Corbyn's Falklands plan tantamount to surrender to Argentina, warns veteran

[Conniff]

Simon Weston has called Jeremy Corbyn's Falklands plan "repugnant surrender"

 

Jeremy Corbyn has been accused by veteran Simon Weston of "repugnant surrender" to Argentina for suggesting it should be given the right to jointly govern the Falklands Mr Corbyn, who opposed the invasion, said that there has to be a move towards "real peace" and that Britain must open a "dialogue" with Argentina over the future of the islands.

 

He said that under the arrangement the Falklands could retain their British nationality while a joint administration is put in place.

The comments were severely criticised by Mr Weston, who suffered 46 per cent burns after the RFA Sir Galahad was bombed during the 1982 conflict.

 

Mr Weston said: "It is a repugnant idea. I don't see why it should happen given that the Argentines never had the islands. They have no right to them.

 

"It could cause civil war again by emboldening the Argentinians. It frightens me enormously because he claims to be such a supporter of democratic freedoms while what he is suggesting throwing the Falkland islanders right to democracy out.

 

The Telegraph

 

This man really is showing himself up for the Labour scab that others are warning us about.

[citizenB]

No absolutely not. The people of the Falklands have already said they want to remain British

 

Lord West, formerly the First Sea Lord, said on Saturday that his comments were "a nonsense".

 

"We have made very clear really since 1982 that the ownership of the islands is not up for debate until the people on the island want to discuss it," he said.

 

"It's ridiculous. I'm amazed that he as a democrat would want to go against the wishes of the people on the island."

 

 

[unclebulgaria67]

It is up to the Falkland islands people to decide their own futures. I don't think the UK has any rights over it. E.g if they found huge oil reserves, UK treasury would not benefit directly.

 

Argentina may only be interested because of the possibility of oil and gas reserves which could earn them money. Was this the reason for the invasion in 1982 ? Other than that it is a nature reserve in very tough sea/weather conditions, which would cost a lot of money to maintain any human population.

[Conniff]

Can the man really be that stupid or is all this just a publicity stunt because he enjoys seeing himself in the media.

[unclebulgaria67]

Can the man really be that stupid or is all this just a publicity stunt because he enjoys seeing himself in the media.

 

I don't think it is stupid at all. He is right to ask the question, but even if he were PM, negotiating joint sovereignty over the Falklands would probably not be possible.

 

If they find that the Falklands does not have any economically accessible energy reserves to exploit, then it becomes an expensive nature reserve. I believe they have already had cuts to funding and are relying on finding gas/oil to have a financially stable future. At some point the Falklands might want to negotiate a deal with Argentina, purely from a practical point of view

[Conniff]

The Falklanders negotiating is something completely different, they have a right to, Corbyn doesn't.

[ericsbrother]

I met Jeremy and Piers Corbyn on a couple of occasions back in the 1980's. I would describe them both as "different" when every day matters are concerned. I cannot imagine him as Prime Minister even if he won the labour leadership vote, the country would reject him at a general election and you would see the tories in power for ever.

[obiter dictum]

Dont you just love "Spin" to try and rewrite history

 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jun/28/falklands.past

 

Thatcher saw the Falklands Conflict as a means to improve her own standing within the UK. Prior to that she was hugely unpopular, but the conflict turned this around .

 

She even called an early election in 1983

 

The Falkland islanders were not even British citizens in 1982, quickly changed by the 1983 British Nationality Act (conveniently)

 

I agree we could not just let a foreign power get away with this and a response was needed. Britain was a dwindling super power and a message needed to be sent to the soviets as we still had the cold war in place

 

She just milked the situation to her own advantage

 

Ask what happened to the Native inhabitants of that small island Diego Garcia after Britain leased it to the Yanks?

 

If you think the UK cares about inhabitants of its colonies, think again

[obiter dictum]

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY." --Goering at the Nuremberg Trials

[renegadeimp]

Corbyn is the common mans ideal. He has interesting policies... None of them at all workable.

[obiter dictum]

They said the same with the "Good Friday" agreement

[Conniff]

They said the same with the "Good Friday" agreement

 

There wasn't actually an agreement, just another con job. Are they all in agreement now, no especially as the IRA, (who didn't decomission any weapons), have pocked their heads above the parapet again.