Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 41b)
    It's always funny hearing leftists, feminists and other supposed egalitarians defend the UK's possession of the Falklands. The only reason the UK cares is because massive oil reserves lie nearby, and considering the UK already had the North Sea oil windfall, leftists should, for equality's sake, be happy to see the Falklands given to Argentina?

    More seriously, finder's keepers. And if not, winners keepers. So unless Argentina wants to start another war... stfu
    i knew this had something to do with feminism i just knew it
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by an_atheist)
    How about, we give the population of the Falklands a referendum to pick which country controls them? We the west are champions of democracy aren't we?
    We condemned the Crimean referendum
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Yes. That's why they maintain - at great cost - a defensive garrison that could repel anything that Argentina was capable of throwing at it.

    Arguably, Britain in '82 was much weaker. Our forces were poor, we'd just retired our last proper aircraft carriers, we'd started looking (under the table and very unofficially) at how to get rid of them.
    The garrison and defence costs around £65m a year. That is peanuts for a country with a 2.7 trillion $ economy. Britain spends 20 times as much on child benefit, a totally pointless and destructive subsidy.

    Yes that's my point. If Argentina had not been successfully denied the ability to rebuild its military by successful British diplomatic overtures, and they were as strong today as they were in 1982 compared to the UK, and they were to attack, I strongly doubt the UK would send another task force to defend it, were it not for the huge oil reserves near the island.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 41b)
    It's always funny hearing leftists, feminists and other supposed egalitarians defend the UK's possession of the Falklands. The only reason the UK cares is because massive oil reserves lie nearby, and considering the UK already had the North Sea oil windfall, leftists should, for equality's sake, be happy to see the Falklands given to Argentina?

    More seriously, finder's keepers. And if not, winners keepers. So unless Argentina wants to start another war... stfu
    The makers of this argument always conveniently forget that as the Falklands are independent, any revenue gained from the sale of oil or minerals belongs to them, not us .
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 41b)
    The garrison and defence costs around £65m a year. That is peanuts for a country with a 2.7 trillion $ economy. Britain spends 20 times as much on child benefit, a totally pointless and destructive subsidy.

    Yes that's my point. If Argentina had not been successfully denied the ability to rebuild its military by successful British diplomatic overtures, and they were as strong today as they were in 1982 compared to the UK, and they were to attack, I strongly doubt the UK would send another task force to defend it, were it not for the huge oil reserves near the island.
    I'm not sure about that number, I've seen the reports that it comes from and the sums they use aren't the best, I think the cost is higher.

    And re the second point, see my previous post. The UK doesn't own the oil or minerals. The wealth that they'll generate will belong to the Falklanders, not us.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oliver_94)
    We should give the Falkland Islands to Argentina and if not, Argentina should take them by force and slay any who oppose them
    We should begin the battle by firing people like you out of canons in the general direction on the Argentine navy, the islands are not to be bought or traded or sold. The people living there have the final say, and they say being part of Britain is what they want.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 41b)
    The garrison and defence costs around £65m a year. That is peanuts for a country with a 2.7 trillion $ economy. Britain spends 20 times as much on child benefit, a totally pointless and destructive subsidy.

    Yes that's my point. If Argentina had not been successfully denied the ability to rebuild its military by successful British diplomatic overtures, and they were as strong today as they were in 1982 compared to the UK, and they were to attack, I strongly doubt the UK would send another task force to defend it, were it not for the huge oil reserves near the island.
    Child benefit is useless and destructive, come off it, Europe and the UK have a declining birthrate, how is destructive to encourage people to have more children?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    The rest wasn't relevant to the point. You said it's not traitorous, I gave a definition under which it could be described as exactly that.

    But the notion of going against the state is irrelevant in this case as the state against whom we're arguing didn't exist when the islands were claimed and inhabited.

    If the islanders ever decided that the only thing I could envisage changing is that we'd withdraw defence and leave them to their own devices; there would be no arrangement to hand them over to someone else.
    Well I assumed you were using it in the traitor of the state sense which is what it usually means in relation to politics and matters of state, which is what this is, should the UK government rule over the Falklands. Normally it means to be traitorous to the state/king/whatever.

