The wishes of the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands must be respected by the rest of the world.
Of 1,517 votes cast in the two-day referendum, just three votes were against the referendum. There was a turnout of more than 90% from 1,672 British citizens eligible to vote in a population of about 2,900.
The United Nations should now set a mandate to protect the citizens of the Falkland Islands from any and all invasions by foreign powers under their own rulings.
And more importantly the current and future British Governments must respect this vote or resign their own voted status
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
We are British by choice
Quote by MidsCouple24
The wishes of the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands must be respected by the rest of the world.
Of 1,517 votes cast in the two-day referendum, just three votes were against the referendum. There was a turnout of more than 90% from 1,672 British citizens eligible to vote in a population of about 2,900.
The United Nations should now set a mandate to protect the citizens of the Falkland Islands from any and all invasions by foreign powers under their own rulings.
And more importantly the current and future British Governments must respect this vote or resign their own voted status
Sorry Mids I think it is all a load of crap. An Island 8000 miles away from these shores does not make it British in my eyes. It should be now Argentinian land as they are the nearest country, and I cannot believe we sent soldiers to war over that.
One of the very few things Thatcher did that I did not agree with.
Quote by star
It should be now Argentinian land as they are the nearest country
Quote by and then GnV laughingly
And that tiny insignificant island called Britain off the coast of northern France should be reclaimed by the French, as they are the nearest Country.
Ha ha ha GnV..........You sound more like a traitor of this great country by the day. Off with your head !!!
I am sure we made a mistake giving France back it's independence after it's humiliating surrender in 1940. We should have sold it to the Russian's for a quid.
Quote by starlightcouple
It should be now Argentinian land as they are the nearest country
Quote by and then GnV laughingly
And that tiny insignificant island called Britain off the coast of northern France should be reclaimed by the French, as they are the nearest Country.
Ha ha ha GnV..........You sound more like a traitor of this great country by the day.Off with your head !!!
I am sure we made a mistake giving France back it's independence after it's humiliating surrender in 1940. We should have sold it to the Russian's for a quid.
:kick:
Telling the British residents of the Falkland Islands their land should be handed over to nothing better than a military Junta is every bit just as treasonable.
Quote by starlightcouple
It should be now Argentinian land as they are the nearest country
Quote by and then GnV laughingly
And that tiny insignificant island called Britain off the coast of northern France should be reclaimed by the French, as they are the nearest Country.
Ha ha ha GnV..........You sound more like a traitor of this great country by the day. Off with your head !!!
I am sure we made a mistake giving France back it's independence after it's humiliating surrender in 1940. We should have sold it to the Russian's for a quid.
Proximaty over the will of the people ? how does that work for the rest of the world, does China claim Japan or Japan claim China, or do Russia claim China ?
Were we wrong to stop the Germans taking over their neighbours in France, Poland, The Netherlands etc because they are the next closest Country, Pakistan can have India, no hang on India can have Pakistan and Afghanistan while we are at it in fact Italy can have Switzerland then they will be the closest to France so they can have that and then they will be the closest to Belgium so they can have that as well and of course they will be closest to Holland so give them that and on and on India get Burma, then China, your reasoning is beyond comprehension
What about Malta do we immediately give it to the nearest Country and Gibralter too, both are claimed by their neighbours.
It appears we fought WWII for no reason, Germany was simply doing what was right when they took over Europe because they were closest to it.
Do we get out of Africa, we dont have many colonies left but we should eh ? and of course so should France. Hang on though the French in Africa can occupy France and chuck out those Brits because France lays claim (albeit quietly) to some of the Channel Islands.
Quote by MidsCouple24
It should be now Argentinian land as they are the nearest country
Quote by and then GnV laughingly
And that tiny insignificant island called Britain off the coast of northern France should be reclaimed by the French, as they are the nearest Country.
Ha ha ha GnV..........You sound more like a traitor of this great country by the day. Off with your head !!!
I am sure we made a mistake giving France back it's independence after it's humiliating surrender in 1940. We should have sold it to the Russian's for a quid.
Proximaty over the will of the people ? how does that work for the rest of the world, does China claim Japan or Japan claim China, or do Russia claim China ?
Were we wrong to stop the Germans taking over their neighbours in France, Poland, The Netherlands etc because they are the next closest Country, Pakistan can have India, no hang on India can have Pakistan and Afghanistan while we are at it in fact Italy can have Switzerland then they will be the closest to France so they can have that and then they will be the closest to Belgium so they can have that as well and of course they will be closest to Holland so give them that and on and on India get Burma, then China, your reasoning is beyond comprehension
What about Malta do we immediately give it to the nearest Country and Gibralter too, both are claimed by their neighbours.
It appears we fought WWII for no reason, Germany was simply doing what was right when they took over Europe because they were closest to it.
Do we get out of Africa, we dont have many colonies left but we should eh ? and of course so should France. Hang on though the French in Africa can occupy France and chuck out those Brits because France lays claim (albeit quietly) to some of the Channel Islands.
