Thank you for your message. I feel sad for all those who lost brave men in the conflict on both side’s. They all have families left behind. Also for all the vets of the conflict who I know are still suffering. But on my visit recently rumour has it that the British Government what talks to start. I am strongly opposed for many reasons. Firstly the loss of British lives but more importantly for the Islanders, some of whom are 8th generation Falkland Islanders. Its like saying to Australia give your country back to New Zealand. But they are a large and wealthy Island.
What talks are you talking about Sue ?
I believe that the British Governent want to open negosiations with Argentina about the best way forward to solve the ongoing battle over the Islands. I think they feel it costs too much to garrison the Islands. But I feel that the Islanders have been on the Islands for hundreds of years and it is their homeland. Wny should they give this away when they know nothing else, have done no harm to Argentina and the Argentine is such a huge counrty, why do they need it and displace all these people?
The argentine administration have no plans to displace anybody. Moreover the Argentine constitution invites “Every men of good will in the world” to work and live in our country.
I believe that the British Governent want to open negosiations with Argentina about the best way forward to solve the ongoing battle over the Islands.
That sounds good but I think those rumours are not true, the relations between the 2 countries about this subject are quite cold lately.
Wars are usually fought on account of poor politico/economic decisions on one side or another. In other words they are begun by politicians. Politicians rarely get anything right and it’s usually the people of whichever country , that is left to live with burden of their incompetence. In the case of the Falklands/Malvinas in 1982, it arose because of poor economic policies of both British and Argentine governments. The British defence cuts sent out the wrong signals to the Argentines, and it was an opportunity for the Argentine government to distract its people from its own economic blunders. As usual, men died on both sides.
If any talks are to come about now, they are probably on account of the growing costs of garrisoning the islands. Again, the British tax payer is left with the economic burden. Sooner or later talks will begin, some sort of agreement will be made, and the British will slowly reduce their presence on the islands.
In the meantime, we will continue to salute Baroness Thatcher, whose economic policies got us entangled in a war which saved her and her government from what would have been a very definate defeat in the following election the ‘Falklands Factor’.
And thank God she did, the Labour Party at that time had been taken over by the Trotskyite wing of the Labour Party, which had been thoroughly penetrated by, shall we say, “Eastern European interests”, which had led Michael Foots 1983 manifesto to be little more than a surrender document to the Soviets in as far as it concerned defence.
Nonsense
Not at all, unilateral nuclear disarmament was a central feature of the 1983 manifesto, a policy advantageous only to the Soviets, which is why they pushed it so hard via their proxies.
Given the connections and politics of various high-ranking Labour Party members at that time, this is somewhat suspicious…
Yes, it was a part of their manifesto. That’s as far as I’m willing to agree.
I doubt that Mr Foot and his coleagues were so easily led by the Soviets. We may not agree with their policies, but they weren’t politically niave, neither were they friends of the Soviet Union (perhaps Mr Scargill? - but that’s another story).
When the Falkands were invaded, Mr Foot was the first poltician to stand up in Parliament and sound anything like a statesman, as he demanded that the government take action.
Former KGB agent Oleg Gordievsky accused Michael foot of being a Soviet “agent of influence” (agent Boot) (although Michael foot sued and won against the paper which published this).
He was also a high profile member of CND, an organisation penetrated and “guided” by the Stasi (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Stasi-Files-Germanys-Operations-Against/dp/0743231058/ref=sr_1_1/026-0648493-4919604?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181913042&sr=8-1) to maintain its position as for unilateral, and not multilateral disarmament.
Given the number of Labor Party politicians with links to rather unsavoury communist front organisations, including some of the current lot, Charles Clark for instance, I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch…
So what do you consider is the best way forward and what are your thoughts reference the Islanders?
Self determination. If they want to be joined with Argentina then allow it. If they want to remain British then allow it. If they want to remain British but with closer trading ties to Argentina or if they want nothing whatsoever to do with either country then it’s their choice.
I’d second that, they should be allowed to determine their own future. It isn’t the business of either the British or Argentine Government.
I can understand the mistrust of the Islanders, they were treated badly by the Foreign Office who would happily have gotten rid of them given half a chance. For years the FO worked to undermine their interests, it was quite disgraceful.
The problem as I see it, is that the Argentine Government is not prepared to acknowledge their right to self-determination. Neither is it prepared to accept recognised means of resolving sovereignty disputes. The only thing they’re prepared to accept is negotiations leading to them being given sovereignty. Negotiations with a pre-determined outcome aren’t negotiations.
