Should Argentina talk to the Falkland Islanders?

[Symmetry]

I'm sort of glad that you're coming around to the "they should choose" argument too dude.

[saxitoxin]

I'm sort of glad that you're coming around to the "they should choose" argument too dude.

Anyone can choose anything they want. I could choose to go move into the garage of my neighbor. That doesn't mean he's not entitled to kick me out when he finds me there.

[Symmetry]

I'm sort of glad that you're coming around to the "they should choose" argument too dude.

Anyone can choose anything they want. I could choose to go move into the garage of my neighbor. That doesn't mean he's not entitled to kick me out when he finds me there.

That's pretty weak Saxi.

[saxitoxin]

I'm sort of glad that you're coming around to the "they should choose" argument too dude.

Anyone can choose anything they want. I could choose to go move into the garage of my neighbor. That doesn't mean he's not entitled to kick me out when he finds me there.

That's pretty weak Saxi.

click on the link in my sig

[Symmetry]

I'm sort of glad that you're coming around to the "they should choose" argument too dude.

Anyone can choose anything they want. I could choose to go move into the garage of my neighbor. That doesn't mean he's not entitled to kick me out when he finds me there.

That's pretty weak Saxi.

click on the link in my sig

That entire line of argument was just to troll xeno?

[BigBallinStalin]

Example -

United Kingdom to France: We would like to build an underwater tunnel crossing La Manche to connect Britain and France.

France to United Kingdom: The UK Prime Minister will have to negotiate all that with Jacques, the intern over at the Calais town road department. Young Jacques has no authority to make any decision one way or the other, however. But that's the guy we want you to speak with - and you must send your PM - and at least 2 viscounts and 5 earls - to talk to him. Good luck!

Do the Falkland Islanders/kelpers have any discretion over the issue of ceding British territory to Argentina?

If not, then why insist that Argentina must negotiate with them or include them in the negotiations?

[saxitoxin]

Example -

United Kingdom to France: We would like to build an underwater tunnel crossing La Manche to connect Britain and France.

France to United Kingdom: The UK Prime Minister will have to negotiate all that with Jacques, the intern over at the Calais town road department. Young Jacques has no authority to make any decision one way or the other, however. But that's the guy we want you to speak with - and you must send your PM - and at least 2 viscounts and 5 earls - to talk to him. Good luck!

Do the Falkland Islanders/kelpers have any discretion over the issue of ceding British territory to Argentina?

If not, then why insist that Argentina must negotiate with them or include them in the negotiations?

Yes, exactly. Even if they suddenly decided to turn over the whole island chain to Argentina it would be a moot point; only Britain can make that decision. This is just an effort to draw-out the process and muddy the waters.

If the people of Shreveport suddenly become outraged by Russia, Mayor Billy Bob Brazeau doesn't enter into negotiations with Russia, no matter how outraged they feel. The legal representative of the people of Shreveport is the U.S. President. If they are not satisfied with that representation then that is an internal matter they will need to sort out on their own.

It would be ridiculous to expect Russia to conclude overlapping agreements with hundreds of U.S. cities, any one of which the U.S. government could arbitrarily override at will and without warning. Nations don't conduct themselves this way. It's a British publicity stunt to sell to the London tabloids.

[BigBallinStalin]

If the UK actually wanted the Falkanders to become part of the negotiation, then why not grant that political entity its own Full sovereignty?
If national security (e.g. ARG invasion) is an issue, then the two sovereign nations of UK and Kelper Kingdom can sign a military alliance, thus giving UK casus belli if ARG invades.

Then, the Falklanders would have the discretion to resolve this issue. But that doesn't happen. Why? Because the UK ultimately does not wish to relinquish its full control over that island?

It seems that the UK is not at all interested in negotiating with anybody (neither ARG nor Kelper Kingdom). If anyone believes otherwise, then how would they explain all the above problems in this post and my previous one?

[saxitoxin]

If the UK actually wanted the Falkanders to become part of the negotiation, then why not grant that political entity its own Full sovereignty?
If national security (e.g. ARG invades) is an issue, then the two sovereign nations can sign a military alliance, thus giving UK casus belli if ARG invades.


