Support NeoGAF

[Napoleonthechimp]

i suspect that realistically that's what's going to happen

Then his opinion is irrelevant and won't be factored in to how the UK deals with Argentina.

In other news Australia annexes New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, and Indonesia. Why? Because they're nearby. USA says: Good enough!

 

[twobear]

Then his opinion is irrelevant and won't be factored in to how the UK deals with Argentina.

was there an indication that it would be? the argentinians might try and get the US involved i guess.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

We've been neutral for 70 plus years. But its clear whose side were on (We gave you guys stuff during the war).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute#Neutral

I just don't understand your anger at the US here. Its not like were supporting the Argentinians. We just aren't coming out and saying it. Do the words matter that much?

Yes, by calling them malvinas and by calling for negotiations you're propping up an argument that as far as the british are concerned was finished 30 years ago at the cost of 900 lives on both sides.

 

[Meadows]

Obama calling them the Malvinas is actually disgusting

 

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

I think this could allow us a good opportunity to reassess our foreign policy on a large scale, to become more like the French in that we're in relationships for mutual benefit, not to score points.

We're a part of the EU, but not integrated into it. We're close to the US, but don't get dewy eyed over the "special relationship" like New Labour did. (IMO one thing the current government is getting right to some extent.) We should be more selfish in our international dealings, because everyone else is, and we're the ones that have been taken for a ride until now.

 

[Meadows]

I think this could allow us a good opportunity to reassess our foreign policy on a large scale, to become more like the French in that we're in relationships for mutual benefit, not to score points.

We're a part of the EU, but not integrated into it. We're close to the US, but don't get dewy eyed over the "special relationship" like New Labour did. (IMO one thing the current government is getting right to some extent.) We should be more selfish in our international dealings, because everyone else is, and we're the ones that have been taken for a ride until now.

Yeah, especially with Aid payments (we're the only major power that doesn't tie trade with aid, something that basically fucks us over all the time)

 

[numble]

When your 6th biggest export market moves to a new supplier, that causes damage (one of the reasons why the Whitehouse asked Cameron to come over in March)

Can the UK government really pick and choose where its companies import its products from? Doesn't being in the WTO restrict that?

 

[Osiris]

With any luck we will indeed reassess the "special relationship".

But it'd need a strong leader as PM of the type not seen since Thatcher to do so, or a leader that wants to be seen as strong, Not sure Camerons that PM tbh.

There's a whole load of things that need reassessing IMO, from the use of our armed forces to the one-sided nature of extradition etc.

 

[Meadows]

Can the UK government really pick and choose where its companies import its products from? Doesn't being in the WTO restrict that?

everyone else does it

 

[numble]

everyone else does it

Such as?

 

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

With any luck we will indeed reassess the "special relationship".

But it'd need a strong leader as PM of the type not seen since Thatcher to do so, or a leader that wants to be seen as strong, Not sure Camerons that PM tbh.

There's a whole load of things that need reassessing IMO, from the use of our armed forces to the one-sided nature of extradition etc.

The "special relationship" was possibly at it's strongest during the Thatcher/Reagan era, so that's an odd comparison to use.

 

[Meadows]

Such as?

every country in the world

 

[el retorno]

Yes, by calling them malvinas and by calling for negotiations you're propping up an argument that as far as the british are concerned was finished 30 years ago at the cost of 900 lives on both sides.

When did this happen and in what context?

 

[numble]

every country in the world

Just name one example where a WTO-member country chooses to prefer one WTO-member country over another for all imports. Understand the most favoured nation rule in the WTO.

 

[twobear]

The "special relationship" was possibly at it's strongest during the Thatcher/Reagan era, so that's an odd comparison to use.

i'm glad someone pointed this out

if we want to break the 'special relationship' we don't need another thatcher

if anything the tories have more of a vested interest in it than labour, given that it was the patron saint of torydom, winston churchill, who coined the term

 

[crazy monkey]

and we'll sink them if they come into our land, just like they did last time.

we won't be unprepared like last time, we have one of the world's most advanced warships right next to the islands, a ship that could literally destroy the entire Argentinian navy and air force within 25 minutes.

right so:

- Argentina have never really owned the Islands
- The UK have owned the Islands and had permanent settlement on them for 180 years
- Argentina illegally invaded the islands in 1980
- During the war the Argentinian army planted landmines all over the islands, which plague the locals to this day
- The locals FIRMLY want to stay in the UK (85%, the other 15% is made up of people saying they didn't care or didn't know)
- Only two Argentinians have EVER lived on the Falklands

So why don't you firmly and aggressively fuck off

Now I really hope Argentinean go batshit and take the island.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Now I really hope Argentinean go batshit and take the island.

The fuck are you smokin', bro?

