• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Argentines seek peaceful resolution in Falklands, Brits says its settled.

Status
Not open for further replies.

ItAintEasyBeinCheesy

it's 4th of July in my asshole
Since the island is British i could move there from Scotland if i wanted to right ?

With no visa problems ?

Not that i would move out of mainland Scotland but if i ever was to i'd like a plan.

What I have gathered of QI (the TV show) has nothing to do with emigration, BUT penguins are able to walk on the land mines without detonating them because they don't weigh enough. Also during the whaling age because of the lack of wood on the island the whalers used to use penguins as fuel for their fires to render the whale blubber. The fat/blubber from the penguins kept the fire going.
 
What I have gathered of QI (the TV show) has nothing to do with emigration, BUT penguins are able to walk on the land mines without detonating them because they don't weigh enough. Also during the whaling age because of the lack of wood on the island the whalers used to use penguins as fuel for their fires to render the whale blubber. The fat/blubber from the penguins kept the fire going.

Read this in Stephen Frys voice too.
 
Keeping the QI theme going for a moment, I remember another story where the US requested that the UK sell them the lease for the ground on which their embassy stood in London. To which the Duke of Westminster (the owner of the lease) replied "Of course, but only if the you return the state of Virginia to my family, which you confiscated during the War of Independence". The Americans declined.
 

Randdalf

Member
If the UK has no claim to the Falklands, then who does? Remember that whilst the UK is a state in its own right, it is made up of several different countries. You could class the Falkland Islands as one of these countries inside the Union, in fact they are in some sense more autonomous than the other countries that make up the UK. The SNP are calling for independence in Scotland as they have every right to do, but the Falkland Islands aren't. Neither are the people in Bermuda, Gilbraltar, the Cayman Islands, Anguilla and all the other overseas territories that are part of the United Kingdom.

No land belongs rightfully to any entity, just because Argentina belives it should be part of Argentina, despite very little historical precedent to suggest that it should be, doesn't mean that the Falklands should be belong to them. We captured it through military conquest, and if Argentina wants it they'd have to do the same because they have no right to the islands - it's the way the world has worked since the dawn of man.
 

goomba

Banned
No, you couldn't, the most you get for being a British National is you would not need a visitors visa in advance in order to visit, however upon arrival you would need to show you have enough funds for your stay, pre-arranged accomodation and a return ticket to gain entry on a visitors permit (Which is valid for 4 weeks).

In order to emigrate there you would need a job arranged in advance, and would need to then apply for a work permit, pretty much the same as immigration anywhere. It's based on a points system, where both wealth and prospects are measured for your suitability as a prospective resident.

It's part of the whole self-determination thing, they have their own government etc.

Sounds like they are already quite independant then, they should just join the Commonwealth and stay out of the UK.
 

numble

Member
Can someone help me out with this hypothetical set of facts?

1661-1669: Abandoned wasteland, Population 0
1669-1699: Qing dynasty, Manchurian empire
1699-1841: British East India Company, Population under 2000
1841-1941: UK, Population 4000-7000 in 1841
1941-1945: Japan
1945-1997: UK, Population 6 million in 1997

Who should these islands belong to? Would they belong to a country that didn't even exist until 1949? Surely not, right?
 

magenta

Member
Can someone help me out with this hypothetical set of facts?

1661-1669: Abandoned wasteland, Population 0
1669-1699: Qing dynasty, Manchurian empire
1699-1841: British East India Company, Population under 2000
1841-1941: UK, Population 4000-7000 in 1841
1941-1945: Japan
1945-1997: UK, Population 6 million in 1997

Who should these islands belong to? Would they belong to a country that didn't even exist until 1949? Surely not, right?

Hong Kong may be an exception, is there any other similar cases?
 

markot

Banned
Can someone help me out with this hypothetical set of facts?

1661-1669: Abandoned wasteland, Population 0
1669-1699: Qing dynasty, Manchurian empire
1699-1841: British East India Company, Population under 2000
1841-1941: UK, Population 4000-7000 in 1841
1941-1945: Japan
1945-1997: UK, Population 6 million in 1997

Who should these islands belong to? Would they belong to a country that didn't even exist until 1949? Surely not, right?

There was a lease with HK.

If there wasnt, it would be British if they wanted to remain so.
 

numble

Member
There was a lease with HK.

If there wasnt, it would be British if they wanted to remain so.

There was an indefinite (no expiration) lease made with the Qing Manchurian dynasty, which later became its own country bordering Korea. What does the Communist PRC, established over 100 years later, have to do with it? And the Hong Kong people were not consulted.
 

dschalter

Member
Can someone help me out with this hypothetical set of facts?

1661-1669: Abandoned wasteland, Population 0
1669-1699: Qing dynasty, Manchurian empire
1699-1841: British East India Company, Population under 2000
1841-1941: UK, Population 4000-7000 in 1841
1941-1945: Japan
1945-1997: UK, Population 6 million in 1997

Who should these islands belong to? Would they belong to a country that didn't even exist until 1949? Surely not, right?

This post doesn't make any more sense than when you first posted it.

A large part of the territory was owned by Britain through a lease and, furthermore, it's immaterial that Communist China didn't exist until 1949 as it is the successor state of the ROC (in practice at least and formally as well for most all countries) while itself inherited the treaties of the Qing.
 

markot

Banned
There was an indefinite (no expiration) lease made with the Qing Manchurian dynasty, which later became its own country bordering Korea. What does the Communist PRC, established over 100 years later, have to do with it? And the Hong Kong people were not consulted.

china_army.jpg
 

numble

Member
This post doesn't make any more sense than when you first posted it.

