could you answer the question about how self determination is sacrosanct using the examples I have given?

I would have no need to stoop to criticising you for doing this then and you will stop thinking i am attacking you for not answering 🙄

is it not legitimate to point out you cannot answer questions ?
you wont even engage because you know your principle falls down very quickly as a carte blanche rule.

To then have a go at me for point it out that you are doing this is a bit off tbh in a debate.

he says it is sacrosanct so it is not unreasonable to expect him to explain why in the cases cited it would apply after all its sacrosanct so should be easy.

At the risk of saying I have already answered the question 😉 , I said it was sacrosanct that a ‘people’ have a right to self determination, and I’m pretty sure the UN agree with me here. However, where we both fail to come to a solid conclusion is what actually constitutes a ‘people’. This appears to be Argentina’s argument that they don’t recognise the islanders as a people, rather that they are just British.

I would say however that people who were born, raised, and have lived there all their lives as a cohesive community sound more like a people than either of your suggestions (peaceful invasion of Cornwall or the Falklands to provide a majority of immigrants)

I said it was sacrosanct that a ‘people’ have a right to self determination, and I’m pretty sure the UN agree with me here.

Not or colonies they dont as they recognise they peole are settled and not indegenous – its a mixed bag re UN resolutions but i will let you google it all

However, where we both fail to come to a solid conclusion is what actually constitutes a ‘people’.

No i say the right to self determination is not a universal one in all scenarios. If we have had a place it for x period of time this does not make it yours. Its unclear what you think on this if Israel was to do it or someone to cornwall as apparently its a Straw Man rather than a counter to your point.

I would say however that people who were born, raised, and have lived there all their lives as a cohesive community sound more like a people than either of your suggestions (peaceful invasion of Cornwall or the Falklands to provide a majority of immigrants)

See above and check the UN re this
You cannot settle then claim legitimacy via a vote for fairly obvious reasons or you would have to support Israel doing this in their region and I doubt very much you want to support this.

i ignore the fact that “we” did not consider them to be even our people till after the Falkland war.

Junkyard – we already covered the significant difference between the Falklands and all of your strawmen at the top of this page.

You have no answer hence the straw man claim.

I gave you examples of the Uk govt ignoring it, noted we had not given it to the Falklands Isles till after the war and suggested it was not appropriate when discussing a planted people in an area by giving some other example.

I am awaiting a reasonable reply rather than a refusal to answer which is all the straw man claim is.

You both know your claim does not hold much water hence why you are not even prepared to try.

Which of your other examples is of somewhere where the original natives “are all dead [ and not human]”?

Oh, and I couldn’t really care less whether the UK government are doing the right thing in other cases – or would you also like to mention the Chagossians?

Which of your other examples is of somewhere where the original natives “are all dead [ and not human]”

Relevance?

The fact the Falkland isle was unpopulated at some point would seem to me to have no bearing on whether the principle applies in all scenarios given.
Yes this is a scenario and the others are different well spotted – be a bit pointless to repeat the same scenario and ask – though I may have got an answer so perhaps not. Perhaps you could explain how your principle applies or does not apply in those scenarios rather than say they are different and therefore a straw man? Its a relevant and reasonable question

Oh, and I couldn’t really care less whether the UK government are doing the right thing in other cases

Thanks but I am still trying to establish if you think it is always right to go with self determination – could you just answer that for me
Is it always right?

– or would you also like to mention the Chagossians?

Why? would you answer if I did ? 😉

Probably best to stop before the lock rather than do some more pages of this as its clear I am not going to get an answer.

For the record given the passage of time it is clear the Islanders wishes cannot be completely ignored. However it is disingenuous to suggest that we should just listen to the planted population here in deciding what is right and wrong – just as it would be in the scenarios I mentioned [ hence your refusal to get drawn in]

Can we have another go at the World Cup? We were definitely cheated out of that.

Are you a German asking for a replay of 1966 😉

Nein.. er, I mean no.

Thanks but I am still trying to establish if you think it is always right to go with self determination

No – I’ve never claimed that. Unlike the UN I believe each individual case should be treated on its merits, and in the case of the Falklands it’s quite clear that the current situation is preferable for all concerned than trying to manufacture some alternative arrangement exchanging one colonial master for another. Happy now you’ve got an answer?

