Fawklands, Who Should Have Them?

[Sternberg]

In answer to the poll: neither.

It's the residents who are on the island right now who should retain the sovereignty of the island, irrespective of any historical disputes. If their policies or diplomatic ties so happen to align them to Great Britain or (in future) another nation, then that should be respected as their own decision, not one influenced by outsider governments.

[The Republic of Pantalleria]

The U.K. won the war, has a better economy, has a greater military and is the significantly well preferred nation by the people who actually live there, therefore Argentina has no chance (especially with that default and inflation problem you have right now...)

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

one of the arguments, is that as an implanted colonial population, their opinion should be disregarded.

which is a whole can of worms, that is surprising that people bring it up. E.g. If the indigenous peoples of South America voted to expel implanted colonial populations, then President Kirchner would have to leave (to where?).

Well in the case of the northern half of North America, and the southern tip of South America, the so-called indigenous all but perished, so there wouldn't be many people voting anyways.

Er, there is an indigenous population in the tip of South America, and a considerable one. They didn't all but perished. Argentina alone has 35 distinct indigenous groups.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous ... _by_region

[American California]

Well in the case of the northern half of North America, and the southern tip of South America, the so-called indigenous all but perished, so there wouldn't be many people voting anyways.

Er, there is an indigenous population in the tip of South America, and a considerable one. They didn't all but perished. Argentina alone has 35 distinct indigenous groups.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous ... _by_region

They are less than 2% of the Argentine population...

[Camelza]

I believe in self-determination. AFAIK, those in the FIs have stated that they wish to remain British so, that's answer enough.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_I ... ty_dispute

The Spanish roots are, in the face of this, irrelevant. Argentina's claim, in the face of this, is also irrelevant.

The Spanish roots in the Falklands are pretty negligible too. There's just Port Louis (Puerto Soledad), which originally a French settlement anyways.

Even the Spanish name of the islands; Malvinas, has its roots in Malo, a french town.
Not to mention that the English colonised the Falklands around the same time the French did, only they were quite more successfull, however they later sold the islands to Spain.
Argentina's claim stems from a rather sad and unsuccessful story of trying to turn the Falklands into a prison while illegally occupying them since it was Spanish land that was by then already sold back to the British. Plus, the islands were at the time populated by English-speaking whale hunters of British, Canadian and American origin.
However, nothing of all these matters, since the current inhabitants in their vast majority, feel and want to remain British and no one shall take away their right to self-determination.

[The Republic of Pantalleria]

In answer to the poll: neither.

It's the residents who are on the island right now who should retain the sovereignty of the island, irrespective of any historical disputes. If their policies or diplomatic ties so happen to align them to Great Britain or (in future) another nation, then that should be respected as their own decision, not one influenced by outsider governments.

They don't have the economy, the numbers or the wish to do so ding dong, the Falklanders always wanted to be part of Britain since they were settled by the Brits centuries ago, (just as much as Hong Kong hated Maggie for "returning" them to a bunch of commies)

[The Archregimancy]

I believe in self-determination. AFAIK, those in the FIs have stated that they wish to remain British so, that's answer enough.

In March 2013, the Falkland Islands held a referendum on its political status, and 99.8 percent of voters favoured remaining under British rule.

One of the little-known facts about the 2013 referendum that I like is that 13 of the eligible voters in the referendum were born in Argentina.

As we all know, only three people voted no in the referendum.

Even if we assume that all of the latter were born in Argentina - which is unprovable - this means that no more than 23% of the Argentina-born voters in the Falklands referendum actively opposed the islands' current status to the extent that they registered a 'no' vote in the referendum.

I suppose they might have boycotted the vote, but given that overall turnout was over 90%, I doubt this has too much impact on the referendum's legitimacy.

Oh, for total statistical accuracy, there was also a single invalid/blank ballot.

[Celibrae]

The U.K. won the war, has a better economy, has a greater military and is the significantly well preferred nation by the people who actually live there, therefore Argentina has no chance (especially with that default and inflation problem you have right now...)

