Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why do so many people move to the Falkland Islands? (2009)

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 233 posts

Re: Why do so many people move to the Falkland Islands? (2009)

#61

Post by emmanueloga_ »

AlbertCory wrote: post #3

I had the misfortune to have my first visit to London during the Falklands War. I'd always wanted to visit Parliament during Question Time, which is usually easy because it's so boring. But this was when Margaret Thatcher was having her memorable confrontations with Labour over the war, and there was a long line to get in. Never saw it. But Wellington, NZ has an accurate copy of the House of Commons for its own Parli…

907 were killed, 1,188 Argentine and 777 British injured or wounded ... but if it wasn't for the war, you could have seen the Parliament. Such misfortune.

Re: Why do so many people move to the Falkland Islands? (2009)

#62

Post by KingOfCoders »

wwtrv wrote: post #33
KingOfCoders wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree in principle, though some of these islands want to stay with France / the EU, in contrary to the Falklands it is the native people there that want to stay, not the (only) the colonialists.

Considering the islands were uninhabited when they settled, the people currently living there are the native population of the Falklands.

It seems the first people settling there, "native population" were French and the current people living there are English colonialists. But I'm not an expert in Falkland island history.

Re: Why do so many people move to the Falkland Islands? (2009)

#63

Post by aww_dang »

Santosh83 wrote: post #13

If your occupied territory is far from the main seat of your remnant empire, you MUST send in as many troops as possible in the short term and then as many immigrants as possible in the long term, to consolidate your overseas hold by means of demographic claim. There is no great mystery here. What is interesting is how this behaviour from the Western nations is tacitly ignored but somehow China asserting its claim ov…

The UK was actually considering giving the Falklands to Argentina before the war. The invasion ruined whatever goodwill was there, justified the costs of maintenance, further legitimized those opposing a potential handover and rationalized further security spending.

If there's a common thread here, it might be the use of an external crisis by the Argentine gov to deflect from domestic problems. Of course that depends on your perception of the CCP. Some regard the CCP's governance as non-problematic and wouldn't agree.

The whole thing seems off-topic.

Re: Why do so many people move to the Falkland Islands? (2009)

#64

Post by aww_dang »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #27
zingar wrote: post #17

"...(the only access to the islands) is to have a pre-arranged job contract with a company that has signed a form of bond taking responsibility for you" That sounds like all British immigration rules. My employer had to apply for my visa and had to pay all my healthcare contributions for a year up front before I could move for a job in London. If I lose my job I have a few weeks to find a new employer (who will have…

I felt like the detail that mattered there was that it is the only way to get through the British military air base at Mount Pleasant (the only access to the islands) . If you don't have to pass through a military base to get somewhere, there is a bit of wiggle room. You are supposed to do X, Y or Z but there end up being some exceptions. In this case, the military base has a stranglehold on entry so you aren't likel…

I believe cruise ships provide access. There maybe access via other ships as well.

Re: Why do so many people move to the Falkland Islands? (2009)

#65

Post by dongping »

dongping wrote: post #59
arcticbull wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Giving up Hong Kong isn't necessarily the "right thing" - Hong Kong Island was ceded to the UK in perpetuity ages ago, in the 1840s. Kowloon and the New Territories were on a 99 year lease expiring in 1997. The UK giving up Hong Kong Island is as "right" as America ceding California to the Spaniards in the late 1990s IMO. Both defeats occurred around the same time. The people of Hong Kong were as much Chinese IMO as…

> The people of Hong Kong were as much Chinese IMO as the Californians are Spanish. This is plainly wrong. The population distribution of Cantonese speakers shows that Hong Kong is only a small part of the Cantonese speaking region. [1] And although the situation apparently has changed, at 1997, 40 percent of Hong Kong people identified themselves as "Hong Konger and Chinese", together with the 20 percent identifying…

Additional note:

The data from a 2001 census shows that 94.9% of the population was ethnic Chinese. This ethnic classification may give you a different perspective, as this is not influenced by different political views.

https://www.censtatd.gov.hk/en/EIndexbySubject.html?pcode=D5...

