Falkland Islanders vote on staying British today

RobitTV

dickwod1 wrote: »

Maybe the islands would have been inhabited by Argentinians if the Brits weren't there ocupying it

Yeah and argentina will plant their own population :rolleyes:

dickwod1

RobitTV wrote: »

Yeah and argentina will plant their own population :rolleyes:

People hundreds of years ago moving to an island 300 miles away is hardly like a plantation from a country 8000 miles away

RobitTV

dickwod1 wrote: »

People hundreds of years ago moving to an island 300 miles away is hardly like a plantation from a country 8000 miles away

There's no such thing as a "Argentine" or a "Venezuelan" they are all of Spanish origin for Christ sake.

There was also no argentine population on these islands since the islands discovery, argentina planted population in 1820s when they gained independence of Spain.

So it wasn't "100s of years ago" argentina has no claim what so ever. They weren't even a country when they were controlled by Britain, France and Spain.

afatbollix

3 people voted no 98.8%(1513) voted yes to remain part of Britain

RobitTV

BREAKING: VOTE RESULTS AS FOLLOWS

YES VOTES: 98.8% (1513)
NO VOTES: 3

Islanders vote overwhelmingly to remain British!

Cookie_Monster

dickwod1 wrote: »

Maybe the islands would have been inhabited by Argentinians if the Brits weren't there ocupying it

Maybe they would have been inhabited by the Irish, or a lost African tribe or nobody... The point is not valid as they were and are are inhabited by the Brits and have just reconfirmed that.

dickwod1

RobitTV wrote: »

There's no such thing as a "Argentine" or a "Venezuelan" they are all of Spanish origin for Christ sake.

There was also no argentine population on these islands since the islands discovery, argentina planted population in 1820s when they gained independence of Spain.

So it wasn't "100s of years ago" argentina has no claim what so ever. They weren't even a country when they were controlled by Britain, France and Spain.

Calm down ...

By your argument then we all came from the same place thousands of years ago so theres no England Spain Etc.

"for Christ sake"

Btw your 1820 figure makes it 193 years my bad saying hundreds

Lapin

For a place with such a tiny population it took them a long time to count the votes.

Now we know where we could have offloaded a few of those godforsaken machines.

Only 3 people voted against staying under British control.

Must have been some campaign !

Rascasse

I wonder if the 3 'no' votes are the same 3 people that voted for Argentinian sovereignty in 1986.

dickwod1

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Maybe they would have been inhabited by the Irish, or a lost African tribe or nobody... The point is not valid as they were and are are inhabited by the Brits and have just reconfirmed that.

They have just reconfirmed that they were and are inhabited by the Brits?

RobitTV

dickwod1 wrote: »

Calm down ...

By your argument then we all came from the same place thousands of years ago so theres no England Spain Etc.

"for Christ sake"

No you calm down and listen to some history and remember it.

And errrrr... No! Are you Spanish? Am I Spanish? Is this a Spanish speaking forum? Are we all Spanish?? Who knows isn't it just a mystery....lord....

Iwasfrozen

afatbollix wrote: »

3 people voted no 98.8%(1513) voted yes to remain part of Britain

There's always one, or in this case three. :rolleyes: Hopefully this settles the issue. Though the next time the Argies decide to throw their toys out of the pram I doubt it.

RobitTV

dickwod1 wrote: »

They have just reconfirmed that they were and are inhabited by the Brits?

Where do you think the islanders come from? North Korea? They send very Korean to me don't you think? :rolleyes:

dickwod1

RobitTV wrote: »

No you calm down and listen to some history and remember it.

And errrrr... No! Are you Spanish? Am I Spanish? Is this a Spanish speaking forum? Are we all Spanish?? Who knows isn't it just a mystery....lord....

Calm down ...

So you dont believe that we all came from the same place thousands of years ago?

Are you saying that the Spanish are a race of people?

Lord

dickwod1

RobitTV wrote: »

Where do you think the islanders come from? North Korea? They send very Korean to me don't you think? :rolleyes:

This is bizzare, yous think the vote was to see where they came from?

RobitTV

dickwod1 wrote: »

Calm down ...

So you dont believe that we all came from the same place thousands of years ago?

Are you saying that the Spanish are a race of people?

Lord

......

RobitTV

dickwod1 wrote: »

This is bizzare, yous think the vote was to see where they came from?

Well judging by the way you said they are a planted population

I was giving you a few ideas of what race they could possibly be...

Cookie_Monster

dickwod1 wrote: »

Calm down ...