Argentina
The Argentine Navy is under-funded and struggling to meet maintenance and training requirements, as a result only 15 out of a total of 42 navy vessels are in a condition to sail. The 2013 defence budget allowed for the 15 operational vessels to each spend less than 11 days at sea, while the submarines averaged just over 6 hours submerged in the whole of 2012.[20] ARA Espora spent 73 days in late 2012 stranded in South Africa for lack of spares. The Almirante Brown-class destroyers are short of spares and their ordnance has expired while the Antarctic patrol ship ARA Almirante Irizar has been under repair since a fire in 2007.[20] On 23 January 2013 the Type 42 destroyer ARA Santísima Trinidad sank at her moorings having been mothballed for ten years.[21]

Britain
The Type 45 destroyers were built to replace the Type 42 destroyers that had served during the Falklands War, with the last Type 42 being decommissioned in 2013. The National Audit Office reported that, during an "intensive attack", a single Type 45 could simultaneously track, engage and destroy more targets than five Type 42 destroyers operating together.[15] After the launch of Daring on 1 February 2006 Admiral Sir Alan West, a former First Sea Lord, stated that it would be the Royal Navy's most capable destroyer ever, as well as the world's best air-defence ship.[16] The reduction in the number to be procured from twelve, then to eight and eventually down to six (in 2008) was controversial.[17][18]

[Edgy Opinions]

Chile is not underdeveloped. At all.

Oi????????

It quite clearly is. Latin America and the Caribbean have NO developed country. (I'd strongly doubt Barbados' claim to such a thing, but it'd be more credible than Chile's.)

This is foolish. You're basically saying the Falklander's sovereignty should be ignored because you don't like the policies of past British governments.

The sovereignty of the local populations of so many places is readily ignored under different pretexts...

But I really am not claiming the islands for Argentina, I just kind of like that it's a troll for the good side.

the so-called indigenous

EXCUSEZ-MOI?????

[Geanna]

In answer to the poll: neither.

It's the residents who are on the island right now who should retain the sovereignty of the island, irrespective of any historical disputes. If their policies or diplomatic ties so happen to align them to Great Britain or (in future) another nation, then that should be respected as their own decision, not one influenced by outsider governments.

They don't have the economy, the numbers or the wish to do so ding dong, the Falklanders always wanted to be part of Britain since they were settled by the Brits centuries ago, (just as much as Hong Kong hated Maggie for "returning" them to a bunch of commies)

I feel you two are arguing the same point here...

[The Republic of Pantalleria]

The Falklands are British.

Legal and political aspects aside, the people of the Falkland Islands themselves say they are British. So why is there a debate?

EXACTLY!!!

[Camelza]

Not to mention that going against the will of said powerful people is quite bad for anyone's health. Anyway, everyone should do something down there to stir them away from their destructive course. Over here we have laws that forbid cutting down natural woods, the only trees that are permitted to be cut are from tree farms and quite rarely from large forests(with restrictions) after a large period of leaving said forest to replenish.

The government usually has the excuse that Brazil has enough land to not need land reform so it's transformed in a class issue and thus swept under the rug.

Now this water and energy crisis comes in hand a year after all the country showed increasingly dissatisfied with the lawlhuge, tribe-flooding, nature-wrecking new major hydroelectric projects.

Every country needs land reform.
Does Brazil have a Green party, or movement? What Brazil needs, regarding its environmental problems, is a large organised ecological movement.
/I think we're quite off-topic.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Er, there is an indigenous population in the tip of South America, and a considerable one. They didn't all but perished. Argentina alone has 35 distinct indigenous groups.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous ... _by_region

They are less than 2% of the Argentine population...

According to demographics, Amerindians make between 31% to 46% (some areas even had up to 53%) of the population in Argentina, as per studies done by region.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous ... mographics

[The Republic of Pantalleria]

They don't have the economy, the numbers or the wish to do so ding dong, the Falklanders always wanted to be part of Britain since they were settled by the Brits centuries ago, (just as much as Hong Kong hated Maggie for "returning" them to a bunch of commies)

I feel you two are arguing the same point here...

Oh, I didn't read the end part, my bad... :awkward:

[American California]

Chile is not underdeveloped. At all.