Re: Why do so many people move to the Falkland Islands? (2009)

#66

Post by dang »

emmanueloga_ wrote: post #61
AlbertCory wrote: post #3

I had the misfortune to have my first visit to London during the Falklands War. I'd always wanted to visit Parliament during Question Time, which is usually easy because it's so boring. But this was when Margaret Thatcher was having her memorable confrontations with Labour over the war, and there was a long line to get in. Never saw it. But Wellington, NZ has an accurate copy of the House of Commons for its own Parli…

907 were killed, 1,188 Argentine and 777 British injured or wounded ... but if it wasn't for the war, you could have seen the Parliament. Such misfortune.

Please don't be a jerk on HN. Note this guideline:

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

With a comment like the GP, it's actually the upvotes that cause the greater problem (unintentionally), because being at the top of a thread puts a spotlight on a post which brings out things that people otherwise wouldn't notice, or at least wouldn't attack them for.

Re: Why do so many people move to the Falkland Islands? (2009)

#67

Post by chrisseaton »

arcticbull wrote: post #12

Always been on my list to visit as a subject of Her Majesty, along with St. Helena, Ascension, Tristan da Cunha and Pitcairn.

Very unlikely you’re a ‘subject’ - that’s a very specific legal status designed for complex internationality edge cases which almost nobody uses any more.

Re: Why do so many people move to the Falkland Islands? (2009)

#68

Post by Huffers2 »

hef19898 wrote: post #36
Santosh83 wrote: post #13

If your occupied territory is far from the main seat of your remnant empire, you MUST send in as many troops as possible in the short term and then as many immigrants as possible in the long term, to consolidate your overseas hold by means of demographic claim. There is no great mystery here. What is interesting is how this behaviour from the Western nations is tacitly ignored but somehow China asserting its claim ov…

Never mind already back in the 80s and 90s the British population of the Falklands preferred to remain a part of the UK. Nevermind Argentina invaded the Falklands and was ultimately repulsed. No idea where the idea that the Falklands belong to Argentina comes from. The only meaningful population of the islands ever was and is British. Which makes the comparison to HK and Taiwan somewhat pointless, nevermind that Taiw…

Falklands is much closer to Argentina though - they should belong to Argentina by right of proximity.

Re: Why do so many people move to the Falkland Islands? (2009)

#69

Post by Neil44 »

Huffers2 wrote: post #68
hef19898 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never mind already back in the 80s and 90s the British population of the Falklands preferred to remain a part of the UK. Nevermind Argentina invaded the Falklands and was ultimately repulsed. No idea where the idea that the Falklands belong to Argentina comes from. The only meaningful population of the islands ever was and is British. Which makes the comparison to HK and Taiwan somewhat pointless, nevermind that Taiw…

Falklands is much closer to Argentina though - they should belong to Argentina by right of proximity.

Do you have any more info on this right of proximity? It’s nearer to me so it’s mine is that about it?

Re: Why do so many people move to the Falkland Islands? (2009)

#70

Post by Keysh »

Huffers2 wrote: post #68
hef19898 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never mind already back in the 80s and 90s the British population of the Falklands preferred to remain a part of the UK. Nevermind Argentina invaded the Falklands and was ultimately repulsed. No idea where the idea that the Falklands belong to Argentina comes from. The only meaningful population of the islands ever was and is British. Which makes the comparison to HK and Taiwan somewhat pointless, nevermind that Taiw…

Falklands is much closer to Argentina though - they should belong to Argentina by right of proximity.

And screw the people who actually live there, right?

A better way to think about this is to consider the case of Saint Pierre et Miquelon, which are two islands off the coast of Canada -- literally 19 km away, and so much closer than the Falklands are to Argentina. They are French territory, inhabited by French citizens. And (aside from occasional disagreements about who gets to explore for undersea resources in the vicinity of the islands) Canada really doesn't seem to have a problem with this, because (in this area, at least) Canada is a more mature nation than Argentina.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Pierre_and_Miquelon

Post reply on HN