Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Views on Falkland & Britain/Argentina's relationship?? watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Gentle Giant)
    I think thats exceptionally harsh, the 'controversy' over the Belgrano is a uniquely British trait, no one else has questioned the legitimacy of the sinking. Any anger over it in Argentina comes from the regret over loss of life, not the fact that it was sunk unlawfully.
    You'll be surprised actually, a lot of people from traditionally Anglophobic countries like Ireland and also pacifists say that the sinking was a war crime. The relatives of those that died on the Belgrano also tried to sue the UK at the ECHR over the incident.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    So long as the inhabitants of those islands wish to remain British all and any attempts by the argentine government to invade the Falklands should be treat very seriously.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Bah, never!
    What makes you say this?
    I think eventually people will consider them more trouble than they're worth.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    I think eventually people will consider them more trouble than they're worth.
    Trouble? No one in this country is even remotely directly affected negatively by the Falklands sovereignty dispute. Argentina isn't that powerful, not by a long shot.
    Regardless, ever heard of principle?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Yes but we still pay for their defense (i'm not aware of them paying us for it).
    Do you personally pay for all £39.4 billion for YOUR defence? No, shut up. That argument is stupid and simplistic, and I'm pretty sure they pay tax, as do you.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the mezzil)
    Do you personally pay for all £39.4 billion for YOUR defence? No, shut up. That argument is stupid and simplistic, and I'm pretty sure they pay tax, as do you.
    One of the points of contention is that no UK Overseas dependencies pay tax to the UK. They are all however self sufficient in every aspect apart from defence.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the mezzil)
    Do you personally pay for all £39.4 billion for YOUR defence? No, shut up. That argument is stupid and simplistic, and I'm pretty sure they pay tax, as do you.
    (Original post by Schleigg)
    One of the points of contention is that no UK Overseas dependencies pay tax to the UK. They are all however self sufficient in every aspect apart from defence.
    Exactly what i was about to say.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    There is a Referendum happening soon in the Flaklands and both the UK and Argentina should respect the outcome.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schleigg)
    One of the points of contention is that no UK Overseas dependencies pay tax to the UK. They are all however self sufficient in every aspect apart from defence.
    St Helena (St Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cuhna) isn't self sufficient at all, the economy depends almost entirely on aid from Britain.

    The Overseas Territories in the Caribbean i.e. Bermuda, Cayman Islands etc, as well as Gibraltar are all self sufficient I agree.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by A Mysterious Lord)
    St Helena (St Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cuhna) isn't self sufficient at all, the economy depends almost entirely on aid from Britain.

    The Overseas Territories in the Caribbean i.e. Bermuda, Cayman Islands etc, as well as Gibraltar are all self sufficient I agree.
    I think we can justify helping them out a bit considering the massive strategic advantage having Ascension gives us.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Trouble? No one in this country is even remotely directly affected negatively by the Falklands sovereignty dispute.
    Yes they are, they'll have to cover any defence costs.

    Regardless, ever heard of principle?
    The principle of what?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Yes they are, they'll have to cover any defence costs.
    The defence of the Falkland Islands are sunk costs that are paid for out of the MOD budget. If our forces weren't there, they'd simply be in Germany or Cyprus or else where.
    That would be an indirect implication anyway, not a direct one.

    (Original post by anarchism101)
    The principle of what?
    Patriotism, national pride, national integrity, the right to self-determination, protecting our fellow Britons, not giving in to extortion, take your pick.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    The defence of the Falkland Islands are sunk costs that are paid for out of the MOD budget. If our forces weren't there, they'd simply be in Germany or Cyprus or else where.
    That would be an indirect implication anyway, not a direct one.
    Or we could just cut that part of the MOD budget and spend it somewhere else, or lower taxes.

    Patriotism, national pride, national integrity
    That wasn't enough to keep the other colonies, what makes you think it'll be enough to keep the Falklands?

    the right to self-determination
    You're circular reasoning here. Whether that self-determination to keep the Falklands will continue on the mainland British side is precisely what we're already debating.

    protecting our fellow Britons
    See above.

