Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc
This appears to be a fight over resources, rather than any concern over the people of the Falklands. Are 100% of them British citizens? Do any of those people want to change citizenship?
Argentina is entitled to reasonably protect their offshore resources. Canada has a similar problem with France, re the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon (south of Newfoundland). Because those islands are owned by France and the people who live there are French citizens, France has claimed the right to a considerable part of Canada's fishing territory. Naturally, this has led to disputes and diplomatic arguments and hard feelings. But at least we haven't gone to war with France.
All 3,200 islanders would make for a great independent country.
The UK. Any talk otherwise is silly. There's just no other valid claim.
With all that oil it could be a very rich island, thousands of barrels of oil per person!
And ladies, too, don't forget...Why not. They seem like well dressed, respectable gentlemen.You want to give it to the penguins?![]()
Ethically, the islands belong to the islanders. But what I was asking is for the internationally-recognized legalities of citizenship and ownership. Are the people living there legal citizens of the UK? Are there any legal Argentine citizens living there?The islands belong to the islanders. The oil belongs to the islanders. The islanders have a democratic assembly to decide what they want to do with their sovereignty and their cash.
I'm saying that Britain should not be able to use the Falklands as an excuse to trespass on Argentina's legal offshore territory. This is the excuse France has used to trespass on Canadian fisheries - the proximity of St. Pierre and Miquelon.I'm a little confused here. You seem to be saying that islands are not entitled to own their territorial waters? Why on earth not? Why should the falkland islanders not be allowed the same territorial waters as the canadians or the argentinians?
Ethically, the islands belong to the islanders. But what I was asking is for the internationally-recognized legalities of citizenship and ownership. Are the people living there legal citizens of the UK? Are there any legal Argentine citizens living there?
I'm saying that Britain should not be able to use the Falklands as an excuse to trespass on Argentina's legal offshore territory. This is the excuse France has used to trespass on Canadian fisheries - the proximity of St. Pierre and Miquelon.
Obviously this situation requires careful diplomacy and compromises on all sides.
It should be obvious why both countries can't claim 100% of the surrounding resources - there would be no resources left to claim!
The UK. Any talk otherwise is silly. There's just no other valid claim.
@ VRWCAgent that would only make England look weak
Maybe the Falklands should own itself.
That would seem to be the most sensible option to resolve petty conflicts. Take the toys away from both children.
Tasmania should own itself. What, Tasmania wants to be part of Australia? Too bad.