Falklands referendum: Voters choose to remain UK territory

page: 1
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 10:43 PM
link   
m.bbc.co.uk...
Well the islanders have spoken.
With a turnout of over 90 % and 1513 out of 1517 voters for remaining British,the result is definitely overwhelming.
I can't wait to hear what rubbish the Argentine president will come out with next.




posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 11:48 PM
link   
It's rubbish that the UK never gave those Islands back. Let's say you and i are in war. Near your country is an island. I win the war and put my people on that island and say it's mine because my people are living on it. How would you feel. Those brits on the islands need to go back where they came from



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 11:55 PM
link   
The current population of the Falklands stands at 2900 (Approx). Of which 70% of the population are British or 2030 people. The rest are of other descent or heritage.

So why have only 1517 people voted on this? You post that that was 90% of the people (Rather the article). So was this referendum only open to British citizens?

90% of 2900 is 2610 people so it seems a bit suspect. Why would only 1517 people out of a population of 2900 vote or get to vote, and why state that's 90% the people who voted?. It seems a little exclusive!

Just curious.

I don't know the political in and outs of the island so not pointing fingers, but maybe Mrs Fernandez will point one or two for some reason.


+2 more 
posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Annunak1
 


You do realise that the people were their long before the war?
Why the hell would the winner of a war hand the islands back to the facist invaders who lost?
The islands have never belonged to Agentina and never will whether you like it or not.
Argentina have more need to sort out their economy with their nice 25% inflation.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 11:58 PM
link   
ever see a map? Every country in the world is what it is due to some form of conflict, every border on a map. The Brits have the Falklands, they've had them. The people who live there are British in culture, most of them by birth. The new pres in Argentina may want to do a bit of reading about how Maggie Thatcher kicked their ass the last time they had a spat about the Falklands



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 12:02 AM
link   
You have to be a native Falklander or have lived there for a year and applied and awarded citizenship to be able to vote. There are a lot of non-Falklanders on the island full time for business and they are counted in the population, but they can't vote



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Chipkin9
 


Not sure,maybe their are lots of children under 18 who arent old enough to vote.
They had election observers from various countries who said the election was fair.
1500 out of 2900 is still more than 50% anyway,democracy equals mob rule.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


Cheers for clearing that up for me.

I forgot that Citizenship laws existed. dough!
edit on 12-3-2013 by Chipkin9 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by glen200376
 


It all started with colonization. They don't belong there. Why don't they find a volcano to live on.
Same as with the rich white folks in South Africa living in their nice mansions and luxury while the native people live in poverty. Just because a country has been colonized in the past don't give people the right to live there and act like they are better.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by glen200376
 


Sure. I did comprehend beforehand that it made absolutely no difference to the outcome, but I was just confused as to the numbers indicated and naturally became suspicious of the vote and who was allowed.

Jumped the gun as usual, gonna end up getting shot someday



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Annunak1
 


It was a barren island when discovered,so not that different from 'finding a volcano to live on'.There were no indigenious population.
I think it was actually French first.
Your empire envy shows in your posts.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Chipkin9
 


I wasnt sure either,thanks to dolphinfan for clearing that up.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by glen200376
 


empire envy

is you high?



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annunak1
reply to post by glen200376
 


empire envy

is you high?
I wish,people in glass houses and all that.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by glen200376
 


The world is a glass house and the governments are all throwing stones. Watch ya head bwoiii!!

But on topic. Screw them both. Both countries are whining. I don't care less who gets those islands. Now can we have some real news again like a new comet flying into the white house or something...



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annunak1
It's rubbish that the UK never gave those Islands back. Let's say you and i are in war. Near your country is an island. I win the war and put my people on that island and say it's mine because my people are living on it. How would you feel. Those brits on the islands need to go back where they came from


Sorry Annunak but i think that you did not do your homework before posting your rather aggresive reply.

Here, i have done it for you :

The isles have been conquered, abandoned, reconquered and envied in successive occupations by the French, Spanish, Argentinians and English up to the war of 1982.

They were discovered by the English navigator, John Davis in 1592 but not explored until 1690 by another Englishman, John Strong. The isles were not inhabited until 1764 when some French sailors from St-Malo first colonised them, hence the French name of “Malouines”.

They were thrown out of the islands in 1766 by the Spanish who were already masters of most of South America. In addition to the Spanish implantation, a British colony had already been established on part of the western isle in 1765 without suspecting that the French were living on the eastern isle.

