"Don't blame the British people.We know the islands belong to you"

[Tangled up in Blue]

So Barna, to summarise your position: geographical proximity is key yet the UK should defend all British citizens living outside the UK (except those living on the Falklands because you think they aren't British citizens even though they legally are)../QUOTE]

It applies,as far as I'm concerned,to British citizens living in, not outside, the British Isles.

Sorry, this is what I meant to write.(Must have been a bit hungover yesterday).:winking:

 

[canveyshrimper]

I see that Morrissey's lates stunt is for his band to wear "We hate William & Kate" T Shirts at their gigs in Buenos Aires. Nothing to do with selling seats for their gigs of course.

 

[MK Shrimper]

I see that Morrissey's lates stunt is for his band to wear "We hate William & Kate" T Shirts at their gigs in Buenos Aires. Nothing to do with selling seats for their gigs of course.

How much are they :winking:

 

[canveyshrimper]

How much are they :winking:

:smile: About 40 peso's at GaltierisGraphics.com

 

[MK Shrimper]

Bit rich coming from a man who sung in front of a Union Jack and flirted with fascism at a hugely misjudged Madness gig. I love his music, but the man is an utter pantomime dame and best ignored IMHO.

 

[Berrichonne shrimper]

Bit rich coming from a man who sung in front of a Union Jack and flirted with fascism at a hugely misjudged Madness gig. I love his music, but the man is an utter pantomime dame and best ignored IMHO.

Abit like mr:winking: then.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I don't think Morrissey has thought this through.

He'll ease up on all the pro-Argentina bull-**** once someone tells him how much steak they eat out there.

 

[Napster]

No, that was to get Thatcher elected again.
.

I think Michael Foot as an abject Labour leader might have helped as well.

The actual swing was negative for the Tories. But worse for the Labour party.

 

[chadded]

Let's get a few things straight shall we. The Falklands are a beautiful place, are as British as Southend, if not more so, and if they were invaded again, I for one would be ready to go and defend the place immediately. The people are awesome, they hold British Passports, and British law (with a few regional variations) applies. They are completely British, and if you ever get the chance to go, like I did for 6 months, I can almost garauntee that you will love the place. Rule Britannia, God Save The Queen.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Let's get a few things straight shall we. The Falklands are a beautiful place, are as British as Southend, if not more so, and if they were invaded again, I for one would be ready to go and defend the place immediately. The people are awesome, they hold British Passports, and British law (with a few regional variations) applies. They have no wish to be British, and if you ever get the chance to go, like I did for 6 months, I can almost garauntee that you will love the place. Rule Britannia, God Save The Queen.

:sad:

Looks like Morrissey was right after all.

 

[chadded]

It's been a while since I was last on here. That's my excuse anyway.

 

[londonblue]

This article is actually very interesting and makes you realise that the argument isn't cut and dried either way.

BBC

The telling quote for me is this:

Succession to territorial title provides the basis for the Argentinian claim, says Dr Marko Milanovic, of the University of Nottingham's School of Law. Argentina says Spain acquired ownership and upon its independence from Spain, that title was inherited by Argentina.

But the UK says Spain's claim has lapsed, because Spain abandoned its outposts in the islands.

"There is therefore both a legal and a factual dispute: first, under what conditions exactly can title over territory be abandoned, and second, did Spain in fact abandon it."

Both sides have some good arguments, he says, and if it ever went to court, it is far from clear who would win.

"International law does not overwhelmingly favour either Argentina or the UK.."

Given that the law doesn't favour either country there is no point the UK taking this to court since we have all to lose and nothing to gain. The fact that Argentina haven't ever taken this to court is telling. Whatever they say, they can't be sure they'll will.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Bit rich coming from a man who sung in front of a Union Jack and flirted with fascism at a hugely misjudged Madness gig. I love his music, but the man is an utter pantomime dame and best ignored IMHO.

Abit like mr:winking: then.

A pantomime dame or best ignored? :winking:

 

[steveo]

No, that was to get Thatcher elected again.