Oi????????

It quite clearly is. Latin America and the Caribbean have NO developed country. (I'd strongly doubt Barbados' claim to such a thing, but it'd be more credible than Chile's.)

I noticed how you changed it from "underdeveloped" to "developing". They are two very different things.

This is foolish. You're basically saying the Falklander's sovereignty should be ignored because you don't like the policies of past British governments.

The sovereignty of the local populations of so many places is readily ignored under different pretexts...

But I really am not claiming the islands for Argentina, I just kind of like that it's a troll for the good side.

At least you admit it.

the so-called indigenous

EXCUSEZ-MOI?????

Yea?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I believe in self-determination. AFAIK, those in the FIs have stated that they wish to remain British so, that's answer enough.

One of the little-known facts about the 2013 referendum that I like is that 13 of the eligible voters in the referendum were born in Argentina.

As we all know, only three people voted no in the referendum.

Even if we assume that all of the latter were born in Argentina - which is unprovable - this means that no more than 23% of the Argentina-born voters in the Falklands referendum actively opposed the islands' current status to the extent that they registered a 'no' vote in the referendum.

I suppose they might have boycotted the vote, but given that overall turnout was over 90%, I doubt this has too much impact on the referendum's legitimacy.

Oh, for total statistical accuracy, there was also a single invalid/blank ballot.

Which means that Argentina griping about this issue matters little as the islanders spoke freely and decided. Am I correct?

[Geanna]

I feel you two are arguing the same point here...

Oh, I didn't read the end part, my bad... :awkward:

C'est bon, mon cheri

My French is deeply inadequate, forgive me.

[The Republic of Pantalleria]

The U.K. won the war, has a better economy, has a greater military and is the significantly well preferred nation by the people who actually live there, therefore Argentina has no chance (especially with that default and inflation problem you have right now...)

Argentina
The Argentine Navy is under-funded and struggling to meet maintenance and training requirements, as a result only 15 out of a total of 42 navy vessels are in a condition to sail. The 2013 defence budget allowed for the 15 operational vessels to each spend less than 11 days at sea, while the submarines averaged just over 6 hours submerged in the whole of 2012.[20] ARA Espora spent 73 days in late 2012 stranded in South Africa for lack of spares. The Almirante Brown-class destroyers are short of spares and their ordnance has expired while the Antarctic patrol ship ARA Almirante Irizar has been under repair since a fire in 2007.[20] On 23 January 2013 the Type 42 destroyer ARA Santísima Trinidad sank at her moorings having been mothballed for ten years.[21]

Britain
The Type 45 destroyers were built to replace the Type 42 destroyers that had served during the Falklands War, with the last Type 42 being decommissioned in 2013. The National Audit Office reported that, during an "intensive attack", a single Type 45 could simultaneously track, engage and destroy more targets than five Type 42 destroyers operating together.[15] After the launch of Daring on 1 February 2006 Admiral Sir Alan West, a former First Sea Lord, stated that it would be the Royal Navy's most capable destroyer ever, as well as the world's best air-defence ship.[16] The reduction in the number to be procured from twelve, then to eight and eventually down to six (in 2008) was controversial.[17][18]

Is this a response or is this just a reconfirmation of my point, because I can't really tell without your opinion.

[Geanna]

One of the little-known facts about the 2013 referendum that I like is that 13 of the eligible voters in the referendum were born in Argentina.

As we all know, only three people voted no in the referendum.

Even if we assume that all of the latter were born in Argentina - which is unprovable - this means that no more than 23% of the Argentina-born voters in the Falklands referendum actively opposed the islands' current status to the extent that they registered a 'no' vote in the referendum.

I suppose they might have boycotted the vote, but given that overall turnout was over 90%, I doubt this has too much impact on the referendum's legitimacy.

Oh, for total statistical accuracy, there was also a single invalid/blank ballot.

Which means that Argentina griping about this issue matters little as the islanders spoke freely and decided. Am I correct?

It'd appear so, indeed.

[The Archregimancy]

They are less than 2% of the Argentine population...