 

[fizzelopeguss]

The relationship is bullshit, it's basically the americans using the the british isles as airstrip one. When 2016 comes around we should end the diego garcia treaty, the yanks can fuck off and take their cluster munitions with them.

 

[twobear]

i would be completely up for telling the US where to shove it: the problem is that the US can apply thumbscrews to the UK far more effectively than the UK can apply them to the US

it's a bit like making a deal with the playground bully to give him half your dinner money every day. you can ask him for favours and yeah, maybe sometimes he'll help you out. but he might not and there's nothing you can do, and if you ever want to stop giving him half your dinner money there's gonna be consequences.

basically the leaders of the UK failed to learn anything about playground politics

 

[Osiris]

i'm glad someone pointed this out

if we want to break the 'special relationship' we don't need another thatcher

if anything the tories have more of a vested interest in it than labour, given that it was the patron saint of torydom, winston churchill, who coined the term

You're missing the point, Thatcher was terrible and indeed part of the problem as far as the special relationship went, however she was also stubbornly driven to get her way with things regardless of International opinion, domestic opinion polls, focus groups and media reaction, traits that no other PM has had since her. That kind of "strength" of conviction is what would be required to break the status quo.

Major was blown around easily by the factions within his party, Blair was blown around by International relations, the media and factions within his party, Cameron seems to be easily blown around by media reaction and results of focus groups and straw polls. Thatcher was a stubborn bitch who reacted to opposition to her positions by being strengthened in her resolve rather than bending and moving in the way that all other PM's since her have been.

It is unfortunate that her positions were so despicable, because someone with her strength and resolve and conviction in her beliefs, tied to a more Liberal ideology would be an awesome PM for us to have, but we seem get weaksauce lapdogs instead.

 

[twobear]

You're missing the point, Thatcher was terrible and indeed part of the problem as far as the special relationship went, however she was also stubbornly driven to get her way with things regardless of opinion polls, focus groups and media reaction, traits that no other PM has had since her. That kind of "strength" of conviction is what would be required to break the status quo.

Major was blown around easily by the factions within his party, Blair was blown around by International relations, the media and factions within his party, Cameron seems to be easily blown around by media reaction and results of focus groups and straw polls. Thatcher was a stubborn bitch who reacted to opposition to her positions by being strengthened in her resolve rather than bending and moving in the way that all other PM's since her have been.

It is unfortunate that her positions were so despicable, because someone with her strength and resolve and conviction in her beliefs, tied to a more Liberal ideology would be an awesome PM for us to have, but we seem get weaksauce lapdogs instead.

fair point, thatcher was nothing if not stubborn

 

[DECK'ARD]

Did Obama really call them the Malvinas?

That's pretty stupid if so.

 

[crazy monkey]

The fuck are you smokin', bro?

Argentinian weed

 

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

i would be completely up for telling the US where to shove it: the problem is that the US can apply thumbscrews to the UK far more effectively than the UK can apply them to the US

it's a bit like making a deal with the playground bully to give him half your dinner money every day. you can ask him for favours and yeah, maybe sometimes he'll help you out. but he might not and there's nothing you can do, and if you ever want to stop giving him half your dinner money there's gonna be consequences.

basically the leaders of the UK failed to learn anything about playground politics

Again, France is a good example here. It's not a superpower, yet it has no problems telling other countries to get stuffed when things conflict with their own interests. There's no reason Britain can't do the same.

 

[Alpha-Bromega]

the nationalism that's brewing here does really make me sad. like we're back to 1914 and we're measuring our dicks or how many cooler toys we have

 

[el retorno]

Did Obama really call them the Malvinas?

That's pretty stupid if so.

I can't find anything.

The only thing I can find is the US didn't object to an OAS document that called them the Malvinas Islands. Though that is their name in Spanish and has nothing to do with the claims to the islands. I'm pretty sure the Spanish recognize the UK claims but they still call them the Malvinas.

 

[numble]

The US will do what's in its best interest. In matters between two powers, it'd probably take a neutral stance.

Just look at the stance on the Senkaku/Diaoyutai islands. The US actually occupied the islands up to 1972, handed them over to Japan, and now hold a neutral stance regarding the islands with regard to Japan, China, and Taiwan. Taking a stance would just piss some side off.

 

[twobear]

Again, France is a good example here. It's not a superpower, yet it has no problems telling other countries to get stuffed when things conflict with their own interests. There's no reason Britain can't do the same.

I'd be more than happy for the uk to model itself in France; it's my countrymen who I think would object

 

[SteveWD40]

Lots of bullshit posturing, Cameron's back bench won't let him be too swayed and couldn't give a fuck what the US think, say or do, they know our future is with Asia, where we have much better relations and history than the US.

 

[Meadows]

The US will do what's in its best interest. In matters between two powers, it'd probably take a neutral stance.

