The Falklands - are we off again?

We hand back Hong Kong to the Chinese with pomp, circumstance and a tear in our eye.

China is a powerhouse, who would kick our hole in any kind of war; economic or otherwise.

We refuse to hand back the Falklands to Argentina, because we don't want to upset the sensibilities of a handful of people who are about as British as Billy Fish (that's a reference to the classic feature 'The Man Who Would Be King' - google it, or even better, watch the movie).

Argentina are about as hard as my newly-minted grandson's first shite.

There is ZERO hypocrisy at work here.

Personally speaking, I would offer the Falklands to Argentina at a price. Call it £50M per head of population, which probably equates to - I dunno, what's that?....£50Bn?

The oil revenues would, in the long run, work out in the Argies favour, and I'm pretty sure we could re-house the Falklanders on Barra, at a cost of £2000 per Nissan hut.

The Argies acquire the useless c*nt of a rock they crave for reasons best known to themselves. The UK Government get £50Bn in immediate revenue, to offset against future oil revenue losses. And the Falklanders get to live in a place that replicates everything they're used to; remote, desolate, and somewhere the rest of the human race can continue to not give a f*ck about.

Selling out on these wankers could go a long way to moving the economy forward.

Again, I ask the question; why am I not Prime Minister?
 
Last edited:
Because you dont know what your talking about..thats why.Nothing to do with "powerhouse" Not such a "powerhouse" that they have attempted to take Taiwan are they?

Hong Kong was on a lease. We had to. Hardly "handed back" Gibraltar to our EU friends Spain have we?

The Falklanders, Gibraltese and the taiwanese have one thing in common. They do not want to be "handed back"
 
clivex said:
You think they could (or would) pay?
Click to expand...

Not really, no.

It was just an expression of my exasperation factor. You well know this, but always open a door for a joust - and I'm just the kind of jive-turkey to walk right through it. ;) :D

Pointless retorts and Jordan-like points-scoring to follow in my reply to the other post. :cool:
 
clivex said:
Because you dont know what your talking about..thats why.Nothing to do with "powerhouse" Not such a "powerhouse" that they have attempted to take Taiwan are they?

Hong Kong was on a lease. We had to. Hardly "handed back" Gibraltar to our EU friends Spain have we?

The Falklanders, Gibraltese and the taiwanese have one thing in common. They do not want to be "handed back"
Click to expand...

Wow. This is all news to me!

Of course is it, princess. ;)

China have chosen not to roll into Taiwan, because they're cute enough to be playing the long-game.

Why isolate the market that generates 99% of your growth, by invading a strategically insignificant island in your immediate locale, just to prove a point? Much better that you sabre-rattle for a bit, watch everyone jump into line, and your point is proven for you, no?

Typically, you fail to see the subtleties of the political 'game'.

Do you seriously (I know you don't, but I'll ask anyway) doubt that China is a political 'powerhouse'?

Of course you don't. So your point is rendered irrelevant.

Lease schmease.

We had to hand over Hong Kong, because we had no other choice - we disn't want a war with a (non)powerhouse.

Spain? We'd kick their holes all over the tinker-zone if it came to it. Personally, I'd start with sunybay, for his heretical support for Azertyuiop over Moscow Flyer. Let's face it - he's Spanish, and a bit of Inquisition thereapy would do him good.

My point is that there is a difference to telling the Spanish to go hoist themselves over Gibraltar, and telling the Chinese to go hoist themselves over Hong Kong.

In Scenario One, the worst that can happen is that you might find a stray floater in your paella, the next time you go to Loret De Mar.

In Scenario Two, phoning a take-away would only give away your co-ordinates, knowharrimean? ;)
 
Last edited:
Not ordinarily, harry.

If I've used that phrase more than once tonight, then it's because I've been 'celebrating'.

Come to think of it, I have a vague recollection of saying Hurricane Fly might "kick" "holes" on a few occassions over the last few days.

I will try to be more original in future.

Or sober. :cool:
 
Grasshopper said:
Not ordinarily, harry.

If I've used that phrase more than once tonight, then it's because I've been 'celebrating'.

Come to think of it, I have a vague recollection of saying Hurricane Fly might "kick" "holes" on a few occassions over the last few days.

