All but three islanders vote to keep the Falklands British…

Impressive…

Of the 1,517 valid votes cast, only 3 islanders voted “no” to the question: “Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?” One vote was somehow lost, officials said Monday.

,

  • Alone and Easy Target

    Impressive. But it won’t stop the colonial greed of Argentina trying to reclaim “their” island.

  • changeisneeded

    A PR excersise. England has no legal or moral right over anywhere after murderous imperial adventures…Brit planters stirring it where they aren’t wanted

  • michael-mcivor

    So there are 3 dissidents among the 100 per cent United Kingdom islanders-the talking behind backs and the finger pointing behind curtains will already have started-the near all vote will not be good enough for some-expect trouble in the bars over this-

  • FDM

    This is a terrible result.

    The last time Saddam Hussein went to the polls he got a 100% mandate!

    Do the goverment really want dictatorships outperforming the British democracy?

    Surely those three treasonous maggots can be found sent post-paid in a trident submarine to Argentina?

    The abstainer isn’t fooling anyone either.

  • Obelisk

    “A PR excersise. England has no legal or moral right over anywhere after murderous imperial adventures…Brit planters stirring it where they aren’t wanted”

    Irrelevant. It is wrong of us to take our own notions, and our own prejudices, and apply them to the other parts of the world. The Falklands is completely different to the North situation wise, and the people who live there (and the descendants of the planters who live in Ireland for that matter) aren’t planters. The term implies something artificial and forced in after all. How many centuries have to pass before you accept their presence?

    Regardless of how the dispute in the Falklands started, the people there have voted overwhelmingly of their desire to remain a British Overseas Territory. If democracy means anything, you just cannot say they don’t exist because their opinions are inconvenient.

  • JR

    I am with the islanders on this. Aside form the fact that there was a huge democratic vote in support of the islands remaining as part of Britain, There was no indigenous population on the islands before the British got there. Argentina is itself a post colonial country with a poor history of indigenous rights.

    The real issue here is hot the islands, it is the associated mineral and oil rights stretching into Antarctica.

  • changeisneeded

    A handful of Brits is all it takes to allow England to claim huge resources on the other side of the world where they are not wanted.same old imperialism, same old tricks. England is a bully and a theif.

  • Rory Carr

    The real issue here is hot [sic] the islands, it is the associated mineral and oil rights stretching into Antarctica.”

    Well yes, JR, of course that is the case which is why the UK have dumped a hundred or so people on this remote inhospitable little island in order to make substance of a claim to such mineral rights which would not naturally arise.

    It remains however that geography favours the claim of Argentina to any such rights. I expect that sooner or later we might have a little war to sort things out.

  • Seems the Brits will have a referendum at the drop of a hat when they’re certain of the result.

  • changeisneeded

    When do “the islanders” here get to vote?

  • FDM

    @Ulick

    Seems the Brits will have a referendum at the drop of a hat when they’re certain of the result.

    ————————-

    Come on now thats a bit harsh. Sure when have the British every overridden democratic principles to deliver an outcome that suits them…

    I wonder if we moved 1600 paddies to the Falklands would they be so eager to have a referendum then?

    Not bloody likely being the answer.

  • 6crealist

    as an Irish republican, I find it strange to see other self-proclaimed republicans decry the right to self-determination, especially when it has been so unambiguously expressed here.

    Any word of when Spanish-German planter Kirchner intends to award full sovereignty back to the Amerindians?

  • Some peculiar comments on this thread!

    Ulick:
    “Seems the Brits will have a referendum at the drop of a hat when they’re certain of the result.”

    The referendum was initiated and organised by the Falkland Islands Government, not Westminster.

    Rory Carr:
    “…which is why the UK have dumped a hundred or so people on this remote inhospitable little island”

    The most recent population estimate (as of 2012) for the Falklands is 2,841. The British Overseas Territories Act 2002 also means that any Falklanders who wish to settle in the UK may do so, meaning that the descendents of those people ‘dumped’ there in the 19th century are free to emigrate if they so wish. That they choose to remain and exercise their democratic right as such should carry some substance in international relations, regardless of any mineral rights that might arise also.

    changeisneeded:
    “A handful of Brits is all it takes to allow England to claim huge resources on the other side of the world where they are not wanted”

    In addition to the response to Rory Carr, England is not an independent sovereign nation, nor does it have a devolved administration; its interests are represented by the government of the United Kingdom. And the overwhelming result of the referendum – 99.8% yes to “Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?” suggests that the British connection is very much wanted in that part of the world.

