egafd.com

Sounds a bit like Apartheid to me.

spider wrote:

> Sounds a bit like Apartheid to me.


As bamboo has helpfully explained, Falkland Islander status is based on residence in the Falklands of 7 years, so I don't see any comparison with apartheid which was a policy based on skin colour. It should also be said that not all the Falkland Islanders with voting rights are British in origin, although admittedly the vast majority are.

I`ve come rather late to this debate, but only to say how appalled I was by
the US State Dept`s press briefing when they once again refused to support
the British over the Falklands. Considering the way Americans sprout their
constant yarn about "self-determination of all peoples", it astonishes me that
they lick-arse the Argentinians when clearly the Falkland Islanders wish to
stay British.
The reason, I think, is that lovely oil in Falkland waters. They know BP and
British oil interests won`t let them exploit it....but if the Argentinians got a
controlling interest in Falkland affairs, then US Oil companies would be swift
to exploit their stong Latin American ties.
As I said several times on this Forum - the USA has NO SPECIAL
RELATIONSHIP with the UK, and never did but, in foreign policy, has been
Britain`s enemy ever since the War of Independence.....and let me add,
the Falklands have been administered from Britain since 1765 for God sakes -
the USA did NOT exist then, or Argentina for that matter !!!

Some good points there. Well said.