Wind turbines or the Falkland Islands: Which ones do you want to keep?

Click on the image above to see in full size the unlovely picture of these wind turbines and also a lovely unspoilt part of the Falkland Islands.
Many readers will state that this is a false question as there is no link whatsoever between whether or not to build wind turbines and continued possession by the UK of the Falkland Islands.
The British Gazette however regrets to inform its readership however that there is most definitely a link.
Many readers, will, along with the editor of this organ, have shaken their heads in despair at the seeming naive woolly headedness of our craven politicians implementing the Climate Change Act. This piece of self inflicted legislative injury is going to cost the long suffering British People BILLIONS OF £ over the years to come. It will also result in the DEATHS of many poor frail and elderly people through either not being able to heat their homes or of not heating their homes through fear of debt.
If all of this is the case – and it undoubtedly is – one is forced to ask the question: WHY??????
It is something that has long puzzled those of us in the Climate Realist camp.
Well, the British Gazette has now discovered the answer.
It seems that the last British government came to “an understanding” on two aspects of Foreign Policy and one aspect of Domestic policy with certain persons in the United Nations secretariat.
The understanding is this:
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will champion in its diplomacy the need to tackle the issue of Climate Change.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will champion in its diplomacy the need to tackle the issue of World Poverty.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will undertake to seek to achieve the 1970 target of giving 0.7% of its GNI (Gross National Income) as official international development aid, annually (it is just over 6% at present).
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will undertake to legislate in the area of Climate change (the result is the Climate Change Act, 2008).
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will retain its permanent seat on the United Nations’ Security Council.
This is the Faustian Pact that the last Labour government made with certain persons in the UN Secretariat in New York in the fall of 2007.
Why?
Very simple really. The international league table of the “Great Powers” had changed since 1945 when the UN was founded. The UK’s present size in terms of aggregate GDP, population and land area cannot realistically justify it remaining a permanent member of the Security Council. There are some obvious countries more qualified: India and Japan, not to mention Brazil.
At the moment the UN is stuck as Brazil, Germany, India and Japan want permanent member status. Britain and France support these calls. However, with the notable exception of Germany, the neighbours of these applicant countries object. However, if the UN so decided they could force the UK into giving up its seat as the German’s have indicated that they would be willing to stay non permanent members if the French and British seats were given up to the EU and one other – India. The French would be prepared to go along with this.
Foreign & Commonwealth Office mandarins will point out to any politician that needs it pointing out that the one thing that ensures British Sovereign possession of the Falkland Islands is its Security Council veto.
Any politician so ignorant that the mandarins need to explain the facts of diplomatic life to them receive this brutal explanation of real politic:
Were the UK to cease to be a permanent member of the security council, Argentina would table a resolution in the UN that the issue of the sovereign possession of the Falkland Islands be referred to the UN’s Special Committee on Decolonization (also known as the U.N. Special Committee of the 24 on Decolonization, the Committee of 24, or simply, the Decolonization Committee) for consideration.
This committee would rule that Sovereignty should be transferred to Argentina but that a 25 year lease be granted to the UK for it to continue to administer the islands.
This would give all that Argentina wants. This being:
1. Ultimate Sovereignty of the Malvinas.
2. The oil. This is because no oil company will agree to exploit the oil in these circumstances without the full co-operation of Argentina.
The one thing these mandarins do not have to point out to a politician is the political consequences of such a development!
Naturally, the reader will appreciate that this organ cannot and will not reveal our source!