    More changeisneeded:
    “A PR excersise. England has no legal or moral right over anywhere after murderous imperial adventures”

    Aside from the fact that the Falklands had no indigenous population at the time of initial British settlement, are you suggesting that all countries with substantial descendents of colonialists and colonial activities – such as the United States, Canada, Australia and, er, Argentina – should deny these people the democratic right of self-determination? And what do you make of Argentina’s claim of sovereignty which is amusingly based on (colonial) Spanish rule in the 18th century?

    Alone and Easy Target:
    “Impressive. But it won’t stop the colonial greed of Argentina trying to reclaim “their” island.”

    I’m sure you’re correct – the link between Argentinean sabre-rattling and the perilous state of its economy cannot be overlooked.

  • JR

    You Might be right Rory. But still, stanley is about 700km from the coast of South America. Same as Dublin to Paris or Amsterdam.

    Is there anything to stop Argintinians moving there? If the Argintine government gave subsidies to some of the 30,000 Argintinians already living in the UK what is to stop them?

  • sectarianheadcount

    Good to see the Brits believing in self-determination for a single entity, asking a single question. Looking forward to the 32 County-wide referendum now.

    Or will the Brits partition the Falklands to accommodate the small minority disagreeing with the overall result? Perhaps the three saying no all live in the north-east corner of the Falklands and deserve their own political entity..

    The Brits would never do that though, would they?

  • “Good to see the Brits believing in self-determination for a single entity, asking a single question. Looking forward to the 32 County-wide referendum now.

    Or will the Brits partition the Falklands to accommodate the small minority disagreeing with the overall result? Perhaps the three saying no all live in the north-east corner of the Falklands and deserve their own political entity..”

    Of course not – because it’s pretty obvious that there won’t be a 99.8% vote in favour of Irish unification in referenda held either side of the border.

  • HammerTime

    Some rubbish being talked on here by some, desperate to claw some of this to fit their own agenda. Nearly 100% voted to keep the link with the UK, end of. Planter this, Imperial that….Brit this, Brit that….move on people.

  • changeisneeded

    Despite all the Brit bullshit this is plain old imperialism. Everyone know what sort of scum the British have been over the centuries. No one is fooled by this charade..

  • “Despite all the Brit bullshit this is plain old imperialism. Everyone know what sort of scum the British have been over the centuries. No one is fooled by this charade.

    So what do you think the constitutional status of the Falkland Islands should be?

  • Harry Flashman

    Weird, the comments here.

    Just so as we’re all clear then the right to national self determination only applies to the Irish, Palestinians and East Timorese and doesn’t apply to peaceable sheep farmers who do not wish to be ruled by a nation with one of the most appalling political histories of the 20th Century.

    Have I got that?

  • Viridiplantae

    Obelisk

    Irrelevant. It is wrong of us to take our own notions, and our own prejudices, and apply them to the other parts of the world. The Falklands is completely different to the North situation wise,

    It’s different, but it’s not completely different, and such differences that exist are actually nearly all quantitative rather than qualitative.

    The fact that 21% of those who would vote in Northern Ireland would support union with the Republic of Ireland while only 0.2% in the Falklands would support union with Argentina is a quantitative difference not a qualitative difference. If 21% had voted no yesterday the arguments would still be the same today concerning the Falklands.

    The fact that there are a few hundred miles of water between Argentina and the Falklands and zero miles of water between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland is also actually a quantitative difference rather than qualitative. In both cases the division is still created by the artifice of man, his claims and opinions, rather than by God or Nature (also see Gibraltar or Spanish North Africa). The lack of the UK claiming the Faroes or Norway claiming Shetland are not direct functions of distances of water, they are as much the result of historical decisions and the artifice of man as, say, Kaliningrad being part of Russia, or Alaska being part of the USA, where there is separation not merely by water but by foreign land, making the division in Ireland look neat and unremarkable in comparison.

    Claims based on the concepts of nativity, that Argentines are native {Argentina + Falklands}ers and Falklanders are not, or that unionists are not native to Ireland and thereby don’t have self determination rights are again all actually quantitative not qualitative. Argentines have some Amerindian descent as do Falklanders. People in Northern Ireland who support the union have rather more ancestry at some point of Gaelic origin both pre and post plantations than Argentines have Amerindian ancestry, never mind Falklanders. Even the fact that Amerindians never actually lived on the Falklands is a quantitative thing really, the argument only ultimately holds weight if you do not already presuppose that the Falklands are a part of Argentina. If no Spaniard happened to have set foot on Gibraltar before British rule would it actually make a difference to that dispute? In any case choosing “racial borders” is as artificial as choosing geographical borders for the purposes of self determination. There are no absolutes there either, and much dispute throughout the world.

