There is no discussion, nothing to debate, the Falklands are British, will remain British, and Prime Minister Gordon Brown is set according to reports to reiterate this with he meets Argentineans in Chile.
The lives of 255 British troops will not go to waste because of the changing economic climate. The majority of Falklanders if not 100% per cent of the island are British subjects and British sovereignty is in no doubt.
Brown made clear before the meeting that "on sovereignty of the Falklands, there is nothing to discuss from our side."
Reuters has reported the Prime Minister as saying
"The essential principle has always been that the islanders should determine the issue of sovereignty for themselves," he said in a statement.
"Our first priority will always be the needs and the wishes of the islanders. They are a proud and strong community and they have my total support and respect," he said.
Another important issue for Britain is to retain the rights to the estimated 5 to 6 billion barrels of reachable oil around the Falklands, which would mean a boost to the economy of the UK and the Falklands.
You offer up nothing but sophistry I'm afraid to say. And you failed to answer the question. The Falklands are for the Falkland Islanders and not for Britain to give away nor Argentina to take.
Salvador Oria
Date Added: Tuesday 31 March, 2009
"Truth is in the eye of the beholder". To my humble opinion, there is not a sole, absolute truth except God's, if one exists. Man becomes quite unreliable when coming upon an inconvenient truth or half-truth. Up to 1534, when Supremacy Law was passed for reasons not to be discussed here, the English were as papists as Spaniards or Italians. It is reasonable to suppose then that papal Bulls were accepted in England both in pectore as in act, before that date.
And the current islands' population, despite what the PM may believe and say, is not 100% British lest, say English, but a composite which includes Chilean, Jamaican and other nationalities, more or less merged into the native community. On the other hand, this community certainly includes an important number of Queen's subjects that were born in England or Ireland who hold 1st class British passports and not the Overseas Territories' disgraceful document. A former British PM, whose name I'd rather not mention, was keen to handle sovereignty back to Argentina, and it was a pity that his move wasn't better stimulated by the Argentine Government while he was still in office. Errare humanum est. By the way, this is not mentioned in the "getting history right" pdf. If the islands, as Mr Brown states, are British, why is it that they do neither have had nor have now ample financial support to carry on with their needs and projects such as refurbishing and enlarging the Stanley port to accommodate the large liners plus general cargo ships and tankers plus fishing boats, with cranes and berths as needed now and in the next few years, build hundreds of miles of inland tarmac roads, build new deep-water ports at each side of the sound between the two main islands, build fully-equipped hospitals on both sides of that same sound, build more airports and supply ambulance airplanes, to name but just a few of their needs? Looks uncanny to me. Cheers.
Displaying 1 to 2 (of 2 comments)
Result Pages: 1
Warning: fopen(playlist.xml) [function.fopen]: failed to open stream: Permission denied in /var/www/vhosts/thelondondailynews.com/httpdocs/templates/content/product_info.tpl.php on line 591
Warning: fwrite(): supplied argument is not a valid stream resource in /var/www/vhosts/thelondondailynews.com/httpdocs/templates/content/product_info.tpl.php on line 592
Warning: fclose(): supplied argument is not a valid stream resource in /var/www/vhosts/thelondondailynews.com/httpdocs/templates/content/product_info.tpl.php on line 593
The United States is seeking a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council this year, the Obama administration has announced. This is a departure from the Bush administration, which was often critical of the group.