So you dont believe that we all came from the same place thousands of years ago?

no, maybe if you want to go back 100s of thousands of years you'd have a point.

dickwod1 wrote: »

Are you saying that the Spanish are a race of people?

in so much as the term "race" can be applied to any subset of people then yes they are.

dickwod1

RobitTV wrote: »

Well judging by the way you said they are a planted population

I was giving you a few ideas of what race they could possibly be...

They ARE a planted population,

As I said bizzare

RobitTV

dickwod1 wrote: »

They ARE a planted population,

As I said bizzare

Yes very bizzare indeed, I just found out now that the entire south American continent is filled with a planted population. How long has that been like that? 1000 years, 10,000 years? Oh who knows! :rolleyes:

dickwod1

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

no, maybe if you want to go back 100s of thousands of years you'd have a point.

in so much as the term "race" can be applied to any subset of people then yes they are.

We were in a huge Ice age 10,000 years ago you think that 90,000 years ago there was a Spain and a England and we were speaking different languages?

LOL the race of Spanish people, thats a good one!

Rascasse

dickwod1 wrote: »

They ARE a planted population,

Most of the population of the Americas are 'planted'. What do you want, people returned back where their ancestors were born? Or is it just the ones that want to be British?

dickwod1

RobitTV wrote: »

Yes very bizzare indeed, I just found out now that the entire south American continent is filled with a planted population. How long has that been like that? 1000 years, 10,000 years? Oh who knows! :rolleyes:

Your obvisouly confused with what a planted population is -
people moving to a different contenent is completly different than exploring ships finding a place sticking a flag in it and a few token people to claim it

dickwod1

Rascasse wrote: »

What do you want, people returned back where their ancestors were born? Or is it just the ones that want to be British?

I dont want anything at all why did you ask?

RobitTV

dickwod1 wrote: »

Your obvisouly confused with what a planted population is -
people moving to a different contenent is completly different than exploring ships finding a place sticking a flag in it and a few token people to claim it

Ermm how did Spain get to south America? Fly by plane? They used ships, found south America, captured it and planted Spanish population. Spain sticked flags you know, amazing!

Yes it's so different isn't it.

dickwod1

RobitTV wrote: »

Ermm how did Spain get to south America? Fly by plane? They used ships, found south America, captured it and planted Spanish population. Spain sticked flags you know, amazing!

Yes it's so different isn't it.

Captured it? I thought they moved there?

Cookie_Monster

dickwod1 wrote: »

We were in a huge Ice age 10,000 years ago you think that 90,000 years ago there was a Spain and a England and we were speaking different languages?

you asked if we all came from the same place 1000's of years ago, I pointed out we did not but that you'd have to go back far further than that for it to be the one place...
What has a small ice age 10k years ago got to do with anything?

dickwod1 wrote: »

LOL the race of Spanish people, thats a good one!

again they're as much as "race" as the blacks & whites, or europeans or asians or native americans, it's a incorrect term. There is only one human race, albeit with plenty of subset variations. If you choose to use that term as it's commonly incorrectly used it's perfectly valid.

Cookie_Monster

dickwod1 wrote: »

Captured it? I thought they moved there?

Yes captured it; discovered it, killed and displaced the locals and claimed sovereignty over it.

dickwod1

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

you asked if we all came from the same place 1000's of years ago, I pointed out we did not but that you'd have to go back far further than that for it to be the one place...
What has a small ice age 10k years ago got to do with anything?


again there as much as "race" as the blacks & whites, or europeans or asians or native americans, it's a incorrect term. There is only one human race, albiet with plenty of subset variations. If you choose to use that term as it's commonly incorrectly used it's perfectly valid.

Well thousands of years ago Britan was under ice ie. wasnt there didn't exist the ice line I believe is somewhere in London where Europe started and there was no sea between France
(as I said earlier we all came from the same place)

If you think the Spanish are a race of people there's nothing i can do/say about that.

Cookie_Monster

dickwod1 wrote: »

Well thousands of years ago Britan was under ice ie. wasnt there didn't exist the ice line I believe is somewhere in London where Europe started and there was no sea between France
(as I said earlier we all came from the same place)

so it was there under the ice but didn't exist at the same time?

If you think the Spanish are a race of people there's nothing i can do/say about that.

no I did not say that, did you even bother to read what I wrote. There is only one "race" of humans. If you want me to use to term "ethnicity" to make it more clear I'll use that instead, they are a separate distinct ethnic group.

Coming back to the point the Falkland Island are ethnic British, not Spanish or Argentinian of even their own local ethnic group. They've just confirmed their wish to stay ethnically and legally British.

dickwod1

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

so it was there under the ice but didn't exist at the same time?

