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.
[QUOTE=Lone Ranger;104045]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?
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.
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.
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?
So how does it work then? Your concept, I asked how it worked?
Except that the way they go about it is aggressive. There are a number of points to be addressed here.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
I actually find that rather patronising, I’m intelligent enough to form opinions on my own.
Oh I’m happy to debate things in a constructive manner, interesting that you again sound more than a little patronising.
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.
Patronising?..Moi??
It was intentional - wash and be dirty!
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.
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.
I see.
Grasshopper, I shall look forward to it.
Grasshopper? How the F*** does that come about?
Do you hear the grasshopper which is at your feet?
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.
Ah, my fault. I should have made it plain that in that situation both sides should set aside sovereignty.
Indeed it does, again a point I was driving at.
Unless I missed something 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.
Assuming it happens…both CVF and JSF have slipped to the right.
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.
That we should continue protecting them I agree.
Patronising who exactly?
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.
Intellect and education are not the same thing.
Going so soon, Grasshopper?
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:
Yes, and no more asterisks, either.
Everybody knows that asterisks are quite vulgar.
As the ******* bishop said to the ******* actress… 
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.
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.
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.
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.