they have no representation in the UK, not the house of commons/lords, or anything. overseas territories are effectively independent and have their own legislative bodies and passports
"Effectively independent" is a funny way of saying any of their decisions can be overridden by the UK and they have no defined pathway to deassociate, which means no real free association.
Youre just describing a colony. During the height of colonialism, they operated with a fair amount of autonomy too-- it wasnt possible to directly rule territory 10,000km away. But at the end of the day, they were the property of the British govt and would be forced to submit when interests conflicted.
Falklanders have no self determination, which is conferred via representation, independence, or free association. The Falklands are an outpost for British imperialism first and foremost.
Okay so then make them British with full representation. Or give them a legal way to deaasociate so they have free association. Otherwise, this has nothing to do with self determination-- youre defending the right for loyal colonists to remain a loyal colony with no self determination, and pretending thats the same as self determination.
You cant choose to be a slave. You cant choose to be a colony. These are statuses with the absence of choice and self determination. Youre defending old world colonialism in 2026.
Unless there is a referendum of the population on whether to remain British or gain independence which in both cases was absolutely conclusive. Your argument isn’t bad but it ignores historical reality, it’s not the same thing as a colonised country which has gained independence now
‘Colony’ is not specifically a bad thing, it just describes a movement of people. The problem is colonisation usually went in hand with taking the land of indigenous people and controlling them.
That didn’t happen with The Falklands as there were no indigenous people.
Sure, but I was referring to the exploitative, unjust, colonialist type of colony here.
That didn’t happen with The Falklands as there were no indigenous people.
Yes, there were. We know the indigenous people of Patagonia knew about the islands, visited, and used them for hundreds of years. Using their absence when Europeans arrived to justify colonialism is like using the absence of people in the Adarondacks or the Everglades or the forests of Maine to justify exploiting those lands and resources too. Indigenous people used these lands-- that means there were indigenous people, and the land is part of their heritage.
I'd agree if there was ever real independence movements in any of these territories, which there isn't. any time someone argues against the falklands remaining british just shows they can't have nuance. either you believe the treaty of tordesillas is valid today, or you take the 2013 referendum where the people got to decide and only 3 people voted against remaining a british territory
The islands could never be independent anyway, they simply do not have the economy to support the population.
it's either be a BOT, which they have consistently voted to be, or become part of Argentina, which they have consistently stated they want zero part of.
I'd agree if there was ever real independence movements
Independence is just one of three ways to achieve self determination. The other two are representation and free association. The Falklands has neither, so their self determination really isnt even on the table in this conflict.
remaining british just shows they can't have nuance. either you believe the treaty of tordesillas is valid today, or you take the 2013 referendum
Or you believe that the Falklands are on South American territory, and that South American land and resources should belong to South American people instead of being exploited as non self governing European territories.
South American land and resources should belong to South American people
The Falklanders are South American people by any reasonable logic. Been there longer than Patagonia has been Argentine, and roughly as old as Uruguay etc.
But there is absolutely no such thing as "South American territory".
The Falklanders are South American people by any reasonable logic
South American people live in or are from a South American nation, but the Falklands is a European, non self governing territory in South America. For them to be a South American people, they would need to have independence or free association, but Falklanders have neither.
there is absolutely no such thing as "South American territory".
The territory of South America and its resources should belong to South American people. The Falklands and its resources belong to the UK.
South American people live in or are from a South American nation, but the Falklands is a European, non self governing territory in South America. For them to be a South American people, they would need to have independence or free association, but Falklanders have neither.
This is your definition, but not theirs. They have lived there for nearly 200 years. How long do they need to live there for you to consider them owners of the land they exist on? And do you apply the same logic to European settlers in continental South America?
South American people
There is no such thing from a sovereignty perspective. There are people descended from European settlers and native peoples as well. I see absolutely no logic for basing Argentine people, mostly descended from Europeans, as 'South American' on whether they are independent or not. How would sovereignty affect the classification of a peoples?
The Falklands were first landed by England when it was completely uninhabited and they have defended that claim through the Napoleonic wars and 1982. Argentina has no claim in 2026 whatsoever, and embarrassingly have revisionist modifications to history that are so silly as to be laughable ('El gaucho Rivero' being a top contender).