Yes, who lived there? in conditions like we have at the north pole today - Nobody.

You could not see it touch it and if you walked over it you wouldn't even know it was there,

So yes was under the ice but didn't exist at the same time

LordSutch

dickwod1 wrote: »

So the people who were planted there by the Brits voted to stay with the Brits, that's surprising :rolleyes:

You're propably half British yourself, what with the 800 years of oppression interaction and all that

Hunterbiker

LordSutch wrote: »

You're propably half British yourself, what with the 800 years of oppression interaction and all that

Sssshhhhhhhh!

Hunterbiker

No surprises then...

If this was France, Germany, Holland, Belgium etc no one would care it wouldn't really make the headlines and more importantly wouldn't be talked about on Boards

Yawn. Move on please nothing to see here.

Edited....How could I have forgotten Spain? Its not as if they were well known for being a colonial power in that part of the World. Best not mention Portugal either...

everdead.ie

I'm a bit surprised 3 people voted no I wonder was it a vote for independence, argentine sovereignty or a miscount?

Anyway it's as you were.

Happyman42

Oh look, morning has dawned and the people have voted and the colonial issue is solved. Smart move Britian, the Argentinians didn't see that one coming. :rolleyes:

gallag

Happyman42 wrote: »

Oh look, morning has dawned and the people have voted and the colonial issue is solved. Smart move Britian, the Argentinians didn't see that one coming. :rolleyes:

Just to be clear, if Scotland votes to leave the UK will self determination be important again to you?

Happyman42

gallag wrote: »

Just to be clear, if Scotland votes to leave the UK will self determination be important again to you?

There is no 3rd party involved in the Scottish vote. This is just arrogance and a stupid inflamatory play by the British and I'm sorry to say, it is true to form.

Hunterbiker

Happyman42 wrote: »

Happyman they've (The Falkland Islanders) been there for a few generations at least. They have every right to express an opinion and have a say in their own future.
They do not speak Spainish (or should that be Argentinian ) and its been like that since before Argentina existed as a Country.

And I wonder if your obvious concern for the'dispossessed' Argentians would be there if Spain had the islands instead of the UK. I doubt it would even register with you.

If you want to worry about the real losers in South America think about the indigenous people dispossessed by Spanish and Portugese settlers of years ago. My feeling is you won't but maybe thats because all that happaned years ago...

It's also worth mentioning that at the time'The Brits' were going about stealing Islands in the South Atlantic Britons from Ireland were just as active colonising places as Britons from Wales, Scotland and England were but that's a whole different chapter of joint history to ignore isn' t it?

Happyman42

Hunterbiker wrote: »

Happyman42 wrote: »

Happyman they've (The Falkland Islanders) been there for a few generations at least. They have every right to express an opinion and have a say in their own future.
They do not speak Spainish (or should that be Argentinian ) and its been like that since before Argentina existed as a Country.

And I wonder if your obvious concern for the'dispossessed' Argentians would be there if Spain had the islands instead of the UK. I doubt it would even register with you.

If you want to worry about the real losers in South America think about the indigenous people dispossessed by Spanish and Portugese settlers of years ago. My feeling is you won't but maybe thats because all that happaned years ago...

It's also worth mentioning that at the time'The Brits' were going about stealing Islands in the South Atlantic Britons from Ireland were just as active colonising places as Britons from Wales, Scotland and England were but that's a whole different chapter of joint history to ignore isn' t it?

We can all be on here into infinity discussing history, pre-history etc etc, IT DOESN'T resolve the ongoing problem here, an ongoing and persistant claim by Argentina to these islands. Inevitably the British will have to address that, they always do, usually after unneccessary bloodshed forces them to.

Yes, the islands are populated by British people, but they are British people with an ongoing problem to solve and this sham referendum won't solve it. I find it curious and sometimes laughable that we have people on here shouting for the supremacy of those rights, but on other threads they are rubbishing the rights of the majority in other countries, like in Venezeula, or in Iraq or in Ireland etc. Seems to me that the name 'British' or 'America' changes the rules for these people. If an indigenous people upset the capitalist, imperialist carts of those two countries they get uncritical support on here. Curious.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

Oh look, morning has dawned and the people have voted and the colonial issue is solved. Smart move Britian, the Argentinians didn't see that one coming. :rolleyes:

It really pains you that Britain are in the right here doesn't it.

Hunterbiker

Happyman42 wrote: »

Hunterbiker wrote: »

We can all be on here into infinity discussing history, pre-history etc etc, IT DOESN'T resolve the ongoing problem here, an ongoing and persistant claim by Argentina to these islands. Inevitably the British will have to address that, they always do, usually after unneccessary bloodshed forces them to.

