Imperialistic Argentina once more extends its soiled talons

[Chariot of Fire]

Wormholes would certainly save Britain some time getting around the planet imposing its will upon a grateful people

[GreecePwns]

Its good to know the upcoming referendum well be a rigged vote, sym. I'm only using your words.

The referendum where both sides can import people is the most fair. Neither side gets to choose who votes, and the vote is not rigged. Self determination and the free market reign.

your part about the rights of those who live there is in stark contrast to your ignoring of the rights of Greek property owners of land in northern Cyprus who supremely must compromise for the land they legally purchased (and not even generations ago).

[Symmetry]

Its good to know the upcoming referendum well be a rigged vote, sym. I'm only using your words.

The referendum where both sides can import people is the most fair. Neither side gets to choose who votes, and the vote is not rigged. Self determination and the free market reign.

your part about the rights of those who live there is in stark contrast to your ignoring of the rights of Greek property owners of land in northern Cyprus who supremely must compromise for the land they legally purchased (and not even generations ago).

Yeah, usually when you use another persons words quotes are kind of key. Sources are kind of nice too.

When I talk to you on the Cypriot issue, I sort of feel that you don't read anything I write. It's almost as if you're really, really, really drunk when you reply.

I don't want to be unnecessarily augmentative- it's possible that someone is transcribing your gibberish while you have a stroke, and obviously my sympathy (I only have one) is with you in that case.

So anyway, sober up, or find a nurse that can locate the shift button on a keyboard with a degree of regularity.

[GreecePwns]

I was typing on a phone, so some words got jumbled by the auto-correct. Please forgive me. Instead of "supremely" it should say "ironically." Happy?

I'm sorry I don't accept your "Turkey should be willing to compromise" position. It implies that the actions of the TRNC are those that can simply by compromised into acceptability. There comes a point where one cannot compromise their wrong actions, and that's where the law comes in.

[saxitoxin]

Its good to know the upcoming referendum well be a rigged vote, sym. I'm only using your words.

The referendum where both sides can import people is the most fair. Neither side gets to choose who votes, and the vote is not rigged. Self determination and the free market reign.

your part about the rights of those who live there is in stark contrast to your ignoring of the rights of Greek property owners of land in northern Cyprus who supremely must compromise for the land they legally purchased (and not even generations ago).

Yeah, usually when you use another persons words quotes are kind of key. Sources are kind of nice too.

When I talk to you on the Cypriot issue, I sort of feel that you don't read anything I write. It's almost as if you're really, really, really drunk when you reply.

I don't want to be unnecessarily augmentative- it's possible that someone is transcribing your gibberish while you have a stroke, and obviously my sympathy (I only have one) is with you in that case.

So anyway, sober up, or find a nurse that can locate the shift button on a keyboard with a degree of regularity.

you stay classy, Symm

[BigBallinStalin]

The country is entirely illegally squatted property.

How long before it stops being "illegally squatted property"?

100 years? 1000 ? Never ?

Ask the Palestinians. I think they've got the longest record in being occupied yet still retaining their "nation"ality.

[BigBallinStalin]

Did I say they should give up their homes?I said that their referendum holds no value at all due to their being imported people.

The solution I propose is to allow all who wish to do so and own property become citizens of a sovereign Falklands, not of Britain, for a period of five to ten years. Then we can talk referenda. if we are to accept the importing of people, we should allow both sides to do so and see who wins at the polls.

This would demand that Falkland Islanders give up their rights to self determination for five to ten years. When you say "both sides", I take it you don't consider the rights of the people who live there.

I'm not in favour of your "importing people" till the Falkland people are outnumbered by imported immigrants solely there to skew a vote policy.

That would be vote rigging.

And the British-controlled immigration policy which would lead to an expected outcome through referendum is not "vote rigging"?

[BigBallinStalin]

If this were about ethnic purity, I would have said even a word about kicking illegal residents off of either island. mine and indeed saxis argument is entirely based of of international law and its enforcement, which you seem to care little about, given your stances on both islands'issues.

I'm very much in favour of international law-

LMAO! You're in favor of international law when it goes your way. When the source of international law - the UN - rules that Isles Malvinas are occupied and Britain must enter negotiations then you're not so much in favor of it.

"Law" doesn't portend an a la carte selection of rules. It means an objective standard and obedience to a body tasked with interpreting that standard (the UN) even when you are ruled against.

Excellent point. When the law becomes arbitrary, it is no longer just.


If the British opposition in this thread held no nationalist sentiments, I wonder if they would approach this matter from a more objective viewpoint.

[Symmetry]

If this were about ethnic purity, I would have said even a word about kicking illegal residents off of either island. mine and indeed saxis argument is entirely based of of international law and its enforcement, which you seem to care little about, given your stances on both islands'issues.

I'm very much in favour of international law-

LMAO! You're in favor of international law when it goes your way. When the source of international law - the UN - rules that Isles Malvinas are occupied and Britain must enter negotiations then you're not so much in favor of it.

