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

Views on Falkland & Britain/Argentina's relationship?? Watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Just want a few views on what young or old people think towards the falklands, do you think its a worthy cause to argue about, is it worth keeping the falklands??
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yes we should keep the falklands because the people that inhabit those islands are British, they are our own people.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Of course it's worth keeping the Falklands. I will not ever advocate abandoning fellow Britons. That and our historical claim to the islands is far superior to Argentina's.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If they have a referendum, and they want to stay British, they should.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    If they want to be British then they should darn well remain British... Argentina should stop making a fuss!




    (We all know what happened last time they did that, oooh burnnn)
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Beefcakepanties)
    Just want a few views on what young or old people think towards the falklands, do you think its a worthy cause to argue about, is it worth keeping the falklands??
    The Falklands as such are far from worth it by any sort of financial calculation.

    But to dispose of them would be at best very questionably legal, would alienate British people on those islands, would be hugely unpopular in the UK and would embarrass us internationally.

    It's far from a desirable situation, but it's one we can't really do much about.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I personally have never really cared about 'historical claims', but the fact remains that the Falkland Islands are sovereign British territory, both under international law and by the will of their inhabitants.

    Even notwithstanding that, encouraging post-colonial irredentism would set a very bad precident in international relations. Most countries, when kept tightly confined within their own legal international borders and shut off all outlets for irredentist activity, and will evolve into responsible members of the international community.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    The Falklands as such are far from worth it by any sort of financial calculation.
    Aren't they financial self-sufficient? And now have a load of oil as well?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Even if we accept Kirchner's flawed historical narrative, it's a terrible principle to assert historical territory over the wishes of an overwhelming majority of the existing population.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Aren't they financial self-sufficient? And now have a load of oil as well?
    Yes but we still pay for their defense (i'm not aware of them paying us for it).
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I believe that we should continue to defend the Falkland Islands from a nation which would only nationalise the resource meaning that we would see absolutely no benefit, not to mention that we have many British territiories (including the Cayman Islands) and abandoning them to a rather weak nation would send a very poor message regarding our percieved international strength.

    With that being said however i would'nt mind combining French and British overseas territories and putting them under purely NATO protection.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Beefcakepanties)
    Just want a few views on what young or old people think towards the falklands, do you think its a worthy cause to argue about, is it worth keeping the falklands??
    The people there consider themselves British, and the Falklands is there home. Yes we should keep it, what would we be if we let our own people be thrown out of their home and forced to move countries?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Yes but we still pay for their defense (i'm not aware of them paying us for it).
    Those are sunk costs though really. If those troops weren't deployed to the Falklands they'd just be in Germany or Cyprus or somewhere else. I suppose we could ask them for a per capita contribution to the overall defence budget, which would cost them about £1.3 million a year.
    Anyway, it's impressive that the Falklands is able to even be self-sufficient (minus defence) despite being in the arse-end of nowhere and without having to resort to being a tax haven like most of our other overseas territories and inspite of the dirty economic war that Argentina is waging against them.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Those are sunk costs though really. If those troops weren't deployed to the Falklands they'd just be in Germany or Cyprus or somewhere else. I suppose we could ask them for a per capita contribution to the overall defence budget, which would cost them about £1.3 million a year.
    Anyway, it's impressive that the Falklands is able to even be self-sufficient (minus defence) despite being in the arse-end of nowhere and without having to resort to being a tax haven like most of our other overseas territories and inspite of the dirty economic war that Argentina is waging against them.
    It's not overly suprising really when you consider that there are about 3000 residents on a small island so no need for nuclear plants costing billions ect.. no need for railways going from Inverness to Southhampton..
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Aren't they financial self-sufficient? And now have a load of oil as well?
    One of the companies involved in looking for oil's share price just dropped through the floor after the results of one of their drills. It's looking like there is not much oil though that could change.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    It's not overly suprising really when you consider that there are about 3000 residents on a small island so no need for nuclear plants costing billions ect.. no need for railways going from Inverness to Southhampton..
    Well railways and nuclear plants are supposed to be assets to an economy, not drains...That says something about the state of the UK more than anything else.
    I'd prefer to say that their balanced budget is down to their almost full employment rate and a lucrative fishing industry.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Aren't they financial self-sufficient? And now have a load of oil as well?
    They might have a decent reserve of oil, we don't know yet. And even then, does the UK get any of it? I genuinely don't know as they keep all their other local taxes internally.

    They are self-sufficient but don't pay for the services the UK performs on their behalf, namely defence, foreign affairs and a few other bits and bobs. The first one is the main cost, and it is significant.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    The Falklands as such are far from worth it by any sort of financial calculation.
    Not according to a recent article I read - it said it was estimated many billions of barrels of oil are withing the Falklands economic radius, although due to the difficulty in drilling in the South Atlantic (and the trouble caused by Argentina and other South American countries) there needed to be definitive proof of at least £100 Million profit in order to even look at drilling.

    I think that its not a matter of 'Is it worth keeping?' - otherwise we could say the same about Wales, or Northern Ireland, or Scotland. And we cant and dont - they are as much us as Britain is them. We have a duty to aid them and protect them in any way we can.

    Thats not to mention the whole fact that the Islanders, clearly the most important people in this struggle, want to be British.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    They want to remain British so we should defend them and uphold it.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Well railways and nuclear plants are supposed to be assets to an economy, not drains...That says something about the state of the UK more than anything else.
    I'd prefer to say that their balanced budget is down to their almost full employment rate and a lucrative fishing industry.
    Railways can be if there is sufficient demand for said route (though we provide plenty of unprofitable routes as well) though when it comes to energy its more a case of which is the least financially draining.

    Nuclear technology is only an asset really in so much as the UK is very advanced scientifically.

    Good point.
 
 
 
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: January 18, 2013
  • 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
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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

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