Argentina upping the ante on the Falklands....

[Ken Tone]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17157373

 

G

reat summary on the BBC.

 

Beat me to it!

 

In short the view seems to be that we'd be very unlikely to lose the islands to an Argentinian invasion with current defence capability, but if we did they would also be bloody hard to win back.

[badgerx16]

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/shipping/9556183.British_cruise_ship_refused_entry_to_Argentina/

[Ken Tone]

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/shipping/9556183.British_cruise_ship_refused_entry_to_Argentina/

 

Surely Argentina cutting off own nose to spite face? Refusing entry to a cruise ship will cost thousands of pounds to the local economy, and nothing to P&O or the Falkand Islands. cf the argument between Liverpool and Southampton

[Verbal]

Self-determination is a wonderful thing. But if you believe in it you should stick with it - so if future Argentine migration to the islands means a vote goes in favour of annexation to Argentina, there isn't much anyone can do about. Fair enough?

[Thedelldays]

Self-determination is a wonderful thing. But if you believe in it you should stick with it - so if future Argentine migration to the islands means a vote goes in favour of annexation to Argentina, there isn't much anyone can do about. Fair enough?

you what..immigration determining the ownership of a bit of land...?

 

really..?

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

you what..immigration determining the ownership of a bit of land...?

 

really..?

 

I think what he's trying to say is that if enough Argentinians emigrated to the Falklands and become "Falkland Islanders" and eligible to vote on the future of the islands then we'd have to respect their democratic right. I can see where he's coming from except for the massive flaw in his view which is that there is no migration from Argentina to the Falklands and unlikely to be any for many years to come.

[Verbal]

I think what he's trying to say is that if enough Argentinians emigrated to the Falklands and become "Falkland Islanders" and eligible to vote on the future of the islands then we'd have to respect their democratic right. I can see where he's coming from except for the massive flaw in his view which is that there is no migration from Argentina to the Falklands and unlikely to be any for many years to come.

 

The Falkland Islanders themselves are widening their immigration policy in a way that would allow precisely this.

[Verbal]

you what..immigration determining the ownership of a bit of land...?

 

really..?

 

So it's your view that the Falkland Islanders are indigenous? Really?! They are as indigenous as the sheep.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

So it's your view that the Falkland Islanders are indigenous? Really?! They are as indigenous as the sheep.

 

In that case who are the indigenous peoples of the Falkland Islands? And I don't mean explorers or whalers who set foot on the island and then left.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

The Falkland Islanders themselves are widening their immigration policy in a way that would allow precisely this.

 

Really? Gotta link? Seems hard to believe given the antipathy to Argentina.

[Verbal]

In that case who are the indigenous peoples of the Falkland Islands? And I don't mean explorers or whalers who set foot on the island and then left.

 

No one.

[Verbal]

Really? Gotta link? Seems hard to believe given the antipathy to Argentina.

 

http://en.mercopress.com/2011/07/08/falkland-islands-s-plans-to-make-immigration-policy-more-flexible

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

http://en.mercopress.com/2012/02/21/argentine-personalities-openly-support-falklands-right-to-self-determination

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

No one.

 

What do you mean by "indigenous people". I think most people would use it to describe original inhabitants, what about you?

 

In any case what difference does it make if you think that they aren't indigenous?

[Verbal]

What do you mean by "indigenous people". I think most people would use it to describe original inhabitants, what about you?

 

In any case what difference does it make if you think that they aren't indigenous?

 

The usually accepted definition of indigenous peoples these days is those people who occupied lands before colonisation. So that would be no one but the penguins.

 

If you don't like the accepted definition, and want to go by who got there first - the French.

 

As you see, the Falklands issue doesn't withstand particularly close scrutiny before sounding all a bit silly.

[alpine_saint]

Really? Gotta link? Seems hard to believe given the antipathy to Argentina.

 

Indeed. Its another load of Verbal b*ll*cks.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

The usually accepted definition of indigenous peoples these days is those people who occupied lands before colonisation. So that would be no one but the penguins.

 

If you don't like the accepted definition, and want to go by who got there first - the French.

 

As you see, the Falklands issue doesn't withstand particularly close scrutiny before sounding all a bit silly.

 

Your accepted definition? Did the French establish a functioning community there?

 

Anyway wtf has this got to do with anything?

[Verbal]

Your accepted definition? Did the French establish a functioning community there?

 

Anyway wtf has this got to do with anything?

 

I'm just answering the questions you asked. My original point was that self-determination is a perfectly good principle so long as it is held consistently, even when circumstances change.

 

And no, it's not 'my' accepted definition, but THE accepted definition. The idea that 'British' Falkland Islanders are somehow indigenous is silly.