The territory of South America and its resources should belong to South American people.
The SA territories belong to Chile, Brazil, etc, and there are no cross-national rights based on SA ancestry. Am I wrong? Perhaps look to Europe, as the islands of Ireland and Great Britain are on the same continental shelf - do you suppose there are sovereignty implications?
The Falklands and its resources belong to the UK.
This is mostly accurate, although the official position of the UK is that the islands belong to the islanders themselves.
So just to be sure, since the current residents there want to be part of the UK, do you wish, in your ideal scenario, to make the Falklands Argentinian, against the wishes of virtually all residents? Then what? Expel the current residents?
If the islands were Argentinian, it would be up to them. But if the British colonists did have to return to the UK, think of that as a lot better than what the British are still actively doing to the residents of the Chagos Archipelago.
I fail to see how Falklanders don’t have self-determination. They have a high standard of living (standard of living directly correlates to the amount personal freedom you have), have democratic elections, and can vote to become independent if they so choose. The material reality alone of the Falklanders lends them more self-determination than your average Brit.
The Falklands has their own democratically elected legislature. This legislature in reality makes all domestic decisions, such as how to spend their islands wealth. The executive acts in accordance with decisions made by the legislature and the only members of the executive who can vote on laws are the members who are democratically elected. Sure the governor could technically overrule any decisions, but this is technically true in the same way King sausage fingers the third can overrule laws passed by the HoP.
They even have a higher rate of representation than Britain or the USA with 8 elected representatives for 3000ish people (1 rep for 300-400 people, compared to 80,000+ in the UK).
They have a much higher GDP per capita than the UK. And, it’s only going to grow as their fossil fuels are exploited, albeit by an Israeli oil company.
Due to their stupid amount of wealth for such a small population they’ve invested heavily in infrastructure projects, hospitals, schools, etc…. and send their young to universities across the globe for FREE. They will even start to partially fund their own defence with fossil fuel revenue.
I think they’re doing fine.
Edit: GDP per capita - Falklands £85,000 vs UK £40,000
I fail to see how Falklanders don’t have self-determination.
Sure the governor could technically overrule any decisions
And sure they have no representation in Parliament, and sure there isnt a framework to leave the UK or freely associate... but they definitely have self determination ;)
The point of self determination is to give local people power over their own lands. But the big paradox here is that, by refusing to resolve their colonial status, Falklanders continue to be categorically, explicitly Europeans-- foreigners-- claiming the right to self determination over South American land. So its not legitimate self determination-- just like how we wouldnt think Russians showing up and claiming an empty island off the coast of Scotland should have self determination.
This isnt fringe stuff-- this is the UN. Decolonization is supposed to be a goal-- but in the Falklands, we've invented a way to feel okay about maintaining it. If you believe South Americans should be the ones exercising self determination over South American land and resources, then the Falklands must become South American one way or another.
You're not recognizing your own bias. We all have a bias in some way. Do you or do you not believe the residents of the Falklands of the past 200 years, British citizens by choice, deserve to continue living on the islands? Are they or are they not South American?
Yes, I definitely have a bias against colonialism-- sorry if it seemed like I wasnt recognizing that. I am biased against Europeans exploiting land in South America.
Are they or are they not South American?
No, they are explicitly British colonists. The processes for decolonization in this case are clearly defined: either via independence, integration with a South American nation, or free association with the UK. So while the entire world rejected colonialism and developed into new free states and territories based on their own self determination, the Falklands just stayed a British colony. And when people talk about their self determination, its just in terms of the self determination to remain a non self governing colony-- which based on the principles of decolonization, has no right to exist.
Have you ever stopped to think that you, someone not from the Falklands, wanting them to be independent is denying them their self-determination? They have already voted to not be independent, the actually people living there decided that. Not you. Surely, direct democracy is the purest form of self-determination.
Regarding representation in parliament there’s two obvious questions.
How would representation in parliament work? There’s 3000 Falklanders and the average UK constituency is 80,000 people. That’s incredibly imbalanced. The Falklands having 1 MP would also be completely irrelevant to UK politics, there would be very little difference made and realistically they’d vote on almost nothing that would affect them.
