Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

For those of you that don't know, the residents of the Falkland Islands recently voted to remain a British overseas territory to the tune of a 99.8% majority.

I was curious whether this result maybe changes opinion on Argentina's claim on the islands? There is an argument that because the population was 'planted' by the Brits, then it isn't valid, but many of the residents are 8 or 9th generation islanders, so at what point do they become an indigenous population?

So that I don't get accused of being a colonial Brit, I'll add that I'm hoping my own nation vote to split from the uk in the next couple of years (Scotland), but as far as I'm concerned, if the residents of the islands have voted to remain attached to the uk, then their democratic wishes should be honoured by the international community.

Answers on a postcard!

I don't know whether I count as an Anglophile, and I am certainly rather wary of revived British nationalism, but I supported Britain's claim on the Falklands before this referendum. Now, it seems there should be no further question on the issue.

Why are you wary of British Nationalism?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean the only times that the British aren't cool is when they're going about hating themselves because they're awesome.

It's not the British part of British nationalism that makes me wary; it's the nationalism part.

Nationalism in Britain can have some rather dark undertones - the 'British national party', which claim to be a nationalist party, are really just a cesspit of racists and homophobes. It's more about hating people different to the prescribed 'white Englishman' than celebrating the positive aspects of nationalism.

As a result, the word nationalism can be viewed in a negative light here.

 Eggs wrote:
For those of you that don't know, the residents of the Falkland Islands recently voted to remain a British overseas territory to the tune of a 99.8% majority.

I was curious whether this result maybe changes opinion on Argentina's claim on the islands? There is an argument that because the population was 'planted' by the Brits, then it isn't valid, but many of the residents are 8 or 9th generation islanders, so at what point do they become an indigenous population?

So that I don't get accused of being a colonial Brit, I'll add that I'm hoping my own nation vote to split from the uk in the next couple of years (Scotland), but as far as I'm concerned, if the residents of the islands have voted to remain attached to the uk, then their democratic wishes should be honoured by the international community.

Answers on a postcard!

The Argentinian president just called them a bunch of squatters.

Agreed Eggs, Nationalism, as opposed to Patriotism, is an ugly thing, though the two are frequently confused. A great quote that explains the difference is this:

"The difference between patriotism and nationalism is that the patriot is proud of his country for what it does, and the nationalist is proud of his country no matter what it does; the first attitude creates a feeling of responsibility, but the second a feeling of blind arrogance that leads to war."

Sydney J. Harris

I can’t remember where I first heard it, but it’s always stuck with me.

Anyway in regards to the Falklands the matter is fairly cut and dry. There is no ‘indigenous’ population that was displaced to make way for the Islanders which makes them the default native pollution. Argentina didn’t even exist as a country when the Islands was first settled so they cannot claim to have had them 'stolen'. They have no basis for claim aside from geographical proximity. If this was sufficient then France could demand Jersey or Canada lay claim to Alaska.

If the Islanders wish to remain British then that should be the end of the matter. Self determination is the right of any peoples.

I just wish that Argentina would stop being such sanctimoneous feths about it. It's not about "colonialism" or "imperialism", it's about the dang oil now, and pretty much everyone knows it. If the islanders who have lived there for 9 generations say they want to remain British, then let them. No one lived there before they got there and it's been British for almost as long as Argentina's been a sovereign nation. Considering Argentina dropped it's dispute in 1849 and didn't take it up again until almost 100 years later (1941), the islands obviously can't be that important to them.


EDIT: I don't know how international law works, but couldn't one claim that it's a case of usucaption and that, since Argentina dropped the case for a century, the islands are, both de jure and de facto, the property of the United Kingdom?

Nice quote, LuciusAR!

My feelings on the Falklands? Support for the Brits. The people there voted almost 100% to remain a British territory, then so be it.

The Argentinians make excellent Cab Sav wine, though. Not as good as Chile, but good enough to potentially sway my vote...

To put the referendum in perspective a grand total of 3 people voted for the island to cease to be a British territory. There is literally nothing that the Argentinians can do about this. They have no realistic legal claim, the inhabitants have voted in a referendum to remain British, which will be respected by the internation community and the UN, and if they try to invade again they will be extremely lucky to even make landfall. Its high time to move on.

I think the referendum was a waste of time if it was expected to change Argentina's mind; to me it was more to convince the rest of the world.

Who cares if Argentina doesn't like it so long as the rest of the world support it? Argentina has made it very clear that self-determination is meaningless to them; can any other country, developing or developed, really risk saying the same thing?

Hopefully Kirchner will be voted out in the next election (this whole charade was only started to try and secure her another term, after all), at which point I hope this issue will be laid to rest for a while.

 Palindrome wrote:
To put the referendum in perspective a grand total of 3 people voted for the island to cease to be a British territory. There is literally nothing that the Argentinians can do about this. They have no realistic legal claim, the inhabitants have voted in a referendum to remain British, which will be respected by the internation community and the UN, and if they try to invade again they will be extremely lucky to even make landfall. Its high time to move on.