Then, the Falklanders would have the discretion to resolve this issue. But that doesn't happen. Why? Because the UK ultimately does not wish to relinquish its full control over that island?

Yes, correct!

They demand the "Falklanders" be part of negotiations. There's a simple way to do that: grant the islands independence at which point they can immediately join the negotiations as a sovereign and Argentina would have no right to refuse their presence. It's quite simple and, as you point out, they could even guarantee against an Argentine invasion by immediately concluding a mutual defense treaty with the UK.

But, if Malvinas became independent, the "Falklanders" suddenly gain control of all 200 miles of the Exclusive Economic Zone that surrounds the islands and in which the oil is located. Right now, London directly rules 198 of the 200 miles.

So they moan and groan about letting the "Falklanders" negotiate but refuse to give them the one power they need to actually do that, thereby revealing their own interest in the whole matter. Britain has no gas, but in the bank they've lots of cash ...

[BigBallinStalin]

Oh, business interests!--What a role they play in this situation.

Of course, I'd have to assume that the oil industry--at least its lobbying association(s)--have some influence on key politicians who in turn can shape this event to the benefit of both parties.

Or I can assume that British politicians are selfless and completely dedicated to serving the unknowable public good.

Or I can assume that given the lobbying, the 'bribed' politicians don't hold enough influence, yet for some other reason (a series of unintended consequences??), both the oil industry and the 'bribed' politicians still benefit.


Hmm...

[Symmetry]

If the UK actually wanted the Falkanders to become part of the negotiation, then why not grant that political entity its own Full sovereignty?
If national security (e.g. ARG invasion) is an issue, then the two sovereign nations of UK and Kelper Kingdom can sign a military alliance, thus giving UK casus belli if ARG invades.

Then, the Falklanders would have the discretion to resolve this issue. But that doesn't happen. Why? Because the UK ultimately does not wish to relinquish its full control over that island?

It seems that the UK is not at all interested in negotiating with anybody (neither ARG nor Kelper Kingdom). If anyone believes otherwise, then how would they explain all the above problems in this post and my previous one?

That's a decision for the people who live there to make.

[Dukasaur]

The Argentinian claim to the Falklands is entirely based on the Spanish claim to the Falklands, and the Spanish claim to the Falklands is purely bogus. The Spanish established a colony. Pathetically mismanaged, it soon fell apart. The English came and started a colony. Intelligently managed, it has thrived for hundreds of years.

To have some inkling of the absolutely colossal incompetence of the Spanish colonial administration, consider this: After stealing the Aztec and Inca gold hoards, Spain had 60% of the world's known gold reserve. This was at a time when the gold standard was still nearly universal, so in effect they had 60% of the world's money. More money than all the other countries on the planet combined! Yet, in less than a century they were bankrupt and begging for money. Less than a century to squander more than half of the money on the entire fucking planet!

I hope Philips III and IV have a very special place in Hell, condemned to an eternity of being kicked in the balls by Samuel Bronfman, who could teach them a thing or two about spending money wisely.

If Macaulay's essays were mandatory reading in school instead of fluff like the Catcher in the Rye, this would all be commone knowledge.

Of course, we now have the hilarious spectacle of organisations like the European Parliament "recognising" the Argentine (Spanish colonial) claim. Keep in mind that this is a Parliament composed mainly of welfare statists, who love rewarding failure. Of course colonial Spain, poster child for catastrophic incompetence, would be a beloved darling to them. These are the same people who love bailing out failed banks instead of letting them fall into the sewer where they belong.

Aside from the failed Spanish colony and the laughable legal technicalities arising from it, the Argentines have nothing. Neither geologically, nor ethnically, nor economically, have the Falklands ever been attached to Argentina. It's a bogus claim, only kept alive by the the sinister forces underlying the modern state -- a desire to punish success and reward failure.

