Batman Posted 24 January, 2016 Share Posted 24 January, 2016 Isn't the history of the Falklands interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands you could say that about any part of the world what is your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 24 January, 2016 Share Posted 24 January, 2016 Corbin has been busy , first the Argentinian embassy then the migrant camp in Calais . Has he struck a deal with France to fast track these poor souls straigh to the UK as well ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 24 January, 2016 Share Posted 24 January, 2016 Isn't the history of the Falklands interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands What about the history of 2013? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 24 January, 2016 Share Posted 24 January, 2016 This bit was an eye-opener (from wikipedia) "Concerned at the expense of maintaining the Falkland Islands in an era of budget cuts, the UK again considered transferring sovereignty to Argentina in the early Thatcher government." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 24 January, 2016 Share Posted 24 January, 2016 This bit was an eye-opener (from wikipedia) "Concerned at the expense of maintaining the Falkland Islands in an era of budget cuts, the UK again considered transferring sovereignty to Argentina in the early Thatcher government." luckily these days, we are pretty fair about it and actually take into account what the people who live there actually want you do think it is the proper thing to do don't you....put it to the democratic right of the people who live there to decide their own future??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 24 January, 2016 Share Posted 24 January, 2016 This bit was an eye-opener (from wikipedia) "Concerned at the expense of maintaining the Falkland Islands in an era of budget cuts, the UK again considered transferring sovereignty to Argentina in the early Thatcher government." With the exception of the British Military installations, the Falkland Islands are financially self-sufficient. But don't let facts confuse you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 24 January, 2016 Share Posted 24 January, 2016 This bit was an eye-opener (from wikipedia) "Concerned at the expense of maintaining the Falkland Islands in an era of budget cuts, the UK again considered transferring sovereignty to Argentina in the early Thatcher government." What about the referendum of 2013, or have you not read that far into that Wikipedia entry yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 24 January, 2016 Share Posted 24 January, 2016 This bit was an eye-opener (from wikipedia) "Concerned at the expense of maintaining the Falkland Islands in an era of budget cuts, the UK again considered transferring sovereignty to Argentina in the early Thatcher government." It's probably best not to follow the self-admiring buffoon down this rabbit hole of foreign policy. He regards it as his "specialism" yet has no demonstrable skill in international diplomacy (or indeed political history) whatsoever. The Argentinian embassy in London, by the way, have already declared Corbyn as "one of us". Regardless of one's opinion about the long-term future of the Falklands, it's completely irrelevant to reviving Labour's chance of electoral success in 2020. Why Corbyn persists in mouthing off about this stuff is beyond me, beyond the virtue-signalling that he so clearly revels in. It certainly does nothing but drive a further wedge between him and those among the undecided electorate who might be persuadable in some way to vote Labour at the next GE. Then again, sticking to domestic policy isn't much of an improvement either. His plan to stop dividend payouts in companies that do not pay the minimum wage wasn't even mentioned to Angela Eagle, the shadow business secretary, before his pronouncement on high. Incompetence unbound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 24 January, 2016 Share Posted 24 January, 2016 With the exception of the British Military installations, the Falkland Islands are financially self-sufficient. But don't let facts confuse you. 1. Thatcher did think about handing them off in the early 1980s recession because of the cost. It was that lack of commitment which encouraged the Argies to invade. 2. It is now 2016 not the 1980s so your point is irrelevant 3. The Falklands costs more to protect than it produces in GDP. Don't let facts confuse you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 24 January, 2016 Share Posted 24 January, 2016 It's probably best not to follow the self-admiring buffoon down this rabbit hole of foreign policy. He regards it as his "specialism" yet has no demonstrable skill in international diplomacy (or indeed political history) whatsoever. The Argentinian embassy in London, by the way, have already declared Corbyn as "one of us". Regardless of one's opinion about the long-term future of the Falklands, it's completely irrelevant to reviving Labour's chance of electoral success in 2020. Why Corbyn persists in mouthing off about this stuff is beyond me, beyond the virtue-signalling that he so clearly revels in. It certainly does nothing but drive a further wedge between him and those among the undecided electorate who might be persuadable in some way to vote Labour at the next GE. Then again, sticking to domestic policy isn't much of an improvement either. His plan to stop dividend payouts in companies that do not pay the minimum wage wasn't even mentioned to Angela Eagle, the shadow business secretary, before his pronouncement on high. Incompetence unbound. It is own goal after own goal - you get the impression he has no intention of getting elected, he just enjoys being controversial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 24 January, 2016 Share Posted 24 January, 2016 (edited) 1. Thatcher did think about handing them off in the early 1980s recession because of the cost. It was that lack of commitment which encouraged the Argies to invade. 