What do you make of Singapore then Mids?
Quote by MidsCouple24
Pakistan can have India, no hang on India can have Pakistan
You obviously know nothing with regards to India and Pakistan. Without a Google Mids.........any idea when Pakistan was formed oh and why? Have a guess.
The situation in Sinapore supports what I say, it was under British Sovereignty control until taken over by Japan, we got it back then later 63 I think decided they wanted to be semi independant and part of Malaya, we granted this to them and they later became independant of Malaya now being recognised at the Republic of Singapore.
A perfect example of what I believe, if the people want to be British then so be it, if they want to belong to another Nation or be independant we grant that wish, just as we have with many other former colonies or where we had sovereingty (Zimbabwe)
A perfect example of what I believe, if the people want to be British then so be it, if they want to belong to another Nation or be independant we grant that wish, just as we have with many other former colonies or where we had sovereingty (Zimbabwe)
Quote by GnV
You obviously know nothing with regards to India and Pakistan. Without a Google Mids.........any idea when Pakistan was formed oh and why? Have a guess.
India plays better cricket
Pakistan sends us better doctors and surgeons :dunno:
Yes Indeed India can play cricket being world champions. But Pakistan sends us Doctors who struggle with English, but sends us lots of Pharmacists. Pakistan also sends us lots of Taliban fighters and Pakistan hides terrorists as well.
I am not suprised India wanted rid of them.
The India Pakistand argument is irrelevant when you are talking about one Nation having right to ownership of another simply because of how close they are, it was said that the proximaty should be the deciding factor over and above who inhabits the place, who got there first, who made the initial claim to the area and so on.
With that argument India can claim Pakistan and Pakistan can claim India.
With that argument India can claim Pakistan and Pakistan can claim India.
Quote by MidsCouple24
The India Pakistand argument is irrelevant when you are talking about one Nation having right to ownership of another simply because of how close they are, it was said that the proximaty should be the deciding factor over and above who inhabits the place, who got there first, who made the initial claim to the area and so on.
With that argument India can claim Pakistan and Pakistan can claim India.
Mids being perfectly honest here, I do not give a monkeys about a tiny island 8000 miles away from the UK. It really has no relevance to my life or the life of millions of other Brits.
I am English and live in England...........that will do very nicely for me ta. :thumbup:
Quote by MidsCouple24
With that argument India can claim Pakistan and Pakistan can claim India.
I think by your reply you missed the whole point of the India- Pakistan thing. India gave away part of it's land to the Muslims and they called it Pakistan.
Sex God
Quote by MidsCouple24
What about Malta do we immediately give it to the nearest Country
What a ridiculous thing to say. Truly ridiculous. What right do you think the UK has to simply give away a foreign nation to a third party?
Sex God
Well, sorry to do this chaps, but re the French / English debaters;
A little known fact, but easily verified by reading Churchills "History of the Second World War"
In May 1940 when the Germans were speeding into France and the British were falling back towards Dunkirk, the French Gov was totally in disarray, trying to organise defance as best it could, in temporary HQ, wondering if they could stop the Germans.
Churchill could see that it was unlikely the French could prevail and at that point offered the French Gov any "Act of Union with the UK". In other words for the two Countries to become one. France and Great Britain as one Country, don't know what the flag would have looked like tho !!
It would have allowed the French overseas colonies to fight on, would have put the French Fleet into Allied Control (we all know what happened to that later on) and prevented the Vichey Gov running most of France for the Germans.
The French Gov was in too much disarray to agree to the deal even if they had wanted to, but IF they had.................History might have been very different !!
John
A little known fact, but easily verified by reading Churchills "History of the Second World War"
In May 1940 when the Germans were speeding into France and the British were falling back towards Dunkirk, the French Gov was totally in disarray, trying to organise defance as best it could, in temporary HQ, wondering if they could stop the Germans.
Churchill could see that it was unlikely the French could prevail and at that point offered the French Gov any "Act of Union with the UK". In other words for the two Countries to become one. France and Great Britain as one Country, don't know what the flag would have looked like tho !!
It would have allowed the French overseas colonies to fight on, would have put the French Fleet into Allied Control (we all know what happened to that later on) and prevented the Vichey Gov running most of France for the Germans.
The French Gov was in too much disarray to agree to the deal even if they had wanted to, but IF they had.................History might have been very different !!
John
Sex God
Regarding the Falklands referendum tho. How could the Islanders voted for anything else? They were not given a viable alternative.
It was like asking a Newcastle United supporter;
"Would you like to keep supporting Newcastle or would you prefer to support Sunderland?" None would vote to change support !
But if the question was;
"Would you like to keep supporting Newcastle or would you be prepared to support Sunderland if we give you £10,000,000 to change?"
Then maybe you'd see how strong the support for the Toon was.
John
It was like asking a Newcastle United supporter;
"Would you like to keep supporting Newcastle or would you prefer to support Sunderland?" None would vote to change support !
But if the question was;
"Would you like to keep supporting Newcastle or would you be prepared to support Sunderland if we give you £10,000,000 to change?"
