The Student Room Group

Why was it important to keep the Falklands?

Why didn't we just give it to Argentina? No patriotic nonsense please, there must be some economic reason.

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Redefine
Why didn't we just give it to Argentina? No patriotic nonsense please, there must be some economic reason.


The people who live there are British people. They wanted to stay.
Reply 2
Avatar for Redefine
Redefine
OP
1
Original post by cbreef
The people who live there are British people. They wanted to stay.

Can't that argument be used for all the other territories we gave away?
Original post by Redefine
Can't that argument be used for all the other territories we gave away?


Like where? I think in the most recent referendum only 2 voted against being British.
It was for patriotic reasons. It made no sense economically but economics isn't everything. People felt like Britain was losing influence in the world anyway and that would have been the final nail in the coffin. It was a hugely popular move to defend them despite not being economical. May be Thatcher was a patriot who was doing it out of pride for Britain or may be it was a political calculation. Either way it worked.
It was mainly to boost Thatcher's popularity in the upcoming elections and to distract the British people from the austerity at home, i.e to give them something to 'get behind' as can be seen by the media's reaction of 'Gotcha' etc which was the Sun's reaction when the HMS Belgrano (an Argentine ship) was sunk.
Reply 6
Avatar for Redefine
Redefine
OP
1
I reckon it's in Americas interest for it to be under British control to keep an eye on South America, so they probably wanted us to win and may have provided us with strategic info. Ofc we'd never know about that it's just speculation.
UK ruled there since 1833 Population wanted to remain British. We respect the right to self determination. We lost money as the war was very expensive.
Original post by Redefine
I reckon it's in Americas interest for it to be under British control to keep an eye on South America, so they probably wanted us to win and may have provided us with strategic info. Ofc we'd never know about that it's just speculation.


if that had been the case then Regan would have played a bigger role in the defensive of the island, he famously never provided 'boots on the grounds' only the blocking of Exocet missiles from Argentina
ultimately it was Thatcher's decision to go to war, against it must be said, the advice of many of her generals
If Argentina wanted it back, their only option would be diplomacy. The two Typhoons stationed there would be enough to stop their entire force. (Seriously, their military is pathetic)
Reply 10
Avatar for ibby1995
ibby1995
Original post by CoolCavy
if that had been the case then Regan would have played a bigger role in the defensive of the island, he famously never provided 'boots on the grounds' only the blocking of Exocet missiles from Argentina
ultimately it was Thatcher's decision to go to war, against it must be said, the advice of many of her generals


This. Reagan actually wanted to side with Argentina.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303816504577313852502105454
Original post by james813
Like where? I think in the most recent referendum only 2 voted against being British.


UK gave Hong Kong to China without ever giving the people a referendum and indeed any consultation on any part of the arrangement.
Original post by Redefine
I reckon it's in Americas interest for it to be under British control to keep an eye on South America, so they probably wanted us to win and may have provided us with strategic info. Ofc we'd never know about that it's just speculation.


Total nonsense.

Apart from the fact that they simply wanted to side with Argentina, there are many many many British, Dutch, French, and indeed American islands all around South America. This is without mentioning the fact that the US installed a government in Chile, was still practically controlling Panamá, and South America as a whole is not a threat.
Reply 13
Avatar for Josb
Josb
6
Original post by CoolCavy
It was mainly to boost Thatcher's popularity in the upcoming elections and to distract the British people from the austerity at home, i.e to give them something to 'get behind' as can be seen by the media's reaction of 'Gotcha' etc which was the Sun's reaction when the HMS Belgrano (an Argentine ship) was sunk.


Well, she was responding to an aggression from Argentina, another PM may have done the same; Thatcher's role was not that exceptional.

Original post by ibby1995
This. Reagan actually wanted to side with Argentina.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303816504577313852502105454


Certainly not. The Argentinian Junta was anti communist and the USA wanted to keep a good relationship with them, Reagan wouldn't have taken the risk to lose his best ally over Argentina.
Original post by Josb
Well, she was responding to an aggression from Argentina, another PM may have done the same; Thatcher's role was not that exceptional.



Certainly not. The Argentinian Junta was anti communist and the USA wanted to keep a good relationship with them, Reagan wouldn't have taken the risk to lose his best ally over Argentina.


knew this thread would attract you :lol:

seems me you and Thatcher cant keep away from each other :rofl:
Original post by Little Toy Gun
UK gave Hong Kong to China without ever giving the people a referendum and indeed any consultation on any part of the arrangement.

Didn't the UK only ever have a lease on HK, not full legal ownership?
Reply 16
Avatar for Josb
Josb
6
Original post by Little Toy Gun
UK gave Hong Kong to China without ever giving the people a referendum and indeed any consultation on any part of the arrangement.


It had been scheduled in the 1898 treaty.
Reply 17
Avatar for Reue
Reue
20
Original post by CoolCavy
It was mainly to boost Thatcher's popularity in the upcoming elections and to distract the British people from the austerity at home, i.e to give them something to 'get behind' as can be seen by the media's reaction of 'Gotcha' etc which was the Sun's reaction when the HMS Belgrano (an Argentine ship) was sunk.


No, it was mainly because out territory was being invaded. Any prime minister should have reacted in the same way.
Original post by Josb
It had been scheduled in the 1898 treaty.


Original post by Palmyra
Didn't the UK only ever have a lease on HK, not full legal ownership?


Wrong.

1. The lease was on the New Territories, not the rest of Hong Kong.

2. The People's Republic of China has no legal claim to Hong Kong, as Republic of China (Taiwan) is Qing's (signatory) successor state, and the Republic of China still exists (and indeed Taiwan still claims to own all of China, Hong Kong, Macau, and most of Mongolia and other territories).

3. Ever if you consider PRC to be the successor to RoC, PRC still has no claim. PRC, officially, does not recognize any of those treaties; RoC, on the other hand, does.

So to say the handover was done due to a contractual obligation is like saying the UK was obliged to act on a treaty that wasn't signed or recognized by the other party. Chances are that, without Thatcher's insistence to talk about Hong Kong beyond 1997, China would likely have chosen to not say anything, at least not in the 80s. Once the UK raised the question, the circumstances forced China to not back down in the same way the Argentines left the UK no choice but to go to war for the Falklands.
Anyway no economic reason and we took offence at being invaded. Not very polite. The UK had been considering giving them up. Unlikely ever to happen now unless the Islanders have a referendum in favour.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you