    I'm pretty sure it is traitorous to give chunks of land it rules over away to other states. In that case giving the islands away when the population want to be given away would be traitorouse to the state regardless of what the people living there want. What the Falklanders want has nothing to do with whether it is traitorouse in the normal political usage of the word is what I am saying.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    The makers of this argument always conveniently forget that as the Falklands are independent, any revenue gained from the sale of oil or minerals belongs to them, not us .
    BP's headquarters are in London, and therefore any corporation tax will be paid in the UK.

    Further, I really doubt the UK government will let the Falklandese, and island of 2000 people, keep hundreds of millions, eventually several billions, of pounds in revenue. If the government is sane, at least.

    As for the defence cost, what do you think the Falklands has? 4 Eurofighters, 2 transport planes and 2 sea kings is not expensive. SAMs only require the cost of running the radar and missile maintenance of easy to maintain missiles - not expensive. Does Britain even have any coastal missile batteries?

    Then there are 1200 soldiers. Not expensive. The Sachien glacier has 3000 Indian troops, for example.

    There is a single royal navy destroyer, and probably a nuke sub. These are likely to be the most expensive components.

    But overall I think based on that force composition 60-80m is about right.


    (Original post by HanSoloLuck)
    Child benefit is useless and destructive, come off it, Europe and the UK have a declining birthrate, how is destructive to encourage people to have more children?
    You end up with poor people having children who they don't invest into and rely on the state, creating chavs. Instead there should be a child tax credit, so that those who actually have jobs and pay taxes have children, instead of unemployed teenagers looking for a payout.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oliver_94)
    We should give the Falkland Islands to Argentina and if not, Argentina should take them by force and slay any who oppose them
    Yes... they tried that once before. Didn't go very well.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Pupillageman20)
    I do not feel strongly about this. I am happy to hear reasons for both sides. I just think some objectivity is required in this debate. A lot of the rhetoric is based on nationalism.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkla...ferendum,_2013

    91.94% turnour
    "Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?"
    1513 Yes
    3 No
    1 Spoilt

    Independent international observation mission (Lead by an American and with representatives from Canada, Mexico, Uruguay, Paraguay and NZ) declared the process was executed in accordance with international standards and local law, and that the result thus stands.

    Even the Argentines in the Falklands voted in favour and it is believed that one of those noes was wanting full independence.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an_atheist)
    We the west are champions of democracy aren't we?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 41b)
    BP's headquarters are in London, and therefore any corporation tax will be paid in the UK.

    Further, I really doubt the UK government will let the Falklandese, and island of 2000 people, keep hundreds of millions, eventually several billions, of pounds in revenue. If the government is sane, at least.

    As for the defence cost, what do you think the Falklands has? 4 Eurofighters, 2 transport planes and 2 sea kings is not expensive. SAMs only require the cost of running the radar and missile maintenance of easy to maintain missiles - not expensive. Does Britain even have any coastal missile batteries?

    Then there are 1200 soldiers. Not expensive. The Sachien glacier has 3000 Indian troops, for example.

    There is a single royal navy destroyer, and probably a nuke sub. These are likely to be the most expensive components.

    But overall I think based on that force composition 60-80m is about right.




    You end up with poor people having children who they don't invest into and rely on the state, creating chavs. Instead there should be a child tax credit, so that those who actually have jobs and pay taxes have children, instead of unemployed teenagers looking for a payout.
    So it's a class thing, you don't think poor people should have children...... because they will have 'chav' babies. Jeezus. That's wrong in so many ways I simply don't know where to begin.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 41b)
    BP's headquarters are in London, and therefore any corporation tax will be paid in the UK.

    Further, I really doubt the UK government will let the Falklandese, and island of 2000 people, keep hundreds of millions, eventually several billions, of pounds in revenue. If the government is sane, at least.
    Not really the Gov's place to say. And largely immaterial currently as the price of oil makes any drilling uneconomical.

