The Falklands - Who should own these godforsaken islands?

Uk people determine UK policy. All the evidence shows that we and our representatives are in favour of accepting the Falklanders request that they are afforded British sovereignty. They have no special power. Just as in Bermuda. We accept that we owe them protection because they are a British Overseas Territory. You can argue that we should rat on them and sell them out. But your arguments are not persuasive to British people. You are in a minority. Maybe not quite the size of a small English village, but a minority nonetheless.

And of course your argument is contradictory. It cannot be that 1. we hold the Falklands for oil and profit. And that 2. by holding the Falklands we forego oil and profit. It has to be one or the other.

Your main argument is different from most of the Left's. You argue not for principle but for self interest. You argue that the self interest of the British people would be best served by abandoning the Falklands. I think you are right, that our self interest would be best served by this. I don't agree though with abandoning principles as soon as they become inconvenient. Then they are not principles. The principle is that the people of the Falklands should determine the government and constitutional governance of the Falklands.

 

As I say, we could leave Northern Ireland to chaos, Scotland to irrelevance or the Falkland Islanders to a nation that sees their home (some rocks and some sheep) as some sort of mythical hallowed ground and that would almost certainly overrun them and destroy their way of life. We choose not to do that even though it would clearly be in our self interest just to be England (and Wales if it wants to be with us - nice mountains). Because we recognize that we have a certain responsibility in a post colonial world to the people who find themselves under the protection of the British "Crown". We think their views and wishes are important.

 

You have the responsibility to go home!

Stop wasting our time with your phoney philantropy!

You thieves have committed armed robbery all over the world!

And yes that goes for all imperialists!

Yankees and UKees go home!

 

So answer the question about Martinique and the DOMTOMs. At least have the intellectual integrity to argue that France should withdraw from these territories too.

Or are you ignoring the theivery and robbery of French imperialism. Be clear please.

 

The United Kingdom is a direct successor state of the Kingdom of England, Argentina is an entirely new entity and not a successor state of Spain owing to Spain still being around. You're not making a cogent argument.

 

So I take it you also argue that the French citizens should leave Guadalupe, Martinique, French Guiana, Réunion, Mayotte, French Polynesia, Saint Pierre et Miquelon, Wallis et Futuna, St. Martin, and St. Barthélemy?

 

The question has now been asked three times. I am sure Paris will give us an interesting answer.

 

I'm sure he's not like every Parisian I've ever met, y'know, a huge nationalistic hypocrite hated by everyone including his own countrymen who are actually decent people.

 

An interesting answer?
No . One word too many in that request.

 

France has long dropped its claim on the Malvinas, for example.

And were Martinique to become independent from France, I certainly hope we would not wage a wasteful war against that, thousands of miles away from home.

The moral high ground now...Sorry, but the British Empire makes any other's attempt at fascism look amateurish!

 

Well, I could be tempted to suffer hearing your views on hypocrisy around a few drinks if you happen to buy

 

You refuse to answer the question. Your response is highly dishonest. We are not talking about independence. And you know it. Are the DOMTOMs entitled to French sovereignty? If so, why are the Falklands not?

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk"]You keep using that word. - YouTube[/ame]

 

Nah, I don't drink, but I'd like an actual answer: Should France abandon all of it's overseas territories?

 

How many times does it have to be written for you two? Turn off FoxNews or whatever your are watching in the background which clearly impedes your understanding.

All imperialists go home!

 

How dare you be so rude. That is my opinion and as valid as your convoluted and contrived schemes any day of the week. You take that back, low character.

Whatever you are projecting onto my post doesn't resemble the reasoning in the actual post. If you can evidence where I assert England is oppressing anything, go ahead. Scottish politicians have led UK for generations now, oppression is working the other way regarding England who are currently more disadvantaged than advantaged in the UK political structure and your statement comes straight out of your head and unfounded inaccurate presumptions, not mine, so you won't mind if I don't respond to a point I didn't make.

Why don't you evidence how much oil you know is there?

And then evidence where I said the Falklands should not be defended.

You incorrectly assume people read and responded to your and Zulu's posts. I responded to a different poster.

 

Its not as simple as you’re trying to make it! I assume you are not doing this deliberately but you are confusing matters of nationality, nationhood, states and citizens. The majority of the Falklanders actually consider themselves as a nation. There is no clear cut definition of a nation. The largest group of Cherekee peoples call themselves the nation of Cherekees. The Flemings avoid calling themselves a nation using the term community. It doesn’t necessarily depend on numbers, the Flemings being twenty times more numerous than Cherekees in the nation of Cherekees. When you state that the nation of the Falklands doesn’t exist you are using the word nation as a synonym for state since you define this by having the property of having citizens. This is a backwards approach, fitting the argument to give the desired result. As I have explained to you the British state is not simply a national state as you would have but a complex one which can be described as a multinational where citizenship is more complicated than so. Finally you are trying to tie down nations to territories but nations are peoples and not territories.
There is therefore no contradiction. What about other peoples on remote islands, for example the islanders on St. Helena? Should the island become the territory of another closer state while the islanders can choose their citizenship? Should their rights depend on whether another state makes claims and has military muscle to back it up making it expensive to defend? Wouldn’t your argument encourage such belligerent actions and where could it lead?