2. It is now 2016 not the 1980s so your point is irrelevant 3. The Falklands costs more to protect than it produces in GDP. Don't let facts confuse you I presume you have a credible source that the cost of maintaining the Falklands was the cause of the conflict. The islands were self- sufficient the first time I went there 25 years ago and have been ever since, so your point about 2016 is irrelevant. The treasury collects more every year than it can spend. It has no borrowing. Don't try and dress this up to be anything other than a shameful attempt to walk away from our obligations to protect the islanders. Edited 24 January, 2016 by hutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 24 January, 2016 Share Posted 24 January, 2016 What the doe-eyed dimwits fawning over Corbyn miss completely is that the Falklands War had a hugely beneficial effect on Argentina. It was the catalyst in removing one of the most murderously psychopathic regimes since the Nazis (some of the most brutal of whom had taken refuge there). It was a regime that delighted in dropping its political enemies - people, many of them, who would be natural allies of today's Corbynists - out of helicopters and stealing their children. And only after they had been tortured almost to the point of death. I was in Argentina twice immediately after the war and encountered only warm reactions to Thatcher's counter-invasion. I was and am no supporter of militarism, and it was certainly no part of Thatcher's plan to usher in the democratic overthrow of the junta in Argentina - but sometimes, just occasionally, the unintended consequences can work in an oppressed people's favour. Of course, this is lost on the doe-eyes because of their cultish belief in the supreme evil of the West - in their minds, an evil that's far in excess of murderous dictators. As for the Falklands now, it is an all but dead political issue, revived only by desperate nationalists in Buenos Aires when, as often happens, the economy tanks. It will at some point need resolving, but it is so far off the political agenda as to be remarkably stupid for Corbyn to be raising such an issue now. It merely speaks volumes for his warped priorities and his desperate desire, shared by many of his acolytes, to signal his monopoly on morality. That Corbyn would raise the Falklands in the week of the huge threat to steelworkers' jobs, and not even raise the issue of the steel industry in PMQs last week, is staggering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 24 January, 2016 Share Posted 24 January, 2016 There is also this beauty.... Speaking during a visit to a refugee camp in Dunkirk, Mr Corbyn said Britain should follow Germany's example in "doing its part" to help deal with the migrant crisis engulfing Europe.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 24 January, 2016 Share Posted 24 January, 2016 There is also this beauty.... Speaking during a visit to a refugee camp in Dunkirk, Mr Corbyn said Britain should follow Germany's example in "doing its part" to help deal with the migrant crisis engulfing Europe.... I'm proud that he said that - in line with the views of the United Nations http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35396027 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 24 January, 2016 Share Posted 24 January, 2016 I'm proud that he said that - in line with the views of the United Nations http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35396027 What about those who are non Syrian? Which many he wants over from Calais will be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 24 January, 2016 Share Posted 24 January, 2016 I'm proud that he said that - in line with the views of the United Nations http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35396027 What do you think the UN would say about a territory where 99.8% of the population voted to stay under its current political status ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 24 January, 2016 Share Posted 24 January, 2016 I'm proud that he said that - in line with the views of the United Nations http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35396027 Ordinary Germans are starting to realise what a mistake their governments stance has been on this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 24 January, 2016 Share Posted 24 January, 2016 What do you think the UN would say about a territory where 99.8% of the population voted to stay under its current political status ? With a 100% turn-out at the vote. Figures politicians in every corner of the world dream of Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 24 January, 2016 Share Posted 24 January, 2016 I'd rather the government spent my tax helping refugees from Syria than trying to keep hold of a bunch of islands off the coast of Argentina. I couldn't give a **** what a bunch of ex pats vote for, you just have to look at the map to see they should be Argentinian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 24 January, 2016 Share Posted 24 January, 2016 I'd rather the government spent my tax helping refugees from Syria than trying to keep hold of a bunch of islands off the coast of Argentina. I couldn't give a **** what a bunch of ex pats vote for, you just have to look at the map to see they should be Argentinian. And with that as the cornerstone of the 2020 manifesto, Comrade Corbyn will sweep into Downing street on a pro-Argentina landslide. Nothing will unite the nation like not giving a #*#* about a bunch of ex-pats voted for. Book the removal men Jeremy, you've nailed it on the critical issue of the age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 24 January, 2016 Share Posted 24 January, 2016 I'd rather the government spent my tax helping refugees from Syria