Michael Foot, a Soviet agent? I’m speachless, but not because I believe it. 
Let’s be clear on this, I’m not a leftwing, socialist/communist whatever. I don’t have any particular favourites when it comes to party politics. I prefer to step back and look at things and make up my own mind. I’m probably wrong on most issues, but I don’t go much on what I read in any individual newspaper, I try to balance it with what I read, see and hear elsewhere in the media, and of course what I study in history.
S.W. there has to be some form of honourable accomodation which is acceptable to both sides.
If I remember correctly, the Falklands was a coaling station for the fleet and the whalers, much the same as Aden had been. Even before 1982, it had passed its sell-by-date, and I would suggest that that was one of the reasons the Argentine government felt it could get away with the invasion.
As the clock is ticking, Britian is investing in new large-deck carriers, which will enable larger fixed-wing aircraft to operate from them, together with the new commando carriers: Albion, Bulwark and Ocean, these would make any future plans of invasion by Argentina, rather silly. Much of the future planning for Britain’s Armed Forces is for out-of-are operations, and so, as a result, the British government will be better able to launch a task force to defend the islands than they were in 1982. That being the case, it will become easier to reduce the present garrison.
Even so, Argentina is not considered an enemy of Britain per se, and the only reason that there is potential for enmity is the islands. The Islandsers’ needs cannot be ignored, but there has to be some sort of solution figured out. If it is left solely to the self-determination of the Islanders, things will not change. There has to be change, and better brains than mine need to be employed to bring it about. Watever the solution, it will be required to satisfy both the Islanders and the Argentinians. Perhaps an accomodation such as Hong Kong, we hand over sovereignty to the Argentine, on the condition that we have the run of the place for the next five hundred years or so?
I see what you’re getting at, but to move of topic for a moment, I’ve got a particular gripe about the HK HOTO.
It was only the NT that were leased for ninety-nine years, the ‘Fragrant Harbour’ itself was never ceded to the British government, neither that of the time, nor any subsequent.
It was given in perpetuity to the people of Great Britain and the impending rule by the PRC caused not a little consternation amongst the population, not least due to the atrocities at Tienanmin Square in '89. Those that could afford to do so gapped it, but many could only wait and see.
Now I’ve got that off my chest please crack on. 
Okay, cracking-on.
Why should the Islanders have self-determination?
I have a problem with this and would like to understand why I keep hearing this as it doesn’t make sense to me. Yes, I think they ought to be offered options, but I fail to see why self-determination has to be the only solution.
Erm, why shouldn’t they?
In the past when industries ceased to be considered economically viable, they have been allowed to decline. Examples of these being: steel industry, coal industry, shipbuilding industry, naval dockyards and the motor industry. When this has happened the people of the communities which have provided the labour force to these industries for generations, have largely been ignored. Not only have they been left to degenerate, but so have the industries which supported them by supplying the raw materials, plant and equipment, and engineering skills and know-how (and, of course the training facilities for future generations, so much so that we have to outsource new projects to foreign companies). So, the economic and social effects of industrial decline have rippled through whole regions of our society causing myriad problems which we still have to confront.
When all of this has happened, the people in these regions have not been offered any rights of self-determination as to whether their particular industry ought to be supported by government spending; they’ve had to bite the bullet. So, I have difficulty understanding why the Falkland Islanders should be offered the right to veto any proposals that might be floored, by right of self-determination. If, for example, the Islands were to be given over to Argentina, why not offer the Islanders the option of staying-on, as Argentine citizens or, being repatriated to Britain where homes and jobs can be found for them?
So, why should they??
My next question is: Is it in Britain’s best interests to hold on to the islands?
Britain remains, per capita, the largest trading nation in the world – that is what we do. It is in Britain’s interest to promote good relations in all regions. Does not holding onto the islands, indefinitely, jeopardise our relations with trading partners in the South American continent (including Argentina), who might take a more sympathetic view of the Argentinean cause?
Except as far as I understand it the Islands are completely self sufficient other than for defence which is provided by the UK since they are a British protectorate.
Because the islanders wish to remain in what has been their family’s homes for the last century and a half and to maintain the nationality which they have held for all of that time?
I’m sure Britain can survive lower trade with a virtually bankrupt South American country that relies far more on the goodwill of other countries than we do.
The point on South American trade is a much wider issue than that which you are stating.
If they are self sufficient, then the question of self-determination is no question at all, Britain can pull out and leave them to be self-governing.
Can anyone explain why the Islanders should be allowed self-determination at such great cost to the British tax-payer?