Again self determination applies specifically to peoples not simply citizens of states. The islanders of Greenland have self determination as such and not simply as Danes, so they are not EU citizens despite their Danish nationality. Greenland is far from Denmark and the islanders are few in number compared to the population of Denmark. Does that mean we should negotiate a practical solution if say Canada decided to claim the territories? Its not just hypothesis, Canada and Denmark have a territorial dispute.

Contortions are not logic.

I also find your practical arguments one sided. Having a presence far from base can be advantageous for all if they function as cultural bridge supports, rather like embassies. Just as they can become sores they can also become thriving entities. I believe the national state is in decline in any case and we will see self determination move in both directions with more local autonomy and more supranational institutions. The UK is no more guilty than Argentine of living in the past.

 

Very poor obfuscation. Clearly you are having difficulty here. Do you think France should have sovereignty over the departments et territoires outré-mer?

It is a question that can be answered with a simple "oui" or "non".

Windy statements against imperialism are pathetic when they ignore the wishes of Falkland islanders and the Euro constituents of the DOMTOMs. Personally I think the French solution is pretty good making islands in the Caribbean part of the EU, sung the Euro and sending political representatives thousands of kilometers across the sea to Paris. What's wrong with the French system?

 

Stop your ping pong. Your question has already been answered. Try listening.

Europeans sovereignty over lands thousands of miles away is an anachronism in a post colonial world, as you call it.

Besides, as a European I have had enough of subsidising Big Oil and every other pack of thieves in their world conquest.

 

Viv, please understand the difference between calling something a stupid post and calling someone stupid. I think its fair game and not rude at all to state what I think clearly. I thought we had enough history to have a forthright discussion. Maybe I misunderstood your post but you don't seem ready to explain it so we'll move on eh?

What "contrived schemes"?

 

You don't seem to want to discuss it but are happy just to keep on with your one liners. I think France was very smart to give its colonial subjects full citizenship. You think that if one of the DOMTOMS was invaded by alien powers that it would be right to let it go without the French army and navy going to defend it? This is directly analagous to the Falklands situation. I wonder, is your view representative of French public opinion.

The subject of oil companies has been answered. The best way to give the oil companies what they want is for Britain to negotiate a settlement with Argentina that abandons the Falklanders and splits the oil revenues. The current situation is making it very difficut for the oil companies. It is your solution - to abandon the Falklanders - that would favour the transnational oil companies that don't give a hoot what country holds the Falklands as long as they can drill the oil and distribute it.

We could have a serious discussion or we could exchange insults about French this and British that. I do wonder that people who want Britain to abandon the Falklands don't really want to talk about Bermuda, Martinique etc.. Why would "progressive" people so hostile to imperialism now have such little regard for those who live in imperial colonies? Isn't anti-imperialism built on a concern for those people? It seems that intellectuals feeling ideologically pure is more important than the real rights and welfare of real people. Why is that?

Are you serious about discussion?

 

Now it's lecturing on what a personal attack is? My opinion is as valid as yours and merits as much respect, not to be called stupid because it differs from yours. What kind of debate stance/technique is that?

As to the actual post, what is the point of explaining? You read what you wanted although none of it was actually there. None of your rebuttals relate to anything in the post.

 

I like brevity....try it, instead of making spurious assumptions.

Argentina is not an alien power to the Falklands, they had a peacefully settlement until you kicked them out.

Pure speculation...it gets a tad boring.

For a serious discussion, follow the sign that says "UN" and go talk there...Sorry mate, but this place is filled with trolls taking cheap shots at cheese eating surrender monkeys

 

I said in the absense of Britain ceding to reason, Argentina CAN make it difficult for us, and believe me they WILL. This post imperial pretense will end up costing as a fortune whilst our pensioners freeze in the winter and a quarter of our young people can't find work. Economic development will not occur on the Falklands because Argentina in collaboration with her allies will make it so.

Argentina chose sabre rattling when the fascist junta deliberately scuppered negotiations over 30 years ago prior to the invasion. Politically, the sabre-rattling continues on both sides. They dress up a few Generals in uniform and medals in front of the media and we provocatively send an heir to throne alongside a nuclear submarine to the region on the 30th anniversary of the war.

Contrary to your assertion, my contention is that nationality is NOT geographically defined. The Falklanders' British nationality will not be compromised irrespective of the contentious issue over sovereignty of territory. Comprehension is clearly not your strong point.

My argument is that sovereignty of territority is geographical. In this sense, the notion that, in a post-colonial world, the UK can cling to the Falkland's that's 8,000 miles away, is a modern day anachronism. The same logic applies to any other post-colonial outpost whether that be French or whatever.

 

Are you referring to the couple of months old prison as a peaceful settlement?

I hardly think a couple of months administering the setting up of a prison almost two centuries ago makes them so familiar as a power on the Islands that they are no longer to be considered alien!