"Law" doesn't portend an a la carte selection of rules. It means an objective standard and obedience to a body tasked with interpreting that standard (the UN) even when you are ruled against.

Excellent point. When the law becomes arbitrary, it is no longer just.


If the British opposition in this thread held no nationalist sentiments, I wonder if they would approach this matter from a more objective viewpoint.

I guess I have a certain degree of nationalism, it's difficult not to, but that's why my position is not a simple "Britain should control the Falklands" kind of stand point. But rather that it should be up to the population of the Falklands.

If they want to be part of Argentina, or even if they want to be independent of the UK and Argentina, that's fine by me.

[GreecePwns]

Well, when the vote is rigged (using your definition), then the vote doesn't matter. I feel my proposition is the most moderate one, despite my actual position on the issue being one strongly in favor of Argentina's claim.

[BigBallinStalin]

If this were about ethnic purity, I would have said even a word about kicking illegal residents off of either island. mine and indeed saxis argument is entirely based of of international law and its enforcement, which you seem to care little about, given your stances on both islands'issues.

I'm very much in favour of international law-

LMAO! You're in favor of international law when it goes your way. When the source of international law - the UN - rules that Isles Malvinas are occupied and Britain must enter negotiations then you're not so much in favor of it.

"Law" doesn't portend an a la carte selection of rules. It means an objective standard and obedience to a body tasked with interpreting that standard (the UN) even when you are ruled against.

Excellent point. When the law becomes arbitrary, it is no longer just.


If the British opposition in this thread held no nationalist sentiments, I wonder if they would approach this matter from a more objective viewpoint.

I guess I have a certain degree of nationalism, it's difficult not to, but that's why my position is not a simple "Britain should control the Falklands" kind of stand point. But rather that it should be up to the population of the Falklands.

If they want to be part of Argentina, or even if they want to be independent of the UK and Argentina, that's fine by me.

Essentially, your position is the same as "Britain should control the Falklands" because you're choosing a means which will lead to your desired outcome. That's very convenient for you, and it's interesting that you ignore that the referendum is basically rigged with the decades-enforced immigration policy by the UK.

If a referendum didn't lead to your desired outcome, it's very likely you wouldn't support it.

[Symmetry]

Not true, I have no particular wish to see the Falklands remain British. The referendum is not "rigged", it simply asks the people who live there, and have lived there for generations what they want. That's kind of the key principle of self-determination.

I also support the Scottish referendum on being part of the UK. I hope that they vote to remain British, but if they don't (as seems likely) I support their decision.

[saxitoxin]

Not true, I have no particular wish to see the Falklands remain British. The referendum is not "rigged", it simply asks the people who live there, and have lived there for generations what they want. That's kind of the key principle of self-determination.

I also support the Scottish referendum on being part of the UK. I hope that they vote to remain British, but if they don't (as seems likely) I support their decision.

If Dewsbury voted to become part of Pakistan, you'd support that, also?

[Symmetry]

Not true, I have no particular wish to see the Falklands remain British. The referendum is not "rigged", it simply asks the people who live there, and have lived there for generations what they want. That's kind of the key principle of self-determination.

I also support the Scottish referendum on being part of the UK. I hope that they vote to remain British, but if they don't (as seems likely) I support their decision.

If Dewsbury voted to become part of Pakistan, you'd support that, also?

Is there a reason I shouldn't?

[saxitoxin]

Not true, I have no particular wish to see the Falklands remain British. The referendum is not "rigged", it simply asks the people who live there, and have lived there for generations what they want. That's kind of the key principle of self-determination.

I also support the Scottish referendum on being part of the UK. I hope that they vote to remain British, but if they don't (as seems likely) I support their decision.

If Dewsbury voted to become part of Pakistan, you'd support that, also?

Is there a reason I shouldn't?

You previously said you wouldn't support ten Chinese citizens landing on one of the uninhabited outer Hebrides and voting to make it part of China, so I'm wondering what limits you're imagining today.

[saxitoxin]

Most of the Galapagos Islands have no human population. If some random group of people landed on one of them and voted to make it part of another country, they should be allowed and there's shit Ecuador could do about it.

No one is living within the circle of Stonehenge. If some random group of people popped a tent and voted to make Stonehenge part of another country, they should be allowed.

According to Symmetry, countries have to actively inhabit every square inch of their territory or it's a free-for-all. This is why the UN, in its sober judgment, does not support positions of insanity like this one.

[Symmetry]

Not true, I have no particular wish to see the Falklands remain British. The referendum is not "rigged", it simply asks the people who live there, and have lived there for generations what they want. That's kind of the key principle of self-determination.

I also support the Scottish referendum on being part of the UK. I hope that they vote to remain British, but if they don't (as seems likely) I support their decision.

If Dewsbury voted to become part of Pakistan, you'd support that, also?