Edited 27 February, 2012 by Verbal

[Thedelldays]

The usually accepted definition of indigenous peoples these days is those people who occupied lands before colonisation. .

 

you sounds like Mr Hitler

[alpine_saint]

you sounds like Mr Hitler

 

I dont know why any of you bother responding to the anti-establishment Trotskyite bigot. My ignore list extends to one name - his.

[Thedelldays]

I dont know why any of you bother responding to the anti-establishment Trotskyite bigot. My ignore list extends to one name - his.

he/she strikes me that does not like anything to do with the UK apart from the welfare system...everything else is evil

[Verbal]

I dont know why any of you bother responding to the anti-establishment Trotskyite bigot. My ignore list extends to one name - his.

 

I'm terribly bothered.

[Verbal]

he/she strikes me that does not like anything to do with the UK apart from the welfare system...everything else is evil

 

Not really. Do you really want to drag this thread down to personal insults?

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

I'm just answering the questions you asked. My original point was that self-determination is a perfectly good principle so long as it is held consistently, even when circumstances change.

 

And no, it's not 'my' accepted definition, but THE accepted definition. The idea that 'British' Falkland Islanders are somehow indigenous is silly.

 

 

 

A quick glance on Wikipedia suggests that there isn't a single accepted definition, let alone yours. Either way, whether or not they're "indigenous" is irrelevant.

[Verbal]

A quick glance on Wikipedia suggests that there isn't a single accepted definition, let alone yours. Either way, whether or not they're "indigenous" is irrelevant.

 

Then why did you raise it? As I said earlier, there are no indigenous people there. I'm glad we agree. And I repeat: self-determination is the issue here, and if it holds now, it must hold in the future, no matter what the constitution of its population. Right? Or is it to be self-determination so long as there is only one answer?

[Thedelldays]

be interesting to see if the argies have the balls to do anything IF tensions increase in the gulf..

 

I say they would be silly too....they are so poor militarily and we could keep them away...

[Ken Tone]

I'm just answering the questions you asked. My original point was that self-determination is a perfectly good principle so long as it is held consistently, even when circumstances change.

 

And no, it's not 'my' accepted definition, but THE accepted definition. The idea that 'British' Falkland Islanders are somehow indigenous is silly.

 

I suspect that, underneath, even you realise that you are talking ********. The current islanders are mostly the descendants of the first properly established population there, settled in 1833 and living there continuously ever since. It is not universally accepted that the Fench first discovered the islands, and even if that were the case, there was never a real French settlement there. No French settlers' children have ever been born there for example. They did briefly have a small military presence yes, but not without British arguing against its legitimacy. We were after all at war with the French throughout most of this period of history.

 

The Islands' goverment is NOT loosening its immigration rules in the way you imply, and certainly not in a way that would allow an influx from Argentina.

[Verbal]

I suspect that, underneath, even you realise that you are talking ********. The current islanders are mostly the descendants of the first properly established population there, settled in 1833 and living there continuously ever since. It is not universally accepted that the Fench first discovered the islands, and even if that were the case, there was never a real French settlement there. No French settlers' children have ever been born there for example. They did briefly have a small military presence yes, but not without British arguing against its legitimacy. We were after all at war with the French throughout most of this period of history.

 

The Islands' goverment is NOT loosening its immigration rules in the way you imply, and certainly not in a way that would allow an influx from Argentina.

 

You're not really following the argument I was making - that self-determination should mean just that, regardless. From the beginning, I've been saying no one, apart from the penguins, is 'indigenous' - it's just a silly 'argument'.

 

As for immigration, if the islands were, as everyone seems to expect, to fill with migrants following the supposed oil rush, the composition of the population would certainly change, whether they're Argentinian or whatever. The changes that the islanders propose to make to migration policy are not specifically anti-Argentinian.

Edited 28 February, 2012 by Verbal

[Ken Tone]

You're not really following the argument I was making - that self-determination should mean just that, regardless. From the beginning, I've been saying no one, apart from the penguins, is 'indigenous' - it's just a silly 'argument'.

 

As for immigration, if the islands were, as everyone seems to expect, to fill with migrants following the supposed oil rush, the composition of the population would certainly change, whether they're Argentinian or whatever. The changes that the islanders propose to make to migration policy are not specifically anti-Argentinian.

 

I was following it ..and I agree with it. Self-determination should indeed still apply if the population changed, and changed its collective mind. However it won't change, at least not that much. The Falklands government has very strict immigration rules, and by the way as as a dependent territory is not part of the EU, so it does not have to admit immigrants in the same way as the uk. All the article you linked to is referring to is FIG giving itself more leeway to give citizenship, if it wishes, to those who have lived on the Islands for some time, eg on a long contract or as spouses of Islanders. Migrant oil workers will not be granted long term residency let alone citizenship... and besides most would not be based on the Islands themselves .. even IF the oilfields ever start producing.

