Corbyn: Falkland residents should not have a veto over deals with Argentina - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Lium;49551512]I know you're not very bright, so I'll say it as simply as I can: The issue has been decided in every way that matters. We gave lives to defend the Falklands. Their residents have chosen time and time again to stay with us, with overwhelming and undeniable support. No one sane supports Argentina in their mad quest to seem relevant and important. That Corbyn would even consider handing them over to Argentina against both the Mainland and the Falklanders themselves wishes is absurd beyond compare. We own those islands. We will continue to own them unless a day should come that the people who live there decide otherwise. No one else should have a say.[/QUOTE] This was about people rambling on after only reading the thread title without even reading the content of the article or the very first line in the OP but thanks for the belittleing post nevertheless. [editline]17th January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=David29;49551560]So basically, Corbyn has admitted that he puts his own ideals before the wishes of the people he serves. In other words: "fuck democracy". I honestly never thought I would find myself in a position where I would miss Ed Miliband, but Corbyn is just so terrible that I seriously do wish he was in charge again.[/QUOTE] Just like this guy here.

[url]http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-21750909[/url] they have voted SEVERAL times 99.8% voted to stay as a part of the UK with a turnout of 91.94%

This guy's approval rating is pretty shocking anyway. Some of the latest polls seemed to indicate he's basically got the same approval as David Cameron among the general populace, selection bias or no. He has his passionate supporters, and everyone else is awkwardly shuffling and wishing their MPs wouldn't be involved with him. He wasn't even fairly elected.

[QUOTE=MatheusMCardoso;49551473]Practically, they do have all the say. Or would the UK just abandon a territory in which 99,99% consider themselves part of the UK?[/QUOTE] The UK government almost certainly wouldn't abandon the island, but at the same it has to consider the interests of the whole of the UK as well, and those interests may or not reflect those of the islanders.

[QUOTE=Jon27;49551607]This guy's approval rating is pretty shocking anyway. Some of the latest polls seemed to indicate he's basically got the same approval as David Cameron among the general populace, selection bias or no. He has his passionate supporters, and everyone else is awkwardly shuffling and wishing their MPs wouldn't be involved with him. He wasn't even fairly elected.[/QUOTE] He was fairly elected, but among a bunch of self-selected Labour members, which he gained a massive majority from. It wasn't just Tory/Green/Trots who entered to party to vote for him that won it, nor was it just the £3ers, he won amongst pretty much every section of the selectorate.

[QUOTE=Killuah;49551572]Just like this guy here.[/QUOTE] Even though I did read the article and what I am saying matches up perfectly well with what is contained within it? Yeah, just like me. Unless it's just a case of "I disagree with what that guy said so I'll just say he didn't read the article" syndrome.

[QUOTE=Indyclone77;49550558]Argentina would never attack The Falklands these days anyway, they just enjoy the act of sabre rattling at Perfidious Albion too much.[/QUOTE] Never attack? But they did before. [QUOTE=Untouch;49551597][url]http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-21750909[/url] they have voted SEVERAL times 99.8% voted to stay as a part of the UK with a turnout of 91.94%[/QUOTE] Hong Kong should have had Veto power. Instead the UK let PRC drive in their tanks.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49552070]Never attack? But they did before. Hong Kong should have had Veto power. Instead the UK let PRC drive in their tanks.[/QUOTE] iirc the Chinese would have at least attempted an invasion of Hong Kong if they didn't hand it over.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49552070]Never attack? But they did before. Hong Kong should have had Veto power. Instead the UK let PRC drive in their tanks.[/QUOTE] There is no way that we could have done anything to protect Hong Kong realistically, as much as I would have liked to.

