The Falklands - Who should own these godforsaken islands?

The people of the Falklands are UK citizens who hold UK passports. Their rights to self-determination, therefore, are applicable to the UK. This is elementary logic.

 

Bollox. In the absense of the anchor of a nation state that pertains to the people in question, self-determination is, by definition, meaningless. My rights of self-determination as a Brit can only be curtailed IN BRITAIN.

Logic eludes you, clearly.

 

Interesting in parts, if a rather long-winded and at times convoluted post. You simply haven't got a handle on self-determination which is predicated upon the nation state status of the those residing on the relevant landmass to which it relates. The Falklands isn't an independent sovereign nation state and the people residing on it are UK nationals which is what they want to be. Nobody is denying them their right to remain UK nationals. But they can't have it both ways by claiming that their rights to self-determination are potentially being undermined as British citizens living on a bunch of rocks 8,000 away from their status nation. It's simply an illogical absurdity in addition to being mutually contradictory.

 

Mediocre drivel. Fails to even attempt to deal with wider principles. A surrender to Peronist tyranny. Dodges key points and is therefore dishonest intellectually. Abusive. Vulgar Stalinist sloganizing. Formulaic. Repetitive to the extent of monotony. Completely shallow. But most of all intellectually tepid, mediocre drivel.

 

I think the embarrassment has been misidentified!

This doesn't explain anything except a complete and utter lack of understanding of the principle of self determination. All the abuse is quite amazing considering how intellectually adrift this is of the slightest understanding of what self determination means. It's not actually representative of any trend of thinking or argument and so I apologize to the Left, Stalinists and the rest for even having associated this bollocks with them. The description of the principle if self determination for Scottish people here is laughable. The failure if repeated attempts at meaningful dialogue are now cruelly exposed.

The principle of self determination for Scotland applies to the Scottish people's choice as to whether to stay as part of Britain or to break the union with England that makes Britain and become an independent nation. Scotland currently enjoys the right of self determination of it's people.

 

I think the last sentence is right. Until you have done some research into the meaning of the self determination of people, there is nothing more to discuss!

 

Nope, mere logic. You have an inability to grasp it, clearly. "Stalinist sloganizing"...Lol...I had to laugh at that.

 

Geez, you have a real problem with comprehension. That load of bollox completely misrepresented what I said....And, I never claimed Scotland DOESN'T enjoy the rights of determination of its people. Maybe you are confusing me with another poster, who knows?

 

You are talking yet more Bollox.

 

Weird reply because I didn't even try to represent the garbled gibberish that you posted so I don't know how I could have misrepresented anything. I just gave my judgement on it's quality.

I have confused your argument with an orthodox left wing anti-imperialist argument. I can see that this was giving the argument too much credibility as it lacks even the limited coherence of such a position. There's not much point going any further as you don't introduce anything new and you don't answer the points about analagous territorial holdings, rights and obligations either.

 

You've illustrated that you cannot grasp basic logic AND you've admitted that you have comprehension problems. These are necessary pre-requisites for engaging in a political forum.

 

A couple of questions for you Zulu;

1/ If we on the mainland have self determination then why dont they also share in that?

2/ Do people on Jersey have any principle of self determination applicable to them? or the Isle of Dogs even? Or the Shetlands?

3/ By the way, does it make you feel any better about a British falklands if they could pay for their own defence through oil revenues?

 

Awww hell naw! This (*)(*)(*)(*) just got existential!

 

Well said .


....

 

Where did you get that from ?

Have you consulted the 65 million ? or have you arrogantly appointed yourself as their spokesman ?


.....

 

That might prove to be a dilema for them . They wont be citizens of Argentina - their new colonial masters - the Argies - would they ?

.....

 

How is Britain going to pay for the ongoing defense of the Falklands that it can't afford? It won't be through resource development in the waters around the Falklands.

Development is easy to stop by preventing the exploring companies from getting insurance. This can be done through press releases by the Argentines.