[scotty]

Anyone else remember the South Western pub below bar, opposite where the standing orders is nowadays? Back in the eighties there was always a few Falkland Islanders frequenting that hole, I remember a tall bloke called Michael and a complete and utter nutjob going by the name of Scanner. Those two were merchant navy, when the argie invasion kicked off they were on their way back here. The story was that the crew mutinied, and headed back to see what they could do. Never seen or heard from them since.

[Verbal]

I was following it ..and I agree with it. Self-determination should indeed still apply if the population changed, and changed its collective mind. However it won't change, at least not that much. The Falklands government has very strict immigration rules, and by the way as as a dependent territory is not part of the EU, so it does not have to admit immigrants in the same way as the uk. All the article you linked to is referring to is FIG giving itself more leeway to give citizenship, if it wishes, to those who have lived on the Islands for some time, eg on a long contract or as spouses of Islanders. Migrant oil workers will not be granted long term residency let alone citizenship... and besides most would not be based on the Islands themselves .. even IF the oilfields ever start producing.

 

As in all things to do with the Falklands, it's complicated. While not part of the EU, the islanders are full citizens of the UK and therefore of the EU. They are also able to opt in to large lumps of the EU. As the recent discussions there have shown, things change (in ways that we cannot always predict!), and to repeat my point, if self-determination is the guiding principle (and it seems a good one to me) it can't be changed in order to arrive at only one answer.

[Gingeletiss]

I'm just answering the questions you asked. My original point was that self-determination is a perfectly good principle so long as it is held consistently, even when circumstances change.

 

And no, it's not 'my' accepted definition, but THE accepted definition. The idea that 'British' Falkland Islanders are somehow indigenous is silly.

 

Same as 'Black' South Africans then!

[Verbal]

Same as 'Black' South Africans then!

 

Yet again, I repeat: the generally accepted definition of 'indigenous' is those peoples who occupied lands before colonisation. Why is 'black' in inverted commas by the way?

[latter day saint]

Why is 'black' in inverted commas by the way?

why are you asking ?

[Ken Tone]

As in all things to do with the Falklands, it's complicated. While not part of the EU, the islanders are full citizens of the UK and therefore of the EU. They are also able to opt in to large lumps of the EU. As the recent discussions there have shown, things change (in ways that we cannot always predict!), and to repeat my point, if self-determination is the guiding principle (and it seems a good one to me) it can't be changed in order to arrive at only one answer.

 

If you botherbto actually read what I said you'll see that I agreed with you that self-determination should apply whatever. I pointed out that there will be no mass immigration into the Islands so there is very unlikely to be any change in the view of those living there. I do know about the islanders' status. I have links with the Islands, have stayed there for an admittedly brief visit and know many islanders. They are as British as anyone living here. Some are even Saints fans!

[Thedelldays]

Argentina are rattling their colonial sabre again...trying to get south american nations to not buy british exports

[Ken Tone]

What I've never really understood is why the 'Malvinas' matter so much to so many Argentinians. I can see why their politicians make big fuss....focus on outside enemy to distract from problems at home, plus possibility of oil revenue, .... but way before any talk of oil, to many ordinary Argentinans this was a really emotive issue, and has been from childhood. It seems almost as if they see it as an insult to their collective manhood.

 

I know all the psuedo-legal arguments about who's right or wrong (backwards!) and I know the Falkands are relatively close to parts of the Argentinian coast, but a) at closest they are 300 miles away -- hardly next door and b) no Argentinian can possibly know anyone, or even any descendant of anyone, from their country who ever lived there. When the young conscripts of their army arrived on the Islands in '82 many were gobsmacked, both by the geography (streets not paved with gold after all) and by the fact that the locals were not welcoming them with open arms as 'liberators' as they'd been led to expect.

 

As has been said before, 300 miles from the UK coast would include much of France , all of Belgium and the Netherlands, and even bits of Scandinavia.

 

Yet even now it's a sure vote winnner in Argentina to claim the islands as theirs

Edited 29 February, 2012 by Ken Tone

[Verbal]

What I've never really understood is why the 'Malvinas' matter so much to so many Argentinians. I can see why their politicians make big fuss....focus on outside enemy to distract from problems at home, plus possibility of oil revenue, .... but way before any talk of oil, to many ordinary Argentinans this was a really emotive issue, and has been from childhood. It seems almost as if they see it as an insult to their collective manhood.