In 1774 the English left the islands, for financial reasons, to the Spanish who were in charge of the archipelago until 1811 which was the beginning of the revolution of South America countries.

At this agitated time Spain left the Isles which became then officially no man's land. In 1820 Argentina, no longer under Spanish domination set up a colony and a governor in the Falklands.

In 1833 the English navy threw out the Argentinians and took sovereignty of the isles. There was then a period of 150 years of peace apart from the two world wars in which the strategic value of the Isles was demonstrated. In December 1914 a squadron of the British navy based in Stanley fought the German navy and retook control of the South Atlantic. In December 1939, the battle of the River Plate was won by a group of Royal Navy cruisers and after the battle one of the ships docked at Stanley for repairs.

On 2nd April 1982, Argentina took back possession of the Isles. This action was supported by the majority of Latin-American states in spite of their opposition to the regime of the Argentinian junta. The geography seemed to play a role in this.

England, thanks to the determination of its government and the capacity of its armed forces, managed to reconquer the Isles in two months with the support of the United Nation Security Council. On the 14th June the Argentinians were defeated after violent fighting on land, sea and in the air.

The fighting-spirit of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher during this conflict, confirmed her nickname “The Iron Lady”.

This defeat contributed to the decline of the Junta in power in Argentina. In the Falklands it allowed an important economic boom and the creation of large infrastructures such as the airport of Mount Pleasant.

If you need extra information and can be bothered to read, try having a look at this :

www.historyworld.net...

or this :

www.lonelyplanet.com...

This is quite interesting too :



Kindest respects

Rodinus

edit on 12-3-2013 by Rodinus because: phrase added



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 02:54 AM
link   
Its funny/disgusting that there are people on this site that want to fight the powers that be but then won't allow a people who have lived on islands for near on 200 years to live in peace.

If the Falklands was handed over to Argentina, a country that never even existed when the Falklands was inhabited, then it will throw open the door to claims around the world and I wouldn't be shocked if it was the spark that would engulf the planet in conflict.

Argentina never had the islands, the islanders have lived there through many generations, they have not attacked anyone, they have not threatened anyone, they have done nothing to anyone and now a country, going down the pan massively (the words of Agentinians that I know) want to continue to divert their own people's eyes from that mess to this issue using the typical fascist rhetoric of nationalist pride at whatever cost.

The islanders have spoken now let them live in peace. Rather than some on here pointing fingers at Britain and the islanders, may be they should question their own obvious hatred. This is a site that promotes question and open thought and the quest to live as free as we can, while exposing attacks on freedom across the world. Well if a country the size of Argentina continues to threaten and bully a small island of 1500 that has existed far longer than the aggressor and its not classed as an attack on freedom, as an attack on peaceful people, then what is? Anyone who agrees with it should question themselves rather than this issue.
edit on 12-3-2013 by SecretFace because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annunak1
It's rubbish that the UK never gave those Islands back. Let's say you and i are in war. Near your country is an island. I win the war and put my people on that island and say it's mine because my people are living on it. How would you feel. Those brits on the islands need to go back where they came from


This has already been answered, even though from this comment alone I can see that its more about your hatred than anything else. Imagine if I said the Jamaicans in London need to go back to where they came from! The Pakistanis in Bradford need to go back to where they came from! Imagine the uproar and rightly so, it would be absolutely stupid to do that, especially as by now there are probably second or even third generations of British born yet the Falkland islanders have been on those islands far longer than the aforementioned have been in those areas. . Its time for people to let their hatred go and let people live in peace.

As for giving them back, they never had them in the first place!



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by glen200376
 


Apart from the islanders obvious right to self-determination it also won't be forgotten in a hurry that it cost 255 British lives to reverse Argentine aggression in 1982.

255 reasons why there is nothing to talk to Argentina about.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annunak1
reply to post by glen200376
 


It all started with colonization. They don't belong there. Why don't they find a volcano to live on.
Same as with the rich white folks in South Africa living in their nice mansions and luxury while the native people live in poverty. Just because a country has been colonized in the past don't give people the right to live there and act like they are better.


Why pick on South Africa ? What about Argentina ? Does Ms Kirchner Argentine president look like a native South American to you ?

en.wikipedia.org...



  exclusive video


top topics
 
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join