Gibraltar

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-05-04 8:41 PM

 Without Gib we would have had a much more difficult task in regaining the Falklands >

And where would we be if we hadn't regained the Falklands?

Well we might not have the biggest military spending in Europe at the cost of our state pensions being a third those of Germany or France

Thatcher would have been ousted sooner, so no selling off our power and water supplies, railways, and council housing precipitating the housing crisis. Might still be exporting coal instead of importing it ....

[John52]

nowtelse2do - 2017-05-05 11:40 AM

 

The Falklander's should be ok work wise when the oil starts to flow.

 

Dave

 

(lol) I assume this is a joke. The Falklands has been about to benefit from an oil bonanza for at least 30 years (lol)

Like everything else down there its a money pit. Thatcher was told the only way the Falklands could fiunction after the war was under socialism - funded by the long suffering English taxpayer. Thatcher quietly accepted it. So Falklands is Thatcher's Socialist State (lol)

[John52]

Bulletguy - 2017-05-05 3:23 PM

Given how much UK supposedly valued the Falklands .

The fact that Falkland Islanders weren't even granted British Passports prior to the Argentine invasion shows how much they were valued.

Retaking the Falklands was a face saving exercise for Thatcher. I saw a film where she said to Dennis - 'They are dying for their Country'. He replied, 'No Margaret - They are dying for you '' :-(

I don't know if thats true or not. But have no doubt the Falklands are a liability to the British people.

[RogerC]

Bulletguy - 2017-05-05 3:23 PM

RogerC - 2017-05-05 12:27 PMSo a belligerent nation invades another country which is then liberated and a military presence is then maintained to deter the same aggressor from trying it on again........what's the problem?Would you rather we said oh well never mind the lives lost retaking the islands? Now we have ejected the aggressor we won't bother to defend it and leave it open to another invasion from a nation that still harbours intentions of claiming the land?The cost in £'s is irrelevant......the islands are British and thank goodness the short-sightedness of years past didn't pervade thinking regarding post conflict actions.

Given how much UK supposedly valued the Falklands we should have maintained a strong military presence before as a deterrent rather than after an invasion. After all, there had been more than enough warning shots. Perhaps we didn't really value it that much otherwise UK Gov wouldn't have been considering handing over sovereignty. It will prove interesting to watch how UK Gov reacts to protecting and supporting the rights of it's citizens on Gibraltar, 96% of whom had no desire to exit the EU.

So if you want to moan/complain or whatever about the cost of maintaining a presence in specifically the Falkland Islands you really should be aiming it at Argentina.

And i imagine any UK PM naive enough to expect that would get the same short shrift response as Trump received from the President of Mexico over his silly wall which i note he's since begged Congress for funding, who have turned him down.

BG that wasn't the 'Royal' 'you'....it was aimed at your expressed displeasure which I 'hope' you understood but as usual why let something easily understood get in the way of your bleating.

Warning shots?  Yes agreed but a great deal of it was considered sabre rattling to appease and ease internal tensions.  The country was broke, the junta was in danger of being overthrown through civil unrest and a whole host of other issues so a 'real' invasion was not considered to be a realistic prospect.  However hindsight does show some thinking was flawed.

You might be interested to know that the 'strip' we used to land on after 13.5 hours flying, 2 in flight refuels and a deal of boredom was actually a precursor ( a stop gap if you will) to allow FI flights to operate whilst a new Stanley airport was built.  So whilst you decry the cost of the presence in the FI a new, CAA/FAA standard airport was already in the process of becoming a reality meaning it is not necessarily the case that MPA is 'costing' what you say it does when the antivcipated cost of Stanley Airport is taken into account.

[Bulletguy]

John52 - 2017-05-05 4:52 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2017-05-05 3:23 PM

Given how much UK supposedly valued the Falklands .

The fact that Falkland Islanders weren't even granted British Passports prior to the Argentine invasion shows how much they were valued.

