The Falkland Islands

So the solution to slight damage to the colonies and to national prestige was to incur even greater damage to the colonies and to national prestige?

Sometimes, in diplomacy, ridicule kills more surely than material damage. I can understand the decision to go for war, especially coming after a couple of decades during which the argument for taking over other country's territory was that "they can't enforce their authority over it". People in the government felt they had to show an willingness to commit, to play the game of the big boys... suicidal though that game was. Taking part in the war was a way of preventing any british or french government of grabbing the african colonies after the war on that argument of inability to enforce rule: not because the inability didn't exist, but because it wouldn't be politically feasible for them to betray an ally immediately afterwards, irrespective of prestige.

I cannot excuse the willingness to send troops to Flanders given the inability to supporting them properly.
 
You don't really know anything about how national identity works in Britain, do you?

I'm not sure if you know geography - I wrote about Falklands, you respond asking me about Britain (which is 12734.49 km from Falklands).

I guess you don't really know anything about how national identity works in Falkland Islands.

We won't know it until referendum.

BTW - you are from Scotland. What about the Scottish Covenant or the Scottish devolution referendum of 1979, or the Scottish Parliament (which has finally been restored)? Maybe Falkland Islanders would also like a devolution referendum / Parliament?

In an Argentine-inspired poll in 1994, 87% of the island's population rejected any form of discussion of sovereignty under any circumstances.

Maybe some neutral poll instead of Argentine- or Britain- inspired ones?
 
I'm not sure if you know geography - I wrote about Falklands, you respond asking me about Britain (which is 12734.49 km from Falklands).

I guess you don't really know anything about how national identity works in Falkland Islands.

We won't know it until referendum.
I'm not entirely sure what you just said, because you write like you're trying to make three separate arguments at the same time, but my point was that "Falkland Islander" and "British" aren't mutually exclusive categories, any more than "English" and "British", "Cornish" and "British" or "Orcadian" and "British" are mutually exclusive categories. The reason that they're listed separately on that census will be because of how the information is collected, not because Falklanders are by dint of being Falklanders something other than non-British.

We won't know it until referendum.

BTW - you are from Scotland. What about the Scottish Covenant or the Scottish devolution referendum of 1979, or the Scottish Parliament (which has finally been restored)? Maybe Falkland Islanders would also like a devolution referendum / Parliament?
When Scots and Welsh feel themselves to be something other than British, they elect a seperatist candidate. The Falklanders have, as yet, chosen not to elect a separatist candidate. As such, I think that it's fair to say that whatever number of them reject membership in the United Kingdom is small enough not to throw our perspective into chaos.
 
Really? Wikipedia article in section "nationalities" says:

"61% Falkland Islander
29% British
2.6% Spanish
0.6% Japanese
6.5% Chilean & Other"

Since when is 29% "majority" ???

Fine they identify with their region over their country. Probably plenty of people like that in Scotland, Wales, England + NI, it doesn't make any difference to which country they wish to be a part of - which is the main point i'm making - they wish to remain in a British state.

..and as later pointed out 87% of them do not even want negotiations with Argentina over soveriegnty..
 
The pirates succeed because they operate within a huge area with numerous targets that can't all be defended.
You mean "numerous targets that aren't allowed to defend themselves". It's always the way with the state. Strip people's ability to defend themselves, spend vast amounts of other people's money in an attempt to defend the stripped, and then whine because it's too big a task!
 
Maybe some neutral poll instead of Argentine- or Britain- inspired ones?

I think you're looking too much into the phrasing, the poll was held by the islanders themselves. The islanders (at least, most I've met) seem perfectly happy with the arrangement as it is.

I'm not sure if you know geography - I wrote about Falklands, you respond asking me about Britain (which is 12734.49 km from Falklands).

I guess you don't really know anything about how national identity works in Falkland Islands.

Do you? The Falklands are a British overseas territory and subject to the same nationality laws as Britain is. I think that's what he meant.
 
Falklands dispute: Argentina 'urges UK import ban'

The Argentine government is calling on the country's top companies to stop importing goods from the UK, according to the state news agency Telam.

