Falklands referendum: Voters choose to remain UK territory

[EnterpriseSovereign]

The people of the Falkland Islands have voted overwhelmingly in favour of remaining a UK overseas territory.

Of 1,517 votes cast in the two-day referendum - on a turnout of more than 90% - 1,513 were in favour, while just three votes were against.

It follows pressure from Argentina over its claims to the islands, 31 years after the Falklands War with the UK.

The UK government welcomed the result and urged "all countries" to accept it and respect the islanders' wishes.

The referendum had asked: "Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?"
'Wish them success'

There was a turnout of more than 90% from 1,672 British citizens eligible to vote in a population of about 2,900.

Nigel Haywood, governor of the Falkland Islands, said: "Obviously it is a major principle of the United Nations that a people have their right to self-determination, and you don't get a much clearer expression of the people's self-determination than such a large turnout and such a large 'yes' vote."

Dick Sawle, a member of the island's legislative assembly, said it was an "absolutely phenomenal result which will send out the strongest possible message to the rest of the world about our right to self-determination - a right that was fought for in 1982, and which we have honoured tonight."

Islanders had "very, very clearly said they wish to remain as a British overseas territory with those rights", he said, and it would "be our job now as a government to get that message out to the rest of the world and every country that will listen to us".

He added: "What is very clear is that these islands never have belonged to Argentina; what is also extremely clear to me here, and from the results that we heard tonight, is that they never will do."

UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said: "We have always been clear that we believe in the rights of the Falklands people to determine their own futures and to decide on the path they wish to take. It is only right that, in the 21st Century, these rights are respected.

"All countries should accept the results of this referendum and support the Falkland islanders as they continue to develop their home and their economy. I wish them every success in doing so."

Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has maintained that the Falkland islanders' wishes are not relevant in what is a territorial issue.

Most Argentines regard the islands, which they call Las Malvinas, as Argentine and their recovery is enshrined in the national constitution.

Source
That's what I call showing Argentina the middle finger

[Eternal_Freedom]

"Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has maintained that the Falkland islanders' wishes are not relevant in what is a territorial issue."

This I find hilarious. She kept demanding we put the nationality issue to a vote, so we did, and now the vote doesn't matter. And according to The Times I read on the train yesterday, she said the referendum was an empty political gesture or somesuch.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

A politician shifting the goalposts? Surely not

Argentina- we won and you lost. Get over it already

[Guardsman Bass]

Why does the British government even bother to give more than a perfunctory response to this? It's so blatantly a case of the Argentinian government drumming up the issue to get support whenever some domestic political crisis is rearing its head. Just say, "As long as the inhabitants of the Falklands who have lived there for nearly 200 years wish to remain part of the United Kingdom, we will continue to protect their rights against foreign aggression."

That said, I've read that the real point of this referendum (and the reason why they had a couple of Argentina's neighbors sending electoral monitors over despite Argentinian protest) was to convince other Latin American countries that this was what the inhabitants wished. It's not to convince Argentina of anything.

[UnderAGreySky]

Why does the British government even bother to give more than a perfunctory response to this?

It's a case of ticking the boxes. The checklist probably starts with "Do you have a flag?" and "Is it planted on the soil?" (thank you, Eddie Izzard) and somewhere down the list is "Have you held a referendum?" followed by "Do you get a decent curry there?".

There's a hilarious op-ed in the Grauniad arguing the referendum was not legit because immigrant labourers weren't allowed to vote. When I say hilarious, I mean disturbingly poor...

[Broken]

The only reason the referendum is not the real end of the issue is the nations like China and Russia do NOT want the possibility of regions gaining or changing sovereignty via a simple vote. They have too many ethnic minorities in concentrated areas for that to be an acceptable notion for them, not if they want to preserve their present borders and territorial integrity.

[mr friendly guy]

The only reason the referendum is not the real end of the issue is the nations like China and Russia do NOT want the possibility of regions gaining or changing sovereignty via a simple vote. They have too many ethnic minorities in concentrated areas for that to be an acceptable notion for them, not if they want to preserve their present borders and territorial integrity.