Retaking the Falklands was a face saving exercise for Thatcher. I saw a film where she said to Dennis - 'They are dying for their Country'. He replied, 'No Margaret - They are dying for you '' :-(

I don't know if thats true or not. But have no doubt the Falklands are a liability to the British people.

I remember watching a documentary Carol Thatcher did on the Falklands. She visited the pub there where locals had gathered, among who were a few vip's but she just casually greeted them then made a beeline for the bar and had a pint and natter with the locals. She went on to Argentina to meet men who had fought in the war and also families who had lost sons in the war.

 

I always got the impression Carol was never cut from the same cloth as her mother. I never met her but have met her brother and he's a right snoot full of self importance, horrible bloke and not at all friendly. Carol seems the absolute opposite and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they didn't get on.

[RogerC]

John52 - 2017-05-05 4:42 PM

nowtelse2do - 2017-05-05 11:40 AMThe Falklander's should be ok work wise when the oil starts to flow.Dave

(lol) I assume this is a joke. The Falklands has been about to benefit from an oil bonanza for at least 30 years (lol) Like everything else down there its a money pit. Thatcher was told the only way the Falklands could fiunction after the war was under socialism - funded by the long suffering English taxpayer. Thatcher quietly accepted it. So Falklands is Thatcher's Socialist State (lol)

It's not simply hydrocarbons it is also mineral rights, fishing rights(licences for jiggers)brings in a great deal of FI revenue.  Taking defence away from the equation the FI are actually quite well off with a net income of approximately £50,000,000 per annum.  So your Thatcher jibe is another load of incorrect rubbish.....

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-05-05 5:35 PM

 

.  Taking defence away from the equation

Yes we know there is oil and minerals down there. But it costs more to get them out than they are worth.

At the risk of stating the obvious the amount of money the British taxpayer is putting into the economy down there through military spending might make a difference ...

[RogerC]

John52 - 2017-05-05 6:52 PM

RogerC - 2017-05-05 5:35 PM.  Taking defence away from the equation

Yes we know there is oil and minerals down there. But it costs more to get them out than they are worth.At the risk of stating the obvious the amount of money the British taxpayer is putting into the economy down there through military spending might make a difference ...

Take a look around at FI financial reports, BoT meetings reports and any other source you might care to look at and I very much doubt that you will find any mention or inclusion of financial advantage the FI gain from military spending.  Although one might suggest that a degree of stability enabling tourism and exploration to go ahead can be tenuously linked to defence spending but somehow I doubt you were considering that in your comments.  Basically the FI does not gain from from the military presence in the islands.  Bases are too far from Stanley to allow for 'nights out' and those stationed there are too busy anyway.  There will clearly be a number of FI inhabitants employed on the base but apart from that there is nothing of any significance to alter the fiscal situation were the military there or not.

 

The amount of money that trickles into the FI economy from the military presence is minimal....in the grand scheme of things an accountant would be hard pressed to locate any real impact on the islands own sources of income which is reported to be regularly in the region of £100,000,000 GDP.

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-05-05 9:07 PM

 

FI financial reports, BoT meetings reports and any other source you might care to look at and I very much doubt that you will find any mention or inclusion of financial advantage the FI gain from military spending.

And yet you know there are Islanders employed on the bases, and money spent in the local economy *-)

I stopped taking those kind of reports seriously when they tried to tell us the Royal Family were only costing us the equivalent of a loaf of bread a year *-) - by the simple expediency of charging most of their spending to other Government Departments. Gibraltar Government claiming its self supporting by charging the cost of its defence etc to Britain - which enables it to operate as a tax haven - no wonder they want to keep it like that..

[RogerC]

John52 - 2017-05-06 6:16 AM

RogerC - 2017-05-05 9:07 PM FI financial reports, BoT meetings reports and any other source you might care to look at and I very much doubt that you will find any mention or inclusion of financial advantage the FI gain from military spending.