    Regardless of how the dispute in the Falklands started, the people there have voted overwhelmingly of their desire to remain a British Overseas Territory. If democracy means anything, you just cannot say they don’t exist because their opinions are inconvenient.

    The ideological denial of self determination for Northern Ireland by some current or past Irish Republicans is the same as Argentina’s statement that “there is no such thing as a Falkland Islander” in it’s nature. This is also at the heart of the rhetoric of Irish nationalists saying “the North of Ireland” rather than “Northern Ireland”.

    In summary the cases for the Falklands being British and Northern Ireland being British are actually qualitatively very similar. The Falklands are like Northern Ireland but where all of the qualitative circumstances have been turned up to the max in favour of those who want to remain British. This is illustrated by the fact that even so, some Irish nationalists are so prejudiced against Britishness that they support Argentina, whereas in a dispute over an island between Argentina and Chile they would not care or take sides.

    Qualitative differences between the two disputes include that Northern Ireland is not a colony while the Falklands are. Another qualitative difference is that the Republic of Ireland has entered into a treaty accepting self determination for Northern Ireland as regards to British or Irish jurisdiction, and that that was voted on by plebiscite by Ireland (the state), Northern Ireland and Ireland (the island) and duly passed. No such treaty exists with Argentina and no such plebiscite was passed in Argentina or {Argentina + Falklands} agreeing to Falkland self determination in any form.

  • Viridiplantae

    changeisneeded

    When do “the islanders” here get to vote?

    22nd of May 1998.

  • sonofstrongbow

    Setting aside the desire not to transplant our own little local squabble to the South Atlantic (although perhaps a little late on this thread), two things stand out.

    Firstly the vitriol; wow! A couple of thousand folks voting to continue as a British Overseas Territory and the Irish Nationalist bigot cat is out of the bag and roaring loud, maybe that’s the real ‘Celtic Tiger’? One commentator in particular will need to changehispants.

    Secondly, and more importantly, the nationalist embrace of the democratic writ did not seemingly last that long. That some have responded to the Falklands Islanders’ democratic vote by postulating that the “Brits” only support votes that go ‘their’ way is way off the irony scale.

    Personally I put it down to the Falkland Islanders’ very own ‘#fleg’ display caught on TV cameras. It seems that the sight of the Union Flag, even glimpsed from 6000 miles away, is enough to drive some into a state of spit-flecked hysteria.

  • FDM

    How many sheep voted?

    Now think about that.

  • dodrade

    The way the question was framed makes it hard to know what the three people who voted no actually wanted. Independence possibly, or to join Argentina (or even Chile who have been traditionally more friendly to them) or maybe integration with the UK.

  • sherdy

    Surprise, surprise, the planters voted for their meal ticket, which is,. those who planted them there.

  • You can almost smell the racist and subliminal sectarian bigotry oozing from below some stones on this thread-

    “Everyone know what sort of scum the British have been over the centuries.”

    Lovely stuff, maybe the Argentianians can start planting no warning bombs in their pubs and under their cars… that’ll teach the planter filth, eh?

  • PaddyReilly

    This is a massive victory for the pro-Argentinian population. We can now proceed to partition the islands, joining together the property of the three loyalist Argentinians by passing over that of two traitors (as 3 outnumbers 2). I expect that any future Northern Falklands Life and Times Survey will find that they secretly want to stay in Argentina, anyway.

  • ForkHandles

    Looks like this thread is another mad chuckie rantfest.
    Nice one guys, are you still raging about the potato famine or what?? 🙂

  • Blue Hammer

    FDM:”How many sheep voted? Now think about that.”

    17,462 voted on 7 March 2013 in Mid-Ulster.

  • JR

    I saw George Galloway on the Politics show yesterday talking about this. He made one interesting point.

    The essence of his point was that as British citizens the 1,500 votes on the Falkland Islands count for no more than 1,500 votes in a village in Yorkshire in terms of influencing British foreign policy with south America.

    He made the comparison to that of a hypothetical English village near which the high speed rail link would pass. He said that even if that village held a vote and the all voted against the high speed rail link their interests would not be allowed and should not be allowed to overrule the national interest.

    He argued that due to the Geographic location of this tiny population Britain simply cannot afford not to come to some kind of deal with Argentina over the Falklands. Some deal where the people would remain British but some of the Geography of the region would be shared with Argentina. This would have savings in terms of the military capacity needed in the region but also in the supply to the Islands.

