The UK drills for oil in Falklands, Argentina is pissed!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Mrs.Lucysnow, Feb 24, 2010.

  1. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Well it seems as if Argentina is winging and whining again over the Faulklands as the UK drills for oil.

    "A British company has begun drilling for oil in the territorial waters of the Falkland Islands, despite strong opposition from Argentina.
    The platform has been towed to a point 100km (62 miles) north of the UK territory in the South Atlantic.

    Argentina claims sovereignty over what it calls the Islas Malvinas and has imposed shipping restrictions.

    UK Defence Minister Bill Rammell said the government had a "legitimate right" to build an oil industry in its waters."

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8527307.stm

    The British have had sovereignty over these islands and its surrounding waters since 1833 and they are not planning on giving it back as Thatcher showed during the Falkland war. Now that there is oil they are pleading to other nations and the UN to apply pressure on the British for all the good it will do them.

    "A diplomatic offensive against Britain's oil exploration off the Falkland Islands intensified today as Argentina prepared to stake its case to the head of the UN backed by regional allies including Brazil.

    The Argentinian president, Cristina Kirchner, said a summit of 32 countries in Mexico had endorsed a document accusing Britain of flouting international law by permitting drilling to begin this week.

    Last night, Brazil's president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, criticised the UN for not pushing more forcefully to reopen the debate over the islands, which Argentinians call Las Malvinas.

    "What is the geographic, the political or economic explanation for the UK to be in Las Malvinas?" he asked. "Could it be because the UK is a permanent member of the UN's security council where they can do everything and the others nothing?"

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/24/argentina-falkland-islands-un

    To Mr. Silva's remarks my only comment would be:

    'Rule Britannia! Britannia rule the waves. Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.'

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr00Vp946lU&feature=related
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2010
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    Well, the Falkland's are Britain's territory. It only seems--ah--reasonable that they and their citizens would want to drill for oil there.

    ~String
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    One would think but Argentina seems to think that by bringing up old issues of colonial they will get their grubby hands on british oil!
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    I am don't have intimate knowledge of the affair. I own "The Downing Street Years" but have yet to read it. . . probably never will despite my affection for Maggie. I guess I could wiki the whole thing. . . but it really doesn't interest me. The deal is: Britain owns the land. There are British subjects there who want to remain there. It's part of Britain, and there isn't a nation on earth, other than Russia or the USA who has the power to force Britain off the islands and both of them recognize British sovereignty, and ONE of them happens to be Britain's closest ally. So, all things considered, Argentina need to deal with reality and move forward.

    ~String
     
  8. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Well, I'm sure Billy T will have something to say about this.

    Wiki has this to say:

    Anyway, it looks like the whole thing goes back to 1770, when the Falklands were claimed by both Brittain and Spain. There was a slight crisis, with Spain eventually drawing down. The Islands had been settled before that, but were barren when they were discovered.

    So the Brits held the islands since 1770, but withdrew (their military, not their claim) due to other overseas engagements in 1776, at which point the Spaniards stepped in, only to withdraw again several years later. In 1820, an American pirate raised Argentina's flag over the abandoned settlements, and in 1828 Argentina established a penal colony, making them evil colonialsts as well. In 1831 America destroyed it over some scrape about seal hunting, at which point Britain's military returned.

    The inhabitants are 70% of Brittish descent. There are no natives, and only a small percentage of South Americans. So I don't think this really falls under ``colonialism'', which makes Chavez's claims pretty moot. The Argentinian claim seems to be based on the fact that a pirate happened to be there after everyone else had left (but not abandoned claim to) the islands.

    Other than their proximity to Argentina, it looks like the country has no legitimate claim to the Falklands. I looks to me like they have the same right to Argentina that America has to Cuba, or the East Carribbean.
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2010
  9. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Can Falklanders vote in British elections?

    Thats usually the acid test for colonial rule - disenfrachisement
     
  10. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    "The Falkland Islands are British territory, inhabited by British citizens. Britain went to war in 1982 to secure those citizens' freedom. The Times said at the time that “We are all Falklanders now”, and needed to stand up to what was an act of unwarranted aggression. Today it is far less likely that any conflict will be military. But nothing else has changed. If the Falklands islanders want to drill for oil, that is their right."

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article7038387.ece

    ”Falkland Islanders have expressed their views freely and unequivocally over many years. We wish to remain British. Our constitution enshrines the right to determine our own future. Surely no-one who supports democracy and human rights can oppose this?

    ”It is regrettable that 27 years after the Falklands War it is still necessary to spell this out once again to yet another Argentine leader who hasn't realized that the world has changed and countries cannot ride rough-shod over the right to self-determination of free people."

    http://en.mercopress.com/2009/03/30/falkland-islands-government-we-wish-to-remain-british

    Does that answer the question for you? They are British citizens!!! Argentina is making an argument based on geography, meaning that since it is close to their territory and so far from Britain that therefore the UK should not consider the islands as theirs. Argentina is being a 'dog in the manger' meaning that they didn't bloody well want the islands before and didn't do anything with it, they certainly didn't populate them but as there is now oil they are trying to make ownership claims.

    Well all I have to say to that is 'never mind the bollocks!'
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2010
  11. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    What happened to the natives?
     
  12. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    There were none when the original Europeans arrived. Just some foxes that are extinct now.

     
  13. kenworth dude...**** it,lets go bowling Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,034
    which natives?
     
  14. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    It would seem there aren't any. So its just an outpost inhabited by various colonial settlers at one time or another. And right now, that happens to be Britain.
     
  15. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    Golden rule: One who has gold makes the rules.

    Argentina could have been equally matched to British Military, they opted not to. Now they need to start an asymmetric warfare. That is the only way.
     
  16. Pinwheel Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,424
    Oil is about the only thing that can save poor UK now. North sea gas saved us before.
     
  17. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    You mean in 1982? 200 years after the British laid claim to the (uninhabited) islands?
     
  18. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    Nope. There are PERMANENT inhabitants of the island now, and have been for about a century. They're all British and want very much to remain that way. Seems pretty clear-cut to me, especially considering the non-existence of aboriginal peoples.

    ~String
     
  19. kororoti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    252

    So, the platform is 100 km North of British territory? Is the basis of the argument, then? The actual drilling site is in Argentina's waters, or is it in international waters? It's apparently not in British/Falkland waters.

    The Brits kept the Falkland Islands in the war, but it looks like that doesn't mean they necessarily won the territory where they are drilling.
     
  20. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Can't you say that about pretty much anywhere?

    I mean, isn't England just a colonial outpost that happens to be inhabited by Britons?

    It seems that your definition of ``colonial'' is needlessly broad...
     
  21. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Actually, I wonder what the precedent for this is. I mean, the US and Cuba inhabit the same continental shelf near Florida. How do we draw boundaries?
     
  22. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    The Exclusive Economic Zone extends 370 km into the sea from the edge of the land, so Britain would seem to be on firm ground there (so to speak).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_Economic_Zone

    I don't think that's the crux of the argument; it's about Argentina rejecting British sovereignty over the Falklands in the first place. They don't have a particularly impressive claim here, in my opinion. Hence the lining up of the neighbors under the rubrick of anti-gringo resistance.
     
  23. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    In cases where the Exclusive Economic Zones overlap, the usual practice is to split the difference.
     

Share This Page