Then maybe you'd see how strong the support for the Toon was.
John
Quote by Geordiecpl2001
Regarding the Falklands referendum tho. How could the Islanders voted for anything else? They were not given a viable alternative.
It was like asking a Newcastle United supporter;
"Would you like to keep supporting Newcastle or would you prefer to support Sunderland?" None would vote to change support !
But if the question was;
"Would you like to keep supporting Newcastle or would you be prepared to support Sunderland if we give you £10,000,000 to change?"
Then maybe you'd see how strong the support for the Toon was.
John
I like to sit on the fence, I have a box at St. James' and a box at the Stadium of Light. Keeps everyone happy!
They had an alternative, live under Argentine rule.
Nobody has offered them a penny to stay British or a penny to have Argentina rule them, so I don't see the validity of this argument.
I know some of the Islanders and they would not sell out, they love their lifestyle as it is, they were even pissed off at the changes caused by the war and the strengthening of the garrison there.
Those that have no interest in what happens 8000 miles away should not comment on a situation they have no interest in should they ? that is just contradicting themselves, how can you say the Islands be handed over whilst saying you have no interest in the situation.
The elected government has said that we as a Nation and the rest of the world has to recognise and respect the wishes of the islanders, I am always being told on the forums that we have to abide by what our elected government says
Nobody has offered them a penny to stay British or a penny to have Argentina rule them, so I don't see the validity of this argument.
I know some of the Islanders and they would not sell out, they love their lifestyle as it is, they were even pissed off at the changes caused by the war and the strengthening of the garrison there.
Those that have no interest in what happens 8000 miles away should not comment on a situation they have no interest in should they ? that is just contradicting themselves, how can you say the Islands be handed over whilst saying you have no interest in the situation.
The elected government has said that we as a Nation and the rest of the world has to recognise and respect the wishes of the islanders, I am always being told on the forums that we have to abide by what our elected government says
To be honest, this was just sabre rattling by the Argentinian PM.
Her domestic policies are failing dismally (as is the Argentine economy. The inflation rate is over 11%), so she needs a distraction. And nothing distracts like a bit of posturing on the World stage.
And to be fair, the Argentines have never owned The Falklands. They were first seen by the Dutch, first settled by the French, then the British. The Spanish then took the French enclave over, but the British have had dominion over the islands for 7 or 8 generations. Of course, they're going to vote to stay 'British'. There was never a doubt.
And, as Eddie Izzard says, we need them for "strategic sheep purposes".
Her domestic policies are failing dismally (as is the Argentine economy. The inflation rate is over 11%), so she needs a distraction. And nothing distracts like a bit of posturing on the World stage.
And to be fair, the Argentines have never owned The Falklands. They were first seen by the Dutch, first settled by the French, then the British. The Spanish then took the French enclave over, but the British have had dominion over the islands for 7 or 8 generations. Of course, they're going to vote to stay 'British'. There was never a doubt.
And, as Eddie Izzard says, we need them for "strategic sheep purposes".
Quote by Trevaunance
What about Malta do we immediately give it to the nearest Country
What a ridiculous thing to say. Truly ridiculous. What right do you think the UK has to simply give away a foreign nation to a third party?
I don't think for one moment that Jed was seriously suggesting that Trev but merely responding to star's musings about letting the ArgyBargies have the Falklands simply because it is an island far off the coast of Britain.
Thankyou for clarifying that GnV spot on, I was asking what the difference was with Malta, Gibralter and the Falkland Islands and for that matter some of the Channel Islands and Shetland Islands all claimed by Countries closer to them than Britain is though none of which the claiming countries think it right to invade.
The picture in my previous message is btw folks taken from a page in the book The Falklands War and shows another aspect not yet mentioned here, what about those that gave their lives in the War and their families ?
Many of those who fought there bought land in the Falkland Islands there are not just 1800ish people who own land there thousands more.
The picture in my previous message is btw folks taken from a page in the book The Falklands War and shows another aspect not yet mentioned here, what about those that gave their lives in the War and their families ?
Many of those who fought there bought land in the Falkland Islands there are not just 1800ish people who own land there thousands more.
Sex God
Quote by MidsCouple24
Thankyou for clarifying that GnV spot on, I was asking what the difference was with Malta, Gibralter and the Falkland Islands and for that matter some of the Channel Islands and Shetland Islands all claimed by Countries closer to them than Britain is though none of which the claiming countries think it right to invade
The difference I can see between the Malta, Gibraltar and the Falklands is huge. Insurmountable in fact.
Gibraltar and the Falklands are British Overseas territories. Malta, is an independent country and nothing to do with Britain.
The mere suggestion that we even consider giving it away is preposterous, because it's not ours to give!
true we cannot give away something that is not ours and the people of Malta I am sure whilst enjoying their reltationship with the United Kingdom demonstrated admirally during WWII when they endured so much for us rather than allying themselves with their Italian neighbours would I am sure never want to be under UK control, they are happy and proud to be Maltese, it was a bad example.
