You can't simultaneously support British balkanization and think the UK should have an imperialist outpost in South America lmao. There's a reason why the Global South as a whole supports Argentina's claims to the Malvinas no matter how many times Anglos, including the ones here, cry about "the Falklanders' sovereignty." How very convenient these Falklanders aren't asking to be their own sovereign country but part of the UK where the UK has access to its oil and territorial waters. They couldn't even ask to be a Commonwealth state like Jamaica. At least Taiwanese, Uighur, and Tibetan separatists have the decency to pretend their respective republics would be an independent country and not just some US proxy state when the Falklanders couldn't even do that.
The largest employment sector on the Islands is the Falkland Islands Government – accounting for 28% of all employment.
you click that link and then click another link to get an awful article that is like a 10000ft "info"graphic scroll and this is all it says about it. 28% are employed by the Falkland Islands Government, which is not "the British government" unless you want to just not distinguish between them for rhetoric.
Without any more information, like, so what? That could mean literally anything depending on the capacity of the local government and services it offers. But okay I guess the Materialist Take here is 28% of the population (the overwhelming majority of which is making poverty wages) are like British Home Office (that's the british state dept right? I don't fucking know) agents doing an espionage on Argentina
Well, there's also the 1000+ British troops stationed at the military base there.
I didn't make any claim about what should or shouldn't be done with the island. I'd said your characterization of the island's population was bad. It was wrong in a way that was misleading. I don't think you were doing that intentionally, but its not an island of shepherds.
Do you have a source for this?
the overwhelming majority of which is making poverty wages)
Amongst 15-64 year olds, the labour force participation rate is 95%, which is amongst the highest in the world, compared to International Labour Organization (ILO) data. The reported average annual income for working-age people in employment was £29,400 (£30,600 in Stanley, £25,600 in Camp). The per capita average income for all individuals aged 16 years and over (working and non-working) is £26,700 (£27,300 in Stanley, £23,500 in Camp). The average annual household income in 2021 was reported to be £53,100 (£56,800 in Stanley, £47,000 in Camp); 22% higher than in 2016, in absolute terms.
Those incomes don't sound like "poverty wages," though I'm sure cost of living is higher in some ways on an island. Though the accommodation and utilities seem pretty affordable compared to those mean incomes. In fact, its more affordable than most areas in the mid-atlantic US, but that probably says more about
Well, there's also the 1000+ British troops stationed at the military base there
pretty sure those aren't "residents" unless you're attempting to make your own characterization of the island's population
Do you have a source for this?
literally your own link...
click link
click the hyper link on "one third of the population" working for the government
Pay is low by UK standards - the average income is £20,100, compared to £26,500 for UK full-time workers. It also varies, depending on where people live.
The census points out wide inequality of earnings too:
***almost half of all residents (49.2%) report an annual income of less than £15,000 (with almost 12% reporting income of less than £5000). ***Most retirees report incomes of less than £15,000 per annum, however fully two thirds of all persons reporting incomes of less than £15,000 per annum also report that they are employed
so ya idk man
I'm not going to be on the side of Argentina forcibly deporting people who live there
The facts you cite are bad, but it's also not what you claimed. Less than 50% of a segment of the island's population is not an "overwhelming majority" of the island making "poverty wages" like you claimed.
Also, I never argued for Argentina deporting people. I don't see what bearing the income of the population would have not deporting or deporting them.
At this point, you've both misrepresented what the source says and put words in my mouth I never said or even implied. You've done this repeatedly.
Where is Argentina supporting deportation of the Falklaners/Malvinenses? What is your source? The Sun?
This is 2023, not 1982.
PD: Cuba supports Argentina. Always the same map supports Argentina https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Countries_that_support_Argentina%27s_claim_of_sovereignty_over_the_Falkland_Islands,_South_Georgia,_and_South_Sandwich_islands.png. This should ring you a bell or two.
Literally following the link guy posted above indicates fully half of Falkland islanders make $19k or less per year, literally the link dude gave me, but you know what it doesn't even matter because i still don't support Argentina deporting them
Amongst 15-64 year olds, the labour force participation rate is 95%, which is amongst the highest in the world, compared to International Labour Organization (ILO) data. The reported average annual income for working-age people in employment was £29,400 (£30,600 in Stanley, £25,600 in Camp). The per capita average income for all individuals aged 16 years and over (working and non-working) is £26,700 (£27,300 in Stanley, £23,500 in Camp).
The average annual household income in 2021 was reported to be £53,100 (£56,800 in Stanley, £47,000 in Camp); 22% higher than in 2016, in absolute terms.
it was the average annual household income I was thinking about although I did overestimate the degree to which it was higher
It's "4000 shepherds on a rock" who give the United Kingdom territory in South America, if it was "just 4000 shepherds" they would be fine without the UK's military presence in the region.
