Dr. Samuel Ramani is a distinguished scholar from UK think-tank RUSI, (Royal United Services Institute), and has written a piece of the Gibraltar Agreement, which place him close to the Conservative’s position which asks if the Falklands could probably be next. Read full article
No he is not, more stupid scare stories, the Gibraltarians are happy with the deal, neither Gibraltar or the Falklands will be betrayed, i was expecting this garbage, and was not wrong,
Oh, the poor man, this Dr. Samuel Ramani, who is a distinguished nincumpoop, more to be pitied than censured.
Gibraltar Chief Minister Fabian Picardo is 99.2% for.
Based on experience that convinces me, that the Agreement in Respect of Gibraltar is an advantage for Gibraltar.
There are always people who, usually for political reasons of their own, seek to misrepresent events as things they are not.
Makes you question the use of the term ‘a distinguished scholar’, for someone who clearly has his own agenda irrespective of the facts.
Given that the UK, Gibraltar, EU and Spain all seem quite happy with the deal, no red lines crossed and mutually beneficial to all parties, it is to be applauded that common sense prevailed for once.
And I don’t see Argentina seeking any kind of similar ‘free trade’ deal with the Falklands, even if the Falklands would entertain the idea.
Spain had to accept setting aside its sovereignty claims to do this deal and prevent the economic collapse of the poorest region of Spain, one of the poorest regions in the EU.
Argentina is not yet ready for that kind of thinking and may not be for some time to come.
As far as can be seen, the people of Gibraltar are behind the deal which is all that matters. Their decision. Fabian Picardo appears enthusiastic, and he's nobody's fool. If the presence of Spanish immigration officers on Gibraltar's soil is an abandonment of sovereignty, then Britain lost its own sovereignty when French immigration officers moved in to Dover and St Pancreas Station in London. If there are any doubts, then the Gibraltarians can hold another referendum. They have that right, as a previous Labour government found out to its cost.
The Chagos is a shoddy deal, mainly because, yet again, the Chagossian people have not been consulted. That was a main complaint of the ICJ in 2019, and I see that an expert panel from the UN are again saying the same thing.
If there is any danger from the current Labour administration, it is that they are inclined to impose their 'solutions' on others - as happened when Blair let the Argies back in to the Falklands. Any watering down of the people's right to self-determination will be viewed by Argentina as a change of policy which they can leap upon.
In that sense, Starmer and his Labour ilk, cannot be trusted. They'll have to be watched, closely.
They have been compensated TWICE now and seem to have the right to live in Mauritius or the UK as they choose.
If they are arguing for a ‘return’, then it is now up to the Mauritius Gov, but they can’t re-engineer the environment to make it habitable any more than the British could.
Roger, as stated above, they have already received compensation, twice which they accepted willingly. so why should they need to be consulted,? they gave up that right when they agreed to it, their is no infrastructure on the island to support a civilian population, they wouldnt last a year, the military base there is secure now for the next 99 years, most of it it will probably be under water by then, the Yanks will never leave even when the lease is up, just like they will never leave Guantanamo, the whole story has been whipped up by right wingers, press and Tory boys, nothing more than scare stories, i have just been on the Falklands news facebook site and its riddled with right wing clap trap. and false claims, the Falklands are safe as is Gibraltar, no UK PM from any party will ever turn their back on either of them.
As a Brit, I do not believe that 100 million a year, for 99 years, for a group of Islands we already had, is in any way a good deal.
I am backing self-determination, and the Chagossians.
And I still wouldn't trust Starmer further than I could throw him although I do not see any immediate danger to the Falklands in any practical sense. But I repeat, any watering down of the right of self-determination will be viewed by Argentina as weakness.
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesNo he is not, more stupid scare stories, the Gibraltarians are happy with the deal, neither Gibraltar or the Falklands will be betrayed, i was expecting this garbage, and was not wrong,
Jun 12th, 2025 - 10:35 am - Link - Report abuse +2Oh, the poor man, this Dr. Samuel Ramani, who is a distinguished nincumpoop, more to be pitied than censured.