    Also, should we apply this to British ex-pat communities if they suddenly demand to be part of the UK as well?

    not giving in to extortion, take your pick.
    Extortion?! We're talking about international politics here - all states are based on extortion and theft and always have been!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Or we could just cut that part of the MOD budget and spend it somewhere else, or lower taxes.
    If you spend it somewhere else you aren't cutting it are you?
    You can't save any money there without actually reducing the size of the armed forces, because they'd still have to be garrisoned somewhere.
    Otherwise the only increased expenditure would be the extra fuel used to transport them down there.
    But okay, if you're really desperate to knock a few million off of the tax bill, which should translate into a personal saving for you of a couple of pence...

    (Original post by anarchism101)
    That wasn't enough to keep the other colonies, what makes you think it'll be enough to keep the Falklands?
    Because the Falkland Islands is a settler colony of people that want to be British. Imposing our will on people that didn't want us there is a different concept entirely.

    (Original post by anarchism101)
    You're circular reasoning here. Whether that self-determination to keep the Falklands will continue on the mainland British side is precisely what we're already debating.
    My point is that many people believe that the right to self-determination is a fundamental human right and will not easily see it trodden all over.


    (Original post by anarchism101)
    See above.

    Also, should we apply this to British ex-pat communities if they suddenly demand to be part of the UK as well?
    You really like comparing apples to oranges, don't you? The Falkland Islands is already under British jurisdiction. Protecting them involves nothing more than keeping the status quo. It is in no way comparable to invading and annexing a foreign country for the benefit of an ex-pat community that makes up a neglible percentage of that country's total population.

    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Extortion?! We're talking about international politics here - all states are based on extortion and theft and always have been!
    I fail to see your point. That doesn't mean that we give in to it, especially not such blatant naked and aggressive extortion such as being practiced by Argentina. Argentina are stepping up to us, insulting us, threatening us, extorting us, and you really want to reward them for that? What kind of spineless punk ***** little wimp are you?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schleigg)
    One of the points of contention is that no UK Overseas dependencies pay tax to the UK. They are all however self sufficient in every aspect apart from defence.
    I believe that they pay tax to their own government yes?
    And fair enough, you and the other guy personally pay all £39.4 billion since it is after all YOUR defence.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the mezzil)
    I believe that they pay tax to their own government yes?
    And fair enough, you and the other guy personally pay all £39.4 billion since it is after all YOUR defence.
    I think you'll find that defence pays me, buddy.

    It's quite simple:

    They used to be part of the UK. We administered them and their tiny economy. UK tax payers with their large economy paid for things like roads, ditches, sewers and hospitals for these tiny places and these places played by UK rules.

    Now they decided they wanted a bit of independence, so they now govern themselves and pay for their own civil expenses with their own tiny economies; however, since they are still British dependencies, they recognise QE2 as head of state and are liable to be used for British interests.

    Let's face it, half the reason we want to keep these places as dependencies is either because they are in pretty useful strategic locations, or because they want to remain British.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schleigg)
    I think you'll find that defence pays me, buddy.

    It's quite simple:

    They used to be part of the UK. We administered them and their tiny economy. UK tax payers with their large economy paid for things like roads, ditches, sewers and hospitals for these tiny places and these places played by UK rules.

    Now they decided they wanted a bit of independence, so they now govern themselves and pay for their own civil expenses with their own tiny economies; however, since they are still British dependencies, they recognise QE2 as head of state and are liable to be used for British interests.

    Let's face it, half the reason we want to keep these places as dependencies is either because they are in pretty useful strategic locations, or because they want to remain British.
    Which is a legit reason to defend them.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    If you spend it somewhere else you aren't cutting it are you?
    Semantics. Cut from one budget to increase another one.

    You can't save any money there without actually reducing the size of the armed forces, because they'd still have to be garrisoned somewhere.
    Otherwise the only increased expenditure would be the extra fuel used to transport them down there.
    What's your point? I'd have no problem with reducing the size of the armed forces.

    But okay, if you're really desperate to knock a few million off of the tax bill, which should translate into a personal saving for you of a couple of pence...
    Plenty of things that the government wastes money on translate into a couple of pence savings for me. Doesn't stop them being wastes of money, or that they all add up.

    Because the Falkland Islands is a settler colony of people that want to be British. Imposing our will on people that didn't want us there is a different concept entirely.
    How does what the colonial populations want relate to patriotism on the British mainland regarding them?