Industry Minister Debora Giorgi called the bosses of at least 20 firms to urge them to replace imports from Britain with goods produced elsewhere, it said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-17200528

This will certainly make the islanders warm to Argentina and their claim...
 
Like many other places were in year 1750 or even in year 1850.
"British Overseas Territory" designates a specific territorial category with a certain constitutional relationship to the United Kingdom, it doesn't just mean any territory of the United Kingdom which is overseas. You're taking the name too literally.
 
"British Overseas Territory" designates a specific territorial category with a certain constitutional relationship to the United Kingdom

British Overseas Territory - with capital letters (proper nouns) - yes.

But British overseas territory - with small letters (common nouns) - no. And this is what was written in that post.

But OK - thanks for clarification. ;)
 
All I can say is, I only "remember" (of course, I wasn't alive then) that we used to be a colonial empire when the Argentines bring it up. No-one in the UK thinks like that any more. We've moved forward.
Maybe the Argentines should too. Our association with the Falklands has nothing to do with colonialism, so I'm not sure why they accuse us of it. Probably to cover up the fact that their claim is ridiculously tenuous and also against the interests of the islanders.
This trade thing makes me laugh though. All those Argentines getting themselves worked up and indignant, whereas here it's been mainly a source of amusement. Of course the amusement would evaporate if there was a conflict.
I hope the UK doesn't retaliate in kind to this new move because we don't need to stoop to that level of pettiness.
 
All I can say is, I only "remember" (of course, I wasn't alive then) that we used to be a colonial empire when the Argentines bring it up. No-one in the UK thinks like that any more. We've moved forward.
Maybe the Argentines should too. Our association with the Falklands has nothing to do with colonialism, so I'm not sure why they accuse us of it. Probably to cover up the fact that their claim is ridiculously tenuous and also against the interests of the islanders.
This trade thing makes me laugh though. All those Argentines getting themselves worked up and indignant, whereas here it's been mainly a source of amusement. Of course the amusement would evaporate if there was a conflict.
I hope the UK doesn't retaliate in kind to this new move because we don't need to stoop to that level of pettiness.

I believe Kirchners response when Cameron said Argentina wanting to impose its will over the islands was more like colonialism was something like "He says colonialism beause he has no argument"... seriously? The irony physically hurt me as she says it basically every 14th minute. :p
 
I believe Kirchners response when Cameron said Argentina wanting to impose its will over the islands was more like colonialism was something like "He says colonialism beause he has no argument"... seriously? The irony physically hurt me as she says it basically every 14th minute. :p

The whole thing - rather disturbingly like it was last time - is simply trying to distract the Argentines from domestic trouble by giving them a foreign bogeyman. The fact that the arguments on the Argentine side are, frankly, so ridiculous just proves this.
 
Correct me if I am wrong, but before the Falkand War wasn't the UK trying to sell the Falklands to Argentina or create some sort of autonomy agreement (like what happened with Cyprus)?
 
Correct me if I am wrong, but before the Falkand War wasn't the UK trying to sell the Falklands to Argentina or create some sort of autonomy agreement (like what happened with Cyprus)?

There were apparently proposals to that effect being discussed; certainly we were in the phase of generally withdrawing from our colonies and nobody had really ever heard of the Falklands to begin with.
 
That is true adjicia and I think there are a few sentences on Wikipedia about it. I think the only reason it never happened was the objections of the Islanders! But who knows what could have been? The Falkland's could be an autonomous region of Argentina now. FP is correct though when he says it's a distraction, often I don't think politicians are clever enough and the population dumb enough to fall for it, but it looks like in Argentina they have the perfect combination;). In fact a few weeks ago there was an interesting article in the Economist which said how the Argentinean government is trying to mask the true rise in the cost of living by forcing its official statistical agency to generously "round down" the true inflation rate.

ahh here it is: http://www.economist.com/node/21548229

So it appears the Argentinean government isn't fit to govern and is using the issue of the Falklands for domestic political reasons to stay in power.
 
Top Bottom