Jun 12th, 2025 - 05:56 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Gibraltar Chief Minister Fabian Picardo is 99.2% for.
Based on experience that convinces me, that the Agreement in Respect of Gibraltar is an advantage for Gibraltar.
These so called experts in their fields are anything but , scaremongering for no valid reason,
Jun 12th, 2025 - 06:23 pm - Link - Report abuse +1There are always people who, usually for political reasons of their own, seek to misrepresent events as things they are not.
Jun 13th, 2025 - 01:57 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Makes you question the use of the term ‘a distinguished scholar’, for someone who clearly has his own agenda irrespective of the facts.
Given that the UK, Gibraltar, EU and Spain all seem quite happy with the deal, no red lines crossed and mutually beneficial to all parties, it is to be applauded that common sense prevailed for once.
And I don’t see Argentina seeking any kind of similar ‘free trade’ deal with the Falklands, even if the Falklands would entertain the idea.
Spain had to accept setting aside its sovereignty claims to do this deal and prevent the economic collapse of the poorest region of Spain, one of the poorest regions in the EU.
Argentina is not yet ready for that kind of thinking and may not be for some time to come.
Stirring the pot, nothing more.
Jun 14th, 2025 - 01:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0As far as can be seen, the people of Gibraltar are behind the deal which is all that matters. Their decision. Fabian Picardo appears enthusiastic, and he's nobody's fool. If the presence of Spanish immigration officers on Gibraltar's soil is an abandonment of sovereignty, then Britain lost its own sovereignty when French immigration officers moved in to Dover and St Pancreas Station in London. If there are any doubts, then the Gibraltarians can hold another referendum. They have that right, as a previous Labour government found out to its cost.
The Chagos is a shoddy deal, mainly because, yet again, the Chagossian people have not been consulted. That was a main complaint of the ICJ in 2019, and I see that an expert panel from the UN are again saying the same thing.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyvmz0q0335o
If there is any danger from the current Labour administration, it is that they are inclined to impose their 'solutions' on others - as happened when Blair let the Argies back in to the Falklands. Any watering down of the people's right to self-determination will be viewed by Argentina as a change of policy which they can leap upon.
In that sense, Starmer and his Labour ilk, cannot be trusted. They'll have to be watched, closely.
The right wing media are up to their old tricks again, i disagree Roger, Starmer will not betray either the Falklands or Gibraltar,
Jun 14th, 2025 - 06:43 am - Link - Report abuse +1What is it the Chagossians want from this?
Jun 15th, 2025 - 01:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They have been compensated TWICE now and seem to have the right to live in Mauritius or the UK as they choose.
If they are arguing for a ‘return’, then it is now up to the Mauritius Gov, but they can’t re-engineer the environment to make it habitable any more than the British could.
What do the Chagossians want?
Jun 16th, 2025 - 12:32 pm - Link - Report abuse -1To be consulted.
Roger, as stated above, they have already received compensation, twice which they accepted willingly. so why should they need to be consulted,? they gave up that right when they agreed to it, their is no infrastructure on the island to support a civilian population, they wouldnt last a year, the military base there is secure now for the next 99 years, most of it it will probably be under water by then, the Yanks will never leave even when the lease is up, just like they will never leave Guantanamo, the whole story has been whipped up by right wingers, press and Tory boys, nothing more than scare stories, i have just been on the Falklands news facebook site and its riddled with right wing clap trap. and false claims, the Falklands are safe as is Gibraltar, no UK PM from any party will ever turn their back on either of them.
Jun 16th, 2025 - 01:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As a Brit, I do not believe that 100 million a year, for 99 years, for a group of Islands we already had, is in any way a good deal.
Jun 17th, 2025 - 08:31 pm - Link - Report abuse -1I am backing self-determination, and the Chagossians.
And I still wouldn't trust Starmer further than I could throw him although I do not see any immediate danger to the Falklands in any practical sense. But I repeat, any watering down of the right of self-determination will be viewed by Argentina as weakness.
Think I'm done here.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!