    My point is that many people believe that the right to self-determination is a fundamental human right and will not easily see it trodden all over.
    And as I've said, it cuts both ways. Self-determination doesn't mean you get to be part of whatever country you want regardless of whether the people of that country want you to be.

    Take France and Algeria. At times a higher proportion of the population of mainland France wanted Algeria to be independent than that of Algeria (both settler and native) itself did.


    You really like comparing apples to oranges, don't you? The Falkland Islands is already under British jurisdiction. Protecting them involves nothing more than keeping the status quo. It is in no way comparable to invading and annexing a foreign country for the benefit of an ex-pat community that makes up a neglible percentage of that country's total population.
    Nowhere in that did you actually explain why the Falklands already being under British jurisdiction makes it different.

    I fail to see your point. That doesn't mean that we give in to it, especially not such blatant naked and aggressive extortion such as being practiced by Argentina. Argentina are stepping up to us, insulting us, threatening us, extorting us, and you really want to reward them for that? What kind of spineless punk ***** little wimp are you?
    I don't care what Argentina is doing. That they're going the wrong way about achieving a certain end has no bearing on whether the end itself is right or wrong.

    Also, how do you think we got the Falklands in the first place? By asking nicely?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Semantics. Cut from one budget to increase another one.
    It's not semantics at all. That's still not a saving.

    (Original post by anarchism101)
    What's your point? I'd have no problem with reducing the size of the armed forces.
    I don't doubt that; you're giving off a strong naive hippie pacifist vibe. Well it's a good thing you don't decide our strategic defence policy. I bet you and Neville Chamberlain would have been best buds.

    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Plenty of things that the government wastes money on translate into a couple of pence savings for me. Doesn't stop them being wastes of money, or that they all add up.
    Except you have yet to give a credible explaination as to why it's a waste of money.

    (Original post by anarchism101)
    How does what the colonial populations want relate to patriotism on the British mainland regarding them?
    Because emotions are not matually exclusive. Being patriotic does mean you have to be void of all other emotions. You can be patriotic while accepting that keeping hold of colonies that don't want us there is untenable, and merely focus on the ones that do.

    (Original post by anarchism101)
    And as I've said, it cuts both ways. Self-determination doesn't mean you get to be part of whatever country you want regardless of whether the people of that country want you to be.
    No, that's your own interpretation of what self-determination is. The point I was making is that if people feel strongly about the islander's right to self-determination, which many people do, then they obviously want them to remain part of the UK, so 'cutting both ways' is moot.

    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Take France and Algeria. At times a higher proportion of the population of mainland France wanted Algeria to be independent than that of Algeria (both settler and native) itself did.
    That's nice. Except the majority of Britons support the status quo with the Falklands. Your opinions are in the minority and your irrelevant examples don't change that.

    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Nowhere in that did you actually explain why the Falklands already being under British jurisdiction makes it different.
    I clearly did. To enforce the self-determination of the Falkland Islanders requires us to do precisely nothing. We wouldn't have to go out of our way, invade a country, annex it and then fight an inevitable guerrilla war against the pissed of native population like we would have to do in your beyond stupid ex-pat example.

    (Original post by anarchism101)
    I don't care what Argentina is doing. That they're going the wrong way about achieving a certain end has no bearing on whether the end itself is right or wrong.
    I don't care that you don't care. And of course it does. The end doesn't justify the means. If people are squating in your house, you can't go in and murder them all. Of if your internet is down, you can't storm your ISP's headquarters with a shotgun and demand at gunpoint that they restore it. But of course if you are advocating machiavellian diplomacy, then I fail to see what problem you have with us simply keeping the Falklands and telling Argentina to stuff it in pursuance of our own aims of keeping sovereignty over the Islands.

    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Also, how do you think we got the Falklands in the first place? By asking nicely?
    We got the Falklands by being the first country to land there and claiming it. They were uninhabited. Perhaps you should brush up on your knowledge of a subject before attempting to debate it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ditching them to Argentina would be akin to giving Berkshire to the French (for example) they're British citizens on British soil it would be a crime to treat them like cattle and sell them up **** creek because of pandering to a second rate rate country.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 18, 2013
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.