GDP, because they are part of a large nation that takes care of it's regular needs. Health care, done by the UK. Unemployment, done by the UK. Disaster relief, done by the UK. Defense, done by the UK. Large civic projects, underwritten by the UK.

One of the reasons why their personal average net income is so high, is because for one they have to be because pretty much everything has to be imported. Much like the average income in Hawaii is higher then the rest of the US. Little is made domestically, so everything has to be imported. So higher wages to counter that expense.

But if they become independent, most of those expenses will now have to be paid by the new nation of Falkland Islands. Paying for a defense force, national government, lawyers, Health Services, pensions, legates and embassies, and 10 million other things that tends to suck up the income of any nation.

Now do you want to try again, thinking of everything that is actually involved, and not just looking at average personal income? They would have to enact draconian taxation rules to pay for all of that, provide absolutely no government services at all, or go bankrupt in short order.

And no, the Falklands does not "make a lot of money from tourism". Tourism makes up around $8.3 million per year.

I bet the city of San Francisco makes more then that from tourism before lunch. Buenos Aires makes more then that in a single day.

No, tourism is a non-issue in the Falklands economy. And other then the seasonal penguin watchers, most of the tourists are actually friends and family members of the military stationed there. On average, a total of 55,000 visit the islands every year.

And no, they do not "export more then they import". You have to realize that it is following the old colonization model, and is most definitely not "self-sufficient". How many cars are built there? Televisions? Computers? How many units of heavy duty generators are made there every year? How many tons of pharmaceuticals? How many tons per year of paper goods do they produce?

Welcome to life in the modern age, where a herd of sheep and a fishing pole is all you need. Yes, they are gross exporters of food, but gross importers of most raw materials and processed goods (other then wool).