    They also earn big from the various cruise ships that dock there as well as the fishing licences they administer - but again, it's theirs.

    As for the defence cost, what do you think the Falklands has? 4 Eurofighters, 2 transport planes and 2 sea kings is not expensive. SAMs only require the cost of running the radar and missile maintenance of easy to maintain missiles - not expensive. Does Britain even have any coastal missile batteries?

    Then there are 1200 soldiers. Not expensive. The Sachien glacier has 3000 Indian troops, for example.

    There is a single royal navy destroyer, and probably a nuke sub. These are likely to be the most expensive components.

    But overall I think based on that force composition 60-80m is about right.
    Thanks to previous employment I'm more than aware of what's down there, how they're equipped and what's dotted around the islands.

    There's the additional cost of maintaining the airbridge from Ascension, the raw cost of the facilities, the radar sites, the exercises, etc etc. I think it could be low balling the figures. Probably not by a huge amount, but I would not be surprised if the annual cost was over £100m.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HanSoloLuck)
    So it's a class thing, you don't think poor people should have children...... because they will have 'chav' babies. Jeezus. That's wrong in so many ways I simply don't know where to begin.
    While irrelevant to the topic at hand, the notion that someone shouldn't have children if they're not able to support them isn't entirely ridiculous.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    The thing to do is to negotiate an honourable settlement that respects everyone's fair and just needs. The days of colonial islands outside your home territory are past.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zarek)
    The thing to do is to negotiate an honourable settlement that respects everyone's fair and just needs.
    Yes. It's called the status quo.

    There's no negotiation to be had. The only people who matter are the islanders. They've made their decision clear. End of story.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Pupillageman20)
    My comment was figurative. And proximity is entirely relevant to territoriality.

    I see your point, though.
    You would learn a lot more if you read up on the histiry of he Falklands and how they ended up as they have with their competing claims. Proximity to the home nation isnt the only method.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zarek)
    The thing to do is to negotiate an honourable settlement that respects everyone's fair and just needs. The days of colonial islands outside your home territory are past.
    1. Right then, it's settled: Argentina has absolutely no need of a small group of windswept islands populated by British people.

    2. I think Argentina lost all hope of deserving an 'honourable settlement' when they unilaterally invaded a peaceful colony of fisherman for no reason other than to distract people from the horrific brutalising of their own population. I've never heard such rubbish. Honour? The words honour and Argentina do not belong in the same paragraph.

    3. And lastly, the Falklands are not in Argentina's home territory, they are next to it. If Argentina get the Falklands then by that logic Britain should get the Faroe islands, and the USA should get the Bahamas, and Russia should get Japan. In fact let's go the whole hog: every country should get all territories that happen to be relatively near them on a map. Mozambique can get Madagascar. Australia can get New Zealand. In fact, Indonesia can get Australia and New Zealand. Also Canada gets the USA.

    Because who really cares about self-determination, or even common sense? Not when there is a group of islands near a country that aren't part of it. OCD is the most important consideration, and then rocks. Actual humans be damned.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by 41b)
    The garrison and defence costs around £65m a year. That is peanuts for a country with a 2.7 trillion $ economy. Britain spends 20 times as much on child benefit, a totally pointless and destructive subsidy.

    Yes that's my point. If Argentina had not been successfully denied the ability to rebuild its military by successful British diplomatic overtures, and they were as strong today as they were in 1982 compared to the UK, and they were to attack, I strongly doubt the UK would send another task force to defend it, were it not for the huge oil reserves near the island.
    The costs in 2010 were £75m rising at £2m a year.

    They dont have a task force to send, but they now have military infrastructure and are more vigilant. The force on the Falklands is small, but its enough to deter and will be quickly reinforced.

    If we ever lost the Islands then we couldnt mount a retake of them because we dont have the forces. If the Islands came under attack we would defend them becayse of past history and the sacrifices already made.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 15, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.