Well... if they invade again...

Would the UK invade Argentina? Or, a least carve out a territory like the old Hong Kong?

I don't think the uk would carve out Argentinian territory, but if they were provoked into another conflict, I don't think the fighting would be limited to just the islands a second time around. I wouldn't be surprised if a few missiles were hurled at buenos aires to try and put the matter to bed permanently.

 whembly wrote:

 Palindrome wrote:
To put the referendum in perspective a grand total of 3 people voted for the island to cease to be a British territory. There is literally nothing that the Argentinians can do about this. They have no realistic legal claim, the inhabitants have voted in a referendum to remain British, which will be respected by the internation community and the UN, and if they try to invade again they will be extremely lucky to even make landfall. Its high time to move on.

Well... if they invade again...

Would the UK invade Argentina? Or, a least carve out a territory like the old Hong Kong?

No. There's no point in it and it'd lose them international goodwill. Standing as the valiant defenders of the people against the tyrrany of oppression is a much more positive image than standing as the omnicidical murdering angel retaliating with extreme prejudice. Just look at the history of the US the last 10-15 years.

Don't really care one way or another, but it's always been pretty clear Argentina is in the wrong here.

 Avatar 720 wrote:
I think the referendum was a waste of time if it was expected to change Argentina's mind; to me it was more to convince the rest of the world.

Who cares if Argentina doesn't like it so long as the rest of the world support it? Argentina has made it very clear that self-determination is meaningless to them; can any other country, developing or developed, really risk saying the same thing?

Hopefully Kirchner will be voted out in the next election (this whole charade was only started to try and secure her another term, after all), at which point I hope this issue will be laid to rest for a while.

Almost certainly. With Argentina attempting to conjure the spectre of colonialism in an effort to attach negative stigma to British control of the islands, the referendum is a useful tool in the battle for hearts and minds, it focuses the issue on those most affected by it.

 Eggs wrote:
I don't think the uk would carve out Argentinian territory, but if they were provoked into another conflict, I don't think the fighting would be limited to just the islands a second time around. I wouldn't be surprised if a few missiles were hurled at buenos aires to try and put the matter to bed permanently.

I think lobbing a few missiles into Buenos Aires indiscriminately would be the worst thing that the UK could do if invaded. However, it's highly unlikely that Argentina will do anything but sabre rattle.

Sabre rattling definitely, but we are back to an Argentina with a tanking economy, desperate leadership and protests in the streets... And we are without Aircraft carriers this time.

No carriers, no jump jets. Our navy looks shoddy in comparison to where we were 30 years ago.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Sabre rattling definitely, but we are back to an Argentina with a tanking economy, desperate leadership and protests in the streets... And we are without Aircraft carriers this time.

No carriers, no jump jets. Our navy looks shoddy in comparison to where we were 30 years ago.

It was pretty shoddy back then already. Our fleet was supplemented with cruise ships.

And the single Vulcan bombing raid we managed necessitated a ridiculously complex system of tankers refuelling tankers to refuel Vulcans.

One problem is that almost Argentinians were European a few short centuries ago.
What happened to the original South Americans?

It all seems to boil down to the Argentinians seem to having been in the area longer, and want everything around them.
The Brits turned up later.

As for the referendum, They just asked the British Falkland Islanders whether they want to stay there and stay British, or allow the Argies to move in in their place.
What did they think the answer would be?

 Flashman wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Sabre rattling definitely, but we are back to an Argentina with a tanking economy, desperate leadership and protests in the streets... And we are without Aircraft carriers this time.

No carriers, no jump jets. Our navy looks shoddy in comparison to where we were 30 years ago.

It was pretty shoddy back then already. Our fleet was supplemented with cruise ships.

And the single Vulcan bombing raid we managed necessitated a ridiculously complex system of tankers refuelling tankers to refuel Vulcans.

We could trade trade Diego Garcia for refuelling operations.

 Flashman wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Sabre rattling definitely, but we are back to an Argentina with a tanking economy, desperate leadership and protests in the streets... And we are without Aircraft carriers this time.

No carriers, no jump jets. Our navy looks shoddy in comparison to where we were 30 years ago.

It was pretty shoddy back then already. Our fleet was supplemented with cruise ships.

And the single Vulcan bombing raid we managed necessitated a ridiculously complex system of tankers refuelling tankers to refuel Vulcans.

I'm not quite up to date on our modern navy, but I get the impression that we'd be relying quite heavily on the Type 45 destroyers, assisted by the Typhoons stationed on the islands.

 Eggs wrote:
For those of you that don't know, the residents of the Falkland Islands recently voted to remain a British overseas territory to the tune of a 99.8% majority.

I was curious whether this result maybe changes opinion on Argentina's claim on the islands? There is an argument that because the population was 'planted' by the Brits, then it isn't valid, but many of the residents are 8 or 9th generation islanders, so at what point do they become an indigenous population?

So that I don't get accused of being a colonial Brit, I'll add that I'm hoping my own nation vote to split from the uk in the next couple of years (Scotland), but as far as I'm concerned, if the residents of the islands have voted to remain attached to the uk, then their democratic wishes should be honoured by the international community.