And yet you know there are Islanders employed on the bases, and money spent in the local economy *-) I stopped taking those kind of reports seriously when they tried to tell us the Royal Family were only costing us the equivalent of a loaf of bread a year *-) - by the simple expediency of charging most of their spending to other Government Departments. Gibraltar Government claiming its self supporting by charging the cost of its defence etc to Britain - which enables it to operate as a tax haven - no wonder they want to keep it like that..

So a few islanders..and it really is a very 'few' have found work through the base.  That is hardly such a massive injection of cash that it will affect the FI balance sheet now is it?  

It seem to me as though yet another situation is being twisted in a weak attempt to prop up yet another weak argument........sorry not argument is it.....a moan and whinge at the usual targets you so clearly dislike.

PS....interesting (no not really) but reassuring to see that you manage to insert a Royal Family dig and keeping up....or should I say 'down' the relevance of the debate.

[Guest pelmetman]

RogerC - 2017-05-06 2:41 PM

John52 - 2017-05-06 6:16 AM

RogerC - 2017-05-05 9:07 PM FI financial reports, BoT meetings reports and any other source you might care to look at and I very much doubt that you will find any mention or inclusion of financial advantage the FI gain from military spending.

And yet you know there are Islanders employed on the bases, and money spent in the local economy *-) I stopped taking those kind of reports seriously when they tried to tell us the Royal Family were only costing us the equivalent of a loaf of bread a year *-) - by the simple expediency of charging most of their spending to other Government Departments. Gibraltar Government claiming its self supporting by charging the cost of its defence etc to Britain - which enables it to operate as a tax haven - no wonder they want to keep it like that..

So a few islanders..and it really is a very 'few' have found work through the base.  That is hardly such a massive injection of cash that it will affect the FI balance sheet now is it?  

It seem to me as though yet another situation is being twisted in a weak attempt to prop up yet another weak argument........sorry not argument is it.....a moan and whinge at the usual targets you so clearly dislike.

PS....interesting (no not really) but reassuring to see that you manage to insert a Royal Family dig and keeping up....or should I say 'down' the relevance of the debate.

Something the Loony lefties are never prepared to accept from my observations is....keeping the likes of their "bone idle" in the style they wish to become accustomed uses up far more of our GDP than those who defend our country *-) .......No doubt John52 will defend them as its their "Lifestyle choice" >:-) .........

[John52]

pelmetman - 2017-05-06 4:40 PM

 

...keeping the likes of their "bone idle" in the style they wish to become accustomed uses up far more of our GDP than those who defend our country *-) .......

 

 

I take it you have no evidence to support that. Because last time I looked Britain had the highest military spending in Europe and the lowest state benefits in Western Europe. (excluding housing benefit which is a reflection of housing costs)

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-05-06 2:41 PM

So a few islanders..and it really is a very 'few' have found work through the base.  

'Very few' must be a significant percentage of the very few who live there? Presumably Falklanders, like Gibraltarians, also supply the bases with goods and services? Or does the military never buy anything produced locally?

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2017-05-06 5:38 PM

 

RogerC - 2017-05-06 2:41 PM

So a few islanders..and it really is a very 'few' have found work through the base.  

'Very few' must be a significant percentage of the very few who live there? Presumably Falklanders, like Gibraltarians, also supply the bases with goods and services? Or does the military never buy anything produced locally?

 

Yep they buy stuff all over the world where ever they are ;-) .........So your point is? *-) .........

 

 

[John52]

pelmetman - 2017-05-06 6:05 PM

 

John52 - 2017-05-06 5:38 PM

 

RogerC - 2017-05-06 2:41 PM

So a few islanders..and it really is a very 'few' have found work through the base.  

'Very few' must be a significant percentage of the very few who live there? Presumably Falklanders, like Gibraltarians, also supply the bases with goods and services? Or does the military never buy anything produced locally?

 

Yep they buy stuff all over the world where ever they are ;-) .........So your point is? *-) .........

 

 

RogerC's assertion they gain no advantage from military spending.

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2017-05-06 5:33 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-05-06 4:40 PM

 

...keeping the likes of their "bone idle" in the style they wish to become accustomed uses up far more of our GDP than those who defend our country *-) .......