Whatever the Falklanders want to do, we need to respect that. Yes, they are geographically South American and belong to an old ass archaic empire, but they have the right to choose. Since they choose to stay with the impire, we should respect that decision, no matter how ghastly that decision may seem. Plus Argentina seem like a bunch of dicks so maybe an impire is better than a bag of dicks. (Even I will agree with that one)

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49552070]Never attack? But they did before.[/QUOTE] The circumstances are notably different. Prior to the Falklands War, Argentina truly believed that the UK would not send an invasion force to the other side of the globe to retake some tiny islands that were of no real value. Unfortunately for them, they were wrong. The war only reinforced the notion that, [b]where possible[/b], the UK will defend it's territory and interests. The war also showed that the balance of power was much more in favour of the UK and, even though we are cutting back, this hasn't really changed. Certainly, once HMS Queen Elizabeth comes into service with the F-35s, there will be no way that Argentina could realistically hope to invade the islands again. Also Argentina would have a much harder time even getting on to the islands this time around: there was only a token force stationed there when the islands were invaded in 1982. Now the British Forces maintain a notable presence in the area. [QUOTE=Megadave;49552481]Whatever the Falklanders want to do, we need to respect that. Yes, they are geographically South American and belong to an old ass archaic empire, but they have the right to choose. Since they choose to stay with the impire, we should respect that decision, no matter how ghastly that decision may seem. Plus Argentina seem like a bunch of dicks so maybe an impire is better than a bag of dicks. (Even I will agree with that one)[/QUOTE] I'm not sure where you are getting this idea from that the British Empire still exists. All that remains is a handful of territories that make up the British Overseas Territories and they are free to declare independence as they wish.

Yet more over reaction by the anti-corbyners.

[QUOTE=Pepsi-cola;49552553]Yet more over reaction by the anti-corbyners.[/QUOTE] How so?

[QUOTE=Pepsi-cola;49552553]Yet more over reaction by the anti-corbyners.[/QUOTE] [img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CY8yoSPWsAAVfEt.png[/img] Turns out it isn't just your rabid anti-Corbyn neocon neoliberal neolizards who think he's bad.

I'm not pretending I fully understand him, but the people of the fauklands have never been Argentinian, Argentina doesn't have a modern claim on the islands, nor did they when they tried to forcibly anex them, so ya I think the people living there have every right to determine how much of Argentina is brought in

So all the lives lost in the war would then of been for nothing?

Is no one questioning why we're having this discussion? The Faulklands were an issue some 30-35 years ago, why is he being asked about it in interviews? And specifically, why are we not hearing ANYTHING about his views on curreent issues? You can throw around whatever disagreements you like about the fact that he doesn't think they should have a veto (and he ONLY said that he thinks they shouldn't have a veto, NOT that we should hand the islands back) but you're all being played for fools by being distracted from the genuine good he can bring to politics in this country. The one thing that stood out for me when he was elected was that most people's reaction was "At least politics will be interesting again", at what point did that sentiment turn to wanting to stomp out his side of the debate under irrelevant discussions and quotes taken out of context?

[QUOTE=theenemy;49552779]Is no one questioning why we're having this discussion? The Faulklands were an issue some 30-35 years ago, why is he being asked about it in interviews? And specifically, why are we not hearing ANYTHING about his views on curreent issues? You can throw around whatever disagreements you like about the fact that he doesn't think they should have a veto (and he ONLY said that he thinks they shouldn't have a veto, NOT that we should hand the islands back) but you're all being played for fools by being distracted from the genuine good he can bring to politics in this country. The one thing that stood out for me when he was elected was that most people's reaction was "At least politics will be interesting again", at what point did that sentiment turn to wanting to stomp out his side of the debate under irrelevant discussions and quotes taken out of context?[/QUOTE] Because his views on the Falklands prove that he is unfit to be Prime Minister. Just as having similar views on national security and integrity would mean you were unfit to be President of France or the US.

Nvm, Falklands had been uninhabited before the Europeans arrived (according to wikipedia), so at this point I'd say the British have more of a right over the Island. Hell, reading the history the French have more of a right over the island than the Argentinians.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;49552808]Because his views on the Falklands prove that he is unfit to be Prime Minister. Just as having similar views on national security and integrity would mean you were unfit to be President of France or the US.[/QUOTE] And that means everything else he brings to the discussions of rail renationalisation, affordable housing, attacks on the funding of political parties and the cost of living are irrelevant? The media seems to spend an awful lot of time talking about how "unfit" he is considering how important these other subjects are. I'm pretty sure you could level a lot of similar suitability arguments at David Cameron regarding ties with the media and other unsavory characters (hell, even leaving his daughter in a pub) but you know what? It's not that important in the face of the real issues.

