I have once again enrolled with Oxford University. If I pass this one with a credit, as have done with the previous two courses, then I will have a legitimate claim to possess an Oxford "triple first". Anyway, since today is the 30th anniversary of the invasion of the Falklands by the Argentinians, perhaps I can take this opportunity to remember all those brave people from both sides who gave their lives in the subsequent war. As it happens, those who know me will also know of my fiercely anti nationalistic sentiments and it follows, therefore, that I find territorial squabbles (and their attendant wars) somewhat ludicrous. In fact, one of my many unorthodox views is that the notion of countries is an anathema. Accepting that some form of administrative infrastructure is probably necessary, I still think we should all be free to travel, live and work wherever in the world we fancy, as long as in doing so, we don’t represent a burden to people who might be honestly toiling away in that place to maintain their own and their family’s needs. In fact, I’m against any form of tribalism which sets any group apart as superior or materially different from any other group, especially if that involves racial or religious differences. As it happens, the Falklanders seem to favour a life which not surprisingly reflects a British heritage, including their language, and so, in the absence of any other legitimate drivers, it seems quite reasonable that those people should be free to choose Britain to be aligned with, if they democratically decide that is what they particularly want to do. I think the Argentinian claim that Britain remains a colonialist ogre is quite absurd, since Argentina itself has historical roots in colonialism and we must all, at some point move on from the past, accepting that "that was then, this is now". However, as a slightly separate point I can’t see why some people think it obvious that any country should have sovereignty over an island, just because of its proximity. There are islands all around the world whose allegiance or “ownership” is not based on their physical location; some are independent and some are part of another, faraway, place. This may be for a variety of reasons, some perfectly legitimate, and some due to a peculiar quirk of history which might be difficult to unravel. Interestingly, proximity seemed important to Hitler as he annexed one adjacent state after another and it’s a truism that you can never run out of adjacent states which might seem ripe to absorb. Also interestingly, since I am now studying ethics, I came across one of those strange but true “laws” the other day which stated that most ethical or philosophical arguments employ some kind of Hitler metaphor or simile within five steps. In fact, I think Sean Penn started referring to Hitler, as he berated the UK over its stance on the Falklands. Mind you, I saw they asked the Governor of the Falklands what he thought of Penn’s comments, to which he replied “he seemed to be referring to some place called Las Malvinas, and I'm not sure where they are or, for that matter who he is...”.