According to demographics, Amerindians make between 31% to 46% (some areas even had up to 53%) of the population in Argentina, as per studies done by region.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous ... mographics

In fairness, that statistic is disputed.

From another corner of Wikipedia:

Most Argentines, between 83% to 86%, are descended from colonial-era settlers and of the 19th and 20th century immigrants from Europe. An estimated 8% of the population is Mestizo, and a further 4% of Argentines are of Arab (in Argentina the Arab ethnicity is considered among the White people, just like in the US Census) or Asian heritage. In the last national census, based on self-identification, 600,000 Argentines (1.6% of the population) declared to be Amerindians

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographi ... settlement

The part that potentially leaves room for both articles to be correct is use of 'self-identification' in the second link.

[The Republic of Pantalleria]

Oh, I didn't read the end part, my bad... :awkward:

C'est bon, mon cheri

My French is deeply inadequate, forgive me.

Bien, je ne parle pas tri bien francais...

[Sternberg]

They don't have the economy, the numbers or the wish to do so ding dong, the Falklanders always wanted to be part of Britain since they were settled by the Brits centuries ago, (just as much as Hong Kong hated Maggie for "returning" them to a bunch of commies)

I should have worded my response differently, but I agree with the sentiment of your response. What I was driving at is that the Falklands wanted to be part of the Commonwealth due to, as you said, historical and cultural ties. The fact that they have continually expressed such to date shows that it is their decision to "remain British".

For the most part, however, the main reason why they are under British protection and garrison is because they have had Argentina across the way, loudly protesting (even a brief shooting war in 1982) that the islands were theirs, damn historical fact and technicality to the contrary. So as long as they continue to try and wrest the islands away from the Falklanders and as long as these cultural ties are shared by the community, we can expect a continuing strong alliance between the Falklands and Britain for years to come.

[The Archregimancy]

One of the little-known facts about the 2013 referendum that I like is that 13 of the eligible voters in the referendum were born in Argentina.

As we all know, only three people voted no in the referendum.

Even if we assume that all of the latter were born in Argentina - which is unprovable - this means that no more than 23% of the Argentina-born voters in the Falklands referendum actively opposed the islands' current status to the extent that they registered a 'no' vote in the referendum.

I suppose they might have boycotted the vote, but given that overall turnout was over 90%, I doubt this has too much impact on the referendum's legitimacy.

Oh, for total statistical accuracy, there was also a single invalid/blank ballot.

Which means that Argentina griping about this issue matters little as the islanders spoke freely and decided. Am I correct?

Oh absolutely.

Even, it would appear, the ones born in Argentina.

[American California]

They are less than 2% of the Argentine population...

According to demographics, Amerindians make between 31% to 46% (some areas even had up to 53%) of the population in Argentina, as per studies done by region.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous ... mographics

That same pages says though..

In the survey, based on self-identification or self-ascription, around 600,000 Argentines declared to be Amerindian or first-generation descendants of Amerindians, that is, 1.49% of the population

What you quote likely just includes Argentines who are white, but happen to have an Amerind ancestor from way back, which is not the same as actually being Amerindian.

Also, the parts of the country where Amerindians are a majority are irrelevant, because they still make such a small portion of the nation as a whole.

[The Republic of Pantalleria]

They don't have the economy, the numbers or the wish to do so ding dong, the Falklanders always wanted to be part of Britain since they were settled by the Brits centuries ago, (just as much as Hong Kong hated Maggie for "returning" them to a bunch of commies)

I should have worded my response differently, but I agree with the sentiment of your response. What I was driving at is that the Falklands wanted to be part of the Commonwealth due to, as you said, historical and cultural ties. The fact that they have continually expressed such to date shows that it is their decision to "remain British".

For the most part, however, the main reason why they are under British protection and garrison is because they have had Argentina across the way, loudly protesting (even a brief shooting war in 1982) that the islands were theirs, damn historical fact and technicality to the contrary. So as long as they continue to try and wrest the islands away from the Falklanders and as long as these cultural ties are shared by the community, we can expect a continuing strong alliance between the Falklands and Britain for years to come.

:awkward: Good, then I guess we agree...