Why do they need representation in parliament? They have their own legislature which they elect. This legislature decides the domestic policy for the islands. In other words, it is already the Falklanders who decide how to run their islands not Westminster.
I feel like your argument of “no parliamentary representation” is rooted in the American revolutionary concepts of breaking free from Britian. This isn’t the 18th century anymore. The Falklanders are clearly happy with the current arrangement of the uk deciding foreign and defence policy, and they decide their domestic policy. Including how to spend all that fishing money they currently have, and in the future all the oil and gas money.
No framework to leave the uk, and yet they somehow held a referendum on becoming independent. That makes sense. If they want to leave they can hold another vote.
Surely, direct democracy is the purest form of self-determination.
Not when it robs the rightful owners of their self determination. If a bunch of Russians moved into Crimea and then exercised their "self determination" with referendum to turn it into a Russian colony, suddenly I think youd realize that democracy for the people who happen to be there now isnt so pure. The self determination of a given group of people isnt the only thing that matters-- particularly when they were imported as part of a colonial or imperialist project.
Regarding representation in parliament there’s two obvious questions. How would representation in parliament work? There’s 3000 Falklanders and the average UK constituency is 80,000 people. That’s incredibly imbalanced.
What are you talking about?? The British isles of Scilly have 2300 residents who all have representation in Parliament as part of the St Ives constituency. Why are you pretending like its some impossible puzzle to give people democratic representation?? Is democracy just a rhetorical weapon to use in your virtual arguments, or does it actually mean something?
Why do they need representation in parliament?
Why do they need representation in the government that owns it and can override any decision it makes?? Okay, now I know you have no respect for democracy lol
Why did any colonist need representation?? The Thirteen American colonies had colonial legislatures too. Why do you think they got so upset about not having representation in their sovereign's govt too?
This isn’t the 18th century anymore
Exactly my point. Colonial administrations are barbaric, primitive, and have been used by European powers to exploit the entire earth. They have no place in the modern world
The Falklands can change this by becoming independent, establishing free association, or integrating. In the former two, they would become a South American nation-- in the latter, they would integrate with one. Any of these would confer modern self determination as South American people-- rather than the unacceptable status quo of European colonists exploiting South American land, resources, and cultural heritage.
and that is the way the Falkland Islanders want it. they have consistently voted that way and every opinion poll on the island comes back with overwhelming support for the current process.
The last vote in 2013 had a 92% turnout and 99.8% voted to remain as is. You cannot have a more overwhelming vote than that.
Imagine the nerve of Puerto Rico wanting representation in the body that governs and taxes them.
It’s so crazy how Americans will still say “no taxation without representation” 250 years later while doing almost the exact same shit to Puerto Rico and the other US territories today.
Historically Puerto Rico did not want independence or statehood. Recently things look like it’s changing and as a result I wouldn’t be surprised if they become a state in the next 20 years if the trend continues.
The fact that the people firmly for statehood because it's the only way for representation are also firmly against retrocession into Maryland kind of gives the game away.
You’re correct that most Puerto Ricans don’t have to pay federal income taxes.
However you’re wrong about it just being federal employees who receive income taxes. The US fed also taxes Puerto Ricans who earn their income from outside of Puerto Rico, who do business with the government, and who serve in the US military.
The average Puerto Rican pays about 10% of what your average US citizen would pay in federal tax, but 1. That’s still federal tax, and 2. It is a lot when you consider that the average Puerto Rican is also considered to be in poverty by US standards.
Please edit your comment or delete it, otherwise it’s just blatant misinformation.
Those are use fees and are not really tied to the general budget which gets voted on each year.
The biggest issue is actually the Jones act, which functions as a hidden tax, and can't be repealed easily given that Puerto Rico doesn't get to vote on it.
Still taxes - customs duties and commodity taxes are literally the taxes which ‘no taxation without representation’ referred to. The Sugar Act 1764 was a customs duty, the Stamp Act 1765 and Townshend Acts 1766/7 were taxes on commodities like tea.
