/ Falkland Islanders voting to determine their future

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Rob Exile Ward on 10 Mar 2013
The cheeky colonial b*stards! Who the hell do they think they are? Why should they have any rights over the original inhabitants?

Oh hang on a moment...
mypyrex - on 10 Mar 2013
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> Why should they have any rights over the original inhabitants?
Would that be the penguins?
Rob Exile Ward on 10 Mar 2013
In reply to Rob Exile Ward: C'mon Brucie, step up to the plate, you know you want to! Give us some of that good ole time CP doublethink!
MG - on 10 Mar 2013
In reply to Rob Exile Ward: a :-)
mgco3 - on 10 Mar 2013
In reply to Rob Exile Ward: I cant wait for the vote results.

Can you imagine if the vote was 2480 to stay a british colony, 1 to hand over to Argentina.. The resulting witch hunt to find the bugger who voted for Argentina would make a good comedy film.



Rob Exile Ward on 10 Mar 2013
In reply to mgco3: Or a Bateman cartoon...
Rampikino - on 10 Mar 2013
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

They ain't voting as a choice between Britain or Argentina
mypyrex - on 10 Mar 2013
In reply to Rob Exile Ward: Bruce IS quiet.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 10 Mar 2013
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Too soon. The Falklands thread is an annual event, and we've done it for 2013 already.

Need to wait to jan 2014 before we can open the topic again....

;-)
Mikkel - on 10 Mar 2013
In reply to Rampikino:

They will later decide whether to Join Venezuela or Indonesia. (thats if its a No to stay with the UK)
mgco3 - on 12 Mar 2013
In reply to Rob Exile Ward: 3 People Voted NOT to stay "British"??????

Hmmm! I think I might know where the last three missing SS officers that escaped from Germany after the second world war are hiding!!
Pekkie - on 12 Mar 2013
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Would it actually make any difference if the islands reverted to Argentina tomorrow? Argentina is now a democracy and a member of the G20 and other international groupings so would be likely to let things go on as before. A bit like China and Hong Kong only more so. It won't happen, of course, but....
Oceanrower - on 12 Mar 2013
In reply to Pekkie: Nope, it wouldn't make any difference whatsoever if the islands became Argentinian............

.......if that's what the islanders want. Which it patently isn't.
mypyrex - on 12 Mar 2013
In reply to Oceanrower:
> (In reply to Pekkie) Nope, it wouldn't make any difference whatsoever if the islands became Argentinian............
>
> .......if that's what the islanders want. Which it patently isn't.

Watch out...

































...here comes Bruce! :)

Dominion - on 12 Mar 2013
In reply to Pekkie:

> Would it actually make any difference if the islands reverted to Argentina tomorrow? Argentina is now a democracy and a member of the G20 and other international groupings so would be likely to let things go on as before. A bit like China and Hong Kong only more so. It won't happen, of course, but....


Yes, it would.

Argentina is a European colonial / empire that is enforcing it's rules over the indigenous people of South America, and seeking to further impose it's colonial rules on some other non-native people against their wishes.

If Argentina was run by native South Americans, not Spaniards then they might have a point. But the ruling class in Argentina are not South Americans, they are foreign invaders, Their native language is Spanish, and a significant percentage of them view themselves as Spanish.

They are one of the founding members of the Organisation of Ibero-American States, the seat of which is in Madrid, in Spain.

They aren't South Americans, and they are proud of that fact...

-)

Oceanrower - on 12 Mar 2013
In reply to mypyrex:
> (In reply to Oceanrower)
> [...]
>
> Watch out...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ...here comes Bruce! :)

I'm looking forward to it ;)
dissonance - on 13 Mar 2013
In reply to Pekkie:
> (In reply to Rob Exile Ward)
>
> Would it actually make any difference if the islands reverted to Argentina tomorrow?

reverted isnt really the right word.
As for a difference, probably not but its for the Argentinians to convince the Falklanders of that. Considering the refusal of the Argentinian government to speak with the island council and the various other actions (blocking of ships etc) which the Argentinians have done I cant really blame the islanders for being a tad suspicious though.
Ridge - on 13 Mar 2013
In reply to Dominion:
> (In reply to Pekkie)

> Argentina is a European colonial / empire that is enforcing it's rules over the indigenous people of South America, and seeking to further impose it's colonial rules on some other non-native people against their wishes.

+1

The Argentine government's rantings about the Falkland Islands also don't inspire much cinfidence in their likely attitude to the islanders. They have made it clear that the islanders wishes are irrelevant. I suspect Argentine control of the Falklands would mean seizure of land and property for the 'Argentine People' and a campaign of intimidation to drive out the islanders.
Cuthbert on 13 Mar 2013
In reply to Ridge:

How relevant were the islanders wishes on Diego Garcia to the UK Government?
Ridge - on 13 Mar 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to Ridge)
>
> How relevant were the islanders wishes on Diego Garcia to the UK Government?

So the UK govt treated the islanders of Diego Garcia appallingly, therefore subsequent UK governments should continue in this manner? Not sure what your point is?
dissonance - on 13 Mar 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to Ridge)
>
> How relevant were the islanders wishes on Diego Garcia to the UK Government?

not very. However just because one group was treated badly doesnt mean another should (not a path judging by your username i would have thought you would want to go down?). Instead perhaps we should be looking at treating the worse off group better? Say ending the lease in 2015?

Cuthbert on 13 Mar 2013
In reply to Ridge:

The point I am making is that the UK Government will saying anything that suits it's agenda and own interests. That it's some bastion of best practice is a myth. They are desperate for referendums in the Falklands and Gibraltar as it suits their interests. On the other hand they were desperate to avoid one at home so I have no problem with the current situation but much of the rhetoric avoids the real reasons - self interest.
tony on 13 Mar 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to Ridge)
>
> The point I am making is that the UK Government will saying anything that suits it's agenda and own interests.