The same approach was used by the Chinese to stop Vietnamese development plans with Exxon in the South China Sea. Is Britain going to guarantee full payment of all losses regardless of nature with no force majeure clause? I don't think so.

 

At present - the Falklands have their own elected government.

GO - do some homework. + learn , instead of persisting in making an a$$ of yourself.

....

 

I cannot believe that this is proving hard for clearly otherwise intelligent people to grasp. By definition, as UK citizens, they share it as a result of being resident in the UK.

Everybody has the principle of self-determination applicable to them within the framework of their respective national territories which is dependent upon the passports they hold. It really isn't complicated.

The third question is hypothetical. It's not a question of what would make ME happier, it's a question of pragmatism in terms of what is in the best interests of 65 million people.

 

The world is flat, right?

 

HUH ? Why not through the islands natural resources ?

Are you in a position - access to British Treasury - to know what Britain can or can't afford ?

--

Huh ?( again) - have you ever heard abt Lloyds of London ?

That's your problem - you've never been good at - thinking .

tatty-byeee.

 

No, pending upon negotiations the worst scenario is that they will remain UK citizens within the territory of Argentina. The dispute is related to territorial rights NOT to rights of self-determination. By definition, in the case of the status of the Falklander's, only BRITS IN BRITAIN can have their rights to self-determination potentially curtailed. Brits residing in a non-nation state have no rights to self-determination, clearly. Again, it's simple logic.

 

No it isn't according to Bolivians that's why they specifically named their republic a plurinational state in recognition of the many nationalities of the people along with dozens of official languages! Bolivia is no special case either, take a deep breath and try to learn a little about the basic concepts you are so sure you understand:

In some countries, the cognate word for nationality in local language may be understood as a synonym of skin color. To determine citizenship, the nations in these areas of the world follow the principle of jus sanguinis rather than jus soli. But even then these countries would determine one's nationality by their ethnicity, rather than their citizenship.

In several areas of the world, the term nationality can be defined based on ethnicity, as well as cultural and family-based self-determination rather than on relations with a state or current government. For example, there are people who would say that they are Kurds, i.e., of Kurdish nationality, even though no such Kurdish sovereign state exists at least at this time in history. In the context of former Soviet Union and former Yugoslavia, nationality is often used as translation of the Russian nacional'nost' and Serbo-Croatian narodnost terms used for ethnic groups and local affiliations within those (former) states.

Even today the Russian Federation, as an example, consists of various people whose nationality is other than Russian, but who are considered to be Russian subjects and comply with the laws of the federation. Similarly, the term "nationalities of China" refers to cultural groups in China. Spain is one nation, made out by nationalities, which are not politically recognized as nations (state), but can be considered smaller nations within the Spanish nation.

In a number of countries, nationality is legally a distinct concept from citizenship, or nationality is a necessary but not sufficient condition to exercise full political rights. United States nationality law defines some persons born in U.S. outlying possessions as U.S. nationals but not citizens. British nationality law defines six classes of British national, among which "British citizen" is one class (and the only one having the right of abode in the United Kingdom). Similarly, in the Republic of China on Taiwan, the status of national without household registration refers to a person who has Republic of China nationality, but does not have an automatic entitlement to enter or reside in the Taiwan Area, and does not qualify for civic rights and duties there.

source

 

Of course not - but your daft argument is. .

However , Its noted that you're stumped + avoiding my question. incapable of an intelligent response to explain yr earlier ridiculous claim .:

....

"Have you consulted the 65 million ? or have you arrogantly appointed yourself as their spokesman ?


hmmmm.

 

Please link to any aknowledged source where your notion of self determination can be supported ie. that British citizens (or presumably any other people) residing in a non-nation state have no rights to self-determination. Since you claim this is very clear and logical it shouldn't be difficult for you to find.

I think most people would regard territorial rights fundamental to the rights of self determination!