Yes, the islands are populated by British people, but they are British people with an ongoing problem to solve and this sham referendum won't solve it. I find it curious and sometimes laughable that we have people on here shouting for the supremacy of those rights, but on other threads they are rubbishing the rights of the majority in other countries, like in Venezeula, or in Iraq or in Ireland etc. Seems to me that the name 'British' or 'America' changes the rules for these people. If an indigenous people upset the capitalist, imperialist carts of those two countries they get uncritical support on here. Curious.

But they aren't British exactly are they (Islanders have a slightly different passport)
They have their own elected Government that decided to hold the referendum. It wasn't decided by London but by the Islanders.
Argentina failing to recognise them as having a say doesn't make Argentina right.

I am not rubbishing the rights of anyone merely saying that the Islanders shoukd have the main say in their own future.

I find it laughable that its Argentina taking on the role of Colonial Aggressor tgey must have learned that from Spain

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It really pains you that Britain are in the right here doesn't it.

No, it doesn't really affect me either way, but I can emphatise with those who lose out to the 'goodwill and rightness' of world powers. I understand why somebody might be upset as they are being robbed or bombed for the 'greater good' or being bombed into the acceptance of 'gifts' :rolleyes: and I understand why people are routinely forced to respond by doing the same. It is one of the tragedies of ours and world history.

Busted Flat.

RobitTV wrote: »

BREAKING: VOTE RESULTS AS FOLLOWS

YES VOTES: 98.8% (1513)
NO VOTES: 3

Islanders vote overwhelmingly to remain British!

I must say totally unexpected, fantastic result. Democracy thrives in the south Atlantic. :rolleyes:

Hunterbiker

Happyman42 wrote: »

No, it doesn't really affect me either way, but I can emphatise with those who lose out to the 'goodwill and rightness' of world powers. I understand why somebody might be upset as they are being robbed or bombed for the 'greater good' or being bombed into the acceptance of 'gifts' :rolleyes: and I understand why people are routinely forced to respond by doing the same. It is one of the tragedies of ours and world history.

IIRR it was Argentina bombing and shooting in this case though wasn't it?

The Corinthian

Happyman42 wrote: »

I'm sorry, I won't be told by you what I mean.

I don't particularly care if it upsets you that I am laying bare the slant you have been pushing from the onset of this thread. You bizarrely accused the British of being militaristic, even by your latest interpretation you accuse them of preferring resolution by the "biggest gun", ignoring the historical fact that the largest and most recent conflict for the island was not initiated by them.

Such weasel-wording is little more than propaganda, designed to set up one party in this depute as an aggressor, by you, despite historical accuracy.

I haven't forgotten anything and I am not clouded by propoganda either. There are issues to be addressed and they are not being addressed at an international level. My suspicions are that the Argentinians have a case and a point and are left with little options to do anything about it by a toothless UN, (curiously toothless yet again when it comes to sanctioning it's veto holding members or calling them to account, which is what needs to be done here first.)

Of course, there are issues to be addressed and they are not being addressed at an international level - but you can hardly blame the British for this. Argentina refused Britain's offers to take the matter for legal arbitration to the Hague in 1947, 1948 and 1955.

Today Britain also refuses this (citing the islanders right of self-determination), but Argentina's position hasn't changed either - largely because they both know that legally a decision could go either way.

Yes, France would be just as guilty in that respect.

Objectively, more so as they lack the sort of amical relations that Britain has with with some of hers (e.g. USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India), refused - until effectively ejected - to free many of them well after World War II (e.g. Algeria, Vietnam) and today the level of democracy and political stability in former French colonies is significantly lower than former British ones (even if you choose to ignore the 'white' ones, such as Australia).

But that is secondary to the fact that you didn't even mention them - you've not actually mentioned colonialism outside of the British sphere at all until now. You've not even accepted that Argentina is essentially a colonial power in the Falklands dispute.

I got sideswiped defending the pathetic, off topic, anti-British for the sake of it, accusations. like the one below.

Don't tell porkies. It's pretty clear to all that when you spoke of this dispute you've only been pushing the Argentine arguments, ignoring the British ones. And that when you've spoken of the ills of colonialism, you've only referenced British colonialism, ignoring all others - including Argentina.

You've had a transparently anti-British stance from the onset of this discussion and I've hardly been the only one who's pointed this out to you. So maybe you should come clean and tell the truth for once, instead of attempting this dire attempt at pushing your agenda with the subtlety of a lemon.