    While I didn’t like his tone in the interview he definitely has a point.

  • Skinner

    JR

    Effectively what that would amount to is bowing to a threat of wholly unjustified violence and reaching a fairly grubby compromise. What Galloway overlooks, of course, is that if the referendum was extended to the UK the result would most likely be the same – hence Thatcher enjoyed a huge boon in popularity for protecting the islands in 1982.

  • JR

    Well far be it from me to say what is reasonable or unreasonable for states jostleing for territory be that Britain or Argentina. As I have said before, this is more to do with the nearly 1,000,000 square km of ocean floor ( 10 degress of longitude and 12 degrees of latitude). which is claimed as part of these Islands which to me does seem alot for 2500 people.

    I don’t think europeans would be too happy if there was a Japaneese population on the Azores and Japan claimed dominion over a patch of the atlantic going from near the cost of spain to the mid atlantic, As far north as the coast of Ireland and as far south as the coast of Morrocow. How long do you honestly think they would have lasted before some european power had kicked them off and nabbed it?

  • Fitzy2012

    sonofstrongbow

    “Personally I put it down to the Falkland Islanders’ very own ‘#fleg’ display caught on TV cameras. It seems that the sight of the Union Flag, even glimpsed from 6000 miles away, is enough to drive some into a state of spit-flecked hysteria.”

    and even the lack of sight of the Union Flag is enough to drive many into a state of spit-flecked hysteria too.

  • FDM

    @Blue Hammer

    FDM:”How many sheep voted? Now think about that.”

    17,462 voted on 7 March 2013 in Mid-Ulster.

    ———————

    I see what you did there.

    They say that plaigiarism is the sincerest form of flattery.

    You are naughty but I like you.

    Try this on for size then.

    “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.” Matthew 10:16

    If the shinners are the sheep, guess who is wearing the wolf outfits. And the shinners being doves now too and all that.

  • FDM

    I see the Catholic types have voted for an Argentinian pope.

    Doh. There goes the neighbourhood.

  • Congal Claen

    “Despite all the Brit bullshit this is plain old imperialism. Everyone know what sort of scum the British have been over the centuries. No one is fooled by this charade..”

    Being Irish ie from the island of Ireland means you’re British ie from the British Isles. But don’t let that stop you. A fool and his identity is seemingly easily parted…

    As for partition comparisons – it was violent Irish Republicans who campaigned to partition the British Isles even though the 1918 election was won democratically by the Conservative and Unionist party.

  • ForkHandles

    there are many daft tribal threads on slugger that to normal people are the outworkings of the more backward elements still left in NI society. But the mad chuckie rantings on this one only give us more reason to piss ourselves laughing at the backwardness of the republican/irish nationalist mentality… honestly if there was an automatic filter on about 20 words, then the standard chuckie rant would be automatically deleted 🙂

  • FDM

    @Forkhandles

    “But the mad chuckie rantings on this one only give us more reason to piss ourselves laughing at the backwardness of the republican/irish nationalist mentality”

    1. We would have to give one about some sheep station in the middle of nowhere to be offended. Apologies.

    2. We get to laugh as you pay through your nose to subsidise the sheep station in the middle of nowhere.

    3. We get to shake our head from side to side at you protecting sheep and genetically probably about 4 people 8000 miles from blighty with tornado jet squadrons and trident subs against a country with a keek army/navy/airforce but a good football team.

    My one hope in this whole debacle is that when the British army, navy and airforce units are there that they make aggressive efforts [under orders of course] to enhance the local gene pool. In much the same fashion as the royals with the influx of “commoner” genes.

    I just have this dread vision in my head of been attacked by some penguin-sheep-unionflag-human genetically degenerate beastie on St. Patricks day. Well it keeps me awake a night anyway.

  • Zig70

    Any time you have issues contrived by the heart then the law has to legislate for it. In this case, adverse possession, which S Armagh farmers seem to have a fondness for. The similarity between here and las malvinas is the advantage you get. In the Irish case it was protection from the neighbourhood threat, now long dead but for the Falklands it is present mineral rights. Argentina will probably use the Latin American block to make things awkward but it many ways they know they are out gunned. The UK still needs to get the oil transported. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/9831508/Falklands-oil-discovery-commercially-viable-says-explorer-Borders-and-Southern-as-update-boosts-shares.html

  • tacapall

    Regardless of how many people on the Malvina’s voted to stay governed by Britain, the greediest woman on the planet believes she owns them and if she and her parasite government decide otherwise, the islanders like the people of Hong Kong will have no say in the matter.