 

I know all the psuedo-legal arguments about who's right or wrong (backwards!) and I know the Falkands are relatively close to parts of the Argentinian coast, but a) at closest they are 300 miles away -- hardly next door and b) no Argentinian can possibly know anyone, or even any descendant of anyone, from their country who ever lived there. When the young conscripts of their army arrived on the Islands in '82 many were gobsmacked, both by the geography (streets not paved with gold after all) and by the fact that the locals were not welcoming them with open arms as 'liberators' as they'd been led to expect.

 

As has been said before, 300 miles from the UK coast would include much of France , all of Belgium and the Netherlands, and even bits of Scandinavia.

 

Yet even now it's a sure vote winnner in Argentina to claim the islands as theirs

 

You're trying to understand something that doesn't really exist to anything like the degree you might think it does. I was in Argentina many times in the eighties, and, aside from the military, never encountered anyone who had more than a passing opinion on the subject. At the time, many Argentinians were FAR more concerned with the lethal behaviour of one of the most bloodily oppressive regimes on the planet. The prospect of being picked up by the notorious secret police, cruising in their Ford Falcons, was far more of a threat than British and local politicians' d ick waving over the Falklands - and of course the most important outcome of the war for most Argentinians was the fall of the junta. Don't confuse flag-waving Peronistas with Argentinians as a whole.

[dune]

The latest developments.

 

http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=24323

[Kingsland Red]

For what it's worth I have an interest in The Falklands.

 

My in-laws have lived there for years. Since 1840 the islands have been inhabited by (very patriot) Brits, originally a lot of Scottish croft farmer types. The Japanese whale fishing is regulated in the South Atlantic from the Falklands (By my brother in law)

The islanders treat Margaret Thatcher as a Saint and have total affiliation with the UK , with the Governor reporting to the UK government and the British Antarctic Survey being based in Cambridge.

Did you know their sixth form college is Peter Symonds in Winchester where the students have a lodge?

These islands are not like Diego Garcia where the indigenous population was removed. In fact the neighbouring South Sandwich Islands, also a British dependency, are unpopulated despite issuing stamps (South Georgia and The South Sandwich Islands) with the Queen on.

[dune]

I like the way the Gbraltar chronicle report, hence why I read the online paper every day. They are in a similar boat the the Falkland Islanders so you always get good coverage of such stories. It was actually the Gib government which initiated the sloagan "self determination is democracy" (the policy of the conservative led coalition) when the traitor Blair tried to negotiate with Spain for joint sovereignty. I suspect David Cameron has been briefed by Michael Ancram on this issue, as he was one of a cross party delegation to support them in 2002.

[Thedelldays]

For what it's worth I have an interest in The Falklands.

 

My in-laws have lived there for years. Since 1840 the islands have been inhabited by (very patriot) Brits, originally a lot of Scottish croft farmer types. The Japanese whale fishing is regulated in the South Atlantic from the Falklands (By my brother in law)

The islanders treat Margaret Thatcher as a Saint and have total affiliation with the UK , with the Governor reporting to the UK government and the British Antarctic Survey being based in Cambridge.

Did you know their sixth form college is Peter Symonds in Winchester where the students have a lodge?

These islands are not like Diego Garcia where the indigenous population was removed. In fact the neighbouring South Sandwich Islands, also a British dependency, are unpopulated despite issuing stamps (South Georgia and The South Sandwich Islands) with the Queen on.

I have been to Diego Garcia.............very very hot

[dune]

The Conservatives - The Party that backs the Empire.

 

[video=youtube;Y-ohJAwXWSc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-ohJAwXWSc

[dune]

The Spanish PP and the Argies are clearly in cahoots in a two pronged attack on us.

 

http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=24352

[Thedelldays]

The Spanish PP and the Argies are clearly in cahoots in a two pronged attack on us.

 

http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=24352

I find it utterly hilarious when spain pipe up...more so when people actually support their claims on gibraltar.

 

spain have their own "gibraltar" in morocco......

[dune]

I find it utterly hilarious when spain pipe up...more so when people actually support their claims on gibraltar.

 

spain have their own "gibraltar" in morocco......

 

X 2

 

Ceuta and Melilla, not to mention the Canary Islands and the Basque regions that don't want to be part of Spain, but get no choice in the matter.

[Thedelldays]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17568859

[Thedelldays]

30 years ago today

[Dimond Geezer]

Britains finest hour since 1945.

 

The only thing Thatcher got right.

[Sheaf Saint]

30 years ago today

 

I remember vividly being taken down to Weston Shore when I was not yet seven years old to join in with the flag-waving send-off of the troops on The Canberra...