Ultimately this is why I flip flop on it. In terms of popular support though people will always side with "What do the people living there want?" and this is what makes it a mess.
I think part of the reason support for being part of Britain is so high is the implicit threat that without British protection then Argentina would take the island and they'd be shit out of luck, potentially even kicked out. Taiwanese separatists are similarly reliant on American protection and the majority of Taiwan wants to "maintain the status quo" because they know what it means if the status quo changes. Similar story there in my opinion.
With all that said, Britain losing more would be good. If the islanders can have their security and existing laws guaranteed then changing hands of the island is probably fine.
There's so many things that the UK (and Argentina) could've done if they actually cared about the people living in the Falkland Islands/Malvinas instead of using them as geopolitical pawns. Like, if we must insist that the Malvinas get labeled "Falkland Islands (UK)" on maps:
The UK could de jure or de facto cede territorial waters to Argentina.
The UK could demilitarize the island.
The UK could grant Argentina fishing and drilling rights on the islands.
The UK could offer to pay a lease for the islands.
The UK could buy the islands from Argentina.
The UK could offer a trade agreement favorable to Argentina for the islands.
The UK could have a similar arrangement like the PRC and Portugal regarding Macau where the island belongs to the UK but is administered by Argentina (or vice versa).
Nobody on the islands has to get deported to the UK and both countries can save face. But the UK had absolutely no intentions for diplomacy.
When that translates to a UK and by extension US military outpost just of the shores of LA and when the people sustains themselves in large part BY being a military outpost of the US and UK then yeah there is insidiousness and convenience from and for imperialist geopolitical entities that impact the lives of billions regardless of the people there "wanting to be british". They can be as british as they want if they can exist without UK military basis and the royal Navy setting shop there
I do kind of think Taiwan is basically a settled issue. There was a war 70 years ago and it resulted in this split. Yes the people there would be better off if the PRC had control of the island but no one would be better off if they started fighting back up again. It isn't a pressing issue though
China has a legal and moral claim on Taiwan but making an issue of it would just be bad for everyone involved
I would support an indigenous lead independent Taiwan if that was what the indigenous people of Taiwan wanted. I'm not interested in what the Han majority of the country wants though.
Though its important to remind that there's a difference here in that China at least has a claim to the island in this case, Argentina has none to the Falklands.
You can't simultaneously support British balkanization and think the UK should have an imperialist outpost in South America lmao. There's a reason why the Global South as a whole supports Argentina's claims to the Malvinas no matter how many times Anglos, including the ones here, cry about "the Falklanders' sovereignty." How very convenient these Falklanders aren't asking to be their own sovereign country but part of the UK where the UK has access to its oil and territorial waters. They couldn't even ask to be a Commonwealth state like Jamaica. At least Taiwanese, Uighur, and Tibetan separatists have the decency to pretend their respective republics would be an independent country and not just some US proxy state when the Falklanders couldn't even do that.
This really hits the nail in the head: if the issue here is "sovereignty" then shouldn't they reject both Argentina AND the UK?
It's 4000 shepherds on a rock, you understand that autarky has consequences right
A third of the population works for the British gov
Characterizing the population as all shepherds is absurd
Yeah? And? meaningless info?
you click that link and then click another link to get an awful article that is like a 10000ft "info"graphic scroll and this is all it says about it. 28% are employed by the Falkland Islands Government, which is not "the British government" unless you want to just not distinguish between them for rhetoric.
Without any more information, like, so what? That could mean literally anything depending on the capacity of the local government and services it offers. But okay I guess the Materialist Take here is 28% of the population (the overwhelming majority of which is making poverty wages) are like British Home Office (that's the british state dept right? I don't fucking know) agents doing an espionage on Argentina
Well, there's also the 1000+ British troops stationed at the military base there.
I didn't make any claim about what should or shouldn't be done with the island. I'd said your characterization of the island's population was bad. It was wrong in a way that was misleading. I don't think you were doing that intentionally, but its not an island of shepherds.
Do you have a source for this?
I can see the Falkland gov's website states:
Those incomes don't sound like "poverty wages," though I'm sure cost of living is higher in some ways on an island. Though the accommodation and utilities seem pretty affordable compared to those mean incomes. In fact, its more affordable than most areas in the mid-atlantic US, but that probably says more about
pretty sure those aren't "residents" unless you're attempting to make your own characterization of the island's population
literally your own link...
click link
click the hyper link on "one third of the population" working for the government
so ya idk man
I'm not going to be on the side of Argentina forcibly deporting people who live there
The facts you cite are bad, but it's also not what you claimed. Less than 50% of a segment of the island's population is not an "overwhelming majority" of the island making "poverty wages" like you claimed.
