Royal Navy to deploy nuclear submarine to the Falkland Islands

OS119

blinding wrote: »

Somewhere down the line the British are going to have to make a deal with Argentina over the Malvinas/Falkands. Lets hope its not after another war where more young usefull idiots manage to get themselves maimed or killed.

South America is no longer a poor relation and will use its economic influence to have a greater say in the world.

while there is logic in that, the French have an overseas dependancy - St. Pierre and Miquelon - just 20 miles off the coast of Newfoundland. there are issues between the French and Canadians over fisheries and the like, but somehow the Canadians manage to keep their nationalistic outrage at the concept of some Islands near Canada not actually belonging to Canada in check.

perhaps the Argentines could learn something from the Canadians...

Richard

OS119 wrote: »

while there is logic in that, the French have an overseas dependancy - St. Pierre and Miquelon - just 20 miles off the coast of Newfoundland. there are issues between the French and Canadians over fisheries and the like, but somehow the Canadians manage to keep their nationalistic outrage at the concept of some Islands near Canada not actually belonging to Canada in check.

perhaps the Argentines could learn something from the Canadians...

Somehow Ireland manages to get by without coveting the Isle of Man. I don't know how they manage it...

woodoo

Richard wrote: »

Somehow Ireland manages to get by without coveting the Isle of Man. I don't know how they manage it...

But if some colonial power from south america had it people may feel differently.

BlaasForRafa

newmug wrote: »

What is it with certain pro-UK posters on Boards? Can you not admit, as decent human beings, that some of the things your ancestors (indeed, our common ancestors in a lot of cases!) did were wrong, like eh let me see, killing other people an colonising their land? How can you not see the injustice? How can you support this? Most UK people I know are 100% sound, and they do admit that these things should never have happened, and that they should be put right in this day-and-age. As a mature, civilised, educated society of compasionate human beings, how can you knowingly condone this neanderthal behaviour?

What is it with certain anti-UK posters on Boards? Can you not admit, as decent human beings, that some of the things your ancestors (indeed, our common ancestors in a lot of cases!) did were wrong, like eh let me see, killing innocent civilians by bombing rememberance services and pubs? How can you not see the injustice? How can you support this? Most Irish people I know are 100% sound, and they do admit that these things should never have happened, and that they should be put right in this day-and-age. As a mature, civilised, educated society of compasionate human beings, how can you knowingly condone this neanderthal behaviour?

BlaasForRafa

blinding wrote: »

Somewhere down the line the British are going to have to make a deal with Argentina over the Malvinas/Falkands. Lets hope its not after another war where more young usefull idiots manage to get themselves maimed or killed.

The deal will be something like this "We're keeping the islands, you lot can go get stuffed"

OS119

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The deal will be something like this "We're keeping the islands, you lot can go get stuffed"

thats going to be policy for a long time - and the truth is that while life may be less comfortable on the islands if they are completely blanked by the whole of SA, life would be entirely livable. they grow enough food, produce enough electricity, have a decent enough hospital, and have the RAF airbridge to provide university education, medical, educational and legal professionals and medical evacuation, and the islands produce enough of an economy to keep them functioning as a society. its also true that if the UK defence budget was cut in half, the UK could still hold the islands against all comers from SA.

the problem is going to be if - and i stress if - SA (primarily the oil producing countries, and Brazil) both become much bigger economic beasts than they currently are, and they decide to really go to town on the issue. if SA became a 'europe-lite' in terms of their economic power, they could say to the EU that they will not deal with the EU if the EU continues to deal with the UK while the UK continues with its current policy on the Islands. the UK's friends in this case are likely to be France as France also has overseas territories that it wants to keep hold of, while Germany is likely to cave given the combination of its export driven economy and its general desire not to get involved in overseas policy.

the opposite of that is the example i gave above - the French overseas dependancy off the coast of Canada - despite the collective identity of the US and Canada, their economic, political and military power, North America has no problem with St. Peirre and Miquelon, and doesn't feel that it needs to take ownership of the territory to preserve its self image. it all depends on the political maturity of the SA wide society that will develop in the future...

Jonny7

Richard wrote: »

Somehow Ireland manages to get by without coveting the Isle of Man. I don't know how they manage it...

Why not call it by one of its many original names e.g. Ellan Vannin out of spite for centuries of conquest

Richard

woodoo wrote: »

But if some colonial power from south america had it people may feel differently.