A large part of the territory was owned by Britain through a lease and, furthermore, it's immaterial that Communist China didn't exist until 1949 as it is the successor state of the ROC (in practice at least and formally as well for most all countries) while itself inherited the treaties of the Qing.

If the PRC can inherit the ROC's claims who inherited Qing claims (even though the ROC still exists, governing Taiwan, and the Qing dynasty set up back in Manchuria--let's also ignore the intervening warlord period, Yuan mini-dynasty, and Japanese occupation, and the fact that there was not much of a claim to begin with--the Qing ordered Hong Kong abandoned in 1661, for instance), after several different governments and land arrangements, can South American countries inherit Spanish claims?
 

Meadows

Banned
Argentinian Transport Union: We will block UK ships:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-17022603

Basically UK-flagged ships won't be allowed in Argentinian ports, and the UK are meant to be the side who are stepping up the rhetoric?

We haven't fucking done anything, a ship ended its rotation and was replaced with another ship (Dauntless) so that the sailors on the previous patrol boat could go home and see their relatives. And Prince William is there, yes, but as a SEARCH AND RESCUE pilot, to help with people in difficulty in the South Atlantic.

It's blatantly because of the oil, oh well, Argentina fucked up, they'd have a better position to say the islands were theirs if they didn't unilaterally invade it and plant landmines everywhere.
 

Scuderia

Member
No land belongs rightfully to any entity, just because Argentina belives it should be part of Argentina, despite very little historical precedent to suggest that it should be, doesn't mean that the Falklands should be belong to them. We captured it through military conquest, and if Argentina wants it they'd have to do the same because they have no right to the islands - it's the way the world has worked since the dawn of man.

This exactly, they have as much right to it as anybody, they can come and get it any time they like, but i think they tried that before...
 

Meadows

Banned
Like, I don't understand why they met, or what the fuck he was doing there?

Why did both he and the Argentinians do this? It's bizarre.

article-0-11B9840F000005DC-696_634x658.jpg


lol

that mustache makes him look like a cunt, she looks like Alex Salmond
 

defel

Member
Hopefully we (the British) maintain a moral high ground in all of this. Argentina is embarrassing itself with these political stunts and posturing. All the UK needs to do is ignore it and get on with life as usual.
 

Meadows

Banned
Hopefully we (the British) maintain a moral high ground in all of this. Argentina is embarrassing itself with these political stunts and posturing. All the UK needs to do is ignore it and get on with life as usual.

it's what we are doing. Our position has been that we are right, both according to history AND UN law, and that if Argentina want to cry, that's their choice, they can do it all they want, they can't invade the Falklands so it's all bite and no bark.
 
Hopefully we (the British) maintain a moral high ground in all of this. Argentina is embarrassing itself with these political stunts and posturing. All the UK needs to do is ignore it and get on with life as usual.

I agree mate. I hope we do this. I don't hate Argentina. We can be friends.
 

Niks

Member
Hopefully we (the British) maintain a moral high ground in all of this. Argentina is embarrassing itself with these political stunts and posturing. All the UK needs to do is ignore it and get on with life as usual.

If Argentina starts a blockade and persuades Chile to do the same, then what?
 

Funky Papa

FUNK-Y-PPA-4
I like how some of you think that this could be anything else than silly posturing and chest thumping.

It's kind of cute.
 

dalin80

Banned
it doesn't really matter, it'd be an inconvenience for the islanders, but the UK would probably just start shipping more over there

The RAF will probably just increase the number of flights to compensate and bring in goods/food.

Iam not sure how self-sufficient the islands are but iam going they would only be in real trouble if they couldn't fish.
 

Jackpot

Banned
Argentina pulls yet another petty move to bully anyone tangentially related to England or the Falklands.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-17184955

Two cruise ships carrying almost 3,000 passengers have been turned away from an Argentine port, apparently because they had visited the Falklands.

"They said the fact that we've been there means that we can't come in to Ushuaia.

"I've not heard of anything like this before and I don't think anybody had any inkling at all that this was going to happen."

Monday is a public holiday in Argentina and no official comment has been made about the incident.

Joke's on them. Cruise ships berthing thousands of tourists is how those towns survive.
 

Enkidu

Member
What exactly are they hoping to gain from these blockades? They clearly can't starve the islanders out since they are getting support from Britain and blockading the islands like this won't get them any goodwill from the rest of the world. It seems to me that if they want the Falklands this is counterproductive since by acting like the bad guys nobody except perhaps other South American nations will want to support them and massive international support would be their only chance of ever getting a hold of the islands.
 
Argentina Industry Minister to top companies: "Stop buying British goods"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17205918

Argentina are dumb as fuck, in 2008 they imported £307m of UK goods, we imported £494m of Argentinian goods.

Also Cadbury's, Unilever, Glaxo, British Gas and BP invest tens of thousands of jobs in the Argentinian economy.

http://international.lawsociety.org.uk/files/Trade and Investment ARGENTINA Fact Sheet.pdf

Still playing the victim card as well.

that's also against WTO rules, they'll be getting a big fine

If the government was imposing a restriction on trade, yes. But I think the minister is just asking companies nicely to play along with their silly political agenda. I guess it could still break rules.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom