PDA

View Full Version : Falkland/UK/Argentina - self determination thread.



Sue Williamson
06-14-2007, 02:50 AM
Thank you for your message. I feel sad for all those who lost brave men in the conflict on both side's. They all have families left behind. Also for all the vets of the conflict who I know are still suffering. But on my visit recently rumour has it that the British Government what talks to start. I am strongly opposed for many reasons. Firstly the loss of British lives but more importantly for the Islanders, some of whom are 8th generation Falkland Islanders. Its like saying to Australia give your country back to New Zealand. But they are a large and wealthy Island.

Panzerknacker
06-14-2007, 09:03 AM
What talks are you talking about Sue ?

Sue Williamson
06-14-2007, 02:19 PM
I believe that the British Governent want to open negosiations with Argentina about the best way forward to solve the ongoing battle over the Islands. I think they feel it costs too much to garrison the Islands. But I feel that the Islanders have been on the Islands for hundreds of years and it is their homeland. Wny should they give this away when they know nothing else, have done no harm to Argentina and the Argentine is such a huge counrty, why do they need it and displace all these people?

Panzerknacker
06-14-2007, 06:50 PM
The argentine administration have no plans to displace anybody. Moreover the Argentine constitution invites "Every men of good will in the world" to work and live in our country.


I believe that the British Governent want to open negosiations with Argentina about the best way forward to solve the ongoing battle over the Islands.

That sounds good but I think those rumours are not true, the relations between the 2 countries about this subject are quite cold lately.

32Bravo
06-15-2007, 03:00 AM
I believe that the British Governent want to open negosiations with Argentina about the best way forward to solve the ongoing battle over the Islands. I think they feel it costs too much to garrison the Islands. But I feel that the Islanders have been on the Islands for hundreds of years and it is their homeland. Wny should they give this away when they know nothing else, have done no harm to Argentina and the Argentine is such a huge counrty, why do they need it and displace all these people?

Wars are usually fought on account of poor politico/economic decisions on one side or another. In other words they are begun by politicians. Politicians rarely get anything right and it's usually the people of whichever country , that is left to live with burden of their incompetence. In the case of the Falklands/Malvinas in 1982, it arose because of poor economic policies of both British and Argentine governments. The British defence cuts sent out the wrong signals to the Argentines, and it was an opportunity for the Argentine government to distract its people from its own economic blunders. As usual, men died on both sides.

If any talks are to come about now, they are probably on account of the growing costs of garrisoning the islands. Again, the British tax payer is left with the economic burden. Sooner or later talks will begin, some sort of agreement will be made, and the British will slowly reduce their presence on the islands.

In the meantime, we will continue to salute Baroness Thatcher, whose economic policies got us entangled in a war which saved her and her government from what would have been a very definate defeat in the following election the 'Falklands Factor'.

Man of Stoat
06-15-2007, 03:29 AM
In the meantime, we will continue to salute Baroness Thatcher, whose economic policies got us entangled in a war which saved her and her government from what would have been a very definate defeat in the following election the 'Falklands Factor'.

And thank God she did, the Labour Party at that time had been taken over by the Trotskyite wing of the Labour Party, which had been thoroughly penetrated by, shall we say, "Eastern European interests", which had led Michael Foots 1983 manifesto to be little more than a surrender document to the Soviets in as far as it concerned defence.

32Bravo
06-15-2007, 04:16 AM
Nonsense

Man of Stoat
06-15-2007, 04:23 AM
Not at all, unilateral nuclear disarmament was a central feature of the 1983 manifesto, a policy advantageous only to the Soviets, which is why they pushed it so hard via their proxies.

Given the connections and politics of various high-ranking Labour Party members at that time, this is somewhat suspicious...

32Bravo
06-15-2007, 07:45 AM
Yes, it was a part of their manifesto. That's as far as I'm willing to agree.

I doubt that Mr Foot and his coleagues were so easily led by the Soviets. We may not agree with their policies, but they weren't politically niave, neither were they friends of the Soviet Union (perhaps Mr Scargill? - but that's another story).

When the Falkands were invaded, Mr Foot was the first poltician to stand up in Parliament and sound anything like a statesman, as he demanded that the government take action.

Man of Stoat
06-15-2007, 08:20 AM
Former KGB agent Oleg Gordievsky accused Michael foot of being a Soviet "agent of influence" (agent Boot) (although Michael foot sued and won against the paper which published this).

He was also a high profile member of CND, an organisation penetrated and "guided" by the Stasi (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Stasi-Files-Germanys-Operations-Against/dp/0743231058/ref=sr_1_1/026-0648493-4919604?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181913042&sr=8-1) to maintain its position as for unilateral, and not multilateral disarmament.

Given the number of Labor Party politicians with links to rather unsavoury communist front organisations, including some of the current lot, Charles Clark for instance,, I don't think it's too much of a stretch...

Sue Williamson
06-15-2007, 01:40 PM
So what do you consider is the best way forward and what are your thoughts reference the Islanders?

BDL
06-15-2007, 02:37 PM
So what do you consider is the best way forward and what are your thoughts reference the Islanders?

Self determination. If they want to be joined with Argentina then allow it. If they want to remain British then allow it. If they want to remain British but with closer trading ties to Argentina or if they want nothing whatsoever to do with either country then it's their choice.

Lone Ranger
06-15-2007, 04:08 PM
I'd second that, they should be allowed to determine their own future. It isn't the business of either the British or Argentine Government.

I can understand the mistrust of the Islanders, they were treated badly by the Foreign Office who would happily have gotten rid of them given half a chance. For years the FO worked to undermine their interests, it was quite disgraceful.

The problem as I see it, is that the Argentine Government is not prepared to acknowledge their right to self-determination. Neither is it prepared to accept recognised means of resolving sovereignty disputes. The only thing they're prepared to accept is negotiations leading to them being given sovereignty. Negotiations with a pre-determined outcome aren't negotiations.

32Bravo
06-17-2007, 12:53 PM
Michael Foot, a Soviet agent? I'm speachless, but not because I believe it. :)

Let's be clear on this, I'm not a leftwing, socialist/communist whatever. I don't have any particular favourites when it comes to party politics. I prefer to step back and look at things and make up my own mind. I'm probably wrong on most issues, but I don't go much on what I read in any individual newspaper, I try to balance it with what I read, see and hear elsewhere in the media, and of course what I study in history.


S.W. there has to be some form of honourable accomodation which is acceptable to both sides.

If I remember correctly, the Falklands was a coaling station for the fleet and the whalers, much the same as Aden had been. Even before 1982, it had passed its sell-by-date, and I would suggest that that was one of the reasons the Argentine government felt it could get away with the invasion.

As the clock is ticking, Britian is investing in new large-deck carriers, which will enable larger fixed-wing aircraft to operate from them, together with the new commando carriers: Albion, Bulwark and Ocean, these would make any future plans of invasion by Argentina, rather silly. Much of the future planning for Britain's Armed Forces is for out-of-are operations, and so, as a result, the British government will be better able to launch a task force to defend the islands than they were in 1982. That being the case, it will become easier to reduce the present garrison.

Even so, Argentina is not considered an enemy of Britain per se, and the only reason that there is potential for enmity is the islands. The Islandsers' needs cannot be ignored, but there has to be some sort of solution figured out. If it is left solely to the self-determination of the Islanders, things will not change. There has to be change, and better brains than mine need to be employed to bring it about. Watever the solution, it will be required to satisfy both the Islanders and the Argentinians. Perhaps an accomodation such as Hong Kong, we hand over sovereignty to the Argentine, on the condition that we have the run of the place for the next five hundred years or so?

Cuts
06-17-2007, 01:35 PM
Perhaps an accomodation such as Hong Kong, we hand over sovereignty to the Argentine, on the condition that we have the run of the place for the next five hundred years or so?
:D

I see what you're getting at, but to move of topic for a moment, I've got a particular gripe about the HK HOTO.
It was only the NT that were leased for ninety-nine years, the 'Fragrant Harbour' itself was never ceded to the British government, neither that of the time, nor any subsequent.
It was given in perpetuity to the people of Great Britain and the impending rule by the PRC caused not a little consternation amongst the population, not least due to the atrocities at Tienanmin Square in '89. Those that could afford to do so gapped it, but many could only wait and see.

Now I've got that off my chest please crack on. ;)

32Bravo
06-18-2007, 12:35 PM
Okay, cracking-on.

Why should the Islanders have self-determination?

I have a problem with this and would like to understand why I keep hearing this as it doesn’t make sense to me. Yes, I think they ought to be offered options, but I fail to see why self-determination has to be the only solution.

BDL
06-18-2007, 02:09 PM
Why should the Islanders have self-determination?

Erm, why shouldn't they?

32Bravo
06-18-2007, 02:18 PM
In the past when industries ceased to be considered economically viable, they have been allowed to decline. Examples of these being: steel industry, coal industry, shipbuilding industry, naval dockyards and the motor industry. When this has happened the people of the communities which have provided the labour force to these industries for generations, have largely been ignored. Not only have they been left to degenerate, but so have the industries which supported them by supplying the raw materials, plant and equipment, and engineering skills and know-how (and, of course the training facilities for future generations, so much so that we have to outsource new projects to foreign companies). So, the economic and social effects of industrial decline have rippled through whole regions of our society causing myriad problems which we still have to confront.

When all of this has happened, the people in these regions have not been offered any rights of self-determination as to whether their particular industry ought to be supported by government spending; they’ve had to bite the bullet. So, I have difficulty understanding why the Falkland Islanders should be offered the right to veto any proposals that might be floored, by right of self-determination. If, for example, the Islands were to be given over to Argentina, why not offer the Islanders the option of staying-on, as Argentine citizens or, being repatriated to Britain where homes and jobs can be found for them?

So, why should they??

My next question is: Is it in Britain’s best interests to hold on to the islands?

Britain remains, per capita, the largest trading nation in the world – that is what we do. It is in Britain’s interest to promote good relations in all regions. Does not holding onto the islands, indefinitely, jeopardise our relations with trading partners in the South American continent (including Argentina), who might take a more sympathetic view of the Argentinean cause?

BDL
06-18-2007, 02:28 PM
When all of this has happened, the people in these regions have not been offered any rights of self-determination as to whether their particular industry ought to be supported by government spending; they’ve had to bite the bullet.

Except as far as I understand it the Islands are completely self sufficient other than for defence which is provided by the UK since they are a British protectorate.


If, for example, the Islands were to be given over to Argentina, why not offer the Islanders the option of staying-on, as Argentine citizens or, being repatriated to Britain where homes and jobs can be found for them?

Because the islanders wish to remain in what has been their family's homes for the last century and a half and to maintain the nationality which they have held for all of that time?


My next question is: Is it in Britain’s best interests to hold on to the islands?

Britain remains, per capita, the largest trading nation in the world – that is what we do. It is in Britain’s interest to promote good relations in all regions. Does not holding onto the islands, indefinitely, jeopardise our relations with trading partners in the South American continent (including Argentina), who might take a more sympathetic view of the Argentinean cause?

I'm sure Britain can survive lower trade with a virtually bankrupt South American country that relies far more on the goodwill of other countries than we do.

32Bravo
06-18-2007, 02:36 PM
The point on South American trade is a much wider issue than that which you are stating.


If they are self sufficient, then the question of self-determination is no question at all, Britain can pull out and leave them to be self-governing.

Can anyone explain why the Islanders should be allowed self-determination at such great cost to the British tax-payer?

BDL
06-18-2007, 02:42 PM
If they are self sufficient, then the question of self-determination is no question at all, Britain can pull out and leave them to be self-governing.

Other than for defence, they could.


Can anyone explain why the Islanders should be allowed self-determination at such great cost to the British tax-payer?

For the same reason that every other British subject should.

Lone Ranger
06-18-2007, 03:04 PM
Why should the Islanders have self-determination?

Why shouldn't they have self-determination should be the question. Its their basic human right guaranteed under the UN charter.

If Argentina feels it has such a good case for sovereignty, then they should take it to the ICJ for arbitration. That's certainly one recognised means of solving sovereignty disputes. But they won't as they know for certain that their case will fail. They certainly don't have a good history for accepting judgements that go against them.

Since the Islanders were given the freedom to manage their own economy, it has boomed. They're entirely self-sufficient in their own right. The only area in which they're not self-sufficient is defence and that's only because of their aggressive neighbour.

Your arguments about industrial decline are entirely fallacious, it isn't the business of Government to prop up failing industry. The principle of self-determination, often seen as a moral and legal right, is that every nation is entitled to a sovereign territorial state, and that every specifically identifiable population should choose which state it belongs to, often by plebiscite.
(I nicked the last bit from Wikipedia).

I would also argue that Argentina bears a great deal of responsibility for the current state of relations with the Islanders. Putting aside the invasion, Argentina consistently acts aggressively to try and damage the Islands' economy in order to force them into negotiation. Awarding Argentina sovereignty in the current circumstances would be seen as rewarding aggression, not the best of precedents to set in the current circumstances.

The best way of working toward a solution would be for Argentina to set aside the sovereignty claim and work on rebuilding relations with the Islanders. Its only once stable relations are established that there is any chance of real progress. However, personally I suspect that the Falkland Islands are too useful a tool to divert attention from domestic political problems.

Is it in Britain's economic interest? That's a complex question. On one hand there may be a short-term economic expediency but its likely to cause other problems. For example Guatamala still claims Belize as part of its territory. I think we learned a long time ago that appeasement doesn't work. On balance, I'd suggest its more in our interests to uphold the Islanders rights than to abrogate them for a short term gain.

32Bravo
06-19-2007, 07:50 AM
Your arguments about industrial decline are entirely fallacious, it isn't the business of Government to prop up failing industry.

There are many mixes of economic policies between the Laisser-Faire of Adam Smith, and that of a controlled economy of, say, North Korea.

Whether or not it is the place of government to support declining industries depends entirely on the economic policies of a particular government.

The modern economy provides not only goods but services, and does so through a monetary system. The economy is intricate, and simple solutions are rarely possible to complex problems. Many solutions are quite impracticable without government supervision for someone has to consider general public interest. Huge areas of economic activity come under the direct influence, and even control, of Ministries, who have supervisory powers. For example, the Department of Trade and Industry was charged with responsibility for industrial and commercial policy, the promotion of enterprise and competition, the protection of consumers and investors, industrial innovation, the problems of the inner cities and regional development problems, international trade policies, company law, insolvency and many other matters.