Not if the islanders wanted to be part if that "colonial power" you mentioned.

Dotsie~tmp

Air blockade?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/07/falkland-islands-argentina-announcement-malvinas?newsfeed=true

http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/92079/cfk-expected-to-make-announcement-on-malvinas-islands

OS119

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

Air blockade?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/07/falkland-islands-argentina-announcement-malvinas?newsfeed=true

http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/92079/cfk-expected-to-make-announcement-on-malvinas-islands

they don't seem to know their arse from the elbow on this - one apparently well-informed article suggests that they want to go for a blockade (its not technically a blockade, but the effect is the same), while the other apparently well-informed article says they 'want to be friends' with the islanders.

quite how banning boats from the islands from MERCOSUR countries, and telling the islanders don't get a say in who their islands belong to constitutes 'being friends' i'm not sure.

50p says todays anouncement from the fragrant Christina is full of piss and wind, and that she'll protest to the UN about British warships patrolling British waters, and the UN will roll its eyes and shrug with embarrassment and hope that she goes away...

walshb

Jonny7 wrote: »

Because your ancestors did the same. For all you know your great-great-great-great grandfather ran a slave boat. We're not exactly talking recent history here. We're all basically colonists.

The Falkanders appear to want to remain a part of country A as opposed to country B. Up until such a point arises that they wish to change that or become fully independent then I see no reason why there is any debate.

Fact is, that it's a part of human nature to do what the British did. IF Ireland had the power and might, our people would have colonised. Power brings hunger, passion, needs, and good and bad. Britain simply had the power and the means to exercise that power. Make no mistake, there is virtually NO innate difference between the average Irish man and the average British man. What separated them over the years' was that one had such power and the other did not. Reverse it, and Britain are being colonised by the Irishman.

woodoo

walshb wrote: »

Fact is, that it's a part of human nature to do what the British did. IF Ireland had the power and might, our people would have colonised. Power brings hunger, passion, needs, and good and bad. Britain simply had the power and the means to exercise that power. Make no mistake, there is virtually NO innate difference between the average Irish man and the average British man. What separated them over the years' was that one had such power and the other did not. Reverse it, and Britain are being colonised by the Irishman.

I'd say life was so grim back in those times for your average English peasant that they were only too happy to board a ship and hit the seas. At least they got fed while fighting and colonising.

Dotsie~tmp

Anyone listen? Appeared to be a lot of veiled threats in that speech.

Manach

Perhaps it would give the Argintines pause if the Falklanders gain EU citizenship like other overseas terroritories as the French have done to their's.

Jonny7

This is extraordinary.. the Argentine PM is trying to bring it to the UN.

Whats next, the ancestors of indigenous South American tribes start claiming their land back?

LordSutch

woodoo wrote: »

Yeah little old Great Britain is becoming smaller by the year.

The 'Great' of course relates to the islands size in relation to Brittany, which is small by comparisson.
And yes Great Britain probably is becoming smaller by the year, mostly due to coastal erosion & acid rain )

OS119

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

Anyone listen? Appeared to be a lot of veiled threats in that speech.

yeah, i got that to - and not so veiled either!

i wonder quite how the average Irish voter would take seeing David Cameron speak about 'relations' between the RoI and the UK against a backdrop of a map of Ireland coloured in a Union flag?

perhaps we should have a poll...

getz

Manach wrote: »

Perhaps it would give the Argintines pause if the Falklanders gain EU citizenship like other overseas terroritories as the French have done to their's.

that dont work,gibraltar and its citizens are EU citizens and even have their own EU MPs ,yet that dont stop the spanish from blockades and no fly zones and breaching EU laws against them

belacqua_

getz wrote: »

that dont work,gibraltar and its citizens are EU citizens and even have their own EU MPs ,yet that dont stop the spanish from blockades and no fly zones and breaching EU laws against them

Don't stop, or didn't stop? Either way that's all poppycock. The lifting of the blockade (in 1985) and the subsequent normalisation of relations (largely at the behest of the EEC and subsequently the EU -- the Brussels Process) between the UK and Spain was brought about by Gibraltar joining the EEC with Britain in 1973. Also, passenger flights between Gibraltar and Spain have been in operation for the past five and a half years, not a very effective no fly zone.