[QUOTE=theenemy;49552904]And that means everything else he brings to the discussions of rail renationalisation, affordable housing, attacks on the funding of political parties and the cost of living are irrelevant? The media seems to spend an awful lot of time talking about how "unfit" he is considering how important these other subjects are. I'm pretty sure you could level a lot of similar suitability arguments at David Cameron regarding ties with the media and other unsavory characters (hell, even leaving his daughter in a pub) but you know what? It's not that important in the face of the real issues.[/QUOTE] I was speaking with my dad, a right-wing Labour member who voted for Liz Kendall, about this the other day. He was wondering why everyone is suddenly so focused upon foreign policy, when usually it is relegated to a very minor part of politics. The reality is that when you aren't even trusted to perform the most basic function of any state, namely to protect its people from external and internal threats, foreign policy and attitudes suddenly actually become important. Whilst every previous Labour and Conservative leader other than 1983 Labour passed this test and allowed the real issues to be debated, Corbyn, like Foot before him, fails it, and therefore is not considered to be able to perform the most basic state function and puts centre focus on an otherwise, to most people (I'm an exception), minor policy area.

Hey guys Read the article Watch the interview Not just the title Thanks People who think Corbyn is an idiot have this weird problem where they project onto him what they think he thinks, despite what he actually says and his actual policy.

snip

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;49552673][img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CY8yoSPWsAAVfEt.png[/img] Turns out it isn't just your rabid anti-Corbyn neocon neoliberal neolizards who think he's bad.[/QUOTE] public opinion isn't the same as reality it's not the fault of people who support strong public services and heavy regulation on capitalism that we live in an individualist society where people don't want to help each other through taxation and public opinion is driven by information filtered through a press run by oligarchs who have a hell of a lot to lose if the left gets into power [editline]17th January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=FlashMarsh;49553066]Yes of course I'm an idiot sorry about that[/QUOTE] didn't call you an idiot, I wouldn't do that, I just think you're wrong

[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;49553077]public opinion isn't the same as reality it's not the fault of people who support strong public services and heavy regulation on capitalism that we live in an individualist society where people don't want to help each other through taxation and public opinion is driven by information filtered through a press run by oligarchs who have a hell of a lot to lose if the left gets into power [editline]17th January 2016[/editline] didn't call you an idiot, I wouldn't do that, I just think you're wrong[/QUOTE] I think you're misunderstanding Corbyn's problem Corbyn's problems don't really, in truth, come from his economics or stances on public services. They're too left wing, but they're hardly that radical. He's basically a Keynesian with a soft touch on welfare who wants to nationalise a couple of things. Big deal. I think he's wrong, but on certain issues (like rail renationalisation) he actually has public support, though others he will be hurt by (such as his stance on welfare). His problems come from his stances on the nature of how Britain interacts with both internal and external threats. He's repeatedly been uncomfortably close to terrorist organisations for most voters. He refuses to accept the need for the nuclear deterrent. He is seen as being dogmatically anti-American and anti-NATO. He's seen as unpatriotic. And, in general, he simply isn't trusted to defend the UK from both internal and external threats. That is what sinks him fundamentally and means that the 'real' issues can't be debated. If you want a Corbyn-like policy, you fundamentally need to remove all traces of the Stop the War coalition from the left. Take a look at Attlee and his cabinet. They were, in my opinion, only able to implement such radical policies because of the fact there wasn't ever really a question about patriotism present like there is with Corbyn. Unless Corbyn is replaced with a leader without any links to distasteful groups like Stop the War, a left-wing economic policy is effectively a non-starter.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;49552952]I was speaking with my dad, a right-wing Labour member who voted for Liz Kendall, about this the other day. He was wondering why everyone is suddenly so focused upon foreign policy, when usually it is relegated to a very minor part of politics. The reality is that when you aren't even trusted to perform the most basic function of any state, namely to protect its people from external and internal threats, foreign policy and attitudes suddenly actually become important. Whilst every previous Labour and Conservative leader other than 1983 Labour passed this test and allowed the real issues to be debated, Corbyn, like Foot before him, fails it, and therefore is not considered to be able to perform the most basic state function and puts centre focus on an otherwise, to most people (I'm an exception), minor policy area.[/QUOTE] That's actually a really good response, thank you. I suppose it was always going to be a challenge for a life long pacifist to convince people he is ready/capable of defending when necessary (which he has stated he is willing to). The issue is that people selected him for the chance to finally have their views represented confidently in parliament and also to fundamentally change the way politics is done. So many people don't even bother voting because of the current systems and for a lot of people Corbyn was a way out of that. To me it's a tragedy that the very 'tests' and 'tradtions' that his supporters wanted an end to are blocking out his actually useful messages.