Where enterprises tend to be non profit making, in the interests of the nation they have, in the past, become socially owned enterprises. Whether one agrees or disagrees with this is a matter of personal choice, but it is not beyond governments for reasons of national interest to rescue failing industries rather than allow them to disappear permanently.





The principle of self-determination, often seen as a moral and legal right, is that every nation is entitled to a sovereign territorial state, and that every specifically identifiable population should choose which state it belongs to, often by plebiscite. (I nicked the last bit from Wikipedia).

Sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the British government is obliged to maintain the status quo. If they wish to remain a part of Britain, then let them come to Britain. If they wish to remain in the Falklands, then let them reach an accomodation with Argentina. Why should the right of self-determination preclude any settlement between Britain and Argentina?

p.s. Where's the falacy?

Man of Stoat
06-19-2007, 08:22 AM
The fallacy is in your attempt at an inappropriate analogy. The right to self-determination has nothing to do with economics at all, but the right to choose either who to be ruled by, or self-rule.

If Scotland votes for independence, it will be exercising its right to self-determination. Equally, if it does not vote for independence, it will be voting for the status quo and equally exercising the same right . To extend your attempted analogy, and given how much money flows in a northerly direction over the border, Scots who wish to remain part of the UK should move to England, since the existence of Scotland as part of the union is at great cost to the English taxpayer. we could then cut the anchor chains and float the rest of Scotland out into the Arctic Ocean, where it would be independent and no more burden on the taxpayer.

32Bravo
06-19-2007, 09:08 AM
The fallacy is in your attempt at an inappropriate analogy. The right to self-determination has nothing to do with economics at all, but the right to choose either who to be ruled by, or self-rule.



In the interests of moving the argument forward, let's just take it as given, that I disagree that my analogy is inappropriate.

Why does the right of self-determination preclude a British settlement with Argentina, and why, then, should the Falkands remain an economic burden on the British tax payer?

p.s. Economics - were politics is concerned - is everything!

BDL
06-19-2007, 10:35 AM
should the Falkands remain an economic burden on the British tax payer?

They're not

BDL
06-19-2007, 10:57 AM
Why should the right of self-determination preclude any settlement between Britain and Argentina?

Because if the decision isn't what the Islanders want, it's not self-determination.

Argentina has absolutely no real claim on the Falklands other than some geographical coincidence. The people who live on them can trace their families back 150 or more years on them and should never be forced to leave or forced to accept a government against the will of the majority.

32Bravo
06-19-2007, 11:00 AM
They're not

Of course they are - do you think that they are footing the bill for the defence of the islands?

32Bravo
06-19-2007, 11:01 AM
Because if the decision isn't what the Islanders want, it's not self-determination.

Argentina has absolutely no real claim on the Falklands other than some geographical coincidence. The people who live on them can trace their families back 150 or more years on them and should never be forced to leave or forced to accept a government against the will of the majority.


Self-determination is regards whether or not they remain British. It is not to do with whether or not the islands remain British.

BDL
06-19-2007, 11:49 AM
Self-determination is regards whether or not they remain British. It is not to do with whether or not the islands remain British.

The islands are their land

BDL
06-19-2007, 11:49 AM
Of course they are - do you think that they are footing the bill for the defence of the islands?

Do you think that a company of infantry and a few fighters really cost that much?

32Bravo
06-19-2007, 12:31 PM
They cost a lot - it's called economies of scale!

Firefly
06-19-2007, 12:31 PM
Do you think that a company of infantry and a few fighters really cost that much?

All of the above was split from the Air Wars thread.


As for the above, yes it costs an awful lot. There are circa 2000 personnel on the Falklands.

Another thing to remember is that the Great Mrs Thatcher didnt give a fig about the Falklands before they were invaded. If they hadnt been invaded they would also no doubt belong to Argentina today.

Also, the much vaunted Mrs T had an integral hand in some of the most sweeping defence cuts to date after coming to power in 1979. A couple of months later and she would have sold off Invincible to the Aussies. The Vulcan's were to be retired, in fact one of the Squadrons disbandment functions took place at the same time as Black buck 1 was being carried out.

The Falklanders main income right now is I believe from selling fishing rights to nations who basically come in and Hoover up the sea around the Islands.

Finally, believe it or not, I didn't meet many Falklanders who were either very friendly or even interested in the Brits much other than what they could suck out of us.

If it were up to me I'd cut them loose with a UN guarantee of independence and pull out the whole UK military presence. We can be proud of what the UK military achieved 25 years ago and celebrate the feat, but we dont have to dwell on it forever and a day, after all places like New Zealand and Canada were worth far more to us and they are independent today, so Im sure the rich Falklanders can afford a defence system that would deter aggression without us having to foot the bill.

Just a thought......

32Bravo
06-19-2007, 12:48 PM
Okay, Chaps. I don't think anyone is convincing me that I'm wrong in this argument.

It hasn't been easy for me, putting these arguments accross, as a former soldier, it goes very much against the grain - but that's me being emotive.

Personaly, I feel that we, the British nation, have a moral duty and responsibility to protect the islands and the islanders. However, not all the Great British public necessarily feels the same. One of the ways of reminding them of their duty is by having remembrance parades etc. much the same as we have been witnessing over the past week or so.

Sooner or later, there needs to be a solution found. In fifty years or so people wont care much about what happened twenty five years ago, and if the public are not screaming for the monies spent on the slands to be used at home, some politician or other will be loking to be making cuts through the back door, much the same as was happening prior to the events of 1982.

As I see it, there are three options:

1) The islanders opt to remain British and return to the British mainland and abandon the islands;

2) An accomodation is reached with the Argentinians which allows the islands to remain under British control but they accept some form of sovereignty;

3) The Islanders become independent of Britain, but Britain guarantees their neutrality.

I prefer option (3). As I previously mentioned, when those two super-carriers come on line it would be a very silly country indeed that would choose to try to invade the islands. Also, I think that the Union Jack flying over the islands is a 'red rag to a bull' as far as the Argentine psyche is concerned. By becoming independent, the Falklanders could fly their 'sheep-flag' (lets not go any further with that one, R.S.) over Port Stanley.

Whatever the choices may, or may not, be the current status quo cannot continue in perpetuity.

Lone Ranger
06-19-2007, 02:45 PM
From my understanding other than defence, they're pretty close to 3) at the moment.

1) and 2) essentially involve caving in to Argentine pressure. A policy of appeasement in the face of aggression does not have the best of histories.

Until Argentina backs off from its overt policy of applying pressure to the Islands 2) is a non-starter. The Islanders have been far more conciliatory than the Argentines have. Again what is to be gained by rewarding the aggressor.

1) involves Britain forcing the Islanders to abandon their homes, you're seriously suggesting thats an acceptable solution in a democracy?

How about option 4). Britain and Argentina agree to binding arbitration at the ICJ. Probably a non-starter as Argentina knows they'd lose.

32Bravo
06-19-2007, 04:13 PM
From my understanding other than defence, they're pretty close to 3) at the moment.

1) and 2) essentially involve caving in to Argentine pressure. A policy of appeasement in the face of aggression does not have the best of histories.