 

 

I take it you have no evidence to support that. Because last time I looked Britain had the highest military spending in Europe and the lowest state benefits in Western Europe. (excluding housing benefit which is a reflection of housing costs)

 

2% of GDP is currently spent on defence ;-) ........

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38971624

 

Which your fellow loony lefty complained was utterly unacceptable (lol) ..........

 

Compared to........... https://fullfact.org/economy/welfare-budget/ *-) .......

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2017-05-06 6:08 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-05-06 6:05 PM

 

John52 - 2017-05-06 5:38 PM

 

RogerC - 2017-05-06 2:41 PM

So a few islanders..and it really is a very 'few' have found work through the base.  

'Very few' must be a significant percentage of the very few who live there? Presumably Falklanders, like Gibraltarians, also supply the bases with goods and services? Or does the military never buy anything produced locally?

 

Yep they buy stuff all over the world where ever they are ;-) .........So your point is? *-) .........

 

 

RogerC's assertion they gain no advantage from military spending.

 

No more advantage than anywhere else in the world ;-) ........So your point is? *-) ......

 

 

[RogerC]

John52 - 2017-05-06 5:38 PM

RogerC - 2017-05-06 2:41 PMSo a few islanders..and it really is a very 'few' have found work through the base.  

'Very few' must be a significant percentage of the very few who live there? Presumably Falklanders, like Gibraltarians, also supply the bases with goods and services? Or does the military never buy anything produced locally?

Very little is produced locally....just look at the weather conditions there and you will realise that is the case.  Most everything has to be imported so NO there is no substance to your ridiculously ill informed comments.  Once again your comments prove just how badly informed you are and how willing you are to offer complete unsubstantiated rubbish to accompany your anti this, that and everything else attitude.

Simply put.....'simply' for your benefit:

If the resupply ships and/or aircraft cannot reach the FI due to bad weather or other issues the islands DO WITHOUT...........Got it....they DO WITHOUT........the islands rely on external resupply to survive. 

[John52]

pelmetman - 2017-05-06 6:20 PM

 

John52 - 2017-05-06 5:33 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-05-06 4:40 PM

 

...keeping the likes of their "bone idle" in the style they wish to become accustomed uses up far more of our GDP than those who defend our country *-) .......

 

 

I take it you have no evidence to support that. Because last time I looked Britain had the highest military spending in Europe and the lowest state benefits in Western Europe. (excluding housing benefit which is a reflection of housing costs)

 

2% of GDP is currently spent on defence ;-) ........

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38971624

 

Which your fellow loony lefty complained was utterly unacceptable (lol) ..........

 

Compared to........... https://fullfact.org/economy/welfare-budget/ *-) .......

 

 

You are quoting the whole welfare budget. It includes those who have worked and paid tax for 50 years and are now claiming the state pension and healthcare. It includes those juggling 3 jobs which don't pay enough for their inflated rents for slum housing so claim housing benefit. You have just called them all...

...keeping the likes of their "bone idle" in the style they wish to become accustomed

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-05-06 9:19 PM

 

Very little is produced locally....just look at the weather conditions there and you will realise that is the case.  Most everything has to be imported so NO there is no substance to your ridiculously ill informed comments.  Once again your comments prove just how badly informed you are and how willing you are to offer complete unsubstantiated rubbish to accompany your anti this, that and everything else attitude.Simply put.....'simply' for your benefit: if the resupply ships and/or aircraft cannot reach the FI due to bad weather or other issues the islands DO WITHOUT...........Got it....they DO WITHOUT........the islands rely on external resupply to survive. 

 

Yes I realize the FI produces very little.. But you previously said

RogerC - 2017-05-05 5:35 PM

the FI are actually quite well off with a net income of approximately £50,000,000 per annum. .

 

So who does this £50,000,000 per annum' come from?