The only provinces in China where Han aren't a majority are Tibet and Xinjiang. Even in Xinjiang no other ethnic group has a majority, and chances are some of the other ethnic minorities, particularly the Hui will side with China. Even if they wanted to humour a vote regarding Tibet, just let the separatists claim their "Greater Tibet" which includes part of Sichuan and Qinghai as well as the TAR. Once that occurs Han easily outnumber every other minority group so the vote will only go one way.

But I am pretty sure China gives support to Argentina based on reciprocity in regards to Taiwan rather than a fear that voting in the Falklands will flare up stronger separatists fear.

However, if there is any nation which is afraid of regions changing sovereignty via a vote, I would be pointing fingers at Spain rather than China or Russia. I hear Catalan wants a referendum, and who knows which other ethnic minorities with separatist agendas cough Basque cough.

[Zwinmar]

Eh, China isn't as homogenous as westerners like to think.

[K. A. Pital]

People are mocking this; I see no reason to do so.

Unlike brute military force used to claim a certain territory, the vote of the people matters a lot more. This is not a "ticking the box" - this is (if that's the first referendum) an absolute necessity if you wish to legitimize your rule in a given territory.

[Irbis]

Transplanted British settles vote for UK given slanted question. Who would have guessed?

What I find hilarious is this part:

Nigel Haywood, governor of the Falkland Islands, said: "Obviously it is a major principle of the United Nations that a people have their right to self-determination, and you don't get a much clearer expression of the people's self-determination than such a large turnout and such a large 'yes' vote."

Yeah, people in UK have right to vote on self-determination. Well, unless they happen to live in Scotland. Or Wales. Or Hong Kong. Or Cyprus. Or about two dozen other places where UK peed all over any attempts of self-determination. That right is only for these who UK decides vote acceptably

[Lolpah]

Transplanted British settles vote for UK given slanted question. Who would have guessed?

What I find hilarious is this part:

Nigel Haywood, governor of the Falkland Islands, said: "Obviously it is a major principle of the United Nations that a people have their right to self-determination, and you don't get a much clearer expression of the people's self-determination than such a large turnout and such a large 'yes' vote."

Yeah, people in UK have right to vote on self-determination. Well, unless they happen to live in Scotland. Or Wales. Or Hong Kong. Or Cyprus. Or about two dozen other places where UK peed all over any attempts of self-determination. That right is only for these who UK decides vote acceptably

Transplanted British Settlers? No shit Sherlock, most of the Argentinians themselves have foreign backgrounds, Spanish and Italian most prominently. By your logic pretty much all Americans (speaking about the whole continent) should be deported back to Europe, to leave space for the original American Indians. Nobody could be stupid enough to seriously suggest that as a solution.

As a matter of fact, Scotland actually has an independence referendum coming (which according to current polls is goingto fail), and I'm sure all other parts of Britain could easily get one if they wanted to.

Do you seriously suggest that the allocation of territories should be based on compensation for past wrongs, rather than the will of the people living there?

[Darth Tanner]

Irbis so you support Argentina in that the local population should be deported or placed under military rule? I'm genuinely interested because I haven’t found any real arguments in favour of this that don't rely on Argentinean nationalism as a basis.

[Straha]

Irbis so you support Argentina in that the local population should be deported or placed under military rule? I'm genuinely interested because I haven’t found any real arguments in favour of this that don't rely on Argentinean nationalism as a basis.

This isn't an either/or question. The British claim to the island is clearly based on imperialist history and dates back to some pretty dark times, but none of that necessarily makes the Argentine claim any more legitimate.

As for the referendum, who the fuck cares? A grand majority of the people of the state of Georgia would probably vote in favor for continuing to recognize it as state inside the United States, that doesn't change the fact that the land was stolen through broken treaties and deliberate genocide. Whether or not the settlers of the Falklands/Malvinas give the occupation a stamp of approval is it

The one thing that is going for the British is that there seems to have been no settlement on the islands before it was colonized which makes it much more of a grey area for legitimacy.

[Tanasinn]

One can hardly call occupying an island no one wanted 'imperialist.'

[Stark]

More or less imperialist than occupying a part of an island with a foreign population based on a treaty with an entity that doesn't exist? :v

If there's no displaced population to double displace the current population, what has a higher 'sovereignty value'? Proximity? Decades of Argentinian propaganda? Colour on a map?