than trying to keep hold of a bunch of islands off the coast of Argentina. I couldn't give a **** what a bunch of ex pats vote for, you just have to look at the map to see they should be Argentinian. What about the people who live there, don't you care about them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 24 January, 2016 Share Posted 24 January, 2016 (edited) What about the people who live there, don't you care about them? They are soon to become some of the richest people in world with around 1bn barrels of oil discovered so far. If their gov used the same petroleum revenue tax as Britain that would be c£10bn shared between c2,750 people - about £7,000,000 each. Edited 24 January, 2016 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 24 January, 2016 Share Posted 24 January, 2016 They are soon to become some of the richest people in world with around 1bn barrels discovered so far. If their gov put a tax of just £2 per barrel on that would be £200bn shared between c2,750 people - about £700,000 each. With oil at the present price? I remember when the events of 1982 were going on, the first reaction of my French and American counterparts was that 'there must be oil involved'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 24 January, 2016 Share Posted 24 January, 2016 With oil at the present price? I remember when the events of 1982 were going on, the first reaction of my French and American counterparts was that 'there must be oil involved'. I think PRT in the North Sea is 50% so even at $30 per barrel it would still be huge. Obviously the technical challenges are different and probably the tax rates will be too but they should still end up with more money than anyone will know what to do with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 24 January, 2016 Share Posted 24 January, 2016 Just one of the many reasons he will never be Prime Minister. He would get smashed to pieces if this was in an election campaign. 1,513 vs 3 voted to stay as is in 2013. But fu ck them Jeremy. Fu ck them. i don't know why anyone thinks jezza is one for democracy. Not when he is looking to change the voting rules that got him elected. If he is so sure of his mandate, why change the rules?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamilton Saint Posted 25 January, 2016 Share Posted 25 January, 2016 i don't know why anyone thinks jezza is one for democracy. Not when he is looking to change the voting rules that got him elected. If he is so sure of his mandate, why change the rules?? I don't follow your logic. If he supports or helps institute a fairer system of voting (than the current first-past-the post system), then he is improving democracy. Yes? Change the rules if they are unfair or ineffective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 25 January, 2016 Share Posted 25 January, 2016 What about those who are non Syrian? Which many he wants over from Calais will be? Syrian or non Syrian , surely once they're in France they become economic migrants trying to reach the uk rather than Aslyum seekers fleeing persecution and or war . I always thought our NATO & EU ally was a safe haven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Posted 25 January, 2016 Share Posted 25 January, 2016 I don't follow your logic. If he supports or helps institute a fairer system of voting (than the current first-past-the post system), then he is improving democracy. Yes? Change the rules if they are unfair or ineffective. The system was fine when labour won for three terms. Suddenly not fine when they lose. shocker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 25 January, 2016 Share Posted 25 January, 2016 I think he was referring to Labour's internal voting procedures, that are about as democratic as the Albanian Mafia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 25 January, 2016 Share Posted 25 January, 2016 Be interesting to read/hear his views on the news of the state sponsored assassination by Russia on the streets of London. Not seen anything yet!! fair enough, the future of the Falklands is obviously of a far greater priority Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 25 January, 2016 Share Posted 25 January, 2016 You won't hear anything from Corbyn or the hard-line Corbynists about using nuclear material to murder opponents in London. Or if you do it'll be the usual moral whataboutery asking how the American drone attack on Jihadi John is any different. Putin is a hero to him and them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coxford_lou Posted 25 January, 2016 Share Posted 25 January, 2016 You won't hear anything from Corbyn or the hard-line Corbynists about using nuclear material to murder opponents in London. Or if you do it'll be the usual moral whataboutery asking how the American drone attack on Jihadi John is any different. Putin is a hero to him and them. I've never entirely understood the far-left's love in with Russian politics, and not read up on it enough. Aside from the fact it's an all round fascinating country. Is it because of the romance of communism? Or is it because of their general anti-West stance? Or are there deeper historical ties? Can anyone give me a quick history lesson? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 25 January, 2016 Share Posted 25 January, 2016 (edited) I don't follow your logic. If he supports or helps institute a fairer system of voting (than the current first-past-the post system), then he is improving democracy. Yes? Change the rules if they are unfair or ineffective. I think he was referring to Labour's internal voting procedures, that are about as democratic as the Albanian Mafia. Yes that is correct. In the Labour party leadership elections, you need to have nominations from 20% of Labour MP's. He is changing the rules so that the leader, gets automatically put forward. SO he bangs on about his mandate, yet wants to move the goalposts to secure his position. If he is so sure of his mandate, why is he changing the rules? Maybe this is the new kind of politics he is bringing to the table. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-plans-change-to-labour-party-rules-to-head-off-plot-to-oust-him-by-2020-a6732486.html Edited 25 January, 2016 by Johnny Bognor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Posted 25 January, 2016 Share Posted 25 January, 2016 So. Kinda like Putin serving his maximum 2 terms as Russian president then taking the prime minister position while the Constitution is changed so he can continue his reign. Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 25 January, 2016 Share Posted 25 January, 2016 (edited) So in the last week. Build new SSBNs but don't put the correct missiles on them. As a result, this isn't even an economic argument on this issue anymore Ignore the free will of the Falkland Islanders and force a power sharing arrangement with Argentina Let in all the migrants in Calais. Regardless of who they are or where they are from And people say he gets bad press from the nasty media.... God knows why Edited 25 January, 2016 by Batman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 25 January, 2016 Share Posted 25 January, 2016 i don't know why anyone thinks jezza is one for democracy. Not when he is looking to change the voting rules that got him elected. If he is so sure of his mandate, why change the rules?? I don't follow your logic. If he supports or helps institute a fairer system of voting (than the current first-past-the post system), then he is improving democracy. Yes? Change the rules if they are unfair or ineffective. The system was fine when labour won for three terms. Suddenly not fine when they lose. shocker. Aren't you guys talking about different things? JB is talking about the system for electing a Labour leader, not a general election (afaik) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Posted 25 January, 2016 Share Posted 25 January, 2016 Aren't you guys talking about different things? JB is talking about the system for electing a Labour leader, not a general election (afaik) If appears so.... But the PLP will have to get themselves in gear to stop any changes. Theres already a leak of moderate labour members being replaced by former members of socialist parties. Corbyn will always win a grass roots election due to that infiltration of idiots that can't get their heads around the fact that they will put the Tories in government for a long time the way they are going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 25 January, 2016 Share Posted 25 January, 2016 Aren't you guys talking about different things? JB is talking about the system for electing a Labour leader, not a general election (afaik) Exactly. I want to know why "the man of the people" Jezza, who was voted for by the people and has the largest mandate of any Labour leader, wants to change the rules by which he was selected. Surely only a dictator-styled leader would change the rules to suit them (eg Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Thatcher), not an "honest" (ahem) and "principled" (ahem) man like Jezza? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Posted 25 January, 2016 Share Posted 25 January, 2016 Exactly. I want to know why "the man of the people" Jezza, who was voted for by the people and has the largest mandate of any Labour leader, wants to change the rules by which he was selected. Surely only a dictator-styled leader would change the rules to suit them (eg Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Thatcher), not an "honest" (ahem) and "principled" (ahem) man like Jezza? Because the vote was infiltrated by the far left and Tories having a laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 25 January, 2016 Share Posted 25 January, 2016 (edited) Exactly. I want to know why "the man of the people" Jezza, who was voted for by the people and has the largest mandate of any Labour leader, wants to change the rules by which he was selected. Surely only a dictator-styled leader would change the rules to suit them (eg Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Thatcher), not an "honest" (ahem) and "principled" (ahem) man like Jezza? Is this what you are referring to? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-plans-change-to-labour-party-rules-to-head-off-plot-to-oust-him-by-2020-a6732486.html Corbyn clearly has large support amongst the rank and file membership and and very little amongst Labour MPs - and Labour MPs largely control who can be elected leader. You could argue that the MPs should reflect the views of the members. As far as I can see from that article the rules he was elected under are scheduled to change anyway to raise the number of MPs required to endorse a candidate from 35 to 50. It doesnt seem unreasonable to me that an incumbemt leader should have the right to stand in any election against a challenger. Just to be clear I think there is a disconnect between what members voted for and what is electable. Which should take precedence depends on your politics. Edited 25 January, 2016 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 25 January, 2016 Share Posted 25 January, 2016 (edited) Is this what you are referring to? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-plans-change-to-labour-party-rules-to-head-off-plot-to-oust-him-by-2020-a6732486.html Corbyn clearly has large support amongst the rank and file membership and and very little amongst Labour MPs - and Labour MPs largely control who can be elected leader. You could argue that the MPs should reflect the views of the members. I would argue that the MP’s represent the 9,347,304 who voted for them, as opposed to the 254,417 that voted for Corbyn. If the MP's only represent members of the Labour party, that leaves circa 9m people without representation. As far as I can see from that article the rules he was elected under are scheduled to change anyway to raise the number of MPs required to endorse a candidate from 35 to 50. It doesnt seem unreasonable to me that an incumbemt leader should have the right to stand in any election against a challenger. Maybe, but if he had needed 50 MP's to support his nomination, he wouldn't have made it onto the ballot. Edited 25 January, 2016 by Johnny Bognor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamilton Saint Posted 25 January, 2016 Share Posted 25 January, 2016 Aren't you guys talking about different things? JB is talking about the system for electing a Labour leader, not a general election (afaik) Correct. I misunderstood that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 25 January, 2016 Share Posted 25 January, 2016 I would argue that the MP’s represent the 9,347,304 who voted for them, as opposed to the 254,417 that voted for Corbyn. If the MP's only represent members of the Labour party, that leaves circa 9m people without representation. Maybe, but if he had needed 50 MP's to support his nomination, he wouldn't have made it onto the ballot. He wouldn't have made it on the ballot with the present threshold without the biggest suicide mission in modern politics . People who didn't want him to win , didn't vote for him , " lent " him their nomination . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 25 January, 2016 Share Posted 25 January, 2016 I would argue that the MP’s represent the 9,347,304 who voted for them, as opposed to the 254,417 that voted for Corbyn. If the MP's only represent members of the Labour party, that leaves circa 9m people without representation. Maybe, but if he had needed 50 MP's to support his nomination, he wouldn't have made it onto the ballot. I would argue the right way round is go formulate policies based on what you believe in and seek to get elected. The electorates job is to vote for those who most closely represent them. 9m aren't left unrepresented - some will like Corbyn more than Blairite policies, some will ike them less and move elsewhere and some who were previously disenfranchised will find a voice for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Posted 25 January, 2016 Share Posted 25 January, 2016 I would argue that the MP’s represent the 9,347,304 who voted for them, as opposed to the 254,417 that voted for Corbyn. If the MP's only represent members of the Labour party, that leaves circa 9m people without representation. Maybe, but if he had needed 50 MP's to support his nomination, he wouldn't have made it onto the ballot. Wholeheartedly agree. The Labour mps were elected based on the Miliband manifesto. For them to agree with wholly different policies now would be ludicrous and a slap in the face of the non socialist labour voters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 25 January, 2016 Share Posted 25 January, 2016 I would argue the right way round is go formulate policies based on what you believe in and seek to get elected. The electorates job is to vote for those who most closely represent them. 9m aren't left unrepresented - some will like Corbyn more than Blairite policies, some will ike them less and move elsewhere and some who were previously disenfranchised will find a voice for them. Where can I move "elsewhere" to then? Actually, don't worry, I know. I'll be voting for the progressive, centre left Labour party formed from the carcass of Corbyn's student politics cretin collective that collapses in on itself sometime around 2017. Ain't democracy just grand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 25 January, 2016 Share Posted 25 January, 2016 I'd rather the government spent my tax helping refugees from Syria than trying to keep hold of a bunch of islands off the coast of Argentina. I couldn't give a **** what a bunch of ex pats vote for, you just have to look at the map to see they should be Argentinian. So Aintforever , do you also want rid of the IOW , Shetland , Orkney etc . The latter two were once owned by Denmark and Norway , And then you are also being disresptful to all our soldiers and sailors that lost their lifes defending the Falklands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 25 January, 2016 Share Posted 25 January, 2016 So Aintforever , do you also want rid of the IOW , Shetland , Orkney etc . The latter two were once owned by Denmark and Norway , And then you are also being disresptful to all our soldiers and sailors that lost their lifes defending the Falklands So if a ship load of Danes turned up and inhabited one of the Scottish islands, held an election and voted for it to be part of Denmark would you respect their democratic right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 25 January, 2016 Share Posted 25 January, 2016 Yes that is correct. In the Labour party leadership elections, you need to have nominations from 20% of Labour MP's. He is changing the rules so that the leader, gets automatically put forward. SO he bangs on about his mandate, yet wants to move the goalposts to secure his position. If he is so sure of his mandate, why is he changing the rules? Maybe this is the new kind of politics he is bringing to the table. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-plans-change-to-labour-party-rules-to-head-off-plot-to-oust-him-by-2020-a6732486.html Better than your lot where you can resign for the summer then pop up again to take over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 25 January, 2016 Share Posted 25 January, 2016 So if a ship load of Danes turned up and inhabited one of the Scottish islands, held an election and voted for it to be part of Denmark would you respect their democratic right? What does that example have to do with the Falklands? Britain's claim to the Island predates the creation of Argentina. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now