Is there a reason I shouldn't?

You previously said you wouldn't support ten Chinese citizens landing on one of the uninhabited outer Hebrides and voting to make it part of China, so I'm wondering what limits you're imagining today.

I think that would be one of the more reasonable limits.

[saxitoxin]

Not true, I have no particular wish to see the Falklands remain British. The referendum is not "rigged", it simply asks the people who live there, and have lived there for generations what they want. That's kind of the key principle of self-determination.

I also support the Scottish referendum on being part of the UK. I hope that they vote to remain British, but if they don't (as seems likely) I support their decision.

If Dewsbury voted to become part of Pakistan, you'd support that, also?

Is there a reason I shouldn't?

You previously said you wouldn't support ten Chinese citizens landing on one of the uninhabited outer Hebrides and voting to make it part of China, so I'm wondering what limits you're imagining today.

I think that would be one of the more reasonable limits.

You have no objective standard by which you come up with these limits. It's all based on gut feeling.

Law is made according to objective standards, not gut feelings.

You simply don't support the rule of law. That's fine. There are plenty of people in the world just like you. Example:

[Symmetry]

If Dewsbury voted to become part of Pakistan, you'd support that, also?

Is there a reason I shouldn't?

You previously said you wouldn't support ten Chinese citizens landing on one of the uninhabited outer Hebrides and voting to make it part of China, so I'm wondering what limits you're imagining today.

I think that would be one of the more reasonable limits.

You have no objective standard by which you come up with these limits. It's all based on gut feeling.

Law is made according to objective standards, not gut feelings.

You simply don't support the rule of law. That's fine. There are plenty of people in the world just like you. Example:

I have no objection to being compared to Johnny Depp.

[saxitoxin]

If Dewsbury voted to become part of Pakistan, you'd support that, also?

Is there a reason I shouldn't?

You previously said you wouldn't support ten Chinese citizens landing on one of the uninhabited outer Hebrides and voting to make it part of China, so I'm wondering what limits you're imagining today.

I think that would be one of the more reasonable limits.

You have no objective standard by which you come up with these limits. It's all based on gut feeling.

Law is made according to objective standards, not gut feelings.

You simply don't support the rule of law. That's fine. There are plenty of people in the world just like you. Example:

I have no objection to being compared to Johnny Depp.

I have no objection to comparing you to Johnny Depp.

[Dukasaur]

Law is made according to objective standards, not gut feelings.

Which law is that? All the laws I've ever read were written either by the Parasites in Parliament, or by their flunkies. Is there some Shangri-La where this is not the case?

[Symmetry]

Falklands responds to Argentine approaches on fishing and flights

THE Falkland Islands Government has responded to a letter to the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) from the Argentine Government that offered discussions on airlinks to the Falklands and fisheries co-operation.

Member of the Falkland Islands Legislative Assembly Mike Summers said: "Given that these issues are the responsibility of the Falkland Islands Government the FCO sought the advice of the Assembly. We responded to the FCO in a letter dated 6th June, and this has been forwarded to the Argentine Government under a cover of a letter from the FCO dated 7th June."

The letter from the Falklands' Government notes that the proposals set out in the original letter from the Argentine Ambassador Alicia Castro, "are made not within a context of amity and friendship towards the Falkland Islands people but against a backdrop of increasing hostility."

The letter outlines that backdrop including ongoing attempts to target the Falklands fishing industry through the harassment of vessels and the denial of port access to ships flying the Falklands flag, and also outlines the value of the Chilean LAN flight to and from the Falklands.

It continues: "A welcome first step would be for the Government of Argentina – if it is sincere about improving air links to the Islands – to rescind its unjustified and illegal ban on charter flights overflying Argentina which, since 2003 has impeded access for tourists, business travellers and other visitors. This would be the sort of confidence-building measure which would allow discussions of other proposals, both those from the Argentine Government and others which we might wish to table."

On the subject of fishing the letter notes among other things: "We would welcome the resumption of scientific exchanges under the auspices of the South Atlantic Fisheries commission. It is a matter of profound regret that the Government of Argentina walked away from the SAFC."

The letter signed by the Hon Sharon Halford MLA concludes saying, "the Falkland Islands Government hopes these offers from Argentina herald a more positive and constructive approach to the Islands than we have experienced from them recently."

The Argentine Government has acknowledged receipt of the letters but has not responded.

[Symmetry]

For peeps who think that the people living in the Falklands should be ethnically cleansed.

[BigBallinStalin]

Banning flights = ethnic cleansing?

[Symmetry]

Banning flights = ethnic cleansing?

It certainly looks like a prelude to it, doesn't it? Why else cut off a major tie between the Falkland islanders and Argentinians? What do you think it is that the Argentinian government doesn't want its people to see? Why else would they try to restrict Falkland islanders from visiting and talking to Argentinians?

I think you're right to be suspicious and to ask important questions. Stay brave and independent minded, BBS.