The Falklands - Who should own these godforsaken islands?

And you continue to misstate the Falklanders case. The Falklands are theirs on the same basis that Canada is the Canadians and Bermuda (also UK territory) belongs to Bermudans. They determine the sovereignty of their territory, the flag they fly and the Head of State they recognize.

You ignore this point over and over. Argentina has no citizens living there and has not for centuries (or possibly ever). Sovereignty should be determined by the wishes of people who live in a place. This is the whole basis of the countries the USA and Argentina.

The way to solve the problem is to destroy Buenos Aires if any Argentinian troops impinge the British sovereignty of the Falklands.

 

Quite right. The notion that this is a colonialist imperialist position is absurd. Even with oil the benefit the Falklands brings to the UK is marginal. It's a matter of principle. It's a highly inconvenient principle to defend. Thats why some who lack principle want to solve the problem with money. A principle is only really worth upholding when it is thoroughly inconvenience to do so.

 

Thank you to the cheese eating surrender monkeys. Their Exocets did kill British forces but ultimately the democratic ally of France defeated her business partner. Still the nation of collaborators par excellence, a sizable proportion of whom still vote Nazi today, celebrating the death of British sailors and soldiers, is no great surprise.

 

Of course. If it is expedient for Zulu to do so. Zulu can't quite work out that principles are not defined by their practicality. In fact principles become clearer when they are impractical, costly, inconvenient and causing problems you would rather not have.

It might be expedient to abandon the Falkland islanders. It might be a more efficient use if the country's resources. But it is not principled. They know this, which is why the Left sneer so much at principles. You can't eat principles, they say, as they sneer at us.

But when the British people are asked they are ready to stomach a little inconvenience to do the right thing. They don't sneer at the concept of principles. And they know that principles are awkward bloody things, a bit like the British really.

 

Ah who can refute one of Iolo's sneers.

If you're so bored why don't you go and pour out your tedious twaddle somewhere else?

Your feigned concern for Welsh Guards was pretty disgusting. I'd pay good money to hear you explain your concern for them to half a dozen of Wales's finest. Especially that bit about the legal position not being all that clear. Just me, you and half a dozen Welsh Guards in a pub over a pint or two. Now that would be something!

 

You ain't getting this pal...Self-determination is applicable to sovereign nation states. The Falklands isn't a sovereign nation state. The residents of the Falklands are citizens of the nation state called Britain so all rights of self determination involving British passport holders are only applicable to British citizens in Britain. Your jingoism is clouding your judgement.

 

The Falklands is a colonial outpost- a 21st century anachronism. Ownership of this bunch of rocks in the south Atlantic is contestible and it makes pragmatic economic sense to negotiate. You be be unaware of this, but we were involved in negotiations prior to the Falklands war that, incidentally, I agreed with at that time. One of the reasons Argentina attacked was because its fascist junta scuppered the negotiations. However, Argentina has come a long way in 30 years and is now prepared to do business and negotiate in good faith, if only we would offer a reconciliatory hand.

 

You can stick your conciliatory hand up Tevez's shorts and flatten both of them .I have never read such tomfoolery.
If they wish to invade our property they will be severely embarrassed .
There will be Christine in one bed dying from Thyroid Cancer and the Nation in the next one , dying from collective shame and confirmed inferiority .
They could never produce tasty Corned Beef . What chance with something difficult ?

 

I am of the left and favoured Thatcher's intervention which was our moral duty. In 1982 we had an obligation to the people of the Falkland's to protect them from the fascist Junta in Buenos Aires. Are there any more stereotypes you want to throw about?

 

Self determination applicable only to sovereign nation states?

Dont you support the Palestinians?

Yet you say islanders are citizens of Britain. So if they vote to be british, and the british vote them to be british if they both agree whats the problem?

Further our head of state has authority here, and she wants it British. So whats the problem?

Who exactly are you arguing for here? The interests of the islanders? The british? Argentinians?

 

So whats different now?

 

It seems your putting argentine claims ahead of islanders wishes.

 

Of course I support the Palestinian's, dude. Your analogy can only work on the premise that a colonial outpost in the south Atlantic 8,000 miles away is nothing other than a 21st century post-imperial anachronism.

The Falklander's are British and nobody - least of all the Argentinian's - are suggesting that their citizenship rights be denied or in anyway compromised. Argentina - subject to negotiation - wants a share of the rock and a share of the mineral riches in the water that surrounds it. This is precisely what WAS being negotiated in 1978-80.

The Falklander's cannot simultaneously claim that they are British AND that they have the right of self-determination 8,000 miles from Britain. These things are mutually contradictory.

The Argentinian's have no interest in the Falklander's and they have no interest in them becoming Argentine citizens - although frankly it would make sense for them to edge towards such a scenario. But that would be a matter for them. Nobody is trying to take their passports away.

They can come and live in Britain or stay on the Falklands and remain British. But what is unacceptable is that we have to go to war after war and destroy our interests as a nation as well as defying virtually the entirety of world public/state/political opinion as expressed in the General Assembly of the UN, simply because 3,000 people have an effective veto over the national interest represented by 65 million people.

Is there seriously anybody out there who thinks that UK national economic and foreign policy be set by a population size that is equivalent to my local neighbourhood?