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2017-05-07 7:36 AM

 

pelmetman - 2017-05-06 6:20 PM

 

John52 - 2017-05-06 5:33 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-05-06 4:40 PM

 

...keeping the likes of their "bone idle" in the style they wish to become accustomed uses up far more of our GDP than those who defend our country *-) .......

 

 

I take it you have no evidence to support that. Because last time I looked Britain had the highest military spending in Europe and the lowest state benefits in Western Europe. (excluding housing benefit which is a reflection of housing costs)

 

2% of GDP is currently spent on defence ;-) ........

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38971624

 

Which your fellow loony lefty complained was utterly unacceptable (lol) ..........

 

Compared to........... https://fullfact.org/economy/welfare-budget/ *-) .......

 

 

You are quoting the whole welfare budget. It includes those who have worked and paid tax for 50 years and are now claiming the state pension and healthcare. It includes those juggling 3 jobs which don't pay enough for their inflated rents for slum housing so claim housing benefit. You have just called them all...

...keeping the likes of their "bone idle" in the style they wish to become accustomed

 

Agreed the total welfare budget includes pension etc, but at 11.7% of GDP it also dwarfs the 2% military budget, and don't forget the 7% of GDP that we waste on foreign aid *-) ........

 

My guess from the figures available, is that keeping the genuine bone idle & feckless costs as much if not more than our military >:-) ........

 

BTW if someone is stupid enough to pay to live in a slum......who's fault is that? :-| ......

 

 

[Bulletguy]

pelmetman - 2017-05-07 8:19 AM

 

John52 - 2017-05-07 7:36 AM

 

pelmetman - 2017-05-06 6:20 PM

 

John52 - 2017-05-06 5:33 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-05-06 4:40 PM

 

...keeping the likes of their "bone idle" in the style they wish to become accustomed uses up far more of our GDP than those who defend our country *-) .......

 

 

I take it you have no evidence to support that. Because last time I looked Britain had the highest military spending in Europe and the lowest state benefits in Western Europe. (excluding housing benefit which is a reflection of housing costs)

 

2% of GDP is currently spent on defence ;-) ........

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38971624

 

Which your fellow loony lefty complained was utterly unacceptable (lol) ..........

 

Compared to........... https://fullfact.org/economy/welfare-budget/ *-) .......

 

 

You are quoting the whole welfare budget. It includes those who have worked and paid tax for 50 years and are now claiming the state pension and healthcare. It includes those juggling 3 jobs which don't pay enough for their inflated rents for slum housing so claim housing benefit. You have just called them all...

...keeping the likes of their "bone idle" in the style they wish to become accustomed

 

Agreed the total welfare budget includes pension etc, but at 11.7% of GDP it also dwarfs the 2% military budget, and don't forget the 7% of GDP that we waste on foreign aid *-) ........

Actually the military budget fell 0.1% below the 2% requirement for a NATO country according to IISS despite May boasting about it. That still equates to £45 billion a year dwarfing the foreign aid figure of £12 billion.

 

The foreign aid target figure is 0.7% of GNI which UK meets but it's also enshrined in UK law. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39658907

 

ONS breakdown chart of the welfare budget here which is self explanatory. http://visual.ons.gov.uk/welfare-spending/

[Guest pelmetman]

Ooop's forgot my decimal point :$ ........It's still .7% to much ;-) .......

 

Charity begins at home in my book........we could use that money to send home criminals and failed asylum seekers >:-) .......

 

 

[Bulletguy]

pelmetman - 2017-05-07 3:07 PM

 

Ooop's forgot my decimal point :$ ........It's still .7% to much ;-) .......

As explained above, and linked to, it's governed by UK law so you cannot argue against it. You might not like it, but then we live in a democratic country governed by laws.

[Guest pelmetman]

Bulletguy - 2017-05-07 4:18 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-05-07 3:07 PM

 

Ooop's forgot my decimal point :$ ........It's still .7% to much ;-) .......

As explained above, and linked to, it's governed by UK law so you cannot argue against it. You might not like it, but then we live in a democratic country governed by laws.

 

Laws can be changed ;-) ........