Until Argentina backs off from its overt policy of applying pressure to the Islands 2) is a non-starter. The Islanders have been far more conciliatory than the Argentines have. Again what is to be gained by rewarding the aggressor.

1) involves Britain forcing the Islanders to abandon their homes, you're seriously suggesting thats an acceptable solution in a democracy?

How about option 4). Britain and Argentina agree to binding arbitration at the ICJ. Probably a non-starter as Argentina knows they'd lose.

No, I'm not suggesting Britain forces the islanders to abandon their homes, those are your words.

Argentine aggression recieved its reply a quarter of a century ago, those comments just smack of political rhetoric, and are somewhat wasted on me.

Let's have some constructive comments here, I get board by the standard cliches which come from someone's gungho, poltical, speach-making think-tank - I'm far too long in the tooth for it.

Lone Ranger
06-19-2007, 04:54 PM
No, I'm not suggesting Britain forces the islanders to abandon their homes, those are your words.

No you dressed it up as the Islanders opt to remain British and abandon the Islands. Implying that its a rational choice when in fact it isn't. Really I'm fascinated, how does this work. We give the Islands to Argentina and the Islanders get the choice of whether or not to stay?


Argentine aggression recieved its reply a quarter of a century ago, those comments just smack of political rhetoric, and are somewhat wasted on me.

Were that the end of Argentine aggression perhaps you'd be right but it hasn't been the end of it. Argentina has continued to pursue an aggressive diplomatic and public relations campaign to annex the Islands. They lobby hard at the UN, most recently at the OAS. Scientific and conservations meetings are shamelessly used; serious debate on scientific and conversation matters are hijacked to put pressure on the Islanders. Argentina currently pursues several measures to damage the economy of the islands, including the ban on overflight of charter flights, punitive measures on fisherman using Falkland waters; incidentally sanctions which are against the UN Charter or the principle of the WTO. And it was Argentina that recently pulled out of the 1995 joint declaration.

If the Argentines are serious about moving forward peacefully on the sovereignty question, why all this macho posturing and overt pressure on the islanders?

Argentina also refuses to recognise the UN policy on deconolisation, that the people of the colony or territory should determine their own future. It puts forward long winded legalese nonesense as to why the principles of self-determination shouldn't apply to the Islanders. You can certainly understand the Islanders reluctance to negotiate with the Argentines, when they continue to refuse to recognise their rights.

In return, the Islands' Government maintains a policy of seeking co-operation on practical issues under the sovereignty umbrella. Now feel free to check this out for yourself but I think you'll find I'm right.

So caving in to such pressure could well be seen as appeasement.


Let's have some constructive comments here, I get board by the standard cliches which come from someone's gungho, poltical, speach-making think-tank - I'm far too long in the tooth for it.

Gung ho, no, I could never be described as gung ho. LMAO at the thought of it.

As to the rest of it, mmm, political speech making think-tank? No, personal opinion, arrived at by considering what I've learnt. Interesting change of tack though, resorting to a personal insult, usually the first indication of a losing argument.

Since you refer to constructive comments, what about my option 4)? BTW name calling is hardly constructive.

Man of Stoat
06-20-2007, 02:34 AM
32B,

Since you ignored it last time, I will repeat it: your argument can equally be applied to Scotland remaining part of the union, since their exercise of self-determination in this manner is a huge burden to the British (read English) taxpayer. Should we not therefore force independence on them, and all those who wish to remain part of the (reduced) union can relocate south of the border?

32Bravo
06-20-2007, 02:58 AM
32B,

Since you ignored it last time, I will repeat it: your argument can equally be applied to Scotland remaining part of the union, since their exercise of self-determination in this manner is a huge burden to the British (read English) taxpayer. Should we not therefore force independence on them, and all those who wish to remain part of the (reduced) union can relocate south of the border?


Apologies - I wasn't avoiding or evading your question, I just considered it a rhetorical comment which wasn't worth much consideration. After all, you had reduced my description of a historical fact to a mere analogy, as opposed to a reality, and named it inappopriate. Your comments regarding Scotland were merely, as I saw them, spurious.

If you want to discuss socio/political and economic reality, then I have no problem with that.

Scotland is a part of mainland Britain. I'm sure the SNP would argue that we are nicking their oil, and that that more than compensates for any economic injection the Brtish government might make. There are other constitutional issues regarding Scotland which I consider far more worthy of an argument.

As I previously stated, it's about economes of scale and what lies in the nation's interest.

Man of Stoat
06-20-2007, 04:44 AM
"The nation's interest". Interesting. I thought the nation existed to serve interests of the citizens (or, in this case, subjects), and not the other way around.

Unless, of course, you view the nation state in the collectivist-fascist (technical terms, not insults) manner, in that the state exists as a sort of entity in its own right, with a disembodied superior "personality" having needs and wants and requirements, and if these interests conflict with the interests of the citizens, then sod the citizens.

Further: I believe that net flow of cash is northwards.

32Bravo
06-20-2007, 08:03 AM
No! You misrepresent me!

That's because you don't know me, and that you are not considering my posts beyond trying to outwit me - which, in all honesty, isn't a difficult thing to achieve.

p.s. I'm a bit of a fan of the philosophy of John Locke.

32Bravo
06-20-2007, 11:09 AM
No you dressed it up as the Islanders opt to remain British and abandon the Islands. Implying that its a rational choice when in fact it isn't. Really I'm fascinated, how does this work. We give the Islands to Argentina and the Islanders get the choice of whether or not to stay?[QUOTE]

No dressing there. i was merely flooring ideas of options to stimulate conversation.


[QUOTE]
Were that the end of Argentine aggression perhaps you'd be right but it hasn't been the end of it. Argentina has continued to pursue an aggressive diplomatic and public relations campaign to annex the Islands. They lobby hard at the UN, most recently at the OAS. Scientific and conservations meetings are shamelessly used; serious debate on scientific and conversation matters are hijacked to put pressure on the Islanders. Argentina currently pursues several measures to damage the economy of the islands, including the ban on overflight of charter flights, punitive measures on fisherman using Falkland waters; incidentally sanctions which are against the UN Charter or the principle of the WTO. And it was Argentina that recently pulled out of the 1995 joint declaration.

Argentina believes the Falklands to belong to them. Nothing wrong with them working diplomatically to that end. I wouldn't describe that as aggression.



Gung ho, no, I could never be described as gung ho. LMAO at the thought of it.

As to the rest of it, mmm, political speech making think-tank? No, personal opinion, arrived at by considering what I've learnt. Interesting change of tack though, resorting to a personal insult, usually the first indication of a losing argument.

Since you refer to constructive comments, what about my option 4)? BTW name calling is hardly constructive.

My name calling was directed at the language of the politicians and the press who spew this stuff out, when it suits them. If you were thinking any of those remarks were directed at you personally, then that is a weakness in my powers of communication. What I do hear from you and others is the regurgitation of this language, and it is that which concerns me - nothing personal intended.

Now that I've satisfied your need to put me on the defensive, perhaps we can continue in a more constructive vein?

I haven't seen anything positive regarding a solution to the present situation, as yet, other than proposals which would make it unacceptable to the other fellas.

32Bravo
06-20-2007, 01:06 PM
Okay, chaps. There’s a lot of hot air around here and it isn’t just oral.