Isn't that what Governments are elected to do?

Cuthbert on 13 Mar 2013
In reply to tony:

No, it's elected to implement it's manifesto. You get the point I am making Tony?
dissonance - on 13 Mar 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:

> The point I am making is that the UK Government will saying anything that suits it's agenda and own interests. That it's some bastion of best practice is a myth. They are desperate for referendums in the Falklands and Gibraltar as it suits their interests.

really? All the evidence points towards the Governments over the last 30-40 years consider both the Falklands and Gibraltar a bit of a pain in the neck since their strategic importance is long gone and are now a diplomatic issue.
To take the Falklands prior to the invasion both Labour and the Tories where negotiating and trying to hand them over. Just the people living there weren't to keen.
Cuthbert on 13 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance:

I'll leave you guys to argue it out. Please use "really?" again.
tony on 13 Mar 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to tony)
>
> No, it's elected to implement it's manifesto. You get the point I am making Tony?

Governments are elected to implement policies which it believes are in the the best interests of their country - that's the national self-interest, as manifested by the successful election. That's not terribly controversial is it?
GrahamD - on 13 Mar 2013
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I'm desperately thinking if there is ANY way we could concede enough sovereignty to make Messi eligible to play for England ?
dissonance - on 13 Mar 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:

> I'll leave you guys to argue it out. Please use "really?" again.

i am sure your insightful contributions will be missed.
Rob Exile Ward on 13 Mar 2013
In reply to dissonance: Very good article in the Guardian today, making the case for Argentina 10 times better than the Comintern do on here.

Haven't really got time to analyse it though at the moment and find the flaws!
ads.ukclimbing.com
Cuthbert on 13 Mar 2013
In reply to tony:

Well Tony if you didn't understand my general thrust and need it explained in the most simplistic of terms that there is not much I can do to help you. I would have thought it was obvious but maybe that's just me.
999thAndy on 13 Mar 2013
In reply to Saor Alba: all political parties everywhere do and say whatever they think will garner the most votes. It's not a problem unique to the UK.
tony on 13 Mar 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to tony)
>
> Well Tony if you didn't understand my general thrust and need it explained in the most simplistic of terms that there is not much I can do to help you.

Why not? Can't you explain it any better? I wouldn't want to make any assumptions.
dissonance - on 13 Mar 2013
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> Haven't really got time to analyse it though at the moment and find the flaws!

which one is that? Ones i have seen tend to be "its our and you are evil colonists whilst we are the nice sort"
I am guessing it doesnt really deal with the minor problem of the Islanders and why they think rough wooing is the way to go?
Chateauneuf du Boeuf - on 13 Mar 2013
In reply to Rob Exile Ward: I'm not sure what this vote means, it would hold up if Britain had a more solid record on allowing self determination. Worth remembering it evicted those dwelling on the Chagos Islands to make room for a US airbase. On the whole, though a vote among colonisers is probably not the most useful thing in deciding how legitimate a claim to territory is. Obviously having committed lives and a hell of a lot of money to defending the Falklands/Malvinas a full change in sovereignty is out of the question. The western backed dictatorship and its backers that initiated the war must take the blame for this, otherwise we'd have seen sense and handed them over ages ago, now its politically difficult.

However, if we want the islands to be anything other than a ludicrously expensive, pointless, windswept outpost, it would be sensible to talk to the Argentinians. It won't be possible to realise the natural resource wealth without Argentinian cooperation, and they are not worth damaging relations with the economically booming latin America for. There is no international support for the British position, and this is saying something.
woolsack - on 13 Mar 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:
> On the whole, though a vote among colonisers is probably not the most useful thing in deciding how legitimate a claim to territory is.

A vote amongst the penguins might be more representative then?
mp3ferret on 13 Mar 2013
In reply to Rob Exile Ward: Funny how the argies started piping up just after a survey revealed large fossil fuel reserves around the islands - or maybe that's just a coincidence.
Chateauneuf du Boeuf - on 13 Mar 2013
In reply to woolsack: It would be about as helpful to the debate.
Mike Stretford - on 13 Mar 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:
> (In reply to Rob Exile Ward)
>
> However, if we want the islands to be anything other than a ludicrously expensive, pointless, windswept outpost, it would be sensible to talk to the Argentinians.


I agree but that's even more politically dificult than you describe while we have an Argentinian government who describes the Islanders as 'squatters' and won't talk to them (after all, as a people they have been 'squatting' in South America for longer than most Argentinians can claim).
Chateauneuf du Boeuf - on 13 Mar 2013
In reply to Papillon: Yeah the terms of debate are a bit stupid now. The UK government will not budge, DC and WH are enjoying being cheerleaders for UK patriotism, but this rhetoric while politically valuable will be economically costly. I think with a bit more talking, both side may develop less foolish positions, but a sensible government will have to spend considerable time preparing UK public opinion for some sort of deal.
dissonance - on 13 Mar 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:
> I think with a bit more talking, both side may develop less foolish positions, but a sensible government will have to spend considerable time preparing UK public opinion for some sort of deal.

no they dont need to spend any time on that. Its the islanders opinion which counts and who the Argentinians need to convince. Currently though since their current approach is to want to treat them like a colony i wouldnt hold out much hope.
Bruce Hooker - on 13 Mar 2013
In reply to Papillon:

But squatters is exactly what they are, colonists would be another term as they are occupying the territory on behalf of an alien government, and their own personal material interest, of course - it's hardly surprising that they didn't vote against their bread and butter.

Whatever, all you British Empire Revivalists, on the Malvinas or ukc, are in trouble now, God has just chosen an Argentinian as his representative on Earth, that's going to put the cat among the penguins :-)

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.