Just look at the stance on the Senkaku/Diaoyutai islands. The US actually occupied the islands up to 1972, handed them over to Japan, and now hold a neutral stance regarding the islands with regard to Japan, China, and Taiwan. Taking a stance would just piss some side off.

calling them the Maldivas and seeking negotiation is a stance

 

[genjiZERO]

Lots of bullshit posturing, Cameron's back bench won't let him be too swayed and couldn't give a fuck what the US think, say or do, they know our future is with Asia, where we have much better relations and history than the US.

I'm all on Britain's side on the whole Falkland Islands thing (I mean Britain is 100% right on this one), but Britain has a better history and relationship with Asia? Colonialism was a while ago, but not that long ago... I don't think either the US or Britain has a particularly good history when it comes to Asia...

 

[FStop7]

I'm guessing the deal is that if we (the US) back Argentina they'll give us a discount on the oil or perhaps some of the drilling rights will go to American companies.

 

[BigDes]

I'm guessing the deal is that if we (the US) back Argentina they'll give us a discount on the oil or perhaps some of the drilling rights will go to American companies.

I dunno, most Uk oil companies are actually US owned anyway so it would be strange for the Argentinians to make this deal when that's already what the US would be getting

 

[siddx]

If he did call them the Malvinas it's because someone clued him in that while most of the UK would at worst grumble at that name, Argentines would run naked through the streets screaming death to yankee putos if he called them the Falklands (yes I'm exaggerating...somewhat).

 

[el retorno]

calling them the Maldivas and seeking negotiation is a stance

Where did he call the Maldivas?

 

[numble]

calling them the Maldivas and seeking negotiation is a stance

I don't think they ever called them the Maldivas--they signed a document referring to the "Maldivas question" though.

Seeking negotiation is just a neutral stance in a conflict between two parties.

Anyway, I find it funny how some Britons are threatening closer ties to China, considering the fact that one of the reasons for good ties with China come from the fact that the UK decided to give Hong Kong to China in 1984, after negotiations, without asking people in Hong Kong what they wanted. That's realpolitik, I guess.

Its a meaningless threat anyway--would the UK really side with China over things like Taiwan, or even other issues in international relations?

 

[Meadows]

I'm all on Britain's side on the whole Falkland Islands thing (I mean Britain is 100% right on this one), but Britain has a better history and relationship with Asia? Colonialism was a while ago, but not that long ago... I don't think either the US or Britain has a particularly good history when it comes to Asia...

Tell that to Hong Kong, a lot of them would kill to come back under UK control (or at least have an elected commissioner under the UK)

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/n...enezuela-in-oas-declaration-on-the-falklands/

Obama signed a deceleration that named the Falklands as the "Malvinas". Disgraceful.

The State department also referred to them as the Malvinas.

 

[Bo-Locks]

The Falkland Islands stand to benefit from an enormous $176bn (£111.7bn) tax windfall from oil and gas exploration.

The Falkland Islands stand to benefit from an enormous $176bn (£111.7bn) tax windfall from oil and gas exploration, according to a major new report. A study to be handed to the UK Government this week will lay bare the potential riches on offer from drilling in waters within the 200-mile exclusion zone set up during the 1980s Falklands War to mark the boundaries of British territory.
A group of UK-listed companies is involved in exploring four major prospects this year, with the largest, Loligo, potentially holding more than 4.7bn barrels of oil. By comparison Catcher, the biggest discovery in the North Sea of the past 11 years, is believed to hold only 300m barrels.

Just so you can see what's at stake. I have had shares in a few of the companies exploring the waters around the Falklands for a while now and the returns have been incredible. A few of the companies involved will be looking for partners for the drilling rights and British/American companies will be the main beneficiaries, I would think.

 

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

Not only that, the population of the Falklands could literally multiply if enough major drilling occurs. I don't think Argentina would be too happy with that either.

 

[Meadows]

I don't think they ever called them the Maldivas--they signed a document referring to the "Maldivas question" though.

Seeking negotiation is just a neutral stance in a conflict between two parties.

No, that'd be like if Spain suddenly claimed Hawaii or Guam and we urged you to enter negotiations with them over it, using the Spanish word for Guam in the document.

Anyway, I find it funny how some Britons are threatening closer ties to China, considering the fact that one of the reasons for good ties with China come from the fact that the UK decided to give Hong Kong to China in 1984, after negotiations, without asking people in Hong Kong what they wanted. That's realpolitik, I guess.

Its a meaningless threat anyway--would the UK really side with China over things like Taiwan, or even other issues in international relations?

It doesn't really matter if "Britons" threaten it because me, and other people in this thread don't have any power in government, but we are getting MUCH closer to China (see the closing trade gap).

And with HK the 50 year deal was way better than any other alternative, we never had a substantial claim to it.