Perhaps if I clarify my point of view it ‘might’ help.

I have two contentions with the current situation:

a) The Islanders’ right of self-determination.
(I feel that this precludes the rights of the British government to arrive at any agreement with Argentina, thus undermining the British constitution. The British government is the constitutionally elected government of the people of the UK which happen to number something in the region of sixty million.)

b) I consider the situation as it stands, to be an unacceptable burden on the British Taxpayer.
(As mentioned it is a case of economies of scale.)

Therefore, I feel that some sort of conclusion to the current situation should be sort.
I am unable to see how holding on to these islands benefits the nation. In order to stimulate thought processes I suggested three options which might be considered from the British viewpoint:

1)The islanders opt to remain British and return to the British mainland and abandon the islands

2) An accommodation is reached with the Argentineans which allows the islands to remain under British control but they accept some form of sovereignty

3) The Islanders become independent of Britain, but Britain guarantees their neutrality

My personal preference is option three. If anyone feels that they could increase or improve on these then please feel free to do so. However, I don’t think stating what Argentina should do (as we would all prefer to have it) is particularly constructive in this instance.

32Bravo
06-20-2007, 01:27 PM
The islands are their land


If the islands belong to 'them' then why are 'we' defending them?

If they belong to Britain, then why should not the British public or its representative government be able to decide what is to be done with them?

Lone Ranger
06-20-2007, 04:41 PM
No dressing there. i was merely flooring ideas of options to stimulate conversation.

So how does it work then? Your concept, I asked how it worked?


Argentina believes the Falklands to belong to them. Nothing wrong with them working diplomatically to that end. I wouldn't describe that as aggression.

Except that the way they go about it is aggressive. There are a number of points to be addressed here.

1. If they wish to achieve the objective of peaceful integration of the Islanders, then how does that square with building bridges to convince the Islanders that its in their interest? How would you respond in their situation?

2. It is actually more than simply diplomatic pressure. The Argentine Government is actually moving to damage the Islands economy. Again hardly in line with building bridges and in violation of the UN charter.

3. The Argentine Government refuses to recognise the rights of the Islanders. How then can we expect them to respect the rights of the Islanders were sovereignty be passed to them?

Now all points put to you previously but airily dismissed without any real logical argument to the contrary.


What I do hear from you and others is the regurgitation of this language, and it is that which concerns me - nothing personal intended.

I actually find that rather patronising, I'm intelligent enough to form opinions on my own.


Now that I've satisfied your need to put me on the defensive, perhaps we can continue in a more constructive vein?

Oh I'm happy to debate things in a constructive manner, interesting that you again sound more than a little patronising.


I haven't seen anything positive regarding a solution to the present situation, as yet, other than proposals which would make it unacceptable to the other fellas.

Now I put forward my option 4), which is going to the ICJ. Slightly tongue in cheek because I know the Argentine Government would not find it acceptable. However, it is a recognised means of solving sovereignty disputes.

It does nicely illustrate the point that both the British Government and the Islanders have been accommodating to the Argentines. However, in return, the Argentine Government has behaved in what could be described as somewhat petulant. The Islanders and the British Government aren't the obstacle to a solution here.

Now your main argument for abandoning the Islanders appears to be economic. You object to your taxes subsidising the Islands defence. Now up to 1982, the Islands defence was around 30 marines, hardly a stretch on the defence budget. The large deployment of resources we now see is only as a result of past Argentine aggression and the continued threat that remains.

So once again, its largely as a result of Argentine aggression that we are in the current situation. So on economic grounds you seem to be arguing we should consider transferring sovereignty to them...and that wouldn't be rewarding aggression? Just for once please explain to me how it isn't???

Now that doesn't preclude negotiation with the Argentines but the only position they have is that negotiations should be how sovereignty should be transferred to them. So it does kinda make negotiations a bit of a non-starter.

Currently the situation is somewhat at an impasse. The only way forward that I can see is set aside sovereignty for now and work on building bridges between the Islanders and Argentina.

So for now I can't see 1) and 2) working. Independence for the Islands might be a solution but I can't see Argentina accepting it, so is 3) really a solution? Other than continuing to maintain a garrison on the island as we do now, I can't see how that would work. And we're exactly in the same situation that you're objecting to.

I mean think about it, it was the withdrawal of a defence commitment in the past that lead the Argentine Government to embark on a military adventure. The islands on their own are too small to provide for their own defence, it would be seriously tempting for a future Argentine Government to win popular approval by annexing the Islands once the British have withdrawn.

Now you may state that stating what Argentina should do is not constructive, however neither is ignoring the reality of the current situation. I would suggest its only by recognising reality that any sort of solution would be possible. Nothing you've suggested is actually a solution that would work.

Now turning to the rights of self-determination. Yes the rights of the Islanders does and should limit what the British Government should do. However, no it doesn't undermine the British constituion, rather I would suggest it is a fundamental part of the British constitution that the Government has no right to abrogate the fundamental human rights of its citizens. If we follow your argument, the British Government would have the constitutional right to flog off Scotland if it felt like it.

It doesn't and should never have that right, however, if the Scottish people were to collectively desire independence, then self-determination should guarantee it.

The Islanders are not responsible for the current situation, why shouldn't they be protected?

Now I could put forward my option 5). Britain withdraws, the Islands achieve independence and are put under the protection of a UN force. Can you honestly see that going through the UN without howls of Argentine protests?

Again do you notice a pattern emerging here, there is an intransigence on one side. Seriously is there a solution when one side is not prepared to compromise?

Oh and by the way, Bedford belongs to Bedfordians, Manchester to the Mancunians and I'd expect the British Government to defend both.

32Bravo
06-21-2007, 02:49 AM
Patronising?...Moi??

It was intentional - wash and be dirty!

Lone Ranger
06-21-2007, 04:41 AM
Patronising?...Moi??

Et peu un prétentieux.


It was intentional - wash and be dirty!

I see and thats your idea of continuing in a constructive vein? You underwhelm me with the intellectual force of your argument.

32Bravo
06-21-2007, 05:18 AM
Et peu un prétentieux.



I see and thats your idea of continuing in a constructive vein? You underwhelm me with the intellectual force of your argument.

Very good - I'm beginning to like you.

32Bravo
06-21-2007, 07:36 AM
Now I put forward my option 4), which is going to the ICJ. Slightly tongue in cheek because I know the Argentine Government would not find it acceptable. However, it is a recognised means of solving sovereignty disputes.

It does nicely illustrate the point that both the British Government and the Islanders have been accommodating to the Argentines. However, in return, the Argentine Government has behaved in what could be described as somewhat petulant. The Islanders and the British Government aren't the obstacle to a solution here.

Now your main argument for abandoning the Islanders appears to be economic. You object to your taxes subsidising the Islands defence. Now up to 1982, the Islands defence was around 30 marines, hardly a stretch on the defence budget. The large deployment of resources we now see is only as a result of past Argentine aggression and the continued threat that remains.

So once again, its largely as a result of Argentine aggression that we are in the current situation. So on economic grounds you seem to be arguing we should consider transferring sovereignty to them...and that wouldn't be rewarding aggression? Just for once please explain to me how it isn't???