  • Professor Yattle

    The parallel with here and the Falklands is the question of whether the awkward population in question constitutes a distinct people. In both cases, they clearly think they do. Also, in both cases, those who would claim otherwise, and claim peaceful and loving dissuasion to that end, often turn out on closer inspection to be full of rather unpersuasive hatred.

  • Harry Flashman

    Any of the Irish Republicans here, who as I recall were very vociferous in their demands that the illogical little colonial enclave in the arse end of the Indonesian archipelago be allowed their own independence in spite of geography and sea bed mineral reserves (an independence I hasten to add I support), now claim that a similar illogical little colonial enclave in the arse end of South America should submit to alien rule by a similarly unstable and aggressive neighbour?

    Why is sauce for the East Timorese goose not also sauce for the Falklands gander? I am genuinely curious.

  • FDM

    @Harry Flashman

    “submit to alien rule”

    ——————-

    Crap they’ve landed, where is my tinfoil hat?!?!

  • Otto

    “I am genuinely curious.”

    A clutch of suggestions;

    a) There are a million East Timorese – it’s a viable country*
    b) The East Timorese desire to be an independent Asian state, – not the overseas possession of a European country.
    c) The East Timorese are of mainly Malayo-Polynesian descent – they’re indigenous to the region.
    d) Argentines and East Timorese are mainly Catholics and the Brits/Indonesians mainly aren’t.

    Which do you think it is Harry?

    *That one’s a bit tricky as East Timor is of almost identical area to Norn Iron which obviously isn’t viable as it’s a failed statelet ™ .

  • Harry Flashman

    a. Only about 750,000 in East Timor if I’m not wrong. If the Brits shipped down another million or so fanatically British subjects (now where might we find them?) would that be OK?

    b. The Falklanders have not made up their mind what their status in the future will be, they were merely expressing satisfaction with the current set up and rejecting Argie rule.

    c. No one is indigenous to the Falklands. They were uninhabited when the Brits found them (well there might have been a few Spaniards there but they’re hardly indigenous either). The current Argentine population aren’t indigenous to their land.

    d. I think you may have got it, back in the day before Muslims got to play the perennial global victim card much was made of the nasty Muslim nature of the Indonesians compared to the Timorese who were pious Catholics and consequently much loved in Ireland.

  • When I joined the nuclear industry in 1981, I became friends with a guy who joined the same month. He had just retired from the Royal Navy having worked on nuclear submarines. He was still on the reserve list and when the Falklands dispute started he was concerned that he might be recalled. But there was worse. One of his former colleagues who retired at the same time as him was concerned that a nuclear war could break out, as much as by accident as anything so looked for somewhere with British connections to be relatively safe for his family. Late in 1981 he moved his family to the Falklands.

  • Harry Flashman

    Don’t be surprised if more British people join them Joe. Many British people seem to be hankering for a lost Britain today, the place their parents grew up in, 1950’s Britain rather than the Britain of today.

    A Britain where old fashioned values prevail, slightly dull and grey and with a climate to match, a self-contained and unashamedly patriotic place, somewhere that has a slower pace of life and where everyone speaks English, eats plain food and looks like everyone else (OK let’s call them by their official designations; Daily Mail readers, and there’s millions of them).

    Where can those people find what they seek in the world today? With modern day Internet connections and access to satellite TV (they secretly still love the BBC these people) the Falklands would suit them all to the ground.

  • Red Lion

    The interesting thing about the Falklands is that had the 1982 war not happened the Islands might now be down the road toward Argintinian sovereignty.

    In 1982 the Falklands had a population of approx 1300 I think, and it was an aging population. The majority of the young people left for England and didn’t come back. If that rate had continued for the next generation or two you might be looking at just a few hundred islanders and how viable is that in terms marriage/reproduction and general economy. What odds a St.Kilda scenario?? The British government had already carried out talks with Argentina in 1960’s as part of their overall decolonisation policies. A scene might have been setting.

    The War put the place on the map. Quite a few British Servicemen who served in the war fell in love with the place and moved their families down. Lo and behold, 30 years later and Port Stanley has doubled in size , the population has more than doubled and it is a much more younger demographic.

    Following on from the invasion there is also a sense of morality in defending the islanders wishes, noone wants them to go through that again.

    The possibility of natural resources and the increased British military presnce have added to the confidence (and economy).

    Interestingly , mixed in with the population and adding to it is a smattering of Aussies, Kiwis, other European Countries, and Chileans, to name but a few. Strength in diversity, and such diversity in backgrounds adds a touch of modern Britishness.