Answers on a postcard!

The Argentines don't claim the people, just the land. This is basically the same as if the US landed colonists on some uninhabited rock in the South China Sea, and then the colonists had a referendum on whether or not they wanted to remain part of the United States or become a Chinese territory (the difference being that the Falkland Islanders have been there for over a century and the colonists haven't... but Argentina has laid claim to the islands since the start regardless).

(In case you can't tell, I support the Argentine claim over the islands, even if its only because I find the situation highly amusing)

chaos0xomega wrote:

The Argentines don't claim the people, just the land. This is basically the same as if the US landed colonists on some uninhabited rock in the South China Sea, and then the colonists had a referendum on whether or not they wanted to remain part of the United States or become a Chinese territory (the difference being that the Falkland Islanders have been there for over a century and the colonists haven't... but Argentina has laid claim to the islands since the start regardless).

(In case you can't tell, I support the Argentine claim over the islands, even if its only because I find the situation highly amusing)

The war dead do not share your sense of humor.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Eggs wrote:
For those of you that don't know, the residents of the Falkland Islands recently voted to remain a British overseas territory to the tune of a 99.8% majority.

I was curious whether this result maybe changes opinion on Argentina's claim on the islands? There is an argument that because the population was 'planted' by the Brits, then it isn't valid, but many of the residents are 8 or 9th generation islanders, so at what point do they become an indigenous population?

So that I don't get accused of being a colonial Brit, I'll add that I'm hoping my own nation vote to split from the uk in the next couple of years (Scotland), but as far as I'm concerned, if the residents of the islands have voted to remain attached to the uk, then their democratic wishes should be honoured by the international community.

Answers on a postcard!

The Argentines don't claim the people, just the land. This is basically the same as if the US landed colonists on some uninhabited rock in the South China Sea, and then the colonists had a referendum on whether or not they wanted to remain part of the United States or become a Chinese territory (the difference being that the Falkland Islanders have been there for over a century and the colonists haven't... but Argentina has laid claim to the islands since the start regardless).

(In case you can't tell, I support the Argentine claim over the islands, even if its only because I find the situation highly amusing)

Americans who come in on the side of Argentina annoy me almost as much as Americans who think we're forcing occupation on the people of Northern Ireland. It's sheer bloody ignorance of the situation and its history.

*self edited

 Eggs wrote:

I was curious whether this result maybe changes opinion on Argentina's claim on the islands?

I've always been of the opinion that Argentina's claim is based on proximity, and force of arms. Meaning that, when the British are no longer capable of defending their claim to the Falklands, it will become Argentine territory. The actual residents of the Falklands are irrelevant.

At any rate, the new Pope weighed in last April.

 dogma wrote:

 Eggs wrote:

I was curious whether this result maybe changes opinion on Argentina's claim on the islands?

I've always been of the opinion that Argentina's claim is based on proximity, and force of arms. Meaning that, when the British are no longer capable of defending their claim to the Falklands, it will become Argentine territory. The actual residents of the Falklands are irrelevant.

At any rate, the new Pope weighed in last April.

Then they are best served trying to take them now, the next generation aircraft carriers Elizabeth II and Prince of Wales are still both 3 or more years off being ready.

Also, apparently the Pope and the Argentinian premier are bitter rivals, so perhaps he'll shift tack now.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Eggs wrote:
For those of you that don't know, the residents of the Falkland Islands recently voted to remain a British overseas territory to the tune of a 99.8% majority.

I was curious whether this result maybe changes opinion on Argentina's claim on the islands? There is an argument that because the population was 'planted' by the Brits, then it isn't valid, but many of the residents are 8 or 9th generation islanders, so at what point do they become an indigenous population?

So that I don't get accused of being a colonial Brit, I'll add that I'm hoping my own nation vote to split from the uk in the next couple of years (Scotland), but as far as I'm concerned, if the residents of the islands have voted to remain attached to the uk, then their democratic wishes should be honoured by the international community.

Answers on a postcard!

The Argentines don't claim the people, just the land. This is basically the same as if the US landed colonists on some uninhabited rock in the South China Sea, and then the colonists had a referendum on whether or not they wanted to remain part of the United States or become a Chinese territory (the difference being that the Falkland Islanders have been there for over a century and the colonists haven't... but Argentina has laid claim to the islands since the start regardless).

(In case you can't tell, I support the Argentine claim over the islands, even if its only because I find the situation highly amusing)

Americans who come in on the side of Argentina annoy me almost as much as Americans who think we're forcing occupation on the people of Northern Ireland. It's sheer bloody ignorance of the situation and its history.

Oh, oh , oh, can I play this game too?

British who come in on the side of the Palestinians annoy me almost as much as British who think they can handwave away firearms in the US. It's sheer blood ignorance of the situation and it's history.

How did I do?

Sidenote: I'm on Britains side in this one. The quoted comment just made me laugh out loud at work.

Please do not spam the forum. Thanks ~ Manchu