Now that doesn't preclude negotiation with the Argentines but the only position they have is that negotiations should be how sovereignty should be transferred to them. So it does kinda make negotiations a bit of a non-starter.

Currently the situation is somewhat at an impasse. The only way forward that I can see is set aside sovereignty for now and work on building bridges between the Islanders and Argentina.

So for now I can't see 1) and 2) working. Independence for the Islands might be a solution but I can't see Argentina accepting it, so is 3) really a solution? Other than continuing to maintain a garrison on the island as we do now, I can't see how that would work. And we're exactly in the same situation that you're objecting to.

I mean think about it, it was the withdrawal of a defence commitment in the past that lead the Argentine Government to embark on a military adventure. The islands on their own are too small to provide for their own defence, it would be seriously tempting for a future Argentine Government to win popular approval by annexing the Islands once the British have withdrawn.

Now you may state that stating what Argentina should do is not constructive, however neither is ignoring the reality of the current situation. I would suggest its only by recognising reality that any sort of solution would be possible. Nothing you've suggested is actually a solution that would work.

Now turning to the rights of self-determination. Yes the rights of the Islanders does and should limit what the British Government should do. However, no it doesn't undermine the British constituion, rather I would suggest it is a fundamental part of the British constitution that the Government has no right to abrogate the fundamental human rights of its citizens. If we follow your argument, the British Government would have the constitutional right to flog off Scotland if it felt like it.

It doesn't and should never have that right, however, if the Scottish people were to collectively desire independence, then self-determination should guarantee it.

The Islanders are not responsible for the current situation, why shouldn't they be protected?

Now I could put forward my option 5). Britain withdraws, the Islands achieve independence and are put under the protection of a UN force. Can you honestly see that going through the UN without howls of Argentine protests?

Again do you notice a pattern emerging here, there is an intransigence on one side. Seriously is there a solution when one side is not prepared to compromise?

Oh and by the way, Bedford belongs to Bedfordians, Manchester to the Mancunians and I'd expect the British Government to defend both.

Please do not be of the opinion that I am being evasive of these comments, Kimo Sabi, it is necessary for me to focus my attention elsewhere, but I shall respond.

Lone Ranger
06-21-2007, 03:43 PM
I see.

Grasshopper, I shall look forward to it.

32Bravo
06-21-2007, 04:16 PM
I see.

Grasshopper, I shall look forward to it.

Grasshopper? How the F*** does that come about?

Lone Ranger
06-21-2007, 04:26 PM
Grasshopper? How the F*** does that come about?

Do you hear the grasshopper which is at your feet?

32Bravo
06-21-2007, 04:36 PM
I'd second that, they should be allowed to determine their own future. It isn't the business of either the British or Argentine Government.
Really?


I can understand the mistrust of the Islanders, they were treated badly by the Foreign Office who would happily have gotten rid of them given half a chance. For years the FO worked to undermine their interests, it was quite disgraceful.
True!


Your arguments about industrial decline are entirely fallacious, it isn't the business of Government to prop up failing industry. The principle of self-determination, often seen as a moral and legal right, is that every nation is entitled to a sovereign territorial state, and that every specifically identifiable population should choose which state it belongs to, often by plebiscite.
(I nicked the last bit from Wikipedia).
Once again Wikipedia got it wrong, but I can’t blame you for that. I’m still trying to see the fallacy


The best way of working toward a solution would be for Argentina to set aside the sovereignty claim and work on rebuilding relations with the Islanders.

Yes, that would be rather wonderful, but then the Argentinean’s might argue that the best way forward would be for Britain to lay aside its sovereignty claims.




Is it in Britain's economic interest? That's a complex question. On one hand there may be a short-term economic expediency but its likely to cause other problems. For example Guatemala still claims Belize as part of its territory. I think we learned a long time ago that appeasement doesn't work. On balance, I'd suggest its more in our interests to uphold the Islanders rights than to abrogate them for a short term gain.
A good analogy. I was considering that one myself. We might also consider that of Trinidad and Tobago. Venezuela, jealous of the republic’s oil wealth has made similar sabre-rattling noises.


1 involves Britain forcing the Islanders to abandon their homes, you're seriously suggesting thats an acceptable solution in a democracy?

No you dressed it up as the Islanders opt to remain British and abandon the Islands. Implying that its a rational choice when in fact it isn't. Really I'm fascinated, how does this work. We give the Islands to Argentina and the Islanders get the choice of whether or not to stay?

So how does it work then? Your concept, I asked how it worked?

As I have stated, I floored these options to stimulate conversation. I was rather hoping that we (we, being all with an opinion) might explore these options and accept or reject accordingly. So I didn’t have any particular conceptual ideas beyond these which, as I saw them, were the only options, good or bad, open to the British government.



It does nicely illustrate the point that both the British Government and the Islanders have been accommodating to the Argentines. However, in return, the Argentine Government has behaved in what could be described as somewhat petulant. The Islanders and the British Government aren't the obstacle to a solution here.
It takes two to tango – as any Argentinean will tell you.


Now your main argument for abandoning the Islanders appears to be economic. You object to your taxes subsidising the Islands defence. Now up to 1982, the Islands defence was around 30 marines, hardly a stretch on the defence budget. The large deployment of resources we now see is only as a result of past Argentine aggression and the continued threat that remains.
So how does it work then? Your concept, I asked how it worked?

I refer you to your previous post: “I can understand the mistrust of the Islanders, they were treated badly by the Foreign Office who would happily have gotten rid of them given half a chance. For years the FO worked to undermine their interests, it was quite disgraceful.”

So once again, its largely as a result of Argentine aggression that we are in the current situation. So on economic grounds you seem to be arguing we should consider transferring sovereignty to them...and that wouldn't be rewarding aggression? Just for once please explain to me how it isn't???
Of course, none of this is patronising?
Whether it is or not, it most certainly is not aggression – belligerence?,,aggressive? ..yes!
Agression?..Emaphatically, NO!


Now that doesn't preclude negotiation with the Argentines but the only position they have is that negotiations should be how sovereignty should be transferred to them. So it does kinda make negotiations a bit of a non-starter.

Currently the situation is somewhat at an impasse. The only way forward that I can see is set aside sovereignty for now and work on building bridges between the Islanders and Argentina.
Makes sense to me.



So for now I can't see 1) and 2) working. Independence for the Islands might be a solution but I can't see Argentina accepting it, so is 3) really a solution? Other than continuing to maintain a garrison on the island as we do now, I can't see how that would work. And we're exactly in the same situation that you're objecting to.
Okay, I have already mentioned the future carrier task force:

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/

http://www.gillespie.ndo.co.uk/Navy/Ocean.htm

http://www.jsf.org.uk/jsfuk.htm



I mean think about it, it was the withdrawal of a defence commitment in the past that lead the Argentine Government to embark on a military adventure. The islands on their own are too small to provide for their own defence, it would be seriously tempting for a future Argentine Government to win popular approval by annexing the Islands once the British have withdrawn. I do think about it. This has been the point behind much of what I have been saying.


Now you may state that stating what Argentina should do is not constructive, however neither is ignoring the reality of the current situation. I would suggest its only by recognising reality that any sort of solution would be possible. Nothing you've suggested is actually a solution that would work. I agree with your first sentence, but the rest is your opinion which may, or may not, be better than mine. However, as I have said, I was attempting to stimulate conversation and hoped that the points might be explored by all – right or wrong.