[BigBallinStalin]

If the UK actually wanted the Falkanders to become part of the negotiation, then why not grant that political entity its own Full sovereignty?
If national security (e.g. ARG invasion) is an issue, then the two sovereign nations of UK and Kelper Kingdom can sign a military alliance, thus giving UK casus belli if ARG invades.

Then, the Falklanders would have the discretion to resolve this issue. But that doesn't happen. Why? Because the UK ultimately does not wish to relinquish its full control over that island?

It seems that the UK is not at all interested in negotiating with anybody (neither ARG nor Kelper Kingdom). If anyone believes otherwise, then how would they explain all the above problems in this post and my previous one?

That's a decision for the people who live there to make.

That's nice, but they have no jurisdiction since the UK denies them sovereignty. So now what? Are you going to be a good citizen and protest against the UK's status quo in refusing to grant them their sovereignty?

[BigBallinStalin]

The Argentinian claim to the Falklands is entirely based on the Spanish claim to the Falklands, and the Spanish claim to the Falklands is purely bogus. The Spanish established a colony. Pathetically mismanaged, it soon fell apart. The English came and started a colony. Intelligently managed, it has thrived for hundreds of years.

To have some inkling of the absolutely colossal incompetence of the Spanish colonial administration, consider this: After stealing the Aztec and Inca gold hoards, Spain had 60% of the world's known gold reserve. This was at a time when the gold standard was still nearly universal, so in effect they had 60% of the world's money. More money than all the other countries on the planet combined! Yet, in less than a century they were bankrupt and begging for money. Less than a century to squander more than half of the money on the entire fucking planet!

I hope Philips III and IV have a very special place in Hell, condemned to an eternity of being kicked in the balls by Samuel Bronfman, who could teach them a thing or two about spending money wisely.

If Macaulay's essays were mandatory reading in school instead of fluff like the Catcher in the Rye, this would all be commone knowledge.

Of course, we now have the hilarious spectacle of organisations like the European Parliament "recognising" the Argentine (Spanish colonial) claim. Keep in mind that this is a Parliament composed mainly of welfare statists, who love rewarding failure. Of course colonial Spain, poster child for catastrophic incompetence, would be a beloved darling to them. These are the same people who love bailing out failed banks instead of letting them fall into the sewer where they belong.

Aside from the failed Spanish colony and the laughable legal technicalities arising from it, the Argentines have nothing. Neither geologically, nor ethnically, nor economically, have the Falklands ever been attached to Argentina. It's a bogus claim, only kept alive by the the sinister forces underlying the modern state -- a desire to punish success and reward failure.

History shmistory! With nationalist sentiments on the line, the rabid nationalists like Sym and CoH do not give a shit. If history supported their case, they would support the history. If it didn't, then they'd find something else to latch their emotions onto.

[Symmetry]

Rabid nationalism is kinda harsh for a suggestion that Argentina talk to the people.

[BigBallinStalin]

Rabid nationalism is kinda harsh for a suggestion that Argentina talk to the people.

Your willful ignorance of other relevant factors in this event prevent you from being taken seriously ITT.

[2dimes]

ITT.

Just in this one?

[Symmetry]

Rabid nationalism is kinda harsh for a suggestion that Argentina talk to the people.

Your willful ignorance of other relevant factors in this event prevent you from being taken seriously ITT.

Oh dear, dolly is out of the pram.

[Symmetry]

ITT.

Just in this one?

Well, there is the one where he called for my death.

[2dimes]

What, you don't like cake?

[Symmetry]

What, you don't like cake?

No- pies are far better.

[2dimes]

What, you don't like cake?

No- pies are far better.

FACT!

[2dimes]

Australia is a much better commonwealth in that there were meat pies available in the airports a and at fast food kiosks. It was pretty awesome.

Do they have pie stands like that in the Falklands?

[Symmetry]

Australia is a much better commonwealth in that there were meat pies available in the airports a and at fast food kiosks. It was pretty awesome.

Do they have pie stands like that in the Falklands?

No idea, but a Falklander made the best lamb pie I ever tasted.

[2dimes]

Colour me green. For sure pie is in the top ten things I Put in my mouth on your island.