Unfair MK. The alternative would have been to let the Argies take over.

 

[londonblue]

Unfair MK. The alternative would have been to let the Argies take over.

The alternative would have been to send the forces in before Argentina attacked, which would probably have meant they wouldn't have bothered. But that would have meant no war, and no re-election.

 

[canveyshrimper]

The alternative would have been to send the forces in before Argentina attacked, which would probably have meant they wouldn't have bothered. But that would have meant no war, and no re-election.

Which is why Peter Carrington resigned, the FO had reason to believe that the Argentines would try to invade both South Georgia & the Falklands. Certainly no war if the politicians had been proactive and sent a force there.

Foot beating Thatcher in 1983, I don't think so. Kinnock in a much stronger position in 1987 couldn't win an election against her. And as pointed out earlier in this thread Kinnock in a vastly stronger position couldn't win an election against a weakend and wounded John Major.

 

[Thorpe Groyney]

Kinnock was a prequel for what we got with Blair, a total hypocrite. John Smith and Michael Foot, I believe, would have made a decent attempt at being PM but I think Kinnock would have been awful, and his wife every bit as bad as Blair's.

If you think Kinnock and Blair are kindred spirits you have, at best, been grossly misinformed.

I doubt David Cameron calls Neil Kinnock regularly for talks about education and foreign policy, which is exactly what he does with Blair.

It's acknowledged from political commentators and activists from all sides that at least 80% of the current administration's policies are in line with the previous incumbents. At least. It's no surprise, too, that George Osborne and Peter Mandelson are chums, and not exactly a secret either.

Kinnock may have been a moderniser but he was and is a million miles from Blair's New Labour, which was simply Tory Light, something the public swallowed all in one media friendly soundbite.

 

[Thorpe Groyney]

Which is why Peter Carrington resigned, the FO had reason to believe that the Argentines would try to invade both South Georgia & the Falklands. Certainly no war if the politicians had been proactive and sent a force there.

Foot beating Thatcher in 1983, I don't think so. Kinnock in a much stronger position in 1987 couldn't win an election against her. And as pointed out earlier in this thread Kinnock in a vastly stronger position couldn't win an election against a weakend and wounded John Major.

Sorry, I can't accept that.

From '83 to '87, Labour were for long spells vying with the SDP for 3rd place in the polls. It was only when Kinnock spoke out against champagne socialist Derek Hatton and his militant cronies in Liverpool, at the party conference in '85, that the party challeneged the conservatives in the polls.

Certainly, in the run-up to the election, after a hugely damaging by-election reverse in Greenwich, it was obvious Kinnock was in no position to defeat Thatcher. It was only a very polished election campaign headed by Bryan Gould that ensured they finished second. In no way was Kinnock in a vastly stronger position.

In '92, when he undeniably was, and despite the media hyperbole, the most Labour were actually hoping for, among party workers and activists at least in any case, was a hung parliament.

The reason for this was shadow chancellor John Smith's taxation proposals, especially on national insurance contributions, as well as the lack of statesmanship-like qualities from Kinnock.

People were angry with Major's government but, deep down, most knew this wouldn't be reflected at the ballot box. Better the devil you know and that.

In short, Kinnock was in no position to win in '87, and in '92, despite his own weaknesses, his own party ensured he went into battle, against an opponent on the ropes, with a tickling stick.

 

[OldBlueLady]

If you think Kinnock and Blair are kindred spirits you have, at best, been grossly misinformed.

Merely pointing out they were both hypocrites Groyney.

 

[Thorpe Groyney]

All politicians are, not just those in the labour party.

Even John Major, who by common consensus is a thoroughly decent bloke and didn't deserve the awful rabble he had to work with in his cabinet, lectured the nation about going 'back to basics' when trying to suppress the fact he had been having an illicit affair.

People understand 'political' promises, it's part of the game. It's easier, though, to pick faults in those you don't like or agree with than those you do. And much more fun, mind.