Verbal

You're not really following the argument I was making - that self-determination should mean just that, regardless. From the beginning, I've been saying no one, apart from the penguins, is 'indigenous' - it's just a silly 'argument'. As for immigration, if the islands were, as everyone seems to expect, to fill with migrants following the supposed oil rush, the composition of the population would certainly change, whether they're Argentinian or whatever. The changes that the islanders propose to make to migration policy are not specifically anti-Argentinian.

But have you read the Stratfor emails pap? Interesting that they claim that the Israelis' actions to hobble the nuclear programme have been so successful.

Then why did you raise it? As I said earlier, there are no indigenous people there. I'm glad we agree. And I repeat: self-determination is the issue here, and if it holds now, it must hold in the future, no matter what the constitution of its population. Right? Or is it to be self-determination so long as there is only one answer?

Not really. Do you really want to drag this thread down to personal insults?

I'm terribly bothered.

I'm just answering the questions you asked. My original point was that self-determination is a perfectly good principle so long as it is held consistently, even when circumstances change. And no, it's not 'my' accepted definition, but THE accepted definition. The idea that 'British' Falkland Islanders are somehow indigenous is silly.

You can only apply the label hypocrite to Bragg if (a) you believe that there is a 1:1 relationship between personal wealth and class interests (ask yourself what he 'should' do if he were not a 'hypocrite'); and (b) Bragg has argued for some sort of communistic vision of society in which his wealth would be denied to him. I don't know for sure whether he's done either recently, but I'd characterise his politics as progressive-left, not Stalinist, forced-labour-camp 'Socialism in One State'. As for your point about capitalism delivering social justice, this is a piece of wishful thinking based upon an illegitimate extension of Adam Smith's ideas about 'equilibrium' (ideas which even Smith felt were wrong). With the exception of a few remarkable historical figures like Robert Owen, social justice has been delivered by some part or other of the state, precisely because it cannot be delivered without partial redistribution from one set of wealth creators who cornered more than they earned to those wealth creators who were left with less. Living standards have been raised by a combination of welfare-state intervention and economic growth - and even the latter is dependent on a mixture of stimuli from the state and private sector.

The usually accepted definition of indigenous peoples these days is those people who occupied lands before colonisation. So that would be no one but the penguins. If you don't like the accepted definition, and want to go by who got there first - the French. As you see, the Falklands issue doesn't withstand particularly close scrutiny before sounding all a bit silly.

http://en.mercopress.com/2011/07/08/falkland-islands-s-plans-to-make-immigration-policy-more-flexible

No one.

No you can't - by your argument, that is. If you're left of centre and wealthy, that's hypocritical, so you say. So by the same argument, if you're right of centre you have to be an exploitative, in-it-for-yourself cretin. And less of the 'compassion' - Owen was right when he argued that the wealth creators were employers and employees alike. Compassion doesn't come into it.

So it's your view that the Falkland Islanders are indigenous? Really?! They are as indigenous as the sheep.

The Falkland Islanders themselves are widening their immigration policy in a way that would allow precisely this.

What a messy jumble of thoughts, Sergei. This recalls an earlier thread, but let's leave that for now. Owen's point was that the 'wealth creators' were the employers AND employees. Where 'compassion' comes into this I have no idea. In Owen's case and beliefs, it's more to do with issue of equity and social justice.

Self-determination is a wonderful thing. But if you believe in it you should stick with it - so if future Argentine migration to the islands means a vote goes in favour of annexation to Argentina, there isn't much anyone can do about. Fair enough?

Or to put it another way, our dear Sergei thinks there is a 1:1 relationship between economic status and class interest. So if you're rich, you're a right wing swivel-eyed...(I want to say gimp, but you know what I mean). By the same token, and not to be a 'hypocrite', he should argue that if you're poor, you should be a red-flag-waving communist. Somehow, there has been a long history of wealthy 'hypocrites' - like Robert Owen, to take just one example. Owen was a successful mill owner and social reformer whose ideas about working class communities revolutionised philanthropic thinking, and created a branch of left-wing thought known as 'Utopian Socialism'. Owen's ideas were famously successful - both in terms of producing more equitable communities in places like New Lanark, and in purely financial terms. Owen was, in other words, a remarkably effective capitalist whose personal wealth (created, as he was the first to admit, by those who worked for him) was ploughed back into improving the housing and factory conditions of his employees. Some hypocrite.

I doubt it's from America. The 'libertarian right' is basically the Tea Party, whereas 'libertarian left' is (to many Americans) oxymoronic. "Liberal' in the US is a widespread term of abuse (and widely misunderstood, as you say) - so much so that left-wing Democrats avoid describing themselves in such terms.

What kind of a dumbass question is that?

For example?

More than a laugh, trousers - at least I hope so. Rumour is that this week is going to be pretty devastating for NI AND the government and police officials they've succeeded in corrupting.

Pass.

I think we'll have to make an exception in this case. Beating the crap out of Tories is cheap electioneering.

Soon, yes.

What he's done is put Oxo's younger brother into the Pompey youth set up, presumably after the bust-up with Cortese. I can see that working out well.

No, I've checked. You're a 19 year old girl with an aversion to privatised trains and right-wing politics.