Also, I never argued for Argentina deporting people. I don't see what bearing the income of the population would have not deporting or deporting them.
At this point, you've both misrepresented what the source says and put words in my mouth I never said or even implied. You've done this repeatedly.
deleted by creator
I saw this a lot in this thread today.
Where is Argentina supporting deportation of the Falklaners/Malvinenses? What is your source? The Sun?
This is 2023, not 1982.
PD: Cuba supports Argentina. Always the same map supports Argentina https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Countries_that_support_Argentina%27s_claim_of_sovereignty_over_the_Falkland_Islands,_South_Georgia,_and_South_Sandwich_islands.png. This should ring you a bell or two.
the median income on the falkland isles is double that of England. Most people in England are broke as shit but still
also the UK equivalent of the state dept is the foreign office
Literally following the link guy posted above indicates fully half of Falkland islanders make $19k or less per year, literally the link dude gave me, but you know what it doesn't even matter because i still don't support Argentina deporting them
https://www.falklands.gov.fk/policy/2021-census/census
it was the average annual household income I was thinking about although I did overestimate the degree to which it was higher
It's "4000 shepherds on a rock" who give the United Kingdom territory in South America, if it was "just 4000 shepherds" they would be fine without the UK's military presence in the region.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/09/liberation.htm
Right, Argentina never invaded it before and started displacing the people who live there. That definitely did not happen.
Ok bud
deleted by creator
Thank you for this take! This thread is full of imperialist spooks.
Brainwashing goes deep for some of our comrades in the central core.
I waited a whole day to open this thread and thought with over 300 comments it'd be a bunch of
But uhhhhhh... Damn lol
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
That's fair. I have no argument to that.
Ultimately this is why I flip flop on it. In terms of popular support though people will always side with "What do the people living there want?" and this is what makes it a mess.
I think part of the reason support for being part of Britain is so high is the implicit threat that without British protection then Argentina would take the island and they'd be shit out of luck, potentially even kicked out. Taiwanese separatists are similarly reliant on American protection and the majority of Taiwan wants to "maintain the status quo" because they know what it means if the status quo changes. Similar story there in my opinion.
With all that said, Britain losing more would be good. If the islanders can have their security and existing laws guaranteed then changing hands of the island is probably fine.
There's so many things that the UK (and Argentina) could've done if they actually cared about the people living in the Falkland Islands/Malvinas instead of using them as geopolitical pawns. Like, if we must insist that the Malvinas get labeled "Falkland Islands (UK)" on maps:
The UK could de jure or de facto cede territorial waters to Argentina.
The UK could demilitarize the island.
The UK could grant Argentina fishing and drilling rights on the islands.
The UK could offer to pay a lease for the islands.
The UK could buy the islands from Argentina.
The UK could offer a trade agreement favorable to Argentina for the islands.
The UK could have a similar arrangement like the PRC and Portugal regarding Macau where the island belongs to the UK but is administered by Argentina (or vice versa).
Nobody on the islands has to get deported to the UK and both countries can save face. But the UK had absolutely no intentions for diplomacy.
Last time the Argentinians invaded, they immediately started rounding up people to be deported.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
nobody forced the british to put british people there
deleted by creator
When that translates to a UK and by extension US military outpost just of the shores of LA and when the people sustains themselves in large part BY being a military outpost of the US and UK then yeah there is insidiousness and convenience from and for imperialist geopolitical entities that impact the lives of billions regardless of the people there "wanting to be british". They can be as british as they want if they can exist without UK military basis and the royal Navy setting shop there
"imperialist outpost"
Literally just people living there, who are entitled to the same international legal considerations.
There people living in Taiwan. Should we protect and cherish their right to riddle their island with US bases if they want to?
I do kind of think Taiwan is basically a settled issue. There was a war 70 years ago and it resulted in this split. Yes the people there would be better off if the PRC had control of the island but no one would be better off if they started fighting back up again. It isn't a pressing issue though
China has a legal and moral claim on Taiwan but making an issue of it would just be bad for everyone involved
I would support an indigenous lead independent Taiwan if that was what the indigenous people of Taiwan wanted. I'm not interested in what the Han majority of the country wants though.
Though its important to remind that there's a difference here in that China at least has a claim to the island in this case, Argentina has none to the Falklands.
And a military base! (Which is kinda necessary seeing as Argentina invaded in the past and those people would like to continue just living there)