Now turning to the rights of self-determination. Yes the rights of the Islanders does and should limit what the British Government should do. However, no it doesn't undermine the British constituion, rather I would suggest it is a fundamental part of the British constitution that the Government has no right to abrogate the fundamental human rights of its citizens. If we follow your argument, the British Government would have the constitutional right to flog off Scotland if it felt like it.
Yes, it does undermine the British constitution.



It doesn't and should never have that right, however, if the Scottish people were to collectively desire independence, then self-determination should guarantee it.
That would require, in the very least, a referendum, and that, as things stand is not going to happen.


The Islanders are not responsible for the current situation, why shouldn't they be protected?
I didn’t say that they shouldn’t be protected. I said that in my opinion, option three was the best option with Britain guaranteeing their neutrality, which means protection.


Now I could put forward my option 5). Britain withdraws, the Islands achieve independence and are put under the protection of a UN force. Can you honestly see that going through the UN without howls of Argentine protests? patronizing, again, but I really don’t mind.


Again do you notice a pattern emerging here, there is an intransigence on one side. Seriously is there a solution when one side is not prepared to compromise? and again. With me it was deliberate, but I bet you didn’t notice.


Oh and by the way, Bedford belongs to Bedfordians, Manchester to the Mancunians and I'd expect the British Government to defend both.
That’s total ballocks – have you been watching A Pasport to Pimlico or something? Strongly asserting one's opinion does not make one right!

This is not 5th Century B.C. Greece. We are not a nation of City States. We are the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We are four nations united as one. We have a constitutional Monarch and a constitutionally elected government. We are not a democracy, for to be so, we would have to have a referendum on every issue that is passed through parliament.


I see and thats your idea of continuing in a constructive vein? You underwhelm me with the intellectual force of your argument.
If you are looking for intellectual discourse with me, old chum you’re barking up the wrong tree. I am probably the least educated of the regular members of this site, having been expelled from schol before beginning any Gce studies. I’m also very far from being the cleverest person on the site. In fact, clever is foreign to me. However, I am a trifle opinionated, and I’m not phased by those that have education or those that think themselves clever. I just like a bit of a chinwag and to look at things from different angles.

Bye.

Lone Ranger
06-21-2007, 05:18 PM
, that would be rather wonderful, but then the Argentinean’s might argue that the best way forward would be for Britain to lay aside its sovereignty claims.

Ah, my fault. I should have made it plain that in that situation both sides should set aside sovereignty.


, It takes two to tango – as any Argentinean will tell you.

Indeed it does, again a point I was driving at.


, Of course, none of this is patronising?

Unless I missed something no.


, Whether it is or not, it most certainly is not aggression – belligerence?,,aggressive? ..yes!
Agression?..Emaphatically, NO!

Mmm, aggressive does not equal aggression?

I also draw your attention to my previous comment that it hardly helps to build bridges and trust with the islanders.


the future carrier task force:

Assuming it happens....both CVF and JSF have slipped to the right.


Yes, it does undermine the British constitution.

There we disagree, the British constitution is not what the British Government wants it to be, rather it is a framework of rules that the Government should operate within.

A personal opinion but given the Government we have, we need a written constitution for that very reason.


I didn’t say that they shouldn’t be protected. I said that in my opinion, option three was the best option with Britain guaranteeing their neutrality, which means protection.

That we should continue protecting them I agree.


patronizing, again, but I really don’t mind.

Patronising who exactly?


That’s total ballocks – have you been watching A Pasport to Pimlico or something? Strongly asserting one's opinion does not make one right!

I do have a soft spot for old Ealing comedies but my favourite is actually the Titchfield Thunderbolt.

BTW pot this is kettle, over. You are black, over.


If you are looking for intellectual discourse with me, old chum you’re barking up the wrong tree. I am probably the least educated of the regular members of this site, having been expelled from schol before beginning any Gce studies.

Intellect and education are not the same thing.


Bye.

Going so soon, Grasshopper?

Panzerknacker
06-21-2007, 06:16 PM
Grasshopper? How the F*** does that come about?

Lone Ranger: please avoid to call names like Grasshoper

32Bravo.. please avoid the F word

Quoting rodney King "cant we all get alone?" :rolleyes:

Rising Sun*
06-21-2007, 11:28 PM
32Bravo.. please avoid the F word

Yes, and no more asterisks, either.

Everybody knows that asterisks are quite vulgar.

As the ******* bishop said to the ******* actress.. :D

Lone Ranger
06-22-2007, 04:14 AM
Lone Ranger: please avoid to call names like Grasshoper

Why exactly, I believe banter is allowed.

If not I'm terribly insulted by being called Kimo Sabi. I shall go away and sulk.


Quoting rodney King "cant we all get alone?" :rolleyes:

I'll put that down to the language barrier but I think you've got the meaning mixed up there. That was nearly a "blue oyster" moment.

Panzerknacker
06-22-2007, 10:04 AM
I'll put that down to the language barrier but I think you've got the meaning mixed up there. That was nearly a "blue oyster" moment

Probably was.




Why exactly, I believe banter is allowed.

If not I'm terribly insulted by being called Kimo Sabi. I shall go away and sulk.



Simple just imagine if we let the names scalate we can end up in a post like this:

Member XX to member XY:

"hey you stupid moron, tell me your source"

In order to avoid that if anybody feel anoyed/offended by other member should contact the Moderation. Probably you ll see me more than others but Firefly, FW-190 Pilot and SS Tiger are also in charge.

32Bravo
06-22-2007, 10:54 AM
Lone Ranger: please avoid to call names like Grasshoper

32Bravo.. please avoid the F word

Quoting rodney King "cant we all get alone?" :rolleyes:

I would never have thought of you as being bigoted. You didn't censure me for using the T word, and as much as I enjoy the Tango, the Foxtrot can also be rather sexy.

32Bravo
06-22-2007, 10:59 AM
Why exactly, I believe banter is allowed.

If not I'm terribly insulted by being called Kimo Sabi. I shall go away and sulk.



I'll put that down to the language barrier but I think you've got the meaning mixed up there. That was nearly a "blue oyster" moment.


Nothing wrong with Grasshopper:

" sniffed at - he he could not be smelt!"
"Licked at - he could not be tasted!"
"Felt for - he could not be touched!"

The tenets of the Shaolin.

'Kimo Sabi', was Tonto's name for the Lone Ranger - a term of endearment between lovers.

32Bravo
06-22-2007, 11:28 AM
There we disagree, the British constitution is not what the British Government wants it to be, rather it is a framework of rules that the Government should operate within.

No it is not what the government wants it to be it is how it is interpreted. However, the constitution emphasises the sovereignty of Parliament, which in this situation is undermined by the right to self-determination of the islanders. They cannot be allowed the right of self-determination to the detriment of the sovereignty of Parliament. If they choose to remain British, they must acknowledge the soveignty of Parlimant and its right to decide on the future of the islands.


A personal opinion but given the Government we have, we need a written constitution for that very reason. We are allowed personal opinions, let's hope it remains personal.



I do have a soft spot for old Ealing comedies
Obviously!



BTW pot this is kettle, over. You are black, over.
Now I'm becoming paranoid. How did you know I'm black - I haven't a web-cam?

