Hong Kong-styled deal between Argentina and Britain regarding Falklands

[Mr Qwerty]

To shut up the Argies ones and for all about Falkland claims. It seems that Argentina wants $$$ to revive their declining economy that's why they want to claim Falklands. The win-win solution that I could see is that Argentina should renounce its claims in Falkland in exchange of British investment in Argentina then Argentina receives a part $$$ from oil drilling and Argentina transforms itself into a major oil producer and becomes the richest country in the world with the help of Britain and the rest of western nations. The oil revenues should be divided by 50-50 proportion, 50% goes to Argentina and 50% goes to Britain. Had Argentina used their balls, their economic problems will be fixed ones and for all.

They did use their balls. That's why they attacked (hoping, apparently, for the US to pressure Britain to accept the fait accompli). Without oil (or control of southern ocean fisheries for which the Brits settled them in the first place), the Falklands are economically worthless. Argentina wanted them for pride.

You mean they should have used their heads. As others have said, the British had no reason to work with them.

 

[Don Lardo]

It is also the easiest way to fix Argentina's economic miseries.

Oil is rarely the economic panacea many believe it to be and the number of nations which have successfully managed an oil windfall can be counted on one hand.

What those few successful nations generally had in common was an already functioning and sound economy along with a low corruption index, neither of which Argentine under the successive Peron-lite Kirchner regimes can be said to actually enjoy.

The easiest solution is to have Argentina give up Falkland claims in exchange of British investment in Argentina then Argentina receives a part $$$ from oil drilling and Argentina transforms itself into a major oil producer and becomes the richest country in the world with the help of Britain and the rest of western nations. Argentina and Britain will be both happy.

Tell us, what is the color of the sky in your world?

 

[Joseph Solis in Australia]

You mean they should have used their heads.

Yeah. That's what I really meant.

 

[Draco]

From what I understand there actually was some support in the foreign office for handing the islands over before Argentina went and invaded. The problem I believe was that the Falklands were more valuable as a distraction from other issues for the Argentinian politicos than the actual Islands were worth to them so they were never serious about playing ball diplomatically.

 

[Cook]

Tell us, what is the color of the sky in your world?

Don doubts the economic validity of your proposal.

 

[Rickshaw]

After that you were left with Dominions like Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand that were basically independent, or non-economic territories.

The Dominions were independent, after the passage of the Statute of Westminster in 1931. Some, either accepted the UK legislation, such as Canada, or passed their own enabling act sometime later (Australia, 1942) which brought it into force. Some took considerably longer to sever the final constitutional ties but essentially from 1931, they were all sovereign, independent nations in their own right.

This status appears to be misunderstood by most people for some reason.

 

[loughery111]

Because it is the easiest win-win solution for Argentina and Britain regarding Falklands. It is also the easiest way to fix Argentina's economic miseries. It is also the easiest way for Britain to obtain petroleum. Argentina wants petrodollars while Britain wants to maintain control the Falklands as Falklanders wants to remain British forever. The easiest solution is to have Argentina give up Falkland claims in exchange of British investment in Argentina then Argentina receives a part $$$ from oil drilling and Argentina transforms itself into a major oil producer and becomes the richest country in the world with the help of Britain and the rest of western nations. Argentina and Britain will be both happy.

Wow. This is so utterly disconnected from reality that I simply don't know where to start.

1. No one knew about the oil then. The Argentines tried to seize the islands to distract their populace from the desperate economic situation, not because they would be a cash cow of some kind.
2. Even if they knew about the oil, the technology of the day couldn't recover it economically.
3. Oil very, very rarely is the economic cure-all that it's made out to be. The only countries I can think of that have used wealth from natural resources at least vaguely well are Norway, the Netherlands, and the UK. And in all three cases, the balance of trade from their sale screwed up the rest of the economy quite nicely, for a little while anyway. The term "Dutch Disease" ring any bells?
4. You've still not explained why the UK should acquiesce to this little brainstorm, given that Argentina at this point gives no reason to trust its human rights record.

The Dominions were independent, after the passage of the Statute of Westminster in 1931. Some, either accepted the UK legislation, such as Canada, or passed their own enabling act sometime later (Australia, 1942) which brought it into force. Some took considerably longer to sever the final constitutional ties but essentially from 1931, they were all sovereign, independent nations in their own right.

This status appears to be misunderstood by most people for some reason.

But... but... the map says!!!!

 

[V-J]

All these people jumping in and screaming ASB are ignoring one simple fact: the Foreign Office was already looking into some kind of joint-soverignty arrangement with Argentina, largely for the reasons DV outlined. Talks between Argentina and Britain about the islands had been going on from the late sixties onwards. I don't think it was likely that any deal would have been concluded, (It would have met with massive opposition from the islanders themselves and the Tory right, which was probably why a deal never materialised) but it's not totally ASB by any means; the idea that the British government would be favourable to the idea certainly isn't. Don't confuse the post-war attitude of the British government on the Falklands with the pre-war attitude. Massive, massive difference. The government would be flayed alive if it tried to enter into any negotiations over the Falklands after blood was spilt defending them; on Gibraltar, however, it was seriously looking at joint-soverignty proposals a mere few years ago under Jack Straw. (To the dismay of the Gibraltarians, who thankfully saw it off)

This thread is a good example of people totally failing to understand the post-WW2 British (or more specifically, British Foreign Office) mindset. 'Why the hell would they want to give away territory'. Thereby rather ignoring the whole history of the period; overseas territories were, unless there was a pressing case otherwise, regarded as anachronistic and burdensome on an increasingly shrinking pool of resources. The case was simple with the Falklands: there was nothing economically worth defending at the time. And, more pointedly, if Argentina was to invade, our ability to recapture them was doubtful. (As, indeed, it very nearly proved to be when the scenario was actually played out.)

