Falkland/UK/Argentina - self determination thread.

[32Bravo]

@Lone_Ranger

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]

@Lone_Ranger

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]

@32Bravo

‘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]

@32Bravo

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.

@32Bravo

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.

@32Bravo

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.

@32Bravo

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]

@32Bravo

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?

@32Bravo

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

And I was just beginning to enjoy it. Grasshopper.

[32Bravo]

@Lone_Ranger

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]

@Lone_Ranger

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]

@Lone_Ranger

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.