[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;49553077]public opinion is driven by information filtered through a press run by oligarchs who have a hell of a lot to lose if the left gets into power [/QUOTE] Did you ever consider that the media reflects public opinion, rather than creating it? For Example, People who read The Sun or the Daily Mail were already Right-Wing and hate the Left, so reading those newspapers is only going to reinforce their views, not create them. The Left scapegoat the media because it's a convienient way of shifting the blame away from themselves and on to other people when they lose. Besides the media isn't as oligarchical as you think, The Daily Mail, The Telegraph, The Express and the Sun all have completely different owners.

[QUOTE=The mouse;49553581]Did you ever consider that the media reflects public opinion, rather than creating it? For Example, People who read The Sun or the Daily Mail were already Right-Wing and hate the Left, so reading those newspapers is only going to reinforce their views, not create them. Besides the media isn't as oligarchical as you think, The Daily Mail, The Telegraph, The Express and the Sun all have completely different owners.[/QUOTE] The reality is that it is a mix of both but tends towards the side that you're on in the relationship between the media and public opinion. Whilst there is some incentive for the media to push its own views (though it is more likely that an individual journalist, not some spooky corporate CEO, will do this by themselves), there is more incentive to sell more papers through pandering to your audience's own views.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49552070]Never attack? But they did before. Hong Kong should have had Veto power. Instead the UK let PRC drive in their tanks.[/QUOTE] Somewhat similar yes but also a different situation entirely, im not going to go into great detail here but long story short. Britian took ownership of Hong Kong after the empire effectively bullied 'then' china into a treaty on the back of the first opium war. Basically a 'don't conquer us take all of our shit' deals. Some time later Britain admitted to 'modern-ish' China that we was kinda dicks to them about that particular treaty and as such we'll give it back to them in the 99 years time. Fast forward to 1997 and it's time to hand the place over as per our legal agreement, regardless of how we felt towards the PRC and the people who lived there, we did not have a right to run the place. I'd rather Hong Kong stayed with us or at least have the right to run itself because present day china is run by assholes but at the end of the day we signed an agreement basically 100 years ago that we'd leave. We simply kept our word. Falklands is nothing like that at all.

[QUOTE=Mallow234;49550445]I'm just glad that corbyn has pretty much made labour unelectable[/QUOTE] Why do you think Corbyn has made Labour unelectable? More importantly, why would you want Labour to be unelectable? I don't like Labour, but I'd much rather have them elected than the tories, it's pretty much the best outcome of an election we're going to get until we fix this 100% bullshit voting system. Unless you're a supporter of the conservative party, I don't understand why you'd be happy that Labour isn't a viable alternative (although I'm not sure if Corbyn has really made them less electable). Even if you want the tories to stay in, surely you'd rather the opposition was as reasonable as possible, not an extremist, which is what the media constantly asserts Corbyn is. That way if your chosen party doesn't win, you're not stuck with a government you hate. [sp]like any sensible person is now, considering the conservatives are gutting the NHS, as well as scrapping a bunch of welfare programs and generally making everything more shit[/sp]