And before you accuse me of an opposing agenda, my position is that my ideal position is to see the matter arbitrated by international law as long as the islanders are taken care of, one way or another. Failing that (as is the case, as no one seems willing to peruse arbitration), that it becomes the choice of the islanders themselves.

In this case, it favours the British position, but there are many other cases where it has not.

dickwod1 wrote: »

People hundreds of years ago moving to an island 300 miles away is hardly like a plantation from a country 8000 miles away

Nice to see you agree with the Ulster plantations then... :rolleyes:

dickwod1 wrote: »

Your obvisouly confused with what a planted population is

Actually you are. The demographics of the Americas (north and south) does still contain those of indigenous origin, but don't overestimate this.

Bolivia probably has the highest percentage of indigenous population, Brazil about half (of which all but a small percentage is mixed with non-indigenous ancestry).

Argentina, on the other hand, have very little indigenous population, with 86.4% of the population being of European decent and only 3% of the population estimated to be of predominatly Amerindian ancestry. Pretty planted population, don't you think?

All before you consider that the Falklands was uninhabited, so Argentine, British or whatever, it would have been completely planted.

I hope this explains to you what a 'planted population' actually is.

dickwod1 wrote: »

Captured it? I thought they moved there?

Please, please, please open a few books before posting again.

Happyman42

Hunterbiker wrote: »

IIRR it was Argentina bombing and shooting in this case though wasn't it?

In 1982, yes they where. One Argentinian soldier died as a result of injuries sustained in the occupation.
As cabinet papers reveal, the British, Thatcher and Francis Pym, where inclined to negotiate a settlement, and where being heavily pressured by the Americans to do just that. But they where persuaded by the Navy to respond aggressively and so we had the massive bloodshed. It didn't have to be like that at all and as we see it didn't solve the problem of these islanders security, just like this referendum won't solve it.
A strenghting and supportive South America has changed the game and I think it is only a matter of time before the Argentinians do something similar, the islanders may very well be sarcrificed to expediency this time. Which would be true to form for the British, ask any Orangeman or Loyalist about that, they are complaining about them doing the same thing to them.

Happyman42

The Corinthian wrote: »

I don't particularly care if it upsets you that I am laying bare the slant you have been pushing from the onset of this thread. You bizarrely accused the British of being militaristic, even by your latest interpretation you accuse them of preferring resolution by the "biggest gun", ignoring the historical fact that the largest and most recent conflict for the island was not initiated by them.

Yeh right, I tried to obscure the Falklands War.:D Let it go, you misread what I said. Last time, what I said was that the British, by their actions are making this dispute about 'who has the biggest gun', it doesn't have to be that way and won't secure the rights and security of these islanders.

Hunterbiker

Happyman42 wrote: »

In 1982, yes they where. One Argentinian soldier died as a result of injuries sustained in the occupation.
As cabinet papers reveal, the British, Thatcher and Francis Pym, where inclined to negotiate a settlement, and where being heavily pressured by the Americans to do just that. But they where persuaded by the Navy to respond aggressively and so we had the massive bloodshed. It didn't have to be like that at all and as we see it didn't solve the problem of these islanders security, just like this referendum won't solve it.
A strenghting and supportive South America has changed the game and I think it is only a matter of time before the Argentinians do something similar, the islanders may very well be sarcrificed to expediency this time. Which would be true to form for the British, ask any Orangeman or Loyalist about that, they are complaining about them doing the same thing to them.

I think the idea of a strengthening and supportive South America won't last.
Argentina is fast becoming an embarrassment to its neighbours. It's President's efforts at The UN haven't done much apart from galvanised the feelings of the Islanders.

Any further escalation by Argentina us just as likely to incur the wroth of The UN and the US would likely come in to support the Islanders.

This vote is just another step on the road to Argentina having to recognise the rxisting population. Sabre rattling doesn't work. Spain realised that in trying to sort Gibralter

The Corinthian

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yeh right, I tried to obscure the Falklands War.:D

No, I thought that at first, but you actually tried to paint the British as the aggressors in it, by arguing that war is in their interests.

Last time, what I said was that the British, by their actions are making this dispute about 'who has the biggest gun', it doesn't have to be that way and won't secure the rights and security of these islanders.

I don't think it is an ideal solution, but it appears your solution would have been that in 1982 the British should have simply accepted the situation, brought about by the military belligerence of another nation.

And for some reason you also seem to believe that the rights and security of these islanders would have been served by a nation under an undemocratic Junta, that probably would have seen them as foreign interlopers. Not likely.

Somehow, I can't see you accepting British presence in Northern Ireland for the sake of peace and a lasting settlement though. But that seems to be a general motif of your rather hypocritical views.