The Falklands - Who should own these godforsaken islands?

I think that's an excellent point. I personally think there is a very strong argument for a referendum on something as important as this. Naturally I would support the wishes of the British people. I never thought about that, thanks.

 

Would you accept a parliamentary vote backed up with polling evidence?

We may just have a negotiated settlement on the horizon. I of course acknowledge that the 65 million or their representatives have some say in this. You seem to acknowledge this too.

 

I think a straight referendum decided on the majority wish of the electorate would be the fairest.

I personally don't think at present the public is being offered alternative viewpoints like mine in the media. I also think that my line of argument would emerge in any discussions, forums and debates prior to the referendum.

I accept that at present my view is the minority view and yours is the majority. But I would be confident that my arguments would win the day if they were given a fair crack of the whip so to speak. But I guess we'll never know.

Yes I do acknowledge the views of 65 million have a say.

What is your view on all this?

 

This is a stunning post.

It clears things up nicely. However, I tend to think Zulus confusion about the UKs national interest and what constitutes 'imperialism' is more loose new left dogma from lefty protest groups than belonging to leftism or any clear thinkers of the left as such.

It cant be ignored however, that in 1982 much of the left did want to give over the islands to those monsters.

Zulus contention of 'national interest' is curious. How on earth is it in our interest to risk the lives of these people. The british go out on a limb for people alot less close to us.

As for argentinians, their disgraced armed forces and establishment has done so much killing of their own, of poor teenage girls and boys, that the stain of their foul dishonour cannot be allowed anywhere near the islanders.

We can all agree with that.

 

In 1982 lefty dogma was more cohesive. Anthing that weakened the British State simultaneously empowered radical progressive forces. It was more of an anti_british position than a pro-argentine one.

Now, you are right, lefty dogma is woolly, vague and based on reflex reaction, based aorund half thought through prejudices or politically correct dogma (Argentina is against British imperialism so it's right).

As to argentina being a modern democracy, I think the whole way Kirchner has escalated this into a jingoistic issue in Argentina shows that the old Peronist tyrants still pull the strings. I agree with you. To condemn the Falklanders to such a regime would be hardly better than before (although Zulu's assertion that Galtieri would have killed everyone is a bit far fetched).

 

A referendum would be OK. But I would favour a national debate followed by a parliamentary vote. We are a parliamentary democracy and I think that is an acceptable way for the views of 65 million people to be heard.

 

Funny Brits, who think it is more ethical to let them own the Falklands because the Argies are jingoistic imperialists.

Unbelievable.

 

It is ethical for them to own the Falkland Islands because the Falkland Islanders wish it.

 

In other words: "It is ethical for the Brits to own the Falklands because the Brits wish it."

Thanks that was really funny

 

Well that added precisely rien de tout to the discussion.

I think our suggestion is better than the suggestion to surrender as soon as someone threatens or claims part of your country or territory.

This suggestion would go well with some cheese from Eastern France though - where the collaborateurs still vote Nazi. Perhaps a delicious Comte fruite and a good Vin Jaune from Jura to ease the pain.

That's surrender, from the French se rendre. The anglo-saxon "handgang" fell into disuse a long time ago. We need French words to describe the actions of other nations.

Anytime you want to have a serious discussion Paris, let me know.

 

Yes, we had to teach you lots of concepts.
A hard task indeed, as shown by the present lack of understanding of simple ethics.
Well lots of human behaviours are foreign to the average jingoist Brit, so he has to resort to using foreign words.
Naturally, he will often fail to mention the word "parley" in hopes to divert his nasty breath from the UN

.

 

Exactly.

Just like it is ethical for the Brits to have Belfast because the British people living there wish it. Its a very simple principle.

 

What a load of tom tit!

Sanctimonious drivel!

Pray tell...what give you the right to determine an other nations businesses but your own?

Your party to a degenerated bunch of reprobates on a good day! But truthfully....your aristocracy...scum of the earth!
You live under tranny...when two million people in London only marched against the US war against a sovereign nation Iraq...your lot went licking the rear end of the AIPAC sponsors of your political system in the US againstthe wishes of the people! Your nation!
Enoch Powell, (I had no time for but he had a political outlook alien to the US) would still be turning in his grave regarding the undue influence those degenerates have within the ENGLISH political system!
Integrity, morality you're tory brothers and sisters would never comprehend!
But you have the democratic right........ being wrong!
Regards
Highlander

 

What in hell are you talking about?

Your own French people have long agreed with us on the Falklands question. And your government position is in line with that.
As for ethics, perhaps you could explain to us a more ethical position than leaving the islanders to have as they wish?

