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
Who should own the Falklands?
- Thread starter Virote_Considon
- Start date
GinandTonic
Saphire w/ Schweps + Lime
- Joined
- May 25, 2005
- Messages
- 8,898
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.
People should be aware that the island's finances are independent of the UK. The UK treasury would only receive whatever cash from oil revenue the falkland islanders voted to hand over.
Britain went to war to defend the islands before the oil was found. Given the invasion, the islanders are 100% against joining Argentina. There is a minority who would like full independence, but a majority who want to maintain their current position.
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?
People should be aware that the island's finances are independent of the UK. The UK treasury would only receive whatever cash from oil revenue the falkland islanders voted to hand over.
Britain went to war to defend the islands before the oil was found. Given the invasion, the islanders are 100% against joining Argentina. There is a minority who would like full independence, but a majority who want to maintain their current position.
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?
Any nation but the United Kingdom.
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.
The UK. Any talk otherwise is silly. There's just no other valid claim.
Grimz101
King
With all that oil it could be a very rich island, thousands of barrels of oil per person!
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
Anyone but the nation with the rulers using threats against the Falklands for political reasons.
GinandTonic
Saphire w/ Schweps + Lime
- Joined
- May 25, 2005
- Messages
- 8,898
Potentially 17 million per islander
Though ATM they are hoping for 3.5 billion barrels extractable oil and nine trillion cubic feet of gas. If I'm knocking the zeros off right thats a million barrels of oil and just shy of a billion cubic feet of gas for each islander.
IAM
Emperor
@ Virote Considon My heart wanted to go with 'Giant Radioactive Monkeys' but I choose option 'A'
@ VRWCAgent that would only make England look weak
@MobBoss Might is Right!
@ VRWCAgent that would only make England look weak
@MobBoss Might is Right!
brb moving to the Falkland Islands
And ladies, too, don't forget...Why not. They seem like well dressed, respectable gentlemen.You want to give it to the penguins?
Just think - the official currency would have to change to shrimp/krill! 
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!
mechaerik
Tuturuu!
I will tend to support Argentina's claims in the Falklands.
Yes, they're full UK citizens. Everyone living there has the right to claim Argentinian citizenship though few if any (and no one having done so wouldn't surprise me) have.
Well, France has every right to be in that sliver of ocean south of P&Q.
Spoiler large map :
If the UK stays in the pink shaded area of the picture, screw diplomacy. It'd be like requiring American permission to sail from Halifax to St John's -- it has nothing to do with America.
It's not obvious. The oil of Newfoundland is Newfoundland's, and the idea that Côte d'Ivoire (just off the top of my head) has any right to it is silly.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
I agree with this sentiment.
I remember when I was in Argentina in late 2008 - was reminded a couple times to never mention the islands by *that* name there.
Yared
That Guy
1) The British. Euro-loyalty, along with the fact that the natives want it that way (AFAIK).
2) Further as in "hearing more BS from Chavez addressing the Queen of England
lol" or further as in full-blown out war?
3) Well, that would solve this issue and some of the Antarctic border stuff. Seriously? No.
2) Further as in "hearing more BS from Chavez addressing the Queen of England
lol" or further as in full-blown out war?3) Well, that would solve this issue and some of the Antarctic border stuff. Seriously? No.
Spoiler :
Not my intent, I assure you. But I think it could be spun easily enough. Just have PM Brown get on TV and say "Yes, we are having a dust up with the Argentines. Our pals across the pond got all excited about a war and insisted we let them have a go as well. Given our unique, special relationship with America, I couldn't very well tell them no."
This poll has been done before.
The Islanders are the ones who should decide, and they want to remain British.
The Islanders are the ones who should decide, and they want to remain British.
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.
They can go right ahead.
But in all seriousness, Tasmania being part of Australia does make slightly more sense than the Falklands being owned by the UK.
I don't really see all that much of a problem in giving them independence, even if they don't want it, and then allowing them to make their own decisions as to who they coddle up to. It's not like it would make them any less well off, assuming the UK didn't leave them to rot/be invaded by Argentina, but with oil, I'm sure an independent Falklands could keep the UK behind them.
But yeah, if they don't want it, perhaps it's not the best solution, although the current arrangement hardly seems to be working out all that well.
