I think we should give the Falkland Islands back

[Haziedoll]

I don't understand what our claim on the islands is. From what I have read our argument for retaining the islands is that most of the islanders are of British heritage, well they would be wouldn't they considering the islands are so remote.

We gave Hong Kong back so what's the difference with the Falklands?

David Cameron accused Argentina of colonialism, from where I'm sitting it looks as if Britain are guilty of that, holding onto islands for no legitimate reason, guilty of provocation by sending Prince William and a warship out to the area.

Have I missed the point? Why do you think
we should retain the islands?

Omg MollieO that's brilliant We have to keep them now!

'You've got to admit the British had a bit of a nerve really. A few British wandered 8 thousand miles away from home, settled on this Island and claimed it as their own, when Argentina was just a hop and a skip away. Can you imagine how we would have felt if a few Argentines had done the same in Ireland.'

Argentina did not exist when the Falklands were settled by the British. It was a Spanish colony.

I'm don't even think it is about self-determination. Even if it was uninhabited , it is still ours. We have owned and run it for years. It is about property and ownership.

Why do the Argentinians want it when they have never owned it?

If you park your car outside a neighbour's house, can they claim it?

Making a territorial claim based on geographical proximity is just so... primitive. Have we (humans) really not moved on from that perspective now, in the 21st century? Just because we (or anyone) in the past made successful claims on the basis of geography, is not good reason to do so in future.

It's Empire building on Argentina's part to claim Las Malvinas, they need to grow up and focus on their real domestic problems in their country (economy, etc.) Every time Argentina kicks up a stink about this issue it's because they're trying to avoid some hotter domestic potato.

Think of the Serbs claim on Kosovo: arguably valid for geographical/economic/cultural/historical and heritage reasons, the Argentine claim on Falklands is ridiculous supremely tenuous in comparison.

"If you park your car outside a neighbour's house, can they claim it?"

No, but you might piss them off.

Surely Northern Ireland should become one with the Republic then. that would make even more sense.

Chile is closer to Argentina than the Falklands, but they can't claim Chile, they respect the rights of Chileans. Why can't they respect the rights of the British and the Falklanders?

If I parked my car outside my neighbours house, and they did try to claim it, I wouldn't sacrifice my children trying to save my car.

Yes, but we live in a land of principle and law and order. As a country, we cannot allow other countries to bully us and take our property.

Also. we have a police force, which uses force, to deal with lawbreakers. It is similar on the international stage, except we use our armed forces.

Clearly the issue is that we plonked our flag on it first. The population is 3000. I read there are 3000 armed forces people there defending it. Village sized.
No oil found yet.. its mainly just a strategic outpost on the other side of the world.

With such a small population, the island is dependent on the other south american countries for everything, so they are flexing their muscles and causing problems with imports/exports to the islands. Which is within their rights I suppose.

I bet we will find plenty of money to defend it, despite what David "think-of-the-deficit" Cameron says to the people of the UK.

The issue is that it is full of British people who identify with Britain.

Argentina should be ashamed, and we are quite right not abandon our 'village' to hostile and uncivilised action.

The Falklands are actually fairly wealthy, thanks to fishing, and unlike us in the mother country, they have a balance of trade surplus.

But what the hell, abandon them, who cares about 3000 people, not you, obviously....

Animation, people have much more valid complaints about British behaviour than geographical proximity. I can't think of another example analogous to this, actually. Is there anywhere else that was uninhabited when British people got there, that another country has decided its entitled to simply because it's relatively close?

Sozzledchops I have no wish to get into an NI discussion- with a DH from Belfast I've heard it all before- but that situation isn't like the Falklands at all. The people living in the Falklands now are the continuation of the original community, and they're virtually unanimous about what they want. That isn't the case in NI. If Argentines settled the Falklands now and the indigenous people were oppressed but not removed or wiped out, the situation there in 400 years might resemble NI today.

I don't buy the property and ownership malarkey. The land isn't British in perpetuity because of the first people who landed there. It's British for as long as the people wish, which might be in perpetuity.

Lastly, the people of the Falklands are only immigrants in the same way as anyone not living in the birthplace of humanity is an immigrant. We nearly all descend from people who travelled to get where we live. The first people to live in Britain travelled here from elsewhere. The only difference is that the Falklands were settled more recently than most other places.

Are the inhabitants mostly armed forces people? That is my question.

Don't look now but we are going back into recession, in the actual UK.

