It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Britain imposes direct rule of Turks and Caicos isles

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 07:42 AM
Britain says it has suspended the government of the Turks and Caicos Islands and imposed direct rule after allegations of systemic corruption and "serious dishonesty".

I realise this is very old news, i just want a general opinion of ATS users, how do you feel about this? Should the UK give back all of it's 14 overseas territories back over, should we allow them to be independant?

I personally feel it's in better interest of the populance if they remain british, as they receive a lot of trade benefits.

The Islands lie just off the coast of the US, very nice place, paradise sort of Islands

[edit on 19-8-2010 by Haydn_17]

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 07:57 AM

Should the UK give back all of it's 14 overseas territories back over

Over to who? Most of our territories have never had indigenous inhabitants or previous owners. Of those that did either the original inhabitants are long gong and/or the current inhabitants wish to remain as British dependants.

Independence has been on offer since the end of WW2 and a number of referenda have taken place. If any of our overseas territories wish to change their status they can.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 08:11 AM
reply to post by Haydn_17

Yes they should. Seriously UK has no leg to stand on with the accusations of system corruption (remember MP's expense scandal) and serious dishonesty (Iraq War inquiry). Old habits of invading and looting/ plundering of other country/ land die hard it seems.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 08:26 AM
reply to post by Sheol

The residents of The Turks and Caicos Islands have had the option of full independance for approximately 60 years now.
They have freely chosen to remain a British Overseas Territory.

It has been mooted in the past that the Territory becomes a province of Canada!

A read of this may dispel some pre-conceived ideas.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 08:29 AM
Rhodesia was one of the richest countries in Africa before we gave them independence, look at the state of that country now. One of the poorest

Also everyone cane see what happened to Palestine after we gave it up for 'auction'

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 08:46 AM
As a Canadian I've always dreamed of having a place in the Caribbean that I could call home, or at least where I could freely spend my loonies.

Alas. It will never happen. Mind you, they (the locals) seem about as laid back as the rest of Canada so they might just fit in with us real well.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 09:29 AM
Living on an US island not too far away I see the problem with corruption all the time. Many countries own islands and use them as destinations for their citizens.

The Turks and Caicos offer tourism and not much else. If they we're to gain independence it would become a poor third world destination.

It has happen around the Caribbean many times in the past. Islands that leave their flag usually become that more corrupt and broke.

There are probably just a few at the top of the Turks and Caicos local government that would want to succeed from the flag showing there corruption is already existing.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 09:38 AM
reply to post by Griffo

Sorry but your memory of Rhodesian history is wrong. Ian Smith declared UDI (Unilateral Declaration of Independence):

1965: Rhodesia breaks from UK
The Rhodesian Government, led by Prime Minister Ian Smith, has illegally severed its links with the British Crown.
Mr Smith made the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) after days of tense negotiations with British Prime Minister Harold Wilson.


top topics


log in