Who should own the Falklands?

[Takhisis]

Democracy is not the opposite of nationalism. They're not mutually excluding.

 

[Dachs]

I can't in good consciousness support anything that's good for the Brits, but all the other options are stupid too. Um...give it to the United States?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

We should give it to the people of the Maldives, as their country will be reclaimed by the sea in a few years.

 

[GinandTonic]

Democracy is not the opposite of nationalism. They're not mutually excluding.

Given the democratic opinion of the islanders and the nationalistic bent of the argentinians, in this instance they are antithetical.

 

[The Imp]

The UK doesn't care a fig about the islanders themselves, all they want is the oil, fishing rights, and a potential naval base.

Argentina considers the Falklands to be part of its sovereign territory. Therefore, it consides their EEZ to be rightfully theirs as well.

Whaaaaaaat??? I've lived here for a long time, and trust me, they couldn't raise een fifty thousand troops adequately equipped to fight and survive in the Falklands, in fact, they couldn't sustain a war against anyone except Uruguay, Paraguay or Bolivia.
The fact is that there are many places like Gibraltar and the Falklands still held by London based on the principle of 'might makes right'. If china wasn't a budding superpower, Hong Kong would still be a Crown Colony.

Um... who are you referring to, the Argies or the Brits?

 

[say1988]

based on the principle of 'might makes right'.

Not because the people choose it?
They may have acquired territories on that basis and maintain them for their own reasons, but if the people ever say otherwise, British rule will end.
I don't know of any referenda in the Falklands, but I don't believe there is any possibility of a close vote, let alone independence/Argentina winning.

Your other example, Gibralter, voted in 1967 and 2002 against joining Spain and joint sovereignty, respectfully, with ~99% of the vote in both cases (the latter had 86% of all eligible voters voting against). They also recently introduced a new constitution that reaffirms British sovereignty.
So long as the people of them want the British and the British are willing to accept sovereignty, they should do so.

The UK doesn't care a fig about the islanders themselves, all they want is the oil, fishing rights, and a potential naval base.

The fishing rights are negligible to the economy of the UK and even less in 1982. There was no real evidence of oil in 1982. And that region has few strategic interests to the United Kingdom.
Sure the last war was probably mostly about their reputation, but it isn't like the UK is exploiting the Islanders.

 

[Shylock]

Does it really matter who owns it that much? Why does every inch of land on Earth absolutely must be owned by large national government?

I'm sure the people there know best how to govern themselves

 

[Godwynn]

Link to video.

 

[Yared]

The fact is that there are many places like Gibraltar and the Falklands still held by London based on the principle of 'might makes right'.

Gibraltar and the Falklands want them there.

 

[Agent327]

Poll option missing: - Let the Falklands decide.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I thought they already did.

 

[Takhisis]

If anyone is interested and can read Spanish, here's a note on today's La Nación newspaper. A bit of sanity from the Argentinian side won't hurt. la Nación is also an opposition newspaper.

Given the democratic opinion of the islanders and the nationalistic bent of the argentinians, in this instance they are antithetical.

No. 'Democratic'... Is it democratic when all of present day Falklanders are descended from 19th century British settlers? Just the same as in Northern ireland. Send your surplus population into the place, then claim it to be 'democratic' when they vote for you.

Um... who are you referring to, the Argies or the Brits?

Argentina. You can invade them with a few thousands of troops and that'd be it. Argentina's Army is not used to war, it's archaic, divided, compeltely undermanned and underequipped, and its own people hate them. Add to it that the mandatory 1 year of military service was scrapped about two decades ago, so that almost no one 30 or younger can shoot a rifle. pistols, sure, but no war equipment. They couldn't drive a tank.

Not because the people choose it?
They may have acquired territories on that basis and maintain them for their own reasons, but if the people ever say otherwise, British rule will end.
I don't know of any referenda in the Falklands, but I don't believe there is any possibility of a close vote, let alone independence/Argentina winning.

Your other example, Gibralter, voted in 1967 and 2002 against joining Spain and joint sovereignty, respectfully, with ~99% of the vote in both cases (the latter had 86% of all eligible voters voting against). They also recently introduced a new constitution that reaffirms British sovereignty.
So long as the people of them want the British and the British are willing to accept sovereignty, they should do so.


The fishing rights are negligible to the economy of the UK and even less in 1982. There was no real evidence of oil in 1982. And that region has few strategic interests to the United Kingdom.
Sure the last war was probably mostly about their reputation, but it isn't like the UK is exploiting the Islanders.

I think that's really it. Neither side will back off because both have crossed the line,

Gibraltar and the Falklands want them there.

hmm... yes and no... both are occupied territories... does the UK really need them?