The thing is, your strawmen scenarios are all markedly different enough to the Falklands that none of them are really relevant.

Why? would you answer if I did ?

I’d probably check what I said whenever TJ brought them up and repeat that back at you 😉

JY, are you sure that your concerns (correct word?) about issues such as imperialism etc are not indeed sending you off in the direction of straw men arguments that others accuse you off?

If anything, the UK governments (Labour and Conservative) have been anything other that imperialistic and arguably (see the Franks report) the ambiguity of the position of the UK government was one of many factors that led to the Falklands war. The Argies and th Islanders have been broadly consistent in their wishes over time, but the UK government hasn’t. Rather than being imperialistic Labour and Conservative governments proposed and discussed concepts such as the sale and leaseback of the islands. This was despite clear opposition from the islanders at the time (see conclusion 70 of the Franks report – I studied this for my degree many moons ago :wink:).

Actually, I am being unfair on politicians, they were actually consistent in their message that “any negotiated settlement with Argentina had to be acceptable to the islanders”. But arguably they diluted this by continuing discussions over sovereignty/the leaseback idea. I would have though that governments intent on maintaining an imperialistic stance (or at Lear the perception of one) would have acted in a very different manner 1965-the outbreak of the war.

Happy now you’ve got an answer?

Yes thanks

The thing is, your strawmen scenarios are all markedly different enough to the Falklands that none of them are really relevant.

Its irrelevant now as we agree we cannot use it all scenarios. I am not sure it should be paramount in this either but I can accept that view.

THM I know the recent history but it would be hard to argue it not a colony even for you 😉

Yes oddly they would probably have it by now if they had not invaded but this delights me as , for once , i can accurately Blame THATCHER 8)

I thought the oil/gas issue was the massive untapped (and currently protected) reserves under the Antarctic? We want a foot in the door when all the treaties finally get binned and we plunder the last unspoilt continent in a bid to keep the oil flowing.

I think we should just settle it once and for all and invade Argentina. That’ll shut em up.

AFAIK the Falkland islanders contribute zero to the UK treasury and get defence from us for free.
If oil or whatever is discovered surely it will belong to the islanders not the UK govt. so they will reap the financial rewards not us.
Then maybe the time to send them a backdated bill for all the defence costs over the last few decades….and if they don’y pay up invade!

Then maybe the time to send them a backdated bill for all the defence costs over the last few decades

Might do better billing all the other places we’ve been sending troops for the last 200 years first…. 🙄

Might do better billing all the other places we’ve been sending troops for the last 200 years first..

yep. invade someone so that they see things they way you want them too – then invoice them.

the empire never really ended for some people did it ?

Might do better billing all the other places we’ve been sending troops for the last 200 years first….

POSTED 2 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST

Not much point,we have already ensured most of them can’t pay.

A Letter to the Argentine Government

🙂

So, when are the Americans giving back Texas?

Remember the Alamo!

Actually blaming Thatcher, as enjoyable as many find this, would be largely inaccurate. Much of the early and decisive negotiations about the future of the FI post 1965 were conducted by the Labour government. When the Tories took over it was largely Ridley and ultimately Carrington who drove the negotiations. Leaving aside the argument of where the buck ultimately stops, I wold suggest that Thatcher was responsible for dealing with the aftermath of the invasion rather than the events leading up to it.

The Franks report concluded that the Thatcher government was not to blame which is/was a bit of a cop out as the whole report makes an excellent case study in how not to conduct foreign policy. And for that both parties were to blame IMO.

I wold suggest that Thatcher was responsible for dealing with the aftermath of the invasion rather than the events leading up to it.

That was the point I made. Her decision to go to war meant they would never get them back if we won- that is what i was “blaming” her for not the mess before which had decades of history.
It was her fault they will never get them back so to speak. I never said nor meant it was her fault the invasion took place.
However I would point out in the preceeding period she did out vote carrington re keeping a naval ship there and he honourably [stupidly] fell on his sword when they invaded so she had some of the blame
It would be daftwrong to lay it all at her feet though.