I will try to be more original in future.

Or sober. :cool:
Click to expand...

Feckin love it mate....enjoy!!!:lol:
 
Colin Phillips said:
Sheikh, there is some growing of vegetables but it is basically for own consumption.

The climate is harsh, we were there in their summer and the highest temperature was 18 degrees and there is a constant wind.

There are plenty of sheep grazing there and a small number of cattle.
Click to expand...

Col, I hate to tell you, bach............that's exactly how people have described holidays in Wales to me. :lol:
 
Some EU sanction warnings already issued, although not sure how much, if any, effect they will have.
I would think Argentina would not want another conflict ( neither side actually declared 'war' last time) or could afford it. The garrison stationed there I have heard, is per armed force member, the most expensive currently deployed of all British service personal.
 
So... after all that, then, we're not off again!

I do think "kick holes" will pass into popular lingo, and that we should count ourselves proud, if not humble, to have been present, right here, right now, at the inauguration of this new phrase. In fact, if Sir Fred gets his banker's epaulettes torn off, I'd like to recommend they're royally pinned to Grassy's jacket in recognition of his services to language.
 
So, what is the problem with inviting neutral observers to oversee a referendum on the island, asking islanders to choose from continuing British sovereignty, Argentinian governance, or a combined governance by both countries - giving three possible outcomes, but no doubt quite clearly showing just one?

That would then send a worldwide signal that the Falklanders wanted the result they polled for - let's assume that they all vote to remain under British sovereignty - and that any further sabre-rattling or punitive actions by the south Americas would be considered an act of aggression against the islanders, leading to punitive trade, cultural and travel sanctions against participating aggressors.

At a time when democratic countries have actively (viz Libya) supported or otherwise assisted peoples round the world to overthrow oppressive governmental shackles, the Argies are going to look like neocolonialist oppressors - a bit rich, considering their own political past. The country needs to be made to look out-of-date against the waves of political world change, and to be seriously threatened with non-militant reprisals which would, I'm sure, be highly unpopular with its own people. Surely there's some mileage in asking its people how they'd like to have a regime pressed upon them against their will? I don't see how that would play well with its younger people.
 
No assumption necessary when it comes to the wishes of the Islanders.

Margaret Thatcher is revered there, they think of themselves as British through and through.
 
Krizon. Are you really still not aware of the islanders views on this?!

As for the USA, perhaps they would like to open negotiations with Russia over Alaska? Same principle isnt it? And is this down to lightweight Obama's british problem?
 
Last edited:
Clive: of course I'm feckin aware of the islanders' views!! But 'views' don't constitute the law. Do you read anything people put up????

You just don't get this at all, do you? Or you're just being pig-headedly obtuse. Look, there is nothing concrete at present, apart from the islanders holding up placards back in the 1980s, to say that they wish to self-determine their future under British rule. There is nothing to prevent them asking the UN to send neutral observers while they make their preferences not just publicly, but legally binding. This would put Argentina completely on the back foot and there would be no doubt at all as to where the islanders' preferences lay. Thus, all south American action to set up blockades, trade embargoes, etc., would thus be illegal.

This is simply a political manouevre to ratify British sovereignty over the islands and to give the lie to any pretensions by the Argentinians that the Falklanders might prefer them in charge. Surely you can see the value of such a process?

People just polled randomly by journos do not make constitutional law. Referendums send out unequivocal opinions.
 
Last edited:
Tedious sabre rattling from the Argentinians which suits Cameron down to the ground - I suspect he is dressing up as Maggie in front of the mirror.
 
must have missed the bit where the UK paid for the Falklands.
Click to expand...

Who were they going to pay? the penguins?

Krizon. The place was completely empty and unwanted before british settlement. There is no debate here any more than there is about the US's claim to Alaska or France and Nethelands jurisdiction over various carribean islands and so on. In fact given that the falklands were entirely unihabited, there is even less of an issue.
People just polled randomly by journos do not make constitutional law. Referendums send out unequivocal opinions.
Click to expand...

Its hardly a secret that somewhere between 99 and 100% of islanders want to remain british.

Might as well as the Polish to have a referendum on being annexed again by Germany given that they were invaded not so long ago too. About as relevant
 
Last edited:
Back
Top