And as for Argentina's human rights record in the period... you do know that Britain held a referendum on Gibraltar's status in the sixties largely at the behest of Franco, don't you?

 

[Domenic]

V-J is quite right. Britain would be ecstatic to shuffle off the Falklands and Gibraltar both. Not because Argentina and Spain respectively have any sound basis of claim to either, they don't (Gibraltar has actually been under British rule for longer than it ever was under Spanish), but because they won't shut up about it and the territories are a constant sore point in Britain's international relations. The Falklands never had great strategic significance and Gibraltar no longer has.

What stops it happening in both cases is Britain's obligations to the people of the territories, and Parliamentary and Press lobbies in support of honouring those obligations. As long as the Falklanders and Gibraltarians are determined to remain British, they most likely will. And the Falklanders would never have accepted such a deal, nor would any government and especially a Conservative one have got away with making it anyway over their heads.

 

[Cash]

Because it is the easiest win-win solution for Argentina and Britain regarding Falklands.

Ummmm, No. The only winner is Argentina. Britain has absolutely no reason at all to go along. It gets nothing out of the deal and gives everything.

It is also the easiest way to fix Argentina's economic miseries. It is also the easiest way for Britain to obtain petroleum. Argentina wants petrodollars while Britain wants to maintain control the Falklands as Falklanders wants to remain British forever. The easiest solution is to have Argentina give up Falkland claims in exchange of British investment in Argentina then Argentina receives a part $$$ from oil drilling and Argentina transforms itself into a major oil producer and becomes the richest country in the world with the help of Britain and the rest of western nations. Argentina and Britain will be both happy.

As already pointed out, at the time no one knew there was oil there, and even if they knew the technology didn't exist to exploit it.

 

[Beedok]

Argentina receives a part $$$ from oil drilling and Argentina transforms itself into a major oil producer and becomes the richest country in the world?

Argentina transforms itself into a major oil producer and becomes the richest country in the world

Argentina transforms itself into a major oil producer and becomes the richest country in the world

I hope you mean per capita, as there is no way there is enough oil for them to get the biggest GDP.

 

[Admiral Brown]

All these people jumping in and screaming ASB are ignoring one simple fact: the Foreign Office was already looking into some kind of joint-soverignty arrangement with Argentina, largely for the reasons DV outlined. Talks between Argentina and Britain about the islands had been going on from the late sixties onwards. I don't think it was likely that any deal would have been concluded, (It would have met with massive opposition from the islanders themselves and the Tory right, which was probably why a deal never materialised) but it's not totally ASB by any means; the idea that the British government would be favourable to the idea certainly isn't. Don't confuse the post-war attitude of the British government on the Falklands with the pre-war attitude. Massive, massive difference. The government would be flayed alive if it tried to enter into any negotiations over the Falklands after blood was spilt defending them; on Gibraltar, however, it was seriously looking at joint-soverignty proposals a mere few years ago under Jack Straw. (To the dismay of the Gibraltarians, who thankfully saw it off)

This thread is a good example of people totally failing to understand the post-WW2 British (or more specifically, British Foreign Office) mindset. 'Why the hell would they want to give away territory'. Thereby rather ignoring the whole history of the period; overseas territories were, unless there was a pressing case otherwise, regarded as anachronistic and burdensome on an increasingly shrinking pool of resources. The case was simple with the Falklands: there was nothing economically worth defending at the time. And, more pointedly, if Argentina was to invade, our ability to recapture them was doubtful. (As, indeed, it very nearly proved to be when the scenario was actually played out.)

And as for Argentina's human rights record in the period... you do know that Britain held a referendum on Gibraltar's status in the sixties largely at the behest of Franco, don't you?

Good post, that was more or less what I wanted to say. In the 70ies and early 80ies there were several British proposals that included joint soverainty and/or Argentinian soveraignty after 50 years, or so. The islanders opposed, and the projects didn't went through, But I don't think isladers had such a great lobby power back then. If there had been no war, and Argentina had regain democracy in 83 or 84, I don't think that a deal that would have given the islands to Argentina in 2034 would be ASB at all.

 

[Admiral Brown]

Because it is the easiest win-win solution for Argentina and Britain regarding Falklands. It is also the easiest way to fix Argentina's economic miseries. It is also the easiest way for Britain to obtain petroleum. Argentina wants petrodollars while Britain wants to maintain control the Falklands as Falklanders wants to remain British forever. The easiest solution is to have Argentina give up Falkland claims in exchange of British investment in Argentina then Argentina receives a part $$$ from oil drilling and Argentina transforms itself into a major oil producer and becomes the richest country in the world with the help of Britain and the rest of western nations. Argentina and Britain will be both happy.

That's rather unlikelym I'm afraid. At least till now, no large oil reserves of commercialy proffitable oil deposits have been found near the islands. And, even in the most optimistic scenario, there doesn't seem to be enough oil to make Argentina a major oil producer, let alone "the richest country in the world ".

 

[Dan1988]

From what I understand there actually was some support in the foreign office for handing the islands over before Argentina went and invaded. The problem I believe was that the Falklands were more valuable as a distraction from other issues for the Argentinian politicos than the actual Islands were worth to them so they were never serious about playing ball diplomatically.

True - though I have to ask, pre-1982, how strong were the Islanders' feelings for remaining part of the UK? If they were as strong as they are now, I doubt that the Islanders would take kindly to any situation that would have them as part of Argentina (particularly Argentina under a junta), and hence the Islanders would do anything possible to retain the connection with Britain, even to the point of retaining (or re-obtaining) British citizenship.