Don't look now but the NHS is being parcelled off to private companies and you'll be paying for your healthcare (in top up charges or insurance premiums) prob by the end of this parliament.

Don't look now but the government have decided that if you lose your job, you'll have to work for free for private companies. Forced, unpaid labour, yes. Against several of our laws and human rights but there you go. :(

Don't look now but you've just lost the right to a fair trial.

Falklands is a good distraction tactic, Ill give them that. Send prince wills out too and it will definitely get on the news!

I once heard it was cheaper to buy a Landrover in the Falklands and have it shipped to the UK, than to buy a Landrover in the UK.

Can anyone confirm if this is true and if so recommend a Landrover dealer?

They only make fish and sheep Lynette. I do like a bit of lamb myself.

There are a lot of military. Civilian-wise, There are a few villages, and er, Port Stanley, which is sort of market town-ish size, and a fair amount of remote farms etc, sort of crofters. I'm crap at numbers though. Cruise ships still call in there, I think. They stop off for the birds and wildlife. Saw some awesome elephant seals etc on the outlying islands.

They didn't ever used to trade with south America, all of the produce etc used to come once a month by ship, or on the scheduled military flights from the uk. The trade with south America is a newish thing (but if you go out onto the land and find the encampments that we're used, you can find old tins of Argentinian corned beef that were in the uk soldiers compo rations. Ironic.

The penguins/ planes thing is v funny. We camped on the edge of a penguin colony and they stink. Also, if you go out of your tent in the dark and switch on your torch, they all run towards you. Fucking terrifying.

Chickin - like your analysis, and style..

don;t look now but its 1982, Tories are at their worst level of popularity, so lets save Maggie's skin by having a pointless war thousands of miles away....and sacrifice "our brave seamen and airmen" forthe sake of it..

I find it really odd that people don't see self- determination as a worthy principle, especially on MN, which is normally well into that sort of thing. Yes, the Falklands are basically a bit of a pain in the ass, because they are expensive to defend and not worth much (having worked in the industry, I am fairly sure that the oil down there is not going to be anything worth fighting over- or at least, if it comes to that (that oil prices are so high that those fields are a treasure) we are going to have far far more serious problems that the Falklands oil fields).However, you could make the "value for money" argument about large tracts of the British mainland but I think the inhabitants of certain cities might be rather indignant if the army left them it in the event of a spurious foreign claim.

The point is, that however the Falklands became British, the inhabitants wish to remain British and I think we have to honour that. I am sure that if they didnt want to be British we would let it go. It's not exactly a vote winner with the British voting public.

My DS is half argentine, and i was hoping to move to argentina in about 3 years. I hope this all gets sorted out soon!

Hard to say Apple. I have a friend who is married to an Argentinian. He reckons it's all just posturing and a good distraction from the domestic problems in Argentina. However, that was also the situation in 1982.

"Is there anywhere else that was uninhabited when British people got there, that another country has decided its entitled to simply because it's relatively close?"

Parts of North America. They managed to break free of the British though - quite rightly, but the British Empire of olde sure had a ruthless and interfering reputation, and I don't think we should be surprised that their conduct back then still rankles.

Out of interest - were the British really the first to set foot on the Falklands. Is that a fact?

timeline if you read this it gives a good history of all explorers etc
It was only a papal decree that "gave" that part of the world to the Spanish originally even before the islands had even been discovered
If you look all the way through you will find the French and the Americans have also made claims in the past as well
It is only in recent history that these disputes have gathered so much pace
Personally I think the most important thing should be self determination of the populace, they were originally British if they wish to remain so then we should defend them

Animation which parts of North America? I know a lot of it was claimed to be uninhabited when it wasn't- what they actually meant was that it wasn't farmed.

Regarding the Falklands, there's no evidence of any pre-European settlement. There've recently been some bits of boat found that might be from one of the peoples living in Argentina, before Argentina existed of course. We don't know why. Its possible that people were trying to journey there and didn't arrive, hence the boat being found but nothing else. Or perhaps they got there, took a look and decided not to bother, maybe they were there for a bit then died out or left. We don't know whether Europeans were definitely the first people to set foot there, but we do know the islands were uninhabited when they arrived. Making them nearly unique in South America. In the absence of any evidence of previous settlement, the indigenous people were Europeans.

Whoever said this is a distraction technique, absolutely. On the part of both governments. Its just that, unusually, the British government wasn't the first to start the sabre rattling.