Fratton Fred

The Argentine Premier league is going to be renamed General Belgrano. Not after the man, but after the ship.

So much for keeping politics out of football.

getz

belacqua_ wrote: »

Don't stop, or didn't stop? Either way that's all poppycock. The lifting of the blockade (in 1985) and the subsequent normalisation of relations (largely at the behest of the EEC and subsequently the EU -- the Brussels Process) between the UK and Spain was brought about by Gibraltar joining the EEC with Britain in 1973. Also, passenger flights between Gibraltar and Spain have been in operation for the past five and a half years, not a very effective no fly zone.

i take it that you know nothing about what has been going on over gib ? like spain claiming gibraltars territorial waters,stopping free access between gib and spain,against EUs ruling,try going from spain to gib and you will queue for two hrs, banning public transport between gib and spain,even [three days ago ,telling britain that gibraltar and its citizens are not allowed to sit in any talks about their future,] get enlightened read the gibraltar chronicle on line,

Sunnyisland

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The Argentine Premier league is going to be renamed General Belgrano. Not after the man, but after the ship.

So much for keeping politics out of football.

Your joking of course

Lemming

realies wrote: »

Your joking of course

From Article

In a separate move, the Argentine Football Association is considering a government proposal to name its top division after the General Belgrano, the navy cruiser sunk by a British submarine during the war. It is also due to debate naming the cup "Gaucho Rivero" after Antonio Rivero, a cattle herder feted as a folk hero by some Argentinians for killing five prominent British settlers in 1833 – the year London is accused of stealing the territory.

Utterly juvenile. And not a little inflamatory on both counts. It could be pointed out that "considering" and "debate" are not "doing", but that's besides the point; these are government led "initiatites", and they should and do know better than the juvenile cr@p they're playing at.

Lemming

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

Anyone listen? Appeared to be a lot of veiled threats in that speech.

OS119 wrote: »

yeah, i got that to - and not so veiled either!

At risk of having missed something obvious, where can said speech be found?

LXFlyer

At the end of the day there is a certain amount of grandstanding going on here around the anniversary of the war.

The fact is that there is always a Royal Naval vessel on 6 month deployment in the South Atlantic - patrolling from Ascension, St Helena, and south to the Falklands and the Antartic. Currently it is a frigate, HMS Montrose, which has been on patrol since last October. It is simply being replaced by HMS Dauntless. Nothing of any particular news in any of this.

Lemming

lxflyer wrote: »

At the end of the day there is a certain amount of grandstanding going on here around the anniversary of the war.

Yes, I had noticed the invitations to Kirschner's "announcement" included war veterans and the families of said-same, which very much smacks of banging a drum.

That's on top of the worrying sign of newspapers creating banner pages with heavily mililtarised imagery. And the implied threat of "give us what we want or there will be war" in De Kirschner's "give peace a chance, not war". Of course it should again be pointed out that the only people banging a drum about war are the Argentinans ...

LXFlyer

Prior to HMS Montrose being deployed, another destroyer, HMS Edinburgh, was the South Atlantic patrol vessel - as I say it's a load of grandstanding around the anniversary of the war.

Fratton Fred

lxflyer wrote: »

Prior to HMS Montrose being deployed, another destroyer, HMS Edinburgh, was the South Atlantic patrol vessel - as I say it's a load of grandstanding around the anniversary of the war.

HMS Clyde, a modified river class patrol vessel is also down there on permanent deployment.

LXFlyer

Fratton Fred wrote: »

HMS Clyde, a modified river class patrol vessel is also down there on permanent deployment.

Yes - she is the Falkland Islands patrol vessel.

The point is that the other vessel, be it a frigate or destroyer, is nothing new. There is always a ship on 6-7 month deployment that patrols the South Atlantic and not specifically the Falklands.

belacqua_

getz wrote: »

i take it that you know nothing about what has been going on over gib ? like spain claiming gibraltars territorial waters,stopping free access between gib and spain,against EUs ruling,try going from spain to gib and you will queue for two hrs, banning public transport between gib and spain,even [three days ago ,telling britain that gibraltar and its citizens are not allowed to sit in any talks about their future,] get enlightened read the gibraltar chronicle on line,

Perhaps free movement between Spain and Gibraltar might be granted if the UK signs up to Schengen. I've read the Gibraltar Chronicle, nothing there about no fly zones, or state blockades, maybe you can enlighten me further.