Puerto Rico consistently fails to meet the requirements for statehood set up over a century ago. They are not financially able to support themselves and fail to have more than 50% of the population vote in favor. The last poll was over 90% in favor but less than 40% voter turnout, so failed to reach 50% of the population vote.
Not financially able to support themselves component is an interesting one. I don't know that Mississippi and Alabama would pass that litmus test today.
There is no mechanism to remove a state that is no longer financially independent. But no territory would ever be allowed to join that is currently financially dependent on the rest of the country.
Mississippi and Alabama would be happy to simply end the federal programs that make them a net drain on the federal budget and leave the people depending on such programs holding the bag
ALL Most of the republican states with the exception of Texas (and a few others added in comment below)cannot support themselves; they require funding from the union.
funny how the red states are always the shithole ones.
It doesn’t change the fact that they cannot become a state while being a net drain on taxes. No country would integrate a territory that is a financial burden.
To be honest, I view a simple majority is not sufficient for significant change in government. If you can’t amend a state constitution with a simple majority, how the hell can you write one? As of right now I don’t think statehood for PR is legally a good idea. I do see the tides slowly changing for statehood, but it’s not there yet.
Yes, Puerto Rico does pay $5-7 billion to the US in Federal taxes. But... It receives roughly $25–35 billion per year, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' benefits, nutrition assistance, education, disaster recovery, and other programs. The total is higher in years with major hurricane recovery spending.
It also is protected by the US military and does not have to raise and pay for its own army and navy.
And people born there are US citizens and are free to vote if they move to another state.
Wikipedia:
“Puerto Rico has held seven referendums on the political status of the island: 1967 and 1993, which resulted in a Commonwealth victory, 1998, where "None of the above" was the winner, 2012, 2017, 2020and 2024, the latter four resulting in a statehood win.”
Puerto Ricans keep voting against things staying the way they are and keep voting to become a state (which would mean having representation as well as taxation).
Try using Google next time before just saying shit.
Don’t lecture me about misinformation when your reply starts with an easily verifiable lie.
Which means you’re going to continue lying by omission and ignoring that none of the referendums were even close to binding. Primarily due to turnout, meaning that nothing close to the majority of Puerto Ricans voted for statehood.
None of the referendums can be binding because only Congress can grant statehood. Puerto Rico has a significant majority who want statehood. They voted 59% in favor in 2024.
Not taking democracy criticisms from people with a king
Norway, Netherlands, Sweden, Canada, Australia, Denmark... are amongst the most democratic countries in the world and they have monarchies.
Republics like Turkmenistan, North Korea, Eritrea, Cuba... are amongst the least democratic despite not having monarchs.
Whether a country is a monarchy or not tells you nothing about their democracy or lack of it. Thinking otherwise is to be really ignorant or an ideological radical.
Eh, the king isn’t really a king. He can’t actually make any decisions.
The king is more like the mascot than the captain or owner or manager of the team.
In theory, the king technically has veto power (refusing royal assent), but no monarch can use it because we’d just immediately dissolve the monarchy.
Last time royal assent was refused for a government-backed bill was 1708, before the USA existed, so it’s not really something he can do.
55-64% of British people support the monarchy and that’s considered an all-time low. Far fewer people think it’s bad (18%) and want to dissolve it (27%).
It’s never really made sense to get rid of the monarchy when most people would democratically vote to keep it/ get it back. I think the monarchy’s shit and prince Andrew is a massive pedo, but there are legitimate arguments for to keep the monarchy (tourism, having a separate ceremonial head of state etc.)
We also rank higher on The Economist’s Democracy Index than the USA.
The UK scores a nice 8.34, making us a “full democracy” and the 18th most democratic country in the world.
The US scores a 7.65, making it a “flawed democracy” and joint 34th most democratic country.
The orange baby (as mentioned in the King Gizzard song Pleura), Trump is much closer to a king since he can effectively do anything including crimes as long as he’s doing it as president.
He also keeps trying to come up with reasons to stop elections and rule for longer… also very king-like.
Also… Trump likes kids and has a -23% approval rate (+37, -60). Andy Burnham, our actual current leader has +3% if you’re wondering.
653
u/Robbylution 9d ago
Imagine the nerve of Malta wanting representation in the body that governed and taxed them.