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?

"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."

Well I was thinking of the Pioneers when they travelled to the uninhabited regions of America to claim land and establish perminent settlement. I should imagine everywhere looked uninhabited at the time of their arrival - though it may have been inhabited before.

What I mean is, I didn't know any of it was actually uninhabited, though I guess its possible some might have been. Some parts of North America were occupied by settled indigenous people who lived in buildings, particularly in the east. Others were occupied by nomadic people who followed the herds. So there would have been parts of the land that were used for part of the year, but not all.

I only say this because there was a lot of crap talked about whether the land was actually inhabited or not. Mainly to justify taking more and more of it. There may well have been places that weren't being used at all, but the pioneers also took a great deal of land that was.

My friend is from the Falklands and she is British, all people there are British. Argentina have never 'owned' it so why they now want it is beyond me.

Argentina have never 'owned' it so why they now want it is beyond me.

Because, just as in 82 it's a populist rallying cry. If you talk to middle class Argentinians (although to be fair, the ones I know don't live in Argentina atm), they are all "It's ridiculous. It's a non-issue, we'd get our arses kicked if it came down to it and we should drop it" but as the recent events show, it does unite national sentiment amongst large swathes of the Argentinian population.

"Unite against the colonial oppressor" etc (ignoring the fact that they are all themselves descended from Spanish colonialists)

The Arg's that I know hate the British.

Google it.

Someone has already said there has been MOD presence over there since the last war. Wills and the warship are not provocative measures.

The islanders want to remain British, we owe it to them to ensure they get their wish. Argentina have no legitimate claim.

The Arg's that I know hate the British.

Well clearly there are a lot who are like that, otherwise the President wouldn't be succeeding in whipping them all into a nationalist frenzy over a few rocks and some sheep. I actually doubt it will come to blows, since although the other Latin countries are supporting Argentina's claim in principle, I'm not sure they'd actually provide military backing, which would be needed.

It is a proximity thing coupled with a complete hatred of all things english.

RealLife - it is the poor who live in the slums of Buenos Aires that are being whipped up by this. The middle and upper class (what is left of them) do not hate the British. There are many personal links to the UK among the wealthy.

Yeah, that's what I said in my earlier post- the middle classes generally think the President's view re the Falklands is stupid. I don't know the background to the Argentinians that Posie knows though, so cant really comment on them. I was just acknowledging that there is some anti-British sentiment.

The rich Argi's send their kids to English boarding schools...

The Falklanders send their sixth formers to the UK as well - one of the boarding houses at Peter Symonds in Winchester is called Falkland Lodge for precisely that reason.

The falklanders go to the uk for uni/ college to get marketing and tourism degrees. most of them are used to being away from home because they all attend the one secondary school in Stanley which is a boarding facility because of the distance to most of the settlements etc.

Wouldn't it be funny if Wills on his search and rescue stint happened to pluck some Argentinians out of the sea. Should he drop them back in to drown seeing as the Argentinians don't like him being in the Falklands....?

Who do we gove them back to, we never took them from anyone. The people there do not want to be owned by Argentinia, and we do nto have a right to take their right to self determination from them and give them to any other country. How would we like it if France decided they owned us as we are physically close to them?
Giving the Falklands to anyone is an act of colonialism, defending their right to self determination is not. falkland islanders do nto want to be given to Argentinia, how can anyone claim that we are in the wrong for not ignoring them?

@Animation. As I said earlier, if proximity is the determining factor then by rights, USA should give up Alaska and it should be Canadian yes? And Israel should be definitely be wiped off the map then.

The other thing to consider here is simply giving up the Falklands just because Argentina think it's theirs is what I would call the thin end of the wedge. At best their claim is tenuous.

If we simply say "Oh so sorry, here you go." then we appear weak. And weak countries get butt fucked by the others. Before you know it, Spain will be demanding Gibraltar back (again). Ireland may as well annex Northern Ireland cos hey....they're closer.

Can you imagine the US negotiating with Canada or Russia over who owns Alaska? Or Hawaii even?

Spain are demanding Gibraltar again, and the last bloody govt were all set to hand it over.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/9061381/Gibraltar-Between-the-Rock-and-an-increasingly-hard-line-place.html

and

www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/gibraltar/9033228/How-Tony-Blair-tried-to-give-Gibraltar-to-Spain-to-curry-favour-with-the-European-Union.html

"@Animation. As I said earlier, if proximity is the determining factor then by rights, USA should give up Alaska and it should be Canadian yes? And Israel should be definitely be wiped off the map then."

Yes I understand what you're saying and I'm sure you're right The Falklands shouldn't be handed back to anyone now.

It's the close proximity that pisses off Argentina - that's the thing I was saying. If the Falkland Islands had been just off the coast of Scotland I don't think it would ever have been a big deal.

The way I see it Britain were asking for trouble those few hundred years ago when they made their claim. And they got trouble. It's understandable.

In a similar fashion they were asking for trouble with Gibraltar, because no matter how you look at it it does look like a boundary violation of Spain!

Gib was handed over under the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. It has been a done deal for almost 300 years. Thank goodness we did have it during WW2, otherwise things in the Med would have been difficult. It is a very useful place.

No blimin way we are handing back Gib. Its far to handy as a strategic port as are many of our other island protectorates round the world.

Animation Gibraltar is totally different. It wasn't uninhabited when Britain got it, the Falklands were. And sorry, but uninhabited land that nobody's living on or claiming should be left unused, in case the nearest country wants it at some point in the future? How ridiculous.

FlangelinaBallerina -

I don't disagree. I can see both sides of the argument. From time to time the Argentines (or Spanish) might get a bit miffed with the British presence, and that I can understand. If there was a whole Spanish community living on the Isle of Man, because they got there first, I'm sure the British would have occassion to say - 'bloody Spanish!' Seems normal to me.

Well, that's where we disagree, because I don't think any British person would have a leg to stand on, in that situation. And really, usable land that doesn't belong to anyone else is so valuable. It makes sense to live on it, not leave it. Unless its being left for some valid reason, like a wildlife reserve.

If you liked it then you should've put your feet on it...