 

replica post

 

In 1982 Argentina was a fascist state run by a militaristic junta who deliberately scuppered negotiations over shared sovereignty rights so as to further their policy of militarization, war and ethnic cleansing. The British people at that time were under genuine threat to their lives. We had a duty of responsibility to protect them. Comparisions with the aims of a democratic Argentina in 2012 are frankly absurd.

 

I'm putting rationality and economic pragmatism ahead of irrationality and jingoism.

 

You sound like a Lord Palmerston - a kind of colonial relic of the 18th or 19th century. Do you know how absurd you sound?

 

I'm not mistaking their case. They want to remain British and they will continue to remain British. If they want to stay there they will be allowed to stay there. If they they want to come and live in the country that they keep bleating on about, they would be most welcome.

But it's unacceptable - nevermind a 21st century anachronism - that 3,000 people living in a colonial outpost 8,000 miles away be effectively allowed to dictate the foreign and economic policy interests of an entire nation represented by 65 million people. I'm not prepared to accept the illogicality whereby more of our young men and women could potentially be sent to shed their lifesblood at the behest of 3,000 people whose lives will not be at risk or whose citizenship rights will not be denied.

Now, perhaps you will be prepared to put on a tin hat and fight the good fight on behalf of the shared interests of British Petroleum and the Argentine state, but don't expect any sane individual to do so.

 

You write like Aldous Huxley. He wrote when he was loaded.

 

It's not complicated. I support the right of self determination. You don't. This means that the inhabitants of a territory have the right to determine how they are governed. You dont appear to accept this principle or if you do don't think this principle is worth fighting for. You stick with your totalitarian worldview and I'll continue to propagate Enlightenment principles concerning the natural rights if people to govern themselves and determine their own sovereignty.

 

You are not very bright are you? I'll try again because clearly you are not grasping simple logic. The issue of self-determination applicable to the Falklander's is a red-herring. UK citizen's holding UK passports, by definition, do not have a right of self-determination as Falklander's 8,000 miles away. Nations have the right of self-determination. 3,000 people on the Falkland Islands are NOT a nation - indeed they insist they want to remain citizens of the BRITISH NATION. British people residing in the BRITISH NATION have, by definition, the right to self-determination in BRITAIN.

One cannot simultaneously claim that one is British AND that one has a right of self-determination 8,000 miles away from Britain. These two things are mutually contradictory. What can you not understand about that?

 

So in other words, self-determination is, by definition, predicated upon nationality. The Falklander's ARE UK nationals and that is what they WANT to be. Nobody is denying their right to be, and remain, UK nationals including Argentina.

I too support their right to national self-determination. But what I cannot support in the 21st century is their anachronistic exclusive right to a TERRITORY 8,000miles away that was obtained as a result of a colonial conquest. I'm not alone - far from it. The vast majority of the worlds public/government/political thinking as expressed to the General Assembly of the United Nations, is on my side too. It's the UK that is out of step on this issue not the vast majority of the rest of the world.

 

So by way of clarification, your thinking is muddled. The issue relating to self-determination of Falklander's as it applies TO Falklander's, IN the Falklands, is a red-herring. UK citizen's holding UK passports, by definition, do not have a right of self-determination as Falklander's 8,000 miles away. Self-determination is determined by nationality.

3,000 people on the Falkland Islands are NOT Falklander's in terms of nationality because the Falkland's as a nation is non-existent - indeed the people of the Falkland's insist they want to remain citizens of the BRITISH NATION. It therefore follows that British people residing in the BRITISH NATION have the right to self-determination in BRITAIN.

One cannot simultaneously claim that one is British AND that one has a right of self-determination 8,000 miles away from Britain. These two things are mutually contradictory.

In other words, self-determination is, by definition, predicated upon nationality. The Falklander's ARE UK nationals and that is what they WANT to be. Nobody is denying their right to be, and remain, UK nationals including Argentina.

I too support their right to national self-determination. But what I cannot support in the 21st century is their anachronistic exclusive right to a TERRITORY 8,000 miles away that was obtained as a result of a colonial conquest. I'm not alone. Far from it.

The vast majority of the worlds public/government/political thinking as expressed to the General Assembly of the United Nations, is on my side too. It's the UK that is out of step on this issue not the vast majority of the rest of the world.

It makes logical and pragmatic sense to engage with Argentina with a view to the possible sharing of TERRITORY of the Falklands and the waters that surround it. Indeed we were negotiating on these very terms from 1978-80 until the fascist junta scuppered talks which in turn ushered in the war of 1982 that I supported.

The Argentinian's have no interest in the Falklander's and they have no interest in them becoming Argentine citizens -although frankly it would make sense for them to edge towards such a scenario. But that would be a matter for them. Nobody is trying to take their passports away.

They can come and live in Britain and be British or stay on the Falklands and be British. But what is not acceptable is that other people's blood be potentially spilled on behalf of the interests of British Petroleum simply because 3,000 people have an effective veto over the long-term national interest represented by 65 million people.

Is there seriously anybody out there who thinks that UK national economic and foreign policy be set by a population size that is equivalent to my local neighbourhood?

 

My sense of Parody and Satire unfortunately is far too sophisticated for most people here
Clearly you are no exception .
Guess that makes you Mr Dumbo -- do your research first.

 

If they are family , undoubtedly .
Perhaps that idea is a little old fashioned for you .
But the British are fundamentally decent , caring and loyal .
A difficult concept for some .