The UK is basically playing both sides with Taiwan, but with trade, we much prefer China as it's obviously a bigger market.

 

[numble]

No, that'd be like if Spain suddenly claimed Hawaii or Guam and we urged you to enter negotiations with them over it, using the Spanish word for Guam in the document.



It doesn't really matter if "Britons" threaten it because me, and other people in this thread don't have any power in government, but we are getting MUCH closer to China (see the closing trade gap).

And with HK the 50 year deal was way better than any other alternative, we never had a substantial claim to it.

The UK is basically playing both sides with Taiwan, but with trade, we much prefer China as it's obviously a bigger market.

The Spanish word for Guam is Guam.

The countries in South America seem to believe there is a need for negotiations.

UK and China signed a treaty in the 1840s which gave Hong Kong to the UK indefinitely. There was a substantial claim to keep holding it--the treaty and its subsequent development. Hong Kong barely existed before the British took control--much of it was uninhabitable until the British reclaimed land from the sea to make habitable flatlands. It doesn't matter when the main point is that the UK and China held negotiations without consulting the Hong Kong population (you now flip your position here and say no negotiations are needed, and that the local population needs to be consulted), and gave up its claim without any reason to. It wasn't even needed--why not have China try to reclaim Mongolia, even though they decided to let it go in 1945?

Stressing preference for China and its market again demonstrates that this is all about national interests, especially why it's preferable to play both sides.

 

[Meadows]

The Spanish word for Guam is Guam.

The countries in South America seem to believe there is a need for negotiations.

UK and China signed a treaty in the 1840s which gave Hong Kong to the UK indefinitely. There was a substantial claim to keep holding it--the treaty and its subsequent development. Hong Kong barely existed before the British took control--much of it was uninhabitable until the British reclaimed land from the sea to make habitable flatlands. It doesn't matter when the main point is that the UK and China held negotiations without consulting the Hong Kong population (you now flip your position here and say no negotiations are needed, and that the local population needs to be consulted), and gave up its claim without any reason to. It wasn't even needed--why not have China try to reclaim Mongolia, even though they decided to let it go in 1945?

Stressing preference for China and its market again demonstrates that this is all about national interests, especially why it's preferable to play both sides.

you seem to be getting hung up on what I think, which is irrelevant, in fact, this entire discussion is irrelevant to what we're talking about.

here are the cold facts:

The Falklands Islands belong to the UK. The Argentinians have no claim. The French might. The Spanish even might. The Argentinians don't. To call for the negotiation of the sovereignty of a friendly nation's territory, in which the vast majority of people want to maintain the status quo, and one that was subject to a bloody invasion, is wrong and disgraceful.

And make no mistake about Argentina, they say they want it to be an independent nation:

I somehow think not.

 

[Osiris]

Here's how the negotiations should and will go:

UK: "Ok Argentina, go ahead we're listening.."
Agentina: "blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah"
UK: "Ok, we hear what you're saying, you finished? good... now STFU and fuck off for another 30 or 40 years, or millenia, or whatever."

There's nothing to negotiate, they have no claim, geographical proximity means jack shit.

 

[Meadows]

Here's how the negotiations should and will go:

UK: "Ok Argentina, go ahead we're listening.."
Agentina: "blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah"
UK: "Ok, we hear what you're saying, you finished? good... now STFU and fuck off for another 30 or 40 years, or millenia, or whatever."

or like this:

Argentina: "We think that the Falkands Islands belong to Argentina"
UK: "Why?"
Argentina: "....well...I guess it's close to us or something?"
UK: "Fuck off"

 

[Osiris]

Yeah, the fuck off is paramount, quintessentially British

 

[ElectricBlue187]

Yeah, the fuck off is paramount, quintessentially British

It worked so well in all the other overseas negotiations

 

[genjiZERO]

Tell that to Hong Kong, a lot of them would kill to come back under UK control (or at least have an elected commissioner under the UK)

I'll tell it to the 12 million people who displaced as a result of Partition, the countless Polynesians who've had their cultures and ecosystems destroyed and the millions of Chinese who died as a result of the collapse Qing government and subsequent 50 years of anarchy.


Anyway, Falkland Islands.... Argentina has no claim.

 

[Meadows]

It worked so well in all the other overseas negotiations

if they don't like it they can just negotiate with the HMS Dauntless

 

[Osiris]

It worked so well in all the other overseas negotiations

Lets be honest, it's not a negotiation, it's an honest and simple statement of our position, a statement of our resolve to maintain that position and a statement that is equal parts succinct and direct, leaving little room for misunderstanding, all in 7 letters

 

[ElectricBlue187]

if they don't like it they can just negotiate with the HMS Dauntless

You guys sure have a hardon for that silly looking boat