This Labour Government has a Falklands problem. And, rather awkwardly, it’s landed directly on Ed Miliband’s desk.
The President of Argentina has been sabre-rattling over sovereignty of the Falklands and a new oil field development in the Islands’ waters.
For decades Britain has rightly defended the Falkland Islanders’ right to self-determination. Their future is for them to decide, not Argentina, not the United Nations, and not ministers sitting thousands of miles away in London.
This has not changed. There is cross-Party agreement here. Yet this is where it gets awkward for Labour.
The UK Government is not simply a distant spectator when it comes to Falklands oil and gas licences, but an active decision-maker. Further still, a key decision-maker.
The Falklands is a self-governing British Overseas Territory. Its own government runs petroleum policy through its Department of Mineral Resources. Applications are assessed locally and the Falkland Islands government is at the heart of the decision-making process.
But the law is crystal clear about what happens next.
Under section 6 of the Falklands’ Offshore Minerals Ordinance 1994, the Governor can grant an exploration or production licence only “with the consent of the Secretary of State”.
And which Secretary of State does that refer to? The Foreign Secretary, Ed Miliband.
Until July, Miliband was Energy Secretary. He was responsible for the Labour Government’s North Sea policy and fronted its decision that Britain would no longer issue new licences to explore new oil and gas fields. The Government said this was necessary to demonstrate climate leadership and because new fossil fuel exploration was incompatible with limiting warming to 1.5 degrees.
Now, the same Ed Miliband sits in the department whose consent is critical to the Falklands’ ability to grant a new petroleum licence.
You could hardly invent a better test of the Government’s logic.
If Miliband were to refuse consent because of his opposition to new oil and gas exploration, what happens to the Government’s passionate commitment to Falklands self-determination?
Are the Islanders free to determine their own economic future only for as long as they make choices Ed Miliband agrees with?
But if he grants consent, an equally obvious question follows.
Why is new oil and gas exploration acceptable in the South Atlantic, but unacceptable in the North Sea?
Why can oil and gas support prosperity, jobs and economic self-determination in Stanley, but not in Aberdeen?
And if the Government’s argument against new British exploration really is about the global climate, then geography does not solve its problem. Carbon emitted from Falklands oil does not somehow behave differently because it was extracted 8,000 miles away.
Now that Ed Miliband has given the Falklands the green light, Labour must stop dodging decisions on the North Sea.
If exploration is acceptable in the Falklands islands, why hold up new licences in the North Sea?
If oil and gas workers can drill in Port Stanley, why is the Government standing in the way of workers in Aberdeen?
If climate change is a global issue which we must all play our part in, why can the Falklands drill but not the UK?
If the Falklands can expand their tax receipts by producing up to 1.7 billion barrels of oil, why can’t we, the UK, exploit our reserves in the North Sea?
Before the Holborn & St Pancras by-election became a dead heat between Labour and the Green Party, Andy Burnham was expected to approve Jackdaw. He delayed it, putting politics ahead of the national interest.
But now the votes in Holborn & St Pancras have been cast, and the Falklands have their approval.
The Prime Minister must end the uncertainty for Aberdeen’s workers, stop dithering and delaying, and approve Jackdaw and Rosebank.
Our Standards:
The GB News Editorial Charter