 

I doubt whether Argies would have tried to grab the Falklands if it wasnt worth going to war for , would they ? For over a 150 years Argies wasnt interested . didnt care a gnat's pi$$ abt the Islands before realizing Falklands potential natural resource.


Rogues have always ruled everywhere + they still do - even in your country. (wink) .

btw - If you support Scots right to self-determination why deny that right to Falklanders ? Or are you afraid Orkneys - Shetlanders would perhaps want to break away from Alex Salmond's pie -in -the sky future for SCotland. ???


(Dunno ?)

.....

 

Your argument is one put forward by one of your degenerates "Thatcher" previously!

Another red herring....Scottish islands are a part of Scotland regardless how low your aristocracy stoops!

But you can always dream of being one of the chosen people....but your not!

Bye bye!

Regards
Highlander

 

OMG - what have we here - a Frenchie talking abt "ETHICS " ? + " bad (nasty) breath " ?

Hahahaha !


btw - what's yr opinion of French overseas departments - Territoire d'outre-mer ?


..

 

A) Far be for me to defend the aristocracy - who your rightly call scum - however they not much worse than your Hignland Lairds are they ?

B) I was one of that two million Anti-War marchers , but let's not overlook the fact that it was that Half-scot , Tony Blair with other scots like Gordon Brown - "New Labour " who , as you put it ,went licking the rear end of GW Bush + his gang of AIPAC toadies.

Sorry , I've no time for right wing racist Tory - Enoch Powel , IMO it was men like Harold Wilson, Wedgie -Benn , Dennis Healey etc. old LABOUR who stood their own ground + often refused to lick US Presidents wotsits . .


Lang May Yer Lum Reek (wink)


.....

 

The enemies of civilization are their friends ...

 

If I may interject. From post 541:

As I've stated previously, the Scottish/Falklander's comparison is a false equivalent. Scotland is geographically an integral part of the UK. The Scots have UK passports (possibly Scottish passports pending independence) and their right to self determination is therefore applicable to Scots within either an independent Scotland or a United Kingdom whatever the case may be. If the Scots decide to vote for independence, they will be an independent sovereign state nation.

Scotland wasn't appropriated as a colonial possession let alone by force. The Falklander's right to self-determination as a handful of people living on a bunch of rocks named the Falklands cannot be sustained intellectually. Irrespective of any overwhelming support on the part of the Falklander's to be an independent nation or internationally recognized autonomous state, the truth is it simply isn't going to happen and will never be recognized internationally as such. You might as well argue that the people of Cornwall have a right to self determination as Cornish.

So the argument as to their right of self-determination as Falklander's is a red-herring. They are UK passport holders and so their rights to self-determination is inextricably linked to the UK and will remain so until such a time as the Falklands becomes an independent or autonomous state which is never.

 

Thank you for finally coming with a link. Unfortunately for your argument the link completely contradicts your assertion!

From your link:

Self-determination is the principle in international law that nations have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no external compulsion or external interference. The principle does not state how the decision is to be made, or what the outcome should be, whether it be independence, federation, protection, some form of autonomy or even full assimilation. Neither does it state what the delimitation between nations should be — or even what constitutes a nation. In fact, there are conflicting definitions and legal criteria for determining which groups may legitimately claim the right to self-determination. Moreover, self-determination is just one of many principles applied to determining international borders.

Click on "nation" and this is the result:

A nation may refer to a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, and/or history. In this definition, a nation has no physical borders. However, it can also refer to people who share a common territory and government (for example the inhabitants of a sovereign state) irrespective of their ethnic make-up. In international relations, nation can refer to a country or sovereign state. The word nation can more specifically refer to people of North American Indians, such as the Cherokee Nation that prefer this term over the contested term tribe.

Nowhere is a nation defined exclusively as passportholders of a "sovereign nation state" as you do and further reading of your link makes it very clear that this is not how it is to be defined but as the link to nation above defines it which would appear to include the Falklanders.

Your nation state concept is simply an invention only you chose a phrase which is already in use and is far from your concept.

 

Why should 3000 British citizens be subject to the whims of cocktail party revolutionaries in Buenos Aires?

 

Stolen from who? I'd buy that if you could persuade the penguins or sheep to express an opinion.

 

What people? Just because the neighborhood bully demands tribute does not make the tribute his.

 

A new one now, a sovereign state nation!

It is no red herring for examining your concept that the right to self determination is only applicable to whole populations with a specific passport.

It is your "nation state" that is a red herring!

You also like to confuse physical geography with political geography. States are political entities even though they have a tendancy for their territories to follow physical geographical entities.