Skip to content

Fun, innit?

British sovereignty over the Falklands is an absurd imperial hangover that must end
Simon Jenkins

We could actually describe it as rather Imperial to demand that a place’s government must be chosen by geography rather than the will of the people.

You know, Ukraine’s in The Russia’s sphere of influence, all that jazz…..

21 thoughts on “Fun, innit?”

  1. Good news for the Islanders. They can tell the UK to take their nett zero 2050 pie in the sky and shove it.

  2. Interesting headline then:

    “Simon Jenkins thinks Russia ought to rule Ukraine because Russia is very near it.”

  3. “Forty years after the war in the South Atlantic, common sense demands a negotiated settlement with Argentina”

    I thought we already had a negotiated settlement with Argentina? If they invade again, they’ll get fucked up again. Settled. Common sense.

  4. The Meissen Bison

    Simon Jenkins is an annoying fathead. That the islanders apparently believe that their liberty and way of life can best be achieved by the British guaranteeing freedom from Argies is secondary to creating a progressive geopolitical world order.

  5. Galtieri didn’t “seize power”, it was Buggins’ Turn as President after General Viola retired.

    Max Hastings went off the reservation some time ago, I see Jenkins has joined him at Senility Hotel.

  6. If they invade again, they’ll get fucked up again.

    Essential difference now, is that we can attack the mainland with naval assets that did noe exist in 1982.

  7. The presences of BAME people in the UK is an Imperial hangover and needs to end.
    Makes as much sense.

  8. Simon Jenkins, like Shift in C S Lewis’s The Last Battle, appears to believe that Self Determination does not mean getting the sovereign you want, it means getting the sovereign I think you ought to have.

  9. It’s not just an imperial hangover, it’s an *absurd* imperial hangover so you know it’s not worth disagreeing with Simon Jenkins, he’s already won. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    common sense demands a negotiated settlement with Argentina

    What Sam Vara said. The Commander of Argentine forces signed a legally binding settlement with Britain on 14 June 1982.

    The war cost Britain about £2.8bn (£9.5bn in present value) and the islands’ defence costs upwards of £60m annually

    £60m a year is peanuts. We spend more than that on novelty cat toys. It’s funny how Guardianistas suddenly hate spending money when it’s to fulfill the basic responsibilities of the State tho.

    After the war, the UN in November 1982 ordered the “decolonisation” talks in New York to resume

    The dagos are going to vacate Argentina and go back to Spain and Italy? No? Well the UN can piss off then.

    Britain won the war, but now finds itself having to sustain a military base in the South Atlantic, while all Argentina has to do is smirk

    Oh no, they’re smirking. Smirking*! Better hand over free territory to the Dons then, eh?

    *FACT CHECK: Actually the Argies have been seething about ‘Las Malvinas’ and spreading wacky conspiracy theories about their imaginary sinking of an aircraft carrier for 40 years, lol

  10. Does Britain exercise sovereignty over the Falkland Islands? It has its own Parliament, and determines its own policies. I am not aware that it enjoys access to UK tax receipts, although clearly it benefits financially from having the support of a fairly large country, at least in military matters. It enjoys the protection of the UK by choice. And as I remember Argentina was not offering any choices!
    You could say the same about any one of the other oversease dependencies, but you don’t see them clamouring to be left in peace!

  11. Jenkins compares the Falklands with Hong Kong, Aden and Diego Garcia. Perhaps he’s unaware that, unlike those territories, almost the entire population of the Falklands is of British origin.

  12. Bloke in North Dorset

    If they invade again, they’ll get fucked up again.

    They won’t get 5 miles outside their own territorial waters let alone close to the Falkland’s territorial waters if their intent is obvious. As soon it becomes obvious its a one way trip to inspect Davey Jones’ locker.

  13. Indeed, BiND. In 1982, the Falklands’ only significant defence was a small force of brave Royal Marines, and getting reinforcements took months by sea. Today they’ve got Typhoons, and an international airfield means they can be reinforced in days, while the Argentinian military has hardly advanced at all.

  14. . . . while the Argentinian military has hardly advanced at all.

    That’s nice, but we should have sunk their entire navy (in port if necessary) and destroyed their airforce as much as possible. Yes, diplomacy, wiser heads, etc, but it still should have been done.

    We were far too polite to people who didn’t deserve it.

  15. PJF

    in 1982 Britain’s reach was not that long – there were a series of Vulcan bomber strikes that hit the airfield at Stanley but did little damage. It was a heroic logistics feat flying from the Ascension to the south atlantic with refueling along the way, but for not much effect.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Black_Buck

    Similarly the RN hardly had the capacity to sink the whole of Argentine navy in port.

  16. Yes, thanks ken. I was rather grumpy yesterday so shoulda was overwriting coulda.

    We definitely hobbled ourselves with the exclusion zone bollocks, and (no doubt diplomatically sensibly) didn’t declare actual war. To this day there is still ridiculous hand-wringing over sinking the Belgrano on the outward zag instead of the inward zig.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *