Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The proposed S. Atlantic Federation, & historic shipwrecks in the British OTs

Expand Messages
  • bobconrich
    Editorial by Mike Olsson from today s edition of the St. Helena Independent: We demand answers from the House of Lords We re previously reported from the House
    Message 1 of 2 , Mar 20, 2010
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Editorial by Mike Olsson from today's edition of the St. Helena Independent:

      We demand answers from the House of Lords

      We're previously reported from the House of Lords about Lord
      Jones of Cheltenham's question regarding Her Majesty's assessment
      over the advantages of forming a South Atlantic Federation
      of Overseas Territories; this involving Falkland Islands,
      St Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha. Baroness Kinnock
      of Holyhead who answered on behalf of the Minister of State
      for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office said "The Falkland
      Islands is one overseas territory of the United Kingdom and St
      Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha are another. This was
      confirmed by new constitutions for both territories that were
      negotiated in 2008 and 2009, following extensive consultations
      on all the islands". This as the actual `answer' from Baroness
      Kinnock of Holyhead in the House of Lords – which basically
      tells us nothing. The answer states that the territories that would
      be in the proposed `South Atlantic Federation of Overseas Territories'
      are overseas territories; we know this already don't we?
      Thus, once again avoiding the question itself and supply no
      answer.

      The second question asked by Lord Jones this week was regarding
      the shipwrecks surrounding the Overseas Territory Islands.
      What information does Her Majesty's Government hold
      about these wrecks and what measures has been taken to
      secure the historic value for those territories. Once again the
      `answer' was supplied by Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead; "…the
      upkeep of historic sites, including shipwrecks, in the Overseas
      Territories is the responsibility of territory governments. The
      Government does not hold the detailed information on shipwrecks
      around the British Overseas Territories and the Ministry
      of Defense and Department for Transport hold information
      on ships that have been lost but this is classed under the ship
      name rather than the place of sinking. The Department for
      Culture, Media and Sport which leads on this issue in the UK
      does not hold information for the Overseas Territories. No
      measures have been taken by the Government to secure the
      historic value of shipwrecks for those territories". Once again,
      the answer supplies neither further information nor does is
      actually containing a response to the question itself.
      In summary, the responses to the questions asked in the House
      of Lords regarding St. Helena, and Overseas Territories, is of
      no interest to the representatives of Her Majesty's Government.
      Their attitudes and complete lack of concern for the overseas
      territories is absolutely appalling and disrespectful.

      ----- ends -----

      While I know that many readers of this List share my enthusiasm for Tristan and perhaps other South Atlantic islands, the unfortunate reality is that such feelings are generally not shared by those in Parliament or Whitehall, where the Overseas Territories are widely considered to be a bother -- places with potential for embarrassment in London because of perceived crime, money laundering, drugs movement, corruption, budget deficits or other disasters. Lord Jones is a notable exception.

      Bob
    • Wolfgang Schaub
      As a foreigner I have nothing to say. But my logic tells me the House of Lords has more important issues to care about. Is it this what the Baroness wants to
      Message 2 of 2 , Mar 20, 2010
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        As a foreigner I have nothing to say. But my logic tells me the House of Lords has more important issues to care about. Is it this what the Baroness wants to convey? In other words, does she want to express the opinion that the Empire is still too large to care about? I wonder if the Baroness had to say something ...
         
        Wolfgang
         
        -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
        Von: tristan-da-cunha@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tristan-da-cunha@yahoogroups.com]Im Auftrag von bobconrich
        Gesendet: Samstag, 20. März 2010 20:10
        An: tristan-da-cunha@yahoogroups.com
        Betreff: [TdC] The proposed S. Atlantic Federation, & historic shipwrecks in the British OTs

         

        Editorial by Mike Olsson from today's edition of the St. Helena Independent:

        We demand answers from the House of Lords

        We're previously reported from the House of Lords about Lord
        Jones of Cheltenham's question regarding Her Majesty's assessment
        over the advantages of forming a South Atlantic Federation
        of Overseas Territories; this involving Falkland Islands,
        St Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha. Baroness Kinnock
        of Holyhead who answered on behalf of the Minister of State
        for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office said "The Falkland
        Islands is one overseas territory of the United Kingdom and St
        Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha are another. This was
        confirmed by new constitutions for both territories that were
        negotiated in 2008 and 2009, following extensive consultations
        on all the islands". This as the actual `answer' from Baroness
        Kinnock of Holyhead in the House of Lords – which basically
        tells us nothing. The answer states that the territories that would
        be in the proposed `South Atlantic Federation of Overseas Territories'
        are overseas territories; we know this already don't we?
        Thus, once again avoiding the question itself and supply no
        answer.

        The second question asked by Lord Jones this week was regarding
        the shipwrecks surrounding the Overseas Territory Islands.
        What information does Her Majesty's Government hold
        about these wrecks and what measures has been taken to
        secure the historic value for those territories. Once again the
        `answer' was supplied by Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead; "…the
        upkeep of historic sites, including shipwrecks, in the Overseas
        Territories is the responsibility of territory governments. The
        Government does not hold the detailed information on shipwrecks
        around the British Overseas Territories and the Ministry
        of Defense and Department for Transport hold information
        on ships that have been lost but this is classed under the ship
        name rather than the place of sinking. The Department for
        Culture, Media and Sport which leads on this issue in the UK
        does not hold information for the Overseas Territories. No
        measures have been taken by the Government to secure the
        historic value of shipwrecks for those territories" . Once again,
        the answer supplies neither further information nor does is
        actually containing a response to the question itself.
        In summary, the responses to the questions asked in the House
        of Lords regarding St. Helena, and Overseas Territories, is of
        no interest to the representatives of Her Majesty's Government.
        Their attitudes and complete lack of concern for the overseas
        territories is absolutely appalling and disrespectful.

        ----- ends -----

        While I know that many readers of this List share my enthusiasm for Tristan and perhaps other South Atlantic islands, the unfortunate reality is that such feelings are generally not shared by those in Parliament or Whitehall, where the Overseas Territories are widely considered to be a bother -- places with potential for embarrassment in London because of perceived crime, money laundering, drugs movement, corruption, budget deficits or other disasters. Lord Jones is a notable exception.

        Bob

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.