The Falklands thread

[Stretch]

What's to stop them paying the Americans for protection instead? Or France?

They consider themselves British and thus trust themselves more than a foreign power. We've stood by them, what reason would there be to go elsewhere?

And couldn't they choose to do business with US companies instead? Being a BOT is not the same as being British is it? They are completely independent aren't they?

They are not directly represented in the UK Parliament but have influence in the UK political system that they wouldn't get elsewhere. Our historical ties and expertise in oil extraction makes UK oil companies a natural choice. A UK only operation is also more stable. It prevents South American countries lobbying foreign governments to cease involvement at a later date. The UK position is clear and unequivocal. We will help until the people express a wish to become independent or join Argentina.

The falkland islands already pay money to the uk for defence.

They do, but it doesn't reflect the true cost incurred. It's based on their ability to pay and this would obviously be vastly increased with oil revenue.

 

[Over Clocker]

I really wish Cameron had the stones to put them in their place,

Tell them outright and in a very public way if they dare touch the falklands he'll kick their argy asses into teh middle of next week

Ummmm, I think you will find he pretty much has....

 

[Biohazard]

Maybe enough to pay for a few Aircraft carriers plus aircraft to go on them, which would work out quite nice.

Might see if I can become a Citizen of the Falkland Isles, get in on the riches

You take quotes saying we won't get the revenue and any "leasing" of armed forces would not provide the UK with a profit.. and you hope to get aircraft carriers and aircraft out of it?

It doesn't sound very feasible to me.

 

[mollymoo]

You take quotes saying we won't get the revenue and any "leasing" of armed forces would not provide the UK with a profit.. and you hope to get aircraft carriers and aircraft out of it?

It doesn't sound very feasible to me.

Would be nice though. I have read it and do understand where any revenue may be gained, however if we were to gain an additional revenue stream in order to protect the falklands better, due to increased security requirements, then maybe it would help with purchasing a new aircraft carrier and planes. If we have to spend more money defending the Falklands then it makes sense to invoice them at a higher rate for the service, or come to a revenue sharing agreement.

 

[Firestar_3x]

Perhaps this situation may result in both our new aircraft carriers being fully commissioned instead of just one.

 

[Biohazard]

Would be nice though. I have read it and do understand where any revenue may be gained, however if we were to gain an additional revenue stream in order to protect the falklands better, due to increased security requirements, then maybe it would help with purchasing a new aircraft carrier and planes. If we have to spend more money defending the Falklands then it makes sense to invoice them at a higher rate for the service, or come to a revenue sharing agreement.

I see your thinking now, but alas I don't think we'll be getting a new revenue stream it's just an exponential increase in proportion to the resources required for the increasing security of the islanders. Or simply, it will scale in relative terms. I should add I doubt they would require an aircraft carrier constantly, so they wouldn't pay for one constantly and we can't afford one anyway.

The oil will make the islanders rich and that's about it.

 

[mollymoo]

Perhaps this situation may result in both our new aircraft carriers being fully commissioned instead of just one.

Which oncw again would be nice, and maybe some new stuff for the destroyers.

 

[mollymoo]

I see your thinking now, but alas I don't think we'll be getting a new revenue stream it's just an exponential increase in proportion to the resources required for the increasing security of the islanders. Or simply, it will scale in relative terms. I should add I doubt they would require an aircraft carrier constantly, so they wouldn't pay for one constantly and we can't afford one anyway.

The oil will make the islanders rich and that's about it.

Not even a bonus for a job well done?

 

[singularity]

I see your thinking now, but alas I don't think we'll be getting a new revenue stream it's just an exponential increase in proportion to the resources required for the increasing security of the islanders. Or simply, it will scale in relative terms. I should add I doubt they would require an aircraft carrier constantly, so they wouldn't pay for one constantly and we can't afford one anyway.

The oil will make the islanders rich and that's about it.

really, what's the point of defending it then?

 

[Firestar_3x]

It's always been my understanding that the UK Gov grant rights to explore the area (just like we do in the north sea), we then issue a license to extract and sell, any quantity of oil extracted is taxable via the extact license conditions, which would mean the UK Gov would get tax directly on the quantity of oil extracted.

Clearly the locals would get rich too, but only due to the improvement in the economy, they don't own the island they only live on it, which is exactly whats happened in parts of scotland.

 

[The Funktopus]

Perhaps this situation may result in both our new aircraft carriers being fully commissioned instead of just one.

I believe the plan is to fully commission both carriers, rotating them through periods of refit and at sea/readiness to deploy, thus spreading wear and tear across both ships.

 

[singularity]

I believe the plan is to fully commission both carriers, rotating them through periods of refit and at sea/readiness to deploy, thus spreading wear and tear across both ships.

no it isn't, one will be instantly moth balled.

 

[feedtheram]

no it isn't, one will be instantly moth balled.

Sorry for only just jumping in at this point...

But why would they do this?

 

[Firestar_3x]

Cost

 

[Biohazard]

It's always been my understanding that the UK Gov grant rights to explore the area (just like we do in the north sea), we then issue a license to extract and sell, any quantity of oil extracted is taxable via the extact license conditions, which would mean the UK Gov would get tax directly on the quantity of oil extracted.

Clearly the locals would get rich too, but only due to the improvement in the economy, they don't own the island they only live on it, which is exactly whats happened in parts of scotland.

The UK economy would have a small benefit at best, exploration rights are still assumed by the Crown and other than defence for the Falklands all British overseas territories are autonomous from the UK and UK exchequer in the main.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/international/falklands-dt.pdf

The UK Government cannot hoover up the resources of its territories abroad, it could maybe force it through the various Government's but I don't think they would remain British territories for long with that sort of attitude.

 

[Firestar_3x]

Interesting will have a read shortly, i'm sure companys will be setup on the island / contracts signed which means some money gets transfered to the UK for 'services provided'.

 

[feedtheram]

Cost

Ah i misunderstood what mothballing meant. It actually makes perfect sense i guess given the cost of running these things must he huge.

 

[Biohazard]

Interesting will have a read shortly, i'm sure companys will be setup on the island / contracts signed which means some money gets transfered to the UK for 'services provided'.

Which is defence, as explained. I think exploration rights would go straight to the Crown Estate but I'd need to double check - this is the synergy with the UK economy along with the value it would add to sterling through the currency peg.

 

[Macro]

Perhaps this situation may result in both our new aircraft carriers being fully commissioned instead of just one.

This would be a "a good thing" imho.

I completely understand the people that say Britain punches above it's weight and should let the past go. I also tend to think it's a lot more complicated than that and spending on maintaining our position militarily in the world brings economic and political value that justifies the expense beyond the employment chain the UK military generates (no, I can't prove it, feel free to explain otherwise).

In any case, I do tend to believe if you're going to do something, do it properly. If you aspire as a nation to have aircraft carriers to project naval airpower anywhere in the world for what ever reason do it properly and have at least two carriers with appropriate air wings so they are able to be on station any time.

If you are going to "****" around with half a carrier and a hang glider carrying a pistol and hand grenades on it then reconsider the whole proposition.

 

[Biohazard]

Or if you are too poor to play big world power, sit down and get your priorities right.