 

[Yared]

No, but who are they to abandon their loyal vassals?

 

[GinandTonic]

No. 'Democratic'... Is it democratic when all of present day Falklanders are descended from 19th century British settlers? Just the same as in Northern ireland. Send your surplus population into the place, then claim it to be 'democratic' when they vote for you.

The people of the islands have the right to self determination, expressed through their elected assembly. Thats democracy.

By your argument only the indigenous peoples should be permitted to vote in argentina. I mean those euro's who settled on the mainland were settlers just as the brits who settled on the islands were. Why are one group of settlers allowed to have the vote while another are not?

hmm... yes and no... both are occupied territories... does the UK really need them.

Neither are occupied. The people in both places are just as entitled to democratic self-determination as a citizen of Buenos Aries or London. If you argue for the removal of the right of a people to self-determination the onus is very much on you as to why it would be of any benefit to the world.

 

[Quackers]

The Falklander's are British and so it should remain British. Also some people are suggesting that it should declare independence and become a country - don't you think Argentina will just annexx it immediatly?

We owned these islands before the nation of Argentina even existed.

 

[say1988]

Is it democratic when all of present day Falklanders are descended from 19th century British settlers?

a) Yes it is democratic
b) These are very different situations. The British didn't displace Argentinians on the islands.

Based on that theory, I guess you believe that only the natives should be enfranchised in Canada, the US, Australia, etc...?
It doesn't matter what process established the colonies (and it was completely legal at the time), but they now choose their own status. It isn't even like they are repressing or taking over from another group.

hmm... yes and no

Its a yes or no question. No middle ground, especially when in Gibraltar's case, less than a decade ago, in 2002, a referendum voted 99% for the British. They want them, plain and simple.

does the UK really need them?

No, but they don't mind having them, and when two groups interests coincide why should they not follow them?

Face it. They are British islands and will remain that until the people choose otherwise.

 

[Takhisis]

I'm just trying to see both sides of the issue here, folks. De facto, they belong to the UK. De iure, it's not so clear. The UN supposedly has the power to enforce definitive diplomatic negotiations and Britain just sits back smugly and says 'no'. Until the Un steps in this will be unresolved.
It'd make my life very much easier if they belonged to Argentina (as my opinion is contary to that of the natives), but it's not going to happen anytime soon.
Regardless of the kelpers' desires, what would be best for all parties (Britain, Argentina, the Falklands) involved?

The people of the islands have the right to self determination, expressed through their elected assembly. Thats democracy.

By your argument only the indigenous peoples should be permitted to vote in argentina. I mean those euro's who settled on the mainland were settlers just as the brits who settled on the islands were. Why are one group of settlers allowed to have the vote while another are not?

Neither are occupied. The people in both places are just as entitled to democratic self-determination as a citizen of Buenos Aries or London. If you argue for the removal of the right of a people to self-determination the onus is very much on you as to why it would be of any benefit to the world.

Argentina might be better ruled if only the aborigines had decision powers, you know.

The Falklander's are British and so it should remain British. Also some people are suggesting that it should declare independence and become a country - don't you think Argentina will just annexx it immediatly?

We owned these islands before the nation of Argentina even existed.

Argentina doesn't really have the clout to annex anything. It'd probably be very chaotic. I'd rather they belonged to someone outright instead of being a three-thousand-inhabitant micro-state vulnerable to foreign interference even from San Marino.

a) Yes it is democratic
b) These are very different situations. The British didn't displace Argentinians on the islands.

Based on that theory, I guess you believe that only the natives should be enfranchised in Canada, the US, Australia, etc...?
It doesn't matter what process established the colonies (and it was completely legal at the time), but they now choose their own status. It isn't even like they are repressing or taking over from another group.

Its a yes or no question. No middle ground, especially when in Gibraltar's case, less than a decade ago, in 2002, a referendum voted 99% for the British. They want them, plain and simple.

No, but they don't mind having them, and when two groups interests coincide why should they not follow them?

Face it. They are British islands and will remain that until the people choose otherwise.

When we break away from the English yoke then the Falklands won't have anything to do with us. Up to that point, I guess I'll have to worry about it.

 

[emzie]

Argentina obviously considers the Falklands part of Argentina.

Yes but why should anyone else take that seriously if the Islanders themselves want to be part of the UK?

 

[Kal'thzar]

When we break away from the English yoke then the Falklands won't have anything to do with us. Up to that point, I guess I'll have to worry about it.

Don't get your hopes up...

 

[Takhisis]

Don't get your hopes up...

Why? If it's possible that Septic beat Rangers (not today, mwahahahah) then it is possible that the SNP might get a decent leadership, clear purposes and carry it forward.