What's all this 'over' business?




Intellect and education are not the same thing.

Aaaah, I did not know this. If I had been educated perhaps I would know.
Now that you have informed me perhaps you have educated me? Does this mean, then, that I am able to raise my head in pride; walk tall, feel proud?
If intelligence without education is as silver still in the mine, have you brought out my silver, Kimo Sabi?

32Bravo
06-22-2007, 01:51 PM
Mmm, aggressive does not equal aggression?

No, not necessarily, and especially not in the context of the situation we are discussing.
There is agressive posturing, sabre-rattling, if you will, used to intimidate the opposition and, hopefully, avoid a fight or, if there is a fight, have them so psyched-out that they are beaten before they begin. A typical example is the Hakka.

Agression, as we speak of it, is an act of assault. The Iraqi assaults on Iran in the '80s and later Kuwait, were acts of agression. More appropriate to this discussion was the Argentinean assault on the Falklands in 1982.

The Argentineans had also been agressively posturing when the previous government to Thatcher was in power, but they reacted by placing Naval elements over the horizon, and then told them to back-off. Thatcher and her people were caught with their pants down.[/QUOTE]


Going so soon, Grasshopper?
So much to do - so little time, Kimo Sabi!

Lone Ranger
06-22-2007, 05:41 PM
'Kimo Sabi', was Tonto's name for the Lone Ranger - a term of endearment between lovers.

I'd picked up on the homosexual reference, hence my blue oyster comment. ;)

However, I'm strictly heterosexual.

Lone Ranger
06-22-2007, 05:58 PM
No it is not what the government wants it to be it is how it is interpreted.

Actually, in a true democracy the idea of the constitution is partially to limit the powers of Government. Unfortunately in Britain the lack of written constitution means that the Government is able to ride rough shod over it.

For all its faults I think that the American constitution has much to commend it, the fact that no one branch of Government has absolute power builds in checks and balances that to some extent protect the rights of the individual.


However, the constitution emphasises the sovereignty of Parliament, which in this situation is undermined by the right to self-determination of the islanders.

Rather depends on your point of view. Is the state the servant of the citizen or vice versa. I'm of the opinion that the state should serve the citizen, though I recognise that many politicians would like to think otherwise.


They cannot be allowed the right of self-determination to the detriment of the sovereignty of Parliament.

I beg to differ, one of the functions of Government is also to protect the rights of a minority against the tyranny of a majority. To illustrate a point let me offer an extreme example.

If the constitution emphasises the sovereignty of Parliament, Parliament could decide to flog off the Welsh into slavery. However, that violates several basic rights including the right to self-determination.

So whilst the British Government currently has the rights to represent the Islanders it does not have the wherewithal to abrogate their basic human rights, including that of self-determination.


Aaaah, I did not know this. If I had been educated perhaps I would know.

Actually it was intended as a compliment, as it obviously came across as patronising then I apologise.

Lone Ranger
06-22-2007, 06:07 PM
There is agressive posturing, sabre-rattling, if you will, used to intimidate the opposition and, hopefully, avoid a fight or, if there is a fight, have them so psyched-out that they are beaten before they begin.

Since you have avoided several questions, I will pose them again.

Is this not counter productive in fostering good relations with the Islanders?

By refusing to recognise the rights of the Islanders, how can we expect Argentina to guarantee them in future?

And also by acting to try and damage the Islands' economy is an act of aggression, simply because the damage is not physical does not excuse it?


So much to do - so little time, Kimo Sabi!

And I was just beginning to enjoy it. Grasshopper.

32Bravo
06-22-2007, 08:04 PM
Actually, in a true democracy the idea of the constitution is partially to limit the powers of Government. Unfortunately in Britain the lack of written constitution means that the Government is able to ride rough shod over it.

Now, that is a falacy - there are no true democracy's in this modern world. It's just a much abused term. The only true democracy was that of ancient Athens and its colonies.

We have constitutional government by elected representatives. There are no fair systems when it comes to election. It is argued that proportional representation is the nearest one might get to achieving it, but know one has yet produced a system that actually works as it should.

There is much to consider before jumping into a codified constituion. Once done, it would be extremely difficult to reverse. We are not a young nation, as was the U.S. when they wrote their constitution. It was a gamble but it appears to have worked for them, albeit many are as disgruntled with their system as are many with ours.

Considering the farce played out over the EU constitution, I would be very reluctant to opt for one for Britain. As things stand I tend to prefer the system we have.

The best thing for limiting the powers of government, is a strong opposition, but parties appear to have lost the ability to produce one.

I'm not avoiding your questions, I have limited time to jump in here, as I have mentioned before.

By the way, your blue oyster comment went over my head. My last remark regarding the Lone Ranger and Tonto being lovers was a one-off, a rather weak effort at humour. I don't normaly chuck labels at people unless I'm joking or extremely P'd off, which, either way, should make it obvious that it isn't meant to be taken seriously.

32Bravo
06-22-2007, 08:20 PM
Since you have avoided several questions, I will pose them again.

Is this not counter productive in fostering good relations with the Islanders?

By refusing to recognise the rights of the Islanders, how can we expect Argentina to guarantee them in future?

Not arguing with you on that point. It's not my place or intention to defend or represent Argentina. Remember, I already stated option 3. as my preferred solution. Also, I have made it pretty clear that my concerns are for the nations interests and I don't think that continuing down the route we have been down for decades will resolve anything. There's been intransigence on both sides.



And also by acting to try and damage the Islands' economy is an act of aggression, simply because the damage is not physical does not excuse it?

Now you are stretching it a bit. It isn't an act of agression in the context of the discussion and no one would consider it so. That does not necessarily excuse anything.



And I was just beginning to enjoy it. Grasshopper.
I wont ask what it is you are beginning to enjoy, it might be something horrible.

32Bravo
06-22-2007, 08:31 PM
Actually, in a true democracy the idea of the constitution is partially to limit the powers of Government. Unfortunately in Britain the lack of written constitution means that the Government is able to ride rough shod over it.

For all its faults I think that the American constitution has much to commend it, the fact that no one branch of Government has absolute power builds in checks and balances that to some extent protect the rights of the individual.



Rather depends on your point of view. Is the state the servant of the citizen or vice versa. I'm of the opinion that the state should serve the citizen, though I recognise that many politicians would like to think otherwise.



I beg to differ, one of the functions of Government is also to protect the rights of a minority against the tyranny of a majority. To illustrate a point let me offer an extreme example.

If the constitution emphasises the sovereignty of Parliament, Parliament could decide to flog off the Welsh into slavery. However, that violates several basic rights including the right to self-determination.

So whilst the British Government currently has the rights to represent the Islanders it does not have the wherewithal to abrogate their basic human rights, including that of self-determination.



Actually it was intended as a compliment, as it obviously came across as patronising then I apologise.


There is much here to disagree with, but I do have a life beyond this site.

No need to apologise, I don't take it personal, I put it down to enthusiasm, we're all sinners - but I appreciate the gesture.

Your analogy doesn't work. There are all sorts of issues from actual past events which could be raised regarding protecting the minority from the majority. Now I must go as I'm beginning to ramble.

By the way, I do enjoy being Underwhelming my wife tells me I've always been that way.