[UnderAGreySky]

Transplanted British

Transplanted? Maybe their grandfathers were. You can hardly call the current generation that.

Well, unless they happen to live in Scotland. Or Wales. Or Hong Kong. Or Cyprus. Or about two dozen other places where UK peed all over any attempts of self-determination.

Scotland is getting a referendum. Wales has not asked for one and no one has laid any claim to it. Hong Kong was leased and was returned as agreed to.

[K. A. Pital]

I guess Irbis refers to the British Empire history in HK and Cyprus, not the current state of things.

[Stark]

Don't forget Australia. And New Zealand. They tried to escape the Iron Empire but failed!

[Rogue 9]

Irbis so you support Argentina in that the local population should be deported or placed under military rule? I'm genuinely interested because I haven’t found any real arguments in favour of this that don't rely on Argentinean nationalism as a basis.

This isn't an either/or question. The British claim to the island is clearly based on imperialist history and dates back to some pretty dark times, but none of that necessarily makes the Argentine claim any more legitimate.

As for the referendum, who the fuck cares? A grand majority of the people of the state of Georgia would probably vote in favor for continuing to recognize it as state inside the United States, that doesn't change the fact that the land was stolen through broken treaties and deliberate genocide. Whether or not the settlers of the Falklands/Malvinas give the occupation a stamp of approval is it

The one thing that is going for the British is that there seems to have been no settlement on the islands before it was colonized which makes it much more of a grey area for legitimacy.

Argentina never even held the islands prior to the 1982 invasion. Their claim is based on a Spanish imperial claim, on the basis of which they may as well claim rule over every other country in South and Central America save Brazil.

[Straha]

Irbis so you support Argentina in that the local population should be deported or placed under military rule? I'm genuinely interested because I haven’t found any real arguments in favour of this that don't rely on Argentinean nationalism as a basis.

This isn't an either/or question. The British claim to the island is clearly based on imperialist history and dates back to some pretty dark times, but none of that necessarily makes the Argentine claim any more legitimate.

As for the referendum, who the fuck cares? A grand majority of the people of the state of Georgia would probably vote in favor for continuing to recognize it as state inside the United States, that doesn't change the fact that the land was stolen through broken treaties and deliberate genocide. Whether or not the settlers of the Falklands/Malvinas give the occupation a stamp of approval is it

The one thing that is going for the British is that there seems to have been no settlement on the islands before it was colonized which makes it much more of a grey area for legitimacy.

Argentina never even held the islands prior to the 1982 invasion. Their claim is based on a Spanish imperial claim, on the basis of which they may as well claim rule over every other country in South and Central America save Brazil.

Which part of my post legitimates the Argentine claim to the islands? Because as far as I can tell my post does the exact opposite.

[Rogue 9]

You didn't directly, but this isn't even an issue save in the minds of the Argentine government, while you made it out to be one and related it to cases of native displacement, which is absurd. The original permanent inhabitants (as distinct from posted military personnel) of the islands were British settlers. Even if they weren't, anyone the British colonization may have hypothetically displaced is long since dead along with their immediate descendants, so barring historical study who the hell cares? The central point is that the Argentine logic by extension asserts claim to the entire former Spanish colonial holdings by the same rationale.

[Losonti Tokash]

Is your argument that land theft and population displacement becomes retroactively legitimate after the original population and its descendants die off?

[mr friendly guy]

Eh, China isn't as homogenous as westerners like to think.

Correct. However the demographics of the provinces by ethnicity is still pretty much as I described, ie mostly Han with the exceptions I listed. Now you could divide provinces up into smaller regions where an ethnic minority would be the majority. This of course begs the question of how far we should divide. Could I theoretically divide a country into a suburb where an ethnic minority is a majority and if they want independence, does that mean sovereignty changes?

[Rogue 9]

Is your argument that land theft and population displacement becomes retroactively legitimate after the original population and its descendants die off?

No, but once the original population is dead and the people who did the stealing are dead, it's really daft to want to punish whoever happens to be living on the land several hundred years later for something they didn't do.

[Losonti Tokash]

I'm not really sure I can properly express just how stupid that is, so I'll just leave it to Straha.